Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2872 (since 2010-02-26 10:49:56)

An old Jewish guy in Oz. Tired of the fallacies surrounding the I/P issue We were given the territory for a homeland state, with more than enough room for every Jewish person on the planet, even today Since 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 2872 - 2801
Page:

  • Money talks as Trump does u-turn on Israel
    • @ DaBakr July 20, 2016, 5:31 pm

      "It is pretty wondrous how zionist-israel- haters ..."

      People who believe Israel should live up to its legal obligations are Israel haters? How so? Meanwhile, denial and lies are to be hated as a matter of course. There the Zionist narrative is easily shown by their own words to be overflowing like a blocked sewer link to talknic.wordpress.com

      ".. can’t imagine that American voters not only have no problem with a pro israel platform but in fact like a pro israel platform"

      Statistics please ... thx ... I'll wait

      "That all the huffing and puffing about aipac this and aipac that is meaningless to most"

      Contradicting your previous notion. If they know anything about supporting Israel, they'd surely be aware of AIPAC

      "That there is nothing more to aipac then there is to any other advocacy lobby..."

      AIPAC agressively attempts to influence foreign policy, most other lobby groups are lobbying for domestic issues

      " ... is lost on jew-haters, Israel-hates and the like"

      = people who are aware of AIPAC's attempts to influence America's foreign policy re Israel/Palestine and the Middle East and who believe Israel should adhere to its legal obligations

      " ... how many years of barking up the wrong tree "

      Exactly what you and your fellow apologists do via denial and repetition of the lies and fallacies fancied by the supporters of Israel's continued colonization of non-Israeli territories and who when challenged by the facts resort to meaningless Ziodrivel

  • Video: 'Gaza in Context' says root of conflict is quest for Palestinian land, without Palestinians
    • @ affinity292 July 19, 2016, 10:27 pm

      "If they are fighting agains an alleged “occupation,” why were they slaughtering Jews BEFORE 1967?
      Why was the PLO founded and began their first terrorist attacks in 1963 or 4?
      Why were they slaughtering Jews BEFORE 1948?
      1929?
      1800s?"

      "alleged "occupation" "? "Israel, the Occupying Power"

      Something to do with being COLONIZED maybe? link to jewishencyclopedia.com

      Say, didn't our Jewish forefathers invade and colonize back in King Davids day? Wasn't the King David Hotel bombing a terrorist attack?

  • Israelis take on Facebook 'monster' with claims it knowingly incites Palestinian attacks
    • @ Mayhem from your link ...

      ... In some cases, it has determined the alleged ‘UNRWA staff’ are not in fact UNRWA employees or are no longer UNRWA employees. However, and very regrettably, in a number of cases so far, the Agency has found staff Facebook postings to be in violation of its social media rules. These postings have been removed and the staff have been subject to both remedial and disciplinary action, including suspension and loss of pay.

      Many Israelis been charged for incitement to violence, like Netanyahu, the majority of the Knesset, Israeli citizens illegally settling in the West Bank who screech insanely and cry victim when their chickens come home to roost?

  • Your support today determines: How much truth?
    • @ DaBakr July 16, 2016, 10:34 pm

      "i believe that the history of the land and its connection to the bible-a fairly important book- as far as western , asian , north african and middle eastern history has unfolded-has much to do with why the jewish nation, israel, is sovereign here on the particular land it is currently sovereign on(until direct negotiations determine any land swaps) "

      Israeli sovereignty doesn't extend to Occupied Territories

      "but no more then the fact that jews have been living on and in the land of Israel (palestine, judea, samaria, galilee ) continuously since well before the arab/muslim conquest and colonialization of the levant in the 6- 700’s a.d."

      Irrelevant to the legal status of Israel's recognized borders and its illegal activities in non-Israeli territories since proclaiming its borders in order to be recognized and subsequently accepted into the UN

    • @ DaBakr July 20, 2016, 1:36 pm

      "As per the truth having versions I could point to one of the seminal films of the 20th century, Rashoman ..."

      Proves nothing. A truth is singular. Opinions are many. They don't change a truth

      " I could point out the three major Judaic religions : jewish, christian and muslim all claim to preach the truth in some capacity or another"

      Proves no more than the fact that they have different opinions. Fact is God didn't prevent the Holocaust or any other disaster, natural or man made, to strike the opinion holders or anyone else. The truth is, the three major Judaic religions are a minuscule blip and newbies compared to say the 45,000 years of Australian aboriginal culture documented and exhibited in their rock paintings, carvings and burials

      "But since you seem to be clueless and obtuse I’ll simply point to yourself ... blah blah ..."

      = meaningless Ziodrivel

      It is proveable that Israel proclaimed its borders in order to be recognized and accepted into the International Comity of Nations and into the UN. It's a truth that undermines the lies Israel and its apologists engage in when they try to justify the ongoing illegal colonization of non-Israeli territories

    • @ DaBakr July 16, 2016, 10:18 pm

      "the “truth doesn’t have versions” you say? much better minds then I possess would argue otherwise. "

      Example/s .. thx

      BTW I gave an example, care to contest it?

      "perhaps even you leader-PW might have an inkling about the supposed truth. but then he may be a mediocre minded true believing tool himself."

      = typical meaningless Ziodrivel

      "p.s. while I don’t deny I am a zionist i did not “try” to justify anything. your a little paranoid."

      Attempting to justify the ongoing illegal colonization of Palestine by Israel is almost your entire purpose for being here

      "there is never a time i do not support the Nation State of Israel"

      'nuf said.

      Why is it supporters of the Zionist colonization project so often contradict themselves

    • @ DaBakr the more you try to justify the ongoing illegal colonization and treatment of the Palestinians the more you show yourself to be a failure and worthy of contempt.

      The truth doesn't have versions. Something is either true or it is not and; unlike the Hasbara the truth needs no justification.

      For example it is a blatant lie that Israel didn't proclaim any borders. It clearly did and Israel was clearly recognized by those borders and no others since. link to trumanlibrary.org

      While a lie is not retracted, the lie and liar remain. Why on earth should anyone believe a word a liar says. Israel is a liar. Each time you support it, you drag yourself further into the sh*te

  • 'Palestinians ought to be free' -- Cornel West's historic moment
  • Israeli police initiate 'friction activity' on quiet streets in East Jerusalem
    • @ MaxNarr "Burn your slingshots"

      Did David?

      "Burn your slingshots, There will be peace. I promise"

      We should believe a proven liar for the ongoing illegal colonization of Palestine? Why?

  • Separation and conquest: Israel's ideological barrier
    • @ MaxNarr July 8, 2016, 2:18 pm

      "Hi Annie, those who attempt murder should be arrested no matter what the age. Kay24, I stopped watching when I saw that absolutely massive slingshot. Remember, a stone slung by such a large slingshot is a deadly weapon"

      Odd that you express the same concerns Goliath ought have had before he was 'murdered'

  • Answering Yair Lapid's (contemptuous) questions about refugees
    • @ Mayhem jumps in the Ziopoop with DaBakr

      " When leaders make the same promise for 66 years and do not deliver, most people realize that the leaders are liars."

      How can they deliver when Israel won't end its occupation and illegal settlements? Israel promised to adhere to the UN Charter. It hasn't.

      " The UNRWA is a liar too because it is part of the battle for the right of return"

      Nonsense. UNRWA's mandate does not extent to final status. link to unrwa.org

      "As for paragraph 184 of the UNHCR handbook (not the UNRWA handbook by the way) it states following what Ofir has quoted, “Thus, a dependant member of a refugee family may be a national of the country of asylum or of another country, and may enjoy that country’s protection. To grant him refugee status in such circumstances would not be called for.”

      Any refugee having taken up the nationality of a country other than that of return is under the protection of and has citizenship rights of that country, they're no longer a refugee. For example the Jewish refugees UNRWA provided for in Israel prior to 1953 when Israel finally decided to take care of them, became Israeli citizens, no longer refugees.

      "This explains why Palestinian refugees are the only people who have been artificially kept as refugees and not been absorbed by host countries"

      Bullsh*te. The host countries are not obliged to offer them citizenship. Israel IS OBLIGED to adhere to the refugee conventions and allow non-Jewish Israeli citizens their right to return AND to allow Palestinian refugees their right to return to whatever remains of Palestine

      "Palestinians are actually the ONLY group in the world all descendants of whom are counted as refugees,"

      More bullsh*te. link to mondoweiss.net

      " UNRWA which receives over 4 times as much funding and employs 5 times more staff than UNHCR the agency which takes care of all the other world refugees combined. This is total insanity! "

      LOL Your insanity. It's more of your unsubstantiated bullsh*te.

  • Israeli officers permitted to open fire on boys with slingshots
    • @ Mayhem July 7, 2016, 9:02 am

      "Don’t you know that Jordan has been turning away Palestinians escaping from Syria since 2012"

      Irrelevant to the point you were making. BTW Israel taken many?

      "Furthermore Jordan has been revoking the citizenship of Palestinians for some time and because Jordan has been very secretive about such practices and with the world not being too concerned about it (being so obsessed about Israel) not much is known"

      Odd. You know about it. Never the less Jordan has the right to revoke temporary Jordanian citizenship of refugees and of Palestinians of the West Bank

      "Have you forgotten Black September "

      States have a primary duty and a right to quell armed uprisings by minorities even if they are refugees

      "Maybe if Arafat had managed to topple King Hussein there may have finally been a genuine foundation established for a Palestinian state"

      Unfounded speculation can be such fun

      Meanwhile Israel is the Occupying Power over non-Israeli territories that belong to the state of Palestine link to un.org

    • Poor Boris. Drowning in his own Ziopoop. What a way to go

      link to google.com.au

    • Uh? Why would anyone in their right mind be expressing anger or indignation a state that has for over 60 years generously hosted refugees, including non-Jewish Israeli citizens ?

  • Unlawful and brutal attack on Turkish boat improves with age in the New York Times
    • @ DaBakr spews shite then stomps around in it, seemingly oblivious.

      "The U(useless) N(nothing) has absolutely zero credibility ... blah blah blah "

      Is that the same UN you hypocritically rely on - "Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident September 2011" . That'd be the Secretary General of the UN I guess.

      Seems supporters of the colonization of Palestine such as yourself will say anything no matter how idiotic it makes them look

      " in fact the body that determines international law on the high seas determined the attack was not in breach of maritime law"

      The UN Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry Report that you hypocritically rely on tells us this

      "67. This part of our report presents our conclusions on the facts, circumstances and context of the incident under review by the Panel. These conclusions have been reached against the backdrop of the exposition of the principles of public international law set out in the Appendix prepared by the Chair and Vice-Chair. Yet we must stress we are not asked to determine the legality or otherwise of the events. The Panel is not a court; its report is not an adjudication."

  • The view from Gaza: 'The Turkish government has sold us out and wants us to be grateful'
    • // "... caging a population that you hate, watching them struggle to survive, bombing them and watching them die ... "//

      @ neggy July 2, 2016, 4:29 pm

      "Look matey, if you want Israel to do that, they can do it. There is nothing stopping them from doing that. "

      Israel is already doing that.

      "The Arabs can always leave."

      You wish ... However “Israel, the Occupying Power” prevents them from leaving

      " , as long as they are determined to “liberate Palestine”, they will be contained"

      I thought you said they could leave. I wish you'd get your Ziopoop sorted

      "and maybe if a really good Israeli PM comes to power, forced to surrender unconditionally by use of harsher methods."

      They have a legal right to attempt to liberate whatever remains of Palestine that ISN'T within Israel's Internationally recognized borders.

      Israel doesn't have a legal right to continue the occupation (ibid) or to force them to surrender. In fact under Chapt XI of the UN Charter, Israel has a sacred trust to do the opposite link to un.org

    • @ ClearAndPresentDanger

      "Well, more to the point is that it came after Hamas’ violent takeover of Gaza from the only recognised Arab government in ‘Palestine’, the PLO"

      Bullsh*te! Hamas were elected in a democratic election link to google.com.au

      "And rather than being ‘not prepared’, Hamas quite plainly cast them selves as Israel’s avowed enemy."

      "Israel, the Occupying Power" is as a matter of course the enemy

      "One should also note that Egypt also blockades Gaza; the Rafah crossing is closed most of the time and has been for years"

      Israel is the Occupying Power, not Egypt. The Occupying Power determines when all crossings into Occupied Territories are to be closed.

  • Israel should be deeply disturbed by the Brexit vote
    • @ TonyRiley July 18, 2016, 9:37 am

      "Israel has returned 95% of the land it captured in a defensive war – ie a war started by Jordan, Syria and Egypt in June 1967,"

      A) Israel has never returned ANY Palestinian territory.

      B) The war was started by who? When? Ever read UNSC resolution S/RES/228 (1966) of 25 November 1966? link to unispal.un.org

      "As you’re probably aware, Israel did offer to give all of the land away in return for peace, but the Khartoum Conference of the Arab League in 1967, refused point blank."

      Of course they refused. The premise for their refusal was on a completely legal basis.

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

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

      This is simply a reflection of UNSC res 476 1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

      No peace with Israel: While territory sovereign to Egypt was under Israeli occupation the two states were technically at war. In the eventual Egypt Israel Peace Treaty Israel was first required and agreed to begin withdrawal before peaceful relations were assumed.

      No recognition of Israel: There is no legal basis for demanding recognition.
      A) States plead for recognition

      B) ” ..in the view of the United States, International Law does not require a state to recognize another state; it is a matter for the judgment of each state whether an entity merits recognition as a state. In reaching this judgment, the United States has traditionally looked of the establishment of certain facts. The United States has also taken into account whether the entity in question has attracted the recognition of the International community of states.” There are numerous UN Member states who do not recognize other UN Member States.

      All states are never the less required to show “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”. This is reflected in UNSC res 242.

      No negotiations: Israel is in breach of numerous UNSC resolutions, International Law, the UN Charter, relative conventions. There is no legal requirement for negotiations.

      For example the words ‘negotiate’, ‘negotiations’ do not appear in UNSC res242 on which the Egypt Israel Peace Treaty is based. Israel was and still is required to adhere to the law, negotiations or not. Egypt and Jordan were correct in refusing negotiations while Israel was in breach of its legal obligations in respect to their sovereign territory.

      The signing of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was an act of recognition and; after Israeli agree to withdrawal peaceful relations were assumed. Likewise with Jordan. Both are examples of what UNSC res 242 was formulated to achieve. The end of hostilities between UN Member States.

      However, while Israel occupies non-Israeli territories in Palestine, the Golan Heights, Shebaa Farms, the Alghajar village UNSC res 425 and UNSC res 426, Israel is technically at war and those states have a right to “restore” sovereignty over their territories. Professor Stephen M. Schwebel / Elihu Lauterpacht

      The Palestinians meanwhile are under no legal obligation to sign a peace agreement with an Occupying Power, to recognize an Occupying Power or to negotiate with an Occupying Power. Negotiations mean only one thing, the Palestinians forgoing some of their legal rights so that Israel may keep non-Israeli territory illegally acquired by war, illegally annexed and illegally settled by Israel since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) (ibid)

      "Would you care to condemn those countries for capturing land in 1948 and then holding onto it until 1967?"

      Why? It was outside of Israel's proclaimed and recognized borders! They didn't create illegal settlements or enforce any blockades on the Palestinians.

      The West Bank as it is now officially named, was legally annexed at the request of representatives of the majority of the legitimate citizens of the territory. Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only by demand of the other Arab states (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950) in keeping with the UN Charter Chapt XI

      "Ziopoop? Brilliant!

      That’s almost as good as me calling you out for being a complete Hamasshole"

      Problem ... I'm not a supporter of Hamas (1987). BTW they're a response to 90 years of Zionist Colonization which began in 1897 and in response to 39 years of Israeli occupying non-Israeli territories

      "Can you reveal when Palestine was ever an independent nation state, maybe name a few of its kings and queens, and then tell us what the Palestinian currency was?"

      A) Totally irrelevant to the legal status of Israel's proclaimed and recognized territories <em(ibid) and the illegal actions the Jewish State has engaged in in non Israeli territories since Israel's borders were proclaimed and recognized (ibid)

      B) Israel's first currency until it introduced the Lira in August 1948, was the PALESTINIAN POUND

    • @ TonyRiley

      "... the awkward problem of Palestinians legally hanging Gays"

      Cite the law ...thx

      " and carrying out the “honour killings” of women fleeing from forced marriages"

      Honour killings happen in ALL societies

    • @ TonyRiley

      "Surely you mean, bombing terrorists in Gaza, in retaliation for the missiles they fire into Israel ..."

      A) The majority killed in Gaza have been civilians. B) The IDF Memorial site reveals that more Israeli military have been targeted, injured and killed than have Israeli civilians. C) The Zionist colonization of Palestine began in earnest circa 1897 and Jewish forces were already occupying non-Israeli territory the day Israel's borders were proclaimed and recognized link to wp.me

      "... and building on land fairly captured from Jordan in 1967?"

      It has been inadmissible to acquire territory by war since at least 1945 under the UN Charter. Read UNSC res 242 et al.

      Go Ziopoop somewhere else

  • Number of Palestinian refugees in occupied territories has increased by 1 million in the past decade
    • DaBakr jumps into the Ziopoop feet first

      A) UNRWA was formed to care for ALL refugees resulting from the Israeli invasion of Palestine. It included Jewish refugees in camps in Israel up until Israel eventually took responsibility for them in 1952

      B) The status of all other refugee groups also passes to lineal descendants as long as they do not acquire citizenship of a country other than that of return, whereby they would no longer have refugee status. For example, there are no longer any Arab Jewish refugees from the Arab states.

      "Not sure what to make of the fact palestinians were rarely granted citizenship in their brethrens ‘host’ countries"

      Quite simple, they'd rather return to their homeland, as is their legal right. Host countries for refugees are not legally required to offer refugees citizenship.

      Meanwhile, Israel is legally required to allow them to return or pay them compensation should they choose citizenship in a state other than that of return.

      " ... the reason Israel gets so much ‘special’ attention and censure from world bodies is that ... " it refuses to adhere to its legal obligations to it's non-Jewish Israeli citizens AND it refuses to allow internally and externally displaced Palestinian refugees return to non-Israeli territory in Palestine.

  • Giving up on political propaganda, Israeli consulate turns to Ted-style inspirational conference
  • Front-page play for Israel battle shows that Israel has lost the Democratic Party base
    • @ hophmi May 27, 2016, 12:01 pm

      "Again, there is a legal case that it’s not technically an occupation"

      Interesting theory. Care to outline this alleged "legal case"?

    • @ Misterioso May 27, 2016, 6:55 pm

      hophmi and co aren't allowed to read that kind of stuff.

    • y f does Ziodope denial 101 ... so cute

      @ yonah fredman May 26, 2016, 7:18 pm

      I do not agree with placing quotation marks around “occupation”. "

      UNSC res 467 "Israel, the Occupying Power" .. "territories occupied" link to wp.me

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

      "The standard line of Likudniks is that the west bank is disputed territory rather than occupied territory, because occupied implies that the territories were under a recognized government’s authority before the occupation, as in Sinai and Golan which were under Egyptian and Syrian sovereignty. But the West bank which was under Jordanian sovereignty unrecognized by the world,"

      Uh huh. And exactly no countries recognize Israel's annexation of any territories it has acquired by war since proclaiming its borders effective 00:01 May 1948 (ME time) link to trumanlibrary.org

      However, the legality of annexation is not determined by recognition. It's legality is determined by the self determination of the legitimate citizens of the territory being annexed, i.e., agreeing to to be annexed.

      ICJ on the ‘Wall’ opinion

      88. The Court also notes that the principle of self-determination of peoples has been enshrined in the United Nations Charter and reaffirmed by the General Assembly in resolution 2625 (XXV) cited above, pursuant to which “Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to [in that resolution] . . . of their right to self-determination.” Article 1 common to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reaffirms the right of al1 peoples to self-determination, and lays upon the States parties the obligation to promote the realization of that right and to respect it, in conformity with the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

      The Court would recall that in 1971 it emphasized that current developments in “international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all [such territories]“. The Court went on to state that “These: developments leave little doubt that the ultimate objective of the sacred trust” referred to in Article 22, paragraph 1, of the Covenant of the League of Nations “was the self-determination . . . of the peoples concerned” (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Ajrica) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 1. C. J. Reports 1971, p. 31, paras. 52-53). The Court has referred to this principle on a number of occasions in its jurisprudence (ibid. ; see also Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. report. 1975, p. 68, para. 162). The Court indeed made it clear that the right of peoples to self-determination is today a right erga omnes (see East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, 1. C. J. Reports 1995, p. 102, para. 29).

      —-

      115. In this regard, Annex II to the report of the Secretary-General, entitled “Summary Legal Position of the Palestine Liberation Organization”, States that “The construction of the Barrier is an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law” and that “The de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination.”

      The West Bank was legally annexed at the request of representatives of the majority of the legitimate citizens of the territory. Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only by demand of the other Arab states (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950), in keeping with the UN Charter Chapt XI

      " is not in the category of occupied, but disputed"

      Can't find that word in any of the UNSC resolutions

      "But in 1974 Jordan withdrew its claims on the west bank to make room for PLO claims on the west bank "

      Jordan was a trustee only. It was handed back to the PLO

      "... since a Palestinian state does not yet exist and has never existed, therefore it cannot be occupied since the sovereignty of the Palestinians was never established"

      Wholly holey Hasbara crappolla. The LoN Mandate for Palestine Article 7 Article 7 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. "

      Palestinian Nationality Law was adopted in 1925. Palestine was a Nation State at the time of partition. Israel seceded from it.

      Under Jordanian annexation the West Bank was a part of a Sovereign State and; from the moment Jordan joined the UN the West Bank was a part of a UN Member State and; from the time Jordan ratified GC IV the West Bank was a part of a High Contracting Power. Which is why the UNSC tells us GC IV applies

      Now the majority of the International Comity of Nations has recognized Palestine as a state. All that's required is independence from Israel's illegal, immoral, unethical and unwarranted occupation and its ongoing theft of non-Israeli territories

      "Because Israel has not annexed the territory and certainly not annexed it with the approval of the protected peoples, and because Israel has never offered citizenship to those protected peoples, I think occupied, as in reference to resolution 242: territories to be withdrawn from in the context of negotiations and mutual recognitions,"

      There's no mention of negotiations or mutual recognitions in UNSC res 242. The states were to have " respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

      Read the Israel Egypt Peace Treaty, it was a successful conclusion to UNSC res 242 by those two states. It required withdrawal by Israel from all the territories sovereign to Egypt. Withdrawal for peace. Simple really. Israel needs to f*ck off out of all non-Israeli territories for once, take its illegal settlers and pay suitable reparations for 68 years of intransigence

  • Sanders appoints Palestine advocates to committee drafting Democrat's 2016 platform
    • @ hophmi May 24, 2016, 9:11 am

      "Most of you do, however, because you won’t be happy unless the platform calls for an end to the Jewish state"

      Quotes and or statistics for 'most' please ... thx I'll wait ... ... and wait ... and wait ... and wait

      /// “who suffer under an occupation whose sole purpose is to segregate people by religion” ///

      "Oh please. What garbage. Fight your religious war somewhere else, Dizard"

      Many non-Jews in the illegal settlements? It's Israel who ought go somewhere else, lizard, like Israel, instead of illegally settling in non-Israeli territories

      Oooops I might've spelled 'Dizard' wrong. Oh well too late

  • 'New York Times' finally tells its readers: Netanyahu is 'dangerous'
  • Video: Gaza family mourns children who burned to death
    • @ jon s May 24, 2016, 4:50 pm

      "Making a nice profit while not providing electricity..."

      There's no verification for that assertion

      "Makes total sense"

      Unproven allegations always do to Zionist propaganda mongers

    • @ jon s May 23, 2016, 4:02 pm

      "... the Gaza Electricity Company ... ... banking profits $13.6m"

      Your link gives no source for this interesting bit of information

  • Thank you, Chief Rabbi. Now I know: Judaism is to blame for the Nakba
    • @ Sibiriak May 27, 2016, 6:10 pm

      Different argument ;-)

      Never the less

      "1) According the ICJ, the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination only in their own territory, which the ICJ specifically defines in terms of 1949 Armistice “Green Line” border–NOT United Nations res. 181 recommended partition lines

      **The ICJ affirmed that the Construction of the wall was illegal wherever it departed from the 1949 armistice line and went into Palestinian territory."

      Yes. The Palestinians declared their state according to the Green Line. However, Israel hasn't accepted it. Although provisional borders have changed, Israel's recognized border hasn't changed since being proclaimed in its plea for recognition

      In respect to the Armistice agreements and Armistice demarcation lines
      A) The Armistice Agreements were not with Palestine.
      B) The Armistice Demarcation lines were "provisional" borders pending final settlement of the Question of Palestine.
      C) AFTER the Armistice Agreements were signed Israel was still trying on the 31st Aug 1949 to convince the UN to allow it the territories it had acquired by war. Rather strange if the Armistice Agreements already allowed them those territories other than as "provisional". Maybe someone forgot to tell them.

      "**The General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10/13 which:“Demands that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure of the Armistice Line of 1949 and is in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law…"

      Yes, relative to the Armistice conditions.

      Article IV

      2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

      "**Although the ICJ was not specifically asked to address the validity of the “Green Line” border, the ICJ in fact did just that."

      Not the "Green Line" 'border', but the Armistice Lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

      " [HOSTAGE:] Moreover, the ICJ specifically cited the UN resolutions sponsoring the Armistice Agreements in determining that the Armistice “Green Line” ... as a provisional measure ... Israel admitted the status of the territory is unchallengeable in the absence of a new round of negotiations and mutual consent "

      "provisional" ... "mutual consent"

      ———————

      " The second point you are failing to grasp is that the exercise of self-determination does NOT require a plebiscite or referendum, nor does it require democracy at all"

      It requires " mutual consent". An agreement between representatives recognized by both parties

      "Besides, annexation and self-determination are separate concepts; Israel’s and Jordan’s legal annexation of territory sanctioned by a UN- sponsored, internationally recognized armistice agreement, did NOT require a plebiscite or referendum"

      It required " mutual consent" between representatives recognized by both parties. Israel has never reached an agreement with the Palestinians

      "But the annexation was legal, and the “Green Line” is the legal" provisional " border in the absence of a final agreement and mutual consent"

    • @ Sibiriak May 27, 2016, 2:51 pm

      "The ICJ, for example, relied specifically on the right to self-determination...."

      ;-)

    • @ mcohen. May 23, 2016, 9:01 am

      " israel has endured several nabka,s before 1948"

      Strange: May 15, 1948

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

      "... why did it have to take a holocaust to right this historical wrong"

      A) The Zionist plan to colonize Palestine began years before the Holocaust link to jewishencyclopedia.com

      B) Exactly what 'historical wrong' did the Holocaust 'right'?

      "there are coins with the words “freedom of zion” on them"

      So what? There were bank notes with Palestine on them link to google.com.au

      "the land of israel belongs to the jewish people"

      The land of Israel exists only within Israel's proclaimed and Internationally recognized boundaries (ibid)

  • 'NYT' blames Hamas for civilian deaths in front-page article that sounds like Hillary Clinton
  • Israeli leader's 'extremism' charge makes headlines around the world -- but 10th paragraph in New York Times!
  • Netanyahu-Lieberman deal tears 'mask off face of Israel' -- but 'NYT' keeps the mask on
  • AIPAC event in Connecticut features anti-Semitic humor, from an Israeli editor
    • @ hophmi
      "Horowitz gets away with it for the same reason that Jay-Z gets away with using the N-word. In modern America, minority groups can joke about themselves."

      Precisely what was said // Horovitz gets away with it because he loves Israel and wears a yarmulke and is a member in good standing of the tribe //

  • Sharansky disses American Jews for assimilating, then tells 'major donors' to universities to stop BDS
    • @ hophmi "Sorry, but there is a long line of students who can tell you about the way BDS activists turned students against one another on campus, harassed those who were not willing to sign up to their cause, used antisemitic rhetoric, and disrupted the events of other students in violation of college regulations"

      Uh huh. link to google.com.au

    • @ hophmi May 19, 2016, 12:18 pm

      "Maybe we should just replace “rich American Jews” with Saudi sheikhs, who already use their money to finance a whitewashing of their country, and the shortcomings of other Arab societies, at universities across the United States"

      Are they also trying to divert attention away from discussing their purposeful and illegal colonizing of other folks territories?

    • @ Steve Grover May 18, 2016, 7:33 pm

      " Then I become cognizant how insignificant Weiss and MW are and I shouldn’t care if they let him in or not."

      Uh huh. Not cognizant enough to know that 'should' means you do care enough to be here blabbering away in-cognizantly.

  • New Jersey anti-BDS bill is an affront to the first amendment and basic human rights
    • @ JustJessetr May 19, 2016, 7:09 am

      "You just avoided my question yourself"

      I guess subtlety doesn't fall within a Ziocolonizers twisted purview.

      Your question was specific to religion and answered in the second part. Being Jewish is not specifically governed by one’s religion

    • @ JustJessetr

      // “What is the meaning of the right to exist “as a Jewish state”? Do other states have the right to exist “as a Christian state” or “as a Hindu state”?” //

      "Or, as a MUSLIM state? I hear no pleas for secular humanism rule when it comes to the Islamic Republic of Iran, or The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, both exporters of terror"

      Avoiding the question and deferring to whataboutery is so Ziotypical

      BTW Jewish atheists, Jewish Christians and even Jewish Muslims will tell you that Jewish is not necessarily governed by one's religion

  • Israeli 'chutzpah' versus Palestinian 'sumud'
    • @ Annie Robbins May 20, 2016, 12:54 am

      Ditto for what you and MW's astute contributors give. Priceless. If only it wasn't necessary.

    • @ ohplease May 19, 2016, 10:31 pm

      "Are the following things also ‘settled’ on here and therefore offensive to discuss?"

      They're irrelevant to the proclaimed and recognized extent of Israel's borders and that state's illegal activities in territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      "Funny, Wikipedia claims that point 2) has been abandoned by all serious ME scholars, Arab and Jewish alike, and is only still popular among amateur anti-Israel activitists. (What’s the Arabic word for hasbara?)

      Perhaps Talknic can ‘prove’ how ‘Ziocreeps’ are responsible for that Wikipedia claim too?"

      Give me the exact page and dialogue .... thx

    • ohplease

      "Scholarly debate of Plan D intent:
      link to en.wikipedia.org"

      Nothing scholarly in an editor who
      A) agrees with a Hasbara spouting sockpuppet link to en.wikipedia.org

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      and;

      B) who argues to leave a clearly identified mistake in the article link to en.wikipedia.org

      Wikipedia is infected by Ziocreeps

    • @ ohplease

      " they read some New Historians"

      No need. We can read the official UN reports, Israeli Government/Jewish Agency/Zionist Movement statements

      "Israel .... the epitome of all evil in this world takes a truly dedicated commitment of negative energy and fanaticism"

      It takes a truly dedicated commitment of negative energy and fanaticism to claim something that no one here is actually doing.

    • ohplease May 19, 2016, 3:29 pm

      "These arguments also assume that hasbara cannot have any valid points by definition"

      There's no need to assume, when one can cross check facts. Hasbara by its lies has no validity.

      I've yet to see a single valid point as to why Israel continues to illegally acquire, claim and/or occupy non-Israeli territory, make demands for recognition as a Jewish State, refuse to allow RoR, ignore International Law, ignore the UN Charter and ignore numerous UNSC resolutions

    • @ ohplease

      "The offer was 100,000 refugees not all 700,000. This is obviously a huge difference than my original claim."

      So Israel 'offered' to leave 611,000 people who had a legal right to return, in limbo. How amazingly generous!!

    • @ ohplease May 18, 2016, 10:17 pm

      "Israel offered to take back the refugees as part of a comprehensive peace plan with the states surrounding it – as part of a general peace that included the whole region with mutual recognition. The Arab states said no, and so the refugees were left in limbo"

      Any chance of a source for your assertion so one can see what Israel actually offered? ... I'll wait"

  • A brief history of the 'Nakba' in Israel
    • @ inbound39 May 20, 2016, 4:13 pm

      At precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) Israel was independent of Palestine according to the Provisional Israeli Government link to trumanlibrary.org

      Under Plan Dalet link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org , Jewish forces were already outside of Israel's proclaimed and recognized sovereign extent at the time Israel's borders were proclaimed

      There are no UNSC resolutions condemning the Arab States actions in attempting to expel Israeli forces from what remained of Palestine after Israel proclaimed its borders effective. The Arab Regional Powers and as UN Members (except Transjordan) had a right and a sacred duty (UN Charter Chapt XI) to protect Palestine. (The Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, lodged with the UNSC May 15th 1948 was, as far as I know, the last declaration of war ever lodged with the the UNSC. )

      link to mfa.gov.il In the lede (1st paragraph) the Israeli Government tells us "Palestine" was invaded. Not Israel.

      Israel's War of Independence ended when Israel proclaimed its independence effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948, it then became a war by the independent State of Israel on what remained of Palestine, in territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      There were according to the UN approximately 711,000 refugees from Israeli controlled territories. link to unispal.un.org

      They were non-Jewish Israeli citizensfrom within Israel's proclaimed borders and non-Jews from the territories Israel controlled "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      3 Jun 1948 in the Knesset - Report to the Provisional Government of Israel by Prime Minister and Minister of Defence Ben-Gurion 3 Jun 1948
      "The entire expanse of the State of Israel allocated to us under the terms of the UN resolution is in our hands, and we have conquered several important districts outside those boundaries".
      and;
      "To the greatest possible extent, we will remain constantly on the offensive, which will not be confined to the borders of the Jewish State"

      Nothing has changed. Israel has never shown "respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;" link to wp.me

    • @ olive52 May 17, 2016, 7:59 am

      "Many Israelis know what Nakba is and many sympathize with the existence the Palestinians as well as other Arabs have been brought to bear as a result of faulty leadership, lack of unity and disregard from other Muslim nations and all around international neglect..."

      You forgot to add over a hundred years of Zionist colonization and 68 years of Israel occupation

      " Israel has made overtures of peace..."

      Israel has only offered to swap occupied non-Israeli territory for occupied non-Israeli territory so Israel can keep occupied non-Israeli territory. Not at all conducive to peace

      "Violence, BDS, dreaming of the right of return en masse has called attention but offers no solution."

      Israel has never offered a solution in accordance with its legal obligations to the UN Charter, International Law or ratified conventions or numerous UNSC resolutions I.e., withdrawal from all non-Israeli territories it violently occupied

      "Palestinians need to realize the Jewish state is a permanent fixture"

      Wonderful, now give one good reason the Jewish State should not withdraw from all non-Israeli territories

      " To dream of liquidating the state of Israel from Jews is futile, as does living in the past as a means of seeing the future which is exactly what Palestinians have been taught to do"

      Interesting theory. However facts on the ground show us it has been Israel and Israelis who have been slowly liquidating what remained of Palestine after Israel proclaimed its borders in order to be recognized.

      em>"The blame game is always easier to play"

      As you have amply demonstrated.

      "Self-realization, self improvement with dare I say looking away from Israel might give Palestinians better hope"

      Ending the occupation and ongoing colonization of Palestine would be a far better source of hope.

    • @ bettyberenson May 16, 2016, 8:15 pm

      "While about 600,000 Arabs left their homes in Israel, over 800,000 Jews left their homes all over the Arab world. That is a “transfer of populations.” "

      No it isn't. It's NORMAL for countries at war to either intern or expel possible allies of ones enemies. The US, UK, Australia interned or expelled their German and Japanese US,UK, Aus citizens and froze their assets.

      Its also NORMAL to release them, allow their return and to unfreeze their assets at the end of hostilities unless of course they have taken up permanent citizenship in a country other than that of return, whereby they are no longer refugees. There are now no Jewish refugees as far as I am aware

      " Add to that the continued manipulation of “refugee” status on the part of UNWRA"

      Bullsh*t! The UNRWA definition has nothing to do with final status. It is only to determine who is due assistance while they are refugees. It included Jewish refugees until 1952 when Israel finally took over responsibility for Arab and German Jews folk in Israel's Jew only refugee camps.

      Idiotic apologists for Israeli war crimes can't even figure chronological order in years. UNGA res 194 was adopted in 1948, the Palestinian claim of RoR was under UN res 194 of 1948. UNRWA wasn't formed until 1949.

      "and there are too many generations of Arabs claiming refugee status, and an entire Arab world that inhumanely connived and refused citizenship to Arabs who left Israel"

      Uh? The Arab states have generously afforded them refuge. Even to non-Jewish Israeli citizens who'd been cleansed from Israel. They are not legally, ethically or morally bound to give them citizenship when the refugees wish to return to their own countries

      "The need for justice has to come from Arab countries, not from Israel"

      The Arab countries didn't expel them.

  • Israeli settlements 'screwed up' Kerry peace talks, Indyk says--but U.S. is still Israel's lawyer!
    • @ DaBakr May 16, 2016, 9:27 pm

      "labeling assad the ‘illegal’ ruler of syria would do nothing to solve the conflict there"

      It'd be false to label him as " the ‘illegal’ ruler of syria". If anything it would help to further exacerbate the conflict there.

      Meanwhile under International Law as emphasized and re-affirmed in UNSC resolutions reminding Israel of binding law and the binding UN Charter, the Israeli settlers in non-Israeli territories are illegal. Issues are more easily solved when facts are known.

    • @ DaBakr May 16, 2016, 9:24 pm

      "if the us adressed its ‘theft of land’ from first nations people the way the palestinians are demanding their land issue with israel it might actually have some credibility."

      Uh? I see. If the US addressed its past 'theft of land', Israel would suddenly adhere to the law? Withdraw from all non-Israeli territories? Pay for 68 years of intransigence? Interesting theory ...

      Sorry pal, but the US did address exactly that issue in 1933 link to cfr.org ... Your turn.

      " the same thing could apply to dozens of other nations where indigenous land was settled or stolen"

      No it can't. The UN, which was formed of those nations recanted on their former colonial practices, adopting laws that prohibit the acquisition of territory by any coercive means, incl war.

      Say, is Ziopoop nice to wade around in

  • The Making of Israel: Zionist settler colonialism in historic Palestine
    • @ Sibiriak May 26, 2016, 2:44 am

      "Exactly. I was giving examples of the UN condemning non-members .Yugoslavia was a non-member at the time of the UN condemnation"

      The "State' was not condemned. The Authorities were. The Authorities are not the state.

      "Nothing prevented the UN from condemning Israel annexation (or settlement, as Dan pointed out) of territory within the Green line before or after it became a UN member."

      Except it didn't annex any territory. Contrary to Hostage's assertion re- the Armistice Agreements allowing annexation, Israel was still trying to convince the UN bodies 31st August 1949 after the last Armistice Agreement was signed link to unispal.un.org and Israel's notions that it could were turned down, citing the Armistice Agreements link to unispal.un.org
      ——————————–

      //talknic: The examples you gave show condemnation of the actions by “forces from North Korea” under the control of “the authorities”. No such condemnation against “the authorities” or Jordan the State, has been issued by the UNSC re the annexation of the West Bank //

      "???

      Exactly. There was no condemnation of non-member Jordan in any way, shape or form re annexation of the West Bank, and there has been no condemnation of Israel in any way, shape or form re annexing territory up to the Green Line. "

      Jordan annexed. Israel didn't, it was still trying 31st Aug 1949

      "Put a fork in it"

    • @ Sibiriak May 26, 2016, 12:42 am

      "Annexation is simply a state’s extension of civil law over a territory it controls"

      Although UNSC res 252 and its eight reminders are relative to the '67 war, they never the less tell us annexation is NOT simply a state’s extension of civil law over a territory it controls!

      "As Hostage pointed out, the armistice agreements allowed Israel and Jordan to do that LEGALLY up to the Green Line"

      Except there's nothing in the Armistice Agreements specifically allowing it. In fact the Israel/Jordan Agreement says

      1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized;

      2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

      Furthermore if Israel was allowed annexation in the Armistice Agreements, why was it still trying 31st August 1949 link to unispal.un.org

      "On the other hand, when Israel did that in East Jersusalem, on the Palestinian side of the Green Line, it was ILLEGAL"

      UNSC res 467 "Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible" !
      It was illegal under the UN charter in 1945 and in 1948/49, however, 'Israel' was not a UN Member State and not subject to direct censure by the UN until May 11th 1949.

      "The ICJ made that distinction perfectly clear in the 2004 “Wall” opinion"

      The ICJ said

      As also explained below (see paragraphs 79-84 below), some parts of the complex are being built, or are planned to be built, on the territory of Israel itself; the Court does not (consider that it is called upon to examine the legal consequences arising from the construction of those parts of the wall.

      "There is no requirement for an “agreement with the majority representatives”."

      ICJ on the 'Wall' opinion

      88. The Court also notes that the principle of self-determination of peoples has been enshrined in the United Nations Charter and reaffirmed by the General Assennbly in resolution 2625 (XXV) cited above, pursuant to which "Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to [in that resolution] . . . of their right to self-determination." Article 1 common to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reaffirms the right of al1 peoples to self-determination, and lays upon the States parties the obligation to promote the realization of that right and to respect it, in conformity with the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

      The Court would recall that in 1971 it emphasized that current developments in "international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all [such territories]". The Court went on to state that "These: developments leave little doubt that the ultimate objective of the sacred trust" referred to in Article 22, paragraph 1, of the Covenant of the League of Nations "was the self-determination . . . of the peoples concerned" (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Ajrica) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 1. C. J. Reports 1971, p. 31, paras. 52-53). The Court has referred to this principle on a number of occasions in its jurisprudence (ibid. ; see also Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. report. 1975, p. 68, para. 162). The Court indeed made it clear that the right of peoples to self-determination is today a right erga omnes (see East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, 1. C. J. Reports 1995, p. 102, para. 29).

      ----

      115. In this regard, Annex II to the report of the Secretary-General, entitled "Summary Legal Position of the Palestine Liberation Organization", States that "The construction of the Barrier is an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law" and that "The de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination."

    • @ Sibiriak May 25, 2016, 8:22 pm

      talknic: A) That’s not the point being argued. UNSC res 252 and its eight reminders tell us a “state’s extension of civil law (aka sovereignty) over territory” is NOT “the very definition of annexation”

      "No. Res 252 reminds us that any Israeli annexation across the Green Line is ILLEGAL"/em>

      It actually tells us a number of things

      A) it reaffirms that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible,

      B) It shows that a “state’s extension of civil law (aka sovereignty) over territory” is NOT “the very definition of annexation” thereby;

      C) Israeli annexation across the Green Line is ILLEGAL

      D) Subsequent reminders of UNSC res 252 tell us GC IV applied, i.e., the West Bank was part of a High Contracting Power by '67

      " [Hostage:]The parties concerned entered into international armistice agreements which granted the belligerents civil jurisdiction to apply their municipal laws up to the “Green Lines”. That is the normal definition of annexation."

      The Armistice Agreements themselves tell us that no “ political advantage” should be gained and that the agreement is “dictated exclusively by military considerations”

      "Up to the Green Line –LEGAL. Beyond that–ILLEGAL.

      UNSC re 252, its eight reminders (ans UNSC res242) were in consideration of the '67 war and territories occupied in those "recent hostilies"

      "All UN resolutions and the ICJ “Wall” opinion confirm that"

      Where they name Israel, they deal with issues post Israel's UN Membership. The IGJ "Wall" opinion wasn't tasked with giving an opinion on any pre Israeli UN Membership issues

      " [Hostage:] The fact that the Armistice lines serve as the legal boundaries of Israel’s civil and military jurisdiction as been driven home repeatedly by the members of the Security Council, General Assembly, and the ICJ [emphasis added]"

      Provisional and/or pending are not by definition final

      ————————–

      "talknic: B) I was asked to show how Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was legal.

      Not by me.

      You took up the point

      "I’ve argued, following Hostage, that BOTH Jordan’s and Israel’s annexation of territory on their respective sides of the Green Line were LEGAL"

      Israel has never annexed any territory on its side of the Green Line. "provisional" and "pending" are not by definition final!

      —————–

      talknic: …the UN/UNSC cannot directly censure non-Members and cannot directly censure Members retrospectively for their actions prior to membership.

      " 1)False. You’ve been asked multiple times to provide evidence to back that up. But you never do. Please quote the UN charter or any legal scholar that supports that theory"

      Provide an instance where they have. States become UN Members regardless of which "authority" might be in control the state and/or of their military. The only instances provided thus far link to mondoweiss.net did not directly censure the States. A state's authorities can change. Nor are " forces from North Korea" the State, they're subject to "the authorities"

      "You tell us on one hand that that UNSC would be bound to condemn Jordan if the annexation of the West Bank had been illegal–but on the other hand you tell us that UNSC would be prohibited from condemning Jordan for actions when a non-member.

      Total contradiction"

      It's not. I wrote "Were it illegal, the UNSC would be bound by the UN Charter to condemn it"
      "it" being the action

      The examples you gave show condemnation of the actions by "forces from North Korea" under the control of "the authorities". No such condemnation against "the authorities" or Jordan the State, has been issued by the UNSC re the annexation of the West Bank.

      "the Council condemned the failure of the authorities" in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

      The authorities are not a UN Member State

      Benedetto Conforti shows how the UN can recommend to non-members and how UN Members might treat non-members

    • Sibiriak May 25, 2016, 9:05 pm

      "despite repeated requests you’ve never told us where such a prohibition on censure can be found"

      I've already shown there are no UN/UNSC resolutions directly censuring a state by name before they have become UN Members. link to mondoweiss.net
      It's ridiculous to think otherwise. A football club cannot tell a non-member to abide by the football club rules and; in retrospect on Membership, not having been bound by the rules prior to Membership, cannot directly censure actions not bound by the rules once becoming a Member

      "But you also overlook the fact that Israel annexed territory AFTER 11 May 1949"

      By what agreement with Palestine? NONE of the Palestinian territories Israel claimed were belonging to any other state

      Historian Ilan Pappe writes:

      …certain regions of the Galilee, the Negev and Wadi Ara (the last region was annexed to Israel in June 1949 as a result of the armistice agreement with Jordan signed in April that year). [emphasis added]

      The Armistice Agreement doesn't mention any annexation. It says quite clearly that "political advantage"should be gained and that the agreement is "dictated exclusively by military considerations"

      " nothing prevented the UN from condemning Israel annexation of territory AFTER becoming a UN member. (And it did exactly that when Israel illegally annexed East Jerusalem.)"

      A) Members are not bound by the rules of membership prior to becoming Members
      B) Israel was a UN Member when it illegally annexed East Jerusalem

      "No such UN condemnation exists of Israeli annexation of territory within the Green Line– of course. Israeli and Jordanian annexation of territory was seen as perfectly legal because it was sanctioned by the 1949 UN-sponsored armistice agreement."

      A) (1) Israel simply didn't annex territories it had acquired by war before UN Membership , knowing full well non-members cannot be censured. There's no annexation agreement with the majority representatives of any Palestinian territories post 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time), when Israel's borders became effective
      (2) Jordan did annex, there was an agreement with the majority representatives of what was officially re-named the West Bank

      B) The Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan AGREED that ;

      1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized;

      2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

    • @ Sibiriak May 25, 2016, 9:34 am

      “2) A state’s extension of civil law (aka sovereignty) over territory is the very definition of “annexation”. “

      UNSC res 252 and eight reminders point to unilateral annexation and the extension of a state’s civil law as illegal on Israel’s part

      They also tell us that GC IV applies

      ————————-

      "Those UNSC resolutions DO NOT apply to Israeli territory inside the Green Line "

      A) That's not the point being argued. UNSC res 252 and its eight reminders tell us a "state’s extension of civil law (aka sovereignty) over territory" is NOT "the very definition of annexation"

      B) I was asked to show how Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was legal.
      (1) UNSC res 252 and its eight reminders condemn Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem. At the same time;
      (2) they afford legality to GC IV in respect to the annexation of the West Bank for the simple fact that Jordan incl the West Bank were accepted into the UN and became a High Contracting Power to GC IV after UN Membership.

      " Same with GC IV. Per all UN resolutions and the ICJ, the Green Line divides Israeli territory from Occupied Palestinian territory."

      Although International Law applies to states the UN/UNSC cannot directly censure non-Members and cannot directly censure Members retrospectively for their actions prior to membership.

      The Green Line was agreed on 30 November 1948 between Jordan and Israel, prior to Israel's UN Membership on 11th May 1949 and prior to Jordanian Membership 14th December 1955

      Egyptian/Israel General Armistice Agreement 24th February 1949, Lebanon/Israel 22nd March 1949, Jordan/Israel General Armistice Agreement, 3 April 1949. All prior to Israel's UN Membership

      "Israel’s extension of civil law to territory (annexation) inside the Green Line under the UN sponsored armistice agreements was LEGAL:"

      It might be generally accepted, but I'd argue it wasn't legal. BTW none of the agreements are between Israel and Palestine.

    • Correction : the West Bank was part of a UN Member State and a High Contracting Power

    • @ Sibiriak May 24, 2016, 9:10 am

      "You have repeatedly claimed that a lack of UN condemnation proves that Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was legal"

      Annexation was requested by representatives of the a majority of the legitimate citizens of the territory. A bilateral agreement, i.e., the territory was not acquired by force/war. Self determination per the UN can hardly be condemned by the UN.

      Hostage has also written of the legality of that annexation
      link to mondoweiss.net
      MORE

      link to mondoweiss.net Jordan was admitted as a full UN member state and its ambassador's credentials were always accepted as being the valid legal representative for both the East and West Banks until 1988

      MORE

      link to mondoweiss.net

      *The State Department Digest of International Law 1963 devoted an entire chapter to “Territory and Sovereignty of States”. In § 8 “Annexation” there is a discussion about the acquisition of sovereignty over the West Bank by "Jordan" on the basis of the four resolutions of the Second Arab Palestine Conference (aka Jericho Congress) held on December 1, 1948. Note: A few weeks after the Congress the name of Transjordan was officially changed to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to reflect the new joint status (January 21, 1949). The Digest also described US recognition of the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan as an expression of the sovereign will of the two peoples. Secretary of State Acheson stated at his April 26, 1950 press conference that “The elections which were held on the 11th were on the basis of the incorporation of Arab Palestine into the Hashemite Kingdom. Those elections have taken place and this action of the parliament will be to ratify that decision. Now, our American attitude is that we have no objection whatever to the union of peoples mutually desirous of this new relationship.” See pages 1163-1168 of Marjorie M. Whiteman (editor), Digest of International Law, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963)

      "It follows then that the lack of UN condemnation of Israel’s annexation of territory within Green Line/outside UN res 181 recommended partition borders proves that that annexation was also legal"

      Unilateral, no agreement, the territory was acquired by force/war. Not self determined by the legitimate citizens of the territory.

      "2) A state’s extension of civil law (aka sovereignty) over territory is the very definition of “annexation”. "

      UNSC res 252 and eight reminders point to unilateral annexation and the extension of a state's civil law as illegal on Israel's part link to wp.me

      They also tell us that GC IV applies. Not the kind of notions afforded by the UN were the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan illegal. Fact is, as of Jordan's entry into the UN and its ratification of GC IV, the West Bank was a UN Member State and a High Contracting Power.

    • @ Sibiriak
      I'm at odds with Hostage's assertion re "Under international law, an armistice agreement allows the belligerents the same rights and duties as those of an ordinary state. Those rights are not limited to the rules contained in the Hague regulations or the Geneva Conventions. Both Israel and Jordan extended their municipal jurisdiction to the new territories. Despite complaints from the Arab League,that was perfectly legal under the terms of their agreements."

      Jordan annexed the West Bank by agreement with the majority of the legitimate inhabitants, thereby it was legal to extend their municipal jurisdiction to the West Bank.

      31st Aug 1949 Israel made an attempt to claim territories beyond the extent of its sovereign frontiers
      The claim was rebuffed , citing the Armistice Agreements, specifically the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to “be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”

    • @ Mayhem May 21, 2016, 9:26 am

      "Talknic, your bluster is no substitute for the facts"

      Fact is, I supplied links to sites stating the facts

      "The Jordan annexation of the West Bank was never recognised by the UN "

      Yes it was. UNSC res 465 tells us GC IV applies. It applies because by 1967 the West Bank was a part of a High Contracting Power, that being Jordan

      "or any country other than the UK and Pakistan"

      Uh huh. A) Recognition of annexation by other countries isn't relevant. The legality is by agreement between the annexing country and the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed.
      B) Were it illegal, the UNSC would be bound by the UN Charter to condemn it, like they did the unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel.
      C) No country on the planet has ever recognized Israel other than by its plea for recognition

      "UN Security Council resolution 465 makes no mention of international law"

      Try reading it you stupid stupid person

      Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

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

      The fact that the majority of the International Comity of Nations have ratified GC IV means it has passed into Customary International Law.

      "In fact if you go to the wikipedia discussion on the subject of international law you will find nothing that equates the frequent bigotry of UN resolutions with what is encompassed by international law"

      A) Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and its editorial policies favour second hand opinion over citing actual documents. Editors use their own words, i.e., their opinions, to reflect the opinions of published authors. Entries can be included and maintained by consensus even if that entry can be proven by the cited documents to be false.

      B) Most UN/UNGA/UNSC resolutions against Israel are merely reminders of Israel's obligations to adhere to International Law and the UN Charter. For example UNSC res 252 has EIGHT reminders. It's not bias. When the power company issues reminders for breaking a contract by non-payment, are they biased?

      "And I note above that you have not found a rejoinder to my remark about what the LoN mandate (a legally binding treaty) said about Jews being entitled to settle ANYWHERE in the mandate of Palestine."

      A) Strange, I did link to mondoweiss.net and;
      B) I've mentioned it to you before
      link to mondoweiss.net
      link to mondoweiss.net
      link to mondoweiss.net

      B) Who was the 'treaty' between?

      C) I've answered all your requests. YOU on the other hand have a very looooong list of unanswered requests, quite typical of Ziojerks link to mondoweiss.net

    • @ Mayhem May 21, 2016, 12:38 am

      "And remember Talknic Jews were entitled under the LoN Mandate to settle anywhere between the river and the sea"

      Indeed, as Palestinian citizens in the Nation State of Palestine per Article 7 of the LoN Mandate for Palestine link to avalon.law.yale.edu and the subsequent 1925 adoption of Palestine's Nationality Law. Ever dared to read Article 7? Or is it forbidden?

    • @ Mayhem May 21, 2016, 12:29 am

      "I hear this statement keep making a fool of myself over and over and over again

      UN Security Council resolutions under chapter VI which are actually intended to be followed and implemented via negotiated settlements between concerned parties etc"

      Only if that's what they say.

      For example, UNSC res 242 doesn't mention negotiated settlements.

      A successful result of UNSC res 242, the Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty, tells us implementation required Israeli withdrawal from all Egyptian territories per having "respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Egypt and its right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

    • @ Mayhem May 21, 2016, 12:29 am

      "Just because the assertion of illegality is repeated over and over again doesn’t make it true"

      Correct. Same for the assertion that they're not illegal. However, the UNSC unanimously adopted UNSC resolution 465 and it is very clear

      "Most of the world have had their brains hijacked on this issue by those ignorant of the legal complexities, propagandists and pro-Palestinian sympathisers who follow the dictum “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”"

      Comedy simply isn't your forte

      "Professor Eugene Kontorovich makes ... " a bloody idiot of himself.

      "Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention (inapplicable)"

      Strange, the West Bank as it is now known, was legally annexed at the request of the Palestinians Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950). at the demand of the other Arab states and it was a part of a UN Member state by 1967, a High Contracting Power and signatory to the Geneva Conventions

      Which is why the UNSC adopted UNSC res 465 reminding Israel of binding International Law, the UN Charter and binding relevant convention by re-affirming and emphasizing binding International Law, the binding UN Charter and binding GC's and outlining Israel's obligations to binding International Law, Charter and Convention

      " violations of the Hague conventions re the principle that it is illegal to acquire territory by force (inapplicable )"

      I see, the UNSC just puts that in for laughs. Aren't they funny

      " the UNGA resolutions which are non-binding and UN Security Council resolutions under chapter VI which are actually intended to be followed and implemented via negotiated settlements between concerned parties etc"

      All International Law is binding on all states at all times. The UN Charter is binding on all Member States at all times without exception. Conventions ratified by states are binding on those states no matter which UN resolution they're reaffirmed or emphasized in. That's why the UN/UNSC emphasizes and re-affirms them

      BTW thanks again for affording the opportunity to show honest readers just how full of wholly holey Hasbara crapolla jerks like Professor Eugene Kontorovich and his phsycophants (sic)are

    • @ DaBakr May 15, 2016, 2:08 am

      " what’s there to do? "

      Quite simple. Withdraw from all non-Israeli territories. Israel withdrew from all Egypt's territories resulting in peace with an Arab state.

      " what you want is only going down with a fight"

      It was illegally acquired by Israel by war and you advocate war to keep it. Why am I not surprised?

      "here is no other nation that would willingly give up sovereignty to a majority of people"

      Uh? Israel's Jewish population long ago far outstripped the number of cleansed non-Jewish Israeli citizens and their lineal descendants were they to return to Israel.

      The UNRWA figure is NOT the number of refugees seeking to return to Israel. The UNRWA figure is the number of refugees, both non-Jewish Israelis and Palestinians who're afforded assistance while they are refugees.

      "(the 20% citizenry which already enjoy full suffrage, legal protection and rights regardless of religion , colour or tribe) "

      Save the wholly holey Hasbara crapolla pal

      "and their(palestinian) growing millions of unrestricted special-status so-called 3rd, 4th and 5th generation ‘refugees"

      Only some of whom have a right of return to Israel. The majority have a right of return to what remained of Palestine when Israel Proclaimed its border effective May 15th 1948 in order to be recognized.

      " sorry if this is a blunt assessment.."

      It's Hasbara bullsh*t.

    • @ Citizen

      They bought 'real estate', not territory. In fact Israel paid absolutely nothing for the territory within its proclaimed borders link to wp.me

    • @ jon s May 14, 2016, 4:56 pm

      "At least until 1948 -under the Turks and then the British -the land for Jewish settlement was purchased from the landowners"

      Real estate was bought, not territory and under the British adminstration Jews were to settle as citizens of the Nation State of Palestine, [per the LoN Mandate Article 7 and subsequent nationality law of 1925

Showing comments 2872 - 2801
Page: