Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2203 (since 2010-02-28 20:54:05)

Hostage

Retired

Showing comments 300 - 201
Page:

  • AIPAC reaches out to Christians with morphing Star of David
    • That’s different than Puppies’ point about whether lobby’s should exist. That’s different than your previous point about it being organized as a corporation. And that’s certainly different than this point regarding the UN.

      Neither of my responses was "different", since there is no Constitutional right to petition the Congress to commit offenses against the law of nations. If you read the links I supplied, you'll readily see that it really doesn't make any "difference" if the "person" doing the speaking happens to be a tax exempt organization or corporation.

    • Really. And just what it is you’re hoping to do here? Get a group of people to effect change in Congress. That’s called lobbying, my friend.

      It's actually grassroots lobbying, not direct lobbying like that done by AIPAC. The majority of the movement's time and resources are devoted to boycotts and divestment, with only an insubstantial amount going to grassroots lobbying for changes through legislation.

    • Tax exempt status of an organization that is lobbying for a foreign nation.

      Well even if a tax exempt organization is a person and a citizen there's still the Logan Act & etc. to contend with.

    • AIPAC is not a foreign lobby, it is a domestic lobby about a foreign policy issue. AIPAC would be a foreign lobby if the funding source were Israeli and there wasn’t meaningful domestic support.

      No, I've already supplied a link to the relevant chapter of the US code which explains that funding is not an essential element of the definition of the term "agent of a foreign principal" and that the terms can include anyone who complies with a request:

      any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal,

      We've had articles here about the fact that AIPAC introduced draft legislation on refugees written by Israeli MKs and lobbied for its adoption. There have been dozens of examples which illustrate that AIPAC functions as an agent of the State of Israel.

    • I agree regarding personhood, but the financial / legal structure of nonprofits wasn’t the point in question but rather the right to lobby.

      That's not really the point. We are objecting to a tax exempt organization that devotes more than an insubstantial amount of its time and resources to encourage illegal acts and reversing US policy regarding the application of international humanitarian laws regarding colonization of occupied territory and the rights of displaced persons. That's a flagrant violation of the tax code. See: IRS 1985 EO CPE Text "J. Activities That Are Illegal Or Contrary To Public Policy " link to irs.gov

    • Grossly fat Christians from Arkansas support AIPAC!

      Well of course, just look at former Arkansas Governor Huckabee. link to nowtheendbegins.com

      But you are mistaken, that's not fat, it's fecal impaction.

    • The right to petition the government and influence policy is designed right into the structure of the US Constitution.

      The idea that tax exempt corporations, like AIPAC, are persons, much less citizens, is not based upon the text of the Constitution.

  • How 'trigger-happy' soldiers killed an unarmed man walking to work
    • Hostage, i looked a bit into the larger context offered by tree. Which led to a concentration or Chapter III, State responsibility, at least to the extend this legal nitwit in International Law and the UN institutions and their legal “enforceability” is at all able to grasp what tree offered.

      His entire approach to the question asked by the General Assembly is argumentative and bizarre. The better view was expressed by the 13 Judge majority. The General Assembly specifically asked about the legal consequences of the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly, international law, and the Geneva Conventions. Scores of those UN resolutions have stipulated or recalled other resolutions which say that all states have an obligation not to recognize or assist Israel in maintaining the illegal situations it has created. The Judge opined:

      "I have great difficulty, however, in understanding what the duty not to recognize an illegal fact involves."

      Non-recognition means that states have an obligation not to enter into treaties with Israel that normalize or recognize Israeli sovereign jurisdiction over the occupied territories; accept the credentials of its ambassadors as the legitimate government of the people of the occupied territories; or accept as legal or permanent any measures taken by Israel to alter the demographic balance of the territory through implantation of Jewish settlers. The EU policy that it will not recognize any unilateral changes to the 1967 borders and the recent sanctions adopted by the EU against giving grants and loans to illegal Israeli institutions in the West Bank is an obvious example of a legal obligation that flows from the duty not to recognize or assist an illegal situation.

      The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says that states only agree to the actual terms contained in an agreement and that when the meaning is plain, there is no need to consult the travaux préparatoires or commentaries. In legal terms an "undertaking" is defined as a surety agreement to be responsible for the performance of a duty if another party with primary responsibility for that duty fails to perform it for any reason. A person who agrees to co-sign a loan for another person is a good example. link to definitions.uslegal.com

      By 2004 the UN had declared the Geneva and Hague Conventions to be customary international law binding on all parties that engage in armed conflicts. The General Assembly and ILC had included violations of the customary rules reflected in those conventions as criminal offenses in UN conventions, the Rome Statute, and the statutes of the international criminal tribunals established as subsidiary organs of the UN Security Council. So there was no question about the ultimate enforceability of those rules.

      When the contracting parties to a multilateral agreement "undertake to ensure respect" for the terms of the convention "in all circumstances", that does constitute a binding legal obligation for them see to it that an occupying power performs its duties and doesn't commit acts which constitute grave breaches or war crimes - even if that requires them to step-in and perform the duties owed by the occupying power to the internationally protected persons or territory concerned. The Geneva Conventions provide for the designation of "Protecting Powers" which are a neutral or other State not a Party to the conflict.

    • He explains in brief his disagreement with 3D in his first paragraphs.
      If you want detailed specifics on his opinion on 3D of the Court’s decision, you could go to paragraphs 37 -51 of his opinion to read his reasoning.

      I always found his argument which said that the General Assembly had not asked for an opinion about the legal consequences for other states to be more than a little far-fetched. International law consists almost entirely of the rules that the international community of states have adopted to govern their mutual relations. You can't request an opinion about the legal consequences of the Geneva Conventions without asking at the same time for an opinion about the consequences for third states, since it is a multilateral treaty between states and the UN isn't even a contracting party.

  • Tax-deductible apartheid: JNF raises $60 million a year for racially-discriminatory housing
    • And back in the real world the JNF and the US Forestry Service work together on joint projects freely and share all sorts of information with one another, the JNF far from questionable has close ties to the real government.

      That doesn't alter the fact that it's a corrupt organization in possession of property and proceeds derived from war crimes including pillaging and excessive expropriation and destruction of other people's property. Those are Class A felonies when committed or aided and abetted by US nationals under the terms of 18 U.S. Code § 2441 - War crimes. It doesn't matter whether its done inside or outside the United States.

      Hostage, the laws of the United States are what the United States Government says they are. It has never been applied to conquest or issues like that.

      Correction: The United States government signed the London Charter and the Statute of the Nuremberg Tribunal which declared that pillaging of public and private property is a war crime for which individual criminal responsibility must apply and claimed that all civilized nations have recognized it as such since 1939. It definitely did apply the rule to Nazi conquests.

      The War Crimes Act specifically cites 1) Article 28 of the Hague rules of 1907 which prohibits pillage; and 2) all grave breaches of the 4th Geneva Convention, like the prohibition of excessive expropriation and destruction of property in Article 147. The US Consulate reports that there are more than 44,000 US nationals living on plundered land in Palestine.

      Racketeering is about normal crimes like gambling, fraud, drugs or prostitution.

      Correction: the Racketeering statutes on money laundering and transactions involving property derived from crimes apply to cash, coins, or any monetary instruments used to launder the proceeds or profits or transfer title to property obtained via any federal Class "A" felony.
      * § 1956. Laundering of monetary instruments
      * § 1957. Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity

      The JNF, and many Israeli mortgage companies, and construction companies are engaged in foreign commerce with US nationals to illegally invest in, market, or lease stolen land in Palestine and transfer title or siphon-off the proceeds from war crimes. 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 provides for both criminal and a personal civil right of action against corrupt organizations engaged in those activities. link to law.cornell.edu

    • In terms of the specifics Jews think your charge of apartheid is nonsense and reject it on factual grounds. They think the oppression is unfortunate but unavoidable.

      Unfortunately, like you, they can't deny the fact that oppression is taking place. They also fail to grasp the fact that the prohibition of apartheid is a peremptory norm that doesn't permit any exceptions. That means that "state security" cannot be employed as a license or excuse to commit the any of the acts of apartheid listed in Article II of the international apartheid convention:

      Article III

      International criminal responsibility shall apply, irrespective of the motive involved, to individuals, members of organizations and institutions and representatives of the State, whether residing in the territory of the State in which the acts are perpetrated or in some other State, whenever they:

      (a) Commit, participate in, directly incite or conspire in the commission of the acts mentioned in article II of the present Convention;

      link to www1.umn.edu

    • Now you are back repeating what the US said about the proper place to do whatever is in the UNHRC. You are so taken up with your legal jargon that Abbas has already filed with the ICC and you can’t grasp that the whole discussion here is whether or not Abbas did something wrong, nothing more and nothing less. I’m talking apples and you’re arguing oranges.

      FYI, the vote was only delayed by a few days. It didn't result in any prejudicial action being taken against Israel. I'm back pointing out that Abbas has to take care of his constituents and that there was nothing wrong with delaying an entirely symbolic vote like that one, when the lives and property of his constituents were facing the threat of war or annexation in the alternative.

      The fact is that some solidarity activists, who insist on a final settlement based upon a one state solution, would rather eat broken glass than support the validity of the State of Palestine's 2009 declaration and criminal complaint. They hypocritically try to make a big deal about Abbas delaying the vote on the Goldstone report, even though they know perfectly well that it was never going to result in an ICC referral.

    • Nothing spectacularly new in this declaration that the US veto in the UNSC would not let anything pass against Israel. Nonetheless, in your incessant whitewashing of Abbas, you keep getting yourself entangled between what effectively happened at the UNHRC with the postponement by Abbas that was shown to have been made under duress (whether because of the issue of cell licensing for Abbas’ sons or Lieberman’s blackmailing threats that he’d spill the beans about Abbas’ involvement in Cast Lead)

      The attempt to leverage the cell phone license and Lieberman’s lame hasbara had already been deployed and had failed before the vote in the UNHRC even came up. He and Netahyahu's latest plan is to topple Abbas and install Dahlan in his place. See Maariv: Netanyahu is looking for alternative to Abbas link to middleeastmonitor.com

      You always try to make it appear as if Abbas is betraying his constituents, and completely ignore the reliable reports in the mainstream press about Israeli threats to attack or annex the West Bank if Abbas goes too far too fast.

