Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 4927 (since 2010-02-26 10:49:56)

An old Jewish guy in Oz. Tired of the fallacies surrounding the I/P issue. We were given the territory for a homeland state, with more than enough room for every Jewish person on the planet. Even today. Since declaration, Israel has illegally acquired more and more territory outside of it's actual proclaimed and recognized Sovereign boundaries and it encourages Israeli civilians to break laws that were adopted in large part because of the treatment of our Jewish fellows under the Nazis. All I ask is that Israel adhere to the law, under which it can easily protect itself, grow and prosper. The Palestinians ask for their legal rights under the Laws all states are obliged to uphold. Israel demands more and more non-Israeli land. I've received too many threats for opposing Israel's policies towards the Palestinians, broken windows, graffiti'd walls, hate mail, I'd prefer to remain anonymous, if that's OK. Who I am is irrelevant. It's the information that counts. :-)

Website: http://talknic.wordpress.com

Showing comments 4927 - 4901
Page:

  • Israel tells Gaza woman she must coordinate wedding date with Israeli army
  • Israeli soldiers set attack dogs on teen -- 'Bite him' -- and rightwing politician cheers
    • Mmmm an armed settler. Valid military target. IDF didn't arrest him. Will that be investigated? If not add illegal settler and soldiers and commanders to the ICC list

  • Factchecking Netanyahu: An annotated guide to the Israeli P.M.'s speech to Congress
    • Netanyahu's private thoughts 101

      The Iranians have said they don't want nukes, there's no evidence they are working towards nukes, so if they don't get nukes, it's because of me, Bibi Netanyahu, savior of the entire world and leader of the Jews! Of course we'll still need to invade Iran Iran must still be invaded to prove they don't have nukes, because even if they don't have nukes they might have nukes.

    • I want to see and hear Obama's next appearance. Who coaches him? Wonder if speech writers get overtime? They'll be busy. Or is it an algorythm alegorythm now a days?

      How about "Let's face it America, we're not gonna let some Israeli bullshit artist tell us how to run the the world's most powerful nation!"

      "No, no Mr President, we can't say that!

      "What do you mean "we"?"

      "Well you can if you wish Sir, but we can't. "

      "Why not, it's true isn't it?"

      "Yes but we can't say it, as a matter of fact we didn't just say it was."

      "Yes you did, I heard you!"

      "Yes, you did sir, but we didn't say it sir."

      "Well I'm gonna say it!"

      "OK guys wrap it up ... let's go next door and work on the you know what. Maybe we could just change Lincoln or Kennedy to Oba . . . . . . . . . . "

  • Pelosi blasts Netanyahu speech as 'insult to intelligence of U.S.', Amanpour calls it 'dark, Strangelovian'
  • West Bank settlers build Star of David out of rocks to prevent Palestinian farmers from using land
    • DaBakr March 2, 2015, 10:36 pm

      Do you really think the illegal Israeli Jewish settlers would allow that to remain on someone else's land they covet?

      'scuse the correction, necessary given that coveting other folk's property is against the basic tenets of Judaism. Makes one wonder how people like that qualify for Israeli citizenship

  • Netanyahu's speech and the American Jewish condition
    • WOW!! I wouldn't be seen dead wearing a bosom!

    • @ steven l "Zionism means ONLY a country for Jews which was promised by G-D as Eretz Israel which as you might know included in the initial Balfour declaration, trans-Jordania"

      Now that is amazing ... this G-D is the same one who didn't bother to show up for the Holocaust ?

      "If one does not believe in the rights of Jews, then Christians and Muslims have no rights either. This goes also of course for the seculars."

      Jews have rights. But Israelis, even non-Jewish ones don't have any right to illegally settle in non-Israeli territories that have been held under Israeli military occupation since 1948 and 1967 link to wp.me nor does Israel have any legal right to any of those territories

      "Are we all equal or some are more equal than others?"

      The cop out G-d who gives away land to a tiny minority seems to think some are far more equal than others . I wonder who invented such a G-D

      "As far as lobby is concerned, the Muslim (Shias & Sunnis) lobby is far more richer ($) and more powerful than the IL lobby. The Arab lobby has corrupted the whole political and academic world"

      An example of this alleged corruption would be nice .. thx

      " All this was achieved thanks to the dear notion of “American greed” in politics and academia. It is all about greed rather than spirituality"

      Uh huh. Can you explain why the US who recognized Israel as Israel asked to be recognized, by its proclaimed borders link to trumanlibrary.org and; who refuses to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem, (Jerusalem is not Israeli link to wp.me ) , continually vetoes UNSC resolutions against Israel

    • @ steven l "In the past 65 years, the only counter-offer from the opposite side has been NO, NO and NO"

      Uh huh link to wp.me

      I guess you've never read the Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty? Israel agreed to withdraw from all territories sovereign to Egypt after which peaceful relations were assumed. Jordan similar. Withdraw from other folk's territory and bingo ... peace! Seems quite logical and simple. No negotiations, simply get out of other folks territory

      Israel has yet to withdraw as required by UNSC res 242 and subsequent UNSC resolutions, showing BTW that 242 means ALL the territories occupied in '67 including Jerusalem BTW

      1) No talks. Why should anyone talk to a state in breach of its own borders and of International Law? It Isn't illegal to not talk to a thieving neighbour.

      It is illegal to acquire territory by war. It is illegal to unilaterally annex. It is illegal to settle ones citizens in territories one occupies. It is illegal to forbid your own citizens return to their country

      2) No Negotiations. The Egyptians didn't negotiate anything except how Israel would withdraw. Negotiations only mean the thief wants some of what they have stolen. It isn't illegal to refuse to negotiate with a thieving neighbour so they can keep what they've stolen.

      It is illegal to acquire territory by war. It is illegal to unilaterally annex. It is illegal to settle ones citizens in territories one occupies. It is illegal to forbid your own citizens return to their country

      3) No recognition. There is no legal obligation on any state to recognize any other state. In fact there are UN Member states who do not recognize each other. It isn't illegal to not recognize a state, even if it 's Israel.

      It is illegal to acquire territory by war. It is illegal to unilaterally annex. It is illegal to settle ones citizens in territories one occupies. It is illegal to forbid your own citizens return to their country

      "Can you cite one offer of true peace as a starting point for discussion from the Palestinian side?"

      Hundreds saying in effect 'get out of non-Israeli territory' Then there's Abbas at the UN in front of the world, twice offering 78% of the Palestinians rightful territories for peace with Israel.

      Israel's reply was to build more illegal settlements. Israel has offered only to swap non-Israeli territory for non-Israeli territory so Israel can keep non- Israeli territory.

      There is no legal, moral, ethical, logical, in fact there's no valid reason at all why anyone should negotiate away what they have a right to under the law, so Israel can keep what it is NOT legally entitled to under the law and to save Israel from the consequences of the law by for creating 67yrs of illegal 'facts on the ground'

      "European antisemitism is compounded with Islamic antisemitism and is spreading to the USA faster than U think"

      WOW!! Been any cries for evacuation. Homeless because entire neighbourhoods have been bombed?

      Say why don't you go kvetch to the Zionist Federation for demanding a separate state instead of accepting a deal where Jews could legally immigrate and achieve citizenship and buy land and settle anywhere in the Jewish People's Historical Homeland link to avalon.law.yale.edu Talk about missed opportunities. The Zionist Federation and the Jewish Agency have screwed every opportunity for Jewish folk. link to wp.me

    • @ hophmi
      "So Annie, you believe Jews have too much power and you resent it"

      an accusation without evidence.

      Say .... way dam inut .... isn't bearing false witness against the Jewish faith. tch tch tch for the Jewish state hophmi breaks the most basic of Jewish tenets. Wad a guy! Mus' be very proud!

    • "is that a question or a statement hops?"

      It's an accusation

    • Were it not for the US UNSC veto vote, Israel would have been a failed state long ago, taking with it billions in investments. That's the fear

      From the moment its borders were proclaimed effective, Israel has never been able afford the legal consequences of having broken the law by dispossessing its non-Jewish citizens and illegally claiming and settling territories it conquered and held under occupation by 1949 and the territories it conquered in '67 and holds under occupation today.

      The fear of another Holocaust, existential threats etc are the 'look every but techniques' used by propagandists, magicians and charlatans to garner support

  • Forensic expert says Israeli forces killing of 19-year-old Palestinian 'similar to an execution'
  • Israel turns off power to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the dead of winter
    • @ Hezakiah "Their power was out a whole 45 minutes,huh? That’s just brutal since the last storm we lost power here in the Philly area,we were without power for a whole 7 hours and that was nothing too"

      WOW!!! A storm huh. Was the storm on purpose or by an Occupying Power who is supposed to make up the shortfall in of essentials in occupied territories it is supposed to protect?

      As you're obviously an honest straight shootin' guy Hezakiah, I'm sure you'll answer my inquiries honestly ... right? (providing Annie sees its fit to publish your replies. Maybe she can 'bleep' out anything in-appropriate )

      1) Many flattened apartment blocks, homes without walls or a roof in the Philly area?

      2) Much damage from the last time the occupying power invaded?

      3) Are there some 65,000 homeless living under canvas, a sheet of iron, cardboard link to theguardian.com ?

      4) Many places like this in Philly link to i.guim.co.uk ??

      5) Are 70% of homes uninhabitable in Philly?

      "While you [….] whine for people that are traeted like garabge by the ones they elected"

      They elected the Israeli Government? WOW!! It's Israel who prevents adequate rebuilding materials entering Gaza. (don't bother with the Hamas should stop building tunnels schtick pal, there's only photos of one concrete lined tunnel. It was never used and it could have even been built by the IDF judging from where it ended! Or was it started?)

      "let’s see what you say about right here in America where the power company shuts the juice off whenever they want and DON’T turn it back on 45 minutes later as a “warning ” Local
      Vietnam Vet Dies Of Hypothermia After Heat Shut Off To Home"

      Here's what I say ... US war veterans are "traeted like garabge" by the US and only a sick and twisted scumbag would hold this poor fellows death up in order to justify Israel's atrocities.

    • @ assaf.d "I am from israel"

      Where in Israel? Remembering that Israeli sovereignty has never included any territories it has acquired by war or any other illegal means since May 15th 1948 00:01 (ME time) link to wp.me

      "It is related to that the Palestinian Authority has not paid the electric bill for some years!!!"

      "Israel, the Occupying Power" has made it impossible for the Palestinians to generate their own electricity. Under the Laws of War, "Israel, the Occupying Power" is responsible for the shortfall in essentials. Art 55

      But hey, lets be fair. Your assertion is if the Palestinians do not honour their agreement "
      And have a debt of over $ 500 million, which is threatening to the stability of the Israel Electric Corporation"

      Israel has not honoured its agreement to adhere to International Law, the UN Charter and the Conventions it has ratified and Israel has started (the preemptor starts its wars) numerous wars. The UNSC has issued hundreds of UNSC resolutions affording Israel the opportunity to adhere to the binding Laws those resolutions emphasize. Israel has failed for more than half a century to live up to its obligations. "Israel, the Occupying Power" has destroyed Palestine's ability to care for its people.

      Israel has illegally acquired by war more than half of what remained of Palestine after Israel became a state with it's own proclaimed borders (ibid).

      The compensation Israel owes the Palestinians is astronomical, far in excess of what it has ever been able to afford.

      "In addition the power cuts are for two three hours a day not all the today.

      Tell that to a hospital and essential services. Say ... does Israel allow generators and the fuel to run them?

      "If you were not paying the electric bill for three months here in Philadelphia
      They cut off your electricity and send the debt for collection and destroying your Credit History"

      Understandable.... So, Israel is in breach of International Law and the UN Charter for 67 years....

      "So Israel Electric Corporation waited 5 years and still continued to supply electricity"

      The UN have been waiting for Israel to comply with its legal obligations for 67 years and it has generously afforded hundreds of opportunities for Israel to comply, and still Israel is a UN Member. Must be biased .... in favour of Israel.

    • @ eljay
      I agree that as soon as Israel…
      – ends its 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) "

      Always best to back your assertions

      3rd Jun 1948 in the Knesset

      Report to the Provisional Government of Israel by Prime Minister and Minister of Defence Ben-Gurion 3 Jun 1948
      "The entire expanse of the State of Israel allocated to us under the terms of the UN resolution is in our hands, and we have conquered several important districts outside those boundaries".

      and;

      "To the greatest possible extent, we will remain constantly on the offensive, which will not be confined to the borders of the Jewish State".

      Sorry about the Antisemitic source... :-)

    • Instead of offering aid and relief for people in the grip of a natural disaster in territories Israel is supposed to be protecting as the Occupying Power, Israel takes away. What kind of ghastly evil mindset has taken hold of it?

    • @ Walid..... Far worse was realizing I was amongst millions of Jewish folk who have been subjected to Zionist brainwashing, the stench of which has permeated our communities, driving people to bizarre depths of denial, blindness and unwavering belief in the complete bullsh*t of the Hasbara.

      Realizing the Jewish Agency, Zionist Federation and our Jewish homeland state lied its way into the UN and the hearts of well meaning people. Realizing the deep pockets of the Zionist Federation, Bank Leumi, JNF et al were dug and lined by ordinary folk conned into taking loans so they could sweat and toil while Zionist leaders didn't even bother to go live in the Jewish People's Historical Homeland when they could have.

      Relief from that nightmare comes thru dissing the pathetic justifications offered by Israel's ghastly propagandists

    • DaBakr "And its not like the billion of dollars that gets shoveled into Abbas’s pockets goes to help regular, non-militant Palestinians anyway"

      An accusation without evidence ... why am I not amazed? Oh I'm sure you have some, other than more accusations, which without evidence, aren't evidence ... I'll wait .... ...

    • @ hophmi "I’ll save you the trouble: there are no dams in southern Israel."

      Strange

      31°21'39.79"N 34°22'33.18"E
      31°22'53.12"N 34°23'33.70"E
      31°21'56.23"N 34°27'36.04"E
      31°22'44.44"N 34°29'3.88"E
      31°29'54.97"N 34°30'59.68"E
      31°31'6.30"N 34°33'55.33"E

      "Contrary to what you may have heard, the Jews do not control the weather "

      True. Two points tho. 1) The post you're answering to says "Israel" not 'Jews' . Why is it necessary for you to conflate the two?

      2) Israel controls the resources necessary to build infrastructure to handle storm and flood waters in Gaza.

    • @ steve48 "let’s say I provide you with electricity and also owe you $250. "

      Are you an occupying Power who with holds taxes collected on behalf of the occupied?

      Read GC IV especially Article 55

      "Nobody dies because the power goes out for 45 minutes"

      Tell it to a hospital, doctor's surgery... what happens to people hooked up to life saving devices when electricity is suddenly not available? Are generators allowed in by Israel? If they do, is the fuel to run a generator available? What happens to essential services, security? Ever been trapped in an elevator with a heart attack victim triggered by the elevator suddenly stopping. I have. It isn't very pretty in the dark listening to their life gurgle away as you try CPR kneeling in their urine, surrounded by the smell of their evacuated bowels and the terrified wailing of children, mothers and panicked people beating on the walls and screaming (that was in the peaceful surrounds in Australia)

    • Hi Annie --- Seems Al Jazeera et al have admitted an error re the dams being opened by Israel and withdrawn or apologized.

      Say, does the Israeli press ever apologize or withdraw allegations when they prove to be wrong?

    • Cheyn-Stocks " Palestine receives billions of dollars and free products – fuel and building materials. (from USA and EC)"

      Sources of your information please and to show that Israel actually allows the billions of dollars and materials to arrive .... thanks

      <em"But Hamas instead of building schools and housing
      build tunnels for terrorism"

      Can you show evidence of more than the one un-used concrete lined tunnel that came out near an IDF outpost and could easily have been built by the IDF itself

      For the construction of tunnels Hamas uses child labor!"

      Sources for your claims please...

      "– and Palestine do not pay taxes to Israel!"

      Why should they?

      "and does not pay for electricity!"

      International Law (GCs) tell us the Occupying Power is responsible for the shortfalls in necessities and to protect the occupied, not slaughter them and illegally settle their territory

      "Russia cut off gas for Ukraine! – In the winter as well!"

      Is your point that Israel as bad as Russia or two wrongs make a right?

      "the sole purpose of this article is to slander and
      incitement of hatred towards Israel and the Jews!"

      Go scream at those responsible, the Zionist Federation, Jewish Agency and consecutive Israeli Governments. The Palestinians have never asked to be partitioned, displaced, occupied or illegally settled.

  • Inflammatory posters at UCLA call Students for Justice in Palestine 'Jew haters' (Updated)
  • Netanyahu flips off Harry Truman
    • @ David Gerald Fincham " Surely, two states have to agree on their mutual border before it can be said to be ‘de jure’. A unilateral declaration of borders cannot be made ‘de jure’ by the United States or any number on non-neighboring states. "

      1) States can be defined by default of their neighbours defined boundaries. Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt had borders before Israel was declared. Israel's borders with those states were defined by default of those pre-defined borders.

      2) Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

      ARTICLE 1

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

      ARTICLE 3
      The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

      ARTICLE 6
      The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.
      link to cfr.org

      " If the Arabs had agreed to accept the partition line as a border in 1949, there would have been strong pressure on Israel to accept it, or give territorial compensation. But they cannot reasonably come back 67 years later saying that they will accept it now, having conducted in the meantime an armed campaign to liberate all of Palestine from Zionist rule."

      Of course they can. It is not illegal to change one's mind. It IS illegal to acquire territory by war.

      " There is zero possibility that Israel will go back to the Partition Line"

      A) Israel did for Egypt, B) Germany was for more formidable, far more aggressive, expansionist and militarized

      >"There is a small possibility that Israel could be forced to give some territorial compensation for territory stolen in 1948-49. Let’s concentrate on that"

      Why? Israelis currently living in non-Israeli territory could have a choice to become citizens of Palestine if the Palestinian people will have them. If they decide they'd rather remain Israeli, Israel can resettle them and pay compensation for having lied to them.

      "Please do not argue about this any more. It is irrelevant to the current situation "

      Until such time as there is a negotiated settlement or a withdrawal, it is central to the current situation

    • @ David Gerald Fincham "Correction to mine of March 3, 2015, 7:10 am

      “It does mean that armistice line could NOT be the final border”. –>

      It does NOT mean that armistice line could NOT be the final border"

      Indeed it could be, after the border had been changed. The Armistice Agreement certainly didn't change it. To date, the de jure border of Israel has not been changed since it was proclaimed and recognized.

    • @ David Gerald Fincham
      "Section F. When… the declaration and undertaking…have been SIGNED…

      F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS

      When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them ... link to unispal.un.org

    • @ David Gerald Fincham

      //“The Conciliation Commission did however reject Israel’s 31st Aug 1949 proposal, when it was a UN Member state, referring Israel to the Armistice Agreements.”//

      "The CC said that “the final settlement of the territorial question in Palestine should be considered in the light of the clauses contained in the texts of the Agreements themselves.” That is not an outright rejection of the proposal."

      the Commission would like to observe that in its opinion any reference to the Armistice Agreements in connection with the final settlement of the territorial question

      is (in) Palestine should be considered in the light of the clauses contained in the texts of the Armistice agreements themselves, according to which “It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claim and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations

      Israel, by referencing the Armistice agreements in respect to having the occupied territories assigned to Israel, disqualified itself. Israel then ignored the Commission as it has completely ignored everything except to say what was necessary to get approval before having complete disregard for everything. It is a typical behaviour of pathological abusers

      "I should have added that Israel also asked for the Gaza Strip, and the Arabs there, residents AND refugees, would be given Israeli citizenship."

      That is interesting (link completed) 1) Interesting that they considered it, 2) An admission the territory was not Israeli

      16. ....The delegation of Israel declared that if the Gaza area were incorporated in the State of Israel, its Government would be prepared to accept as citizens of Israel the entire Arab population of the area, both inhabitants and refugees, on the understanding that resettlement of the refugees in Israeli territory would be subject to such international aid as would be available for refugee resettlement in general. The delegation of Israel has declared that it is not in a position to submit to the Commission proposals concerning the number of refugees it would accept in the event that the Gaza area were not incorporated in Israel.

      link to unispal.un.org

    • @David Gerald Fincham
      "That was not a declaration of independence. It was a declaration that must be signed at some point before independence. It did not specify when. ..... That had to be signed by 1 April 1948, a long time before independence. If it wasn’t, the Commission could impose it. The Plan did not say anything about a declaration if independence."

      Please quote the actual text of that particular 'signing' requirement. Independence, by definition and nature, is unilateral.

      "Implementation of the Plan would not in fact have produced two independent sovereign states, despite the fact that it said they could become UN Members. The Plan had imposed their basic laws, and imposed the Economic Union. The latter controlled not only the customs and currency, but all major infrastructure and economic development. Decisions of the Economic Board were BINDING on the States. The casting vote on the Board was held by FOREIGNERS appointed by the UN. Writing at haste from memory, I think there was a ten year period of supervision by the GA.

      The states were not independent, they were DEPENDENT UPON THE UN. It was essentially a UN trusteeship."

      A) The UN recommended! The Jewish Agency accepted the recommendations and considered them binding (self determination). Once independent by a unilateral declaration (self determination), if one wants (self determination) to join a club, the Comity of Nations or the UN, you have to abide by their rules.

      B) There was no trustee agreement made.

    • @ David Gerald Fincham

      "It was a declaration that must be signed at some point before independence."

      That would not be independent. Independence by its very nature and definition is unilateral.

      "There was also an Undertaking concerning Economic Union. That had to be signed by 1 April 1948, a long time before independence."

      Can't find the word 'signed' You really must quote ..accurately ... and give sources... for these conversations to continue

      "If it wasn’t, the Commission could impose it."

      Independence cannot be imposed..
      "The Plan did not say anything about a declaration if independence."

      Strange I quoted verbatim from UNGA res 181. Here's some more

      PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION

      PART I

      Future constitution and government of Palestine

      A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE

      3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and etc etc

      "Implementation of the Plan would not in fact have produced two independent sovereign states..."</em. Speculation has no legal bearing

    • @ David Gerald Fincham
      The important point to make is that Israel’s Declaration WAS outside the process of the Plan, not authorized by the Plan, not an implementation of the Plan.

      link to unispal.un.org

      C. DECLARATION

      A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the provisional government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain inter alia the following clauses: etc etc

    • @ David Gerald Fincham "The Conciliation Commission and the British Government reminded Israel that the Armistice Lines had not been agreed as a territorial border."

      Therefore Israel's borders were as proclaimed and as Israel asked to be and was recognized. The territories it had captured were not Israeli.

      "They did not say that Israel had illegally acquired territory outside its borders or that it must return to those borders"

      Israel was not a UN Member state at the time it took those actions. The UN could not censure Israel at the time and cannot censure UN Members retrospectively for actions they took when they were not members

      The Conciliation Commission did however reject Israel's 31st Aug 1949 proposal, when it was a UN Member state, referring Israel to the Armistice Agreements.

      " The Commission invited both sides to make territorial proposals based on the Partition Lines."

      Please cite/quote documents for that assertion and the remainder of what you've have claimed, so I can ascertain precisely what you're basing your notions on

    • @ David Gerald Fincham

      " There is no authority higher than that of the sovereign state which can determine where its borders are. "

      Israel already did. Recognized before it was admitted to the UN. Israel didn't make an official claim on any territories until after it had signed the Armistice Agreements and after it joined the UN. The claim was denied citing the Armistice Agreements

      " except that the extent of Israel’s territory is undefined until there is an agreement"

      If that be true, Israel is not a state! "ARTICLE 1 The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory"

      The only thing Israel has protecting it is the US UNSC veto vote.

    • @ David Gerald Fincham "There is no need to repeat all this stuff"

      I repeat what I feel is necessary for new readers who might drop in halfway through a thread, especially Hasbarristers who might otherwise think they have a valid argument.

      "It is your and my opinion that in the 1948-49 war the State of Israel conquered Palestinian territory outside its own declared sovereign borders and incorporated it into the State, in violation of international law. I say ‘opinion’ because, as far as I can ascertain, this has never been legally established in any court case or Opinion or UN resolution"

      None of this is my opinion
      A) The Conciliation Commission turned down Israel's 31st Aug 1949 claim to those territories, by which time Israel was a UN Member link to wp.me

      B) The British (27 April 1950) reiterated the Conciliation Commission's rebuttal, refusing to recognize those territories as Israeli, by which time Israel was a UN Member state

      “His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.” link to hansard.millbanksystems.com

      Thus far nothing has replaced them.

      C) There are no foreign embassies in Jerusalem, which was declared occupied by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948 link to mfa.gov.il Not even the US embassy!

      As explained before there cannot be a UN/UNSC resolution against a state for acts committed before it became a UN Member, nor can the UN /UNSC adopt a resolution retrospectively for acts committed before UN Membership. If Israel now as a UN Member tries to annex unilaterally the UNSC must condemn the action as illegal. Israel and the US now demand a negotiated settlement, because Israel will HAVE to eventually legally annex any non-Israeli territories in order to legally acquire them. The Jewish state cannot afford the astronomical cost of now adhering to the law, it must plea bargain to circumvent the law

      "Most historians, international lawyers, and the Palestinian leadership believe one or both of the following: (a) Israel has never defined its borders, and so was recognized as a State without borders, and therefore it is impossible to say that in the 1948-49 war it captured territory outside its borders;"

      Sheeeesh They're not very good historians or international lawyers! I'm neither a historian or lawyer, I've found plenty of irrefutable evidence from the Israeli Government itself! I cannot however find anything whereby Israel legally acquired those territories. Nor has anyone ever been able to show me where or when or by which agreement with who. Nil. Nada. No thing!

      " (b) UN security resolution 242 specified the 1949 Green Line (or negotiations around that line) as Israel’s permanent border, therefore legitimizing Israel’s territorial land theft in 1948-49. "

      UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967

      Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

      Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

      Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

      1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

      * Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
      * Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

      2. Affirms further the necessity
      * For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
      * For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
      * For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

      3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
      4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible. link to unispal.un.org

      No mention of Palestine or the Green Line. The Green Line was the cease fire line negotiated by Moshe Dayan and Abdullah el-Tell 30 November 1948 , later adopted into the Armistice Agreements. It did not effect the borders of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt or for that matter of Israel, because the Armistice Agreements "make clear that the 1949 Armistice Line is not a political boundary" (Israel agreed with you :-) link to mondoweiss.net

      Of interest is the Israel/Lebanon Armistice Agreement (Israel agreed)

      Article V
      1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      AND in the Israel/Syrian Armistice Agreement (Israel agreed) link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      BTW all the Armistice Agreements (Israel agreed) called for peace "in Palestine", not Israel

      " I suggest that the Palestinians get an ICJ Opinion as to whether Israel did indeed illegally capture territory outside its borders in 1948-49. Do you support that idea?"

      Certainly. However, "capture" in war is not illegal. To acquire by war or to acquire without an agreement or to settle ones citizens in occupied territories or institute the civil law of the occupying power in occupied territories, is illegal.

      "Although Truman insisted that Israel declare on the partition boundaries, in his secret letter to Ben-Gurion he did not say that Israel should go back to the partition borders, but that there should be territorial compensation. I suppose thought that facts on the ground had already made a return to the partition borders impossible to achieve"

      A change of citizenship is relatively simple.

      "I have taken up Truman’s idea, and suggest to the Palestinians that in any peace negotiations they should request additional territory in a lowly populated area. Do you support that idea?"

      Neither Egypt or Jordan relinquished any of their territory or requested Israel any territory.

      "Do you have a better idea as to how the Palestinians might get a more just deal than the one they have so far been willing to accept, i.e West Bank and Gaza?"

      Whatever they're willing to accept is fine by me. My arguments are aimed at dispelling the nonsense, showing who is actually responsible by their own statements and undertakings and what a ghastly mess they have created

      "The intention of the Arab states was always clear .. "

      Israel proclaimed it's boundaries. What lay outside of Israel isn't Israeli.

      "The Arab states did not enter Palestine “to expel Israeli forces from non-Israeli territory”. They did not recognize there was an Israeli territory. They entered Palestine.."</em

      "Palestine" Israel was not Palestine. Palestine was not Israel. Israel was independent of Palestine. The UNSC resolutions call for peace in Palestine, NOT Israel. The UNSC did not condemn the Arab states for its Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine or for their initial actions. As regional powers and, with the exception of Jordan, as UN Members, they had the legal right on notifying the UNSC of their intentions, to attempt to expel Israeli forces from all non-Israeli territory.

      "If they had been able to..."

      Retrospective speculation is not an area I really care to deal with, nor does it carry any weight in legal argument.

    • @ David Gerald Fincham
      "1. UNSCR 242 ... States in the area should stop fighting, get together, sort out where their mutual borders are, and then stick to them."

      UNSC res 242 says they should have "respect for". No sorting out, no negotiating over borders. Furthermore UNSC re 242 was between UN Member states to end their conflict. The Peace treaty with Egypt tells us it was the purpose of UNSC res 242. Neither Egypt or Jordan altered their borders for peace, they negotiated how Israel would withdraw.

      "I am saying that the negotiations under (ii) would only be fair if Israel first withdraws its forces and recognizes that the State of Palestine has a right to live in peace and security. It would be great if Palestine was also a Member of the UN, which could then broker talks on the final status issues."

      If Israel did withdraw its forces and recognize the State of Palestine has a right to live in peace and security, Palestine could join the UN sans any US UNSC veto vote. There'd be no final status issues. The two states could then set about forming normal peaceful relations.

      2. Agreed.

      "4-6. Israel and Palestine as two separate sovereign states sharing a rather small piece of land will not work unless there is some some of confederation, federation, or union between them"

      San Marino (61 km2)
      Liechtenstein (160 km2)
      Malta (316 km2)
      Andorra (468 km2)
      Luxembourg (2,586 km2)
      Cyprus (9,251 km2)
      Kosovo (10,887 km2)
      Montenegro (13,812 km2)

      Mandate Palestine 1948 (91,000 km2)
      Israel 56% = (50,960 km2)
      Palestine 44% = (40,040 km2)

      What they both need is for Zionism to be outlawed, Israel to adhere to its boundaries and the law and pay reparations. Then both can form normal state relationships. Civilians can decide which state they want to be citizens of. If Israelis want to move back to Israel, Israel can pay and compensate them for 67 years of lies.

      There is no ethical, moral, legal or logical reason why Palestine should negotiate ANYTHING until Israel agrees to withdraw from all none Israeli territories.

    • @ David Gerald Fincham

      1) Independence cannot be forced by any means on any entity, therefore;
      2) UNGA resolution 181 could only be a set of recommendations
      3) The Jewish agency claimed link to wp.me UNGA res 181 as binding ( as a set of recommendations, giving rise to that particular Hasbara justification )

      UNGA res 181 or not, a declaration of statehood was/is subject to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, therefore "either" new state had to proclaim its sovereign extent, if it could and/or if it wanted

      The Jewish People's Council proclaimed Israel's sovereignty per UNGA res 181 recommendations, the proclamation was binding, recognition irrevocable. Furthermore it was proclaimed without reservation. Therefore no recourse to persistent objection. One might say Israel placed its own noose around its own neck and has since been defying the trap door to open while abusing the hangman.

      UNGA res 181 link to unispal.un.org

      B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE

      The mandatory Power shall not take any action to prevent, obstruct or delay the implementation by the Commission of the measures recommended by the General Assembly.

      3. "On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine"

      1) The commission never arrived. corpus separatum was never established. Jerusalem was never legally separated from what remained of Palestine after Israel proclaimed its sovereign extent.
      2) It was to "establish" the borders, not as you put it 'delineate'
      3) Israel established its borders via the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and its subsequent plea for recognition per the boundaries delineated in the recommendations of UNGA res 181.

      " as soon as Israel declared, the GA stood down the Commission "

      'relieved' it from the further exercise of its responsibilities by replacing it with a mediator

      link to unispal.un.org
      A/554
      14 May 1948

      HAVING ADOPTED a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,

      // “States exist before recognition”// "Technically, you may be right. But it would be a pretty meaningless existence. The MC does say that a state should have a capability to enter into relations with other states. How could it demonstrate that capability, unless at least one other state was willing to recognize it? "

      E.g., Numerous states trade with Taiwan without recognizing it

    • @ David Gerald Fincham

      "Israel decided to make a preemptive unilateral declaration of independence, outside the process specified in the Plan, immediately at the end of the Mandate"

      It was neither preemptive or outside the process specified within the plan.

      Independence is unilateral and the British mandate to administer under the LoN Mandate for Palestine had to end in order that the territories be free of outside control so either party could unilaterally declare independence if they so wished . That's self determination and independence by its very nature and definition. Nor was declaration mandatory, , because having to declare is not independence . Nor was it required that both parties agree to declare as that would require co-signing. Co-signing would mean each was dependent on the other. Again, not independence. The Jewish Agency said as much prior to declaration link to wp.me

      The British administration effectively ended at midnight May 14th 1948 (ME time). At that point the territory for the Jewish state was free of all outside control and although the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was made on the 14th May 1948, it did not come into effect until precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) link to trumanlibrary.org

      There was one minute between midnight of the 14th May 1948 and 00:01 15th May 1948 where the territory of the Jewish state was not under the control of any other entity before it became an independent republic.

      HOWEVER, under plan Dalet, Jewish forces were already controlling territory slated for the Arab state. It was not independent of all other control and in fact has always been under the control in part or completely by one entity or another for over two thousand years. The longest occupation in history. Contrary to idiotic Hasbara, the Palestinians have never had an opportunity to miss. It's the Jewish people who have missed opportunity after opportunity to live anywhere in the Jewish People's Historic Homeland in Palestine because of the Zionist Federation and the Jewish agency's demands for a separate state. Now Israeli Jews are prohibited by law from settling as Israeli citizens in territories "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      " It cannot be said that Israel would never have come into existence without the US, because the USSR would probably have recognized anyway."

      States exist BEFORE recognition. One cannot recognize something until it exists. Logic 101! link to cfr.org

      "The most significant part of Truman’s recognition is that he insisted that he would not recognize Israel unless it defined its borders according to the Partition Plan"

      Indeed. The US had ratified the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States in 1934

      "The Zionist leadership in Tel Aviv had decided (by a narrow vote) not to declare its borders"

      They decided not to mention them. They decided not to mention them in order to deceive. It has to be one of the most STUPID mindless justifications used by idiotic apologists for Israel.

      " although Truman supported Isael’s declaration of independence, he did not support its territorial expansion in the 1948-49 war"

      Because the US had ratified the Montevideo Convention in 1934. It's the same reason the US cannot have its embassy in Jerusalem today

    • Further note in respect to Israel not having annexed or even attempting to annex any of the territories conquered by 1949. Annexation is not only of territory, legally the territory's rightful inhabitants come with it.

      Donning my twisted, putrid old Zionisthinking cap yet again, I get. 'the territories did "not belong to any nearby nation" so there is no need to annex. Furthermore if we do not annex the non-Jewish population are not our responsibility, we can treat them as second class or lower and ultimately throw them out too' link to google.com.au

    • @ David Gerald Fincham

      "1. Territory – the two states have to agree where their mutual borders are. The UN does not have the authority to tell them. But it has to be a fair process, so the two preconditions for starting talks are (i) that Israel should accept that Palestine has a right to exist in peace and security (ii) the occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza should end. The talks must be held under the auspices of the UN, not the so called Quartet."

      The majority of the International Comity of Nations agreed with Israel and recognized Israel as it asked to be recognized, with the boundaries outlined by UNGA res 181. Palestine's borders were defined by default of all its neighbours including Israel. Logic 101! Israel is breach. Palestine is not.
      "Fair" is for Israel to adhere to the law!
      Unfair is for Israel or anyone else to expect the Palestinians forgo any their legal rights under the laws Israel agreed to uphold. Neither Egypt or Jordan were satisfied with anything less than their full legal rights, after which peaceful relations were assumed!

      Palestine is not a member of the UN. None of the Cease Fires were with Palestine, none
      of the Armistice Agreements were with Palestine! The UN doesn't act as a mediator for non members. The UN can only tell UN Members how they may or may not treat non members.

      Talks/negotiations only mean one thing. The Palestinians forgoing some of their territory and rights so that Israel can get away with 67 years of illegal facts on the ground.
      Why should the Palestinians negotiate to forgo any of their legal rights so Israel can have what it has no legal right to?

      "2. Obligations under international law. Not sure what obligations you mean. If there is a possibility of solving an issue by dialog, that is the best approach. If that fails, Palestine could bring a case against Israel at the ICJ, and if it wins, then the Security Council should enforce it"

      There are hundreds of UNSC resolutions emphasizing and re-affirming Israel's obligations under International Law and affording Israel the opportunity to adhere to those laws.
      Adherence to the law is the best approach.
      Dialogue means only one thing, Palestine compromising their legal rights so Israel can benefit from its illegal facts on the ground.
      Can you tell me why that should be allowed or even contemplated?
      I agree re the ICJ and UNSC enforcement, alas Israel has the US UNSC veto vote.

      "3. .... If arrest warrants were issued by the ICC for all the recent Prime Ministers of Israel, its political effect would be enormous"

      Good!

      "4-6. Borders, air space, natural resources, defense etc. There needs to be a confederal arrangement between the two states involving treaties between them on these issues and treaty organizations to work out a common policy."

      Why? Egypt and Jordan didn't allow Israel to keep any of their territories, use their airspace or natural resources. Palestine has no common sea passage with Israel. With the exception of water which can flow through many territories, as a matter of course there needs to be some agreement lest the same ruination befalls the regions river that befell the Colorado river in Mexico.

      What eventuates is of course essentially up to the two parties to determine. Thus far Palestine has been most generous in their offers for peace, far beyond any legal obligation. Israel has offered absolutely nothing.

    • @ David Gerald Fincham

      reply below @ link to mondoweiss.net

    • @ David Gerald Fincham February 24, 2015, 11:35 am

      "1. See my reply to Mooser" et al

      Let's try to first understand the treatment of what remains of Palestine by successive Israeli Governments after Israel was declared, read 1) the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel ... "The state of Israel ... will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel" . 2) Deuteronomy 20:15 "not belonging to nearby Nations". 3) Israel's 31st Aug 1949 failed attempt to acquire territories 'not belonging to nearby Nations'.

      When and/or if Palestine achieves independence it's very likely game over. Until it does, Israel does everything in its power to keep the ball in the air while it continues to populate as much territory as it can making it harder and harder to resolve the "ultimate settlement of the Palestine question." and;

      if I don my Zionisthinking cap I get 'we should keep populating non-Israeli territory so that if and when Palestine gains its independence, there will be enough Jews willing to take up Palestinian citizenship to form a formidable 5th column' (speculation on my part)

      *******

      " At Lausanne in 1949 the Conciliation Commission pointed out to the Arab side that Israel now existed as a functioning and recognized sovereign state."

      Within its proclaimed borders, as witnessed by Israel itself in its 31st Aug 1949 failed attempt then as a UN Member State, to claim territories it had previously admitted on May 22nd 1948 it was occupying "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine" and as witness by the refusal of the Conciliation Commission to admit the 31st Aug 1949 claim, citing the Armistice Agreements and referring to the "ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."

      Israel's early legal advisers were not stupid. The UNSC cannot adopt a resolution directly censuring non-members for their actions, nor can the UNSC adopt a resolution retrospectively censuring a UN Member's actions prior to their UN Membership. Israel simply ignored the rebuttal by the Conciliation Commission and didn't even see a need to annex those territories. As far as it was concerned after Israel was declared what remained of Palestine didn't belong to the "nearby Nations".

      The US adopted the legal custom of acquiring territory, even territory it had conquered, through annexation by agreement in the mid 1800's. See the annexation of Texas. Hawaii. Even Alaska which was bought, was later annexed through an agreement with the representatives of the then Russian citizens of Alaska. Only after annexation did they become US citizens. By adopting that legal custom, the US was instrumental in that legal custom passing into Customary International Law and in part forming the basis of Self Determination and in doing so outlawed the acquisition of territory by war any war!

      Israel would have to have legally annexed the territories it conquered by 1949 for them to be Israeli, It didn't, they have not become Israeli by any legal means.

      The compensation due the Palestinians on these territories alone are astronomical, in addition there are the territories conquered in 67 none of which have been legally annexed. b Israel has simply ignored everything and thrown the 'negotiation' football in the air, trying to keep it there as long as possible in order to populate as much non-Israeli territory as possible making an negotiated settlement as impossible as possible in order to prevent Palestine from achieving independence

      *****

      " If the Arabs had accepted the reality of Israel’s existence within the partition borders, and offered a peace agreement on condition that the refugees be allowed to return, we know that Truman would have applied very strong pressure on Israel to accept. But they didn’t. "

      The Arabs didn't, Truman didn't. It's irrelevant. However, Israel is and Israel's borders were proclaimed and were recognized and have not changed by any legal means and; Israel is a UN Member and all UN Members are obliged to adhere to the law, peace treaty or not, negotiations or not.

      Why should anyone offer a peace agreement to an entity in breach of International Law at the moment it was proclaimed? Negotiations only mean one party relinquishing in part or completely, some legal right or territory so the other party can get away with having broken the law! It's Israel's obligation to adhere to the law.

      Israel withdrew from all territories sovereign to Egypt, there is a Peace Treaty and inherent recognition. Israel occupies no Jordanian territory, it has recognition and a peace treaty. It's that simple get out of other folks territories and then there's a chance of peace.

      BTW Recognition is not mandatory for the end of the occupation or Palestinian independence. Israel didn't recognize anyone to be independent. Israel was recognized and admitted to the UN while it was at war, with it's troops in non-Israeli territories, while it occupied non-Israeli territories, while it was still dispossessing non-Jews from its own territories and from non-Israeli territories.

      Whether the Arabs accepted UNGA res 181 or not, recognize Israel or not, started a war or not, whether Palestine existed or not, whether it had a currency or prime minister or not, whether Palestine is or was state or not, whether there was or is a Palestinian nationality or not, are all completely irrelevant to the legal extent of Israeli sovereignty! UN/UNSC resolutions against Israel are based on Israeli sovereignty, International Law, Israel's UN Membership and the Charter and any Israeli ratified conventions

      "Not once in the last 67 years have they asked Israel for the return of that territory .. "

      Whoa!!!! ! The Arabs states attempted to drive Israeli forces from those territories 1948 - 1949. The Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was lodged with the UNSC May 15th 1948. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt were UN Members at the time. There was no condemnation by the UNSC for their actions for the simple reason that as Regional Powers and having deposited their justification with the UNSC they had a legal right to attempt to expel Israeli forces from non-Israeli territory

      ".. because their policy until 1988 was to refuse to talk to Israel and to claim ALL the territory of Mandatory Palestine, making any discussions impossible"

      Discussions/talks are not mandatory. Adherence to the law is mandatory. Discussions mean only one thing, one party forgoing some or all of its legal rights so the other party can avoid responsibility.

      Until 1988 the Arab states held the legal position of persistent objection, citing the notions of self determination then so recently embraced by the UN and offered the Jewish state but held back from the Palestinians who had no say in Palestine being partitioned.

      "I am talking about the settled population now, in 2015, within Israel’s de facto border. No-one says today that they are illegal settlers in occupied territory"

      Well there you have it. "de facto" is not de jure! Israel citizens living between Israel's actual proclaimed, recognized de jure borders and the de facto borders are not living in Israeli territory. Just because no-one says, doesn't mean it isn't so. For example, until a couple of years ago virtually no-one was saying Israel had proclaimed its boundaries :-) You won't find it in any Israeli educational material or in on the Israel Government websites. Doesn't mean it isn't true.

      "Article 2 of the 1964 Charter: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. Article 9: The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it."

      I stand corrected, but point out A) According to the UN Charter on self determination they were correct. B) It was consistent with persistent objection C) It's another instance in the last 67 years of demanding those territories back.

      "The Arab states have not formally recognized Israel .... They have therefore not respected and acknowledged anything about Israel

      Israel withdrew from all territories sovereign to Egypt. Egypt is an Arab state. There is a Peace Treaty inherent in which is recognition. Israel does not occupy any Jordanian territory, Jordan is and Arab state. There is a Peace Treaty!

      "Israel told the UN that its forces were entering Palestine (outside the partition borders) to protect Jews from Arab attack"

      Before or after? Date, document? Jewish forces were outside the partition borders before Israel was proclaimed.

      "The Arab states told the UN that they were entering Palestine (including areas within the partition borders) to protect Arabs from Jewish attack"

      Quote?

      "Both were justified, and the UN identified neither side as aggressor."

      The Arabs states were UN Members, bound to respect borders, there must have been a condemnation for any transgression. Their Declaration did in fact go before the UNSC. Being entirely legal, could not be condemned Israel was not a UN Member, it did not go before the UNSC. Prior to being a member, Israel could not be censured and was not mentioned by name in a UNSC resolution until being recommended for membership.

      "According to historians (John B Judis Genesis page 323, including quote from Avi Shlaim) the Arab states has agreed a plan to prevent partition which included the Egyptians heading north to Tel Aviv."

      Heading north from Egypt could be heading towards the north pole. Isdud is north from Egypt. Fact is, they stopped short of the border at Isdud. Unless there is a document showing this alleged plan, it is only speculation.

      "This is supported by the fact that Syria did capture a small area of Israeli sovereign territory (inside Israel’s declared borders) and held onto it until 1967"

      Did Syria claim it as Syrian? Did they annex it? On what date, after 00:01 May 15th 1948? Where is the UNSC condemnation? States are allowed cross border incursions and the capture of other folks territory for strategic purposes once war has started. The civil war exacerbated by Plan Dalet prior to declaration immediately became a war waged by the state of Israel the moment the State of Israel was proclaimed because Jewish forces were already outside Israel's newly proclaimed boundaries.

    • @ David Gerald Fincham .. Of necessity my reply to your comment of February 24, 2015, 11:23 am is rather long, it will take while to state clearly and concisely. It will eventuate.

    • "Suppose the State of Palestine brought a case in the ICJ claiming sovereignty over the ‘stolen territory’ and demanding its return. Israel would say that the territory had been developed as an integral part of Israel for over 60 years;"

      22nd May 1948 the Israeli Government admitted to having territories "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine" under military occupation link to pages.citebite.com and link to avalon.law.yale.edu
      and
      Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948 link to mfa.gov.il

      "that no state had challenged its sovereignty over that period; "

      The moment Israel's boundaries came into effect at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) with Jewish forces from Plan Dalet outside of those boundaries in what remained of Palestine(ibid), the Arab State lodged the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine with the UNSC link to mfa.gov.il The UNSC did not, nor could it, condemn the declaration or the Arab states actions in attempting to expel foreign forces from territories outside the State of Israel. Ironically it was the last ever official declaration of war lodged with the UNSC.

      " that it had a settled population that had no wish to become part of another state;"

      Tough .. Illegal under the Laws of War link to avalon.law.yale.edu and as reflected in UNSC res 465 link to unispal.un.org and GC VI

      " that the State of Palestine had already declared its territory to be the West Bank and Gaza Strip;"

      Indeed. Very generous. However, territory acquired by war or generously offered, bought or even agreed in negotiations must be legally annexed by an agreement with the rightful inhabitants of the territory to be annexed, sans the citizens of the annexing power. Until such time as legal annexation has taken place even territories that have been bought like Alaska was not considered to be sovereign to the US until it was annexed by agreement.

      "and that it was the successor of the PLO which had claimed sovereignty over ALL the territory of Israel and was therefore a hostile entity which did not come to court with clean hands"

      I have never seen such an official PLO claim. The Arab States would not allow it, they have always maintained " respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" as required by law. They have never invaded Israel. Which is why they have never been condemned by the UNSC for invading Israel.

      Furthermore Israel has no right to persistent objection as its claims, promises and statements have not been persistent. Where as the Arab States claims have, all the way back to 1922

      Finally, perhaps it should have been first :-)

      The IJC has already issued an advisory opinion. Were it to be brought to the ICJ the court advises it would definitely not rule in Israel's favour.

    • " The Jewish State was the UN’s term"

      Only to differentiate between the two envisioned states, one Arab and one Jewish, until such time as they could name themselves (self determination).

      The Jewish People's Council decided the Jewish State should be called the State of Israel.

      What remained of Palestine, the envisioned Arab State, didn't undergo a name change. It is still called Palestine. One of its districts has had a name change to the West Bank. Quite simple really.

    • @ Pixel

      The Jewish state State of Israel change is commonly attributed to Truman.

      Here's a handwriting comparison, form your own opinions :-) Note especially "of" link to talknic.wordpress.com

    • @ pabelmont "maybe the USA’s recognition of Israel s/b taken to be recognition of Israel w/i those boundaries, tending (achieving?) to make Isrfael merely a belligerent occupier of the rest (78%-55%=23% is merely occupied territory, along with WB&G"

      Israeli Governments and the Zionist Federation et al have muddied the waters as much bullsh*t as they possibly can. Cleared away, it's actually quite simple and very logical. Palestine's borders are defined by default of the actual legal borders of all its neighbours and they have all been recognized, including Israel! Whether Palestine was/is a state or not and/or whether it was/is independent or not is another matter completely irrelevant to Israel's actual legal, self proclaimed sovereign extent.

      The USA: The US Embassy is not in Jerusalem and the wording the US officially uses is "lines" and/or "pre-67 borders". The pre-67 'borders' are those Israel pleaded to be recognized by 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time link to trumanlibrary.org ). The pre-67 'borders' are not the Armistice Demarcation 'Lines' since no borders were altered by the Armistice Agreements or since by any other legal mechanism. There has been no official US recognition or recognition by any other country of any further territories as being Israeli.

      Fact: The International borders of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt existed prior to Israel's proclamation. By default, they determined the Mandate border of Palestine prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 when Israel's sovereign extent was proclaimed as effective (ibid)

      Fact: Israel proclaimed it's territorial extent in order to be recognized and was recognized as such, whatever remained of Palestine was quite simply not and until there is a negotiated settlement is still not Israeli.

      These two absolutely indisputable facts are the basis of hundreds of UN/UNSC resolutions affording Israel the opportunity to either reach a negotiated settlement or;
      withdraw from all non-Israeli territories (see UNSC res 476 link to wp.me ) or;
      adhere to Chapt XI of the UN Charter. Which is a reflection of the mandate under which the British agreed to administrate Palestine under the LoN Mandate for Palestine.

      Since at least 1933 it has been illegal to acquire territory by war. Any war!. The only way a country can legally acquire territory is by legal annexation, whether it has been conquered or even bought. The US from at least the mid 1850's adopted the legal custom of having an agreement with representatives of the territory to be annexed, then holding a US referendum to determine if people in the US also agreed. See the annexation of Texas (contrary to popular belief it was not a part of Mexico at the time) link to tsl.texas.gov

      There was first a referendum of the citizens of Texas (sans US citizens), then a referendum in the US. Same for Hawaii, even Alaska long after it was 'bought', there was an agreement/treaty. In this manner the US was instrumental in that legal custom eventually passing into Customary International Law. The notion of having a referendum or agreement is one of the foundations of self determination.

      The US always says it supports Israel's right to protect itself. The US is obliged to extend that opportunity to all independent states. There's nothing special about that aspect.

      The US abstains from all UNSC Chapt VI resolutions on the I/P issue because it is illegal for UN Member states to vote against resolutions that re-affirm and emphasize the UN Charter and existing International Law. UNSC Chapt VII resolutions are another matter. They depend on the Law and/or Charter and/or relative ratified conventions to have been broken, however the consequences are not predetermined. They do not exist until they are determined by a Chapt VII UNSC resolution. The permanent Members can veto something that is yet to exist.

      The US does not extend the same 'right to protect itself' towards Palestine because Palestine is A) Not a UN Member State and; B) Palestine is under occupation of Israel. It is Israel's "sacred trust" to protect Palestine

      The Hasbara reasons given as to why there were no borders mentioned in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel are really twisted and really really REALLY bizarre! link to wp.me
      A) an excuse that demonstates an admission to deceive and;
      B) in deciding not to mention the borders in the declaration tells us that there were borders purposefully not mentioned!

      "OTOH, Israel and others have often talked about truce-lines in 1948 war needing to be replaced with permanent national boundaries after negotiation"

      The Armistice Agreements (Israel agreed) did not change the legal extent of Israel's sovereignty. Lebanon and Syria's borders were determine BEFORE Israel existed.

      Furthermore the Armistice Agreements were not with Palestine. Palestine has never been a UN Member state. The UN, like any club, cannot censure or negotiate on behalf of non-Members. The UN can only tell its Members how they may or may not act towards non-Members and censure Members if they break the UN Charter or the law or conventions they have ratified.

      An aside [[ WikI/Pedia pages in respect to the I/P issue are infected with third hand 'consensus' maintained opinion. Under Wikipedia's editorial guidelines consensus rules, even if the information is complete bullsh*t! My pointing this out and demanding it be corrected resulted in my banning on No More Mr Nice Guy's complaints AFTER the material was changed accordingly in agreement with No More Mr Nice Guy! Wikipedia seems to allow a few non-Isracentric editors to make it look balanced. It isn't!

      On the talk pages my questions and arguments still remain un-resolved years later. Isracentric editors demand 'talk' in order to gain consensus to change information, but if it doesn't go their way they simply refuse to talk until someone changes the information, then they demand talk again and the process again grinds to a halt link to en.wikipedia.org. ]]

    • @ pabelmont "And Israel has no declared territory because it has put off declaration ..."

      WARNING : Hasbara infection!

      May 15th 1948 “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

      May 17th 1948
      USSR: “Confirming receipt of your telegram of May 16, in which you inform the Government of the USSR of the proclamation, on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947, of the creation in Palestine of the independent State of Israel and make re-quest for the recognition of the State of Israel and its provisional government by the USSR. I inform yon in this letter that the Govern-ment of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the Stale of Israel and its Provisional Government.”

      Australia 28 January 1949“… on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947…”

  • 'Large group' of indigenous Indians are cleared to immigrate to Israel and convert to Judaism
  • Israel sentences Palestinian teen Lina Khattab to 6 months in prison for protesting
    • Mayhem does deceit 101

      @ Mayhem
      "The conviction rate in Israel is very high, over 99% but this very same conviction rate applies to ALL courts in the Israeli judicial system.

      Yes Annie – there is no discrimination against Palestinians – they are subject to the same conviction rate as ordinary Israelis. "

      Strange. Your linked article link to lawinisrael.wordpress.com does not at any stage give any indication as to whether the conviction ratio is the same for Palestinians as for Jewish Israelis.

      IOW you are spouting Ziocrap!

      One really has to wonder what kind of a brain dead moron posts a link that DOES NOT prove their bullsh*t

    • "as her mother hands out candies"

      SEE!!!! Candies. Palestinians DO celebrate the deaths of Israeli Jewish children! link to google.com.au

      AND they celebrated the deaths ofIsraeli Jewish children that might would have been caused by her throwing rocks. That is if she was to have thrown rocks at Israeli Jewish motor cars illegally in occupied territories driving down an illegal Israeli only road in non-Israeli territories from an illegal Israeli Jewish settlement home

    • @ Mayhem "That Khattab is technically a ‘teen’ "

      No pal a TEENager is someone in their TEENS. There's nothing technical about it.

      Twelve = not a TEENager
      ThirTEEN = teenager
      FourTEEN = teenager
      FifTEEN = teenage
      SixTEEN = teenager and if an Arab an adult under IDF invalid military law
      SevenTEEN = teenager and if an Arab an adult under IDF invalid military law
      EighTEEN = teenager and an adult under International Law and if Jewish old enough to have their brains blown out in service of the Zionist land grabbing cause
      NineTEEN = teenager and an adult
      Twenty = no longer a TEENager

      "..is being exploited for propaganda purposes"

      A fact is not propaganda. She IS a teenager.

      "The idea is to give the impression that Khattab is just a poor innocent child when that is most definitely not the case"

      Well no, at eighTEEN she's an adult you stupid stupid person. There's no attempt to portray her as a child. She's an adult in her teens. She can vote remember?

      As to her definite innocence or guilt, A) were you there and; B) why would anyone in their right mind believe the soldiers of an occupying power busy stealing someone else's territory for the last 67 years?

    • @ Mayhem "One can only conclude that Khattab has done something serious and is a definite threat to Israel’s national security"

      OK. OK. Have it your way!

      Israeli authorities charged her with “throwing stones” and “participating in an unlawful demonstration.”

      And that Ladeees and Genitilemen was "a definite threat to Israel’s national security"

      A HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! ... puff puff .. AH HA!

      WOW! You're hilarious

    • @ Mayhem "How can Khattab be referred to as a teen when she is old enough to vote? A teenager is an adolescent, youth, minor or juvenile – Khattab is clearly not a teenager"

      Is there no end to the mind numbing stupidity of Israel's apologists? They must really scrape the bottom of the barrel for Hasbara recruits

      Twelve = not a TEENager

      ThirTEEN = teenager

      FourTEEN = teenager

      FifTEEN = teenager

      SixTEEN = teenager

      SevenTEEN = teenager

      EighTEEN = teenager

      NineTEEN = teenager

      Twenty = no longer a TEENager

      She is eighTEEN. Clearly a TEENager to anyone but a brain dead moron

      If you need more help get someone to take you HERE

      Meanwhile, Jewish Israelis become adults on turning eighteen, but under Israeli military law Palestinians are adults at only sixteen even though Israel is a signatory to the International Convention of the Rights of the Child, which defines all children as under eighTEEN years old,. Furthermore Palestinian children over fourTEEN years old are tried as adults in an Israeli military court in direct violation of international law.

  • One-state 'fantasy is very dangerous' because it cannot tell us what the military looks like -- Manekin
    • JeffB "Jordan has absorbed the refugees in its territory"

      Fertile imagination there JeffB. link to unrwa.org Do you get a refill of Ziopoop every day? Jordan allows full citizenship rights on a temporary basis only and it is swift to withdraw even that.

      "The population of Syria has increased by almost 20m since 1948. The population of Iraq by almost 30m. Why can’t they absorb the refugees? "

      Countries have no legal obligation to absorb refugees. Those who've signed the conventions have a duty to allow RoR for their own citizens and to offer other refugees protection and asylum while they are refugees. Palestine refugees would rather return, that's why the majority maintain their refugee status by not taking permanent citizenship elsewhere.

      Our fellow Jews from Arab states on the other hand, encouraged by the Israeli Government, lost their refugee status when they became Israeli citizens or took citizenship in countries other than that of return

      Israel meanwhile, has a legal obligation to allow A) Non-Jewish ISRAELIS return to Israel (to the recognized extent of Israel's actual territories) and; B) an obligation to allow Palestinian refugees return to occupied Palestine. Currently Israel allows no RoR of non-Jews to any territories.

    • @ Mooser " Yes, their relationship with quotes is very odd"

      Imagine

      "There's soup on the menu"

      "What kind of soup?"

      "Beef and pickle on rye "

    • @ JeffB // And that old men can be accused of being Nazi criminals and tried, while Jewish Israelis who have committed much more recent war crimes should be excused//

      "The total number of people who died in the latest fight in Gaza is roughly equivalent to one Nazi shower. During the entire I/P conflict the number of Palestinians killed is about 1 days worth of a single death camp. There is no comparison between the Nazis and the Israelis. Not remotely."

      Indeed. There's no comparison over the number of deaths. However that's not what the poster made reference to.

      Israel is in in fact in breach of Laws, UN Charter articles and conventions adopted in large part because of the treatment of our Jewish fellows under the Nazis. That's why Israel has hundreds of UNSC resolutions reminding Israel of those laws, articles and conventions and affording Israel hundreds of opportunities to comply with them. Israel has failed, dismally.

    • JeffB goes avoidancing 101

      @ JeffB /// Care to quote this alleged BDS plan to destroy Israel. ///

      "Sure

      1) Flood the country with a hostile foreign population allied with a domestic population which is hostile to the state. (i.e. BDS demand 3 and their interpretation of SC 194)
      2) Enfranchise everyone with the vote equally so minority rule becomes impossible. (BDS demand 1 and 2).

      That’s national destruction."

      Sorry JeffB but that's not a quote ! Do you know what a quote is? Never the less let's look at your drivel

      1) Flood the country with a hostile foreign population allied with a domestic population which is hostile to the state. (i.e. BDS demand 3 and their interpretation of SC 194)"

      A) Only Israelis have RoR to Israel under UNGA res 194.

      B) How can they be a flood? The non-Jewish Israelis who fled the violence were a minority and the majority of that minority are already dead thru natural attrition.The oldest non-Jewish Israeli to flee Israel in 1948-50 and still alive today, was a baby in 1948

      Those who aren't dead yet will be in the next decade, because unlike Israelis who apparently live for 3,000 years in order to 'return', the life expectancy of a Palestinian in 1948-50 was merely 47 yrs today it is 67yrs.

      "Enfranchise everyone with the vote equally so minority rule becomes impossible. "

      See above .. Jews would not be a minority if the minority of non-Jewish Israelis dispossessed in 1948 were to return to Israel of 1948. The majority of Palestinians with RoR have RoR to non-Israeli territories.

      // There were no Israeli’s in the 1930’s //

      "Of course there were. They didn’t have a state yet but they had a proto-state. "

      WOW! What was it called? What was its currency? Is there an example of a passport? Did it have a Nationality Law? Palestine had all those things!

      "The same way there were Palestinians prior to the establishment of Gaza"

      Strange, the UNSC said this of Gaza on 8 January 2009, when it adopted UNSC Res 1860
      Recalling all of its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1850 (2008),
      Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state,

      I guess bullsh*t is all you have

      "Finally from above:

      // Uh? A) They’d still have a state B) your argument goes against the usual Jews are a nation twaddle. //

      "Reread the scenario you are responding to. In the scenario the Jewish state is gone. The Jews at best now live in a Palestinian state"

      So? They'd still have a state. Same as they had a state under the LoN Mandate for Palestine (Article 7)

    • Who's the leader of the club
      That's made for you Jews and me

      B-I-B-I N-E-T-A-N-Y-A-H-U

      Hey! there, Hi! there, Ho! there
      You're as welcome as can be
      B-I-B-I N-E-T-A-N-Y-A-H-U

      Netanyahu!

      Netanyahu!

      Forever let us hold our DoubleStandards
      High! High! High! High!

      Come along and sing a song
      And join the jamboree!
      B-I-B-I N-E-T-A-N-Y-A-H-U

    • Say ... how about Israel simply lives up to its self imposed obligations to the UN Charter and International law and the relevant conventions all of which are binding, withdraws from all non-Israeli territories as required by law, takes all its citizens back to Israel, leaves its neighbours in peace for once and knuckles down for the next 70 or 80 years to pay off the astronomical compensations it owes everyone.

      Germany was not rewarded by being given half of Poland or France. There is no real reason legal or moral, why any rogue state should expect or be allowed to get away with what Israel has done over the last 67 years!

      Furthermore there is no legal or moral reason to be polite or politically correct over the matter. Thus far the Jewish state has been a f*cking disaster!

    • @ Walid "The PA in negotiations has conceded that it’s no longer an issue having taken their aspirations down to a mere 5 or 10,000 token returnees that would return over a period of 5 or 10 years (Palestine Papers)"

      "Palestine papers" can misunderstand as well as any other 'papers'.

      One must first ask to where exactly would these mere 5 or 10,000 token return?

      To Israel as it was proclaimed and recognized 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time), which is the substance of UNGA res 194 or;
      does it include return to Israel and the non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war by 1949 or;
      include Israel and all territories illegally acquired by war by 1967, or;
      does it include all the above and the extra non-Israeli territories Israel now demands in swaps?

      The Palestinian push for RoR is under UNGA res 194. It was written in 1948 and was only inclusive of Israel as it was proclaimed and recognized (ibid) ( UNGA Res 194 had nothing to do with UNRWA of 1949)

      "The US has more or less enshrined the non-return in a Bush I Congressional Resolution"

      Has no legal basis yet in International Law. It would take the majority of the worlds countries to adopt a similar legal custom before it would pass into and carry the weight of Customary International Law.

      "and even the Arabs in their floated peace agreement of 2002 and refloated in 2004 gives Israel an out on ROR by asserting that this issue would be resolved in subsequent years down the road in numbers of returnees to be agreed upon by Israel"

      It's quite rational. A demand for RoR to a territory can't be made until the final sovereign over that territory is determined and the final sovereign will not be determined until negotiations are over.

      Currently Israel prevents return for non-Jewish Israeli citizens to Israeli territory and; it prevents RoR of Palestinians to non-Israeli territories held under occupation because; it wants those territories too and; it wants them as free of non-Jews as possible.

      If an agreement eventuates however, the Palestinians will not have to ask Israel to allow RoR of Palestinians to territories that are finally sovereign to Palestine. Negotiations only mean one thing. Palestine forgoing legal rights in order to let Israel circumvent its legal obligations and the possible consequences of its failure to adhere to the law for 67 years. Unfortunately negotiations will also mean many refugees will still be at the mercy of Israel.

      "There are a couple of million refugees currently living in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon that none of these countries are capable of absorbing, even if they all get fat compensation cheques fom Israel, the US, EU and the oil Arabs."

      The host countries are A) not required to absorb them and B) the Palestinians don't want to take citizenship in a country other than that of return because they'd forgo refugee status and rights.

      It's the very same reason the Israelis have a seething hatred for the Palestinian determination to maintain their refugee status and therefore their rights. Israel foolishly encouraged refugees from the Arab states to take up Israeli citizenship whereby they lost refugee status and are not covered by the UNHCR statute. There are no claims by Jews from the Arab states against the Arab states because they'd simply fail. Zionists really do f*ck up bigtime, missing opportunity after opportunity

    • @ pabelmont "In all discussions of “what happens next”, the questions of land ownership should occur."

      1st, land is real estate or property. Not to be confused with the 'territory' in which real estate or property exists.

      Territory belongs to all its legitimate inhabitants (sans illegal settlers), whether they own real estate, rent or lease real estate, or are homeless bums with no property living under a bridge. They do not need a deed or keys or any proof of ownership of territory other than being legitimate inhabitants

      Israeli citizens are not legitimate inhabitants of any territories Israel has acquired by war since Israel's borders became effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) link to wp.me

      "And what about Palestinian land ownership if and when there is a PRoR into Israel-48?"

      It should be clear. They're Israelis who have RoR to Israel '48. If they did return, as Israeli citizens they could likely in due course individually or in class actions sue the state for wrongful dispossession, years of hardship, etc etc etc and compensation for properties. Why do you think Israel doesn't want to grant RoR or adhere to the law? The costs of dispossessing people and for 67 years of illegal facts on the ground are astronomical

      "On the second point, UNGA seemed to call for payments for land confiscated, although maybe they called for payments ONLY if the refugee elected not to return (did return mean to the country or to the country and also to the originally-owned land, buildings, etc.?"

      A) Payment was if a refugee decided not to return.

      B) At the time it was expected that return would be as called for. At the earliest opportunity and; as Israel was at the time applying for UN Membership and had obliged itself to adhere to the law, that the law would be observed. As such it would have been expected for people to return to the same properties they left.

      C) Israel lied

    • Also of importance is who would the military serve in a one state eventuality, the state or the people. BTW Who does the IDF ultimately serve now, apart from the illegal settlers?

    • 1922 the LoN Mandate for Palestine was for a unified state where Jewish folk could immigrate, attain Palestinian citizenship and settle anywhere in the State of Palestine, with freedom of worship and access to the Holy places. It was ruined by the Zionist Federation demanding and eventually getting instead a separate Jewish state, ruining opportunity for Israeli Jews to settle anywhere in the Jewish People's Historic Homeland in Palestine.

      1948 guess who "the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles , whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law , [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries , and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed ." link to mfa.gov.il Say .... that's the same as the LoN Mandate

    • @ JeffB

      "If the confederacy had won the civil war and the 1936-9 war hadn’t happened (or the 1st intifada hadn’t happened) then a comparison between the south and Israel isn’t totally off base"

      One a civil war in a country. Israel and Palestine are not a country, it is not a civil war.

      "The difference was the South was part of the USA so many blacks migrated north etc etc etc
      Who do you see invested enough to play that role in Israel. How does this analogy play out? "

      The West Bank and Gaza are not in Israel.

    • JeffB does nonsense 101

      @ JeffB "In 1948 Whits believed that Blacks were Americans and Blacks believed that Blacks were Americans. Blacks and whites had extensive contact with one another. Blacks were fully integrated into the American economy, even if often in subordinate roles"

      Was the US occupying Africa like Israel now occupies non-Israel territories. American Blacks and Whites were in America

      "That is not at all the case for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza"

      They're under occupation by Israel. The Occupied Territories are not in Israel.

      "But once you say look the Gazans, I can probably count on one hand the number of Israelis who consider them Israelis in any sense and those are mostly the older Israelis who remember the Gazans before the 1st intifada."

      Gaza and the West Bank were never a part of modern Israel

      "The 1st intifada destroyed the common citizenship in Gaza and the 2nd intifada in the West Bank"

      You're babbling. There was no common citizenship between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank, nor is there today

      " The south was a society addicted to black labor"

      South, North both were in the one country, America. Gaza and the West Bank and other big chunks of Palestine illegally acquired by war by Israel by 1949 are NOT yet Israeli by any legal agreement.

      "I get that you don’t think that Israelis are a real people or Israel or a real country."

      You're fantasizing about what Phil thinks. WOW! That's clever. Do you fantasize breathing as well?

      " But it is, and that country is inhabited by people that would rather die then live under Palestinian rule"

      Why would it be 'Palestinian' rule in a democracy

      What’s going to be required is generation after generation of subjugation to get the Jews to cooperate with your schemes"

      Subjugation is a key principal of the Jewish state, but that's not how democracies work.

      "And those Jews have a top 10 army including lots of nukes"

      The army and nukes would belong to the state.

      "I’d love to hear a fully mapped out plan for BDS leads to enough pressure on Israel for them to cooperate in their own nation destruction.."

      Care to quote this alleged BDS plan to destroy Israel.

      "I’d love to hear how given the total failure of western nation building in Iraq you expect to pull it off against a vastly more powerful national group"

      Maybe Netanyahu should have thought of that before encouraging the US to invade Iraq. BTW what's this "national group" (“Jews traditionally support empire over nations for the same reasons that most national minorities do, the same reason that blacks in the USA support a strong federal government and weak states. If they lost their state they resort to type and they are going to want Palestine absorbed by some expansionist power.” )

      "The British couldn’t manage the Israeli Jews of the 1930s at reasonable cost. Would the Israelis of the 1930s last 5 minutes today’s IDF? "

      There were no Israeli's in the 1930's

    • @ JeffB " Yes it is absurd. The problem in Israel / Palestine is that the Israelis don’t like the Palestinians and don’t want the countrymen and the Palestinians don’t like the Israelis and don’t want them as countrymen"

      What you're saying is absurd pal. My countrymen in Australia are Australian citizens. Australia doesn't allow citizens of other nations to settle in Australia unless they become Australian citizens.

      Israeli's countrymen are Israelis they belong in Israel, not in Palestine. In fact be they Jewish or non-Jewish, Israelis are prohibited for their own protection under the laws of occupation from illegally settling in territory held under occupation by Israel.

      Palestinian countrymen are Palestinians they don't want to live in Israel and they rightfully resent Israelis living in Palestinian territory as Israelis.

      The problem which you must ignore is, Israel's continued illegal acquisition of, illegal annexation of, continued illegal settlement of and continued illegal occupation of non-Israeli territory in breach of the UN Charter, International Law, relevant conventions and hundreds of UNSC resolutions reaffirming and emphasizing the aforementioned binding UN Charter, International Law, relevant conventions.

      "Your solution is to pretend that somehow magically they come to believe they have common interest. If they come to believe that there is no Israel-Palestine problem"

      Their common interest even now is peace. More so in a one state situation, whatever that state might be called

      "And if they come to believe that the Jolly Green Giant ... " drivel drivel...

      Peace is not a Jolly Green Giant and peace was achieved by Israel withdrawing from territories sovereign to Egypt. Quite achievable, all Israel needs do is GO LIVE IN ISRAEL!

      "Even if you can magically make the state Palestinian, why would the Jews be interested in defending a Palestinian state against foreign invasion?"

      Because it would be their state too you stupid stupid person, regardless of what it might be called

      " Foreign invasion quite likely would be to their advantage. "

      Why? Their state would be under attack.

      "Jews traditionally support empire over nations for the same reasons that most national minorities do, the same reason that blacks in the USA support a strong federal government and weak states. If they lost their state they resort to type and they are going to want Palestine absorbed by some expansionist power."

      Uh? A) They'd still have a state B) your argument goes against the usual Jews are a nation twaddle.

  • Stanford re-votes, divestment passes in a landslide victory
    • @ DoubleStandard "They obviously harassed one of the senators to change their vote and made it worth their while to just give in"

      Uh huh. And you reached this conclusion based on what exactly? Anything factual ?

  • Boteach and Israeli ambassador say everything from BDS to Abbas places Jews under threat
    • @ Mayhem "Last month the former AP reporter Matti Friedman delivered a resounding speech exposing the wilful distortion of the facts concerning Israel in the media."

      LOL. Matti Freedman is an Israeli who lives Jerusalem. According to International Law, Jerusalem is not Israeli. He's no more than another apologist for Israel practicing the usual whataboutery and willfully ignoring the fact that Israeli intransigence is in territories that are outside of its sovereign extent and that he along with hundreds of thousands of other Israelis is another illegal settler

      The UN Charter is quite clear in respect to the internal and external matters of state.

      A) Under Plan Dalet Jewish forces were outside the State of Israel from the moment Israel's borders came into effect at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) link to trumanlibrary.org longer than any other conflict!
      B) Israel is chastised because it is not acting within its sovereign extent and has been afforded far more opportunities by the UNSC to comply with the law than any other nation on the planet! Opportunities Israel has completely ignored WITHOUT consequence
      C) There's heaps about the other conflicts he mentions Turks and Kurds ... British Soldiers and Iraqi Muslims .... Tibet and Hann Chinese
      China has UNSC veto. There's no point in even attempting to table a resolution against the permanent UNSC powers. He waffles on about internal matters of state in Mexico etc., where there is no comparison to a state such as Israel acting outside the extent of its sovereignty.

      "Prosor delivered a resounding speech to the UN recently which is hard to refute"

      Uh huh " .... There is no excuse for targeting civilians and UN workers." odd, Israel thinks of all manner of excuses to include civilians and UN workers, journalists, NGOs children. Purposefully factors them into its collateral calculator, then purposefully fire its hi-tech human slaughtering armaments

      "... Israel is an island of stability and democracy." Wow! I'd have thought Prosor would have read the Israeli Declaration o statehood. It says nothing about democracy. In fact it says this "The state of Israel ....will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel" and; surely a man in his position is aware that Israel has never had a legally elected Government, under the legally required, promised but yet to be written constitution!

      "It is a nation in which the majority governs, but the minority enjoys equal rights" That's odd link to haaretz.com //// link to theguardian.com ////
      link to haaretz.com

      " a nation that embraces diversity and welcomes diverse opinions" Oh dear poor chap has really lost it now

      ".. a nation that leads the world in human rights and encourages women to be leaders." WOW!!! But a nation that doesn't even allow women freedom of religion

      "I would hope for rational responses to it"

      See above ... nothing hard to refute. The man is a propagandist, peddling nonsense

      "Where have all the thinking minds gone – all we are left with are the Moosers and Seafoids of the world who can only scream blue murder to anything that gets said"

      Uh?

    • “I heard [Abbas] at the United Nations both in 2012 and 2013, just to hear the speeches, it’s vile, it’s poisonous, there’s no bridging or looking at something,”

      I wonder who he was listening to link to haaretz.com

    • @ DoubleStandard "Meaning when Israel agrees to dissolve itself."

      Can you actually explain how allowing non-Jewish Israeli citizens return to Israel = Israel agrees to dissolve itself.

      It's ironic that the Palestinians are arguing for the right of return for Israel's non-Jewish citizens to Israel. They have no need to ask Israel for Palestinians to return to Palestine.

      The Arabs lost the war in ’48 — too damn bad."

      Strange, they prevented Israel from taking all that remained of Palestine after Israel was proclaimed independent of Palestine. Both Gaza and the West Bank were kept from Israeli aggression

  • Closed-door debate on divestment by U of Toledo student gov't to include officials from Jewish Federation
    • Predictable from the moment they framed the debate to be a non-debate by having opposing parties leave the room

      Say .... I wonder if their 1989 boycott of Sth Africa was discriminating toward a particular group of students on campus ... the university’s white population

    • @ hophmi //“So anti-Zionism is equated with anti-Semitism, when many Jews have long opposed the program of Jewish nationalism on other people’s land.”//

      "Many African Americans, including Malcolm X, opposed integration. Does that mean defending Southern segregation wasn’t racist?"

      Nice try, but again you fail. You seem to have missed "on other people's land". Malcolm X didn't work towards the extermination or dispossession of anyone.

      Q Malcolm X, why do you oppose integration?

      A It won't work. It doesn't solve the problem. Do you know what integration really means? It means intermarriage. That's the real point behind it. You can't have it without intermarriage. And that would result in disintegration of both races. The Negro is better off by himself, so he can develop his character and his culture in accord with his own nature. link to usnews.com

      "The vast majority of the Jewish community supports Israel’s right to exist. Denying that right means opposing the consensus of the Jewish community."

      Demanding Israel adhere to the law does not = denying Israel's right to exist. BTW Palestine has an equal right to exist free of Israeli occupation. In fact it is Israel's "sacred trust" to facilitate Palestinian independence and to protect Palestinian territories

    • DoubleStandard seems determined to show people just how ignorant and illogical Israel's apologist propaganda peddlers can be.

      @ DoubleStandard "What gives land the quality of belonging to someone other than an organized polity representing those people?"

      "land"? People buy it. Rent it. Lease it. It belongs to them in part or completely under the terms of those agreements.

      Read some UN/UNSC resolutions, conventions, the Charter, International Law, they speak of "territory", not 'land'. 'land' is real estate or property that exists within a territory

      Territory on the other hand belongs to all the legitimate (legal) inhabitants of a territory (sans illegal settlers and illegal immigrants), whether they own real estate, rent or lease real estate, or whether they're homeless living under a bridge.

      "When the Jews founded their state in Palestine no other people claimed political sovereignty over it "

      A) Israel is an Independent State. It was never 'in' Palestine. An Independent state by definition is independent of all other entities.

      B) The LON Mandate for Palestine 1st line, refers to the LoN Covenant Article 22, they both confirm Palestine was a state with provisional recognition and the LON Mandate for Palestine tells us Palestine had Nationality Laws.

      However for a brief delusional moment have your way buster. Go ahead, wave your pathetic theory about as if you have some legitimate point. Crow victory. Break out another bottle of Ziobile, have a quick drool before your carpet turns to wet elephant sh*te under your feet.

      So what? What point are you trying to make? Israel was proclaimed and recognized by defined borders.

      Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law . The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

      What ever lay outside of Israel's proclaimed and recognized boundaries was not Israeli territory and; Israel has not since legally acquired ANY further territory.

    • @ pabelmont "Sadly, truth often does not prevail"

      Prevail or not, a truth never changes. Knowledge can and does change

    • @ amigo "That is zionism for you and those who follow/support it should be made extremely uncomfortable until they relent and civilise themselves "

      When a fact is incontrovertible (i.e., a truth) most people will adjust their opinion and rhetoric accordingly, expand their knowledge base, become better informed, have a better understanding of the matter at hand

      Zionism ignores uncomfortable facts and/or twists, misconstrues, purposefully misunderstands or simply lies, thereby attracting psychopaths.

      link to google.com.au

      We see here the ivri's, hophmi's, Jeffb's purposefully ignoring uncomfortable facts or otherwise twisting, misconstruing, purposefully misunderstanding or simply lying with never the slightest sign of being uncomfortable

      There is some hope of treating psychopath(et)ic behaviour in individuals. In a large group, a completely different matter. For example, what did it take to stop the Nazis?

    • The student government at the University of Toledo is ignorant of how to run a debate? AMAZING!!

      It's not a debate if both sides cannot hear each others points.

  • Warriors for 'the ultimate truth' gather in New York
    • @ JeffB

      " Jew when you go to Israel where Judaism is reinforced as part of the culture ...."

      Coveting other folk's property is not Judaism.
      Nor is the illegal acquisition of territory .
      Nor is illegal annexation or the illegal settlement of other folks territory or lying.
      Especially lying to one's own citizens about not having declared borders .
      Lying about UN bias .
      Lying about having bought the territory of the state .
      Nor is dispossessing and preventing citizens of the Jewish state from returning to their rightful homes

      "If you could just for a moment drop the anti-colonial nonsense see how much going back to Judean soil heals Jews from angst that characterizes their almost undead existence in the diaspora, never really fitting in, you wouldn’t be calling it someone else’s home. Israel is their home"

      Wonderful, whatever bullsh*t you need to spout pal. So when is Israel the Jewish state, going to start adhering to the basic tenets of Judaism, stop lying to its citizens and the world an itself and begin to adhere to International Law and get the f&*k out of all non-Israeli territories? There's actually nothing stopping Israel from becoming a law abiding state except the illegal Zionist plan to colonize Palestine.

  • Israeli court's rejection of Corrie family appeal is not fit for print in our leading papers
    • Mmmm. "The Israeli court affirmed a lower court ruling 2-1/2 years ago that the Israeli Defense Ministry could not “be held accountable for events that take place in a war zone,”

      International Law disagrees. A Defense Ministry is one of the 1st shopping stops when looking for war criminals.

  • Netanyahu calls on Jews to leave Europe en masse in wake of Copenhagen synagogue attack
    • @ Giles "The Zionists, as best I can tell, worked closely with the Nazis (particularly Himmler), to move Jews out of Europe to Israel."

      correction ... If they did it would have been to Palestine. Israel didn't exist in the Nazi era

      " Bibi is only continuing this condition"

      Yes. Now Israel exists, even non-Jews he's moving to illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine. link to mondoweiss.net

    • Mayhem does ziostyle not bothering to look

      @Mayhem

      " “Terror is not a reason to move to Israel,” said Rabbi Jair Melchior is all the chief rabbi of Denmark could say. Great consolation"

      “Terror is not a reason to move to Israel,” he said. “Hopefully the security should do what they do, but our lives have to continue naturally. Terror’s goal is to change our lives and we won’t let it.” Melchior said the first step for the Danish Jewish community was to “gather and be there for each other”.

      “We will go to the family and be there with them,” he said. “It’s not an easy time. We lost a dear member of the community and now we have to continue doing what he did, which was helping continue the regular Jewish lives in Denmark. This is the real answer to the vicious, cruel and cowardly act of terror.” link to theguardian.com

      Keep up th' good work Mayhem, being a shortsighted loser is such a noble cause

    • @ JeffB

      "Jews in Christian countries become entities of cosmic importance and associated with the dark forces in their countrymen’s own lives and thoughts. . This is underlying motivation of the European obsession with Israel. Rationally it a small country, far away that has only limited trade and cultural contact with them. Ideologically it is the epicenter of their own impurities the externalization of their own sins"

      I understand you need JeffB. Nothing of course to do with 67 years of illegal facts on the ground ignoring UNSC resolutions affording the Jewish state more than ample opportunities to comply with its legal obligations

      "You see this on this blog quite frequently where Mondoweiss itself cultivates the Jews aren’t really Americans and only by abandoning Judaism (which they call Zionism) can they become Americans"

      What is it about the JeffB's for Israeli intransigence that they can't stop lying?

    • @ Mayhem
      "Netanyahu would fail in his role and responsibility as a leader of the Jewish people .."

      Uh? No thanks pal. We do not need a war criminal to lead us.

  • A place where Palestine doesn't exist (Notes from a Zionist education)
    • @ Mayhem " To get a Jew to denigrate Israel is worth much more in the war of words than a non-Jew, who can always be fobbed off as an anti-semite. "

      Uh huh! You sure have a way with words. "fobbed off" falsely accused

      "This is nothing more than a Jew demonstrating his disconnection from his own identity; a Jew who succumbs to the propaganda of the delegitimization, slurring campaign against Israel, to which he has now become complicit"

      Whatever drivel you need to convince yourself buster. Israel delegitimizes itself by being in breach of the UN Charter, International Law and relevant conventions as reaffirmed and emphasized in hundreds of UNSC resolutions giving Israel the opportunity to adhere to those laws, the Charter and conventions.

      "This assertion is plainly false as Jews have been amongst the most prominent in popular movements worldwide that have fought for the rights of minorities and the oppressed"

      Strange then that if they fight for Palestinians legal right under the laws Israel obliged itself to uphold, but hasn't, they should be called self-hating Jews by pricks like ... uh oh!? Tch tch tch

      " On the other hand our ‘Palestinian’ counterparts have truly adopted a narrative that will not entertain any accommodation to the Jewish predicament ..."

      Is that why they offered the Jewish state more than half their rightful territory for peace .

      The official records show that almost everything you spout, is complete bullsh*te

      "Any ‘Palestinian’ who empathises with the concerns of the Jewish people is destined to become an outcast"

      Is that why they offered the Jewish state more than half their rightful territory for peace .

      "This cynical, blind double standard demonstrates the hypocrisy behind the ‘Palestinian’ cause"

      No it shows the lies you and your kind are willing to tell. Say ... lying is against the most basic of Judaism's tenets. Why do Israel's apologists lie so often on behalf of the "Jewish" state.

    • @ dannyrab91 "IDF, thank you for all you do to defend the land of Israel. G-D bless the IDF"

      Bravo. Now about Israel's ongoing illegal facts on the ground in non-Israeli territory supported by the IDF.

      ".. one of the strongest militaries in the world"

      Uh huh

    • @ Mayhem" Jews have been amongst the most prominent in popular movements worldwide that have fought for the rights of minorities and the oppressed."

      Uh huh. Israelis on the other hand have been occupying, denying the rights of and oppressing Palestinians for 67 years and Zionists have been colonizing Palestine for over a hundred years!

      "On the other hand our ‘Palestinian’ counterparts have truly adopted a narrative that will not entertain any accommodation to the Jewish predicament"

      Except to agree to cede Israel 78% of the Palestinians rightful territory for peace link to pages.citebite.com

      Your drivel is cute, another meaningless attempt to excuse Israel's breaches of International Law, the UN Charter and relevant conventions

    • @ Neil Schipper "Imagine a world where most people belonged to one of two mutually hostile tribes"

      One party, after having been given completely gratis 56% of an area for a state in 1948, is now in breach of hundreds of UNSC resolutions for having illegally acquired by war a further 50% of what had remained of the original area. The 1st party has missed hundreds of opportunities for peace by failing to adhere to the binding International Laws, the UN Charter articles and relative conventions those resolutions re-affirm and emphasize. Instead it has continued to illegally annex, illegally settle and to make demands of the second party that have absolutely no legal basis

      The 2ndr party asks only for its legal rights afforded under the laws the 1st party agreed to uphold in order to gain recognition and admittance to the UN. The 2nd party are not required by any law to forgo or to negotiate away any of their legal rights for the 2nd party's benefit. They are not required by law to recognize the 1st party or to relinquish any of their rightful territory for the defense of the 1st party.

      Idiots write thousands of words trying to justify the unjustifiable position of the 1st party. Their crappy analogies and stupid arguments and outright lies failing time and again for one very simple reason. They are wrong!

    • @ Stephen Shenfield "Up to 1939 the Nazi regime allowed the German Zionists to run youth camps in Germany to train young Jews for aliyah under the Transfer Agreement"

      Best to include sources...

      "Approximately 50,000 Jews emigrated to Palestine under the Ha'avara, or Transfer, Agreement (August 1933), between the Jewish Agency and the Nazi regime which allowed them retain some of their assets by transferring them to Palestine as German export goods. In 1934, Youth Aliyah was created under the aegis of the Jewish Agency to rescue young Jews from Nazi Germany and train them in the building of the yishuv. Some 5,000 youth were brought to Palestine from Nazi-dominated Europe before the War and educated at Youth Aliya boarding schools." link to nbn.org.il

  • 700 UK artists pledging not to go to Israel include Soueif, Ali, Waters, Eno, Leigh, Churchill
    • @ ivri " I am afraid the delusional person here is not me"

      Coming from a person with a deservedly earned reputation as a liar, false accuser, who seeks excuses for genocide, apartheid and the illegal acquisition of other folks territory, your opinion of yourself doesn't have much credence

      "For almost 70 years now there is this prediction of destroying Israel by this country or another"

      Yet no country has ever attempted. In fact Israel's neighbours have all had "respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;" Israel has invaded all its neighbours

      "This contact of Iran with china is very, very loose and the P5 is itself a loose association and Iran is now inclined to give up on n those nukes.."

      What nukes? Remember accusations are not evidence. Thus far there is no evidence what so ever that Iran intends, wants or is preparing to acquire nukes

      "But the main aspect of the delusion here lies even more so in the distance between Iran and Israel"

      The main aspect of the delusion is idiots for Israel believing that accusations with no evidence are evidence on which they can base their ridiculous speculations.

      " Firing even a missile (even just conventional) from Iran to Israel can hit, due to just half a degree deviation, Hezbollah or Gaza (the distances here are very, very small). When they had Syria it was a different matter, but where is Syria now? And that perhaps tells you why Israel decided to bomb that Hezbollah + Iranian group, which tried to set a missile base in Syria… Capito?"

      Uh huh. I understand. What ever speculative nonsense you need to post.

    • @ TonyRiley

      "But Israel wouldn’t have done that if Egypt hadn’t been planning on occupying all of Israel"

      Sources for this alleged plan ... please ... thx

    • Tony does dig a deeper Ziohole 101, affording yet another opportunity to show readers just how deceitful, pathetic, ignorant and stupid Israel's apologists can be

      @ TonyRiley

      "You’re very conveniently forgetting the Arab League Summit in Khartoum in August 1967, where “The 3 No’s” were resolved: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel."

      You're completely & conveniently forgetting in true Zionist style to show any evidence for your accusation that Egypt started a war. In fact you show Israel (the preemptor) started the war

      Furthermore you're holding the three no's up like you have a prize. It's another non-argument, completely devoid of anything substantial, typical of Hasbara nonsense

      The basis for the three no's was completely in keeping with International Law and UNSC resolutions affording Israel the opportunity to comply with the UN Charter and International Law as emphasized and re-affirmed in those resolutions

      Under the Peace Treaty with Egypt withdrawal was negotiated, Israel got a peace, recognition was inherent. Israel was required to 1st withdraw before peaceful relations were assumed. Withdrawal for peace. Quite reasonable

      2. The conference has agreed on the need to consolidate all efforts to eliminate the effects of the aggression on the basis that the occupied lands are Arab lands and that the burden of regaining these lands falls on all the Arab States.

      3. The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.

      This is simply a reflection of UNSC res 476

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

      and UNSC Res 242 where states are required to have

      respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

      "... the final communique also resolved that Palestine should exist on all of the land of Israel, which does make me wonder what they were smoking that day"

      Makes me wonder what you're smoking now

      3. The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5 (ibid)

      "Israel offered to return the Sinai " Israel was/is required by law to withdraw from all non-Israeli territories

      " Bear in mind that Israel wouldn’t have occupied either if Egypt hadn’t planned on attacking Israel, and were pre-empted, and if Syria hadn’t actually invaded"

      A) The preemptor starts the war and exactly which Israeli territories did Syria invade?
      B)According to Schwebel/Lauterpacht/Herzog, a sovereign has a right to "restore" sovereignty over their territory by war if necessary.

      No Israeli territories have ever been occupied for Israel to "restore". Egypt had a right to attempt to restore its sovereignty by war. It didn't take that step, Israel launched a preemptive war according to you! Syria has that right to the Golan and it hasn't yet taken that step. Israel has no right to any non-Israeli territories for ANY reason

      "Of course, Jordan would still be denying the Palestinians a state if it hadn’t attacked Israel on June 5th 1967."

      You're reading from the Hasbara book of drivel. There are no UNSC resolutions for any Arab state attacking Israel because
      A) the preemptor starts its war and;
      B) Israel was already in breach of its legal obligations in 1966

      "It would probably still have killed 20,000 PLO members in 1970/71, of course"

      All States have a duty and a right to protect the majority of their citizens from armed aggression internal and external

      No points to you buddy ... sorry, your schtick doesn't stick

    • @ TonyRiley "The Sinai. It lost and eventually Sadat accepted that he would never defeat Israel, so he agreed to peace in return for it becoming a demiltarised zone"

      No Tony, you said “Egypt started the 1973 war by invading Israel.”. My question, which you failed to answer was "Which actual Israeli territories did Egypt invade Tony and what is your evidence?"

      The Sinai was never Israeli. It was Egyptian BEFORE Israel was proclaimed and at no stage did it ever become sovereign to Israel.

      When one actually reads the Peace Treaty one can see that being a treaty, both parties agreed to its terms. One of the major terms agreed to was that Israel was to withdraw from all territories sovereign to Egypt BEFORE peaceful relations were assumed. link to wp.me IOW if you want peace, get the f&^( out of other folk's territories.

    • @ DoubleStandard
      February 16, 2015, 1:25 pm

      Uh huh... Say ... you're an MW user

    • @ TonyRiley
      "Egypt started the 1973 war by invading Israel."

      An accusation is not 'evidence' Tony.

      Which actual Israeli territories did Egypt invade Tony and what is your evidence?

    • @ TonyRiley "You’re just annoyed that Israel always wins"

      What has a state in breach of laws and a UN Charter adopted in large part because of the suffering of our Jewish fellows under the Nazis won Tony?

    • @ TonyRiley "In 1947, the UN Partition proposed the establishment of 2 new countries – 1 for the Arabs and 1 for the Jews.

      The Jews accepted and the Arabs – represented by the Arab League – refused "

      So what? Israel is only as it was proclaimed and recognized. Whatever on May 15th 1948 at 00:01 (ME time) in 1948 lay according to the Israeli Governmen"outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine" was not and is still not Israeli territory by any legal means.

    • @ TonyRiley does Ziopoop 101

      "Israel fairly captured the Sinai in the 1973 War that Egypt started, and then gave it away."

      A) There are no UNSC resolutions condemning Egypt for having 'started' any war.
      A war is not started until the first shot is fired ... Israel fired the first shots.

      B) Since at least 1933 it has beeninadmissible to acquire territory by war, ANY war .

      C) All states are required to have "respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;" Under the Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty, it was agreed and Israel was first required to withdraw from all Egyptian territories BEFORE peaceful relations were assumed

      "Israel had the whole of the land that is now under Hamas and Fatah control – Gaza and Judea and Samaria – captured fairly from Jordan and Egypt in 1967 "

      It was under Israeli military occupation per the ceasefire and Armistice agreements. No borders were actually altered. In fact all of Israel's attempts to change the borders and sovereignty of territories acquired by war, have all been rejected on legal grounds. Rejected 1948 link to domino.un.org .... rejected 1967 link to wp.me

      ", and now owns just 3% of the latter."

      Israel 'owns' what it was proclaimed and was recognized as "an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" No more, no less.

      " Israel is now roughly the same size as Wales"

      Irrelevant..

      " even though that’s still far too much for most of you"

      Evidence .... thx .... I'll wait .... ...

    • @TonyRiley does dig a deeper hole 101 "What they have in common is that, they are unknown in the UK, outside their immediate family and friends"

      Whatever fantasies you need to have dude.

      "Waters is an obvious exception, but he was quite happy to play in Turkey recently .... so they have no right to lecture Israel on anything"

      Is Turkey in breach of hundreds of UNSC resolutions affording the opportunity to abide by the binding laws those resolutions re-affirm and emphasize? Israel is and Israel has ignored every opportunity

      "and most of the architects who signed up make good money ion Arab countries or China, so they have no right to lecture Israel on anything"

      'most' being who exactly? Remember, accusations are not evidence and; are those countries in breach of hundreds of UNSC resolutions affording the opportunity to abide by the binding laws those resolutions re-affirm and emphasize? Israel is and Israel has ignored every opportunity

    • @ Mooser "A regular anthropophagist!"

      No!

      Really?

      Well, I had heard rumors ... or is it rumours? Rumours are our rumors
      ......

      psssssst ...

      ........ do you have any pictures

    • @ TonyRiley "Is it worth mentioning that Israel is less than half the size it was after 1973?"

      Interesting theory, I'd like to hear it fleshed out a little

    • @ TonyRiley

      "Meanwhile, Israeli audiences have enjoyed shows by Bob Dylan, Madonna, the Stones, etc."

      Nothing special. They played the antipodes too.

      "What these 700 have in common is that they have not been invited to visit Israel, and most are unheard of in Britain.

      What they have in common is .... you simply can't see 'em in Israel. As for being unheard of in Britain, might I suggest your ignorance is not evidence of anything relevant.

    • @ Jackdaw "I haven’t heard of any of these people, except for Waters and Eno, and that was thirty years ago"

      So what? Your ignorance has no effect on what they're doing.

      BTW They haven't heard of you ...

    • @ Palikari "Singling Israel out…"

      Israel's human rights violations are in territories the Israel Govt claimed were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine", territories Israel has never legally acquired.

      "...the only democracy in the Middle East?"

      Odd. The Declaration of Statehood says nothing about democracy. It does however require a constitution before a government can be legally elected. Thus far the only legal government Israel has ever had, the Provisional Government, was not elected by Israelis.

      Every Government since has led Israel further and further into the legal quagmire of illegal facts on the ground until today the Jewish State can't afford to adhere to the law, it would be sent bankrupt. It must instead strike a plea bargain with the Palestinians who are under no legal obligation what so ever to forgo ANY of their legal rights.

    • @ ivri "Gone are the times when an act like this has made any impression on Israel or, indeed, anywhere else"

      So why're you here?

      " And what about their “home front”- where Europe is approaching battle-field conditions g"

      I wonder if Europe knows ...

      "Besides, their threat is empty - who on earth will miss these people here"

      Irrelevant. Their voices are added to the groundswell.

  • Leila Sansour in Bethlehem: 'When your city is being destroyed, what would you do?'
  • Netanyahu's disaster: speech cost 'omnipotent' lobby a veto proof majority for Iran sanctions
    • @ Taxi
      "... through international legal instruments, you re-direct their German repa ..."
      HOLD IT RIGHT THERE! DROP THE NOTION and STEP AWAY FROM THE THOUGHT!

      Why should Germany monies pay the Palestinians for Israel's crimes?

    • I do believe it might be time for another Netanyahu cartoonie competition.

    • Israel only needs one veto vote at the UNSC to maintain the status quo and escape the consequences of breaking International law, sending the Jewish state into bankruptcy as it tried to cope with at last adhering to its legal obligations after 67 years.

      It only needs one veto vote at the UNSC to keep the pressure up on the Palestinians to forgo ever more of their rights in negotiations, the only legal way out of its illegal 'facts on the ground' quagmire. Not that Israel appears willing to actually negotiate anything other than making more and more ridiculous demands that actuallyhave no legal basis.

      It only needs one veto vote at the UNSC to escape the responsibility of allowing non-Jewish Israeli citizens refugees, their right of return.

      Israel only needs one veto vote at the UN to prevent Israel from being booted out of the UN!

      With the UNSC veto gone, there would be a tide of resolutions never before possible

  • Stanford petition misrepresents resolution to divest from occupation
    • You're babbling JeffB

      "I think it shows it isn’t a wrong."

      This is yours JeffB ... " people violate the charter all the time.”

      So now a violation isn't wrong. OK. I'll remember that bit of JeffB wisdom

      Wikipedia? No thanks. It is written by anyone, no qualifications necessary, can be dictated by a cabal (consensus), right or wrong and according to its editorial policies favours third hand opinion over truth. It is not by any means an encyclopedia.

    • @ JeffB "...everyone has the right to right to live where they are born"

      Indeed if they're legal citizens of that territory. For example non-Jewish Israeli citizens

      However, Israeli citizens born on non-Israeli territories held under Israeli military occupation or acquired by war since Israel was proclaimed "as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" were not born in Israel and; do not have the right to live as Israeli citizens in non-Israeli territory, especially when it is held under military occupation.

    • @ JeffB "Israel’s borders are clarifying like many young countries"

      Example and documentation ... thx

      They don’t control territory outside mandate Palestine"

      A) The Golan was outside the Mandate the moment Syria achieved independence

      B) Under the mandate there were never any borders between the territories that became Israel and those that remained of Palestine 1948.

      "except the sliver of Golan they annexed"

      The Knesset record shows Israel did not actually annex the Golan.

      "Inside mandate Palestine they took the 1967 armistice lines and it appears Area C"

      It is "inadmissible to acquire territory by war" and illegal to annex without an agreement per the US annexation of Texas, Hawaii, even Alaska. The US adopted the legal custom of a legal agreement to annex. The US was instrumental in the right to self determination and the legal custom of acquiring territory by agreement eventually passing into Customary International Law

      "They seem to be willing to yield most of Area A and B to a self governing Palestinian homeland"

      It isn't Israel's to yield.

      " and are willing to have Gaza be independent though they have shown a strong preference for it to be a colony of Egypt"

      Independence is not Israel's to give. Independence is unilateral by nature, your sentence makes no sense

      "1949-67 one was Egyptian"

      It was occupied per Chapt UN Charter, never claimed by Egypt. Egypt did notdid not illegally annex, did not sell or otherwise entitle or entice any Egyptian to illegally settle. Egypt did not claim one inch of the territories it held under occupation

      " the other Jordanian"

      Indeed. The West Bank as it is now known, was legally annexed at the request of the Palestinians (self determination). Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950).. The West Bank by 1967 belonged to a high contracting power, a UN Member state, therefore the GC's do apply.

      "Before that they were part of the British.."

      The British were only granted a mandate to administrate. It was never British or claimed by the British or part of the British Empire/Commonwealth. Your point BTW is irrelevant to the legal borders of Israel and Israel's illegal facts on the ground in territories the Israeli Govt claimed were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      ".. before that Ottoman Empire and not really a country at all"

      A) Under the LoN Mandate (1st line) and the LoN Covenant (Article 22) a state was given provisional recognition. It must have existed to be afforded provisional recognition.

      B) Your pathetic point is irrelevant to the legal borders of Israel and Israel's illegal facts on the ground in territories the Israeli Govt claimed were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      "Israel applied different administrative regimes to them.."

      Irrelevant to your point and irrelevant to the legal borders of Israel and Israel's illegal facts on the ground in territories the Israeli Govt claimed were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      " I can easily get to Quebec from New York that doesn’t make them the same country"

      Uh huh. Genius stuff....

      // while Palestinians are asking for only 22% of what is left of their land//

      "We know that’s not true from Camp David. "

      The statements were made at the UN long after Camp David.

      "If that’s all they wanted they would have had the deal. The problem is not only do they want 22% they also want a right of return."

      A) They have a legal right to 100% of Palestine as it stood after Israel's borders became effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      B) They argue for the Right of Return under UNGA res 194 (1948) for non-Jewish Israeli citizens to Israel.

      C)They do not have any need to ask for or demand RoR for Non-Israelis to Palestine.

      "Where they get an exclusively Palestinian state in the West Bank, and exclusively Palestinian state in Gaza and then still get to migrate into the Jewish state"

      RoR via UNGA res 194 for non-Jewish Israelis is not immigration.

      "Heck I suspect that “take 22% and get the heck out of the rest” Netanyahu would sign pretty easily even today"

      He didn't. Israel's answer was to build more illegal facts on the ground.

      "The problem is they want 100%.

      Sez you and other idiots for Israel without any evidence what so ever.

      "But the moment you ask for a permanent relinquishment on all claim on the remaining 78% the mask falls off"

      Start quoting buster , 'cause thus far you have NOTHING but unsupported accusations

      Recognition of statehood is irrevocable. So having declared their independence on 22% and if recognized by the majority of the comity of Nations (as they already have) , they'd be legally bound, as is Israel and all other states, to their declared and recognized boundaries.

      So how exactly does this mask allegedly fall off?

    • @ JeffB " Wile belief in the UN is a minority position..."

      You'll say anything, absolutely anything rather than admit you're wrong.

      "There is an assumption there that the UN’s interpretation of international law is correct and violating the UN Charter is a delegitimizing activity. I don’t see evidence for that. Countries and people violate the charter all the time."

      How many wrongs do you need to make a right JeffB?

      "Japanese Jews are not considered really Japanese by either the Jews or the Japanese"

      Says who?

      " Your analogy proves the opposite of what you would like it to"

      Your denial doesn't change what's been written

    • @ JeffB "You aren’t defending Amalla’s thesis but your own"

      I am not the UNSC.

      "As for legally split… There have been many UN resolutions, world court decisions… since then accepting the 1967 borders. I’ve pointed them out to you over and over and over"

      Only a real idiot would lie where their words can be checked. You have NOT shown anything because there is nothing to show.

      You have not been honest on a single point.

      The Knesset record shows there was no annexation of the Golan

      International Law and the UN Charter trump Israeli state law in non-Israeli territories.

      The UN/UNSC does not us the weasel words 'disputed territories'. It does say " Israel, the Occupying Power"

    • @ eljay
      "(I wonder where the potato-man is these days… )"

      or ... who the potato-man is these days

    • The mind boggles

      @ JeffB

      " The Gazans initiated the Israeli / Gaza war"

      In effect the Zionist Federation did 1897 when it decided to colonize Palestine

    • DaBakr " one can legitimately argue the merits of a .... Benj. Franklin-(who did NOT say the famous quote about ‘liberty/security’ would most surely agree.)"

      291 words that simply don't reconcile with the fact that:
      A) the Israeli government actively endangers Israeli Jews by encouraging them to be in breach of GC IV, a convention adopted to protect all civilians including those of the Occupying Power from the almost certain consequences of war and;

      B) by illegally acquiring non-Israeli territory by war over the last 67 years, illegally annexing, illegally settling, illegally selling non-Israeli land in non-Israeli territories to Israeli citizens illegally in non-Israeli territory, successive Israeli governments have guided Israel into the un-enviable illegal 'facts on the ground' position of being un-able to afford to adhere to the law and requiring the protection of the US veto vote in the UNSC lest the Jewish state be held accountable in which case it would be a monumental failure

    • @ JeffB
      "No it isn’t. Israel has a mix of religious and secular"

      In the same country? Not likely according to this guy link to mondoweiss.net

    • JeffB deserves a Bondi cigar..

    • @ JeffB //The West Bank and Gaza belong to the same country! //

      "Do they?"

      They're both part of what remained of Palestine after Israel was proclaimed "as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" What remained of Palestine has never been legally split from Palestine ( corpus separatum was never instituted . Palestine still includes Jerusalem - read UNSC res 476 )

      Can you point to any official document whereby they became legally separated? Careful now, wouldn't want you to slip in more ziopoop

      "Their populations have different national characteristics"

      Irrelevant. Unless of course you'd like to apply the same criteria to Israel, the USA, Australia, the UK

      "They have different governments which have fought a civil war against each other less than a decade ago."

      They have different administrations. When was the last Palestinian election to elect a different Palestinian Government

      "They have different religious preferences"

      How many religious preferences in Israel, the USA , Australia, the UK?

      ."They aren’t physically connected"

      Neither is Israel by its official and only legal borders, the " frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947". Nor are Hawaii, Alaska, Texas, California. Xmas Island and the Australian mainland. The UK and the Falklands.

      "One is independent from Israel the other being partially annexed"

      Both are occupied. Israel has never legally annexed or legally acquired any territory. It's borders are the same as the day they were proclaimed in order for Israel to be recognized.

      "Other than the UN says so what evidence is there that they are the same country?"

      The UN is the majority. You're spouting a minority opinion that has it's basis in complete bullsh*t .

    • @ Neil Schipper
      "But the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics reported that 11% of Palestinian households traveled outside Palestine during 2012, to visit relatives and friends, for religious purposes, for leisure and for business or work purposes. Are you claiming North Korea – style captivity? Can you clarify?"

      An occupied population is a captive population. Pointing to a hole in the clouds doesn't negate the clouds that surround the hole

      "I’m not sure who this we is, but, I’d like to know if you favor requiring police to halt the investigation of a kidnapping in progress upon hearing gunshots on a cell phone. It would be an unusual preference"

      Immediate triangulation is possible on cell phones.

      "Is the professor satisfied that the U.N. performed an independant investigation, or are they repeating figures provided by Hamas? Is the professor aware that Hamas has a deep interest in inflating its civilian casualty numbers, and may be tempted to report armed 16- and 17-year old militants as civilian children, and armed female militants as civilian women?"

      Perhaps the 1st question should be answered 1st, before launching into the ubiquitous Israeli propaganda mantra

      "There is important context missing in this characterization of the summer war: the stated goals of Hamas; that Israel was acting in concert with the Palestinian Authority and the Egyptian security establishment; that the PA had recently learned that Hamas was preparing a coup against the PA in the West bank; finally, that the PA provided target information to Israel, in order to inflict severe losses against Hamas personnel and command and control capabilities."

      Wow! A whole nest of unproven speculations.

      "Repetition does not make things true."

      Israel did not proclaim any borders Israel did not proclaim any borders ( link to trumanlibrary.org ) ( WMDs WMDs WMDs WMDs )

      "Those conventions are important, and are surely intended to apply to a civilian non-combatant population upon cessation of hostilities"

      Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

      "Those conventions couldn’t possibly apply to a territory of weapon-bearing militants openly calling for the destruction of the occupier and engaging them militarily"

      Or armed settlers or Israeli military in non-Israeli territory

    • @ JeffB
      "1) We (the USA) aren’t a nation of peace. We spend more on military than the rest of the world combined. We will over the next 10 years spend on upgrading our nuclear forces what Israel spends on the entire IDF."

      "We (the USA)" Right, you're American, not Israeli ... got that sorted ... but wait ... what's this?

      " What we do, we do as a people. We are one people. Judaism through Israel is returning to its natural state a national church, becoming nothing more or less than the Israeli religion. We live, die, thrive or wither together. Our choices drive our destiny". - See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

      "3) Iron dome has some pretty sophisticated stuff."

      Yeh, it has the amazing capability to convince people it is protecting Israelis. However, the statistics show that no less Israelis died with it than without it.

    • @ hophmi
      "C’mon, Professor. Surely, you can admit that these resolutions are tactics in pursuit of a greater goal of resolving the conflict in the Palestinians’ favor."

      Sez you, an apologist for Israel, without giving any evidence

      "If you can’t even admit that, then you’re either purposely obfuscating your aim, or you’re being extremely naive"

      Evidence .... nil.

      "But, again, you seem interest in only address international law as it pertains to Israel, and there is no record of the activists behind the resolution launching similar campaigns to deal with any other human rights situation in the world,"

      What other human rights situation in the world are being committed by a state in territories outside the sovereignty of the state committing those atrocities?

      "Simply point me to the sources where the BDS has condemned Palestinian suicide bombings "

      Zioidiocy at its best I guess. A) Those who commit them are dead. Boycotting dead people is a quaint idea ... B) how does one boycott or divest from persons if those persons are unknown?

      " advocated peaceful negotiations between the two protagonists"

      No need for negotiations at all were Israel to have adhered to the law from the outset. It didn't, still hasn't. Adhere to the law and withdraw from all non-Israeli territories for once, never been tried.

      " If you want to avoid being a hypocrite who obsessively criticizes one small country but remains relatively silent on much worse human rights problems around the world"

      You have evidence for ANYTHING you say?

Showing comments 4927 - 4901
Page: