-
-
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 0
- Exile and the prophetic: the tension between the particular and … 0
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to … 0
- Demonizing Mandy Patinkin is a tough sell 19
- ‘If I had to choose between the wealth of the … 8
- Rightwing Israeli group gets tax-deductible funds from US foundation 7
- Intense video challenges Catalan and Spanish collaboration with the Israeli … 5
- Exile and the Prophetic: Joseph Massad strikes again 2
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 651
- ‘The policy of the present Israeli government is likely to … 485
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 307
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 201
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 145
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 142
- San Francisco bus ads condemn Israeli apartheid: backlash begins 119
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 97
-
- ‘The policy of the present Israeli government is likely to … 275
- US Jews are so ‘polarized’ over Israel they can’t talk … 160
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 88
- Israeli right-wing flys off the deep end following Hawking boycott 78
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
- Church of Scotland backs away from boycott call in the … 62
-
- RT @War_Times: Blood on Israel’s Hands from #Palestine to the Mayan Highlands http://t.co/hAHRMXYXMm #Nakba @mondoweiss @jadaliyya #Guatema…, 19 hours ago
- RT @WideAsleepNima: Thanks to @Jadaliyya for posting my @Newseum article: http://t.co/cmdi2bjwkb. Here's a brief follow-up on @MuftahOrg: h…, 22 hours ago
- ‘If I had to choose between the wealth of the world and going home, I would go back’ http://t.co/x9b4xYU25O #Nakba, 23 hours ago
- Rightwing Israeli group Im Tirtzu gets tax-deductible funds from US foundation Kingjay Foundation Trusts http://t.co/MHTY2g3agr, 23 hours ago
- RT @grinhoyz: "Ben-Gurion was convinced that the refugee problem was primarily one of public image (hasbara)": http://t.co/bm8zn0WutZ, 24 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Boston Globe’s groundbreaking salute to BDS will bring ‘fierce criticism,’ US Campaign says (33)
- Ramzi Jaber: That’s the comment I was waiting for! Oh mondonut my very dear friend, you thought I didn’t...
- Demonizing Mandy Patinkin is a tough sell (19)
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi Marmara (61)
- Hostage: @Hostage Here’s some legal material worthy of analysis by your trenchant legal mind. My trenchant legal...
- Hostage: Again, you cannot define what is Palestine by attempting to define what Israel is not. LOL! I’ve...
- Hostage: The borders of Israel is not the question, rather the borders of Palestine. Which are not defined by your...
- NPR twice celebrates Israeli army– once as ‘rite of passage’ for minorities and beacon to US Jews (11)
- Inanna: If I stole a country then I’d be zealously trying to guard it too. Never know when the rightful...
- Exile and the Prophetic: Joseph Massad strikes again (2)
- Inanna: He sees the Jewishness that most Jews celebrate as colonial and – criminal. Nope. He says the Zionism...
- ‘If I had to choose between the wealth of the world and going home, I would go back’ (8)
- Inanna: Great to see Palestinians making the point that the right to return home is central and will not be given up.
- Boston Globe’s groundbreaking salute to BDS will bring ‘fierce criticism,’ US Campaign says (33)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
Sorry, WE should really focus on helping you, but it is more important TO US to focus on what motivates US to help you. And it simply doesn't help you if WE follow OUR values to help you. I mean how could WE help you, if helping US helps you? And how could WE ever empathise with you, if what are going through remind US of what WE went through?
So you see OUR dilemma? Before we don't help US, there's not way of helping you. Because it's not about US, but about helping you!
(BTW. You know, who WE mean by "US". WE don't want to say the "J-"word, because that fortifies Zionism because of an unexplained short-circuit.)
Did Dershowitz ever defend China's occupation of Tibet Zimbabwe's systematic violations of human rights or South Africa's Apartheid? Or wasn't he paid to do so?
Why not? He was invited to Israel and declined for political reasons.
A very useful article.
I think Geller wants to redefine the meaning of the word so that others think that Israel is not an Apartheid state. Or is she just terribly stupid?
yrn says: "What was before the occupation in 1967, peace and nirvana……"
Besides the ongoing Nakba: Nonjewish citizens of Israel living under the same military law and permit system that Apartheid Israel has exportet beyond the green line after 1967.
yrn: "Well what can I tell you real peaceful coexistence with Jews."
Conclusions from the Palin Report after these riots:
"69. The following are the considered opinions submitted by the Court:
1. That the causes of the alienation and exasperation of the feelings of the population of Palestine are:-
(a) Disappointment at the non-fulfilment of promises made to them by British propaganda.
(b) Inability to reconcile the Allies' declared policy of self-determination with the Balfour Declaration, giving rise to a sense of betrayal and intense anxiety for their future.
(c) Misapprehension of the true meaning of the Balfour Declaration and forgetfulness of the guarantees determined therein, due to the loose rhetoric of politicians and the exaggerated statements and writings of interested persons, chiefly Zionists.
(d) Fear of Jewish competition and domination, justified by experience and the apparent control exercised by the Zionists over the Administration.
(e) Zionist indiscretion and aggression, since the Balfour Declaration aggravating such fears.
(f) Anti-British and anti-Zionist propaganda working on the population already inflamed by the sources of irritation aforesaid.
2. That the Zionist Commission and the official Zionists by their impatience, indiscretion and attempts to force the hands of the Administration, are largely responsible for the present crisis."
link to en.wikisource.org
The Dersh: "You cannot understand the hatred of Israel if you eliminate the fact that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people."
You cannot understand the infantile narcissism of a Jewish supremacist if you eliminate the fact that he thinks that even his racist actions towards Nonjews (or their justificaion) could never create hatred.
I'm sure that if people find his comments about Hawkings hateful, he will run to his inner mummy and whine about the "fact" that people only hate him, because he's a Jew.
Indeed.
Just like the natives were "integrated" into America's colonial "society".
And if Nonjews want to move to an existing community Jews might reject their request on ground of their "social unsuitability".
According to Wikipedia even the ADL considers SIOA to be a hate group.
Citizen says: "So, e.g., the 4th Geneva Convention was illegal?"
No, to him the PRESSURE to stop an action which is illegal under humanitarian law is illegal. Fore more information read the entries about "humanitarian terrorism" and "humanitarian lawfare" in the latest edition of the Dictionary of Zionspeak.
giladg says: "only under Israeli control can all three major religions of this region reach a balance that is best for all three combined."
ROFL. Hamas charta: "Only under the shadow of Islam could the members of all religions coexist in safety and security for their lives, properties and rights." (Article 6) "Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security." (Article 31)
giladg says: "For those of you who are going to start up with stolen lands blah blah blah, ..."
Yes giladg, the acquisition of territory through war is inadmissable in the post Nazi era. Stop being so sentimental about it.
giladg says: "Palestinians have never controlled Jerusalem, not even for a single day, ever."
I can understand why "control" is more important to you than title or the question who is the real souvereign and who exercices their souvereignity under mandate or occupation.
"The British controlled East Jerusalem until 1948."
On behalf of the Palestinians. You understand what a mandate is?
giladg says: "The Turks controlled East Jerusalem until 1917."
The Palestinians were "Turks" until 1925.
giladg says: "Go back far enough in history and the Jews controlled Jerusalem, both for a long time and for a significant period in the history of the Jewish people."
Oh, so it does belong even more to the Muslims because of the even more lengthy time they controlled it?
David Samel says: "With respect to Hagai’s statement, while it is morally repulsive, it seems entirely consistent with Zionist values."
Of course. Zionism is about the preservation of Jewishness. To not (fully) share a territory with the Goyim is one way. To not share a life with them is another. It's all about segregation.
"...pushes peace further away pushes away negotiations, and creates among the Palestinian leadership the illusion that in this manner they can achieve the result, ..."
How peaceful it would be if the Palestinians would still have the illusion that negotiations with the Jebotinsky leadership would lead to anything more than Bantustans.
shachalnur says: "Israel controls the US? Sounds like a conspiracy theory."
If that was really the case Netanyahu would get more standing ovations in the US congress than Obama.
If Israel talks about a Palestinian state it means an Israeli controlled Bantustan for Palestinians who control other Palestinians but have no right to the land of "Eretz Israel". Rabin wasn't different.
I like this part from Shamir's article: "Why do we accept the argument that perceived Muslim persecution in one part of the world necessitates Islamist violence in another?"
I replaced Muslim with Jew ...
Israel will never allow more than Palestinian bantustans and gave US green light to support this decades ago.
Search engine terrorism
"Along the way, she talks about his "Semitic nose." Imagine if a non-Jew used such a description!"
Or a Jew used a description like "potato nose with plug-in contact, as the goyim have them.":
link to translate.google.com
It seems that Lori Lowenthal Marcus uses the description "Pallywood" also as easy as others used "Judenpresse".
Of course she's not the hater, but the cameraman. We allready discussed that he used an antisemitic light setup to put Israel in a bad light.
Americans should rather consider where to run if there's a "drill" going on.
911, now Boston ...
I just ordered his book.
mondonut says: "It was and ever will be a General Assembly Resolution and nothing more."
I allready explained to you that human right law (including the right to return) has become customary international law. I allready explained to you that this law was reflected in the resolution, not created there. I allready explained to you that the constant reiteration of this Palestinian right in the UN made it customary, too. What is your problem? Do you really think that a country has a right to keep its rightful citizens expelled and denationalized because of their faith?
"The Palestinians are a nation of people, they are not however a nation of territory."
They have been a nation of territory since 1925. Even the PLO definition includes Jews (and their paternal descendants) who lived in the territory before mandate times.
"In the meantime, they do not have territory, they only have claims to territory. Big difference."
They are entitled to territory which is occupied. This is the big difference.
"The Zionists in contrast are automatons. Wherever I speak they do always the same. They come to the audience without any arguments or just shout “lies!” … They are brainwashed to nothing." (Hajo Meyer)
miriam6 says: "The folks ... most definitely WERE looking for trouble and unfortunately for them, they got it."
Like the folks who were murdered while trying to help Jews under siege, occupation or worse not long ago, right?
giladg says:"Reported today that more and more Palestinians living in East Jerusalem are taking out full Israeli citizenship. I wonder why?"
Reported not long ago:
link to btselem.org
Oh wait, did you actually think that more and more taking it, because Israel is so awesome, you poor misguided child?
Annie Robbins says: "accusing ones adversaries of hatred is an addiction for israel’s advocates. it’s fast becoming the number one hasbara ad hominem tactic, surpassing the anti semitism accusation albeit it’s almost the same thing."
I noticed that too, Annie. After antisemitism they seem to be obsessed with pure hate now. Poor souls.
But I agree that he was not used as a human shield. Otherwise they wouldn't have put him back. The situation was still (as dangerous as not) the same.
According to the FBI between 1980 and 2005 terror attacks were commited by Latinos (42%), left extremists (24%), Jewish extremists (7%), Muslime extremists (6%) and communists (5%).
link to fbi.gov
But when you have "Der Stürmer"-like propagandists you know who they are going to pick on this time.
asherpat says: "The ridiculousness of the argument that Ramallah is “occupied” is obvious, ..."
ROFL. So the Warsaw Ghetto was not a part of Nazi occupied Poland, because it was administrated by Jews ("Judenrat") and had a Jewish Ghetto Police/Service?
"It would be very much helpful, if the discussion or the wishful sophistics of the all the “liberal” and “progressive” crowd, could move beyond the games of borders and Israel legitimacy, right to exist and Jewish self-determination. ... Get over the fact of Israeli presence on the map. Move on. Suggest something meaningful."
Yes, move on you wishful sophistics of the all the “liberal” and “progressive” crowd. Get over the fact that we are occupying Bohemia and Moravia in our games of borders and started to expell and denationalize Jews, because Germany is not the state of all its citizens. We prefer the volkish version, this is our right to self determination and we only ask for a little bit of appeasement policy. Would be very much helpful.
Shingo says: "Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd, Israel’s prime minister ..."
Well, not exactly Israel's prime minister, but ... LOL.
She said that Jewish terrorists are practicing pure Judaism. She also had a drawing of Moses with the face of a pig superimposed over his own on her blog and called this having fun. And she had an ad running in New York subways that reads "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Palestine. Defeat Jewish militarism."
No, wait. Her racism targeted someone else ...
Yes Annie, be symmetrical. I agree with asherpat that Hamas has become like Israel.
RJL says: "Would you consider debating even why a Palestinian majority would accept any Jews as “equal” citizens, given the ferocious hatred held by the majority of them towards Jews, for centuries?"
They used to babysit each others childrens, before your type arrived on the scene and declared to take over land and also the mind of Jewish Palestinians whose majority was antizionist for good reasons. Even today the PLO defininition of a Palestinian includes Jews (and their paternal descendants) who lived there before the "Judeninfiltration" (Hertzl). And please - don't talk about equality, while your Apartheid Junta keeps people expelled and denationalized to maintain a Zionist regime and wants to be recognized as a "Jewish state" allthough "Jewish" is as less a citizenship as "Aryan".
Refaat says: "again, why was he imprisoned and sentenced?"
He sketched a kid throwing stones. That frightened the most moral army of the world.
RJL says: "If he’s not responsible, he’ll be released. The army isn’t interested in jailing endless number of teens; they question many, release most, and prosecute only the worst offenders, those who really cause bodily harm."
Are you clueless or lying?
giladg says: "What would you do with him if he had used a gun and shot at someone, and was 14 , a Palestinian, an American, a person who is endangering the safety of others?"
What would you do, if he was Jewish?
Obama can't even answer a simple question on Israel's human rights violations:
link to youtube.com
Sumud says: "I don’t Robert Wistrich to be a credible character. He effectively prohibits BDS as a tactic because it reminds some people of the Nazi boycott in 1933.."
According to Wistrich's pseudologic the Jewish boycott against Germany was only a form of Anti-Germanism and expression of hatred against Germans as such and not a protest against their racist policy towards Jews.
Eva Smagacz says: "I seem to remember that Yehuda Hiss has been re-instated?….."
"He REMAINED the chief pathologist of the Institute and REGAINED his position as director before being dismissed by the Deputy Health Minister Yakov Litzman on Oct 15 2012."
link to en.wikipedia.org
"Israel that is an intrinsic part of their Jewish identity"
Antisemites work with the assumption that something is an "intrinsic part of Jewish identity" (and that it is bad). They don't attack Israel for its crimes primarily, but to prove an "intrinsic" badness of Jews as such. Fraser uses the same antisemitic logic. Rather than seeing that Israel's crimes are attacked by people (who are not antisemitic), he equates Israel including its crimes with Jewish identity - Jews as such.
RJL says: "anti-semitism and anti-zionism are overlapping circles. Where? Denying the historical ties of Jews to the Holy Land, denying there were 2 Temples on Mt. Moriah (temple mount), denying today’s Jews have ancestral links to each other (sephardim and ashkenazim)and to the ancient Israelites, denying the Jewish prayer books mention a return to zion and Jerusalem, and the Temple, repeatedly. Never mind the Holocaust denial which permeates arab societies, and some European ones, ..."
Wunderful. Let me try this, too:
Denying the historical and legal ties of Palestinians to historic Palestine. Denying that the citizens of Palestine had the right to determine their future goverment in 1947-1948 by majority decision and that it doesn't include more than half of the Jews who weren't citizens. Denying that the international community mentions the Palestinians right to return, repeatedly. Never mind the Nakba denial which permeates the Israeli society and some Jewish diaspora communities.
So are you the antipalestinian equivalent to an "antisemite", RJL? Or are your examples of antisemitism just laughable and you - like so many others - can't even explain why they are examples for antisemitism?
"as well as the blood libels. ... and then they use their blood for baking matzos ... but many of the Palestinians who are involved in BDS do believe these screeds, if you’d ask them. They aren’t the revered liberals you pretend they are."
Libel is libel, right?
"Oh yes, Israeli Jews harvest the organs of innocent Palestinians,"
Prof. Yehuda Hiss - former head of Israel's forensic institute - did. See
link to en.wikipedia.org
Shegetz says: "Don’t be an idiot by throwing around accusations of antisemitism then sitting there in a self-righteous huff – without even identifying what it is that’s upset your oh-so-fine tuned sensitivities."
Some need attention so much that they can't stand the idea of not being even hated.
giladg says: "Philip wears his emptiness on his sleeve."
Many spiritual leaders prefer emptiness to being so full of it.
Elliot says: "At their core, Christianity and Judaism oppose each other."
Please explain. I allways thought their core was monotheism.
talknic says: "Whether Israel is a democracy or not is completely irrelevant to Israel’s internationally recognized sovereign extent and its illegal activities as the Occupying Power over non-Israeli territory."
No it isn't. Because its "sovereign extent" is maintained by keeping Nonjews expelled and denationalized to keep them off from voting the real majority for a reunification of historic Palestine. And that's Apartheid, not democracy.
talknic says: "Israel has never legally acquired any territories beyond the boundaries Israel asked to be recognized ..."
So how did the Zionist Apartheid Junta legally acquire territory inside recognized boundaries? Recognition is not legitimation.
MHughes976 says: "In that case, there is no right to resist them."
People always have a right to resist anything which limits their right to self determination, even if an occupation is legally accepted, because it is only interim and doesn't serve colonial purposes or annexation.
"R.o.R., as pointed out, isn’t law, merely a GA wishlist."
I just explained to mondonut that and how it has become customary international law. But I'm afraid that it is still too difficult to breach the zionist perception barrier.
Mike_Konrad says: "Mondonut’s conclusion is right – whether or not his logic is right or flawed."
The UN has continously reaffirmed in countless resolutions that the RoR for the Palestinians in an an "inalienable right". The International Court of Justice would base an advisory opinion on this simple fact.
mondonut says: "The RoR is not International Law, and restating it hundreds of times doe not make it so. Nor does Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which does not establish law or rights."
UDHR and RoR have become customary international law. Custom is among the primary sources of international law and the RoR for Palestinians is generally accepted amongst the members of the UN.
mondonut says: "And certainly nothing about descendants."
See UNHCR family runification. It's nearly the same. UNHCR can also transfer the refugee statues to ascendants.
mondonut says: "There is nothing in 194 that constitutes International Law, or rights for that matter."
It's BASED on human rights.
mondonut says: "And it can be re-affirmed every day of the year and it still will not result in law or rights."
To the contrary. Continous reaffirmation is one way of creating customary international law.
RJL says: "Jewish Homeland"
Norman Bentwich's definition of "homeland", the first General Attorney of mandated Paletine and a Jewish Zionist:
"A national home, as distinguished from a state, is a country where a people are acknowledged as having a recognized legal position and the opportunity of developing their cultural, social and intellectual ideals without receiving political rights."
RJL says: "SC resolution 282; you know the drill."
You hit the nail on the head, RJL:
"United Nations Security Council Resolution 282, adopted on July 23, 1970, concerned by violations of the arms embargo passed against South Africa in Resolution 191, the Council reiterated its total opposition to the policies of apartheid and reaffirmed its previous resolutions on the topic. "
link to en.wikipedia.org
“Do you know any Arabs in London?”
Remember when it was considered a crime to know a Jew in Berlin?
talknic says: "It’s weird….
The Jewish Zionist state has for 64 years been in occupation of territories “outside the State of Israel”, slaughtering and dispossessing non-Jews in the process."
In occupation only outside of "Israel"?
Jews were not only a minority in overall Palestine, but even in the territory recommended by the partition plan. More then half of them weren't even citizens of Palestine and had not right to self determination in Palestine at all. So how many citizens of Palestine habitually and legally residing in the recommended territory - exercising their right to self determination - voted to live there under a Zionist regime? And when did the majority of them legally transfer any title to the territory to this regime? And to how many of them did this regime transfer its new citizenship as requested by customary international law and partition resolution?
What's the real difference between post 67 and post 47?
IL1948 says: "Hopefully it will deter others from trying to lie thier way in to our country. "
Like Ben Gurion who was a pseudo traveller who simply overstayed when his visa run out? Or do you mean the majority of Jews who didn't acquire Palestinian citizenship before 1948?
"There are dozens of people taking pictures and video at checkpoints and army outposts just hoping to catch an IDF soldier in a negative light."
We all know that these photos don't show reality but are intentionally made from viewpoints and under light conditions which can only be described as antisemitic.
"Pallywood Has plenty of photographers."
Is "Pallywood" the racist Zionist equivalent term to Nazi's "Judenpresse"?
I don't get why people come up with Apartheid six decades after the expulsion and denationalization of people who should have been Israelis. It was Apartheid right from the beginning.
Crime of Apartheid:
"inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Or didn't Jews commit inhumane acts or crimes against humanity by expelling and denationalizing Nonjewish citizens of Palestine and keep it this way to dominate and maintain their Zionist regime?
"All I kept thinking was, 'What about us?'"
You are just a second-class-citizen, and not part of the "Volksgemeinschaft".
Your right, Dickerson3870. The US is actually acting like a codependant:
"Codependency is defined as a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is controlled or manipulated by another who is affected with a pathological condition ... it refers to the dependence on the needs of, or control of, another. It also often involves placing a lower priority on one's own needs, while being excessively preoccupied with the needs of others. ... Codependency may also be characterized by denial, low self-esteem, excessive compliance, or control patterns. Narcissists are considered to be natural magnets for the codependent."
link to en.wikipedia.org
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database: 7% Jewish extremists, 6% Islamic extremist.
link to loonwatch.com
Raanan Geberer says: "And if you don’t believe in any of this, I feel sorry for you, because your lives are so much poorer and more prosaic for it."
So the lives of people who believe in other religions (even much older) than your Moshiachism "are so much poorer and more prosaic for it." That's the difference between us: I don't feel sorry for you - I laugh at you and at the inherent arrogance in your infantile fake sorrow.
It gets even better:
"March 22 'recalls the memory of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who taught generations of young men and women the importance of education and good character,' [Obama] wrote."
link to haaretz.com
And in 2011 Obama said: "[Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson's] legacy continues to inspire individuals to carry forward his effort to build a brighter future."
link to jta.org
Quote from Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson: "Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness."
I wonder why Goldberg writes that Obama is the most Jewish president ever.
ivri says: "Israel is the only place in the region where minorities are not in existential danger."
Isn't this lovely? How did they become a minority in the first place, ivri? And how does Israelthe majority to return?
IL1948 says: "who correctly point out that Israel is the only democracy in the region".
If a group has to keep people of different fait or ethnicity expelled and denationalized to maintain being the dominant group its Apartheid, not democrazy.
Of course it's sarcastic. Do you think that a Zioinst shmock would thank Obama for not seeing reality through the eyes of a Palastinian child?
In the last frame it says: "activestills.org"
link to activestills.org
RJL says: "And the one state myth flies not only in the face of brutal reality, and the carnage inflicted on Jewish citizens of arab states for centuries, but also against all international law and UNSC resolutions since 48. "
Ok, how about the following two state solution:
The Jews keep 22% of historic Palestine and give up Jerusalem. They won't live in an independant state but in a national home they can call a state, if they like. 60% of their territory will be controlled, borders and airspace too because of the behaviour of Jews in the past. If Palestinians want to settle illegaly in this territory then there will be land swaps. If Jews don't like this solution they are going to live under military control until they become Finns.
Sounds great? I have to admit that it's not my idea. I stole it from those who can't be compared to Nazis, because they don't gas their victims.
RJL says: "Annie, the Jews invaded land not designated for them by the partition?"
Just have a look:
link to passia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
"First of all, who started the war of 48?".
The party who needed a war to acquire territory for a future state.
"Who defended themselves, in a war of annihilation directed against them?"
Count those who were massacred or expelled.
"the miraculous Jewish ragtag army"
The one who had an agreement with Jordan to split up Palestine and was troubled only by it's army when it wanted to acquire Jerusalem? How many Arabs actually fought the Jews on the territory which was recommended considering the fact that the Palestinians were demilitarized by the Mandate power after the Arab revolt?
"what about from 48-67?"
You mean the time when the occupiers of Gaza and the West Bank stopped Jews frome more massacres and expulsion? What about it? They were welcomed.
"how it could/would possibly grant equality to the 5+million Jews living there, in the Middle East backdrop of unrelentless, genocidal hatred of Jews"
Funny that it wasn't a problem before Jews wanted to take over Palestine, massacred and expelled Palestinians, razed more than 400 villages, looted cities, took over homes and lands, stole their money from their bank accounts and embezzled what was left.
Even funnier how the "genocidal hatred" express in places were Jews and Palestinians still live side by side. Maybe the "genocidal hatred" is part of your psyche. Or do you accept what Jews did to Palestinians? In that case you don't have a problem, if Palestinians treat Jews like they treated Palestinians since 1948, right?
tree says: "Contemporary accounts say that the Jordanian forces, when they captured the Old city, asked the Jewish civilians under their control where they wanted to go, and were told the Jewish civilians wished to join their compatriots in West Jerusalem, controlled by Israel."
The Jews living in the Jewish quarter weren't asked. It was part of the terms of their surrender that Jewish women and children would leave the old city and able bodied men were held prisoners.
I highly doubt that the Jordans ever allowed them to return.
"Talkback, there you go again! Rewriting history. You find the truth and facts inconvenient to fit your warped zionist narrative…….."
You seem to confuse me with someone else. I'm an outspoken Antizionist.
"If you read what I wrote carefully, I said there were ALMOST no Jews in East Jerusalem in 1967. "
You were arguing against NormanF's claim that Jerusalem was a Jewish majority city by mentioning that there was "almost NO" Jew in East Jerusalem in 1967. And I argued that the reason for this is, because they were expelled.
"Depending on the source, the total number of Jews in East Jerusalem in 1967 was about 2,000 to 3,ooo. There were at least 20 to 30 times more Palestinians (Christians and Moslems) in East Jerusalem at that time. These are IMMUTABLE FACTS."
Which were never challenged by me.
Ramzi Jaber says: "When I was growing up, I would go often with my parents to Jerusalem. There were almost NO Jews at all living in East Jerusalem, before 67 and for several years after 67. "
You don't seem to consider that Jews who lived in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City were expelled by the Arab Legion in 1948.
link to en.wikipedia.org
@ Light.
The claim is correct. The Jewish Palestinians were a majority since then. Don't confuse the city Jerusalem with the much larger district called Jerusalem and in which the Arab Palestinians were a majority: link to passia.org
What I learned from Mondonut today:
The Nazis too had the right to expell and denationalize Jews and the Jews had no right to return, because Germany was a souvereign state and had the right to make respective racists laws. And the Nazis too didn't commit any racist crime especially not the crime of genocide against Jews, because no Geneva or Genocide Convention existed at this time. And international treaties like Conventions or the Declarations of Human Rights are not longer legally binding, if the General Assembly recognizes them in one of its resolutions.
If only you ignorant people would take more Ziocane to acknowledge Mondonut's ingenuity!
"their general coverage has served to destabilize regimes and favor some of the more extremist elements in the Arab world."
Of course very unlike US networks ...
Try Rwanda and Israel.
gingershot says: "If that makes me ‘anti-Semitic’ – so what? I could care less."
I still remembered when I cared. But then I found out that the accusers were unable to reasonably argue why anything I wrote or said would be antisemitic, because I never said a bad word about any people as such. And than I found out that the accusers were only trying to divert from their blatant racism.
justicewillprevail says:
"UN Watch, yet another arm of the Zio lobby (instigated by the AJC), posing as some sort of ‘independent’ organisation, and not revealing their bias or purpose."
Sounds as independent as the "American Center for Law & Justice".
The Inquisition accuses Richard Falk not only of heresy by thought and word but also of treason against the people. It's a clear case, because he allready confessed that the strongest scholarly virtue to him is to follow the path of evidence and reason wherever it leads.
‘Washington Post’ editorial says settlements don’t matter"
In Neocontopia neither the violation of the Geneva Convention nor the confiscation of private land or the exploitation of resources by an occupier "matter" and the obstacle rather is the "intransigence" of the occupied and their will to self-determination. What a suprise.
But what did the same paper wrote about Kosovo's "unilateral statehood recognition" on February 18, 2008? (Uuups, I replaced the political actors.)
"Editorials
Independent [Palestine]
THE DECLARATION of independence ... was both inevitable and long overdue. ...
... a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing by the [Israeli] army. That campaign and the years of repression that preceded it forfeited [Israel's] right to hold on to the [occupied territories]; ...
This logical step ... would have occurred years ago if not for the lingering and poisonous nationalism of [Israel] and its encouragement by [the presidents of the US] ...
In the end, though, a peaceful and prosperous future in the [Middle East] will depend on the [Israelis]. If they choose to break with their ugly history of nationalism and embrace a liberal democratic future inside the [Middle East], [Palestine's] course can also be smooth. If they choose endless and futile resistance to [Palestine's] independence, the [Israelis] will isolate themselves from [the United Nations] and likely become vassals of [the US]."
link to washingtonpost.com
Oh, and half a year before that:
"U.S. and European officials say that continued negotiations between [Israel] and [Palestine] hold no prospect of success, and that any further delay in clarifying [Palestine]'s legal status and its relationship with [Israel] could fuel a resumption of violence there."
link to washingtonpost.com
mondonut says: "It is not their’s yet, it still amounts to a claim, same for the Israelis."
Yeah Israel's territory is "disputed", too. But what gives Israel any legal entitlement to parts of Palestine, mondonut?
"Endless ‘debate over two-state solution’ is cover for the real story, annexation of West Bank".
From Israel's new speak dictionary:
"two-state-solution": bantustans for gentiles.
"peace process": conquest without resistance.
RoHa says: "Of course, when you say “compromise” you mean “give Israel everything it asks for”.
To mondonut 78% is not a "comprise", neither 55% and especially not the Balfour Declaration.
mondonut says:
"Nonetheless, you are correct that in the absence of a final agreement that what the Israelis refer to as disputed territories are NOT Israeli territories, but neither are they Palestinian."
So you actually slept through many decades of UN ruling and an ICJ advisory opinion that the territories are Palestinians territories occupied by Israel and since the UN upgrade are officially part of a Palestinian STATE.
I would love Mondoweiss to give of some space to support Mr. Falk.
Really, Oleg? What about family reunification or the right of return? Same for Jews and Arabs?
Kate, there's a typo error in the headline. Its not 2,500 shekels, but 52,500 shekels (about 14,000 US$). Could you please change the title and also put in brackets how much US$ it is? I'm sure most that most don't even the international value of a shekel.
Why did the IDF initially said that the boy arrived "about 6:30 pm" link to ynetnews.com allthough it was 8:10 pm?
Why did the IDF initially say that "when one of the soldiers asked him to present identification, the youth attacked him, pulling a gun and holding it to the soldier's head" link to ynetnews.com allthough it is clear from the video that the boy presented him the identification card? Compare this to "As one of the officers was inspecting [!] the ID card, the boy began to beat him with his fists, knocked him down and pulled out a gun. ... fired two [!] bullets at the teen." link to israelnationalnews.com
Why did the IDF cut out 20 seconds between presenting the ID card and attacking (which is at least one reason to blur out the time stamp in their first video)?
Why did the IDF cut out the third and final shot?
Why was the boy shot into abdomen and chest? link to ynetnews.com
Why did the IDF claim that the "youth was critically injured and rushed to a local hospital, where he died of his wounds" allthough he "died on the way to the hospital" link to israelnationalnews.com and "the Palestinian EMTs that arrived at the scene were not allowed to take him to a hospital"? link to ynetnews.com. Why weren't they allowed?
In reality the "security prisoners" (de facto all Palestinians, except one) studying also the complicity of State Attorneys in genocides commited by racist states which make a de jure and de facto difference between its citizens based on heritage or religion.
Or of inhaling to much odour of a burning bush.
dimadok says: "And yes 7200 Bnei Menashe will surely make a demographic shift Israel needs so badly. Sigh…"
But wouldn't they be a great asset to the Zionist fortified Mega Shtetl, if it was them commiting suicide which is the primary cause of soldier's death since the 2. Intifada? Or make them live in Southern border towns where they can act as human shields to its Apartheid policies? The ZfMS can always use less educated rocket fodder who cannot dream about moving or emigrating to a less dangerous place.
OlegR says:"Actually the fired a rocket towards the sea in a rocket test, not at Israel.
And i guess the rest of the info is just as reliable."
Not the rest of information is very reliable. Because unlike the information you're refering to it's not from your beloved Apartheid force Propaganda Office (see link).
Facepalm.
Hasbara refers to this as "Israel is showing restraint while being under constant rocket fire."
“offensive to Jewish eyes”
Imagine someone would say that the Menorah is offensive to Nonjewish eyes. You would call him an antisemite. But failed souls like Rabbi Isaiah Herzl are not even aware of their blatant racism.
marc b. says: "you need a logic mentor. he doesn’t make a distinction, he implies (ya see the word ‘implication’?) that criticism of israel on campus was/is (and ‘was’ always ‘is’ in these matters) inextricably linked to anti-jewish and anti-semitic sentiments."
Here's some logic mentoring for you.
He didn't say (or endorse) that A (critism of Israel) is B (Antisemitism) He didn't say anything about A or B. He was talking about C (the feelings of some Jewish students). They felt that the context was not only explicit A, but ALSO "BY implication" [not explicit or expressis verbis, but implicit] B. Now if something is not only A, but also B than A and B are obviously distinct.
Of course you may not only feel distinct about this but you may ALSO feel that he, by implication, endorsed that A is B.
"Criticizing Israel is anti-Semitic"
He didn't say that. He said that "some students ... didn’t feel that the basic context in which they found themselves wasn’t hugely not just anti-Israel, but by implication, anti-Jewish, and anti-Semitic".
He makes a distinction between anti-israel on the one hand and anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic on the other hand. And he was only talking about the feelings of some students.
Your 'interpretation' is pretty slanderous and not serving truth.
I agree, OlegR. Israel and its dishonest supporters are much worse than they are.
Tell me Obsidian. What do you think about this:
Unedited Radio Transmission Between Gaza Flotilla and Israeli Navy
link to youtube.com
Possible answers:
1.) It is real.
2.) It is an audio montage including hilarious editing errors and sloppy fabricated anti-israel messages.
Because they had to search for a similar video in their archives?
Hostage: "There’s nothing dishonest about it. You and the other commenters here insinuate ..."
Stop being dishonest! For the third time, this is what I excactly wrote: "in 1916 Aqaba was NOT part of the the “OTTOMAN VILAYET of Hedjaz”, but of the OTTOMAN VILAYET of Syria. And Aqaba and Maan were captured in 1917 and the KINGDOM of Hedjaz claimed posession by right of conquest”.
Leatherdale writes that Aqaba (since 1910) and Maan (since 1890) were administered by the Ottoman Vilayet of Damascus (Syria) and were captured in 1917 and that Husein laid claim to the region on the additional, secular grounds of conquest.
So stop twisting my words, because you can't refute what Leatherdale and I wrote, which is basically the same.
Hostage: "The notion that people living in Warsaw, Berlin, Constantinople, Paris, or London held better title to any part of Arabia just doesn’t pass the laugh test."
Neither does the notion that they held better title to any part of Palestine, right?
Hostage : "The majority opinion not only addressed cases where declarations were promulgated in paragraph 79, it also noted that new States had been created in some cases and that state practice indicated there was no prohibition in any of those cases."
Wrong again. The ICJ only noted that state practice indicated that there was no prohibition of promulgating independance in any of those cases.
Hostage: "I never said the Jewish Agency or the Arab Higher Committee became states. Vaad Lemui certainly did. ..."
Fair enough, but you also claim that the state existed only because of the recommendation for a plan two create two states and because it was adopted and that it was legally binding. Even the late ICJ president won't find anything in the UN article he refers to, to support his claim. The fact that the Security Council didn't accept GA RES 181 and instead released SEC RES 46 asking the Jewish Agency not to declare independancy
pending further considerations of the future Goverment of Palestine proves that 181 was not legally binding at all for any party. SEC RES 64 may have not been legally binding for the Jewish Agency, but it certainly was for the UN Members because of article 25. And since the declaration violated SEC RES 46 the members were obliged not to recognize it.
But you don't even want to answer my repeated questions on what territory exactly did Jewish Palestinian seperatists had the right to secede from Palestine and if we’re talking about 25% of Jewish citizens of Palestine in 1948 (Jewish refugees and not yet naturalized immigrants excluded) what territory exactly would the 25% Nonjews in Israel have the right to secede? You know why you don't want to answer, don't you.
Hostage: "No member of the Council ever suggested that it had the legal consequence of preventing the declaration of the State of Israel."
The objections go far beyond that. Syria's draft proposal in the Security council December 1948 which was supported by Belgium while the other members only abstained:
"DECIDES to request an advisory legal opinion of the International Court of Justice under Article 96 of the Charter and chapter IV of the Statute of
the Court on the following questions:
1. Do the recommendations of the General Assembly in the resolution of 29 November 1947 for a partition plan with economic union, which was
rejected by the Arabs of Palestine, create right to the Jewish minority to proclaim their separate state at the termination of the Mandate on the
area assigned to them by that resolution?
2. What is the international status of Palestine at the termination of the Mandate on 15 May 1948?
3. Under the present circumstances would the Security Council be acting in comformity with the United Nations Charter and the international law if it recommended the admission of the State of Israel to membership in the United Nations?
4. Is the General Assembly empowered to partition Palestine between Arabs and Jews without consulting the lawful inhabitants of the country in securing their consent?"
link to unispal.un.org
And in this document you find the rejected proposal of the Subcommitee Nr. 2 before the adoption of the partition plan, starting at DRAFT RESOLUTION REFERRING CERTAIN LEGAL QUESTIONS
TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE:
link to unispal.un.org
The proposal to refer the question in point (viii) to the ICJ was rejected only by 21 to 20 votes: "(viii) Whether the United Nations, or any of its Member States, is competent to enforce or recommend the enforcement of any proposal concerning the constitution and future Government of Palestine, in particular, any plan of partition which is contrary to the wishes, or adopted without the consent of, the inhabitants of Palestine."
It's clear that international law was avoided and justice was denied.
@ Hostage
You wrote: "In any event, the attempts by you and others here to portray the Hashemites as foreigners in parts of historical Hedjaz or to deny that they had actually administered the parts that were subsequently annexed to Transjordan on behalf of the Ottoman’s – as part of the Hedjaz, long before Faisal liberated them or Abdullah took up residence in Maan, are obviously shopworn propaganda."
No, it's just your third dishonest insinuation, because it is clear that I only wrote: "in 1916 Aqaba was NOT part of the the “OTTOMAN VILAYET of Hedjaz”, but of the OTTOMAN VILAYET of Syria. And Aqaba and Maan were captured in 1917 and the KINGDOM of Hedjaz claimed posession by right of conquest." It's still correct, no matter how you're trying to spin it. Even if the Kingdom of Hedjaz CLAIMED them to be part of the KINGDOM of Hejaz it's still wrong to say that they were part of (or administered by) he Ottoman Vilayet of Hedjaz, since the Kingdom was not even Ottoman.
You wrote: "You are quoting a “dissenting” minority opinion of Judge Koroma. None of the other Justices joined-in or subscribed to that view.
I'm terribly sorry that I couldn't quote Jacob Robinson, Hersh Lauterpacht, Taslim Olawale Elias or two Security Council members expressing their doubts. But Judge Koroma was "dissenting", because he (I haven't read all opionions) was actually dealing with the question, if secession was in accordance with international law and not only if the mere promulgation of independance was.
You quote: "1) the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between sovereign States (Paragraph 80); [so it cannot apply to cases of secession at all]".
Judge Keith in the same case: "12. While the Council “[r]eaffirm[ed] the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”, the effect of the resolution, as long as it remained in effect, was to displace the administrative and related functions of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which it would otherwise have exercised through its institutions as the sovereign over the territory of Kosovo."
It's clear that a "commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity" or its opposition (recognition of secession) lies within "the sphere of relations between souvereign states". It just shows again the limited approach of the ICJ trying to avoid the question of "the legal consequences of that declaration" in general and in this particular case.
You quote: "I only said that the ICJ found that there was no prohibition against secession in general international law, ..."
And you still are wrong, because the ICJ only concluded that there was no prohibition against the mere "act of promulgating the declaration" in international law. (I know, it sounds ridiculous.)
You wrote: "LOL! You’ve gotta be kidding! ..."
You're avoiding my objections.
You're trying to make the case that the Jewish state was allready a state actor in November 1947. Fair enough. But at the same time you're trying to make the case that it wasn't a state actor in April 1948 and therefore SEC RES 46 was not legally binding for it. How do you explain this contradiction?
And how do you explain that SEC RES 46 asks both "organisations" (not states) to refrain from political acts which might prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either community, if the position of the Arab community was, that neither an "Arab" nor a "Jewish" state should be created at all within the state of Palestine, but that the latter should be released into independence?
@ Hostage
First of all thank you for quoting from "Britain and Saudi Arabia 1925-1939" which proves that my claim that in "1916 Aqaba was NOT part of the the “OTTOMAN VILAYET of Hedjaz”, but of the OTTOMAN VILAYET of Syria. And Aqaba and Maan were captured in 1917 and the KINGDOM of Hedjaz claimed posession by right of conquest" is correct.
Second, it was allready said that the ICJ only handled the question, if the mere ACT OF DECLARING independancy was prohibited by international law and not, if SECESSION in general or in the particular case was in accordance with international law. And it was allready said that secession without consent is in general not in accordance with international law, because it upholds the territorial integrity of a state and that a none state actor could only make a case for remedial secession which is not based on right, but on recognition.
Third, it's quite headspinning how you (and neither Lauterpacht nor Judge Elaraby) try to make the case that the Jewish Agency had allready become a state actor in 1947 based on the General Assembly RECOMMENDATION to become one and at the same time that AS NON STATE ACTORS the explicitly named "Jewish Agency for Palestine" and "Arab Higher Committee" were not bound by a Security Coucil resolution in April 1948 CALLING them to refrain from - to put it simple - becoming one "pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly".
@ Hostage
You wrote: "Aqaba was part of OTTOMAN VILAYET of Hedjaz long before Feisal’s forces liberated it in the war of independence." and "The Sharif of Mecca issued a unilateral Declaration of the Independence of Arabia (Arabistan) June 27, 1916. It not only included both Maan and Aqaba, …"
In 1916 Aqaba was NOT part of the the "OTTOMAN VILAYET of Hedjaz", but of the OTTOMAN VILAYET of Syria. And Aqaba and Maan were captured in 1917 and the KINGDOM of Hedjaz claimed posession by right of conquest.
The liked article doesn't prove otherwise as nothing you have so far presented can prove 'no prohibition of secession' or "Jewish state was in existence in April [1944].
Is this the reason for your ad hominem attacks?
@ Sibiriak
Excerpts of UK correspondce with the Palestine Arab Delegation in 1922:
UK: "His Majesty's Government are ready and willing to grant to the people of Palestine the greatest measure of independence consistent [!] with the fulfilment of the pledges [national home) referred to. ...
... High Commissioner ... :
'These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants.'
This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. ...
Mr. Churchill has already explained in paragraph 4 of this letter why His Majesty's Government are not prepared at the present stage to provide for the creation of a national independent Government in Palestine, ..."
Arab delegation: "In Article II of the Draft Mandate we read "The Administration may arrange with the Jewish Agency mentioned in Article IV to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration."
This Article gives this Jewish agency (The Zionist Organisation) the monopoly of all public works and natural resources of Palestine. No competition is provided for, either by the Arabs alone, or by Arabs in conjunction with British firms who are excluded by these terms. We will quote one example—the Rutenberg Concession—to prove this. This concession was made to Mr. Rutenberg without having been put out to public tender." [I think this was the Mavrommatis case in the international court.]
link to unispal.un.org
@ Hostage
You wrote: "You and your friends here keep ignoring the results of the Arab war of independence, by pretending that T.E. Lawrence was the successor to the Ottoman state."
Another silly insinuation. Could you at least try to be honest? I only provided maps which show that Kingdom of Hejaz didn't include the Sanjak of Maan. You haven't provided any better map (as far as I can tell, because you answer in multiple comments, which is difficult to follow).
@ Hostage:
You wrote: "The Sharif of Mecca issued a unilateral Declaration of the Independence of Arabia (Arabistan) June 27, 1916. It not only included both Maan and Aqaba, ..."
Last time I checked, he only declared the independance of the Vilayet Hejaz and declared himself King of the Hejaz and of ALL ARABS, not of Arabistan, which didn't even include the Vilayet of Hejaz. And in 1916 Maan and Aqaba lied in the Sanjuk of Maan which was part of the Vilayet of Syria which lied north of the Vilayet of Hejaz. Can you provide any different map of the Kingdom of Hejaz than this two? link to en.wikipedia.org
link to fanack.com
You wrote: "No, I’m citing paragraphs from the ICJ advisory opinion and the San Remo resolution about the existing rights of the Non-Jewish communities of Palestine,and you are the one who claims that doesn’t mean the same Palestinian people that Khalidi is talking about."
What a silly insinuation. I only wrote that Khalidi bases his arguments on a different meaning of the term Palestinians than you do, because you wrote that "all of the communities mentioned in the “Mandate for Palestine” were Palestinian ones".
You wrote: "The Jewish community had already enjoyed local autonomy under the Ottomans for centuries. They had their own government organs, courts, schools, communal lands, & etc."
You didn't answer my question. What territory exactly did Jewish Palestinian seperatists had the right to secede from Palestine? And if we're talking about 25% of Jewish citizens of Palestine in 1948 (Jewish refugees and not yet naturalized immigrants excluded) what territory exactly would the 25% Nonjews in Israel have the right to secede?
You wrote: "I also cited the written opinions of 30 or more interested state parties who said that when the inhabitants of a portion of the territory of an existing state issue a unilateral declaration of independence, it is by definition, an act of secession under the terms of general international law. Can you provide another definition?"
I don't have to. The ICJ made clear that there's a difference between the mere act of declaring indenpendance and its legal consequences and that it wasn't asked about the latter. It was right from its narrow point of view.
You wrote: "But like I said, the majority opinion said there was no provision in general international law that prohibited the ethnic,
linguistic or religious groups in Kosovo from breaking their territory away from Serbia’s without its consent;-)"
Absence of prohibition or recognition is neither permission nor entitlement. And what do you mean by "majority opinion"? The General Assembly made sure that Serbia's real question was never put through to the ICJ. And the ICJ made sure only to decide on the mere act of declaring independancy and not if the secession itself was in accordance with international law.
You wrote: "In the Kosovo case the US and UK expressed doubt that UN Security Council resolutions are binding on non-State actors or non-member states which have no Charter obligations."
Well, you know how schizo they are. They would never doubt that, if they would pass a Security Council resolution calling Palestinians to do or abstain from certain actions.
You wrote: "In any event, the Jewish state ceased to be a proposal on the day that the General Assembly adopted its resolution. It was already in existence by April in accordance with the terms of the General Assembly resolution itself."
You really want to argue that the state of Palestine simply ceased to exist on November 29, 1947, because the General Assembly adopted a
RECOMMENDATION for a PLAN for partition which was neither accepted by all concerning parties (which means without consent) nor by the Security Council (which was requested to accept it, too) and therefore not only a Jewish state but also an Arab (even a failed) state came into existence? That's even funnier than the stuff Eli Hertz writes. ROFL
Hostage says: "I don't,"
Do you understand, that Khalidi's arguments are based on a different meaning of the term "Palestinian" than the meaning your counter arguments are based on, no matter whose definition is legitimate or not?
You say: "We’ve already shown that Article 7 of the Mandate required Jews to be treated as Palestinian citizens and nationals."
Do you understand, that Khalidi didn't criticize if Jews required to be treated as Palestinian citizens and nationals by the Mandate, but that he claims that they were granted privileges which weren't granted to other communities, especially not the one representing about 90% of the citizens of Palestine (see Siberiak's abundant quotes form the mandate or Khalidi) no matter if his claims are right or wrong?
You say: "In paragraph 84 it concluded that there was no prohibition in general international law against unilateral declarations of independence."
Glad, you found your mistake. The ICJ didn't conclude that there's no prohibition against SECESSION in international law, but that there's no prohibition against the ACT of making a DECLARATION of independancy in INTERNATIONAL law, because "only domestic constitutional
law governs the act of making such a declaration".
Now about secession, Judge Koroma in the same case:
"4. ... International law does not confer a right on ethnic, linguistic or religious groups to break away from the territory of a State of which they form part, without that State’s consent, merely by expressing their wish to do so. ...
21. ... The principle of respect for territorial integrity is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and other international instruments. ...
22. Not even the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as precepts of international law allow for the dismemberment of an existing State without its concent. ..."
That should be enough to find, that Israel's secession wasn't in accordance with international law, because the Goverment of Palestine did never consent. The citizens of Palestine were never asked to decide on this domestic, internal issue. The General Assembly even declined the idea of a referendum. The secession was nothing else than a coup d'état carried out by paramilitary and terrorist organisations of the Zionist Junta and only by violence and expulsion, not by consent.
And even the mere act of declaring independence itself violated S/RES/46, 14. April 1948:
"1. Calls ... upon the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency, to take immediately ... the following measures: ...
(d) Refrain, pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly, from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims or position of either community;"
link to unispal.un.org"
@ Sibiriak
I second your comments.
Hostage says: "That’s his [Khalidi's] problem."
No Hostage, it's not his problem if you base your pseudo counter arguments on a different meaning of the term "Palestinian".
He means the Arabs of Palestine. You mean the (Jewish, Arab, etc.) citizens of Palestine in mandate times. He critizes that the Jews in Palestine were treated as people/nation of their own [instead of being treated as Palestinan citizens/nationals] while the (Arab) Palestinians were not treated the same way [but only as being a non-Jewish community within a nation/people].
"Majority rule doesn’t mean that the Palestinian Arab ones could veto the right of the indigenous Jewish community to determine its own political status."
Majority rules means that the majority has the right to decide the future of the country, including immigration politics and also the question of partition and secession. But neither were the citizens of Palestine asked in 1917 or 1947, nor did the General Assembly or the Security Council support several proposals to let the ICJ handle the case.
On the one side you argue Palestinans (as a nation including Jews and Nonjews) were granted the right to self determination. On the other side you make a special case for a minority group. But you don't make the same case (and that's what Khalidi critizes) for the majority group. It's you who is reiterating Zionist propaganda that a certain minority group would have the implicit right to destroy the territorial integrity of Palestine.
"The ICJ explained in the Kosovo case that nothing in international law prohibits secession."
You're utterly wrong about its explanation. It didn't even touch secession or its legality. And to think that secession (offensive right to self determination of a minority) would outweigh the defensive right of the majority is equally wrong. Maybe except in cases of remedial secession (as one could argue in favour for the Kosovarians), which is not based on any entitlement, only on recognition.
But for the sake of argument. On how many % of Palestine do you think did the Jewish community have the right to 'determine its own political status' on the day of proclamation? And please explain your number.
Because it was not the case that the inhabitants of a distinct - let's say - region or district of the country wanted to seperate from the rest of it and all the Nonjewish inhibitants became automatically members of this group, which means Jews. Are we talking about the 6% Jewish owned and scattered land for - well - how many Jews actually? Immigrants who haven't acquired citizenship yet don't have any political rights. Given (iirc) three years of naturalization in Palestine this would exclude any immigrant or refugee trying to apply citizenship later than one week after the capitulation of Germany.
And if we are in fact talking about 25% of Jewish Palestinians or even less - do the 25% or less non-Jews in Israel have a right to secession, too? Let's say 78% of Israel which seems to be a reasonable and peaceful solution number. And if the Jewish Israelis try to prevent this violently we just tell everyone that they rejected partition and chose war instead.