Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2575 (since 2011-08-30 20:10:31)


As long as Jews talk about "Jewish" instead of universal values I don't want to have anything to do with Judaism.

Showing comments 2575 - 2501

  • Beyond the 50th anniversary of the occupation: marking the 100-70-50-10 anniversaries with 'Together We Rise' curriculum
    • "100 years since the Nov. 2, 1917 Balfour Declaration supporting a Jewish state in historic Palestine in support of the budding Zionist movement."

      That's a misinterpreation supported by Zionists. Neither the declaration nor the mandate supported a Jewish "state".

  • 100 senators throw their bodies down to end UN 'bias' against Israel
    • bettyberenson: "The apartheid lie is for uninformed, want to be prejudiced against Israel jerks. Israel is a diverse country, in which all its citizens have equal access to everything the society has to offer."

      ROFL. Except those Israel keeps expelled to maintain Jewish dominance. That segregation is Apartheid. And the fact that 93% land is not accessible to Nonjews is, too, amongst discriminations simply based on the fact that the discriminated are not Jews.

      bettyberenson: "Unfortunately, that includes neighbors who knife, blow up, and ram with cars, babies and their families in their homes and in the streets. But you have no compassion for Israelis."

      And this his how small compared to what Jews have done to Nonjews since the late 30s?

      bettyberenson: "The Jews are the indigenous people in the Land of Israel. You cannot colonize your own country."

      ROFL. Not the Jewssh foreigners who settled In Palestine from all over the world under the protection of a colonial power and later under the protection of an Israeli occupier.

      bettyberenson: "From the river to the sea, Israel for eternity."

      Just another crazy Zionist nutcase ... Explains the Apartheid and Settler colonialism denial.

  • Once I was lit by moonbeams
    • Steve Grover: "But I’m sure he can’t stand the JVP knuckleheads she hangs around and wishes his daughter would quit the Tzedek Chicago Cult."

      I'm sure that someone with your unfortunate limitations can't think otherwise.

  • Map map on the wall, who's most existing of them all?
    • I still think that neither Israelis nor the settlers are the problem, but the fact that they claim rights they deny to Palestinians, especially to Palestinians refugees. That is the right to return or to settle everywhere in hist. Palestine.

    • Jeff: "Zionism is having practical problems implementing this equality."

      Yeah, certain Afrikaaners had "practical" problems with implementing equality, too. And certain Germans ... ah, never mind.

    • JeffB: "You are unusual for the BDS crowd in supporting the rights of Israeli settler children. That’s a moral position and I applaud you for it."

      Yeah, as moral as someone from the Zionist crowd supporting the rights of Palestinian refugees tand their children o return or that Palestinians and their children as such could settle anywhere in their homeland.

      ROFL. I'm just kidding. Such a moral Zionist doesn't exist.

    • Calling violent settler colonialism a "civil war". How cute.

    • JeffB: "The definition of a country is a nation residing in a territory governing that territory. So yes, if there is no government there is no country. "

      Not true in states under protectorate, mandate or occupation, etc.

      JeffB: "Moreover there is little evidence for a distinct: language, culture, history or national culture prior to Zionism."

      Irrelevant regarding the right to self determination.

      JeffB: "Inhabitation does not make a country. New Jersey is inhabited but it isn’t a country."

      Straw argument. New Jersey is part of the US. If it wasn't part of any state it's inhabitants could exercise their right to self determination by creating a state or merging with another.

      JeffB: "Every day there is an argument about the “settlers” right to live their own lives in their own homes on their own land."

      Another straw man. Citizens of an occupation power don't have a right to settle in occupied territories. It doesn't matter if they are Nazis or Zionists.

      JeffB: "If you believe that people have a right to live where they are born, welcome to Zionism of the 2017 regardless of whether you would have agreed with the Zionism of 1917 or not."

      But only if you are a Jew and not if you are a Palestinian or his descendant who wishes to return. That's Zionism 101, one of the most disgusting examples of racism since 1947.

      JeffB: "We know a lot about Judaea from independent sources and evidence and Judaea meets the country criteria (up until at the very least 63 BCE and likely for about 130 years after that) while Palestine (the Arab country not the Roman / Byzantine country) never did."

      Well JeffB, we know that Palestine was a STATE under mandate according to the mandatory, the permanent mandate commission of the league of nation, the permanent court of international justice (see Mavromatis case) and every bi- or multilateral state contract that the mandatory concluded on Palestine's behalf and entered the Nation League treaty series.

      We know that a nationality law was enacted in 1925 which formed the Palestinian nation. Palestinians are a constitutive people, a nation/citizenship. Jews are not and will never be. The Zionist abuse of the term "nation" refers only to a "nationality" WITHIN citizenship not to a nationality in the sense of citizenship. And the fact that Israel only sees Jews as "nationals" while Nonjews are excluded is the same to the Nazi's appproach which saw only volkish Germans as nationals while Jews and others were excluded.

      JeffB: "Whether or not Palestine existed or was a state doesn’t give Israel any legal, moral, ethical or historical right to claim ANY territories outside of its borders."

      Oh well, what right did Israel have to claim ANY territory within 48 borders? Excßt the pseudo legal invention of a "historical right" which doesn't exist in international law at least since 1945 and the following Nuremberg trials?

      JeffB: "That nations do have a right to form states ..."

      Exactly. People with Palestinian citizenship had the right to see Palestine being released into indepedence in 1948. Refugees and illegal immigrants don't have this political right. And settlers who are enforced upon the population violate the the populations's right to self determination. Whether in 1917, 1927, 1947, 1967 or in 2017.

  • Gilad Atzmon’s attack against me – the 'merchant of JVP'
    • RoHa: "I find the Goodwin Sands phenomenon more interesting than the Atzmon debate."

      Me, too. I wonder what his explanation would be for not answering Atzmon's questions. Maybe that his position on Zionism could be quoted on Neo-Nazis sites as an example for how to support a supremacist state by considerung only certain citizens as nationals. You know, waht he called "guilt by guilt association".

      RoHa: "Looks to me as though a dedicated anti-Atzmonite saw a mention of JO’s silly article and jumped in."

      He's loosing momentum. The ratio is going down to 50 comments in 60 hours.

    • Keith: "What about Goodwin Sands?"

      Popping out of nowhere writing 36 posts in 36 hours against Atzmon ... Jonathan Hoffman? LOL.

    • @Hophmi
      “Always love these posts. They show just how beloved Mondoweiss is by overt antisemites like Keith and YoniFalic”

      Yup. That's Mondoweiss. They even allow shmocks to post who have reached a miminum level of intelligence that allows them to accuse others of antisemitism and bash Mondoweiss. It's like watching a monkey playing with water for the first time.

    • Goodwin Sands: "Atzmon isn’t simply reposted on the wacky Jew-conspiracy site Veterans Today; he frequently comes and joins the comments when his stuff appears."

      I also post on boards who are predominantly Zionist. Does that make me a Jewish supremacist?

      Goodwin Sands: "So that’s not guilt by association, that’s guilt by guilt."

      So after a guilt by association fallacy we get a tautology. Which I can understand, if you don't have any actual arguments.

      Is there anyone you know who thinks that this is somehow intelligent, too?

    • @ Citizen

      Adam Bresnick - Insult to Injury

    • catalan: "How can I become an anti Zionist?"

      In your case: Imagine Palestinians were actually Jews.

    • Goodwin Sands: Then you have not looked very hard at all. The book broke his reputation in the UK, not because of Zionist machinations, but because of its innate anti-Semitism, which explains Zionism by an argument boiling down to, “Well you know what those Jews are like, say no more! say no more!”

      Well, we do know what those Zionist Jews are like, don't we? But what has this got to do with antisemitism besides your innate antisemitic conflation of Zionists and humans who happen to be Jewish?

    • Goodwin Sands: "Veterans Today?

      Guilt by association fallacy?

      Goodwin Sands: "All he has to offer is a negative example of how not to promote anti-Zionism."

      LOL. It's more of a negative example of how not to promote Jewish identity politics.

    • Yep, that's the only way these boot lickers can make a high political career in the home of the brave and the land of the free. So what's your point?

  • New York rabbi links Jewish Voice for Peace to Osama bin Laden and Assad
    • Talknic: "What are you on?"

      Talknicane. Why?

      Talknic: "My 1st post on this matter

      Israel prefers territory to peace. It hasn’t put forward anything towards peace with Palestine, ever. No thing. Nothing. Nada. Nought. Zip. Zero. Nil."

      My 1st response on this matter

      Yep, whether we like it or not. And if we can’t accept this than it’s our problem, right?

      Talknic: "Answer this. Has Israel actually offered anything towards peace?"

      Answer this: What are YOU on, that you still have to ask me after my 1st response?

    • Talknic: "Do you acknowledge Israel has offered nothing?"

      I wrote that it is your problem, if you don't accept it. So what's the only logical answer to your question based on the fact that I didn't use a conditional clause?

      Talknic: "The ” as if my non acceptance was the problem and not the situation itself” is entirely your mistaken conclusion."

      And where's the argument that it is mistaken? Why didn't you write to me: "Israel's ugly existence is the problem" but prefer to write instead that it is my problem, if I don't accept it?

      Talknic: "This is yours! ” as if my non acceptance was the problem and not the situation itself.”

      Exactly! That's why your claim that you never wrote that I'm a problem is a straw man argument, because I didn't write "as if I was the problem ...".

      Anyway, if you can't accept that Israel has done nothing to achive peace or that it ignores 48 borders, then its simply your problem. "Go whine to the States who recognized Israel, and the UN for admitting Israel and the US for protecting Israel and to states for blindly accepting a de facto situation." (Talknic)

      And if you can't accept that I'm confronting you with your fallacies or adpations of them then it is your problem, too. So just drop it.

    • Mayhem: "Quite simply JVP are a bunch of kapos and there is a FaceBook group that recognises that fact."

      It must be the FaceBook group that is into Israel's Nazi porn.

      Seriousy, what makes Zionist shmocks like you trivialize the Holocaust for political reasons?

    • Talknic: " Two points. 1) Different thread. 2.) Here I purposefully used "acknowledge" because elsewhere you just couldn't seem to grasp the concept of accepting the fact that whether we agree with it or not, whether it was legal or not, whether we like it or not, Israel was declared and recognized."

      Absolutely ridiculous. You started this discussion by saying that Israel has done nothing to achieve peace which I didn't contest. Instead I responded that it is your problem, if you don't accept it, because you wrote in a different thread that it is my problem, if I don't accept Israel's existence. Then you denied using the word "accept" and I proved you wrong by quoting you. Now you want to distract from this by making the irrelevant point that this happened in a different thread and that you didn't use the word "accept" in this thread.

      Talknic: "It's simply ..."

      More distraction from the point of issue. It's ridiculous.

      Talknic: "I haven't asked anyone to "just accept" the situation."

      Another ridiculous strawman argument. Nobody claimed that you "asked" anyone to just accept the situation. It's worse. You wrote that it is my problem, if I didn't, as if my non acceptance was the problem and not the situation itself.

      Talknic: "I've never said you are the problem."

      Just another ridiculous strawman argument. Nobody made the claim that you did.

      Talknic: "I said if you can't accept, i.e., acknowledge the fact that due to Zionist lies and the gullibility of states, Israel in all its ghastliness now exists, its your problem."

      Exactly. So I said that if you can't accept that Israel has done nothing to achieve peace, it's your problem. But you don't seem to grasp the concept of a reductio ad absurdum by mirroring your ridiculous positions.

      Talknic: "Now please drop it, because it's ridiculous."

      It is, But if you can't accept the fact that this is not my fault, it's your problem.

    • Talknic: "Your problem is I didn't use the word "accept" ... You're 'adapting' your own word, 'accept' I didn't use the word 'accept', because I didn't mean or ask anyone to 'accept' a clearly un-acceptable situation. You're trying to accuse me of something I've never said or inferred."

      Yup, It must have been the other Talknic who literally wrote at the bottom of his comment:

      "If you can't ACCEPT the ugly reality of Israel's existence, it's your problem."

      Talknic: "You're quoting a different statement on a different point in question, being; Israel WAS declared, WAS recognized, WAS admitted as a UN Member because the recognizing states 'accepted' Zionist lies promising to adhere to the rule of law. They've also 'accepted' Israel's de facto situation in territories "outside the State of Israel". That's the reality. legal or not. Whether we, you, anyone likes it or not. "

      Yes, yes. The fallacy in your quote is so hollow that it can be used in any situation. So allow me to quote it again regarding your above 'whinery':

      Go whine to the States who recognized Israel, and the UN for admitting Israel and the US for protecting Israel and to states for blindly accepting a de facto situation.

      Talknic: "If one can't acknowledge the injustices that HAVE happened and the root causes of those injustices, then you really do have a problem."

      Oooh, Talknic claiming the moral high ground. Well, let me quote the other Talknic, again: "If you can't accept the ugly reality of Israel's existence, it's your problem."

      And which one of us not only acknowledges the injustices that have happened, but BECAUSE OF THEM DOESN'T accept the "ugly reality of Israel's existence" and actually sees the latter as the problem and not Israel's non acceptance?!

      Well, it's not the other Talknic, is it?

    • Talknic: "Interesting. You’re the one saying “just accept”. I haven’t. Your argument with me is a complete nonsense."

      Complete nonsense?! You taught ecci and me that it is our problem, if we can't accept the fact that Israel exists.

      So I'm adapting and saying that we should then also accept the fact that Israel hasn't done nothing towards peace and doesn’t give a sh**, too, whether we like it or not. Cause if we can't accept it than it's just our personal problem. And Mondoweiss is not a plattform for our personal problems, is it?

      So allow me to quote you: "Go whine to the States who recognized Israel, and the UN for admitting Israel and the US for protecting Israel and to states for blindly accepting a de facto situation.

      And have an A1 day!

    • "Talkback April 29, 2017, 7:48 am
      It is a fact. Israel has done nothing towards peace. Take a chill pill. Your accusations against me are ridiculous-."

      "@ Talkback April 29, 2017, 7:48 am
      Precisely.Israel has offered nothing towards peace and it doesn’t give a sh*t whether we like it or not.
      If you can’t acknowledge the fact that Israel hasn’t offered anything towards peace, it sure is your problem, because it hasn’t offered anything towards peace. It’s a simple ugly fact."

      1.) I'm so chilled that I don't need to respond to same comment twice. Lol.
      2.) I didn't challenge your claim that Israel has done nothing towards peace at all. So it's not me who should take a chill pill.
      3.) Just accept the fact that Israel has done nothing towards peace and doesn't give a sh** whether you like it or not. ... And take a chill pill, if you can't.

    • Talknic. It hasn’t put forward anything towards peace with Palestine, ever. No thing. Nothing. Nada. Nought. Zip. Zero. Nil."

      Yep, whether we like it or not. And if we can't accept this than it's our problem, right?

    • Well Steve, what can you do about all the Zionist haters out there? They really hate anything what is truly humane or spiritual. What could be better than to follow a Rabbi who's like them?

    • Steve Grover: "To sum up what Rabbi Hirsch said: JVP is full of shit."

      To sum up what Rabbi Hirsch is saying: He's full of shit.

      Steve Grover: "That is the gut reaction of pretty much all American Jews to anyone speaking on behalf of JVP. Also, the vast majority of American Jews never heard of JVP and aren’t interested in anything they have to say."

      Is there anything we can do to bring you back to reality? Slowly? Without traumatizing you?

  • Mass Dems move to kill anti-settlement resolution, amid fears of BDS and 'exodus from party'
    • yonah freedman: "1.) ... 2.)... 3.)"

      To put it short: The right of Jews do deny Nonjews the right to self determination.

  • Why I'm keeping my child home from school in Israel on Holocaust Day
    • DaBakr: "Please don’t tell us hophmi that you just discovered that mondoweiss commentary section is comprised of about a dozen ( ok, maybe a few dozen) hardcore zionist haters, jew haters and possibly just Israel haters ..."

      Yep, the list of people you hate so much that you have to accuse them of being haters is as long as it is pathetic.

    • Isn't it telling that our local Hasbara trolls have to ignore the fact that this is about traumatizing three yearr olds and not about teaching students?
      If these were Palestinian children the trolls would call it not memorial, but "teaching hate" and that this would lead to violence. Oh wait, isn't teaching the Nakba verboten in Israel?

    • "The education ministry in Israel has decided that commemorating the Shoah/Holocaust is so essential to Israel, that learning what happened will start at the age of three, in preschool."

      A truly sick society. That's literally child abuse.

  • How grassroots activists defeated anti-BDS legislation in Maryland
    • JeffB: "You aren’t allowed to discriminate even for a supposedly good purpose unless it is business essential. For example a company that refused to hire women because they want mothers to spend more time with their children would still be engaging in discrimination."

      Or a state that claims that some citizens belong to the nation of the state and the rest doesn't because of their faith/heritage.

      Of course you immediately realized that this time I wasn't talking only about Nazi Germany, too, didn't you?

    • The Jews weren't boycotting Germans for being German.
      Neither does BDS target Israelis for being Israelis or moslty Jews.

      In both cases the target war/is a discriminating state policy. That someone like you wants to see portrait this as discrimating and inherently more unacceptable is the usual perversion of human values and the reason why Israel is amongst the top most hated countries.

    • I think that JeffB wants to tell us that the Jewish Boycott of Nazi Germany was an act of discrimination.

  • 'Why do I not cry out for the right of return?' -- an exchange between Uri Avnery and Salman Abu Sitta
    • Talknic: "Many of the 6-7 million would have RoR to the Palestinian state."

      How many? Excluding those who had been allready expelled from the territory that came under Israel's control within 67 lines?

      Talknic: "Legal annexation requires an agreement."

      The State of Palestine has de facto and de jure ceded Ashdod and other towns and areas beyond 48 borders but within 67 lines by declaring its own state within 67 lines. If there's no contesting claim than no agreement is required.

      Talknic: "II gave a hypothetical. In the hypothetical situation there was no US UNSC veto vote preventing UN Membership for Palestine. Israel appears to sh*t itself at even the thought of peace. Palestine as a UN Member State even more so. It would mark the end of the Zionist Colonization scheme and could see the start of a raft of claims against the illegality of Israel’s actions prior to becoming a UN Member, throwing into question Israel’s right to even be in the UN. Then there’s the not so small matter of compensation …"

      Either Israel allready "sh**s itself" because of the NON-MEMBER-STATE Palestine's access to the ICC it allready has or it will never "sh** itself", because a MEMBER STATE Palestine would not be able to effectively challenge Israel via the UNSC, because of the US veto. There would be no difference to 47/48 where a UNGA majority voted against and a UNSC majority didn't support several proposals that the ICC should give at an advisory opinion on the legality of partition or if UNGA even had the power to make any recommendation or denying a referendum.

      Talknic: "You haven’t answered the question. It hasn’t for a reason. What is the reason?"

      The issue was if it "doesn't" censure states, not what the reason was that it hasn't. I won't follow your constant shifts of the point of issue.

      Talknic: "Answer these three questions.
      Did Israel declare its independence effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948?
      Did a majority of the world’s States recognize Israel?
      Was Israel accepted into the UN?"

      How could anyone know given your countless repetitions to create straw man arguments to not adress the point of issue? Now you are even asking others to acquire the same autism. ROFL. Again, I won't follow your constant shifts of the point of issue and strawman arguments or anything that I don't even dispute.

      Talknic: "Yes. The question was already answered, you cut and pasted it here"

      Yeah, but you changed the scenario and claimed that Israel should compensate, because it accepted stolen goods and Israel didn't allow return, allthough my question never indicated that Israel accepted stolen goods in my scenario or that there was a wish to return. I then clarified that neither would be the case and asked you again which you ignored. So what's your answer? Does Israel has to compensate those who do not wish to return, because theres is nothing left to refer to because of the destruction Israel's pre state actors commited beyond 48 borders?

      Talknic: "I’ve answered your question. Your refusal to get it is mystifying. The occupation is an ugly reality. So too was the Israeli Declaration. So too the recognition of Israel, like it or not legal or not just or not and its acceptance into the UN likewise. None are morally, ethically or legally acceptable situations. I can easily accept it’s an ugly, immoral, unethical, illegal, situation. Should it be rectified? Of course! "

      You gave an answer, that's all. But now you changed your wording, again. First you wrote: "If you can’t accept the ugly reality of Israel’s existence, it’s your problem.”
      Your actual accusation would be more like: If you can't accept that Israel's existence is an ugly reality, it's your problem.

      And what is the result of your word twisting? That if the latest wording was actually what you meant from the beginning, then you are inherently accusing me of being unable to accept the fact that Israel's existence is an ugly reality and that it 's my problem that I don't.
      Both versions are dishonest, Talknic.

      And bear in mind that for you it was also about accepting the fact that Israel was declared and recognized. So why is it not about accepting the fact that Israel keeps Palestine occupied? And to what extend should the situation be rectified? Which part of the situation which according to you is "ugly, immoral, unethical, illegal" should be maintained?

    • Talknic: I"t is clear he said 6-7 million refugees returning “to Israel”. Which is not, nor has it ever been, the demand of the Palestinians

      In a two state solution, who returns to Palestine is none of Israel’s business"

      Is 6-7 million refugees the (minmal or maximal) amount of refugees which would have a right to return to Israel within borders as envisaged in a two state solution based on 67 lines? YES or NO?

      Talknic: "de facto is not de jure where an agreement is required There has yet to be an agreement"

      Yes, you have allready made these straw arguments which don't even address mine. An agreement is NOT required, if nobody else contests Israel's claim to Ashod, etc. If you want to adress my argument then your answer should be something like:

      'Wrong. An agreement is required, if nobody else contests Israel's claim to Ashdod, because [insert your argument here].

      Talknic: "I’ve explained what I wrote, when and why. I didn’t change the essence of what was meant. ... If you read carefully a hypothetical situation was put forward based on the hypothetical assumption Palestine was already a UN Member, i.e., hypothetically sans a US UNSC veto vote."

      I see. So according to your latest variation your argument is now that Israel "sh*** itself" of the thought that Palestine becomes a UN member, because it can then, as a as state, challenge every illegal move Israel has mande since it became a state at all four the UN, UNSC , ICJ, and the ICC but only if the US doesn't use its pro Israel veto in the UNSC and allhough Palestine can allready challenge them at the ICC. Anything else you need to change to make your argument even more riduculous?

      Talknic: "It hasn’t for a reason."

      Well, glad you admit that you should have used "hasn't" instedad of "doesn't".

      Talknic Number one: "It’s NOT what I claim. It’s a ridiculous accusation. … If you can’t acknowledge what HAS transpired, you have a problem. I’ve not used your words “acceptable” …”.
      Me: You literally wrote: “If you can’t accept the ugly reality of Israel’s existence, it’s your problem."
      Talknic Number two: "That’s right."

      What's wrong with you, seriously?

      Talknic: "I didn’t say you or your beliefs were the problem."

      You actually did when it comes to my sence of justice, if according to you I have a problem, if I can't accept "the ugly existence of Israel".

      Talknic: "It didn’t make sense when you started it. It’s what happens when you don’t read carefully."

      The problem seems to be that you don't like the conclusions of the nonsense you literally write. Either you deny what you wrote or you twist it until your argument becomes even more nonsense. And you use countless straw arguments to avoid the real point of issue.

      I'm still waiting for some answers:
      1. Does Israel has to compensate Palestinians if their property has been destroyed/looted by pre state actors outside Israel's 48 borders and therefore don't want to return? YES or NO?
      2. Why do you write against the occupation, etc, if it as much of a fact as "the ugly existence of Israel" and given your statement that I have a problem, if I don't except the latter?

    • (Please delete)

    • Talknic: "It’s not clear what he bases his assumption on."

      Sure, it's more clear to you that he isn't talking about 48 borders right?

      Talknic: "Even if he is basing it on a two state agreement on '67 lines, 6-7 million refugees returning "to Israel" is simply NOT what the Palestinians claim."

      Sure, because like you the Palestinans claim that everything that is beyond 48 borders is not Israel's business, right?

      Talknic: "de facto is not de jure."

      Neither Israel nor Palestine longer legally contest this.

      Talknic: "There has never been ..."

      Yes Rainmain, we know, you allready said that countless times and I explained to you many times, why it isn't necessary and than you repeat the same over and over again.

      Talknic: "I made no such claim."

      Yeah, sure. You wrote: "Why do you think Israeli sh*ts itself at the thought of Palestinian independence and Membership in the UN? It can then, as a state, challenge in the UN, the ICJ and ICC every illegal move Israel has made since it became a state."

      It's obvious that you inherently claimed that Palestine can't go NOW to the ICC, but only "THEN, AS A STATE."

      Talknic: "I didn't change any argument."

      Sure, then you changed your argument to "at all four". What's your next invention, Talknic? That your meant that it can THEN not only go to the ICC, but ALSO to the UN, UNSC and ICJ, too? And Israel only sh** itself from this situation and not allready, that Palestine can allready go to the ICC?

      Talknic: "A) I didn't claim Palestine is not a state party to the Rome Statute. I pointed out what is in reach of the State of Palestine MORE so with the empowerment that comes from being accepted as a UN Member state, "

      ROFL. So I did predict this invention. What ADDITIONAL empowerment, if you admit that the UNSC would not vote in favor of Palestine, because of an US veto?

      Talknic: B) "gain"? I didn't use the word. Using your word, "gain" it of course becomes a nonsense.

      Sure, there's a difference between your claim that Palestine would [gain] (more) by becoming a full UN member, but not using the word "gain".

      Talknic: "Indeed."

      Really? Didn't you claim a long while ago that territory can be legally acquired by simply declaring a state?

      Talknic: "The UN could of course refuse membership."

      So its not correct to say that it "doesn't" censure states, if it can do so by refusing membership. You meant "it hasn't".

      Talknic: "It's NOT what I claim. It's a ridiculous accusation. ... If you can't acknowledge what HAS transpired, you have a problem. I've not used your words "acceptable" ...".

      OMG. You literally wrote: "If you can't accept the ugly reality of Israel's existence, it's your problem."

      And there's a difference between acknowledging the existence of something which shouldn't be accepted on the one hand and accepting it on the other.

      Talknic "... or "immutable".

      Yawn. I never said that you USED that word. That's what I wrote:

      But if you also claim that not a status quo which was the result of injustice and is injustice itself is the real problem, but that we don’t accept it, AS IF it was immutable, than you are not different from anyone who supports injustice with this kind of reasoning.

      Did you actually understand my argument? You don't even adress it.

      Talknic: "Nor have I asked anyone to 'accept' the situation as it now exists as being 'acceptable' or immutable. You're barking up an empty tree ."

      This whole discussion with you makes no longer any sense. Either you claim that you didn't write something, which you actually did or you claim that you didn't write something allthough nobody accused you of doing so. I never claimed that you "asked anyone" to accept the situation, but that you see the problem in non accepting thiy unacceptable situation. And I never claimed that you wrote that the situation is "immutable", but that you are arguing AS IF the situation is immutable, if you present it as a personal problem, if the "ugly existence of Israel" is not accepted AS IF this is what needed to be changed.

      I will end this discussion here. You are just repeating yourself with no new arguments or twisting my words or your own. And I won't ask you for the fourth time, why you write AGAINST the occupation, allthough the occupation is a fact as is Israel's "ugly existence". But you don't seem to be able to explain the incoherence of your position or maybe doesn't even see it.

    • Talknic: "Shall we go on what he said or what he didn’t say? Uri Avnery gave the ... 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel”

      Yawn. You allready made that argument. This is one of your countless repetition. You are still not able to respond to the fact, that Avnery is making an argument based on a two state solution within 67 lines which is supported by the majority of UN members who recognize Israel. You just repeat your initial claim to repeat your 48-borders-position.

      Talnic: "Israel hasn’t yet accepted ... in its plea for recognition."

      Yawn. Another of your countless repetitions. It doesn't change the fact that nobody, not even the State of Palestine, contests Ashod to be in Israel. Since Israel is the only claimant there's no need for any explicite recognition or agreement. What's next, another repetition?

      Talknic: "Quote me. Unwarranted and baseless accusations are an unusual way of discussion.

      Being dishonest, too. You wrote: " Why do you think Israeli sh*ts itself at the thought of Palestinian independence and Membership in the UN? It can then, as a state, challenge in the UN, the ICJ and ICC every illegal move Israel has made since it became a state.”

      So you failed with your inherent claim that Palestine was not a state, and therefore couldn’t go to the ICC and then you changed your argument to distract from this failure. Interestingly enough, you didn't even quote my first response and just repeated your altered argument as if nothing had happend before.

      Talknic: "Do you really think I’m not aware of the vile use of the US veto vote"

      No. But but your whole argument is nonsense. On the one hand Palestine is allready a state party of the Rome Statue of the ICC and on the other it doesn't gain anything by becoming a full UN member given US veto politics regarding Israel. So why would Israel "sh** itself", if Palestine would become a full UN member? Or independent, which it can only become, if Israel ends its occupation?

      Talknic: "It ISN’T in or inferred in the article and his statement is prefaced with the same “if” used by Ziopanic merchants to prevent any RoR."

      To be precise: Given the numbes of refugees he provides YOU cannot infere that he's talking about Israel based on 67 lines.

      Talknic: "Make up your mind. Hes repeating a ZioNonsense."

      I'm talking about a different ZioNonsense than you. I hope that you can infer that from what I explicitely wrote.

      Talknic: "Uh? Israel by it’s own admission ..."

      Doesn't make its aquistion of territory within 48 borders more legal than that beyond these borders.

      Talknic: "Where did I deny it? Of course it can. But it DIDN’T! "

      Again, your are changing your statement. You wrote: "the UN DOESN'Tt censure non members". It was safe to assume that you meant that it can't, because it doesn't have the power or other possibilities to do so.

      Talknic: "Jewish terrorists did, it’s a fact."

      Exactly. And your initial claim was that JSIL legally acquired territory by simply declaring statehood on it. According to this position ISIL could do the same.

      Talknic: "Does ISII represent a majority?"

      Give it some time to expell or massacre everyone who doesn't support its national goals and let it then declare statehood when it has become a slight majority. Would that be ok for you? And according to you an organisation like JSIL or ISIL is not longer responsible for the crimes its members commited after it acquires national status.

      Talknic: "No one needed to be expelled from the territories that became Israel either."

      What a fake argument. You very well know that Israel (at least de facto) expanded its territory beyond partition borders and ad least therefore had to expell Palestinians to become a majority and to be able to establish a "Jewish democracy".

      Talknic: "A claim without any citation” y"

      Why don't you simple quote from the links you provide? Do you really expect anyone to read through the whole documents?

      Talknic: "t certainly doesn’t."

      So the Jews who had a right to self determination (having aqcuired Palestinian citizenship) in the territory that was recommended by the UN is far below the numbers of Nonjews and mirrored the ratio between Jewish and Nonjewish Palestinians in all of Palestine. So what makes you claim that Jews had a right to seced, if they were a 1:2 minority in the territory they wanted to secede?

      Talknic: "Go whine to Israel for ignoring it’s obligations, ..."

      So far your most stupid comment, Talknic since I was proving to you that you claimed that Jews had a right to violate the right to self determination of Nonjews, because according to you a state has a right to cecede and you admitted that the right to self determination was ignored, in the case of Zionist secession. But be assured that I may make a simiiar remark when you bring up your 48-whineries.

      Talknic: "Me too. I agree."

      Oh, so you do actually don't accept Israel secession and

      Talknic: "You’ve left out the majority representative part of my statement BTW"

      What part? The part I have allready adressed by mentioning that Jews with Palestinian citizenship were a minority?

      Talknic: "Problem. No one has a right to violate anything. You’re needlessly fabricating accusations. It’s tiresome."

      Really? Just answer this question with yes and no, if you think that someone would deliberately misinterprate your contantly changing positions to fabricate accusations.

      If Israel violated the right to self determination (as you claimed initially) than it didn't have the right to secede and therefore did not legally acquire territory by declaring a state within any borders. Yes or no?

      Talknic: "A snake doesn’t have a skin to shed before it exists. The state is guilty of the crimes it commits after it comes into existence."

      That's your fallacy. That you need to suggest that "the state" (the organsation with state status) is not the same organisation like the organisation which porclained and acquired this state status. You are only repeating yourself, so let's leave it with that.

      Talknic: "Israel has to compensate because Israel, since it came to exist, has accepted stolen goods and refused RoR for over half a century."

      The question was about refugees who don't wish to return. I forgot to add this is about the cases where there's nothing left to return to since more than 400 villages were destroyed and what was not destroyed may have been looted by pre state actors which kept the posession for themselves. So it's irrelevant if Israel would not allow them to return. Does Israel have to compensate them for being expelled and their property destroyed by its pre state actors and outside its proclaimed borders?

      Talknic: "Strange, I’ve been writing AGAINST occupation et al since I arrived at MW and for a long long time before. "

      Yes, VERY strange, because I've been asking you now for the third time what keeps you FROM accepting the occupation, allthough it is a fact? Or in other words: Why DO you write AGAINST the occupation, allthough the occupation is a fact? Isn't it YOUR problem, that you can't accept the fact that the occupation exists?

      Me: “That’s your way of supporting the ugly reality of Israel’s existence. By suggesting that the main problem is not its ugly existence, but if we don’t accept it.”
      Talknic: "What support for Israel’s existence? It’s simply a fact."

      I could say that this is just one of your your "it is what it is" tautology which is just a logicaly fallacy and means that you lost the argument. But if you also claim that not a status quo which was the result of injustice and is injustice itself is the real problem, but that we don't accept it, as if it was immutable, than you are not different from anyone who supports injustice with this kind of reasoning.

    • Talknic: "If you can’t accept the ugly reality of Israel’s existence, it’s your problem."

      That's your way of supporting the ugly reality of Israel’s existence. By suggesting that the main problem is not its ugly existence, but if we don't accept it.

      I can finally understand the main problem of everyone who had a problem with Nazi Germany, Apartheid Southafrica or any other ugly existence: It just was their own non-acceptance. ROFL.

    • Talknic: "That’s not conveyed in the article.

      A) The ’67 borders aren’t stated by Uri Avnery "

      So your claim is that this is not the s logical conclusion given the numbers he claims to have a right to return, his claim that it would be the end of a "Jewish state" and your assupmtion that he's not talking about 48 borderrs allthough he didn't state so?

      "B) When and by what legal agreement did Israel acquire any territories outside of those it accepted and declared and was recognized by in 1948? ‘considered’ simply does not answer the question"

      I allready explained to you that a legal agreement is not necessary, if noone else contests these territories (any longer). Not even the State of Palestine challenges this.

      Talknic: I didn’t ignore it. I mentioned all four would be in reach, the UN, UNSC, ICJ and ICC."

      Yeah sure. After you failed with your inherent claim that Palestine was not a state and therefore couldn't go to the ICC allthough it allready has become a state party to the Rome statue you simply changed your argument to "at all four" and added the UNSC. As if the US wouldn't veto every anti-Israel move or the UNGA and its long majority recognition and majority support for a two state solution based on 67 lines would allow any request of an advisory opinion which would challenge Israel's legitimacy or support your 48-borders-approach.

      Talknic: "You might ‘consider’ that to be the case. It’s not conveyed in the article."

      Let me guess. You need a document in which he explicitely states that his argument is based on 67 lines, because this again is something you logically cant extract from the context. ROFL.

      Talknic: "So ‘we’ do agree."

      Not regarding the way he wants to undermine RoR.

      Talknic: "OK. You word the challenge?"

      My question is, if it makes ANY SENSE TO YOU to endlessly repeat your position about Israel’s borders to challenge this. Given your evading response and any lack of an argument it seems that it doesn't.

      Talknic: "No. The problem is the fact that Israel has yet to agree to accept ANY limitations to its borders other than those it declared per UNGA res 181, effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time). Israel has not recognized Palestine’s borders. There is no agreement. "

      It's also a fact that this NOT the problem that Israel or the State of Palestine have regarding the territories beyond 48 borders but within 67 lines (excluding Jerusalem). It's not contested between these two parties.

      Talknic: "The territories outside of Israel’s borders some how magically became Israeli by what legal process in agreement with who?"

      The same "legal process" and agreement you claim to exist for Israel within 48 borders? Your alleged right to self determination in this case? So after the Nonjews were expelled the majority of the rest of the population in these territories wanted to merge with Israel?

      Talknic: "Hate to tell you this, right or wrong, legal or illegal, the UN DID allow Israel Membership."
      Talknic: "Too late! Like it or not Israel is a UN Member State. The Jewish Agency et al lied to get into the UN. They’re a still lying"

      Yeah, hate to tell you again, that there are examples of your many straw arguments The question was, IF the UN can censure non members or UN Members for crimes committed prior to becoming A) States and/or B) UN Member States. You denied this and I wrote that it can by not recognizing statehood or denying full UN membership.

      Talknic: "Not by any legal agreement with Palestine ..."

      Again, not the pont of issue. I was refering to your claim that Israel did not "accept" territories beyond partition borders and I explained to you even how it did according to its laws and orders from its pseudo legal point of view.

      Talknic: "Jewish terrorists did."

      So according to you if JSIL did, so can ISIl legally acquire territory by simply declaring statehood on it. Is there anyone who supports your ridiculous claim?

      Talknic: "Do ISIL represent any legitimate majority in any territory?"

      Neither did JSIL.

      Talknic: "How the territory was acquired was the particular point at issue."

      It didn't need to be acquired. Nobody needed to be expelled to achieve a majority. 98,3% choose to exercise their right to self determination to have their own state. And as in any other legal case for secession the nationality of the newly created state was transfered to everyone living in this territory.

      Talknic: "The ad hoc committee made changes to the boundaries which increased the Jewish percentage in the Jewish state to 61% before UNGA voted "

      A claim without any citation.

      Talknic: "Another illegality committed by non-state actors before the State of Israel existed and for which the State could not be prosecuted. "

      Doesn't change the fact that the number of Jews who had the right to self determination in Palestine were far below 50%. Maybe around 25%-30%.

      Talknic: "No one has the right to violate any rights at any time. Your accusation about what I inherently claim is ridiculous "

      Really? Your claims:
      "... states have a right to secede."
      "Israel ignored it" [The right to self determination].

      Now I would claim that there is no right to create (or "secede") a state while violating the right to self determination which contradicts the latter right. You obviously don't, if you claim that states (generally) have a right to secede, whether they violate the right to self determination or not.

      Talknic: "A snake can’t bite before it exists. Go yell at the Zionist organizations for using the law to protect the State from crimes committed towards but prior to its existence."

      Really? A flawed comparision and another repetition? That's your argument? Ok. A snake can bite before and even after it shed its skin. It's the same snake. You also seem to ignore that there are crimes that the pre state organisation started and the same organisation continued or even continues after it acquired national status. With the repetition of your argument you only repeat the same false premise:

      Talknic: "The record shows otherwise".

      ROFL. I lost the count of your repetitions which don't response to objections. I will start from now.

      Talknic: "If you say so. I certainly haven’t."

      1.) Does Israel according to you have to compensate refugees that do not whish to return, but to be compensated, if their origin is outside of Israel proclaimed borders as a result of state action?
      2.) Does Israel according to you have to compensate refugees that do not whish to return, but to be compensated, if their origin is outside of Israel proclaimed borders as a result of PRE state action?

      Talknic: "Uh? What makes you make a completely baseless accusation."

      OMG. Why DON'T you accept Israel's Apartheid, its occupation, its illegal annexation and illegal settlemetns? These are all facts and you seem to make a case for accepting "facts" when it comes to Israel, whether I like them or not.

    • Talknic: "Uri Avnery’s figure came from somewhere. If not from the UNRWA definition, where?"

      He thinks that this is the total number of refugees that have a right to return to Israel within borders that would be the result of two state solution based on 67 lines.

      Talknic: "So what are you arguing about?"

      Me? Who started calling Avnery's assumption a fallacy, because of his position that Israel only exists within 48 lines?

      Talknic: "‘considered’ doesn’t make something legal."

      Correct, but not the point of issue. The issue was that Avnery's claim is understood by everyone who considers these parts to be within Israel, too. And my claim is that this is the majority of UN members who don't contest that places like Ashod lare parts of Israel Especially not, if they support a two state solution based in 67 lines or the State of Palestine which declared statehood within 67 lines or act accordingly in their daily state business. So regarding Ashdod etc. there's no need for an agreeent, because there's noone who disputes this, except some countries that don't recognize Isael at all. Does it make any sense to you to endlessly repeat your position about Israel's borders to challenge this?

      Talknic: "Israel sh*ts itself at the thought of Palestinian independence and UN Membership. Palestine would then be in reach of launching proceedings at all four the UN, UNSC, ICJ and ICC for crimes committed by anyone, any body, any state and/or any state or non-state actor, at any time, pre-Israel’s declaration and post. Even against Uri Avnery himself."

      It's strange that you also have to ignore the fact that the UNGAR recognized Palestine's statehood by upgrading it to a non-member-state in 2012 which allowed the State of Palestine to sign the Rome statue of the ICC in 2015.

      Non-member States ... State of Palestine

      International Criminal Court welcomes Palestine as State Party to the Rome Statute

      Talknic: "We agree his understanding is nonsense."

      And "we" is you and who else? I understand the context in which he makes his statements. I also understand that if his numbers represent the numbers of refugees who wish to return to their homes within territories that would be within Israel according to a two state solution based on 67 lines than this would create a demographic challenge for Israel. But the actual fallacy is not about Israel's present borders, but his inherent claim that all the refugees want to return allthough their number is insignificant. Avnery is making a fake claim to undermine the right of return in general. Does it make any sense to you to endlessly repeat your position about Israel's borders to challenge this?

      Talknic: "B) Only based on what Israel ‘considers’ to be Israeli is Uri Avnery theoretically right."

      The problem is that not only Israel doesn't dispute that Ashdod is within Israel. Even the Palestinans don't by declaring their state within 67 lines and thereby not contesting Ashdod's nationality.

      Talknic: "However, the UN doesn’t censure non members (only states become members), nor do they censure UN Members for crimes committed prior to becoming A) States and/or B) UN Member States."

      But it can. By denying g a proclaimed created state to become a member of the UN. 2.) By denying the proclaimed state Non-member-state status which implies denying the recognition of its statehood (which the UN did with Palestine from 1988 until 2012).

      Talknic: "Until Israel agrees to the limits to its territories, the only teritories it has accepted and declared and that have been recognized are those of UNGA res 181."

      Israel's point of view is that it has legally "accepted and declared" the territories by issuing the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance and the Proclamation No. 1 of the Israel Defense Forces Government in the Land of Israel. We don't have to dicuss whether this was legal or not. You know, that I don't recognize Israel to have legally acquired ANY territory. When Israel wanted to become a UN member they made some statements as you know. And one of them was that the (final) boundaries would be the result of negotiations. So if you need to refer to 48/49 that this was Israel's point of view back then: Ashdod is a part of Israel until negotiated otherwise. Needless to say how hollow their phrases were and that they would never negotiate otherwise when it comes to the territories within 67 lines.

      But the point of issue is that (unfortunately) no state which recognizes Israel contests these territories to be Israeli, not even the State of Palestine. And this implies that all these states inherently accept and thereby recognize these territories to be Israeli.Does it make sense to claim that they don't, because there is no explicite official document of recognition? Does it make any sense to you to endlessly repeat your position about Israel's borders to challenge this?

      Talknic: "Declaration over territories under their control is in fact how their territories are determined."

      Determined, but not necesseraly legally acquired. Can ISIL legally acquire state territory by simply declaring statehood or simply determining its territory, too?

      Talknic "Self determination is not the particular point in question. how it acquired its territory is. How did South Sudan acquire its territory?"

      Self determination is actually the key point, when 98,3% of the population of a territory vote for secession.

      Talknic: "You’re cherry picking. It was also ignored by the states who recognized Israel."

      Where's the cherry picking? I never questioned that there are more morons who value recognition over self determination to make a case for Israel.

      Talkmic: "Secession is by the party who want to split from a larger entity. The population of the territories declared in the Israeli plea for recognition as alloted the Jewish state under UNGA res 181 was predominantly Jewish."

      To the contrary. The Nonjews were the majority :
      "t will thus be seen that the proposed Jewish State will contain a total population of 1,008,800, consisting of 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. In other words, at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State."

      And bear in mind how many Jews hadn't even acquired Palestinan citizenship and therefore actually had not right to exercise a right to self determination within Palestine. IIRC it was Henry Cattan who estimated these to be half of all Jews in Palestine.

      Talknic: "Recognizing what came about and how it came bout doesn’t automatically mean one agrees with what came about or how it came about. Your accusation is a nonsense."

      Allow me to remind you that you argued that there's a right to secession and that Israel violated the right to self determination when it ceceded. So you inherently claim that Zionist have the right to violatie the right to self determination.I that's not ultra-Zionist, what is?

      Talknic: "So Israel hasn’t recognize any territorial limits ...."

      For the second time: The question was who recognizes Ashdod to be part of Israel. See above.

      Talknic: Having it your way = one endless land grab based on simply acquiring territory by war and convincing states to consider it to be Israeli without any legal process having taken place that transfered those territories acquired by war to Israel. It happened by magic. Right?.

      ROFL. That is actually your way when it comes to the 48 borders. I don't recognize Israel to have legally acquired any territory for its state. Truly antizionist, don't you think?

      Talknic: "A) You’re cherry picking again. I said there was no transfer of ownership during the civil war."

      Neither pre nor post state. And in any way without consent or referendum.

      Talknic: "A state can only be held responsible A) from the time it comes into existence ..."

      Talknic: "States cannot be held responsible for illegal actions committed by non-state actors before the said state existed. "

      You admitted that Israel and its pre state actors are the same criminal organisation. So its obvious that an organisation is responsible for the crimes it committed. That this organisation acqured national status as a result of these crimes neither changes its criminality nor responsibility. No try to counter this argument without repeating the same line over and over again.. That is if you actually have any argument.

      Talknic: "Our exchange has been entirely an engagement in counter arguments."

      No, it's more like echinococcus said: “What you just said, you’ve said it hundreds of times without ever responding to the objections to it.”

      Talknic: "You’re cherry picking again, omitting entirely for some weird reason the premise on which I based that statement."

      There's no need to omitt anything. Your premise is as weird as your statement. If Israel would accept the RoR for some Palestians who don't wish to return, but to compensated, because the terrorist Zionist didn't leave anything to return than the conclusion based on your premise is that Israel doesn't have to compensate them, if they were expelled outside of the partition borders by Israel's pre state actors.

      Talknic: "Accepting the facts doesn’t mean one agrees with or condones how they came about."

      So what keeps you from accepting the fact of Apartheid Israel? Or its occupation? It's illegal annexation and settlements? Besides the fact that it is not the same with what you need everybody to accept as a "fact"

    • Talknic "You’re kidding .."

      Not at all. Have a look at your funny claim:

      You: "UNRWA has no final status mandate. It’s definition is not about who has RoR"
      Me: Nobody made the claim
      You: "Uh? Uri Avnery"

      Talknic: "They’re wrong and Avnery is wrong to use the 6 or 7 million number returning to Israel because it is simply NOT what the Palestinians call for under UNGA res 194."

      I agree, they don't. They call for a general right to return. BUT everybody understands that this includes returning to parts of historic Palestine that Israel considers to be its own, whether recgonized or not. And to use your fatalistic killer argument: 'That's the reality, whether you like it or not'. Avnery's argument is based on this understanding. And everybody also understands that if the conflict is resolved by two state solution bthen it is ased on 67 lines, not on 48 lines. Which means that Avnery is theoretically right, allthough only a tiny fragment actually wishes to return.

      Talknic: "Those from outside the borders of Israel (1948) have RoR to territories outside the state of Israel "

      Which in reality are considered to be Israel, whether you like it or not.

      Talknic: "Therefore Israel’s only recognized borders are those it proclaimed in its plea for recognition."

      Please try to counter my argument that this is not international state practice. The countries that recognize Israel don't consider Ashdod to be occupied and act accordingly. Neither does the State of Palestine which declared itself within 67 lines. Nobody who recognizes Israel contests its claim to souvereignity over Ashdod, Jaffa, Bersheeba, Acre, Nazareth, etc. Isn't it obvious to you how the UN members treat Jerusalem by comparison? Was there ever a security council resolution that declared Israel's incorporation of Ashdod to be "null and void" like in the case with Jerusalem or the Golan Hights? No!. That's the reality, Talknic, whether you like it or not.

      Talknic: "Answer me this. Why do you think Israeli sh*ts itself at the thought of Palestinian independence and Membership in the UN? It can then, as a state, challenge in the UN, the ICJ and ICC every illegal move Israel has made since it became a state"

      Here's my answer. Palestine's statehood was recognized within the UN in 2012. And the ICC is open to all states that sign the Rome Statue not only to UN members. And so the State of Palestine signed it. Answer me his. How couldn't YOU know that?

      Talknic: "I asked to see a document of recognition. None was produced."

      Please try to counter my arguments instead of constanty repeating yourself. No such documents are necessary, if states act accordingly. It's up to them HOW they recognize a state or its borders. If states accept that the port of Ashdod is within Israel and therefore accept Israeli port regulations than they recognize Ashdod to be a part of Israel.

      Talknic: "The convention is reflected in the UN Charter and subsequent relative conventions on self determination."

      The criterias for statehood may be. But not what you claim. And the convention doesn't even deal with states under occupation. Further down you even admit that Israel ignored the right to self determination.

      Talknic: "It is how states are declared."

      The question is not how states are declared, but how states aquire their state territory. Not by pre state actors simply declaring statehood.

      Talknic: "South Sudan for example."

      You want to compare a state which became independent, because 98,3% of its population voted for it in a referendum with Israel? ROFL.

      Talknic: "Israel ignored it ...."

      Yeah, but f*** the right to self determination as long as Israel is recognized, right?

      Talknic: "However states have a right to secede. Which is what Israel did in effect."

      No, there's no such thing as a right to secede. If that was the case than their statehood would be recognized automatically. But they aren't. See Kosovo. And states have especially not a riight to secede without the consent of its population. So on the one hand you claim that Israel violated or "ignored" the right to self determination with its "secession", but on the other you want to claim that it had the right to do so by this secession. You are making a case for the violation of the right to self determination. Sounds pretty Zionist to me.

      Talknic: "However there is still no agreement between Israel and Palestine."

      So what? The question was who recognizes Ashdod to be part of Israel. You claim that nobody does (besides the state that don't recognize Israel at all) allthough Palestine declared statehood within 67 lines and doesn't contest Ashdod to be a part of Israel. See all of their negotiations and proposed maps.

      Talknic: "There was no transfer of ownership."

      Exactly. Israel doesn't own any territory, because neither its pre-state actors nor its state actors owned or legally aquired the territory which was owned collectivelly by the citizens of Palestine who didn't tranfer anything. Neither its mandatory Goverment.

      Talknic: "A state can only be held responsible A) from the time it comes into existence ..."

      Yep Israel can be held responsible for claiming state territory which came only into its posession through war and expulsion either by itself or its pre state actors and by violating the right to self determination of the territory's population.

      "UNSC Res 476 tells us a state can be held responsible and is required to take actions to remedy issues created by the state. Individuals/state actors are not mentioned."

      Doesn't need to be mentioned Everybody understands that it's the states state actors who commit these national crimes. A state is just an "abstraction", a collective of state actors.

      Talknic "Please read what I’ve been writing."

      Theres' no way to escape your constant repetition of the same claim and your failure to engange my counter arguments.

      Israel's pre state actors and the state (and its pre state actors) were and still are the same criminal enterprise, the same criminal project, the same criminal continuum, the same criminal organisation. The only difference is that this organisation acquired a national status. But this doesn't absolve it for its pre national crimes. But no, these crimes are not Israel's business, right?

      Talknic: "What I said is quite clear."

      Yep, too clear for my taste. You literally wrote: "RoR to areas outside of Israel simply isn’t Israel’s business.”

      So the RoR to Ramle, Lydda, Acre, Jaffa, Ashdod and so on isimply isn't srael's business according to you.

      Talknic: "It was Israel’s position on May 22nd 1948. It was Israel’s and the UN’s position in Aug 1949 by which time Israel was a UN Member."

      Is it still the UN's position that the refugees of Ramle, Lydda, Acre, Jaffa, Ashdod and so are not Israel's "business".

      Talknic: "The UN cannot and has never censured non-member states by name for their illegal actions prior to becoming UN Members."

      It can by not recognizing it or allowing it to become a member state. And Israel's didn't need only one request to become a member. But according to you it seems that we have to accept Israel's recognition like Apartheid South Africa's. You are a true advocate of ... Israel's business, aren't you?

      Why don't you make a case for Apartheid Greater Israel? You could just say Yeah, that's a violation of international law and a violation of the right to self determiation and blah blah, but it is what it is. That's a fact, it's reality whether we like it or not. And that this has nothing to do with you ... nor is it Israel's business.

    • Talknic: "I didn’t claim he was."

      I wrote that nobody claimed what you were trying to counter with refering to the UN mandate and you suddenly wrote that Averny was.

      Talknic: "That’s right. Israel has yet to accept. ...."

      This also wasn't the issue. You claimed that nobody has recognized Israel within 67 lines while inherently claiming that Palestine did with their declaration.

      Talknic: "And I already said Israel has yet to agree to any limitations to any borders beyond its original May 15th 1948 declaration and plea for recognition."

      Again. this wasn't the issue. You claimed that states that recognize Israel would not recognize Ashod, etc. to be a part of Israel, because there was not explicite document of recognition. And I eplained to you why that isn't ncessary.

      Talknic: "By declaration per the Montevideo Convention of the Rights and Duties of States (1932) states come into being. Israel is no exception surely."

      The Montevideo Convention of the Rights and Duties of Stateses has nothig to do with. This was a special treaty between the US and other states. Legal experts sometime refer to its statehood criterias as one of possible tests to identify statehood.

      One cannot simply become the souvereign (owner) of a territory by declaring statehood on it. You too are totally ignoring the right to self determination of the country's sovereign which is its population. And that they were not consulted and didn't give their consent. Israel even lacks an internal legitimation. Not only because it even had a nonjewish majority within partition borders and about half of the Jews were not citizens of Palestine.

      Talknic: "Israel has refused to accept the Palestinian declaration of statehood."

      Doesn't change the fact that Palestine doesn't contest Ashdod and other territories beyond partition borders to be a part of Israel.

      Talknic: "Those territories outside of its self delineated borders of UNGA res 181, yes."

      Nope. Territories inside the borders came into posession through war, too. And Israel's Goverment(s) can be held responsible for claiming them as state territory.

      Talknic: "Their actions were not however the actions of a state. A state can’t be censured for crimes committed before the state came into existence."

      States actually cannot act at all. State actors can. And the leading pre state actors and the leading state actors are in most cases the same. And the following state actors continue the same crime. So yes, Israel (its state actors) can be held responsible for continuing the crime of its pre state actors and building the state that illegal came into their posession as much as denying the Palestinians including the refugees their right to self determintion in all of historic Palestine. and maintaing a state which territory was taken ONLY through violence and without ANY consent of its population.

      Talknic: "RoR to areas outside of Israel simply isn’t Israel’s business."

      That's basically what I was saying. So according to you it has no "business" with the RoR to Ramle, Lydda, Acre, Jaffa, Ashdod and so on. Do you also want to claim that this is the UN's position and not only your private?

    • Talknic: "Uh? Uri Avnery"

      He wasn't talking about the UNWRA mandate at all. You made these straw man arguments.

      Talknic: "The Palestinian claim is per UNGA res 194 by which time Israel’s borders were limited by its plea for recognition."

      The Palestinians don't claim, that only those refugees should exercise this right who fled or were expelled from partition territory.

      "Talknic: A ) I cannot for the life of me find, nor has anyone been able to provide, an actual official document by ANY state recognizing ANY territories acquired by war by Israel to be Israeli."

      You yourself wrote: "The Palestinians under the leadership of Arafat, declared statehood, CEDING 78% of their rightful territories to the State of Israel."

      And I allready told you that there's no need for an EXPLICITE document of recognition, if states act accordingly. There's not a single state who recognizes Israel, but treats Ashod, its port or its coastal waters as occupied/blockaded Palestinan territory until a final agreement is made.

      Talknic: "I’ve never made a claim even remotely similar to “not even Israel itself considers territories like Ashdod, Jaffa, Acre. etc. to be part of Israel”. "

      Really? You refered to Israel`s statement to the UN SEC May 1948 to counter the argument that Israel had incorporated these territories.

      Talknic: "The territories outside of Israel’s declared and recognized borders that Israel most certainly “considers” are its own thru settling them, have yet to be transferred any agreement. "

      So how were the territories inside these borders were legally "transfered" to or acquired by Israel?

      Talknic: "Those territories “outside the State of Israel” are quite simply not yet Israeli as there has never been a final status agreement where Israel has accepted any final territorial limitations."

      Israel has incorporated them.That's not a "limitation" and Palestine doesn't contest these territories to be Israeli.

      Talknic: "Pre-state Jewish terrorists ..."

      You don't answer the question. By what legal mechanism did the Goverment of Israel acquire the territories for its state that were illegaly acquired before 1948 by its pre state actors?

      Talknic: "Indeed it doesn’t. There is no actual transfer of ownership. There’s a transfer of possession."

      So Israel doesn't own the territories that its pre state actors possessed before 15 May 1948. To be more precise. Israel doesn't own any territory at all, because every inch of its territory was acquired through war whether within partition borders or beyond whether by it or its pre state actors.

      Talknic: "Pre-state, they were not ‘State Actors”. A State can’t be held responsible for non-state actors’ pre-state crimes."

      It can be held responsible for illegaly taking over territory that was illegaly acquired by pre state or foreign actors. And the pre state actors and what came after are just the same Junta. The People's Council rebranded themselves as the Provisional State Council after they proclaimed their state. So what's next Talknic? Israel bears no responsibility for the Palestinians that were expelled before 15 May 1948? Only for the Palestinians that were expelled by Israel and who lived within partition borders?

      Talknic: "Show me a more accurate and detailed map, aligned as close as possible to Google earth that can be transparent allowing one to see today and the borders declared in 1948"

      Maps like these?

      Talknic: "More precisely : there were territories controlled by pre-state Jewish terrorists during the civil war that were beyond those recommended and eventually declared and recognized as Israeli."

      So these actually weren't acquired through war by Israel? And there were also territories acquired through war by these pre-state actors that actually were within partition borders. So how did Israel legally aquire the territories within partition borders which had been illegaly acquired by its pre state actors?

    • Talknic: "UNRWA has no final status mandate. It’s definition is not about who has RoR."

      Nobody made the claim. The right ro return for Palestinan refuees INCLUDES the refugees who have a refugee status under UNWRA.

      Talknic: "That doesn’t change the UNRWA mandate or where they have a right to return to."

      Nonbody made that claim. Your claim is that "that the six or seven million Palestinian refugees wanting to return to Israel is a fallacy." Your claim is based on your other claim that no UN member which recognizes Israel and not even Israel itself considers territories like Ashdod, Jaffa, Acre. etc. to be part of Israel. Which of course is the actual fallacy, cause when Israel talks about the right to return it denies the right to return to every territory it controlled before 1967 and Jerusalem therafter and probably also all settlements it considers to be included in a peace treaty. Which explains the high number and that this is seen as a demographic threat.

      Talknic: "Whatever Israel didn’t declare and were not recognized as Israeli. How and/or when Israel acquired those territories and the fact that Israel can’t be indicted for what transpired before it existed as a state ..."

      You wrote about the "territories Israel has acquired by war SINCE proclaiming its borders". That are not the territories that were acquired by Israel through war BEFORE 15 May. So what is it now? Territories that lie beyond recognized borders or territories that were acquired after 15 May? And by what legal mechanism did the Goverment of Israel acquire the territories for its state that were illegaly acquired before 1948 by its pre state actors? Stolen property doesn't become legal through transfer of ownership, if you want to argue that the pre Israel "People's council" is different from the "Provisional State Council" which was the same organisation just by a different name.

      Talknic: "Nope. Nope. These territories"

      A link to a kmz file, are you nuts? Which territories were acquiredthrough war by Israel AFTER it came into existence? There were territories that were illegaly acquired through war before May 1948 and you claim that Israel can't be held responsible for thisd, but that they were somehow legally acquired by Israel if they are within partition borders.

    • I meant 1948 borders, not 1848.

    • Talknic: "The Palestinian claim is based on UNGA res 194 of 1948 which cannot possibly be referring to an UNRWA definition or figure for the simple fact that UNRWA didn’t exist in 1948."

      Refering to UNGAR 194 doesn't ecxlude refering to the later UNWRA definition of a refugee. There are actually more who fled or were expelled than those who acquired refugee status based on UNWRA's definition since it only considers those who are refugees who are helped by UNWRA installations in some neighbouring countries IIRC.

      "Only non-Jewish Israelis have that right, being those who Israel pleaded with to sta in its declaration of statehood even as they were being dispossessed."

      I guess what you actually want so say is that only the ("nonjewish") refugees (and their descendants who acquired refugee status) who were habitually resident inside what became Israel according to borders of the partition plan (in which it wanted to be recogniized immediately after its proclamation) have a right to return to THIS very same territory.

      Talknic: "There is of course a demographic threat to the territories Israel has acquired by war since proclaiming its borders."

      Which territories are you talking about? According to your reasoning not the territories that were illegaly acquired before its existence, right? So I guess only East Jerusalem and the Golan Hights?

      Oh no, sorry I made a mistake. Not even these territories, because Israel only pleaded for recognition within 1848 borders, right?

    • It's quite shocking how dishonest Avnery is when it comes to 48 and the expulsion of Palestinians. Especially his attempt to create a fake symmetry to distract from Zionist settler colonialism and its need to expell the natives for demographic reasons.

  • I am not a jew
    • hophmi: "I guess the definition of good poetry is whether it fits your politics."

      Like your definition of antisemtism?

    • eljay: "In which case it’s echoing the claim you Zionists frequently make."

      Well, self hatred is a "sad disease" accordíng to Hophmi.

    • jon s: "Yonifalic , the Anti-Semitic meshumad, is also a self-confessed murderer. Why not encourage him to surrender himself to the appropriate authorities to stand trial for his crimes?"

      A very good idea. Cause if he emptied his rifle into a little Nonjewish girl he may get compensated and promoted like "Captain R." by the "appropriate authorities" of the so called "Jewish state".

  • Israel packs seven lies into one statement on the Palestinian hunger strike
    • Mayhem: "International law has become an international joke."

      Yup, not only because of Israel and its breach of international law since its establishment

      "Why would Israel want to succumb to the sickness that is flaunted under the banner of ‘international law’?"

      Funny. Certain Germans made the same arguments. Do you wanna go back to 1933? Should Israel leave the UN like Germany left the League of Nations?

  • Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti's op-ed calling Israel 'moral and political failure' is buried in int'l edition of 'NYT'
    • Barghouti was accused of doing what the Goverment of Israel does on an almost daily base.

    • So hopmi was right. It was a "open and fair" trial by the standards of his beloved Apartheid Junta.

  • Beyond apartheid: Fragments from the West Bank
    • Nobody needs to read Poground's article to know that he doesn't refer to the Crime of Apartheid as defined by international law, but only compares South Africa's petty Apartheid with Israel. The usual Hasbara trick.

  • Academic boycott campaign is growing fast at Trinity College Dublin
    • I think that Hophmi is right. Contrary to the citizens of the former Sovjet Union the citizens of the United Muppets of Israel don't know that and how much they are brainwashed.

  • Editor is fired then reinstated after he refuses to cut Sarah Schulman's paragraph on Palestine solidarity
  • Palestinians and international activists confront Israeli forces to demand bodies of slain Palestinians be returned to families
  • Trump dines, Arabs die
    • Here, some more sweets for Trump:

      "This Trump administration official appeared to be suggesting that there was no evidence that a weapons storage site had been hit by a Syrian airstrike. But an internal administration paper on the issue now circulating in Washington, a copy of which Truthout obtained, clearly refers to "a regime airstrike on a terrorist ammunition dump in the eastern suburbs of Khan Sheikhoun. More importantly, the US military allegedly knew in advance that the strike was coming: Russian military officers informed their American counterparts of the Syrian military's plan to strike the warehouse in Khan Sheikhoun city 24 hours before the planned airstrike, according to the former US official who spoke with Truthout. "

    • Did someone as despicable as ... ah, don't mind.

  • Why prominent Israeli journalist Larry Derfner rejected liberal Zionism in October 2008
  • Sean Spicer needs to go to a Holocaust center
  • Passover has become little more than an act of communal hypocrisy
    • Mooser: “Jon s” You better take that up with the IDF. Perhaps they are confusing Palestinian children with snakes."

      It's safe to say that they confuse Palestinians as such with "two legged animals". But Israel's average IQ is even lower than the US' which is pretty low.

    • jons s: "And I recall a discussion with an active Orthodox rabbi (with a connection to Leibovitz) who said that more than believing in Hashem , he believes in “avodat Hashem

      Yeah, it's like believing in doing good to others more than believing that they actually exist.

    • Jon S: "Judaism puts the emphasis not on what you believe, or claim to believe, but on what you do."

      Yeah, right. Do you actually know what the word "mitzvah" means and what its origin is?

    • JeffB: "Judaism is a religion of practice not belief."

      Says JeffB who claims that God has restored Israel. Oh the stupidity ...

    • JeffB: "In 2017 ..."

      Exactly. It is an ongoing crime against humanity. If that's God work what is left for Satan?

  • Activists rebrand Brand Israel conference as 'Brand Apartheid'
    • drhmay: "Some even handed reporting would keep your site from being dismissed as extremist."

      I know, right. But MW doesn't seem to care about dismissals from extremists.

  • 'This miracle, this gift, this jewel' -- Obama's ambassador to Israel declares he's a Zionist
    • Talknic: "Start putting them up."

      Why should I? It's you who inherenty claims that the majority of states that recognize Israel don't see Ashod to be an Israeli port, but occupied territory. Recognition is not only done through explicit recognitions documents, but also through documented state practice: If a state who recognizes Israel behaves according to Israel's regulations regarding the port of Ashod that is an implicit recognition. Same goes for state contracts with Israel that implicetly deal with Asdhod as an Israeli port.

      Talknic: "Bear in mind if you try going down that path, it was only an ICJ opinion, not a ruling."

      Another Hasbara fake argument.. An ICJ advisory opinion has the same legal effect as a ruling which would be based on the very same interpretation of international law by the very same institution. The advisory opinion is in fact the UN's interpretation of international law; because the ICJ is the UN's principal judicial organ.

      Talknic: "The only thing Israel has actually accepted are the territories it proclaimed in its plea for recognition".

      So Israel has not accepted Ashod to be a part of Israel. ROFL. Are we really talking about the same reality?

      "Israel said it May 22nd 1948 ..."

      That was trashed, too.

      Have you ever considered Israel's "Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance" or its "Proclamation No. 1 of the Israel Defense Forces Government in the Land of Israel", both of September 48? Or any of ts legal or political practices which indicate that it has incorporated these territories into the State of Israel? Oh no, Talknic wants us to prove the bleeding obvious.

      Talknic: "Even challenging it, Israel still exists. You cannot get away from that fact. Like it or not, that IS the situation. It isn’t a dream or a hope or a wish. It’s the reality!"

      Doesn' have to be the reality. States or its regimes don't necesseraly exist forever. Recognitions can be withdrawn and some have been in the case of Israel. But that's neither your nor a Zionist's starting point, isn't it?

      Talknic:"It has nothing to do with me."

      It has. Arguing for Israel's fait accomplies and denying its responsibility for its pre state actors is genuinly Zionist.

      Talknic: " I know we’re actually in the same boat, different paddles"

      No, we are definitely NOT in the same boat..

      Correct from a legal POV ... What I have said is that a State/person, cannot be indicted for a crime committed before it existed."

      Yeah right, the GoI is not responsible for what it did, before it declared itself to be the GoI. The "Provisional State's Council" is not responsible for the actions it commited when it was called the "People's Council" and representing (according to its own words) every Jew and every Zionist movement in Palestine.

      Let's recapitulate. According to you not even Israel recognizes Ashdod to be part of Israel and when non state actors illegaly acquire territory and then proclaim a state and create its goverment the very same goverment can claim that the state's territory was no illegaly aqcuired, because the illegal acquisition was before the proclamation. ROFL.

Showing comments 2575 - 2501