Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2339 (since 2011-08-30 20:10:31)


Since I left the Jewish cage I feel like a free human being.

Showing comments 2339 - 2301

  • Video: Support for one democratic state grows as Palestinians lose hope in two-state solution
  • The Palestinian state never had a chance: a review of Toufic Haddad's 'Palestine Ltd: Neoliberalism and Nationalism in the Occupied Territory'
    • Talknic: "A) Why did Israel wait until the eve of the expiration of the British administration of Palestine before they declared? B) Why was it only effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948, one minute AFTER British control ended?"

      Because otherwise they would have been technically in war with Great Britain. That's the reason why the Arab armies waited, too.

      Jon66: "... what prevented this action in 1948 when they actually controlled significant territory?"

      It was not only the Arab's legal position that Palestine became independent with the termination of the mandate. So there was no need to declare statehood or an "independant state". The Arab states tried multiple times to bring that up before the UN. Before UNSCOP, during UNSCOP and after UNSCOP. They even tried in the Security Council. But back every request request to let the International Court of Justice decide on this matter was prevented.

      They also didn't declare statehood within partition borders, because Security Council resolution 46 in April 1948 asked both parties to abstain from declaring statehood "pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly". The Jewish Agency violated this resolution with their declaration of statehood. Read:


      On April 17, the Security Council passed a resolution on a truce in Palestine which was accepted by the representative of Syria on the Security Council and later by all the Arab States. Since that date the Zionists did their best to avoid the implications of that resolution by creating a fait accompli which changed radically the situation to the detriment of the Arab population of Palestine. In accordance with that policy, the Zionists attacked the unarmed Arab civilian population by taking advantage of the last days of the mandate. They dominated the Arab towns which they could take by force whether they were totally or partly Arab in population like Jaffa, Haifa, Tiberias, Safad, and Acre. Massacres of unparalleled savagery followed, like the massacre of Deir Yessin, and the massacre of Nasiriddin, near Tiberias. Moreover, one quarter of a million of the Arab civilian population left their homes and took refuge in the neighbouring Arab countries.

      Upon the termination of the mandate, the Zionists attacked Jerusalem ignoring the cease-fire order previously agreed upon by both sides, as well as the truce agreement presented by the Mandatory Power with the concurrence of the Truce Commission and the Arabs themselves on May 12. On May 14, the Zionists proclaimed their State without any attention to the Security Council's resolution of April 17. The resolution was observed by the Arabs of Palestine and the Arab States by not proclaiming their Palestine State. In that situation, and in view of the continuous terrorist activities, the Arab States had no alterative but to take coordinated action to preserve the Arabs of Palestine including repatriation of the quarter million displaced Arabs as well as to restore peace and order.

      Now, and after the Jews had taken the utmost advantage to change the political and military status before May 15 in utter disregard of the Security Council's resolution of April 17, the Arab States are now asked to stop their measures to protect themselves and restore peace and order."

    • There's no such thing as a "pre-requisite for declaring independence". There is a pre-requisite for recognizing or attaining the "independence" ("sovereignty") of a state which implies control of the territory.

  • The truck attack that killed four Israeli soldiers in Jerusalem was not 'terrorism'
    • Because Shalit was treated the same way Israelis treat Palestinans, including children, in prolonged administrative detention.

  • The mainstreaming of Palestinian genocide
    • "Today a soldier who killed a terrorist who deserved to die, who tried to slaughter [another] soldier, was placed in shackles and convicted as a criminal”, Bennett declared."

      According to Bennet's reasoning every Israeli soldier who only tries to kill a Palestinian deserves to die.

  • Democratic politicians want no part of Obama's courage at the U.N.
    • Translation:

      "one-sided" or "biased" or "anti-Israel" means, that only Palestinians have to abide to international and humanitarian law or other obligations

      "terrorism" means that Palestinians don't have the right to resist the occupation or defend themselves, even when they don't attack civilians, while Jewish soldiers are allowed to attack Palestinian civilians with impunity and based upon terrorist military doctrines (like "Dahiya") while protecting settlers who terrorize Palestinian civilians

      "incitement" means that only Israeli Jews are allowed to make maximalist territorial claims, to call more war crimes in Israel's parliament and to insult and incite against Palestinans there, in public or in religous places

      "unilateral" means that Palestinians are not allowed to take legitimate actions to implement their rights

      "through direct negotiations between the parties, not with imposed solutions” means that Israel should be allowedby the international community to keep the Palestinans occupied as long as it takes to impose its own solution with impunity, if Palestinians don't give up their legitimate rights and subjugate to Israel's illegitimate demands

      "delegitimize Israel" means anything that doesn't legitimate Israel's violation of international and humanitarian law

  • Terrorism: How the Israeli state was won
    • @Bar Kochbar

      > "Jews have always lived in the region."

      So did Nonjews.

      > Jerusalem has only ever been the capital of a state 3 times, all 3 times Jewish.

      Jerusalem was also the capital city of the mandated State of Palestine.

      > 1937 saw the Peel plan recommendation for division, rejected by the Arabs.

      Now why would a country's majority allow the violation of their country's territorial integrity and the "cumpolsary transfer" of people? Would Israeli Jews allow this?

      > Talking of Nazis, why did the grand Mufti of Jerusalem live in Berlin during the war?

      He thought that the Nazis would win and then help Palestinians with their national inspirations (and against Zionism). That's the same reason why the Jewish terror organisation Lehi contaced the Nazis to ally with them.

      > The photos of Israelis using skunk may be unpleasant but no one has died of it, ..."

      I guess it's ok for you, if nonlethal,disgusting chemicals are used against Jews, too.

      "I have visited Israel and stayed in some pretty nice hotels where the inhabitants are very religious Jews and Moslems (they both come from Abraham) and they get on absolutely fine."

      Before Zionism: The shared life of Jews and Palestinians

      > Given the rumoured Nukes, planes, tanks and so forth Israel has to be in the Guinness Book of records for the worst attempt of Genocide since Fluffy the rabbit.

      You obviously don't understand the definition of Genocide.

      > the good news is that Jew-Haters now talk about constraining settlements now not the sea flowing with Jewish blood – so progress at last.

      The bad news is that Nonjew-Haters think that the job of "flowing the sea" with Nonjewish "blood" is unfinished.

      > In perspective, the rumoured numbers of deaths by these Zionists is less than Lawnmowers kill in the USA in a year. "

      Oh, so its ok to kill Jews, too, as long as it is not more than 20,000 in one go?

      > As regards 1937 division refusal – 80 years – in your comfy armchair and typing on a web site is easy to State “quite-right” don’t settle for it… After all it is better to stand by principles than resolve anything ever…"

      How about the century long refusal of Zionists to allow Palestine to be the country of its citizens and instead aiming of taking over the whole country and either dominating or getting rid of its majority? Is that your solution?

  • Resolution for 2017: Stop substituting 'the occupation' for 'Zionism'
    • Stop substituting ‘the occupation’ for ‘settler colonialism’!

    • The only problem is that all of the historic events happened a long time ago when people didn't care about international law, humanitarian law or human rights. The invasion and conquest of land, genocide, expulsion, dispossesion and subjugation of people was "normal" and often based on historical or religious claims.

      But I guess that the rest of humanity doesn't want to be dragged back to bible times, the middle age or even before 1945 by die-hards who simply want the rebirth of supremacy through anchronistic, immoral means.

    • Sibiriak: "Baker makes the essential claim that Israel is not an occupier, because he says that international law defines occupation as “one power occupying the lands of a foreign sovereign”. "

      So according to Baker, Netanyahu and other Hasbara trolls Jordanian was never an occupier and its annexation of the Westbank and East Jerusalem were legal. Therefore the Geneva Conventions are applicable and Israel's settlements and its annexation of East Jerusalem are illegal.

      Absolutely brilliant reasoning!

  • UN resolution on settlements is a step back for Palestinians
    • Sibiriak: "There’s no “sleight of hand”– it’s all out in the open. Rightly or wrongly, negotiated land swaps have been an explicit part of the international two-state consensus for a very long time."

      So which side achieved an advantage in negotiation about land swaps, if the dismantlement of all settlements is not longer demanded?

  • A bi-national, democratic state is the only option Israel and Kerry has left us with
    • Abunimah's reference to the Dayton peace agreement is priceless!

      "5. Refugees and Displaced Persons. All refugees and displaced persons have the right freely to return to their homes of origin. They have the right, in accordance with Annex 7 to the General Framework Agreement, to have restored to them property of which they were deprived in the course of hostilities since 1991 and to be compensated for any such property that cannot be restored to them. Any commitments or statements relating to such property made under duress are null and void."

  • Why Obama waited 8 years to take on Netanyahu
    • mccohen: "The UN holds that the lands in question are subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies whenever a High Contracting Party (HCP) i.e., a country which signed the convention, belligerently occupies the land of another HCP."

      Nope. That's just one Israel's perverted representations of international law.

      The V. Geneva Convention clearly states in article 2, paragraph 1:
      "... the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."

      The two HCPs were Israel and Jordan, therefore the Convention is applicable.

      But Israel 1.) deliberately focuses on article 2, paragraph 2 and 2.) deliberately twists the word "also" into "only" and 3.) perverts its whole meaning:

      "The Convention shall ALSO apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, EVEN if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."

      So this is an addition, not a restriction.

      The International Court of Justice explained:
      "The object of the second paragraph of Article 2, which refers to “occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party”, is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph, by excluding therefrom territories not falling under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties, but simply to making it clear that, EVEN if occupation effected during the conflict met no armed resistance, the Convention is still applicable."

      So whether the Westbank is part of a territory of a High Contracting party or not doesn't even matter. But let me remind you that the State of Palestine is a High Contracting Party of the Geneva Conventions since April 2014 and contrary to Israel - ratified its additional protocols I and II, too.

    • falcon170170: "Here’s something else 90% of Americans don’t know, the ‘settlements’ are NOT illegal."

      Here's something that 90% of Hasbara trolls don't know, everybody knows they are lying and having a laugh at them.

      So whose 'legal expertise' is it going to be this time that is able to outweigh the advisory opinion of International Court of Justice, the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, every UN member except Israel, every human rights organisation and when it comes to the fact that the Westbank is under belligerent occupation even the Supreme Court of Israel?

      Is it the old "British Mandate preamble - UN article 80" sketch? Or the "Missing Reversioner" routine? Anything that isn't a bizarre misinterpretation of international law in bad faith and shared by more than one expert of international right who isn't a Jewish Zionist or on Israel's payroll (like for example Wolf Heintschel von Heinegg in Israel's infamous Turkel Commission)?

      Please falcon170170, make our day.

    • DaBakr;: "Roberts can do whatever they want with a company their father built from dust without being associated with a racist bigoted conspiracy obsession the owner of this blog promotes. that you consider them part of your fantastical conspiracy is just one more proof of why PW will always be considered a jew-hater who happens to be jewish and owns a blog which has consistently been labeled a “hate site"

      So Roberts hasn't shown ardent support for Israel, by raising money for Israel’s soldiers and the accusation that he is one of many Jews who are lobbying for Israel is not only bad, but a defamation of Jews as such. And if you and others consistently accuse Weiss of being a Jew hater and Mondoweiss of being a hate site than this is proof that both is true.

      Are you intentionally trying to be that stupid?

  • The formal end of the two-state solution
    • Yonah Fredman: "... I favor annexing the west bank and in a timely fashion giving all its inhabitants full citizenship. ... investigating each prospective new citizen for terrorist roots ..."

      It's understandable that you favor the war crime of annexation and wouldn't favor investigating any present citizen for war crime roots (after the annexation). I guess that you even consider acts of resistance against an occupying force as "terrorism". Is there anything else you favor from a policy that was declared a war crime after 1945, Yonah?

  • Hear O Israel these parting truths -- John Kerry
    • "What kind of subjugation of Palestinians is consistent with Jewish religious and moral values?"

      Whose Jewish religious and moral values? Those who want to keep Palestinians expelled and pretend that only what happened after 1967 is immoral and deserves to be undone?

  • John Kerry gives the 'separate but not equal' speech to Israel
    • Both are German words. "Menschheit" means humanity and "Menschlichkeit" means humaneness. But you were right about yiddish using "Mentshlekhkeyt" (מענטשלעכקייט).

  • 'Focus is on Palestinians,' says New York Times, but it quotes only one
    • "By declaring Israeli settlements illegal, [Israelis said], the United Nations essentially took away the one chip that Israel had to trade, meaning land."

      The settlements weren't declared illegal. It was reaffirmed that they are illegal. And Israel cannot trade what it legally doesn't posess. That's only the logic of a hostage taker and extortionist.

  • Scenes from a neoconservative meltdown
  • Rallies in 25 cities say 'No to Islamophobia; No to Racism: Yes to Justice'
  • Israel's political left also condemns the UN's anti-settlement resolution
    • The "because" was connected. ;)

    • Let's keep one thing clear. There is a left amongst Israelis. But usually what is called "left" in Israel's political arena is the left wing of right extremist nationalism. You know, the kind of right extremist nationalism that differentiates between nationals and citizens based on heritage and or faith.

    • Yonah Fredman: "If one terms this as: un declares jewish presence at wailing wall is war crime, then the center left sees this as a danger and an assault."

      I understand Israel's "center left". Because I don't understand why countries with a Christian majority don't even try to invade and occupy Jerusalem to make sure, that their citizens have free access to holy cites. It would be a danger and an assault if Israel would treat them as criminals.

      At least from a center left point of view. That is "center left" by Israeli standards. In my country it's called fanatical religious right extremism .. like Jihadism.

  • Trump appoints ex-Israeli settler to oversee peace process
  • Netanyahu accuses Obama of betraying 'commitment' to Israel and initiating U.N. resolution
    • Nothing has changed when it comes to the longstanding policy of the US and every other member of the UN when it comes to the illegality of settlements. The only thing that has changed is the amount of hysteria and madness from Israel and its supporters, simply because this policy and international law was reaffirmed.

      For example the constantly whining Morton Klein, President of the ZOA: "Obama has made it clear that he's a Jew-hating, anti-Semite." Who is he even trying to reach with such idiocies?

      I've read a lof ot comments in foreign media outlets in the last days and the common sense nowadays is that the people are clearly fat up with Israel, it's crimes against the Palestinians and it's pathological arrogance and insults,if someone criticizes this. That Israel's settlement violates international law is not even a topic, except for a few who don't even longer bother to hide that they are Zionist extremists.

      I can't see how brand Israel is going to recover from this. Any marketing expert would have allready shut it down and reopened under a new name.

  • Netanyahu ignored US warnings and brought Israel's 'international isolation' on itself -- Ben Rhodes
    • There were many ex Ottoman Jews who automatically and rightfully became Palestinians (that is citizens of Palestine) in 1925, when Palestine's nationality law was enacted. They had the right to exercise self determination in being able to participate in majority ruling processes and to determine Palestine's future along Nonjewish Palestinans in 1948.

      When it comes to the Jews who immigrated during mandate times I tend to determine them to be illegal, because their immigration was enforced upon the Palestinians without asking them, which means that their right to self determination was denied on behalf of Zionist national interests. Even if they weren't illegal according to the nationality law this law was equally imposed on Palestine and against the Palestinians right to self determination. The many Jews who illegaly entered Palestine between 1945 and 1948 definetely had no right to self determination in Palestine.

      Even if all Jews had been citizens of Palestine the Zionist claim that Jewish people as such would have the right to exercise their right to self determination by creating a state in Palestine is absolutely bogus. In fact "Jewish" is not the nationality of any state nor the name of a people of any territory who want to exercise their right to self determination within this territory by creating an independet state. Nobody can become "Jewish" by aquiring the citizenship of any country or being habitually resident of any territory.

      Palestine has been de facto occupied for nearly a century and and colonized under occupation for the same time except the Westbank between 1948 and 1967. The Palestinians right to self determination has been denied for nearly half a century either by Zionists or on their behalf and in any case against the will of the majority of Nonjewish Palestinians.

    • @ Sibiriak

      What RoHa was trying to say is that the right to self determination can only be exercised by the people who live in the territory in question, "the people of" this territory. It doesn't matter, if they share the same ethnicity or faith or not.

      That's contrary to the Zionist bogus claim that Jews as such would have a right to self determination simply by being a people, but without being the "the people of" a certain territory. Nobody can and will ever become Jewish by becoming a citizen and therefore a civic member of "the people of" any country. "Jewish" is not the term of a people of any territory and will never be. The "Jewish people" are not and will not ever be a constitutive people like the Palestinians.

      The right to self determination is basically a (pre-)civic concept and not an ethnic one, even if "the people of" a territory are somehow considered to belong to the same "people" in an ethnic sense, simply because they historically are "the people of" a certain territory.

      The people of a country can also choose to exercise their right to self determination by merging with another country. Secession on the other hand is more complicated, because countries hesitate to recognize the seperatists attempt to violate the UN enshrined principle of territorial integrity. A moral case can be made, if their basic rights are fundamentally violated by the 'motherland'.

    • See how this resolution will only help to isolate Israel? What a victim.

  • Abstention at the UN, or the Owl of Minerva of American Diplomacy
    • France's UN ambassador said that "the aim of the conference is to show both sides "how much they themselves have an interest in peace.""

      While Israel boycotts the effort, Palestine will participate in French summit. There goes the Hasbara troll's effort to claim that it's the Palestinians who have not interest in peace.

  • Obama stands up to Trump (and Israel)
    • Oldgeezer: "Zionists need to portray this as something highly unusual and unprecedented. Something that justifies it be fixed in light of that. It’s a betrayal and they are a victim. All about controlling the message instead of dealing with actual facts which go against their actions and policies."

      While this is an excellent argument in general, I rather say that Bennis is actually a victim of this Hasbara trolling.

    • oldgeezer: the US did not abstain on Rss 476. It voted in favour."

      It did: "Adopted at the 2242nd meeting by 14 notes to none with 1 abstention (United States of America)"

    • "Just yesterday, the Security Council passed a resolution condemning Israeli settlements, demanding a complete end to settlement activity, and holding the settlements a violation of international law. For the first time, the US allowed such a resolution to pass – abstaining rather than vetoing the resolution as it always had in the past. "

      Why does everybody keeps saying that at the moment? The US allready abstained in 1980: Sec Res 446, 452, 465, 471 and 476 regarding the settlements and their violation of the Geneva Conventions. Sec Res 465 even demanded to dismantle allready existing settlements.

    • Page: 23
  • 'NY Times' trivializes UN abstention, reducing it to 'tense and tetchy' relationship between Obama and Netanyahu
    • hophmi:: "You think that the two billion people that they represent all care about Israel?"

      It is not surprising, that hophmi, who has 'adopted the worst of Jewish tendencies' (loosely based on his comment , is only concerned with the question, if someone cares about Israel and cannot imagine, that people could actually care about human rights, international law, the right to self determination etc. in general.

    • Eva, I wrote "to counter this accusation at the UN." not on Mondoweiss or anywhere else.

    • "The Times article is dangerous. It implies that if the problem is basically a personality clash, it should end when the new president is sworn in on January 20."

      That's not only an implicaton, but the only intentionen of the article. To distract from the different and long standing difference on settlements between Israel and the US and to hope, that Trump will take an individual approach in Israel's favor.

      From the article:
      "Mr. Oren said the real obstacle to peace was Palestinian incitement, not Israeli settlements."

      What a ludicrous attempt to whitewash nearly half a century of Israel's occupation of the Palestinians. What I don't get is why ther Palestians are not able to present a verifiable compilation of the daily incitement and violence from Israelis to counter this accusation at the UN.

      “It’s not only an anti-Israel resolution but an anti-Semitic resolution,” he said."

      Hasbara trolling 101. Or he demands the right for Jews to violate the human rights of Nonjews and international law.

  • Breaking: UN Security Council passes historic resolution against settlements as two-state solution 'slips away'
    • jon s: "In any case, anyone who thinks that one state is a solution, should not be too happy with the resolution."

      Yep, see Israel. Maybe the Security Council resolution was mainly against Israel's one state solution.

    • Sibiriak: "Because West Jerusalem is NOT under belligerent occupation, Israelis can legally move there, take up residence, build homes etc."

      Why is there no embassy in West Jerusalem? Why did Venezuela move its embassy from West Jerusalem to Tel Aviv?

    • Sibiriak: "Your missing the crucial point of that and similar resolutions: the “legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel” that tended to “change the legal status of Jerusalem” refer to actions Israel took AFTER 1967 when it occupied EAST Jerusalem."

      So what? It was after 1967 when Israel wanted to change the status of Jerusalem.The status of the whole city.

      "Israeli residence and building in West Jerusalem for decades before 1967 was never condemned as a “change in the legal status of Jerusalem”.

      Because they didn't change the legal status of Jerusalem. The Security council condemend "all legislative and administrative measures" to change the legal status of Jerusalem.

      "... and are a reaction to Israel’s attempt to change the status of Jerusalem by annexing East Jerusalem and making physical and demographic changes ..."

      Again, Israel's legislative and administrative measures did not only concern East Jerusalem, but all of Jerusalem. I really don't understand how you can read "East Jerusalem" into "Jerusalem".

      From Israel's Jerusalem law "1. Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel."

    • jon s: "Too bad that President Obama’s decision is too little, and way too late. He should have acted much more forcefully against the settlements, and not have waited until now."

      I agree. He should have attacked Israel by force, arrested all its war criminals and kept it occupied until all Palestinian refugees would have either returned or got compensated by Israel and then liberated the rest of Palestine, dismantled all settlements and evacuated all settlers. And then he should have set up a tribunal which would have punished Israel for all its wars of aggression, nearly half the century of belligerent occupation including its war crimes, collective punishments, crimes against humanity, violation of human rights, denial of Palestinians self determination and demand compensation for all of Israel's destruction of villages, houses and private property since 1948.

      But like you said. It was too little and way to late.

    • "... which has explicit references to “Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967 ..."

      Relevant was the resolutions explicit reference to "Jerusalem". Not "East Jerusalem"! The Venezuelan embassy was located in West Jerusalem (in "Emek Refaim"/"German Colony") and still moved to Tel Aviv.

      Allready in 1968, Resolution 252; "2. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status"

      This resolution makes no reference to "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967", because Jerusalem has a seperate legal status of its own.

      "Keep in mind that if Jerusalem were to be a “corpus separatum”, then East Jerusalem couldn’t be under Palestinian sovereignty as its capital. Yet, Palestine has claimed East Jerusalem as its capital, and most countries, including EU countries, support that claim. "

      A claim or support for this claim/solution doesn't touch the legal status. If this solution is negotiated between Israel and Palestine then this matter will be considered as resolved. Again, there is a difference between the recognition/proposal of claims/solutions and the actual legal status.

    • Outgoing UN Sect., Ban Ki Moon, finally admits that the Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements is a ‘significant step’ and welcomes it.

      Thanks Ban Ki, for telling us something we didn’t already know.

    • Mooser: "And remember, “Yonah” outside of Israel, people have the freedom to decide whether they will identify with Judaism or Zionism, and what they will do for it."

      Do people with Jewish heritage nowhere have the freedom to reject both?

    • According to Hohmi only Nonjews are bad enough to putsch.

    • Sibiriak, All of Jerusalem is de jure a corpus seperatum under Israeli occupation and the east part was occupied by Israel in 1967 which until then was under Jordan occupation. De facto the UN members have recognized that West Jerusalem belongs to Israel and East Jerusalem is a part of Palestine.

      That's the reason why in older resolutions and with regard to the UN legal recognition of resolution 181 the territories are referred to the "Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967" on the one hand and "including Jerusalem" not "East Jerusalem" on the other. It doesn't make any sense to talk about Jerusalem, if only East Jerusalem was meant, for example that it is null and void to change the status of Jerusalem (the status of a corpus seperatum) or that the Geneva Conventions are also applicable to Jerusalem, if Jerusalem wasn't considered occupied, but only East Jerusalem.

      See the positive vote of the US in 1967:
      "4. Reaffirms, as in earlier recommendations, the desirability of establishing an international régime for the city of Jerusalem, to be considered by the General Assembly at its twenty-second session."

      The Europe Union for example officially and explicitly considers the status of Jerusalem to be a corpus seperatum:
      "But the EU reply stated that all of Jerusalem, including the Jewish sector, is a "corpus separatum" or separate body. This term is a direct reference to the 1947 UN resolution 181, designating Jerusalem an international zone."

    • Since Resolution 465 in 1980 all the 36 years of continous hasbara efforts to shift the perception from the view of international law into slowly accepting Israel's illegal efforts and criminal views regarding Jerusalem and the illegal settlements just went down the drain. This is a major narcisstic wound for a self-righteous infantile which it can only explain away by accusing others of hating it while allowing or even supporting others of their wrong doings.

      The so called "Anti-Defamation League" has proven another time that it is a propaganda front organisation for Israel and specialized in defaming everybody who isn't. Greenblatt is completely out of contact with reality, international law and opinio juris when he writes that "We know that Israeli settlement activity is of concern to the U.S. and many members of the international community ...",. "Activity", not crime? Only beintg "of concern", not condemning its illegality? Only "many" members, not everbody else but the criminal state in question and only one Security Council member abstaining the resolution? It's just the hypocrit Greenblatt of all people accusing others of being biased.

      @ Internatonal Court of Justice and BDS: Your turn.

      Here's a video of the Security Council session:

    • Sibiriak, in 1980 the Security Council was very explicit about the fact that Jerusalem as a whole was occupied by Israel, not only East Jerusalem.

      "Deeply concerned over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including JERUSALEM, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population, ...

      5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including JERUSALEM, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

      6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including JERUSALEM;"

      Actual Resolution:
      "1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including EAST JERUSALEM, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law ..."

      2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including EAST JERUSALEM, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;"

      So the Security Council says "reaffirms" and "reiterates", but it explicitely doesn't and has changed the wording from "Jerusalem" to "East Jerusalem".

  • With US reportedly poised to abstain on U.N. resolution slamming Israel, Egyptians withdraw it under pressure
    • In 2011 the US successfully vetoed a Security Council resolution which reaffirmed, reiterated, etc. international law.

    • Talknic: "Nor can they veto UNSC resolutions reaffirming, emphasizing or reiterating the UN Charter and/or International Law."

      But the resolution did more than that and therefore can be vetoed, because of the rest "calling upon ... stressing ... ", recommendations, etc.

    • Sibiriak:" Israel/Palestine is not South Africa. "

      That's true, it's worse.

    • OK. I take it back. The passing oft the resolution is as awesome as the ludicrous reaction of the Infantile Imbicles of Israel. LOL

    • "The resolution would demand Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem”."

      Its funny that the draft reaffirms resolution 465, but does not explicitely reaffirm:
      "6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

      7. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories;"

      What a laugh. It's better, if there's no resolution, because it wouldn't enforce Israel to abide. It's better to continue outside the UN and with BDS.

    • hophmi: "More like, no issue should get attention except Israel."

      What a ridiculous attempt to distract from your 'Any issue should get attention, but not Israel'.

    • hophmi: "Meanwhile, a genocide is occurring in Syria, but you know, passing another resolution condemning Israeli settlements is clearly more important . . ."

      Translation: I don't want any war crime or crime against humanity to be condemned, if commited by Jews.

  • Forced existence
    • "The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man."

    • Abe Bird: "Q: Why should Israel share her power with their enemy, the Palestinians? Did the US shared power with Nazi Germany?”

      Don't understand your second question, since it was Nazi Germany which took over territory through war, illegaly annexed territories and illegaly colonialized them and other occupied territories, collectively punished the occupied people and stripped them of their fundamental basic rights.

      So you should rather ask yourself: Why does the US lets Israel get away with the same? And is it really wise to refer to Nazi Germany and its war crimes and crimes against humanity being pro-Israel?

    • RoHa: "So what?"

      What Abe Bird is trying to say is that Jewish settlers - whether they are citizens of a country or not - are entitled to a country, because their self declaration of being a "people" came first. The legal citizens (the actual "people") of this country don't, even if their citizenship legally exists since 1925 and their term actually refers to a nation/citizenship.

      Settler colonialism in a nut shell.

  • 15-year-old Ahed Tamimi denied visa by State Dept for US speaking tour
    • "15-year-old Palestinian girl denied visa for US speaking tour"

      So much for "free speech" in the US. I guess it actually means the right of the goverment and its boot licking media to lie to the American people.

  • Hell just froze over: the New York Times runs an article saying Zionism is racist
    • An absolutely perfect response, Keith.

    • jon ws: "I've been against the settlements from their inception."

      Since 1878? Or since the British occupation?

    • jon s: "Oh boy, Talkback is going to “expose” my game, using the archive…wow."

      Nope, not using the archive, but your present comments.

      "I’m not a politician, thank God, so I have no reason at all to disguise my ideas. What I write is what I think."

      It's not about what you think, but what you pretend to be.

      "I think that there are nearly 200 or so states in the world, most of them nation-states. Why is it ok for all those nations, but not for the Jews to have a nation-state?"

      Good Question. After all Jews are known for allowing every other people to have a state of their own, too. For example the people of Palestine in 1948.

      No, seriously. Jews are the people of what country again? As far as I know one cannot become Jewish by acquiring the nationality of any country, because Jews are not a nation. On the other hand ... did I mention the Palestinians?

      Would it be it ok for the Druze to create a state in 80% of historic Palestine and make sure that they are a 75% majority?

    • catalan: "I don’t support any exclusive nationalistic rights. That is a road to nowhere."

      Thank you again for claryfing that you don't support Israel's inhumane assumption, that it has an exclusive nationalistic right to allow Jews to "return" to Israel, while keeping Palestinian refugees expelled who have an individual right to return according to the Universal Declaration of human rights.

      "You are supposedly on the cusp of victory with all these sanctions and conferences. Why are you so insecure?"

      Insecure? Moi?

    • catalan: "Actually I do have problem with any nationalism and support only kindness towards all my fellow men (and other primates and all living things)."

      Thank you for clarifying that you support the Palestinian's right to return.

    • jon s: "That’s what the Palestinians themselves say:

      see article 4."

      The main difference is that the Palestinians don't define their state as being the state of muslims or even themselves as muslims. They are a constitutive people which Jews aren't and will never be. Feel free to show us the Israeli equivalent to Article 9:

      "All Palestinians are equal under the law and judiciary without discrimination because of race, sex, color, religion, political views, or disability."

      A right to equality was explictly removed from Israel's Basic Law "Human Dignity and Liberty". The Basic Law itself is not enshrined and can be altered by a simple minority. Any consitutional right it claims to have can be violated by the same Basic Law article 8:
      "8. There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required."

      And what are these basic values?
      " 1. The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state."

      So much for equality in Israel.

    • Catalan: "I just pointed out that the range of solutions currently offered includes various extreme options including the complete expelling of one group or the other. That makes me rather pessimistic about that particular conflict."

      But you don't have a problem with Israel's ethnic cleansing of Nonjews to become a "Jewish" state and maintain being one, don't you? You would only have a problem if Palestinians would have the same solution for Jews in historic Palestine. So what's the moral difference from your point of view?

    • jon s: "Yonifalic:” I participated by murdering unarmed Pali men, women, and children during Cast Lead “.
      Yonifalic is therefore a self-confessed war criminal and should be prosecuted.
      Any court of law can take into account his confession and expression of remorse, when it comes to sentencing, but that doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t be put on trial."

      Yep, any court of law except in Israel, right? Because there the court would rule that he's innocent, because he didn't steal a credit-card, but "defended" Israel against "terrorists" or only his own life. Isn't that your evaluation when it comes to the Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara in international waters in which Israelis killed civilians execution style? So give him a break, he just acted like any Israeli soldier would have acted giving the circumstances, orders and Israel's terrorist Dahiya Doctrine. I'm surprised that he wasn't promoted.

    • jon s: "As you may know, I support the two states concept: Israel as a Jewish state and a democracy, with equal rights for all citizens, the Palestinian state as Islamic, or any other definition the Palestinians decide on."

      Oh I see, so being "left" is just a facade. You are not actually for equal rights, because that would mean that Palestinian refugees would also have the right to return to their homeland and the citizenship that comes with it. And you are not even for Israel being a state for all its citizens, but for a state which somehow privileges citizens which are Jewish.

      Who are you trying to fool, jon s? I have read some of archived comments and the questions you don't answer. I know what slick game you are playing and I'm going to expose it.

    • jon s: "I also often wonder why I come in for so much verbal abuse and ad hominem attacks here.
      When I respond to Yonifalic’s hatefilled and outrageous comments- other commenters jump to his defense and attack me."

      Yes, imagine you would deny Palestinians the right to return. That would be pretty much racist, too, right? But you are one of the increasing number of self declared moderate and even left Israelis who demand equal rights and that Israel shouldn't be a Jewish state, but an Israeli state for all its citizens, aren't you?

    • Zionism is racist, because it was never a national liberation movement of the natives of a given territory, but the overtaking of a country by foreign settler who saw the natives as a different race who had to be dominated or driven off.

    • "jon s": "I recall that he has also confessed to being a murderer of Palestinian civilians. He should turn himself in and stand trial for his crimes."

      You only want him to get compensated and promoted like "Captain R.", don't you?

    • jon s: "YoniFalic wants to expel millions of people , based on ethnic identity and skin color. That’s pure racism."

      Says a Zionist, of all people ...

    • hophmi: "There is no “system of separation” in Israel."

      ROFL. So Israel doesn't keep Paletinian refugees from returning to their country?

    • "Liberal Zionism" ... ROFL ... pink elephants ...

  • David Friedman is out of step with American Jews and dangerous for Palestinian human rights
    • Divide up the goodies? That would mean that both parties legally acquired the goodies. War and expulsion is not a mean of acquisition since 1945.

    • Say DaBakr, how many Nonjews per Arab state are Jews allowed to expell and or disenfranchise? Or are Palestinian Nonjews enough?

  • Historical evidence does not support Zionist claims re the Western Wall
    • mcohen: "the whole idea that judaism is part of this ongoing battle to maintain a presense and allow jews free access is a powerful emotion."

      Yeah, certain Germans had the same powerful emotions while illegaly acquiring territory through war to allow them "free access".

      "it goes beyond politics and un resolutions."

      Yup, it's called a war crime and has been one since 1945. Unfortunately you and your fellows are on the wrong side of history and humanity.

    • It's actually blasphemy to contradict them, if you think it through.

    • hophmi: "Adopting the worst of Palestinian tendencies, I see."

      Sure, hophmi. Just replace "Palestinian" with "Jewish" and we know whose tendencies you have adopted.

  • Friedman pick will force good liberal Zionists to admit the peace process has failed
    • Yeah Yonah! And what happens if Palestinians don't want to live under Jewish supremacy? Doesn't matter, right? Cause that's why it's a Jewish supremacyin the first place.

  • Trump pick for ambassador to Israel supports Israeli annexation of West Bank and calls liberal Jews 'kapos' (Updated)
    • Thank you, Mooser.

    • “They are far worse than kapos – Jews who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps,” he wrote."

      Yes, yes. Imagine those Germans who were against illegal annexation, illegal colonialization of ocuppied territories and wanted to resue others from Nazi war crimes and their crimes against humanity. These Germans were even worse than Nazis, right? At least in the simple mind of a psychopathic Nazi ambassador.

    • hophmi: "Surprising to see Mondoweiss reject such a firm believer in the one-state solution."

      Not suprising that a firm believer of Jewish supremacism perverts not only the concept of a two, but also that of a one state solution.

  • Trump has a 'magic moment' in June 2017 to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, Israel lobbyist tells NY synagogue
  • Site being considered for US embassy in Jerusalem is stolen Palestinian private property
  • Theresa May adopts a definition of anti-Semitism that demonizes Israel's critics
  • Israel lobby resorting to censorship and blacklisting as it loses control of mainstream discourse
    • Are you proud of the fact that Israeli Jews sell weapons to commit genocide?

    • Israel's equivalent to a constitution called the "Basic Law" is an absolute joke. First of all it can be changed anytime by a simple majority. It is not enshrined in any way. Secondly, a violation of fundamental rights can be considered "constitutional" according to the same Basic Law with regard to its "limitation clause", if the Supreme Kangaroo Court of Israel rules that the violation is "proportional" and more importantly befitting to the state of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic" state. Though the Judges keep ruling that a right to equality right can be interpreted into Basic Law it was explicetely removed from it from the get go. There was even a ruling in which the majority of the Judges considered a law (which discriminates Nonjews) to be violating equality and this violation to be disproportionate and therefore unconstitutional, but still uphold the law, because it was better to have this racist law than to abandon it and wait for a new one (which never came).

    • Another minor correction. Kenneth Stern didn't write the definition, the EUMC wrote it based on his proposal. But there's an important difference. The EUMC definition says that the examples concerning Israel (which Stern wanted to be considered as antisemitic per se) only "could" be antisemitic and only "taking into account the overall context". And being a "working" definition it was just a definition to collect data, not to finally define antisemitism.

      The EUMC allready had a real definition three years early, but it couldn't be abused by Hasbara trolls to accuse others of antisemitism:

      So far it is the best and most rational definition I have read.

  • Unsettle Zionism, champion humanity
    • DaBakr: "probably oxymoron isn’t the best word for the sentence"

      It isn't. Best examples are "Jewish democracy" or "liberal Zionist".

      DaBakr: "Just an old zio-nazi’s take on the sentence."

      And that's not an example for pleonasm either.

  • 'Love thy neighbor as thyself' -- Really?
  • Why a Texas rabbi keeps losing a debate over Israel with a white nationalist leader
    • DaBakr: "... obsessed with their need to prove the illigitimacy of the state of israel..."

      There's no obsession, because it's a fact. The only obsession is to frame everybody as antisemitic who points out this fact. Israel even doesn't have an internal legitimacy. Nobody in Palestine voted for it to be established. Nobody voted in Palestine for a Jewish minority to rule over Nonjewish majority. It has been an Apartheid Junta from day one.

      DaBar: "... as well as their need to discredit any jewish connection to the land ..."

      A "connection" is totally irrelevant. It is you who has the "need" to inflate the importance of a "connection" where it becomes more important than the "connection" of Nonjews who actually have been living there for thousands of years.

      DaBakr: "... comparing zionism to [nazism] ..."

      You mean when it comes to exercising supremacy and differentiating between nationals and citizens for example? Or is it more about illegal settlements and war crimes like collective punishment?

      DaBakr: "... without any desire, plan, or intention to destroy the arabs ..."

      Only to keep them expelled, if the Arabs aren't Jewish Arabs, right?

      DaBakr: "... arabs who came to identify as Palestinian ..."

      The term "Palestinian" refers to the nationality of the citizens of the mandated state of Palestine and its successor state. The term includes Nonjews and Jews. Is this to complicated for you to understand?

      DaBakr: "... jewish nation ..."

      There is no nationality/citizenship called "Jewish". As there was not nationality/citizenship called "Aryan" or "Boer". All cases reveal institutionalized racism. In all cases the states were not the states of all of its citizens. Whether you like it or not, Israel is a genuine racist state by design, has always been and will be as long as it exists.

  • 'NYT' bias amazes: long article about online incitement in Israel/Palestine only blames Palestinians
    • Mayhem: Face the fact that Palestinians specialise in this kind of stuff."

      Nope. We face the fact that Israeli Jews are specialised in whining about it, while they are specialised in getting away with the same:

      "Imprisoned for incitement on Facebook? Only if you're Arab

      Racist and inciting Facebook statuses by Israeli Jews have become commonplace on the Internet. Yet not a single Israeli has ever been sent to prison for publishing a status on social media."

    • "The Palestinian people. . . the people who started the war, ..."

      In settler colonialism if you takeover a country through enforced mass imigration of settlers, war and expulsion, its always the indigenous people who started the war.

  • Palestinians in Lebanon remember Palestine
  • Defending Ellison, Jewish writers publish 'apartheid' description of Israel in 'Slate' and 'Washington Post'
    • When Zionist psychopaths hide behind Jews/Judaism one can expect the accusation of Jew hatred in every second sentence.

  • I hereby chuck my right to Jewish national self-determination
    • "I’m renouncing my right to Jewish national self-determination."

      There's no such "national" right because "Jewish" is not a nationality/citizenship and will never be. One cannot and will not become "Jewish" by acquiring the citizenship of any existing or newly created state.

      "The Jewish Settlers on the West Bank also have rights that need protection even if you don’t like how those rights have been accrued."

      Sure, the same rights to protection that people have all over the world, when they illegaly enter a country. Nothing more, nothing less. But definetly no right to stay there or build and live in settlements. And no criminal has a right to be protected while commiting a crime.

  • More than half of US aid 'to entire world' goes to Israel and it ignores our warnings on settlements -- Kerry
    • Here's a Security Council resolution the US didn't veto in1980:

      "1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; [...]

      6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

      7. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories;"

  • US Senate quickly passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act
    • "and efforts to delegitimize Israel by “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist”."

      What about delegitimizing a state, denying its people their rights to self determination, denying their state the right to exist AND expelling their majority AND occupying the rest for nearly half a century?

      Oh, I see, that's not racism, that's just support for Zionism.

  • Jimmy Carter's proposal to recognize Palestine is dissed by all the usual suspects
    • Only Jews are allowed to make unilateral moves and even declare statehood in direct violation of Security Council resolution 46 of 17 April 1948:

      1. Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine, and especially upon the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency, to take immediately, without prejudice to their rights, claims, or positions, and as a contribution to the well-being and permanent interests of Palestine, 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;"

  • 'Make this my dream as well' -- in historic appearance, Palestinian offers one-state vision to a NY temple
    • hophmi: "Isn’t it interesting how this message is better received by Jewish communities when it’s not angry, bitter, and focused on telling Jews how bad they are, how bad Israel is, how they have no history in the Middle East, and how everything is hunky-dory for Jews around the world?"

      Isn't it even more interesting that Israel arrested and expelled him?

  • The link between Israel's forest fires and the 'muezzin bill'
    • Dont't forget their murderous terror drones.

    • DaBakr: "sovereignty. its a bitch for jew-hating anti-zionists."

      You mean the kind of sovereignty which was established only through war and expulsion by a minority of Nonjew hating Zionist bitches?

  • 'Tis the season, to boycott!
    • Isn't it called "terrorism", if a foreign/political entity is deliberately trying to undermine the US constitution, in other words "our freedom"?

  • A conversation with Miko Peled
  • Global outcry appears to stop Israeli demolition of Palestinian village to make way for Jewish settlers
    • 'Relocating" Nonjews so that former illegal Westbank settlers can come to (in their own words)"colonise Bedouin land". Zionism 101.

  • To resist a 'Muslim registry' we need active solidarity not symbolic gestures
  • When Sanders changed political reality. And hasbara culture slapped him down.
  • Saving the daughters of Israel from the annihilation of intermarriage
    • Btw. aloeste. Is it "classical antisemitism" to be against land conquest and genocide, too? The prohibition to intermarry is based on Deutoronomy Chapter 7, 3 right after:

      "1. When the Lord, your God, brings you into the land to which you are coming to possess it, He will cast away many nations from before you: the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and powerful than you.

      2. And the Lord, your God, will deliver them to you, and you shall smite them. You shall utterly destroy them; neither shall you make a covenant with them, nor be gracious to them.

      3. You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son."

      And is it even more antisemitic, if I don't consider myself a renegade "Jew" or "self hating Jew", but not "Jewish" at all? Or is it like in some of this childish games, where you get negative points, because you don't want to play?

    • aloeste: "their condemnation of religious doctrine they disagree with is classic anti-semitism"

      Even worse, Grand Inquisitor aloeste. Any Jew who disagrees with any Rabbi is an antisemite. Dissent and debate is classical antisemitism, right? ROFL.

    • aloeste: "to disparagethe religion you abandoned makes you a jew hater"

      You have to hate Rassenschande, otherwise you hate those who happen to be Jewish, according to the high inquisitor aloeste. ROFL.

    • Moser: "Is bullying and threatening women into marrying Jewish men Zionism or Judaism?"

      According to Aloeste it belongs to the core of Judaism and Aloeste considers Jonathan to be a Jewish snitch for writing about it and therefore may be killed.

  • Trump may kill Netanyahu with kindness
    • dabakr: "just ‘promises’ of peace with absolutely NO mechanism to assure that israels neighbors are not infiltrated or overthrown by terrortistic forces like Daesh , Hezbollah, Hamas who are dedicated to tearing down the zionist nation, completely and replacing it with a muslim/arab majority with jews as a ‘protected’ minority."

      Reminds me of Zionist terrorists who were not only dedicated by actually tore down the Palestinian nation complety to replace it with a majority of Jewish infiltrators.What was your point again?

  • AIPAC removes two-state solution talking point from its website
    • AIPAC: "a negotiated two-state solution – a Jewish state of Israel and a demilitarized Palestinian state.”

      A demilitarized Palestinian state? ROFL. After all Zionist wars, expulsions, dispossesions, military conquests and attempts since 1948 and illegal settling in occupied territories ...

  • Sheldon Adelson, Trump's billionaire backer, is committed to 'the Jewish people' and believes Palestinians are a 'made up people'
    • "In Israel's case the Jews have the Jewish historical heritage that goes back thousands of years. The Jews stem from the true indigenous population of Palestine going way way back.
      Therefore they have an entitlement that goes way beyond what sufficed for the colonial enterprises in Australia, US, Canada etc."

      Historical heritage or the claim that someone stems from the "indigenous population" is absolutely irrelevant. The legal question is who was a legal citizen of Palestine in 1948 (if not 1919). Only he or she was entitled to this country and had the right to determine its future goverment by majority ruling.

    • Mayhem: "@eljay, it would have been supremacist of the Jews if they had not allowed those who weren’t born into the privilege of being Jewish to convert to Judaism. If any Palestinian wants entitlement it is only a conversion away!"

      The Zionist supremacist mayhem wants to suggest that only by becoming Jew a native of a country is entitled to it. Otherwise he or she is not even "priviliged". What a blatant Nazi you are, Mayhem.

    • mayhem: "Historically it appears that they only defined themselves very recently as a xenophobic reaction to the Zionist project where their own real credo is the destruction of Israel."

      Typical Hasbara troll. I just explained that they legally exist since the beginning of the mandated state of Palestine, but mayhem needs to to call their very legal existence a "xenophobic reaction" to the Zionist project" which itself of course is not a "xenophobic reaction", especially not a literally Nonjewphobic reaction and their very own real project did not destroy Palestine. You see Nonjews have to be xenophile and expecially philosemitic, if Jews want to take over their land by war and expulsion and are not allowed to annul a settler colonialist entity and restore the territorial integrity of their country.

      mayhem: "you must be referring to the Muslim behemoth."

      Yep. Just replace "Muslim" with "Jewish" in this sentence and you know exactly which kind of Nazi we are dealing with.

    • Mooser,

      Palestinans are a constitutive people, a nation in the sense of citizenship since the mandatory goverment of Palestine enacted the nationality law in 1925. The term Palestinian refers to the people of Palestine. Everybody could and can become a Palestinian by acquiring the citizenship of the State of Palestine. It is a term of citizenship.

      Jews on the other can only claim to be a people in an ethic or religious sense of the term. They are not a "nation" (in the sense of citizenship). Nobody can become "Jewish" by acquiring the citizenship of any state. "Jewish" is not a citizenship.

      But Zionists need to confuse the terms "people"and "nation" to claim a bogus right to statehood. They claim that contrary to the Palestinians Jews are a people and therefore have a right to a state. They are correct, that Palestinians are not a people when using an ethnoreligious interpretation. But this is totally irrelevant from a legal point of view and when it comes to the right to statehood. And they claim that Jews are a nation in the same bogus interpretation of the term "nation", which is not a constitutive interpretation and again irrelevant when it comes to the right to statehood.

      That way Zionist can confuse the right to self determination of "people". The term "people" actually refers to everyone legally and habitually residing in a certain territory - its denizens or even better citizens. Ethnicity or religion is irrelevant. Therefore "Jews" do not have the right to statehood, because the term "Jews" does not refer to EVERYONE living within a territory (see Palestine or Kosovo). But that's the reason why Zionist need to claim that this land is the "land of the Jews", which is not only historically ludicrous, but als legally irrelevant and completely racist, because not everybody living there is "Jewish".

      Jews (like other citizens) do have an individual right to self determination by being citizens of a certain state (the right to participate in a democracy), but not a collective right to statehood.

      Of course Zionist call it antisemitic to deny Jews having a right to a state. But being the suopremacist bigots they are they don't have any problem denying the same right to the people of Palestine ... or to the people of Kosovo.

    • This is correct. The Palestinans are a made up people. The legally exist since 1925 as a result of the Treaty of Lausanne, but their (mandated) state was not the result of settler colonialism.

      A Jewish nation on the other hand has never existed. Nobody can become "Jewish" by becoming citizen of any state (or kingdom). That's the reason why the "Jewish state" (which was made up in 1948 and by settler colonialism) is inherently a Apartheid state and the Nonjewish native majority was expelled so that the fake "Jewish nation" can fake being a democracy (majority ruling).

  • Analyst: If Trump gives Netanyahu a green light 'Palestinians will detonate in the face of Israel'
  • Trump's path to 'most pro-Israel' president paved by bankruptcy expert and real estate attorney who once lived in a settlement
  • 'The era of the Palestinian state is over' -- Israeli right celebrates Trump win
    • "... we should now recognize Jerusalem as the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state. ..."

      Any other country who's illegal annexations you want to be recognized after the Nuremberg Trial?

    • Btw. has anybody noticed the hypocracy that an education minister of a state can be happy, that the era of another state is gone, but if someone wants the same happen to Israel the Hasbara trolls call it "antisemitism" and "hatred"?!

    • Nope. He only wants Israel to be an OFFICIAL Apartheid state.

    • He definetely doesn't mean the "Arabs" who should be Israeli citizens according to human rights and international customary law, but which Israel keeps expelled to circumvent any real majority ruling.

    • ‘The era of the Poland state is over’ — German right celebrates Hitler win.

Showing comments 2339 - 2301