      Everyone knows the vote you keep bitching about was ultimately going to be symbolic and result in nothing more than a toothless call for Israel to conduct its own investigation. It's pointless to lecture anyone about whitewashing Abbas, since no one has proven that he has betrayed anyone on the first place. He has his own hide in the game, unlike some of his critics. The leadership of the Palestinian solidarity movement have been conspicuously MIA in supporting the State of Palestine's attempts to bring Israeli officials to justice in the ICC. Some of them, including Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti, went so far as to shamelessly give aid and comfort to Israel by sandbagging Palestinian efforts to obtain UN recognition:
      * How Palestinian Authority’s UN "statehood" bid endangers Palestinian rights link to electronicintifada.net
      * Recognising Palestine?
      The efforts of the Palestinian Authority to push for statehood are nothing more than an elaborate farce, writer says. link to aljazeera.com

      In reality Ali Abunimah's position endangered the victims legitimate rights to have their own government hold Israel officials directly accountable in the ICC. The 2005 BDS call for action was based upon the realization that Palestinians cannot rely on the UN organization to act on findings regarding Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity, even after the charges have been confirmed by the ICJ.

      Abunimah and you apparently think there was some hope for a UN Security Council referral of the Goldstone report, and complain entirely for show that others are surrendering Palestinian rights. If you want to complain about that sort of thing, you need to start with the treaty Abunimah's father negotiated which normalized relations between Jordan and Israel, while leaving nearly two million refugees stranded in camps in Jordan. At least Abbas has never accepted a rotten deal like that one.

    • I’m sure it’s all legal and kosher but that is not the point at all.
      That’s exactly the job description of a collaborationist traitor administration.

      Don't be stupid, every government is required to collaborate with the occupying power in order to qualify its civilian population as "protected persons", who are not actively engaged in hostilities, under the terms of international humanitarian law.

      Even if that weren't the case, the majority of the population would long since have become collaborators during a forty year long military occupation. Why do you think the IOF is arresting children and hauling them off to jail in the middle of the night, if not for use as bargaining chips in return for docility and cooperation from the parents and the community?

      If you are suggesting that the Palestinians can end the occupation and obtain a state through armed resistance or terror in defiance of decisions adopted by the General Assembly in emergency session, then you're incorrect. You only have to look at Gaza to see a regime which has tried that approach. In the end, Hamas has been isolated and forced to capitulate and defend Israel's borders and citizens from rocket attacks too.

    • @Hostage – Having filed an ICC complaint is proof of nothing but the necessity for even any puppet dogcatcher administration to 1) not have a Hebrew name and 2) make some token gesture that may sound significant to at least some people (no real bite needed.) . . . With all the respect I have for your vision and understanding of the legal implications of different moves, that preposterous Abubakr does reflect Zionist thinking

      Correction: The Wikileaks cable and the frantic efforts by the government of Israel to get the complaint withdrawn reflected Zionist thinking. The government of Israel took it very seriously and considered it an act of war. Abubakr remarks reflect the thinking of the hasbara fellowship.

      The UN has accumulated file cabinet's full of reports for decades which say that Israel has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The USA has kept all of them off of the Security Council agenda, while labeling them flawed, erroneous, or counter-productive to the peace process. From the very outset the US government announced it would prevent the Security Council from discussing or talking any action on the Goldstone report. It said that the proper place for it to be discussed was in the UN Human Rights Council. So the votes, recommendations, and actions taken afterward were merely symbolic gestures. Ironically, Palestine can refer the Goldstone report to the ICC Prosecutor, even though the UN cannot.

    • And Egyptians popping-off Africans trying to cross from Sinai into Israel are only abiding by the peace treaty terms just like German soldiers running the camps that were only following orders, and so on and so on

      Feel free to complain about Egypt and Nazi soldiers all that you'd like, but there isn't anything illegal about the government of Palestine arresting, disrupting and restraining individuals and groups responsible for conducting and planning violent attacks.

      Here’s another that I keep repeating, as you like to say, about the Wataniya licensing issue and Cast Lead and you keep failing to understand that my posting of this is not to debate whether or not the Palestinians have grounds to pursue the issue with the ICC but more simply to demonstrate the involvement of the PA and the Abbas sons in the Wataniya that caused it to postpone its hearing on the Goldstone conclusions:

      You sure do keep repeating it, but it's still just as unconvincing as ever. First of all, the PA went straight to the ICC and filed its own criminal complaint and declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction for all crimes committed by both sides. That happened within days after Operation Cast Lead ended. That's when Israel deployed the hasbara narrative that Abbas had been in on its planning. But if that were really the case, its hard to see why the PA has subsequently refused to withdraw its declaration or its complaint. See ICC prosecutor considers ‘Gaza war crimes’ probe link to todayszaman.com

      An Israeli Defense Ministry official told the US government that they considered the Palestinian complaint to be an act of war. link to wikileaks.org

      Next, the Israelis unsuccessfully attempted to blackmail Abbas with the cell phone license in exchange for withdrawing the Palestinian ICC complaint in late September of 2009, but Abbas has never withdrawn it, and even went to UNESCO and the General Assembly over Israeli and US objections to force the ICC Prosecutor to accept its validity. See "Israel demands PA drop war crimes suit at The Hague".
      link to haaretz.com

      You keep making the claim that the Goldstone vote was delayed over Wataniya licensing, but Haaretz reported that Israel had threatened to attack the West Bank if the vote was conducted. See Diskin to Abbas: Defer UN vote on Goldstone or face 'second Gaza': PA official claims Shin Bet chief told Abbas if Goldstone vote occurs West Bank will be attacked. link to haaretz.com

      Frankly, the Goldstone report was DOA from the outset, since the USA has a standing public policy to veto any anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council. See 22 U.S. Code § 8602 - Statement of policy link to law.cornell.edu

      Now you are citing an article which says the Palestine Investment Fund (PIF), a large pot of money from Western governments and foreign investors ostensibly meant to be used for the benefit of the Palestinian people holds a 43 percent stake in Wataniya. One of Abbas' sons sits on the PIF panel that decides how Wataniya spends its money, and it awarded a contract to another of Abbas' sons to provide advertising for the cell phone company. But that's as far as the story goes. There's no real evidence that the sons have been overpaid for services rendered or of any wrong doing on their part. The article mainly highlights the fact that Tony Blair, an official employed by "the Middle East Quartet", was also working for JP Morgan.

    • A good part of the funds received are used to pay the salaries of the tens of thousands of Palestinian policemen that are there primarily to watch over Israel’s borders for it.

      @Walid you always fail to mention that there is a UN mandate for Palestine to do that. Resolution ES-10/15 specifically required the Palestinian authorities “to undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks”. Abbas catches hell, but he is really only complying with the applicable decisions adopted by an Emergency Special Session of the General assembly convened under the terms of the “Uniting for Peace” resolution to put a stop to suicide bombings and acts of terror. link to unispal.un.org

      The fact is that the EI article you are talking about is dated 2004 and starts off saying "seven years ago". Those allegations were raised in the Arafat era. Nowadays EU auditors think it's corrupt to use donors money to pay salaries of laid-off civil servants loyal to the Fatah faction in Gaza who are both unemployed and living under an Israeli blockade. I personally think that the donors ought to pay, since they won't lift a finger to put an end to the illegal blockade and refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Hamas faction of the PA.

    • You actually need me to provide you with links to how much money has been given to the PA supposedly to benefit the Palestinian people? And how little of that money has actually gone to the betterment of average Palestinian lives?

      Yes. While you're at it, supply something that isn't just a vague allegation of possible corruption. The fact is that most of these stories don't pass a simple math test. Most of the money the PA has received in the last decade was earmarked and the remainder doesn't even cover the amount needed to pay the salaries of public sector employees, for payments of utilities, and the pet state building projects mandated by the Western donors.

    • the ICC claim is nothing more then negative PR for Israel.

      That's obviously not what the Prime Minister's legal advisors think. They declared it was an act of war. link to wikileaks.org

      Israel and the US were both shreying gevalt when the PA applied for membership or upgraded status in the UN in order to clear the way for its complaints to go forward in the ICC and ICJ. It's supporters and shills, like Khaled Abu Toameh and Eugene Kontorovich, have been serving up heated propaganda pieces against the moves ever since.

      The fact is that the ICC will eventually take on cases involving western governments, and when it does, Israelis will be among the most likely candidates. The Courts can't afford to waste ten years on high profile cases only to loose them. A pre-schooler could easily use publicly available information and videos from websites operated by the government of Israel to obtain convictions of the prime ministers, cabinets, and regional council heads, mayors, & etc. over their roles in obvious violations of Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute.

    • A super article and effort! Many thanks and kudos to the “spirited protesters from Philly BDS, Temple Students for Justice in Palestine and local allies.”

      Almost. We need to get the JNF out of the tax exempt business altogether. It's a violation of the tax code for a charitable organization to spend more than an insubstantial amount of their time and resources encouraging or promoting illegal activity. See IRS 1985 EO CPE Text "J. Activities That Are Illegal Or Contrary To Public Policy " (pdf) link to irs.gov

      The majority of the land that is supposedly "owned" by the JNF in Israel was actually pillaged. The organization openly admits that it ignores the Green Line and uses the money it raises for settlement infrastructure and other settlement-related projects in the Occupied Palestinian territories that are all carried out on pillaged public and private land.

      Pillaging and excessive and wanton expropriation and destruction of property are grave breaches of the Geneva and Hague conventions. They are also federal war crimes. Both are Class "A" felonies.
      * 18 U.S. Code § 2441 - War crimes link to law.cornell.edu
      * 18 U.S. Code § 3559 - Sentencing classification of offenses link to law.cornell.edu

      The scheme in the occupied territories is also a criminal enterprise as defined in:
      * 18 U.S. Code Chapter 95 - RACKETEERING
      link to law.cornell.edu
      * 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT link to law.cornell.edu

    • The PA is controlled opposition largely under the control of the Zionists.

      I'll buy into that when Abbas withdraws the ICC complaint that he filed in 2009. Likewise funding earmarked for USAID contracts in the West Bank has little to do with feathering the nests or trust funds of Palestinians. The USA stopped giving the PA money without any strings attached back when Fayyad began working as the representative of the World Bank to the PA.

  • AIPAC is losing influence in US politics because it is too tied to Israeli government -- Judis
    • Is our ‘Justice Department’ and government too busy to see this gigantic pimple on the face of our own law(s)?

      I'm pretty certain they have time to read the newspaper while they are drinking their morning coffee: See: Tax-Exempt Funds Aid Settlements in West Bank link to nytimes.com

      If not, I know that they read the official mail once they get to the office. See "J Street Calls for Treasury Investigation Into Settlement Charities" link to web.archive.org

      FWIW, I’ve stated all along that the governments of Israel and the USA are part of a joint criminal enterprise to illegally colonize Palestine. I’ve also observed that they’ve obviously opted to maintain the status quo of endless talks and apartheid, e.g. link to mondoweiss.net

    • There’s nothing in your NPR link claiming that most American Jews opposed the Syria intervention, Hostage.

      Yeah right, we're not members of the general public. See Jewish Democrat Alan Grayson Says Syria Measure Doomed in House of Representatives Constituents Are '100-to-1' Against Obama's Proposal. He said he would personally vote against it. link to forward.com

      There were many other prominent Jewish leaders in both houses of Congress who remained undecided or actually opposed intervention in Syria, including Susan Davis, Alan Lowenthal, Bernie Sanders, Adam Schiff, and Henry Waxman. link to cnn.com

      Even the Jewish Virtual Library has published opinion polls showing less than 5 percent of American Jews said that US-Israeli relations were the top or second most important issues to them in the presidential election, and fewer than 7% said it was the third most important issue. link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

    • Hard to see it—with all the foreign seed money— as anything but a continuation organization that should also register as a foreign agent.

      Likewise, it's hard to see why an organization, like the New York JCRC, which has reported the receipt of substantial funding from the Consulate General of Israel, shouldn't be required to register as an agent when it's lobbying New York legislators on a bill prohibiting state funds from flowing to academic groups that boycott Israel.

    • However, I still think that the actual % of American Jews that don’t support AIPAC to a fairly strong degree is minimal.

      Most Americans, including Jews, told their representatives to oppose AIPAC on its campaign for military intervention in Syria and Iran. See: Pro-Israel Lobby Finds Longtime Supporters Defect On Syria
      link to npr.org

    • AIPAC claimed to receive no funds from the Israeli government — and there is no evidence to the contrary.

      Funding is only one of the elements of control that can be used to determine whether or not an organization or person acts as an agent of a “government of a foreign country" in accordance with the terms of the Chapter of the US Code regarding Registration of Foreign Propagandists.

      -- See link to law.cornell.edu

  • 'NYT' dismisses Wieseltier attack on Judis as tempest-in-a-teapot
    • No he says this “In conclusion, one must therefore say that this particular quote on transfer by Ben-Gurion is problematic! “

      But he provides 60 citations to support its use in his narrative here without expressing any such qualms, where there can be no doubt that Ben Gurion was an outspoken advocate of involuntary transfer. link to chaimsimons.net

      FYI, it is telling that there is no other citation provided from Ben Gurion's copious writings and speeches that supports the idea that he objected in any way to the displacement of Arabs to permit Jewish settlement. Simons shows that he spoke about the desirability of doing exactly that on many occasions.

      You've still never acknowledged that the FRUS says the official government policy laid out by Foreign Minister Shertok was that the Palestinian refugees space was needed for Jewish immigrants and that it reserved the right to replace them with Jews from Arab countries who had expressed and interest in coming to Palestine:

      With reference refugees Bernadotte said condition 300,000 to 400,000 Arab refugees without food, clothing and shelter was appalling. He hoped various welfare organizations could be induced take interest but basic problem was their eventual return to their home. In this connection Bernadotte said PGI was "showing signs of swelled-head". Shertok to whom he had put this most pressing and urgent problem had indicated politically PGI could not admit Arab refugees as they would constitute fifth column. Economically PGI had no room for Arabs since their space was needed for Jewish immigrants. Shertok when pressed had replied nothing could be done until peace was made. In any event government reserved right to replace them with Jews from Arab countries who had expressed desire to come to Palestine. Bernadotte commented that it seemed anomaly for Jews to base demand for Jewish state on need to find home Jewish refugees and that they should demand migration to Palestine of Jewish DP's when they refused to recognize problem of Arab refugees which they had created.

      In regard to property Arab refugees he said apparently most had been seized for use by Jews. He had seen Haganah organizing and supervising removal contents Arab houses in Ramle which he understood was being distributed among newly arrived Jewish immigrants.

      -- link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      The US government noted that it was ludicrous to suggest that the elderly, women, and children were a security threat and that the government of Israel had caused the refugee problem despite promises to protect minorities in areas under its control:

      A very large percentage of these refugees consists of children, women and aged who under no stretch of the imaginaltion could be regarded as a security threat, against Israel. As set forth in the memo to the President, the condition of the Arab refugees is appalling. They exist in terms of utmost destitution and if iadequate relief is not forthcoming or they are not returned to their homes a large proportion will die before the end of winter.

      link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      In response to Zionist hasbara, US officials also noted that the refugee problem existed before the Arab-Israeli conflict began as a result of Zionist failure to fulfil their promises to the international community regarding the treatment of minorities in areas under Jewish control:

      Arab refugee problem is one which, as you quote PGI [Provisional Government of Israel] as saying, did develop from recent war in Palestine but which also began before outbreak of Arab-Israeli hostilities. A significant portion of Arab refugees fled from their homes owing to Jewish occupation of Haifa on April 21-22 and to Jewish armed attack against Jaffa April 25. You will recall statements made by Jewish authorities in Palestine promising safeguards for Arab minority in areas under Jewish control.

      link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

    • you are able to translate an unseen handwritten original document from an incorrect typed transcription.

      You have a short memory. I actually supplied you and the readers with a link to a copy of the handwritten letter in Dr Rabbi Chaim Simons literature on the subject of Zionist plans for the transfer of the Arab population. See page 9 of 12 (yet again) link to chaimsimons.net

      FYI, he reads Hebrew and has no doubt, at all, that Ben Gurion actually meant to say that he supported expelling the Arabs and taking their place on this and scores of other very well-documented occasions. See Ben-Gurion's Transfer Proposals link to chaimsimons.net

    • So despite voting for land for peace immediately after the 67 war

      Your narrative is detached from reality. I've already pointed out that Israel planned on enlisting the USA to hold on to its territorial gains before the war even started. It refused to discuss land for peace after the symbolic vote you cited, when the Security Council convened the 5th Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly on 17-18 June 1967 to discuss the measures already taken by the government of Israel to change the legal status of the Arab territories, including the City of Jerusalem.

      So Israel planned a war of conquest, and firmly said "NO" to demands of lands for peace, months before the Khartoum Conference in September. In fact, we know it had already decided to establish settlements in the captured territories a month before the Khartoum Conference began.

    • The 2 links I gave you have nothing to do with the Ben Gurion letter. They refer to the Israeli decision to offer land for peace immediately after the 67 war.

      I was commenting on your continued use of contrived references to my use of OCR and Google translate to prove that CAMERA was being dishonest about the manuscripts prepared by Ben Gurion that the JPS had cited.

      Moving on, the links and information that I supplied illustrated that the Israeli government was being dishonest when it said it "had changed its mind" and would be keeping the territory. Even your own Zionist historians, like Oren, admit that the Cabinet and Generals discussed the need to consolidate territorial gains as one of their goals before launching the 1967 War and need to enlist US support to hold on to it:

      Still, on the chance that Washington might yet authorize the convoy or at least give Israel its “ green light,” Eshkol would argue for time. “We will still need Johnson’s help and support,” he lectured the generals. “I hope we won’t need it during the fighting, but we shall certainly need it if we are victorious, in order to protect our gains.

      – Michael Oren, Six Days of War, link to books.google.com

      That's the formulation of the Zionist policy concerning the role of the USA alright, but it didn't have anything to do with "land for peace".

    • The right of return to Israel is just the state of Israel determining their immigration policy. The right is granted from that state.

      You just claimed that Israel has full legal equality for minorities.
      link to mondoweiss.net

      Now you are proving that it doesn't. Here's what that means in actual practice. In the USA it's illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional for any official to deny a citizen equal rights, privileges, or immunities under color of law or government regulation. If an official tries to do that, there is a right of private action to bring a lawsuit against that person in federal court under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights link to law.cornell.edu

    • Nice try but no. The right of return in most circumstances lasts for 5-10 years and is then extinguished. There have been cases where it has been extended to the lifetime of refugees or people born within 5 years of the expulsion.

      That’s utterly false. International law requires that displaced persons and refugees not be subjected to adverse distinctions. If the applicable law allows other persons to pass their nationality on to their descendants and for those family members to inherit estates and movable property, then those laws are supposed to be applied to refugees and displaced persons in exactly the same way. Your comment simply demonstrates that you don;t know what you are talking about. Chris Gunness, the UNRWA’s spokesman, reponded to that myth in one of your largest Israeli news services:

      All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved. Refugees in Kenya administered by UNHCR are a good example. In this regard, the accusation that UNRWA uniquely perpetuates the Palestine refugee problem is ignorant of international refugee law and practice.

      link to ynetnews.com
      FYI, there have been second and third generation refugees in the other UNHCR programs and those operated under the terms of the 1951 Refugee Convention. See for example the reports on camps in Thailand here and here

    • So is claiming that God gave Israel to the Jews 3,000 years ago.

      I agree. And if this were 1890 I’d think Zionism were dingy. But the dingybats managed to recruit fanatics who managed to recruit mainstream support who got the right circumstances and now Israel is a thriving country.

      There's the fly in the ointment. Remember all of those actions Israel has taken to annex parts of the occupied territory or alter it's demographic balance and the UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions that declared all of the Israeli laws on the subject null and void, and said that member states have an obligation not to recognize or assist Israel in maintaining those illegal situations? That conventional and customary obligation is reflected in our own laws:

      SUBCHAPTER A. RECOGNITION OR
      ACCEPTANCE OF STATES AND GOVERNMENTS
      § 202. Recognition or Acceptance of States
      (1)A state is not required to accord formal recognition to any other state but is required to treat as a state an entity meeting the requirements of § 201, except as provided in Subsection (2).
      (2) A state has an obligation not to recognize or treat as a state an entity that has attained the qualifications for statehood as a result of a threat or use of armed force in violation of the United Nations Charter.
      ...
      § 203. Recognition or Acceptance of Governments
      (1) A state is not required to accord formal recognition to the government of another state, but is required to treat as the government of another state a regime that is in effective control of that state, except as set forth in Subsection (2).
      (2) A state has an obligation not to recognize or treat a regime as the government of another state if its control has been effected by the threat or use of armed force in violation of the United Nations Charter.
      (3) A state is not obligated to maintain diplomatic relations with any other state.

      See pages 77 & 84 of “The Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States”, American Law Institute, 1986, ISBN 0314301380.

    • Of course they lived there. The Jewish people came out of Judea mainly during the Hasmonean dynasty and others during the Roman-Jewish wars. We have excellent records. This isn’t a point of doubt.

      That's actually incorrect. The majority of exiled Jews never bothered to return from Babylonia. There were millions of converts living throughout the Roman and Parthian Empires during the Second Commonwealth era who never stepped foot in Judea. The largest Jewish communities in the ancient world were located in places like Alexandria and Babylon, not in Jerusalem or Judea.

    • Long after deciding to exchange land for peace after 67 and before the 3 noes.

      Michael Oren's Six Days of War establishes that the Cabinet and Generals were already discussing the need to consolidate the territorial gains before the war ever started. Full stop.

      We also know from the FRUS, the Meron Memo, and Accidental Empire that the Cabinet had already met to discuss "work camps" in the occupied territories on 27 August and approved working the land and taking over existing orchards from Arab cultivators at that same time. Ministers Dayan, Allon, and Gvati met with General Rabin on 1 September and officially authorized the first "settlement outpost". So the resolution adopted by the Arabs during the Khartoum Conference was a moot question.

      When Dean Rusk, the American Secretary of State, reminded Eban later in 1967 about Israel’s pledge that it had no territorial ambitions, Eban shrugged his shoulders and said: “We’ve changed our minds.” “Israel’s keeping territory,” Rusk presciently warned his American senior foreign policy staff as they debated what position the United States should take, “would create a revanchism for the rest of the twentieth century.” See Following UN settlement report, the path forward for Palestinian leadership is clear — take Israel to the International Criminal Court
      Michael Lynk link to mondoweiss.net

      There you go, OCR and Google translate these.

      You're still just as unintelligent as ever. CAMERA asked JPS to “issue a correction stating that the quote attributed to Ben-Gurion does not appear in the references cited” in JPS and its website “to prevent further erroneous uses of this quote.”

      The JPS had cited Ben Gurion's own manuscript obtained from the Ben Gurion Archives. I simply illustrated that anyone could prove CAMERA was incorrect. I:
      a) downloaded the Hebrew original that the Institute for Palestine Studies obtained from the Ben Gurion Archives: link to palestine-studies.org
      b) I OCR’d it with ABBYY FineReader Online: link to finereader.abbyyonline.com
      c) Then I pasted this text from page 3 into Google Translate, which rendered:
      אנו צריכים לגרש ערבים ולקחת מקומם.
      as:
      “We must expel Arabs and take their place.”

      You've blathered on endlessly, despite the fact that the rest of the letter announces Ben Gurion's plan to use armed force to illegally colonize the areas allocated to the Arab state and Transjordan once Palestine had been partitioned. We also know from the FRUS that Foreign Minister Shertok explicitly reserved the right to permanently displace the Arab population because their space was needed for Jewish immigrants. He also reserved the right to replace Palestinian Arabs with Jews from Arab countries who had expressed an interest in coming to Palestine. So we don't need Ben Gurion's letter at all to establish that those were official Zionist state policies. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

    • Among the breeding population, very few.

      Citation please. More than a quarter of the population were foreign born persons in 2012 and that included an enormous number of Russian-born immigrants. See Latest Population Statistics for Israel (Updated January 2014) under the heading Immigration & Naturalization link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

    • The Commission was wrong as proven by subsequent events. Lebanon restructured to avoid future incidents. That’s the very definition of deterrence.

      No Hezbollah simply modified and adapted its strategy and continues to build its arsenal. It poses the same threats and interdiction problems for Israel that it did before. See for example: Barak Ravid, Jan. 3, 2014, Hezbollah moved advanced anti-ship missile systems into Lebanon, U.S. officials say Iran-backed organization smuggling powerful guided-missile systems piece by piece from Syria, Wall Street Journal reports. link to haaretz.com

    • Where do you think the ’67 territory came from?

      It came from the same place as the other territory Israel subsequently acquired and lost. The government of Israel got rid of the Sinai like a hot potato after the 73 war. They found out the IDF wasn't so hot at defending the Bar Lev line or fighting an army with an adequate anti-aircraft missile umbrella.

      According to eye-witness accounts from the meeting in the Pit, the 1967 war of aggression was launched because the General staff was worried about the IDF loosing its long term value as a strategic deterrent - and that's exactly what Israel's commissions said had happened in 73 and in 2006. See Israel’s Decision To Go To War, June 2, 1967, by Col. Ami Gluska link to meria.idc.ac.il

      Accounts published by the Israeli decision makers, Israeli historians, and Israeli political scientists agree that the decision to go to war was made on the basis of the IDF’s ”Doctrine of Deterrence”, not because they seriously thought that they were ”preempting” an impending Arab attack.

      *Greg Cashman said that in late May 1967, Egypt had complained that the false Soviet report caused them to send troops into the Sinai. see An Introduction to the Causes of War: Patterns of Interstate Conflict from World War I to Iraq, page 185

      *The Egyptians had already provided categorical assurances to Israel through the US Secretary of State and the UN Secretary General that they did not intend to initiate hostilities, and that they were willing to make concessions to avoid a war. see Cashman; Foreign Relations, 1964-1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, document 132; and paragragh 9 of the report to the Security Council from the Secretary General of the United Nations, S/7906, 26 May 1967.

      *Christopher Gelpi says that the government of Egypt had let it be known that their tough statements were “mere words designed for public consumption.” see The power of legitimacy: assessing the role of norms in crisis bargaining, page 141

      *David Rodman said that since the early days of the State, Israeli military doctrine placed a premium on offensive, rather than defensive warfare. Military leaders felt that there was a better prospect of deterring the outbreak of hostilities if the IDF transferred fighting to enemy territory as soon as possible. That strategy also compensated for limited finances and the absence of alliance partners. see Between war and peace, editor Efraim Karsh, page 153

      *Dan Kurzman said Rabin was not concerned with the Sinai build-up. see Soldier of peace, page 202

      *Rabin said the IDF GHQ Intelligence assessment was that Israel was facing a repetition of Operation Rotem (see the discussion above), and that Egypt would eventually withdraw. He characterized the Sinai troop build-up and the closure of the Straits as “humiliating pinpricks” that would render the IDF’s long term ”deterrent capacity” worthless. During the meeting in “the Pit”, he and the other military leaders said they were afraid that it would appear that the government had lost confidence in the IDF, and that the significance of the closure of the Straits lay in the effect on Israel’s ”deterrent” capability. see The Rabin Memoirs, page 80-81; Israel in the Middle East: Documents and Readings on Society, Politics, and Foreign Relations, Pre-1948 to the Present, edited by Itamar Rabinovich, Jehuda Reinharz, pages 212-213; and Israel’s Decision To Go To War, June 2, 1967, by Col. Ami Gluska

      *Avner Yaniv said that IDF doctrine was based on the assumption of the inherent disability of Israel to win a decisive strategic battle and impose peace on the Arabs. The leadership felt that Israel could not subdue the Arabs. It could defend itself, cause the Arabs pain, and destroy their armies for a while, but they felt that solving the problem once and for all was beyond Israel’s capacity. The IDF relied on a strategy of active conventional ”deterrence” that emphasized punitive and demonstrative use of force and the accumulation of dissuasive power not through one military victory, but through a succession of quick decisive blows to Arab military power. see National security and democracy in Israel, page 90.

      *Avi Shlaim said there is general agreement among commentators that Nasser neither wanted nor planned to go to war with Israel. He said the Israeli economy would survive the closure of the Straits, but ”the deterrent image of the IDF” could not. see The Iron Wall, pages 236-237.

      *Yagil Levy says that the tendency to use force and generate escalation in order to bring about counter-reaction by the Arabs, ruled out possible options to settle the crisis other than by war. Israel’s doctrine of ”deterrence” called for “flexible retaliation” designed to deter the Syrians or provoke them so that Israel could launch a full scale response. He said that Israel became trapped in its own formula of ”deterrence”. see Trial and error: Israel’s route from war to de-escalation, page 107

      *Re’uven Pedatzur said that any erosion of Israeli deterrent power is an impediment to peace in the region. He said that Israeli deterrence is greatly dependent on the IDF’s capability to inflict great and painful damage to the enemy — “deterrence through punishment.” and that in the absence of comprehensive peace in the Middle East, deterrence will remain the chief component in Israel’s national defense doctrine. see Limits of Deterrence, Ha’aretz, 28 March 1995 p B1

      *Uzi Benziman described Israel’s doctrine of strategic deterrence and Ariel Sharon’s role in launching cross-border attacks into Jordan or Egypt where his forces would strike targets and disappear. see for example Sharon: An Israeli Caesar, pages 42-44

      I hope that answers your question.

    • You’re wrong to say that the humiliation of not winning YK as definitively as they’d have liked caused returning Sinai, leaving S.Leb (after entering it years after YK!) and leaving Gaza in…2005!

      You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the officials and experts who say that the IDF was unable to maintain Israel's strategic deterrence in the face of YK, and resistence in Lebanon and Gaza. You could start by reading the reports of the Israeli Commissions that studied the problem in the aftermath of the wars.

    • But when is it happening?

      I pointed out that it has already started to happen and that the Israeli Cabinet has held meetings to come up with a response. See for example:
      * Massive Norwegian state fund to divest from Israeli company: Ethics board finds Shikun and Binui ‘in breach of international humanitarian law in East-Jerusalem’ link to timesofisrael.com
      * Jordan Valley settlements hurt by boycott campaign: Farmers in contested fertile valley suffering steep losses from Western European boycott and divestment movement
      link to ynetnews.com
      * Israel boycott fears prompt foreign bidders to abandon ports tender
      link to haaretz.com

      It's not hard to find evidence of these things if you just pull your head out of the sand.

    • You are clumsily trying to set forth the idea of a course of thwarted Israeli expansionism within the context of the YK war for your own dogmatic reasons.

      You’re not even wrong, as they say.

      Of course I'm not wrong. JeffB and others like you, keep talking as if the IDF and Israel's nuclear capabilities dispose of any and all questions. But the IDF has been a miserable failure in the long term as an instrument of Israeli national policy when it comes to occupying and retaining territory.

      Israel has former Generals running on political platforms based on the explicit premise that the IDF must withdraw from these territories to end a long national tragedy and secure peace with the neighbors. The notion that a different principle applies to the West Bank and East Jerusalem is only wishful thinking.

    • So they didn’t lose the Yom Kippur war

      No, but the IDF got humiliated so badly that the government lost faith in them and subsequently pulled out of the Sinai, Southern Lebanon, and Gaza anyway.

    • I do understand that, but my position doesn’t rely on BDS/sanctions

      No it doesn't. It simply ignores the fact that there are national and international criminal prosecutors in Europe trying two dozen cases of individual and corporate pillaging right at this moment and that foreign capitalists who live in those jurisdictions have finally figured out that Palestine's next move will expose them to the same unacceptable risks and possible forfeiture of any profits they might derive from investments in the occupied territories or Israeli financial institutions tied-in to the illegal settlement enterprise.

    • The people living in Israel today were born there.

      Correction: Some of the people living in Israel were born there. But in many cases they are olim, whose ancestors never lived in Palestine at all or who had ceased to be refugees 80 generations ago when they settled in Europe. Don't try to reconcile that situation with the claim that Palestinians who are merely 3 generations removed aren't entitled to the same rights and privileges. Your racism is showing.

    • “I’ve been following this nonsense for 19 years and Israel is always just about to get it any day now.”

      Yep, this is the problem with MW and Hostage.

      19 years ago, there was no such thing as the International Criminal Court or the Observer State of Palestine at the UN. Things change.

      This is the problem with Bing Bong. He his head buried in the sand and doesn't understand that there can be a first time for everything and that the UNESCO and General Assembly votes on the status of Palestine were the last major hurdle that stood in the way of getting courts and treaty bodies to adopt sanctions against Israel.

      Quite a few EU countries that voted to recognize the State of Palestine managed to convince the others that those UN votes have legal consequences that justify the adoption of sanctions against Israeli organizations in the occupied Palestinian territories.

      Obama just advised Israel that its days as a Jewish state will be numbered if Kerry's peace talks fail.

    • Show me a credible player that’s willing to say “I’m willing to go to war for the Palestinians” or there is nothing to talk about.

      Well I clearly remember Israel complaining about the performance of UNIFIL, until a draft resolution was tabled in the Security Council to give it a Chapter VII mandate to enforce Israeli compliance with resolution 1701, instead of the existing Chapter VI peacekeeping mission. Once the Israelis realized they had let their mouth overload their ass, they backed down and opposed the idea of UNIFIL having any enforcement mission. Even then, the French commander of the UN force, General Alain Pellegrini, asked that the rules of engagement be changed to allow him to use force to stop Israeli air violations of Lebanese air space. So yes, there are countries willing to use force against Israel in heart beat.

      There have been a number of proposals for NATO forces to protect a demilitarized state of Palestine. You can assume that those forces would have rules of engagement that keep the IDF in Israel.

    • They had problems in Lebanon because they couldn’t go into Syria.

      If the IDF couldn't even handle the insurgents and interdiction in a country of 4 million people, it's not a good idea to invade another one with 20 million more. The IDF wouldn't have faired any better than Kissinger and Nixon did when they decided to widen the war in Vietnam to Cambodia and Laos. Let's face it, Barak got elected Prime Minister because he promised to withdraw from Lebanon, not because he had plans to go into Syria. See RETREAT FROM LEBANON: THE ISRAELIS; Barak Declares End to 'Tragedy' as Last Troops Leave Lebanon link to nytimes.com

      What year are you proven wrong. . . . I doubt this nonsense. I have yet to hear a single serious proposal for sanctions from anyone.

      Hey stupid, the EU just got tired of waiting on the UN to act and adopted it's own initial round of economic sanctions against Israeli organizations and institutions with ties to the illegal settlements. A number of large investors and pension funds have already started to blacklist Israeli Banks and to pull out their capital. If you haven't read about the seriousness of that situation and the Israeli Cabinet meetings devoted to the subject, you're not very well informed.

      Obama just complained to Goldberg about how clueless the Zionists are behaving by thinking they can maintain the status quo and that the US will be able to head off international sanctions if the current round of talks fail:

      Obama also said he has yet to hear a convincing vision of how Israel can remain a Jewish and democratic state without a peace agreement with the Palestinians: "Nobody has presented me a credible scenario."

      "The only thing that I’ve heard is, 'We’ll just keep on doing what we’re doing, and deal with problems as they arise. And we'll build settlements where we can. And where there are problems in the West Bank, we will deal with them forcefully. We’ll cooperate or co-opt the Palestinian Authority." And yet, at no point do you ever see an actual resolution to the problem."

      -- link to haaretz.com

      “If Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited," Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg on Thursday in an hour-long Oval Office meeting.
      link to ynetnews.com

    • I don’t believe the UN is magic. A UN resolution is a worthless piece of paper. What made the Kuwait resolution powerful was George HW Bush’s willingness to put a 1/2m troops on the ground along with say another dozen countries that threw in some meaningfully useful support each.

      You're very stupid then, because the UN is very likely to impose sanctions on Israel of it fails to end the occupation. I don't believe Israel is magic or that the US will continue to squander its dwindling political capital to try and block those measures. In the international courts and treaty bodies it simply can't, because it doesn't have a veto.

      Sadaam Hussein was willing to condition withdrawal from Kuwait on IDF withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories and Bush senior narrowly avoided a breakup of the coalition by pledging to solve the problem after the war. The Oslo process saw nothing but deliberate Israeli intransigence and conspicuous Israeli colonization. The EU, Abbas, and the Saudis clearly gave Obama a deadline for reaching a settlement and Netanyahu has run out the clock:

      The European Union's chief foreign and security policy official, Javier Solana, made a remarkable proposal in a speech in London on July 11. He suggested that, if Israeli-Palestinian negotiations continue to fail, even with the benefit of "real mediation" and a "fixed deadline", the United Nations Security Council should "proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution. . . . accept the Palestinian state as a full member of the UN and set a calendar for implementation." There would follow international monitoring and guarantees, with the Arab states immediately establishing full diplomatic relations with Israel.

      * A sign of the times link to bitterlemons.org
      * Failed favoritism toward Israel, By Turki al-Faisal link to washingtonpost.com
      * The Long Overdue Palestinian State
      link to nytimes.com

    • It doesn’t. Israel is a powerful country. It would be perfectly capable of dispossessing the Palestinians on its own with ease.

      I don't know what universe you live in, but the UN Security Council decided to enforce the terms of "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". See E. Lauterpacht, et al “The Kuwait Crisis: Basic Documents” link to books.google.com

      The Security Council could have long since recruited a coalition of the willing to enforce the 1949 armistice agreements, if not for the guaranteed veto from the USA.

    • Not one single word in the whole story about Oxfam, and why Johannson had to choose to leave Oxfam if she wanted to keep her deal with SodaStream!

      All of these stories fail to address the fact that Johannson is being paid with part of the proceeds from the crime of pillage in exchange for her role in aiding and abetting a war crime. That's not so glamorous.

    • No Nazi-esque comments like Rodoren

      No but it uses the same tone deaf sound bite I've seen in the Israeli press:

      Mr. Kerry came under fierce fire from Israeli officials for his remarks. One said that Israel would never negotiate “with a gun at its head.”

      Zionists have always used terror, illegal militias, and the IDF to ensure that Palestine has to negotiate "with a gun at its head". Kerry should be aware of the fact that situation violates the Law of Treaties and renders any resulting agreement with Israel null and void.

  • NYT's Jerusalem bureau chief: 'I come knowledgeable about the Jewish American or Jewish Israeli side of this beat'
    • Gotta give her credit for honesty here, but she’s just admitted that she has a bias. Israel is a “modern state”, whatever that means, and isn’t “amoral”, not like apartheid South Africa.

      I'll say, this useful idiot belabors her own articles about Grand Apartheid/the Prawer Plan with sympathetic statements about poor Israeli "officials [who] have struggled to convince residents of the ramshackle communities scattered across the vast Negev desert that moving to new, legal homes will pave a path to a better future."

      She's the same bureau chief who accepted the Isabel Kershner propaganda piece on the subject that didn't even interview a single Bedouins about their views, while quoting the Prime Minister's spokesman from the Headquarters for Economic and Community Development of the Negev Bedouin, saying that “The Bedouin of the Negev, being equal citizens, deserve adequate housing, public services and a better future for their children,” and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni (who was actually denying Bedouins equal protection under the law) explaining that the plan offered “a historic compromise.”

    • Even so, many of my posts are hijacked by extremists who post comments that regurgitate their entrenched positions…”

      Sorry Hophmi but the New York Times doesn't need to pay the expenses of a correspondent in Israel that embraces and operates on the assumption that Israel is a modern state. The Prawer Plan and the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation -State of the Jewish People truly are immoral and completely outside the American mainstream way of seeing things. Only someone with vested tribal sympathies would even attempt to downplay those racist official policies and sell everyone a line of bullshit instead.

  • AIPAC denies us credentials for its policy conference
    • So for those who know the law here. Any organization can turn away reporters that they think may shed some light on what is really going on and allowing reporters in that will write what they want? Is that the way it works?

      Yes, the 1st amendment is a limitation on the power of the federal government and that of the state governments through the application of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

      On the other hand the Justice Department ended its investigation of AIPAC and dropped charges against its employees saying it would have to reveal sensitive classified information in Court. In their defense, Rosen and Weissman were preparing to subpoena top administration officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to make their case that the United States regularly used AIPAC, as a parastatal organ, to send back-channel communications to Israel, e.g. link to voices.washingtonpost.com

      So, strictly speaking, it doesn't function like a private tax exempt organization.

    • I hope they informed you that it is not a First Amendment violation

      That may be, but the Supreme Court has ruled in Reid v Covert that our President and our representatives in Congress are creatures of the Constitution, who cannot do anything outside our borders which is prohibited by that document.

      So when they spend our tax dollars trying to impose a "Jewish state", including Orthodox rabbinical tyranny on the Palestinians, and get together with their masters at AIPAC to brag about the unconstitutional diplomatic and legislative measures that they've adopted in that regard, that will certainly include the 1st Amendment clause containing the prohibition against the Congress adopting "any law" respecting the establishment of religion:

      U.S. Code › Title 22 › Chapter 93 › § 8602 - Statement of policy

      It is the policy of the United States:
      (1) To reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. As President Barack Obama stated on December 16, 2011, “America’s commitment and my commitment to Israel and Israel’s security is unshakeable.” And as President George W. Bush stated before the Israeli Knesset on May 15, 2008, on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel, “The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty.”.
      (2) To help the Government of Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation.
      (3) To veto any one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council.
      (4) To support Israel’s inherent right to self-defense.
      (5) To pursue avenues to expand cooperation with the Government of Israel both in defense and across the spectrum of civilian sectors, including high technology, agriculture, medicine, health, pharmaceuticals, and energy.
      (6) To assist the Government of Israel with its ongoing efforts to forge a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states living side-by-side in peace and security, and to encourage Israel’s neighbors to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
      (7) To encourage further development of advanced technology programs between the United States and Israel given current trends and instability in the region.

      -- link to law.cornell.edu

      The Congress has imposed a religious test that requires any Palestinian government that includes Hamas "to recognize the right of the Jewish State of Israel to exist" in order to qualify for US funding or aid. There is no corresponding obligation for Israel to recognize the right of Palestine to exists as any kind of state. See U.S. Code Title 22, Chapter 32, Subchapter III, Part I, § 2378b “Limitation on assistance to the Palestinian authority”

    • What credentials do you need anyway to get invited?

      I don't think it would be right to expose them to "the sign of the covenant", although LBJ proudly displayed his surgical scars. I'd recommend that you just flash em the moon;-)

  • 'NYT' says East Jerusalem isn't occupied, and Israel lobby takes credit
    • Hostage, you somewhere wrote that one day you’ll give some type of reading list, if I remember correctly. Did you ever?

      No I said I would be willing to list the books in my collection and do look-ups if anyone was interested. I haven't gotten around to it yet.

    • There is a big difference between “tax penalties and currency control measures” and between full expropriation of your property

      I specifically said that I think the refugees should be compensated. That naturally includes a right to housing and property restitution. That doesn't necessarily apply to anyone who came to Israel voluntarily or those who were settled on pillaged Palestinian land. Israelis usually attempt to shift too much burden onto the Arab states by falsely claiming they are responsible for starting the war and the refugee crisis, when in fact they were responding to a situation where hundreds of thousands of refugees had fled to their countries long before 15 May 1948. In cases where we now know that Israel triggered a mass exodus, either in Palestine or Iraq, it should be assigned the lions shared of the burden for paying compensation, while the states in question should restore land and homes.

    • I hope that Hostage does not feel insulted by being depersonalized into a hub.

      No, I didn't take any offense at all. I usually do supply links to third party verifiable sources of information so that readers can make up their minds for themselves and won't have to rely on my analysis.

    • OK, let assume I agree with Ashrawi and Hillel (I am not), so what? If you decide to leave your country and immigrate to other country, is your government has the right to expropriate your home, business store and other property and let your family take only 20kg of clothes per person?

      Since you ask, many governments, including the United States, do have laws that impose tax penalties and currency control measures on emigres who renounce their citizenship.

      Until today, there is no official declaration from any Arab government that the Jews should be compensated for their properties (and let me remind you, that the Jewish communities didn’t declare war (or started war, for you, talknic) against any Arab state).

      I agree that refugees deserve compensation, but not Zionists from Arab Lands who moved to Palestine and in many cases even aided and abetted in the pillaging of the country and the acts of terror committed against Palestinians.

      Zionist historian, Walter Laqueur, noted that “Among the Irgun and the Stern Gang there were many youngsters from the Oriental Jewish community, which was not widely represented in the non-terrorist Hagana.” See A history of terrorism, Transaction Publishers, 1977, page 122

      One area of the Hagana where they were over-represented was in the Palmach’s corps of assassins. Jewish undercover units, called “The Arabists of the Palmach” or Mista’arvim [literally, "Arab-pretenders"], are known to have been in operation in Palestine and neighboring Arab countries as early as 1942. —See Targeting To Kill: Israel’s Undercover Units, Elia Zureik and Anita Vitullo, The Palestine Human Rights Information Center (PHRIC)
      *link to thejerusalemfund.org
      *link to palmach.org.il
      and Zvika Dror, The ’Arabists’ of the Palmach (Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House, 1986)

    • That you’d even expect anyone outside of your anti-Israel clique to even maintain this phrase in their vocabulary suggests that you’ve been drinking a little too much of your own kool-aid.

      I don't know why anyone would NOT insist on using the term. The UN Security Council, the General Assembly, the ICJ, and the Reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions have all declared it occupied territory to which the laws of occupation still apply.

      So far as I know, the US government still considers East Jerusalem occupied territory too. It sure as hell refuses to put Jerusalem, Israel on anyone's passport as a place of birth.

    • Congratulation!! I see you decide to use delicate language. I understand that the Arabs know to capture lands and the Israelis know how to occupy it.

      I don't know what your problem is. The British expropriated the land for the airport and the article that I cited noted that the Hagana-ordered evacuation of Atarot’s some 200 residents, not the government of Jordan.

      I don't see any evidence that anybody "occupied" it, since it was not settled by Arabs. It was part of the 30,000 dunams of the land owned by Jews before 1948 and administered by the Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Property in the West Bank. It was located in territory allocated to the Arab State and Arab Palestine was part of the state of Jordan.

      On the other hand we all know that Israel has not restored land administered by its Custodian of Enemy Property to the owners and that much of it has been occupied by Jews.

    • Isn’t it nice that a people returned his homeland after a long exile

      No. One of the members of the Zionist Commission, Sylvain Levy warned it would be a disaster:

      The first difficulty lay in the great disproportion which existed between the area of Palestine and the millions of people who might want to go there from Eastern Europe. In the second place, the actual condition of the country, which was at present able to maintain only a small population owing to the climatic and other causes brought about by the action of men and the misgovernment of the authorities. At the present moment, some 600,000 or 700,000 Arabs only dwelt in that country, but it would be impossible for an equal number of Jews to adapt themselves to the same conditions of life, since they had in Europe, and especially in Western Europe, acquired certain methods of life which would not be satisfied by the conditions which were sufficient for the Arabs. 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 in a country which might be likened to a concentration camp of Jewish refugees. . . . 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. Privileges so obtained as a rule did not profit either the giver or the receiver.

      Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, page 167-8 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      Ahdut Ha'avodah (Unity of Labor) was established in 1919. Its founding Charter demanded the establishment of a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine, and "the transfer of Palestine's land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession." See Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Shabtai Teveth, page 99.

      The Royal Commission tasked with investigating the disturbances in Palestine in May, 1921 cited a number of bigoted and extremest comments and noted with surprise that they were all shared by the Head of the Zionist Commission:

      Dr. Eder, acting Chairman of the Zionist Commission, they were unaware to what extent such expressions of opinion as those we have quoted above were authorised by responsible Zionists. Dr. Eder was a most enlightening witness. He was quite unaggressive in manner and free from any desire to push forward opinions which might be offensive to the Arabs. But when questioned on certain vital matters he was perfectly frank in expressing his view of the Zionist ideal. He gave no quarter to the view of the National Home as put forward by the Secretary of State and the High Commissioner. In his opinion there can only be one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish predominance as soon as the numbers of that race are sufficiently increased. He declined to admit the word "dominion," but chose "predominance." As acting Chairman of the Zionist Commission Dr. Eder presumably expresses in all points the official Zionist creed, if such there be, and his statements are, therefore, most important. There is no sophistry about Dr. Eder; he was quite clear that the Jews should, and the Arabs should not, have the right to bear arms, and he stated his belief that this discrimination would tend to improve Arab-Jewish relations. He considered that with regard to the appointment of the High Commissioner for Palestine the Zionist organisation should be allowed either to formulate objections to the selection of the British Government, or to submit a list of its own nominees for consideration.

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

    • …or my parents home in Baghdad or Jewish community property in Cairo or…

      The Government of Israel reserved the right to prevent Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes and claimed their space was needed by Jewish refugees and Zionists from Arab countries who had expressed an interest in coming to Palestine. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      We also know that the Israeli Ambassador admitted his government had triggered the mass exodus from Iraq. See the heading "Ingathering of Exiles" in the 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 digicoll.library.wisc.edu

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

      Now it turns out that Israel never collected more than 14,000 claims:

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

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

    • I can’t remember the Palestinian name of the village… …Because there is no Palestinian name of the village.

      The land was purchased from the neighboring Arab village of Qalandia. The British mandatory authorities expropriated more than half for the Atarot airport. It was renamed Qalandia airport after the territory was allocated to the Arab State and captured by Jordan. link to jerusalemquarterly.org

    • Ipso jure yes, but as a matter of politics , Palestine’s leadership is NOT disputing territory on Israel’s side of the Green Line (is it?), while Israel’s leadership IS disputing territory occupied in 1967.

      Yes, the PLO certainly has officially disputed the status of the territory Israel captured beyond the lines contained in the UN partition plan and advised both the Security Council (S/1999/334) and General Assembly (A/53/879) about that situation on 25 March 1999. It also said that the PLO accepted the fact that Mandate Palestine had been partitioned into an Arab and a - wait for it - "Jewish state":

      Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General Yesterday, the Israeli representative to the United Nations made some comments to the media on the issue of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, as well as on a statement previously made by President Arafat on the subject. The Israeli representative repeated what the Israeli Foreign Minister said a few days ago, namely that resolution 181 (II) was "null and void". These are pathetic statements involving illegal positions with far reaching and serious consequences.

      For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

      Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). Israel’s claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.

      Prior to its admission to United Nations membership, Israel made clear pledges to the members of the United Nations that it would implement resolution 181 (II) and resolution 194 (III) of 1949, related inter alia to the rights of Palestine refugees. In actuality, resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949, admitting Israel to membership in the United Nations, recalled in its preamble both of those resolutions and took note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee with respect to the implementation of the said resolutions.

      Furthermore, in the "Declaration of the State of Israel", it is clearly stated that Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of 29 November 1947. In fact, the declaration, at least in part, was made on "the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General
      Assembly".

      Thus, while we are not sure whether or not the officials of the Israeli Foreign Ministry understand what they are stating and its implications, the
      international community should nevertheless take it seriously. Moreover, we believe that Israel must still explain to the international community the measures it took illegally to extend its laws and regulations to the territory it occupied in the war of 1948, beyond the territory allocated to the Jewish State in resolution 181 (II). Such a situation has not been accepted by the international community.

      I should be grateful if you would arrange to have the text of the present letter distributed as a document of the General Assembly, under agenda items 39, 40 and 84, and of the Security Council.

      (Signed) Nasser AL-KIDWA
      Ambassador
      Permanent Observer of
      Palestine to the United Nations

      -- link to un.org

      The General Assembly cited resolution 181(II) as a relevant resolution in its request for the Advisory Opinion in the Wall case and asked, among other things, what are the legal consequences for other states according to international law and the relevant UN resolutions? The ICJ didn't really answer that question.

    • Except UNSC res 242 didn’t call for establishing ‘secure and recognised boundaries’!

      @ Talknic, in fairness McHugo didn't say that it does. He said if there is any validity to the right-wing Israeli arguments, which include "secure and recognised boundaries", then the territory on Israel's side of the Green Line must ipso jure be treated as ‘disputed’ too.

    • By contesting Palestine’s (as successor to Jordan) right to Atarot, Camera is implicitly contesting Israel’s right to about 30% of its territory that is internationally recognized.
      Put another way, as Donald notes, under Camera’s argument, every “Arab village” prior to 1948 should be considered “occupied” by Israel, even those hundreds of villages that are within the Green Line and considered part of Israel proper.

      Israel blemished its own title to all of the territory by claiming that resolution 181(II) is null and void.

      "Resolution 242: A Legal Reappraisal Of The Right-Wing Israeli Interpretation Of The Withdrawal Phrase With Reference To The Conflict Between Israel And The Palestinians, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, October 2002, vol 51, pp. 858–9 was cited in the exhibits of the interested parties in the ICJ Wall case. In it, John McHugo explained:

      The Armistice Agreements were without prejudice to territorial sovereignty, and therefore Israel was barred by its own action in signing them from consolidating its title up to the armistice lines so long as those agreements remained in force.78 It is inconceivable that Israel could have perfected that title in the period of less than six months between the Six Days War and the passing of Resolution 242, a period during which armed conflict continued. However, if any validity is to be attributed to the designation of the territories occupied in 1967 as ‘disputed territories’, Israel should be aware that the territory on the Israeli side of the 1949 Armistice Lines must ipso jure be treated as ‘disputed’. Israeli title can only be perfected through the final peace settlement envisaged by Resolution 242 and subsequent resolutions, which alone can establish ‘secure and recognised boundaries’. Failing this, Israel will always be exposed to a risk that claims may be brought for the territories which Israel took in 1948–9.

      -- link to stanford.edu

    • CAMERA is obfuscating the situation by conflating Jewish private property ownership in a territory with Jewish sovereignty. The Jews were never the sovereign government of Mandate Palestine in any event. Israel signed an armistice agreement with Jordan which said:

      Article IV

      1. The lines described in articles V and VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Lines and are delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948.
      3. Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI.

      link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      Those agreements are still supposed to be observed in accordance with UNSC resolution 73, pending a mutually agreed upon final settlement.

      Some of us here have watched video of IDF snipers shooting Palestinian refugees for merely trying to cross the armistice lines between Israel, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria and know perfectly well that Israel claims there is no RoR.

  • Cut off arms to Israel, Amnesty Int'l says, citing 22 civilians killed at protests last year
    • “Guardsmen killed at Kent state”
      Reason is, Hostage, that other aspects, qualitative in nature, could be more important than the no. of casualties.

      Where I'm from if you're killing even one peaceful demonstrator under the color of law you'll need to defend yourself actions in court. Bear in mind that the Goldstone mission report noted that 19 peaceful demonstrators, including 6 children had been killed by Israeli forces and cited “Repression Allowed, Resistance Denied: Israel’s suppression of the popular movement against the Apartheid Wall of Annexation”, Addameer and Stop the Wall report, July 2009 as a reliable source for further information on the subject.

      I've commented before that killing people who are demonstrating peacefully against apartheid is definitely an example of a constituent act of the crime of apartheid:

      (f) Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.

      Article II, Definition, International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid link to www1.umn.edu

    • Does anyone really think another AI report is going to get any more traction than pictures of US made phosphorus bombs used on civilians?

      It certainly could, since the ICC Prosecutor can investigate reports about crimes subject to its jurisdiction that are in the public domain or those received under Article 15(2) of the Rome statute from NGOs:

      The Prosecutor shall analyse the seriousness of the information received. For this purpose, he or she may seek additional information from States, organs of the United Nations, intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations, or other reliable sources that he or she deems appropriate, and may receive written or oral testimony at the seat of the Court.

      link to web.archive.org

    • I was responding to Les, who suggested that something had "changed" that now allows AI to look at Israel. I don't think there has been any change.

      AI has always reported on Israel and has even turned over some of its reports to the ICC Prosecutor. See:
      *Amnesty calls on ICC to act on Cast Lead ‘war crimes’ NGO also calls on all states to investigate and prosecute crimes committed in Gaza conflict under "universal jurisdiction." link to jpost.com
      * Israel/Gaza: Operation "Cast Lead": 22 days of death and destruction link to amnesty.org
      * Palestine should accede to the International Criminal Court now link to refworld.org

    • the 22 number for casualties IN A YEAR pretty much sounds

      More than 5 times as many demonstrators as the Guardsmen killed at Kent State. The US media still managed to cover that smaller incident. At the time, a lot more people were dying in other parts of the world.

    • Clearly, if the use of deadly force is permitted after someone has been injured or killed, the AI casualty numbers reveal the legal basis for the Palestinians to exercise that option in line with Article 51 of the UN Charter. Let's also not forget that the UN voted to grant Palestine the status of an "observer state". So Israel has been violating the UN Charter prohibitions ever since regarding the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of "any state".

    • What happened to Amnesty International’s leadership that now allows it to look at Israel?

      This is nothing new. There's 9 pages in the index of online AI reports on Israel and the Palestinian Territories. They date back to 1998, but for as long as I can remember AI has been asking someone, anyone, to please bring the Israeli leadership to justice for serious crimes and suspend arms sales to the Middle East.

    • “According to Amnesty, the IDF must wait until a soldier is killed before using lethal force…. The anti-Israel bias is blatant.”

      Using the Algemeiner's logic, the Palestinian rock tossers are showing great restraint. After all, Amnesty documented the killings of 22 Palestinians last year; forty-five killed and at least 261 Palestinians, including 67 children, seriously injured by live ammunition in the past three years; and more than 8,000, including 1,500 children wounded by other means. After all of those provocations, they have only resorted to throwing rocks. Surely the Algemeiner is merely feigning mock surprise about that limited response. Their concern for the safety of these gangs of armed Israeli thugs and war criminals is very touching. But surely they would be better off if they avoided demonstrations and stayed in their garrisons on the other side of the armistice line.

  • Political Zionism is destroying a culture and a people, and intentionally so
    • The one that you thought you could do to uphold an incorrect translation you and your bias approved of by using OCR software and Google translate.

      As you will recall, I also pointed out that the document already had the penned-in changes when it was turned-over to the Ben Gurion archives by his estate along with the typed manuscript he had provided to Valentine when it published the quote “we will expel the Arabs and take their place”. The Archives simply supplied a copy of one of Ben Gurion's typed manuscripts to the Journal of Palestine Studies for them to use as the basis of the translation.

      The bottom line is that the historical record shows that Ben Gurion was the Defense Minister who did engage in an illegal war of conquest that expelled thousands of Palestinians and settled Jews from Europe and Muslim countries in their homes and on their land.

    • Since you bring it up here’s the translation I kindly supplied for you.

      Like CAMERA you are trying to distract attention away from the fact that the entire letter constitutes a plan for a future war of aggression to use military force to colonize the portions of Palestine awarded to the Arab State under any partition plan and the fact that violated public international law and policies like the Stimson doctrine that the US had already applied in other parts of Asia. You never established that Ben Gurion didn't make the pen and ink changes either. He certainly owned the copyrights to it and prepared a typed manuscript containing it the he subsequently licensed for use by Valentine.

      The International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East made carrying out any such plan of aggression punishable by death or life in prison.

      So let's review:
      *The Nuremberg Tribunal’s Judgement on “The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity” included “plunder of public or private property” in its list of war crimes, for which there must be individual criminal responsibility.

      * There is ample evidence from the FRUS and the personal diaries of Ben Gurion and Joseph Weitz to establish the fact that the government of Israel began violating Article 28 of the Hague rules by settling European Jewish immigrants on illegally expropriated Palestinian land and homes while the armed conflict was still in progress. The UN Mediator, Folke Bernadotte, reported as much to the Security Council:

      In regard to property Arab refugees he said apparently most had been seized for use by Jews. He had seen Haganah organizing and supervising removal contents Arab houses in Ramle which he understood was being distributed among newly arrived Jewish immigrants. He was putting problem before SC but was not counting on its assistance. Also spoke of asking for special session GA to consider refugees.

      –Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts), Page 1295 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      * Israeli historian Shlomo Ben-Ami confirmed those reports using Israeli archival evidence:

      The Jews did not have to buy land any more, but to ‘conquer it’, as Ben-Gurion said to an official of the Jewish National Fund in February 1948. He also instructed that abandoned Arab villages needed to be settled by Jews even before the end of hostilities. Settling the land in a way that created Jewish contiguity’ and demographic superiority was not to be an enterprise to be executed after the victory. Rather, it was part of the war itself. Villages were destroyed, their populations either evicted or fled, and their lands were settled by immigrants or cultivated by kibbutzim in the course of the war itself. This is how Ben-Gurion put in April 1948: ‘We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate Upper and Lower, Eastern and Western Galilee, the Negev and the Jerusalem area.’ And this, he understood, would be facilitated by the ‘great change in the distribution of the Arab population’, a euphemism Ben-Gurion frequently preferred to more blunt expressions.

      Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, page 45 link to books.google.com

    • So according to you, I’ve driven Palestinians off, I am a racist and I try to dehumanise Palestinians.

      Yeah you're the whiney little snot who wasted so much time trying to debate the fact that Zionists lied about their willingness to protect minority populations in areas under Jewish control and whether or not Zionists planned to take the Palestinians place. I've supplied readers with links to declassified documents in the US archives which illustrate that is exactly what they did and that the refugee problem began before the Israeli conflict with neighboring states. They say the Israeli Foreign Minister got a "swelled head" and said that Palestinians couldn't return to their homes, because their space was needed for Jewish refugees from Europe and that Israel reserved the right to replace the Palestinian Arabs with Zionists from Arab countries who had expressed an interest in coming to Palestine.

      It isn't me engaging in "interminable wheelspinning", all of the UN and USA officials I'm quoting said that hundreds of thousands of people were without food and shelter and that many of them would die unless Israel allowed them to return to their homes before the rainy season and the winter came. link to mondoweiss.net

      You can't engage in Nakba denial and say it never happened, so you try to troll the thread and get in a little ankle biting.

    • @ Bing Bong

      The Palestinians will reject the PA if all they are offered is a castrated rump state.

      Bing bong is the troll who tried to defend Ben Gurion's letter to his son, despite the fact that it talked about using armed force to colonize the Negev along with Transjordan after the partition if they were NOT included in the Jewish state. Now he expects readers to take him seriously when he talks about a separate state for the Palestinians. He's only talking about an ethnic enclave, not a state and engaging in a lot of ankle bitting in hopes no one will remember him.

    • If this is how you treat people who want a separate state of Palestine for Palestinians it’s no wonder your blustering bombastic tactics, already damaging to Palestinians, are also damaging to your cause.

      It's how I treat pretentious idiots like yourself. You act as if everyone here doesn't already have you pegged after reading a few hundred of your comments. Telling-off Zionists trolls won't hurt the Palestinian cause at all.

    • Citizen isn’t calling real Palestinians anything at all. They’re just set pieces on the stage of a morality play

      The problem for you and Bing Bong is that you try to dehumanize Palestinians to the point that milions of people are mere pawns with no fundamental human rights or value for use in your false narrative of victimhood and political gamesmanship. You're just pissed off that we stop and point that out and make you look like the despicable hasbrats that you are.

    • Dr. DeYoes: It’s not my fault that the two-state solution no longer makes sense.” Naftush: Sounds like take Israel down.

      No, sounds like a guy who sees the facts on the ground and accepts the reality of the proposition advanced in the political platforms and coalition agreements of the governing Israeli coalition which says there can only be one state between the river and the sea.

      It's your own elected officials who say that Israel can't continue to occupy the Palestinian territories and still remain a democratic and Jewish state.

    • Do Zionists blow up buildings all round the world?
      Do Zionists dispatch terrorist emissaries to kill innocent civilians?
      Do Zionists engage in religious wars where they massacre Zionists who disagree with their views?
      Do Zionists follow a doctrine that advances global jihad?

      @ Mayhem If you check the comment archives, you'll find we've discussed the fact that Zionists have blown up ships full of refugees, buildings, airports, nuclear reactors, and you name it, in places like Palestine, the neighboring states, Tunisia, Iraq, and Iran. Zionists most certainly have dispatched terrorists who have assassinated plenty of innocent officials and civilians, almost from the moment the movement was established, e.g. Jacob Israël de Haan, Walter Guinness, Manuel Allende Salazar, Folke Bernadotte, Ahmed Bouchiki. & etc. Zionists have also promoted a hateful anti-Gentile doctrine from the moment Pinsker and Herzl picked-up their pens and began to write embarrassing racist claptrap like Judeophobia and Der Judenstaat.

    • That’s because you cannot process how non Jewish non Israelis can disagree with your angry biases.

      The majority of non-Jewish Israelis are perfectly aware of the fact that their country is being run be a bunch of angry racial bigots who have adopted a long list of laws that discriminate against non-Jews. link to adalah.org

      Meanwhile the clock keeps ticking on the unfulfilled obligation to the United Nations contained in The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel to enact a Constitution not later than the 1st October 1948 which will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

      The bottom line is that you find that agenda of mine and the BDS movement objectionable. But that only demonstrates that you are driven by a racist, colonial, supremacist agenda - no matter how much you try to deflect or distract attention away from that uncomfortable fact.

    • I haven’t driven anyone off (?!). Judging by your interminable wheelspinning and counter productive dogma in tow to your scattergun emotive reactions you may indeed have been driven crazy, but I don’t believe I can take credit for that either.

      I think its pretty obvious that you are the one with a loose screw, fucked up logic, interminable racist wheelspinning.

    • In the torah Jews are commended to observe rites having to do with tabernacle, the dwelling place of the spirit of God. A physical box that existed in a physical place. God dwells in some sense in that box in the Torah. In the torah worship is towards that box. Then finally the tabernacle is brought into the center of the temple by Solomon.

      But Solomon and his Temple were not mentioned in the Torah.

    • I hope you’re not calling Palestinians in favour of 2SS mentally defective.

      No he is saying that there are still some of them left that you haven't managed to drive off or drive crazy.

    • hostage, here is the video of Binyamin Eshet, note at 1:36 in the video how he laughs and says he heard screams from a house and then the ‘half naked arab’ comes out and the squad leader calls her a slut, probably raped her.

      Yes, that is disgusting. He goes on to relate that 1) there was a massacre of the people who volunteered to bury the dead from the earlier massacre in the Mosque; 2) that he witnessed the bodies beside the carts on the road of the people who had died because they couldn't survive the forced march; and 3) that he witnessed the pillaging in which there was nothing that wasn't taken. With regard to the massacre, he did say he thought those responsible should be brought to justice, but that's what got him into trouble with the Shabak.

    • First off the USA has raised the dangers on other occasions quite forcible during the Bush administration and other countries did back down. Belgium back down on their warrant for Sharon and repealed their law in 2003. The UK backed down. Spain backed down.

      No, the Prosecutors in Spain subsequently initiated a state referral of the flotilla incident to the ICC Prosecutor. That, and the Comoros referral are still pending.

      None of the changes you are talking about apply to cases where the ICC has issued an arrest warrant. The Abu Grahib scandal took the wind out of the Bush administration's sails on its efforts to obtain blanket immunity from prosecution and his disclosure in the autobiography that he authorized torture sealed the deal for authorities in enough EU countries that he had to cancel his book tour there altogether.

      And most recently on Robert Seldon Lady we saw what one of these arrests would look like if the arrest were actually made.

      All that proves is that Panama doesn't have an extradition treaty with Italy and that Lady was convicted by an Italian court, but not the ICC. He is already a convicted criminal who has to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life. FYI, Panama is an ICC member state and it does have an agreement in place to turn over suspects wanted by the ICC. Any behind the barn action taken on the national level for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility tends to trigger the ICCs complementary jurisdiction under the terms of the Rome Statute.

      Warrants don’t change that. The ICC doesn’t change that.

      There are plenty of people sitting in jail awaiting trial who know better.

      They don’t want to deal with blowback. And yes there would be tons of blowback.

      You might want to check your facts against reality: Fmr. Shin Bet Head Flees Denmark Over 'Arrest Warrant' Threat Carmi Gallon, of controversial film 'The Gatekeepers,' flees Denmark after pro-PA group demands warrant against him. link to israelnationalnews.com

    • You weren’t stationed in the KSA?

      Yes. The CENTAF computer generated Air Tasking Order (ATO) was about a foot thick and it didn't provide for any sorties to assist the Saudi government.

      Other than the single Iraqi attack on Ras al-Khafji, providing ad hoc assistance for Saudis was never a factor. In that case we time shared JSTARS coverage and vectored in Marine F-18s, A-6s, and AH-ls and Air Force A-10s, AC-130 gunships, and F-16s. An inland diversionary attack was stopped by U.S. Marines, a Qatari tank battalion, and helicopters from the British Royal Navy. Everyone initially thought that it was just a feint for a larger Iraqi operation, but that was it, the "mother of all battles" on Saudi soil. So we carried on with the ATO operations against objectives in Kuwait and Iraq.

    • The torah, the talmud, the rabbinate all disagree with you.

      Jerusalem isn't even mentioned in the Torah. Some scholars believe that the books regarding the fertilty cult, Temple, and animal sacrifices were nothing but priestly forgeries. Verses like Ezekiel 18:2 and Jeremiah 7:22 don't lend much credibility to the many conflicting verses either.

    • Sorry. No massacre at Lydda. See, Myths and Historiography of the 1948 Palestine War Revisited: The Case of Lydda Author(s): Alon Kadish and Avraham SelaSource: Middle East Journal, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), pp. 617-634.

      The article is pretty unconvincing. It admits that the inhabitants were forcefully expelled, which is both a crime against humanity and a war crime, whether it was done with premeditation or not. The claim that there was no direct evidence of a massacre in 2005 is irrelevant, since the perpetrators confessed subsequent to the publication of the article. The webpage I cited explains that Yerachmiel Kahanovich was filmed in Kibbutz Degania Alef on July 23, 2012 By Eyal Sivan. link to zochrot.org

      I don't really need to read propaganda and scholarly mental gymnastics about the lack of pre-planning either, since that isn't a relevant element of the crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population. See the list of elements starting on page 12 link to icc-cpi.int

      The actual perpetrators have confessed publicly to their crimes, including premeditated murders, and that information is readily available online. After several complaints, you're still deliberately engaging in Nakba denial and the moderators should block posts from your account.

    • Yeah. The AG said that 12 years ago and nobody listened and nobody’s been prosecuted. You’ve made my point.

      No I haven't, since your government began wetting its pants and shreying gavault when Abbas went to the UN in order to hold Israelis criminally responsible in national and international courts. The whole point of Kerry's 9 month peace talks has been to delay any further action in the ICJ or ICC.

      National leaders, including former President Bush, will defend their countries by all means necessary, regardless of international law.

      Bush can't even protect his own miserable hide, much less anyone else.

      Hostage. Didn’t you help support the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia when you worked with the US military?

      No.

      How do you justify having rendered aid to that serial human rights violator?

      The UN Security Council, acting under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, authorized member states cooperating with the Government of Kuwait to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the event Iraqi armed forces failed to fully comply with resolution 660 and withdraw from Kuwait. link to un.org

    • Nice to see some reality on this issue regarding the UN.

      The Swiss and ICC Prosecutors don't work for the UN at all. We are talking about states enforcing international law. The European Court of Human Rights upheld Article 220a of the German Criminal Code in order to sustain a conviction for genocide in the case if Jorgic v Germany. link to wcd.coe.int None of the crimes in that case happened in Germany.

      Norwegian courts convicted a Rwandan man for participating in the 1994 genocide. link to theguardian.com

      Finland court convicts Rwanda pastor of genocide link to jurist.org

      See also: "Danish Court Upholds Extradition of Rwandan Genocide Suspect" link to allafrica.com
      France 'to allow first genocide extradition to Rwanda'
      link to bbc.com

      Canada reports that it spends $15 million per year on its War Crimes program. According to the annual reports, it has conducted thousands of investigations to deny entry and deport persons suspected of war crimes. link to justice.gc.ca

      The DOJ's Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section (HRSP) just obtained a conviction in the case of Jorge Sosa, a "Former Guatemalan Special Forces Officer Sentenced for Covering up Involvement in 1982 Massacre" link to justice.gov

      The reality is that neither Israel nor the United States raised any alarm about the dangers of universal criminal jurisdiction during the deportation hearings regarding John Demjanjuk and other countries won't pay much attention if the tables are turned and an Israeli suspect has to be taken into custody.

    • “I am praying for you, that you realize the error of your ways and see that the truth is as I know it to be, rather than the blindness that you were taught.” You expect me to accept that as good hearted? No. You don’t. You’re just pretending.

      The book of Romans says what it says, that God ordained the state of affairs it describes. The Gentiles, who are represented as a wild branch have no reason to brag, because the natural branches that appear to be cast off will also be grafted back in. It says that God will save all of Israel and have mercy on whomever he likes. I don't care if you think that's good hearted, or not. As a disinterested non-believer, I can only say it's just as kind as anything Judaism has ever had to say about the ultimate spiritual fate of Gentiles or Christians.

    • Hostage- Christians are allowed to view Jews in whatever prism that they choose.

      That's mighty big of you, since your own religious superstition and bigotry are shining through these comments of yours.

    • That’s it. As Jews move into territories in the West Bank they shift ownership. It ceases to be an occupation and becomes inhabitation.

      Well your immorality and immaturity are showing if you think you can revive the law of conquest in the 21st century. I don't think that you're reading Merkel's state of mind on that situation at all. You're simply engaging in wishful thinking and projection. Merkel and Netanyahu are having regular shouting matches over the issue of the settlements, and it isn't Netanyahu's staff that is leaking those stories to the press. The UNESCO and UN votes illustrate that Merkel's EU partners are not willing to follow along if that's where Merkel is trying to lead them. Many of them are completely fed up with the Zionist colonial enterprise.

      'Significant Escalation': Tensions Flare in German-Israeli Relations - German-Israeli relations are at a nadir as German Chancellor Merkel begins her third term. When leaders of the countries meet next week, deals on smaller issues may be possible, but divisions over Israeli settlements will persist. -- link to spiegel.de

    • ‘Imagine the people who died in transit’; The gradual exodus wasn’t the Bataan Death March.

      I don't know why you are still allowed the privilege to engage in Nakba denial here at Mondoweiss, but the testimonies of the murders who killed the Palestinians because they strayed from the path on that death march and destroyed or pillaged Palestinian villages during the ethnic cleansing campaigns are available online:
      * Yerachmiel Kahanovich, Palmach soldier
      link to zochrot.org
      * Binyamin Eshet, Palmach soldier
      link to zochrot.org
      * Zvi Steklov, Palmach soldier
      link to zochrot.org
      * Uri Pinkerfeld, Palmach soldier
      link to zochrot.org

Showing comments 300 - 201
Page: