Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 7063 (since 2010-02-26 10:49:56)

talknic

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 proclaiming its frontiers in the May 15th 1948 in the Israeli Government plea for international recognition, Israel has illegally acquired by force and occupied more and more territory outside of it's proclaimed and recognized Sovereign territory. None of which has ever been legally ceded to or legally annexed to Israel by any agreement or legal instrument The occupied have a right to violent resistance against armed citizens of the Occupying Power. However, no one has a right or excuse for committing acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. To that end: I condemn all forms of terrorism, murder and any other harmful crime by any individual, group, organization or state and; condemn any government, individual or organization who purposefully encourages the illegally settlement of territories held under occupation thereby purposefully endangering its own citizens by using them to create illegal facts on the ground Today the State of Israel continues to encourage Israeli civilians to create illegal settlements, illegal facts on the ground, breaking law that was adopted by the UN and International Comity in large part because of the treatment of our Jewish fellows under the Nazis. Law adopted to protect all civilians including those of an Occupying Power from the expected violent consequences of occupying another people and their territory Israel demands the swap of non-Israeli territory for non-Israeli territory so it can keep non-Israeli territory in a future settlement. There is no legal basis for the demand nor is there for the disarmament of a future Palestinian state. All states have equal right to self defense. Likewise, there is no legal basis for the demand to be recognized as the Jewish state. Israeli demands have no legal precedence or validity The Palestinians have no legal, moral or ethical obligation to forgo any of their legal rights. Negotiations mean only one thing, the Palestinians forgoing legal rights so Israel can benefit Were Israel to adhere to the law, it can easily protect itself, grow and prosper. It'd have no UN resolutions against it. No need to continuing to corrupt US politicians in order to maintain a UNSC veto vote. No need to lie to and endanger its citizens 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. Reliable information is essential to informed dialogue towards resolving the I/P issue. Propaganda has no place in struggle for peace

Website: http://talknic.wordpress.com

Showing comments 7063 - 7001
Page:

  • US body on religious freedom rebuffed Palestinian Christians-- and Zogby says group was 'bullied'
  • New York rabbi links Jewish Voice for Peace to Osama bin Laden and Assad
    • @ Talkback April 30, 2017, 7:07 am

      " ) Just accept the fact that Israel has done nothing towards peace and doesn’t give a sh** whether you like it or not. … And take a chill pill, if you can’t"

      Interesting. You're the one saying "just accept". I haven't. Your argument with me is a complete nonsense

    • @ yonah fredman April 29, 2017, 9:48 pm

      "I think that rabin, ehud barak and ehud Olmert were on the right track. But rabin was murdered and both barak and olmert were offering more than the israeli public was ready to offer and thus there was not the stability that true peace talks would have required, instead there were elections that replaced barak and olmert with sharon and Netanyahu putting an end to negotiations"

      Lemme see now. They offered what exactly? To swap non-Israeli territories for non-Israeli territories so Israel could keep non-Israeli territories? WOW that's a great deal! What a bargiain for the Palestinians!. They offered the Palestinians another chance to forgo some more of their legal rights.

      Negotiations mean only one thing. Less for the Palestinians, more for Israel who has no legal, moral or ethical right to anything beyond its proclaimed and recognized borders. No legal, moral or ethical right to demand to be recognized. No moral legal or ethical right to take other folks territories for its own protection. No legal ethical or moral right to demand a Palestinian state be dis-armed.

    • @ Talkback April 29, 2017, 7:48 am

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

      "Yep, whether we like it or not."

      Precisely.Israel has offered nothing towards peace and it doesn't give a sh*t whether we like it or not.

      " And if we can’t accept this than it’s our problem, right?"

      If you can't acknowledge the fact that Israel hasn't offered anything towards peace, it sure is your problem, because it hasn't offered anything towards peace. It's a simple ugly fact.

    • @ Talkback April 29, 2017, 7:48 am

      Talknic. It hasn’t put forward anything towards peace with Palestine, ever. No thing. Nothing.

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

      It is a fact. Israel has done nothing towards peace. Take a chill pill. Your accusations against me are ridiculous

    • and why didn't Herzl?

    • yonah fredman April 28, 2017, 1:53 am

      "Jewish voice for peace can call itself whatever it wants, but it ought a call itself Jewish voice for palestine. "

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

      "Clearly not on my side"

      Deservedly

    • Poor fellow. Must have stumbled on a container ship of Ziocaine

  • Why I'm keeping my child home from school in Israel on Holocaust Day
    • @ Mayhem April 26, 2017, 8:25 am

      " The monthly payments, which totaled $173 million in 2016, are doled out to relatives of “martyrs” — the families of terrorists who have murdered Israelis, as well as those wounded or killed in any confrontation with Israelis."

      There's a hole in the wholly holey Hasbara. Always is. A) It's quite common for countries to pay their military personnel and/or compensate their families. B) The IDF memorial site shows more Israeli military have been targeted, wounded and killed than have Israeli civilians. Targeting military IS NOT terrorism.

      The same cannot be said of the IDF's slaughterfest in Gaza where by far the majority killed were innocent civilians. Dropping bombs on roofs to warn people their homes are about to be bombed really takes a major prize in the sickness stakes and the leaflet dropping and telephone calls is simply laughable. http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=what+does+it+say#sthash.yA5nYFDp.dpuf

      BTW It's against the law to attack undefended villages/towns etc. The Palestinians have a right to fight from their towns and villages. However, they don't have defenses against Israeli warplanes, artillery fired from warships off the coast, guided missiles, fletchettes, white phosphorus, tank fire etc.

    • @ DaBakr April 29, 2017, 7:35 pm

      ")a sg=upposedly unbiased historical account which naturally comes to conclude that zionists must have logically plotted the whole thing."

      Zionists didn't decide to colonize Palestine in 1897? WOW! It's a pity they didn't know

    • @ Mooser April 27, 2017, 4:35 pm

      "They assured all the men it wouldn’t be expensive. It wasn’t going to cost them an arm and a leg or anything ... and no skin off their nose!

      ----

      @ echinococcus April 27, 2017, 7:57 pm

      " ... you gotta work on your vocabulary. “Shared heritage” is not only not the case, it also denotes, by definition, a genetic/congenital bond"

      That olde con genital bond. Everyone's in for a slice of the action

    • @ hophmi April 25, 2017, 2:29 pm

      " It is an extraordinarily solemn event in a country that has more Holocaust survivors and descendants of Holocaust survivors than anywhere else.

      Why on Earth would Israel not teach the Holocaust? It is a seminal, enormous event in Jewish history."

      Indeed. And why not teach how Israel abuses its holocaust survivors https://www.google.com.au/search?q=israeli%20treatment%20of%20holocaust%20survivors%20-wikipedia

  • Anti-settlements resolution could be 'last straw' for many Massachusetts Dems, warns party boss in AIPAC's pocket
    • @ hophmi April 22, 2017, 8:25 am

      "How’s the Labour Party in Great Britain doing these days?"

      Don't know. Write an article submit it to MW.

      Meanwhile, this article is about Massachusetts Dems / AIPAC

  • 'Why do I not cry out for the right of return?' -- an exchange between Uri Avnery and Salman Abu Sitta
    • @ YoniFalic April 30, 2017, 6:07 am

      "Talknic equates pretrial settlements and plea bargains that might eliminate need for trials with lack of culpability or guilt"

      What a strange accusation This is what I've written

      If territory were stolen/occupied/cleansed by pre-state actors before a State existed and were that State after having declared its borders to return those stolen/occupied/cleansed territories, the State would not be guilty of accepting stolen goods. The criminals would still be guilty of stealing/terrorism/ethnic cleansing et al, not the State.

      If the State takes the stolen/occupied/cleansed territories for itself through creating illegal facts on the ground, it’s crime is being in possession of stolen territories and creating illegal facts on the ground. The criminals are still guilty of stealing/terrorism et al.

      Other states accepting a de facto situation doesn’t make it legal. de facto recognition is not de jure. de jure can only come about by agreement between Israel and Palestine. An agreement might include waiving the right to pursue the State and/or pre-state actors for their past crimes. However, the crimes were still committed and other States might one day take an interest in pursuing any of the parties

      ” With regard to the wall, the ICJ has recommended that the UN take action with respect to the Israeli separation wall, and the UN certainly has the ability to sanction states or to order attacks on them.”

      The crimes relating to the wall were committed by the State after the state came into existence!

      http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638

      " Such settlements and bargains hardly negate the liability or culpability of the later organization. In fact, they generally imply acceptance of such liability or culpability."

      You've just reflected what I've said. Your accusation against me is ridiculous

      "There is no reason to treat the Israeli state as a “done deal"

      1) Where have I? 2) No State is a done deal

      " In general, decent human beings have a duty to treat with scorn the State of Israel, Zionist invaders, and all supporters of Zionism. Protests of Zionist organizations and of Zionist individuals should never cease until Israel ceases to exists and the invaders leaves."

      That would be for Palestinians to decide surely

    • @ Talkback April 29, 2017, 7:14 am

      "So your claim is that this is not the s logical conclusion given the numbers he claim ... ?"

      Shall we go on what he said or what he didn't say? Uri Avnery gave the UNRWA 6-7million figure as returning "to Israel". It's a Zionist propaganda mantra. The Palestinians do not claim RoR for all 6-7 million refugees "to Israel". The Palestinian claim is made under UNGA res 194 of 1948 BEFORE UNRWA existed and before Israel made its unsuccessful claim (Aug 1949) to any territories it had previously stated on May 22nd 1948 were "outside the State of Israel".

      "I allready explained to you that a legal agreement is not necessary, if noone else contests these territories ...."

      Israel hasn't yet accepted any limits to its borders with Palestine. The other states acceptance of a de facto situation doesn't make it legal. An agreement between Palestine and Israel would. There isn't one between Palestine and Israel even though the Palestinians have said they're willing to cede 78% of their territory for peace with Israel and have declared their borders accordingly in a show of good faith, Israel has yet to agree to any limitations to its expansion, the only borders it has ever accepted are those it declared in its plea for recognition.

      " After you failed with your inherent claim that Palestine was not a state and therefore couldn’t go to the ICC"

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

      "allthough it allready has become a state party to the Rome statue you simply changed your argument to “at all four” and added the UNSC"

      I originally gave the UN, ICJ and ICC as being within reach. One only has a limited time to edit a post. So I included the UNSC it next chance I got. Big deal. The notion that there's some deception on my part is a fantasy. I didn't mention I'm wearing thermals either

      "As if the US wouldn’t veto every anti-Israel move or the UNGA ... ... "

      Do you really think I'm not aware of the vile use of the US veto vote.

      http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=UNSC+Veto#sthash.i7ImSFYU.dpuf

      http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=UNSC+Veto#sthash.i7ImSFYU.dpuf

      http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=UNSC+Veto#sthash.i7ImSFYU.dpuf

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

      It ISN'T in or inferred in the article and his statement is prefaced with the same "if" used by Ziopanic merchants to prevent any RoR

      Talknic: “So ‘we’ do agree.”

      "Not regarding the way he wants to undermine RoR."

      Make up your mind. Hes repeating a ZioNonsense.

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

      "The same “legal process” and agreement you claim to exist for Israel within 48 borders etc etc ..."

      Uh? Israel by it's own admission stated the territories "outside the State of Israel" were under military occupation. http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk The Occupying power has a sacred trust under Chapt XI of the UN Charter. Israel instead created illegal facts on the ground. de facto is not de jure doesn't matter how many states give de facto recognition

      "The question was, IF the UN can censure non members or UN Members for crimes committed prior to becoming A) States and/or B) UN Member States. You denied this and I wrote that it can by not recognizing statehood or denying full UN membership."

      Where did I deny it? Of course it can. But it DIDN'T! Don't you get it yet? Legal or not, whether we like it or not Israel is a UN Member state and as such it has committed crimes, witnessed by the hundreds of UNSC resolutions against it.

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

      Jewish terrorists did, it's a fact. I've never agreed with how it came about. Does ISII represent a majority? In both cases it's no.
      Your accusation against me is completely stupid. Go whine to the States who recognized Israel, and the UN for admitting Israel and the US for protecting Israel and to states for blindly accepting a de facto situation.

      "It didn’t need to be acquired. Nobody needed to be expelled to achieve a majority. 98,3% choose to ... etc ..."

      No one needed to be expelled from the territories that became Israel either. Everyone should have had a transferred nationality. Israel ignored its legal obligations as a state, to the UN Charter and to its own declaration.

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

      A claim without any citation" y

      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/united-nations-special-committee-on-palestine-unscop

      http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/un_general_assembly_resolution_181#cite_note-domino.un.org-21

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

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

      It certainly doesn't. Go whine to the states that recognized Israel and the UN for admitting Israel as a Member, the Zionist Federation and the Jewish agency for lying.

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

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

      Go whine to Israel for ignoring it's obligations, the Jewish Agency for lying. . Whine at the states for foolishly believing Jewish Agency lies and the UN for admitting Israel as a Member state. Not me. Illegal or not, like it or not Israel now exists. I didn't do it, I don't agree with how it came about .

      "Now I would claim that there is no right to create (or “secede”) a state while violating the right to self determination which contradicts the latter right. "

      Me too. I agree. You've left out the majority representative part of my statement BTW

      "You obviously don’t, if you claim that states (generally) have a right to secede, whether they violate ... etc ..."

      Problem. No one has a right to violate anything. You're needlessly fabricating accusations. It's tiresome

      " Ok. A snake can bite before and even after it shed its skin. It’s the same snake"

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

      ."You also seem to ignore that there are crimes that the pre state organisation started and the same organisation continued or even continues after it acquired national status. :"

      I've described exactly that AND how by committing those crimes before the state was declared they avoided censure of the State. The State is guilty of accepting stolen goods, not of stealing them.

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

      The State of Israel is responsible for preventing RoR to its declared territories and to territories outside those it declared. As such it is entirely responsible for ALL compensations resulting from its actions outside its borders and to those who were dispossessed from within its borders. 60 years is one hell of a a lot of resources illegally used, pain and suffering on top of compensation for property, loss of business, artworks, books. It cannot afford to adhere to the law. If the truth be known the only legal out for Israel is a plea bargain with the Palestinians

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

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

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

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

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

      What support for Israel's existence? It's simply a fact. Like it or not the State of Israel exists in all its ugliness. Whether it came about legally or illegally it is now a UN Member and in breach of its legal obligations as a state and as a UN Member

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

      If you say so. Accepting that something has happened doesn't mean one agrees with it or how it came about.

    • @ YoniFalic April 28, 2017, 11:25 pm

      "The acquired subunit creates liability or responsibility in the whole. If Bank of America acquires a small mortgage company that was committing crimes, Bank of America is indicted.

      A) Commercial Law. B) If the bank makes restitution and compensates for the crimes of its acquisition, the bank isn't indicted. C) If it doesn't it is indicted.

      "Under the international anti-genocide regime, states have not yet been indicated, but states have certainly been charged in other types of proceedings at the ICJ."

      Of course States have proceedings against their actions. I've not said otherwise.

      If territory were stolen/occupied/cleansed by pre-state actors before a State existed and were that State after having declared its borders to return those stolen/occupied/cleansed territories, the State would not be guilty of accepting stolen goods. The criminals would still be guilty of stealing/terrorism/ethnic cleansing et al, not the State.

      If the State takes the stolen/occupied/cleansed territories for itself through creating illegal facts on the ground, it's crime is being in possession of stolen territories and creating illegal facts on the ground. The criminals are still guilty of stealing/terrorism et al.

      Other states accepting a de facto situation doesn't make it legal. de facto recognition is not de jure. de jure can only come about by agreement between Israel and Palestine. An agreement might include waiving the right to pursue the State and/or pre-state actors for their past crimes. However, the crimes were still committed and other States might one day take an interest in pursuing any of the parties

      " With regard to the wall, the ICJ has recommended that the UN take action with respect to the Israeli separation wall, and the UN certainly has the ability to sanction states or to order attacks on them."

      talknic November 12, 2013 at 11:26 pm The crime of the wall was committed by the State after the state came into existence!

    • echinococcus April 28, 2017, 9:52 pm

      "The only accusation is your legitimizing the totally illegal existence of the Zionist entity in any size or location."

      What legitimization? Israel exists. Illegal or not. Like it or not. The State of Israel, agree with the legality of how it came to exist or not, is now the reality the world has to contend with, not some fantasy of what sh/could have or should not have happened.in the past

      As to your ridiculous accusations. I've been pointing out the Zionists planned to colonize Palestine in 1897 via a vile money making scheme, targeting specifically Jews, specifically poor Jews, loaning them money specifically at interest on condition they specifically settle in Palestine specifically on the front lines endangering themselves and their families in order to eventually dispossess non-Jewish Arabs in Palestine

      If that's pro Zionist, YOU need a shrink

      I've been pointing out, long before you appeared on MW the fact that the Balfour declaration, which wasn't even debated in the British Parliament, didn't mention a state and how Balfour himself questioned the legitimacy of the partition plan ( despite his being supportive of a Jewish state );

      Pointing out the LoN Mandate for Palestine Article 7 which doesn't mention a state;. Contrary to Zionist lies.

      Pointing out the illegality of Plan Dalet and the illegal actions of pre-state Jewish terrorists;

      Pointing out the illegality of Israel's actions after it came into existence via the lies of the Jewish Agency and Zionist Federation pre-state and post state;

      I've pointed out the illegality of Israel acquiring territories by war outside of its self proclaimed borders. Contrary to Zionist lies.

      The illegality of not recognizing RoR. The illegality of settlements. There's nothing in what I've written supportive of the Zionists, Zionism, their plan or their actions

      If you can't accept the ugly reality of Israel's existence, it's your problem. It has SFA to do with me

    • echinococcus April 28, 2017, 1:34 pm

      "Pointing out the very serious limitations and risks is not bile"

      Your unwarranted accusations against me are driven by something. It certainly isn't love or logic

      "Besides, each person goes hisher own way in matters of boycott "

      Indeed.

      No law can force individuals to recommend or buy Israeli goods and;
      No law can stop individuals from not buying Israeli goods and;
      No law has yet been passed that prevents anyone from saying certain goods are produced in illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=can+force#sthash.2Flgzp2E.dpuf

      However, the US UNSC veto can't stop individuals, companies or other countries from boycotting, divesting or sanctioning Israel - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=individuals#sthash.4cfGJKe1.dpuf

      I have come to the same conclusion in the past four years.

      The State of Israel is in breach of its legal obligations.

      Boycott the state and any business or person/s profiting from the state's illegal actions in any non-Israeli territories
      - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=boycott#sthash.2re3FnrV.dpuf

      I contend that people be shown that it is the proclaimed and only Internationally recognized border and;
      armed with that knowledge as a starting point people can eventually arrive at an informed opinion, understand the real cause of the situation, why the UN is not biased against Israel and why Israel is deserving of at least sanctions, boycott and even UN approved military action. - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=boycott#sthash.2re3FnrV.dpuf

      a sports boycott can shine a spotlight, no, a BIG spotlight , no, a VERY BIG spotlight , no a, GIGANTIC spotlight no, BILLIONS of spotlights on the apartheid policies of the State of Israel in every country in the world and empower billions of people to act and no law can stop them! - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=boycott#sthash.2re3FnrV.dpuf

      "–are you trying to hold me to the same boycott (or other action, too?) rules as the Zionist partial-only-post-67-boycotters?"

      I'm not trying to hold you to anything. You're making baseless accusations against me by inference. Cute, but really quite stupid and very tiresome

    • @ YoniFalic April 28, 2017, 4:58 pm

      "Entities which did not exist at the time of tort, damage, or crime can certainly bear civil or criminal responsibility for acts related to the tort, damage, or crime (including the original tort, damage, or crime) both in international law and also in all modern legal systems that I know, and I have studied many."

      I have said as much numerous times throughout this conversation. However, an entity such as the Jewish Agency or IDF are not the State

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

      Also brought within reach is the possibility of a tribunals; to assess the legality of Israel’s ‘considered’ territories; to assess compensation due under International law, far more than Israel can afford.
      - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638

      The individuals who committed crimes during the civil war could of course have been prosecuted for the crimes they committed. - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638

      Individuals can be prosecuted for their pre-state crimes. The state cannot. Pre-state actors can be prosecuted for pre-state crimes and; for crimes they commit as state actors once the state exists. - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638

      The individuals concerned can of course be prosecute for any crimes they committed at any time, even if they become state actors. - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638

      Yes the individuals could be prosecuted, but they’d have the protection and legal resources of the state behind their defense. Unless of course they became too costly to the cause. There’s only so much honour amongst Zionist thieves - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638

    • @ YoniFalic April 28, 2017, 1:03 pm

      "The Haganah and other terrorist organizations in the pre-state period committed terrorism and genocide. The Haganah became the IDF. "

      They're not the State. Military organizations can cease to exist while the State remains. Libya for example

      As to pre-state crimes I've already noted pre-state actors can of course be prosecuted. Even Uri Avnery

    • On edit:

      "Avnery is making a fake claim to undermine the right of return in general”

      So ‘we’ do agree. The same fake claim made by Zionists who cite the UNRWA figure all returning to Israel, as if that is the Palestinian demand, when it clearly is not

    • @ echinococcus April 27, 2017, 8:36 pm

      BDS movement https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds

      I'm not interested in arguing with what appears to be a bile junkie

    • @ Talkback April 27, 2017, 4:20 pm

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

      That's not conveyed in the article

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

      A) The '67 borders aren't stated by Uri Avnery B) When and by what legal agreement did Israel acquire any territories outside of those it accepted and declared and was recognized by in 1948? 'considered' simply does not answer the question

      "It’s strange that you also have to ignore ... ... ... the Rome statue of the ICC in 2015."

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

      "I also understand that if his numbers represent the numbers of refugees who wish to return to their homes within territories that would be within Israel according to a two state solution based on 67 lines"

      You might 'consider' that to be the case. It's not conveyed in the article

      "Avnery is making a fake claim to undermine the right of return in general"

      So 'we' do agree. The same fake claim made by Zionists who cite the UNRWA figure as if that is the Palestinian demand, when it clearly is not

      " Does it make any sense to you to endlessly repeat your position about Israel’s borders to challenge this?"

      OK. You word the challenge?

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

      No. The problem is the fact that Israel has yet to agree to accept ANY limitations to its borders other than those it declared per UNGA res 181, effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time). Israel has not recognized Palestine's borders. There is no agreement. The territories outside of Israel's borders some how magically became Israeli by what legal process in agreement with who?

      "But it can. By denying g a proclaimed created state to become a member of the UN. "

      Hate to tell you this, right or wrong, legal or illegal, the UN DID allow Israel Membership. That's the reality. Israel has failed to live up to its legal obligations.

      " 2.) By denying the proclaimed state Non-member-state status which implies denying the recognition of its statehood (which the UN did with Palestine from 1988 until 2012).

      Too late! Like it or not Israel is a UN Member State. The Jewish Agency et al lied to get into the UN. They're a still lying

      "Israel’s point of view is that it has legally “accepted and declared” the territories ..."

      Not by any legal agreement with Palestine

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

      "Can ISIL legally acquire state territory by simply declaring statehood or simply determining its territory, too?"

      Jewish terrorists did. Arafat was also considered a terrorist. Any legitimate majority representative can. Do ISIL represent any legitimate majority in any territory?

      "Self determination is actually the key point."

      How the territory was acquired was the particular point at issue

      "Where’s the cherry picking? "

      Right where you left it.

      "Nonjews were the majority :
      “t will thus be seen that the proposed Jewish State will contain a total population of 1,008,800, consisting of 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. In other words, at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State.”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Sub-Committee_2"

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

      "And bear in mind how many Jews hadn’t even acquired Palestinan citizenshiip."

      Indeed. I already mentioned it. Another illegality committed by non-state actors before the State of Israel existed and for which the State could not be prosecuted.

      " So you inherently claim that Zionist have the right to violatie the right to self determination.I that’s not ultra-Zionist, what is?"

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

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

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

      "“What you just said, you’ve said it hundreds of times without ever responding to the objections to it.”"

      The record shows otherwise.

      "There’s no need to omitt anything. "

      But you did.

      "Your premise is as weird as your statement."

      It wasn't my premise

      "If Israel would accept the RoR for some Palestians who don’t wish to return, but to compensated, because the terrorist Zionist didn’t leave anything to return than the conclusion based on your premise is that Israel doesn’t have to compensate them, if they were expelled outside of the partition borders by Israel’s pre state actors."

      If you say so. I certainly haven't.

      "So what keeps you from accepting the fact of Apartheid Israel? "

      Uh? What makes you make a completely baseless accusation

      "Or its occupation? "

      You're crazy - http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=Israel%2C+the+occupying+power

      "It’s illegal annexation and settlements? "

      Off your rocker - http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=illegal+annexation 0-0 http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=illegal+settlements

    • On edit:

      "You are making a case for the violation of the right to self determination. Sounds pretty Zionist to me”"

      I am not 'making the case' for it. I'm describing how the Zionist Movement/Jewish Agency used the fact that a State cannot be held responsible for crimes committed before that state existed.

      I'm describing how they used the fact that the UN does not directly censure non-member states for their illegal actions or the illegal actions of non-state actors prior to the state's existence and/or prior to UN Membership.

      I'm describing how the Zionist Movement/Jewish Agency lied its way into the UN, by saying the state would adhere to the law and UN Charter. It simply has not.

      Your accusations against me are nonsense.

      -----------------
      If you claim Israel should not exist at all, then you're against the notions of BDS who base their demands on the Palestinian Declaration of Statehood (which Israel has yet to accept)
      ------------------

      Instead of arguing to prove I'm supportive of Zionist tactics, we could be working at honing statements that clearly show the Zionist Federation and Jewish Agency and every Government of the State of Israel, none of which have ever been legally elected under a constitution, to be blatant liars.

      We're in the same boat, row instead of hitting me with your paddle :-)

    • @ talkback April 26, 2017, 12:03 pm

      Uri Avnery's figure came from somewhere. If not from the UNRWA definition, where? A definition by an organization that didn't exist when UNGA res 194 was adopted in 1948 the resolution under which the Palestinians make their claim. UNGA res 194 cannot possibly have been referring to the definition of an organization that didn't exist in 1948. Plus it's definition made under a mandate that DOES NOT reflect Uri's claim or the Ziononsense demographic threat mantra of 6 to 7 millions "to Israel"

      We agree and I've been saying this much from the outset, Palestine refugees have a right to return to where they came from both within Israeli territories and outside of Israel's territories. So what are you arguing about?

      " BUT everybody understands that this includes returning to parts of historic Palestine that Israel considers to be its own, whether recgonized or not. And to use your fatalistic killer argument: ‘That’s the reality, whether you like it or not’."

      'considered' doesn't make something legal, also a reality whether you like it or not. The earth was once considered flat. Israel itself has yet to agree to limitations on any borders beyond those it declared in 1948 in its plea for recognition.

      All territories Israel now claims beyond its declared and recognized borders were acquired by war. The acquisition of territories by war was prohibited under International Law before Israel was declared. International Law is applicable to all states, UN Member States and non-members. So how did the territories Israel acquired by war become Israeli for them to be considered Israeli?

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

      Also brought within reach is the possibility of a tribunals; to assess the legality of Israel's 'considered' territories; to assess compensation due under International law, far more than Israel can afford.

      Israel has been led up a blind alley by Zionist aims. The only legal out for Israel is a plea bargain with Palestine who has no obligation what so ever to forgo any of its legal rights at any stage to anyone. Instead, Israel continues its illegal activities ignoring all but Deuteronomy 20:15 et al

      "Avnery’s argument is based on this understanding"

      We agree his understanding is nonsense.

      "And everybody also understands that if the conflict is resolved by two state solution bthen it is ased on 67 lines, not on 48 lines. Which means that Avnery is theoretically right, allthough only a tiny fragment actually wishes to return"

      IF IF IF. "whether you like it or not" , the issue is not yet resolved. A) NOW the only territorial limitation Israel has ever agreed to is in its plea for recognition; there is no demographic threat to Israel within the territorial limitations Israel announced in its plea for recognition. NOW Israel wants more. NOW Israel hasn't itself accepted or recognized or agreed to any limitation to its borders with Palestine. NOW there is no agreement. B) Only based on what Israel 'considers' to be Israeli is Uri Avnery theoretically right.

      "Isn’t it obvious to you how the UN members treat Jerusalem by comparison? Was there ever a security council resolution that declared Israel’s incorporation of Ashdod to be “null and void” like in the case with Jerusalem or the Golan Hights? No!. That’s the reality, Talknic, whether you like it or not. "

      It's very obvious to me and I have from the outset given the reasons why it is obvious. The territories were outside of Israel's declared borders and acquired by war and no other legal agreement. However, the UN doesn't censure non members (only states become members), nor do they censure UN Members for crimes committed prior to becoming A) States and/or B) UN Member States.

      The prohibition of acquiring territory by war is a law the UN insists should be observed. The law itself exists separate to the UN and it is an obligation on all states, UN Members or not, recognized or not, censured by the UN or not. Until Israel agrees to the limits to its territories, the only teritories it has accepted and declared and that have been recognized are those of UNGA res 181

      Know who you're dealing with. The Jewish Agency and Zionist movements legal advisors had a half century experience at leaping from loophole to loophole. They were and still are fully aware of the law and its implications. Fully aware of the machinations of the UN. Fully aware that a state cannot be held responsible for the actions of non-state actors prior to a state's existence. Yes the individuals could be prosecuted, but they'd have the protection and legal resources of the state behind their defense. Unless of course they became too costly to the cause. There's only so much honour amongst Zionist thieves

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

      Declaration over territories under their control is in fact how their territories are determined. Israel didn't declare all the territories under its control, only those recommended in UNGA res 181

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

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

      Talknic: “Israel ignored it ….”

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

      You're cherry picking. It was also ignored by the states who recognized Israel. A fact, whether you or I like it or not.

      "No, there’s no such thing as a right to secede. If that was the case than their statehood would be recognized automatically. But they aren’t. See Kosovo. And states have especially not a riight to secede without the consent of its population."

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

      "You are making a case for the violation of the right to self determination. Sounds pretty Zionist to me"

      See above. Recognizing what came about and how it came bout doesn't automatically mean one agrees with what came about or how it came about. Your accusation is a nonsense.

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

      "So what? "

      So Israel hasn't recognize any territorial limits other than those of UNGA res 181 as declared and recognized 1948. Having it your way = one endless land grab based on simply acquiring territory by war and convincing states to consider it to be Israeli without any legal process having taken place that transfered those territories acquired by war to Israel. It happened by magic. Right?.

      Talknic: “There was no transfer of ownership.”

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

      A) You're cherry picking again. I said there was no transfer of ownership during the civil war. B) The Mandatory Government didn't exist at 00:01 May 15th 1948 C) secession is by those leaving the larger entity D) the majority population in the territories allotted the Jewish state under UNGA res 181 whether we like it or not, were Jewish.

      Talknic: “A state can only be held responsible A) from the time it comes into existence …”

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

      Israel didn't exist when pre-state Jewish terrorists committed their crimes.

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

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

      The state is held to the law even if the state actors who ordered crimes be committed by the state are dead.

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

      A) Facts don't change. Perceptions, presumptions and what is 'considered' do change. B) Our exchange has been entirely an engagement in counter arguments.

      "Israel’s pre state actors and the state (and its pre state actors) were and still are the same criminal enterprise, the same criminal project, the same criminal continuum, the same criminal organisation."

      Yes.

      "The only difference is that this organisation acquired a national status. But this doesn’t absolve it for its pre national crimes"

      It doesn't absolve the pre-state actors. The state didn't exist. Entities that don't exist cannot commit crimes.

      "But no, these crimes are not Israel’s business, right?"

      If you say so. It's not what I wrote.

      "You literally wrote: “RoR to areas outside of Israel simply isn’t Israel’s business.”

      You're cherry picking again, omitting entirely for some weird reason the premise on which I based that statement

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

      "It can by not recognizing it or allowing it to become a member state"

      A) The UN doesn't recognize states. They're recognized by the International Comity of Nations before being recommended as already recognized states for UN Membership by the UNSC. The UN then admits, or not, already recognized states. B) Too late. Right or wrong whether we agree with their decision Israel is already a member. It lied to gain membership. It has not adhere to its legal obligations

      " And Israel’s didn’t need only one request to become a member. But according to you it seems that we have to accept Israel’s recognition like Apartheid South Africa’s. You are a true advocate of … Israel’s business, aren’t you?"

      Accepting the facts doesn't mean one agrees with or condones how they came about. Your accusation is ridiculous.

    • YoniFalic April 26, 2017, 8:12 am

      "It is normal in national and international law for successor entities to be held responsible for the obligations, violations, and liabilities of preceding entities. Usually only a degree of continuity need be established, and the Israeli state organization clearly derives from pre-state colonial organizations."

      What/who was the preceding entity?

      Leading up to and during the civil war in Palestine, there was no preceding government or state entity other than Palestine, a conditionally recognized state, and its British administrator. The British adhered to the mandate up until the point where, if both parties mentioned in the partition plan adhered to the law, partition seemed to be a way of stopping the violence, where upon it had to end its administrative occupation of Palestine so that either party could declare independence if they so wished (Unlike statehood, independent statehood can not be declared under occupation. Likewise independence is not and cannot be mandatory, nor can it require a co-signatory)

      At the time Israel declared independence it obliged itself to adhere to the law and to obligations outlined in the partition plan. At the time Israel declared, Jewish forces under Plan Dalet were in control of territories outside those slated for and accepted by the Zionist Movement and proclaimed by the Israeli Government in its plea for recognition. The 'Arab state' could not have declared independence even if they'd wanted to for the simple fact that they were not independent of Israeli control.

      Unfortunately the Zionist Movement, Jewish Agency were liars who had absolutely no intention of adhering to any legal, moral or ethical obligations.

      They lied their way from 1897 to partition, claiming the partition was binding on the Jewish people and that co-signing was not necessary. Friday, 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver replacing Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine stated:

      “We are under the obligation at this time to repeat what we stated at a [262nd meeting] meeting of the Security Council last week: The decision of the General Assembly remains valid for the Jewish people. We have accepted it and we are prepared to abide by it. If the United Nations Palestine Commission is unable to carry out the mandates which were assigned to it by the General Assembly, the Jewish people of Palestine will move forward in the spirit of that resolution and will do everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival and by considerations of justice and historic rights.” “The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.”

      And again Security Council S/PV.271 19 March 1948 The representative of the Jewish Agency, Rabbi Silver:

      “The statement that the plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out, is incorrect. This conception was never part of the plan. Indeed, it is contrary to the statement made by the representative of the United States during the second session of the General Assembly. The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State. Mr. Herschel Johnson, representing the United States delegation, speaking in a sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question on 28 October 1947, stated, in discussing this very matter in connexion with economic union: “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.”

      They lied their way into the UN claiming they were "strictly adhering to international regulations " in respect to territories "under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel"

      They're still lying. Can they be prosecuted under International Law today? I doubt it.

      If Palestine were to be accepted into the UN however, a special tribunal might be set up (see the Nuremberg trials) however, most of the pre-state Jewish terrorists are already dead. The same might be also set up to try individuals for crimes committed in the service of the State of Israel

    • @ echinococcus April 26, 2017, 1:15 am

      "Something in all this of course has to do with you"

      Accepting the facts does not in any way mean one condones or likes or agrees with how those facts came about.

      " If your philosophy of the idololatry of the fait accompli ..."

      LOL You're spouting garbage

      " and recognized/established states had been listened to by the people, we would still have the Belgians in the Congo, the English all over the place and the Boers playing soccer with severed heads."

      I see. If one advocates as I do, that states adhere to their legal obligations, don't ethnically cleanse, don't dispossess, don't covet other folks territories, don't start wars, treat people equally, stick to their word, there is a problem.

      I suggest a chill pill. No. I suggest a whole bottle of chill pills

      "What you just said, you’ve said it hundreds of times without ever responding to the objections to it."

      You're delusional. Now please drop your insane accusations. Thx

    • @ talkback April 25, 2017, 3:43 pm

      You're kidding ..

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

      What I wrote is still there. Uri Avnery was using the UNRWA figure touted by Zionist propaganda. I mentioned the UNRWA mandate to show the Zionist shills wrong. That simple. They're wrong and Avnery is wrong to use the 6 or 7 million number returning to Israel because it is simply NOT what the Palestinians call for under UNGA res 194.

      Not all Palestine refugees have RoR to Israel. Those from outside the borders of Israel (1948) have RoR to territories outside the state of Israel

      Talknic: “That’s right. Israel has yet to accept. ….”

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

      It is entirely the issue in respect to the recognition of territories acquired by war by the State of Israel from 00:01 May 15th 1948 onwards. One of the main players, Israel, has not accepted any limitations on its borders since its original plea for recognition. There is no agreement between Israel and Palestine. Therefore Israel's only recognized borders are those it proclaimed in its plea for recognition.

      The 1949 Armistice Agreements (none of which were with Palestine) specifically state that the Armistice Demarcation Lines are not to be construed as borders and UNSC resolutions on 1967 tell us the territories acquired by Israel during that war are also not Israeli.

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

      "... You claimed that states that recognize Israel would not recognize Ashod, etc. to be a part of Israel, because there was not explicite document of recognition. And I eplained to you why that isn’t ncessary"

      I asked to see a document of recognition. None was produced. The goal posts then shifted to there doesn't have to be explicit recognition. If one of the players DOESN'T recognize any limitations to its borders with Palestine, THERE IS NO AGREEMENT on where the borders are

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

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

      "One cannot simply become the souvereign (owner) of a territory by declaring statehood on it"

      It is how states are declared. South Sudan for example. It is how Palestinian statehood was declared statehood, recognized by the majority of the world's states. It was how Israel was declared, also recognized by the majority of the world's states at the time

      "You too are totally ignoring the right to self determination of the country’s sovereign which is its population. "

      I'm not. I've written about it quite extensively on MW and elsewhere. Israel ignored it and the majority of the International Community of Nations ignored or were ignorant of it. Balfour himself spoke of it. Illegal or not, agree with it or not, the State of Israel now exists

      "And that they were not consulted and didn’t give their consent. "

      As I have said numerous times, so too Balfour. However states have a right to secede. Which is what Israel did in effect.

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

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

      Correct. However there is still no agreement between Israel and Palestine. Israel wants more and refuses to recognize any limitations on its borders between Palestine and Syria and Lebanon. There is yet to be an agreement on any borders other than those of in Israel's plea for recognition

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

      "Nope. Territories inside the borders came into posession through war, too"

      They were in possession/occupied in a civil war prior to Israel's existence. There was no transfer of ownership. Crimes committed before a state exists cannot possibly be the responsibility of a state that didn't exist at the time. Only the individuals who committed the crimes can be prosecuted.

      "And Israel’s Goverment(s) can be held responsible for claiming them as state territory"

      A state can only be held responsible A) from the time it comes into existence and B) after becoming a state for illegally settling and/or occupying territories and /or illegally acquiring territories outside of that state's declared and recognized borders

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

      "States actually cannot act at all. State actors can."

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

      "And the leading pre state actors and the leading state actors are in most cases the same"

      Pre -state actions by non-state actors, legal or not, are not the actions of a state or state actors that didn't exist at the time the crimes were committed. Individuals can be prosecuted for their pre-state crimes. The state cannot. Pre-state actors can be prosecuted for pre-state crimes and; for crimes they commit as state actors once the state exists.

      " And the following state actors continue the same crime. So yes, Israel (its state actors) can be held responsible for continuing the crime of its pre state actors and building the state that illegal came into their posession as much as denying the Palestinians including the refugees their right to self determintion in all of historic Palestine. and maintaing a state which territory was taken ONLY through violence and without ANY consent of its population."

      States cannot be held responsible for illegal actions committed by non-state actors before the said state existed. The individuals concerned can of course be prosecute for any crimes they committed at any time, even if they become state actors. Please read what I've been writing.

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

      "That’s basically what I was saying. So according to you it has no “business” with the RoR to Ramle, Lydda, Acre, Jaffa, Ashdod and so on.

      What I said is quite clear. Israel's borders were declared in its plea for recognition. Non-Jewish refugees dispossessed from those territories have RoR to those territories. Palestine refugees from territories outside the state of Israel do not have RoR to territories within Israel's declared and recognized borders. They do have RoR to territories other than those declared and recognized as Israeli. All 6 or 7 million refugees do not have RoR to Israel nor do they claim RoR to Israel.

      "Do you also want to claim that this is the UN’s position and not only your private?"

      It was Israel's position on May 22nd 1948. It was Israel's and the UN's position in Aug 1949 by which time Israel was a UN Member. There has yet to be any agreement between Israel and Palestine on those territories between what Israel declared and what Palestine declared. No agreement with Israel = no agreement = impossible to recognize those territories as Israeli.

      The UN cannot and has never censured non-member states by name for their illegal actions prior to becoming UN Members. In past challenges on this topic I've been shown governments of non-member states being censured, but not the states themselves.

      Aside from the application for UN Membership, Israel was not mentioned in any UNSC resolution on the question of Palestine until it became a UN Member. It's acquisition of territory by war beyond those borders declared in its plea for recognition occurred before it became a UN Member. It lied about adhering to International Law and the UN Charter in respect to territories it acquired by war as a state.

    • @ echinococcus April 25, 2017, 11:46 am

      "Civil war my ass. The colonial overlord, instead of truly administering its mandate per the ostentated principles of the LoN, had filled it to the brim with declaredly hostile settlers that were let loose on the only legitimate population."

      The British restricted the intake of Jewish immigrants in accordance with the Mandate. It's was a sore point with the Zionist federation, the Jewish agency et al who assisted illegal immigration above the numbers the British allowed. The British limitation is still cited by the Zionist nonsense merchants drumming up hatred for anyone who gets or got in their way. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=British%20limits%20to%20jewish%20immigration%20palestine

      " That state is the planned result of the colonial aggression and consisted of the same actors."

      Indeed. I agree. However a state that didn't exist at the time of their crimes, cannot be censured or held responsible for actions that took place before it existed. The individuals can of course be prosecuted. They could not however pay a the compensations due or do anything to reverse the situation that now exists or make Israel withdraw or bring justice to the people of Palestine, they are for the main part dead. A state can be made to withdraw. It can be made to pay compensation, it can be made to do a number of things dead people can't do.

      "Where do you think you are, in some courtroom where such nonsense acrobatics may be accepted by some sold judges?"

      I thought I was at a place where one could engage in rational discussion sans completely ridiculous accusations. Ask ANY legal person if a crime committed before an entity existed can be attributed to that entity.

      "Go tell this crap to the masses massacred and expelled since 1948 and let’s see how convinced they are!"

      A) One can't tell anything to people who've been massacred B) I have every sympathy. However, it makes no difference to the law how they'd react

      You're still barking up an empty tree. The events had nothing to do with me. I didn't make the law, I didn't invade Palestine. I don't support colonization and I don't support Zionism or any of its aims. Stating the facts does not necessarily mean I agree with how events came about.

      // It’s propaganda to spout a figure as though it’s evidence for Palestinians wanting to return all 6 or 7 million refugees to Israel.//

      "And what would be wrong with that?"

      Fine by me. However, it's A) not what UNGA res 194 calls for. The Palestinians call for RoR under UNGA res 194. By the time UNGA res 194 was adopted, Israel existed. B) They didn't all come from the same territory.

      " They are all Palestinian and it’s their right to settle anywhere in Palestine if they so choose. "

      I'd agree except, however it came about, like it or not, illegal or not, the State of Israel now exists. Only it can end the occupation. Only it can pay compensation. Like it or not, Palestine was declared. Both states now exist, both have limitations to their borders. Palestine accepts the situation, Israel does not. It wants more

      "The illegal immigrants are everywhere and the Palestinians have every right to ask them to get out."

      see previous

      "It’s nice to ask for implementation of UN resolutions and that one is better than nothing but it still isn’t one the Palestinian people agreed to"

      It's what their official representatives call for. Nothing to do with me. Go bark somewhere else

    • @ Talkback April 24, 2017, 7:32 pm

      OK you as you wish

      "He wasn’t talking about the UNWRA mandate at all.."

      I didn't claim he was. What I wrote is still there. He mentioned a 6 or 7 million figure, which is a ZioNonsense using the UNRWA figure at the time he made that statement. It's propaganda to spout a figure as though it's evidence for Palestinians wanting to return all 6 or 7 million refugees to Israel. It is quite simply NOT what UNGA res 194 (1948) calls for. Some were from the territory that Israel declared and some were not. They all have RoR to their specific territory

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

      As I have already stated. Here I'll state it another way.. Not ALL Palestine refugees came from the territory that was declared and recognized as Israel in 1948. There are also those dispossessed from outside of Israel's declared borders.

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

      That's right. Israel has yet to accept. There has yet to be an agreement by/with Israel! whereby Israel itself recognizes limitations to any borders beyond its original May 15th 1948 declaration and plea for recognition

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

      And I already said Israel has yet to agree to any limitations to any borders beyond its original May 15th 1948 declaration and plea for recognition. There has been no agreement between the key players even though one is willing to forgo territory for peace with the other. The other, Israel, has yet to agree

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

      That's correct, however I was addressing this specifically: “ your other claim that no UN member which recognizes Israel and not even Israel itself considers territories like Ashdod, Jaffa, Acre. etc. to be part of Israel. “

      It's quite simply not my claim. 'considers' and 'considered' have two different meanings.

      On 22nd May 1948 by its statements to the UNSC they were 'considered' by Israel to be under military control, i.e., occupation. I.e., not Israeli. And Israel was still attempting to claim them in Aug 1949 by that attempt, Israel considered they were not yet Israeli and the commission by its reply also considered that they were not Israeli. Today Israel 'considers' those territories to be its own even tho there is not yet an agreement with Israel on any change of border since Israel's borders were proclaimed effective by the Israeli Government

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

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

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

      Israel has created facts on the ground in territories the Israeli Government stated on may 22nd 1948 were "outside the State of Israel". De facto, not de jure by any agreement. Israel has refused to accept the Palestinian declaration of statehood. It has thus far refused any limitation on its borders with Palestine except those it proclaimed in its plea for recognition May 15th 1948

      "You don’t answer the question. "

      I did in fact. Here, let's do it again "By what legal mechanism did the Goverment of Israel acquire the territories for its state that were illegaly acquired before 1948 by its pre state actors?"

      A) Israel 'acquired' its territories by declaration per the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1932). The pre-state Jewish terrorists in the civil war, 'controlled' territories of the provisionally recognized State of Palestine. It wasn't until after Israel was declared that it existed and was able, as a state, to control or occupy or acquire anything at all, within or outside of its proclaimed borders. Nor could it commit a crime before it existed.
      B) Governments administrate a State. Governments can change by election, revolt et al. A dictatorship might be replaced by a democracy, theocracy, whatever. Governments of states do not own any territory. The state does and the state and the territory belongs to all its rightful inhabitants whether they own, lease, rent real estate or live under a bridge

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

      Oh FFS my reply to this "Stolen property doesn’t become legal through transfer of ownership", was this “Indeed it doesn’t. There is no actual transfer of ownership. There’s a transfer of possession.” I then explained possession is grounds for criminal charges. Now I'll answer to your further statement.

      A) Israel's territories were proclaimed to the world in its plea for recognition which complied with the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, like it or not. It's a fact.
      B) States cannot be charged with crimes committed by non-state actors before the state existed, like it or not. It's a fact.

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

      "It can be held responsible for illegaly taking over territory that was illegaly acquired by pre state or foreign actors"

      Those territories outside of its self delineated borders of UNGA res 181, yes. However, prior to Israeli statehood, it was a civil war. Pre-state Jewish terrorists occupied and dispossessed people from territories that were in the provisionally recognized state of Palestine. A state that didn't exist at the time cannot possibly be held responsible for crimes committed before it existed

      "And the pre state actors and what came after are just the same Junta. The People’s Council rebranded themselves as the Provisional State Council after they proclaimed their state."

      Indeed. Becoming an active member of a Government doesn't prevent prosecution for pre-state crimes. Their actions were not however the actions of a state. A state can't be censured for crimes committed before the state came into existence. Furthermore only one of the signatories on the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was from the region http://wp.me/pDB7k-1cE .

      " So what’s next Talknic? Israel bears no responsibility for the Palestinians that were expelled before 15 May 1948? Only for the Palestinians that were expelled by Israel and who lived within partition borders?"

      If you say so. I haven't. A) Israel is solely responsible for preventing the legal Right of Return of all Palestine refugees regardless of which area they originated from and regardless of why they fled and/or who they were dispossessed by.
      B) Under the Law, Israel is required to withdraw from all non-Israeli territories, negotiations or not. Within its borders it is required to allow RoR of folk who originated from that territory. RoR to areas outside of Israel simply isn't Israel's business.

      Will it happen? I doubt it. Israel cannot now afford to adhere to the law, it would be sent bankrupt and likely explode into civil war in predominantly non-Israeli territories. That might be an underlying cause for Uri Avnery's determination. He should well know that a civil war of the Occupying State's citizens in territories not belonging to the occupying state will be a complete blood bath and the UN and/or any other power would have the right to step in as the Arab States did in 1948.

      A negotiated settlement is preferable. The Palestinian do not have any moral, legal or ethical obligation to forgo any of their legal rights, not even in negotiations and Israel has no legal right to claim any territory outside of its only accepted and Internationally recognized borders. Israel has no right to demand Palestine be disarmed. Israel has no legal right to demand recognition. Recognition isn't mandatory. Nor does Israel have a right to demand a peace treaty before ending occupation of all non-Israeli territories. Israel doesn't have a legal right to ANYTHING it demands of the Palestinians

      "Maps like these?"

      OK for a glance. But why look at a small minimally drawn map with no detail when one can use a big, detailed map based on the original used in the Cease Fire Agreement 30 November 1948 signed by Abdullah al-Tal / Moshe Dayan. A big map where you can see the roads old villages and terrain. A map that can be overlayed in Google Earth and by adjusting the transparency, one can see today and how those villages no longer exist. A map that's accurate to within a few metres. A map that shows all the information of those you supplied and a whole lot more

      BTW as a point of interest, the 'Green Line' itself didn't depict all the Armistice Demarcation Lines set by the four later Armistice Agreements (old discussion in WikI/Pipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3A1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War%2FArchive_16?oldformat=true#The_Green_Line_was_not_the_result_of_the_Armistice_Agreements )

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

      "So these actually weren’t acquired through war by Israel?"

      Israel DIDN'T EXIST until it declared itself to exist whereby it agreed to the territorial limitations in its plea for recognition. As the Zionist Movement and Jewish Agency legal advisors would have been well aware, the state cannot be censured and does not bear responsibility for crimes committed before it existed. The individuals who committed crimes during the civil war could of course have been prosecuted for the crimes they committed.

      "And there were also territories acquired through war by these pre-state actors that actually were within partition borders"

      Pre-state Jewish terrorists didn't acquire' any territories in the civil war. The territories remained part of Palestine throughout the civil war. They controlled areas in various parts of Palestine during the civil war, some of which were eventually declared as Israeli. Territories occupied by the State of Israel outside of its borders were not and are not yet Israeli by any agreement

      "So how did Israel legally aquire the territories within partition borders which had been illegaly acquired by its pre state actors?"

      You're basically asking the same question over and over. It's stupid.

      Palestine will get nothing from pre-state actors. A state on the other hand can be held responsible for crimes it has committed and be made to withdraw and to pay compensation

    • @ echinococcus April 24, 2017, 10:25 am

      Yes, Talknic, colonies have kicked out imperial invaders only because people have ignored people like you, who preach recognition and acceptance of self-declared acts of conquest by invaders. ... talking against the “excesses” of colonialism while trying their damnedest to ensure the colonials kept a solid foothold. "

      It is a FACT that Palestine has been declared. It is also a FACT that Israel has been declared.

      The maths behind RoR and where they have a right to return, is simply maths

      The illegality and responsibility for pre-state Jewish terrorist actions has not changed by my stating facts nor has the illegality and responsibility of the actions of the State of Israel changed

      "We know your kind"

      You're barking up an empty tree. I'm not responsible for either situation, go yap at something else

    • @ echinococcus April 23, 2017, 11:40 pm

      "Like it or not, the occupation of Kenya by the British Empire was declared and universally recognized."

      Kenya has been an independent country for 54 years

      "Any objections can only be legally applicable to the legitimate inhabitants of territories NOT declared by Her Majesty’s Government and not actually recognized as being British possessions"

      You're spouting nonsense.

      "Like it or not, the occupation of Europe by the IIIrd Reich was declared and recognized. "

      The Nazis were booted.

      "All protests are only valid for territories not declared occupied by the Reich"

      You're spouting nonsense.

      "Did I tell you what i think you should do with your stupid pretend-legalist BS?"

      Tch tch.

    • On edit : corrections

      1 - The territories outside of Israel’s declared and recognized borders that Israel most certainly “considers” are its own thru having settling them, have yet to be transferred to Israel by any agreement

      2 - As far as I am aware it would be illegal for any state to recognize any territories acquired by any coercive measure by any other thru having settled them state, even if Jewish.

    • @ Talkback April 23, 2017, 7:37 am

      "Nobody made the claim. "

      Uh? Uri Avnery

      “There is absolutely no chance that the vast majority of Israelis would freely agree to the return of all the refugees and their descendants, who amount to six or seven million people – the same number as Israel’s Jewish citizens. This would be the end of the “Jewish state” and the beginning of a “bi-national state”, to which 99% of Israelis strenuously object.”

      Six or seven million people is the UNRWA figure bandied about at the time he made that statement

      However, the Palestinians are not claiming six or seven million people have RoR to Israel. The Palestinian claim is per UNGA res 194 by which time Israel's borders were limited by its plea for recognition. Only non-Jewish Israeli refugees whose normal place of residence was in territories that became Israeli in its plea for recognition have RoR to those territories. The rest simply is not Israeli

      "The right ro return for Palestinan refuees INCLUDES the refugees who have a refugee status under UNWRA."

      Correct. But they do not ALL have RoR to the same territories. Some to the territories Israel proclaimed in its plea for recognition, others to territories outside that limit

      "Your claim is based on your other claim that no UN member which recognizes Israel and not even Israel itself considers territories like Ashdod, Jaffa, Acre. etc. to be part of Israel. Which of course is the actual fallacy, "

      A ) I cannot for the life of me find, nor has anyone been able to provide, an actual official document by ANY state recognizing ANY territories acquired by war by Israel to be Israeli. I have been shown opinions, theories, everything but an official document of state to that effect. As far as I am aware it would be illegal for any state to recognize any territories acquired by any coercive measure by any other thru having settled them state, even if Jewish. http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897#art11

      B) I've never made a claim even remotely similar to "not even Israel itself considers territories like Ashdod, Jaffa, Acre. etc. to be part of Israel". The territories outside of Israel's declared and recognized borders that Israel most certainly "considers" are its own thru settling them, have yet to be transferred any agreement. That they are Israeli is the fallacy. Israel has yet to agree to any limitations on its final territorial status/or ambitions. Thus far more than enough has never been enough

      C) What I have said is: Israel has yet to agree to a final status/borders despite the Palestinian willingness to cede 78% of their rightful territories for peace. Israel has refused to accept this position. It is not even recognized by Israel FFS

      "cause when Israel talks about the right to return it denies the right to return to every territory it controlled before 1967 and Jerusalem therafter and probably also all settlements it considers to be included in a peace treaty. Which explains the high number and that this is seen as a demographic threat."

      Precisely. But its a fallacy. Those territories "outside the State of Israel" are quite simply not yet Israeli as there has never been a final status agreement where Israel has accepted any final territorial limitations

      "You wrote about the “territories Israel has acquired by war SINCE proclaiming its borders”. That are not the territories that were acquired by Israel through war BEFORE 15 May. So what is it now?"

      A) Although the State of Israel cannot be held responsible or censured for the actions of Jewish terrorists before the State of Israel came into existence, that doesn't mean the territories beyond the borders recommended by UNGA res 181 that were controlled by Jewish terrorists under Plan Dalet magically became Israeli. Nor have those territories been accepted by agreement with Palestine as a territorial limitation by Israel.

      B) The State of Israel can only be held responsible for acquiring territories illegally by war after it came into existence.

      " by what legal mechanism did the Goverment of Israel acquire the territories for its state that were illegaly acquired before 1948 by its pre state actors?"

      Pre-state Jewish terrorists slaughtered and cleansed non-Jews from within the territories slated for the Jewish state and from territories outside of those slated for the Jewish state during a civil war. Crimes, but not crimes of the Jewish State because at that time the state didn't exist.

      Israel's refusal to allow RoR to non-Jewish Israeli refugees dispossessed during the civil war and; its refusal to allow RoR of Palestinian to territories outside the state and; Israel's settling of any territories beyond those in its plea for recognition, are all crimes of state

      "Stolen property doesn’t become legal through transfer of ownership.."

      Indeed it doesn't. There is no actual transfer of ownership. There's a transfer of possession. Possession is 9/10ths of the law. 90% of thieves are convicted for possession. Where states are concerned territory is owned thru declaration. http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897#art3

      There's also no territorial acquisition thru buying 'real estate' BTW http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yr

      "if you want to argue that the pre Israel “People’s council” is different from the “Provisional State Council” which was the same organisation just by a different name"

      Pre-state, they were not 'State Actors". A State can't be held responsible for non-state actors' pre-state crimes. Individuals could have been tried for their pre-state crimes even had they later been in government positions

      "A link to a kmz file, are you nuts? "

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

      "Which territories were acquired through war by Israel AFTER it came into existence? "

      The territories in RED in the kmz file https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B9Vis_gBvX6aYTA0ZDVhMTctZmUzNS00MzU1LTlmMzEtNGI1ZDMwNGIwNDNh&hl=en_GB

      or HERE https://talknic.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/notannexed.gif

      "There were territories that were illegaly acquired through war before May 1948 and you claim that Israel can’t be held responsible for this, but that they were somehow legally acquired by Israel if they are within partition borders"

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

    • @ echinococcus April 23, 2017, 1:48 am

      “Select few” because all Palestinians have the right to go anywhere they wish within Palestine (which, I’ll remind you, is the entirety of Palestine, not what’s left from the Zionist conquest.)"

      Problem. Palestine has been recognized as declared.

      // In the first two years some 500,000 new Jewish arrivals from the Arab States alone PLUS hundreds of thousands of others from all around the world.//

      "Those are almost all illegally immigrated and and/or their presence anywhere in Palestine is illegal.."

      Irrelevant to the point being made, i.e., the demographic threat is nonsense

      " so why should we be even mentioning the interlopers?"

      Call them what you will, simple maths shows the claim of a potential demographic threat to be ridiculous

      " They should be out (in the absence of a fully representative plebiscite, of course, an absence that you seem to recognize.)"

      Like it or not Palestine was declared and recognized. A plebiscite can only be legally applicable to the legitimate inhabitants of territories NOT declared by Israel and not actually recognized as being Israeli, that once belonged to the provisionally recognized State of Palestine under the LoN Mandate.

      "By limiting the right of “return” to only some Palestinians, you interfere with ... "

      YOU said "just some select few" I said "Why not all who have the right to return to the territory in which they once resided? "

      ".... the most basic right of Palestinians from both sides of the so-called green line to go wherever they want in Palestine"

      Palestine was declared and recognized by the Green line. Israel was declared and recognized by the borders of UNGA res 181. Legal or illegal, they're the facts you refuse to accept.

    • @ jon s April 23, 2017, 1:47 pm

      "I do think that he’s an example of unwavering commitment to the ideal of Israeli-Palestinian peace. It’s amazing that he’s still around after all those years."

      Indeed! Even mention of peace is enough

      https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Uri%20Avnery%20%22in%201975,%20he%20was%20the%20victim%20of%20an%20assassination%20attempt%22 The perpetrator was insane of course...

    • YoniFalic April 22, 2017, 1:00 pm

      "In International Criminal Law states are not indicted."

      To be clear, I mean/t a state cannot be censured by the UN or brought to book for crimes committed before the state existed.

    • @ echinococcus April 22, 2017, 10:01 am

      "If I read it right, essentially it is about keeping the illegal immigration by invaders flowing, while at the same time continuing to prohibit the free circulation of Palestinians from either side of the “green line” in their own country."

      That seems to be the Zionist MO

      "And, of course, making the right of return request sound as a tiny, cuddly one that shouldn’t scare or threaten the Zionist entity –just some select few who want to come live under better material conditions (as long as they shut up): it’s under the boot of the stranger anyway, on either side of the fence."

      Uh? Just some select few? Why not all who have the right to return to the territory in which they once resided? They and their their lineal descendants have long ago been out numbered by Jewish Israelis.

      In the first two years some 500,000 new Jewish arrivals from the Arab States alone PLUS hundreds of thousands of others from all around the world. Some refugees, some not. The non-Jewish base number hasn't increased. In fact thru natural attrition it has decreased. The demographic threat to Israel within its self proclaimed borders is bullsh*t.

      "This is supposed to be another application of the principle of the prohibition of right of conquest, I take it."

      I have no idea of WTF you're on about

    • @ Talkback April 22, 2017, 10:07 am

      "Refering to UNGAR 194 doesn’t ecxlude refering to the later UNWRA definition of a refugee. "

      UNRWA has no final status mandate. It's definition is not about who has RoR. It is only to ascertain who qualifies for assistance whilst a refugee

      Is UNRWA involved in the Middle East peace negotiations and in the discussions on a solution to the refugee issue?

      No. UNRWA is a humanitarian agency and its mandate defines its role as one of providing services to the refugees. However, UNRWA highlights the international community's obligation to provide a just and durable solution for Palestine refugees.
      https://www.unrwa.org/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions

      "There are actually more who fled or were expelled than those who acquired refugee status based on UNWRA’s definition since it only considers those who are refugees who are helped by UNWRA installations in some neighbouring countries IIRC."

      Highly likely. That doesn't change the UNRWA mandate or where they have a right to return to

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

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

      In effect, yes. Entirely practical to the exact place were Israel to comply, no. Too much has been destroyed. But certainly within Israel's declared territories

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

      "Which territories are you talking about? According to your reasoning not the territories that were illegaly acquired before its existence, right?"

      Whatever Israel didn't declare and were not recognized as Israeli. The Israeli plea for recognition and its subsequent recognition set those parameters. How and/or when Israel acquired those territories and the fact that Israel can't be indicted for what transpired before it existed as a state, doesn't change the fact that they are not Israeli.

      "So I guess only East Jerusalem and the Golan Hights?"

      Nope. These territories https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B9Vis_gBvX6aYTA0ZDVhMTctZmUzNS00MzU1LTlmMzEtNGI1ZDMwNGIwNDNh&hl=en_GB

    • on edit:

      It isn't Israeli bay any agreement. Israel hasn't agreed to a final status. So the Question of Palestine is unanswered

    • With due respect to Uri Avnery "There is absolutely no chance that the vast majority of Israelis would freely agree to the return of all the refugees and their descendants, who amount to six or seven million people – the same number as Israel’s Jewish citizens. This would be the end of the “Jewish state” and the beginning of a “bi-national state”, to which 99% of Israelis strenuously object."

      For sure the vast majority would object to it. However, it's simply not what the Palestinians are asking.

      The six or seven million Palestinian refugees wanting to return to Israel is a fallacy. We can see it repeated again and again. This example in the dialogue of Judith Lapidoth where her statement pushes the same fallacy on the Israeli Government web site.

      “According to Palestinian sources, there are about 3.5 million Palestinian refugees nowadays registered with UNRWA. If Israel were to allow all of them to return to her territory, this would be an act of suicide on her part, and no state can be expected to destroy itself.”

      Is she, a professor, really that ignorant? Of course she isn’t. The ambiguity of her assertion shows she is engaged in typical propaganda modus operandi. Planting the seeds of panic in order that there be no RoR at all. She does not say the Palestinians demand that all lineal descendants have RoR, she only says “there are about 3.5 million Palestinian refugees nowadays registered with UNRWA “….she then slyly adds…. If Israel were to allow all of them to return to her territory…etc”

      "If" This is a typical. Enough to make people think it is the Palestinian demand. It isn't and has never been their demand.

      The Palestinian claim is based on UNGA res 194 of 1948 which cannot possibly be referring to an UNRWA definition or figure for the simple fact that UNRWA didn't exist in 1948. Furthermore UNRWA's mandate doesn't extend to final status. Its definition is only to ascertain who qualifies for "Works and Assistance" while they are refugees

      This is the official United Nations explanation of a refugee under UNGA res 194 http://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/UNISPAL.NSF/0/418E7BC6931616B485256CAF00647CC7

      Not "all the refugees and their lineal descendants", as Uri Avnery has put it, have a right to return to the territory proclaimed by the Israeli Government in their plea for recognition. Only non-Jewish Israelis have that right, being those who Israel pleaded with to sta in its declaration of statehood even as they were being dispossessed. One would have to be rather naive to believe the drafters of the declaration didn't know about Plan Dalet.

      Now a little simple maths. Thru natural attrition, the actual number of original non-Jewish Israeli refugees has been steadily decreasing since Israel proclaimed its borders in order to be recognized. Yes they have lineal descendants. However the base number has not increased in 69 years, whereas the number of Jews has increased. In fact, it increased immediately. By 1952 some extra 500,000 Arab Jews from the surrounding Arab States alone, PLUS those from elsewhere in the world, some refugees some not. This number has continued to grow, swelling their lineal descendants. Israel long ago passed the point where there was any demographic threat.

      There is of course a demographic threat to the territories Israel has acquired by war since proclaiming its borders. Rightly so. It Israeli by any agreement.

  • Check out the new Mondoweiss t-shirts
  • Israel packs seven lies into one statement on the Palestinian hunger strike
    • @ pacman925 April 20, 2017, 7:31 pm

      " How about over 100 UN Resolutions to Israel ??"

      By far the majority of which are only reminders of 1) Israel's obligations to the binding Laws and UN Charter Israel obliged itself to uphold and 2) reminders of previous resolutions reaffirming and emphasizing the same binding laws and charter. Israel has NEVER been subject to ANY UNSC resolution sanctioning it for its illegal actions in non-Israeli territories.

      Nor has it been subject to any UNSC resolutions condemning its actions to its own citizens within its proclaimed and recognized borders.

      "or How about the Jew’s expelled from 109 European country’s through history ??"

      None of whom were expelled by Palestinians

    • Zionists don't care that they lie. As long as their message is out there, never to be retracted, some schmuck'll believe it

  • Israel will celebrate 50th anniversary of '67 war in -- an illegal settlement!
    • @ ymedad April 18, 2017, 8:45 am

      "Wasn’t Kfar Etzion a pre-1948 kibbutz, built on land purchased from the owners?

      They bought 'real estate'. Real estate is not 'territory'. E.g., Japanese companies own real estate in Australia. They have no territorial rights to ANY of Australia's territories. Territories belong to all the legitimate inhabitants of the territory whether they own, rent or lease real estate or whether they live under a bridge.

  • Bill Kristol celebrates 'normal' foreign policy -- with Russia replacing Iraq in the new 'axis of evil'
  • Academic boycott campaign is growing fast at Trinity College Dublin
    • @ JeffB April 20, 2017, 1:08 pm

      "I didn’t answer the question because your implication was false. You were using marching as a proxy for popularity. That’s very inaccurate. There was little/no marching and the war was quite popular."

      Uh huh. So the answer to my question is little to none. Thx

      //A declaration of independence doesn’t require, in fact cannot require a co-signature.//

      "Of course it can. Most new UN members are formed by broad agreements. In Israel’s case the Soviet block was an important core signature."

      Nonsense. There's no Soviet signature on the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. If independence was dependent on co-signatories, it would not be independent.

      Here's what the Jewish Agency said of UNGA res 181

      “The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.” http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx

      They also considered UNGA res 181 as binding <blockquote“We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. “ (ibid)

      The UN does not recognize states. It admits already recognized states.

      These are the steps. They're the same steps Israel took
      1) States declare.
      2) They are then recognized or not by a majority of the International Community of Nations, (there's no vote and recognition isn't mandatory) after which
      3) they're recommended as an already recognized state by the UNSC for UN Membership.
      4) The UN Then admits them or not.

      "What false beliefs about the UN do you believe the US MSM is feeding the population?"

      Let's take 'The UN is biased against Israel' as an example. If the gas company issues a reminder because you've failed to uphold your end of the contract are they biased because you haven't paid the bill? Try to answer honestly if can remember what honestly means

      Israel has breached the binding Laws and UN Charter as reaffirmed and emphasized in hundreds of resolutions reminding Israel of its legal obligations. Had Israel upheld the law there's be no reminders. So it isn't in fact biased against Israel. It has been remarkably tolerant. BTW The Laws and UN Charter reaffirmed and emphasized in ANY UN resolution are binding.

      // Got any other ‘knowledgeable’ bullsh*t you’d like to disgorge? //

      "Yes, your tone is unnecessarily offensive.

      Oh you poor thing. Best not to spout bullsh*t! A state, in breach of the UN Charter and International law, a state who has been at war in other folks territories for 69 years, who occupies and covets other folks territories, who dispossesses non-Jews, slaughters without trial in non-combat situations, uses white phosphorus in day light where there are no Israeli troops to hide under its cover, who slaughters little boys playing football on a beach. A state who has for 69 years lied to Jews world wide, is worthy of your support

      Face it Jeff baby, YOU'RE the offensive one and your 'knowledge' is like all wholly holey Hasbara, bullsh*t!

    • @ JeffB April 20, 2017, 7:17 am

      // How many people marched FOR the war in Iraq //

      "It polled about ... "

      Why didn't you answer the question? A poll is not people marching

      // So is your 85% through ignorance //

      "I doubt there is very much knowledge about I/P among the broader public. There should be even less. "

      More ignorance is good? Interesting theory. Think of it yourself?

      "... you base your theory of how Israel is in the wrong on the importance of the UN. "

      The UN is important enough for Israel not to leave it. Perhaps you can explain why, aside from having the protection of the US UNSC veto vote, which doesn't negate the law or the UN Charter or Israel's breaches of both. All it does is prevent any actions being taken for those breaches

      "The UN is something Americans know more about .."

      That's a joke right? They know what the US MSM feeds them, which is in large part propaganda

      // The knowledgeable know that contrary to ridiculous ZioTheory, Israel proclaimed its borders //

      "I consider myself knowledge. And I know the Yishuv proclaimed agreement to potential borders for Israel that weren’t agreed to by other parties. Not quite the same thing. A position taken in a failed negotiation is not generally considered binding eternally. That’s part of your rather unique theory of the law."

      A declaration of independence doesn't require, in fact cannot require a co-signature. Look up the meaning of the word independent. UNGA res 181 on which Israel based its declaration and plea for recognition, didn't require, nor could it have, a co-signature. It would fly in the face of independence.

      Got any other 'knowledgeable' bullsh*t you'd like to disgorge?

    • Thanks for pointing that out JeffB. Folk sometimes make mistakes. No apology tho. MW is littered with a litany of ZioTroll false accusations and statements never admitted, I don't see why one can't reciprocate in kind without giving a rat's rrrrrrs

      "As for the polls being irrelevant, they most certainly are relevant to the question of public support. "

      Public support doesn't mean anything. How many people marched FOR the war in Iraq.

      "The fact that you are in the 15% because of your legal theories which lack support even in the body you claim has the authority to make law,"

      Strange. A) UNSC resolutions are by a majority, except in the UNSC veto votes, which contrary to ZioBelief, do not veto the Law or the Charter, they only prevent actions against states who are already in breach of the law B) why is Israel a UN Member? Best you go whine to the Israeli Government.

      "… the earth was thought to be flat by the ignorant. "

      So is your 85% through ignorance

      "The knowledgeable for millennia had known the earth was round because there was too much evidence contradicting the earlier simple flat earth theories. "

      The knowledgeable know that contrary to ridiculous ZioTheory, Israel proclaimed its borders in order to be recognized and that the 1922 LoN Mandate Article 7 disproves the equally stupid Hasbara notion the Mandate gave a green light for a Jewish State.

      The knowledgeable also know no one is required by any law to forgo any of their legal rights. Not even to a Jewish State already in breach of the law

    • You're quite insane JeffB

      1st link http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/earvqltfiky9loqr9m-gag.png clearly shows support for Israel in the last three years at 62% . Support for Palestine has gone up in the last three years to 23%

      The polls are irrelevant to Israel's illegal activities in non-Israeli territories. Once folk though the earth was flat. They were shown eventually to be wrong

  • Editor is fired then reinstated after he refuses to cut Sarah Schulman's paragraph on Palestine solidarity
  • Love of Israel + Defense of Trump = Meshuggeneh
    • @ catalan

      You have a completely stupid request of me after you've failed to answer a plethora of quite reasonable questions.

      Thanks again for showing folk what utter jerks are attracted to the Zionist Colonization of Palestine

      Keep up th' good work

  • Sean Spicer needs to go to a Holocaust center
  • Passover has become little more than an act of communal hypocrisy
    • @ jon s April 18, 2017, 5:06 am

      "You wrote that Israeli Jewish children deserve to be murdered"

      You wrote "Judaism puts the emphasis not on what you believe, or claim to believe, but on what you do"

      Do (or do not do) unto others dude, especially if you can't handle the deserved blow back. Judaism's basic tenets can be a bitch if you break 'em

      Go whine to the most moral army in the world who slaughtered Palestinian children playing football on a beach, who drop bombs on roof tops to warn people that they're gonna drop bombs FFS

    • @ jon s April 17, 2017, 12:46 pm

      "Marnie
      All children are innocent.
      No children deserve to be murdered."

      The entire argument thus far is still there for all to read jon s, including where I agreed

      "Who has a problem with that principle?
      (aside from talknic)"

      You're falsely accusing someone jon s. Ir's against the most basic of Judaic principles to lie. It's also really stupid when the entire conversation is still there. I guess a propagandist doesn't care if they look utterly stupid. It's part of the job

      Who has a problem with that principle? The IDF does jon s, on behalf of the so called Jewish State. You support them. You appear to have no principles what so ever

      Israel and you seem to have forgotten that blowback for not observing the basic tenets of Judaism, is deserved. Do not murder. Do not covet other folk's property. Do not falsely accuse or lie. Quite simple

      You've been caught falsely accusing someone hoping the sh*t you fling will stick.

      It has jon s and I must say it really does suit you

      Keep up th' good work

    • @ jon s April 16, 2017, 9:08 am

      "Talknic wrote that they (Israeli Jews) “deserve… to have their children murdered…”"

      Oh you poor poor simpleton. What I wrote is still there http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/passover-communal-hypocrisy/#comment-176446

    • @ jon s April 16, 2017, 3:58 pm

      "No children deserve to be murdered."

      I agree. The IDF doesn't. Go whine to the Zionist Federation and the most moral army in the world

      "No matter what nationality, ethnicity, religion, race, whatever…"

      I agree. The IDF doesn't. Go whine to the Zionist Federation and the most moral army in the world

      "No children deserve to be murdered."

      Except it seems if they're Palestinian children playing football in territory Israel covets.

      "Not even Jewish children"

      I agree. Go whine to your most moral army and the Zionist Federation for coveting other folks' territory

      "Not even Israeli Jewish children,"

      I agree. Go whine to the Zionist Federation for coveting other folks' territory and who decided to loan specifically poor Jews money specifically at interest to put themselves and their children specifically on the front lines in the colonization of Palestinian territory they covet

      "I can’t believe that what should be a universally accepted principle needs to be argued here."

      Yet here you are. Trying to pin something on me by arguing against your own point "Judaism puts the emphasis not on what you believe, or claim to believe, but on what you do." Stealing, murdering and dispossessing because you covet other folks territory isn't very wise

    • @ jon s April 16, 2017, 12:48 am

      "I was just shocked by your bloodthirsty fantasy, especially regarding the murder of children.
      Maybe I should not have been"

      Save it for your collection of classic ZioDrivel " jon s: … Judaism puts the emphasis not on what you believe, or claim to believe, but on what you do" Do ( or do not ) unto others ...

      The list I gave has been done to Palestinians by the Jewish State and its most moral army in the world on behalf of the Zionist Federations 120 years colonizing Palestine. If it's done unto others it's deserved in return

    • @ jon s April 13, 2017, 4:23 pm

      You should be asking the most moral army in the world.

Showing comments 7063 - 7001
Page: