Commenter Profile

Searching for: 00:01 May 15th 1948 (247 results found)

You can also use % as a wildcard: %ondoweis% will match mondoweiss

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 247 - 201
Page:

  • Anti-Semitism accusations against 'Dyke March' prove pro-Israel lobby will torch LGBT rights for marginalized people
    • @ Talkback July 9, 2017, 8:51 am

      Talknic: “A) The Montevideo Convention was adopted into the UN Charter 1945.”

      Again you fail to prove your this repetitive claim

      It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war/any coercive measure. Reflected in UNSC res 242. Reflected in UNSC res 252 and its nine reminders re the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem.

      " you fail to acknowledge that even Palestine does NOT contest Ashdod to be de jure a part of Israel. "

      The Palestinians via their declaration are prepared to cede the territory to a state that has yet to accept by any agreement. It is therefore de facto, not de jure.

      "Neither do other states that recognizes Israel and who support a two state solution"

      de facto is not de jure. Trade and/or relationships with another country and Israel are not an agreement between Israel and Palestine legalizing borders between Palestine and Israel.

      Talknic: “The 1988 Palestinian Declaration was by a body representing the Palestinian majority!”

      " Israel’s body didn’t represent the majority of the citizens of Palestine within partition borders since most Jews were and had not become citizens of Palestine."

      A) I'm talking about the Palestinian declaration. B) Re Israel, I agree. I've not asserted that the Israeli declaration or subsequent recognition was legitimate even tho Israel was recognized within the recommended borders of UNGA res 181 by the majority of the International Comity of Nations at the time.

      Talknic: “I concur.”

      "But its not the unust FACT that you constantly repeat. And exactly this leaves the impression that you would sanction its creation within partition borders, because this FACT was recognized by the UN. "

      A) The UN doesn't recognize countries. Recognition happens amongst the International Comity of Nations prior to the UN Security Council then recommending already recognized states for Membership. B) No. I base my opinion and argument on the 1988 Palestinian declaration.

      "The same UN which in FACT rejected proposals tp refer the Question of Palestine to the International Court of Justice and in FACT also the question of the power of the its General Assembly to make recommendations which in FACT violate the territorial integrity and the right to self determination as reflected in FACT by its rejection to hold a referendum in Palestine."

      I concur. So did Balfour http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q#jews-can-live-anywhere

      Talknic: “Jews didn’t actually have the right, only a body representative of the majority of the legitimate inhabitants of a territory has that right.”

      "So the “Jewish Agency” didn’t even have the right to secede and declare since they were not representing the majority of citizens within partition borders (because most Jews weren’t citizens of Palestine) and acquire any territory."

      That's right. Never the less the International Comity of Nations recognized Israel based on the Israeli plea for recognition. Today, like it or not,the conflict is with the State of Israel.

      "And your initial statement “[Israel’s] declared and recognized territories were acquired through secession and declaration” is not only nonsense but misleading, because it ommits it’s illegality and how its territory actually came into its posession."

      Israel didn't exist until 00:01 May 15th 1948, prior to which Jewish terrorists controlled territories as assigned to the Jewish state under UNGA res 181 and under Plan DAlet, beyond those borders. What lay beyond Israel's recognized borders have never been recognized by any state as Israeli

      Talknic: “it was on the basis of Zionist/Jewish Agency lies that the International Comity of Nations recognized Israel and UNGA accepted Israel into the UN. I’ve never claimed it was correct or legal.”

      "The Jewish Agency lmade very clear what their position was regarding boundaries and refugees being both subject to negotiations of a final peace agreements and the UN even refered to these declaration and statements in its resolution when it accepted Israel. You may never claimed it was correct or legal, but you also never focus on it."

      The UN referred to the statements being made. That's all it did. So what? Why focus on something that had no effect, even after Israel was admitted to the UN it was still trying in Aug 1949 to no effect to claim, without negotiation with Palestine, territories it occupied post 00:01 May 15th 1948

      "The point of issue is that even the State of Palestine DOES NOT contest that Ashod is a part of Israel. Like all other state who recognize Israel DO NOT. too. But you are living in the delusion that all states who recognize Israel do not “de jure” recognize Ashdod to be in Israel, but that they “de jure” recognize it as occupied Palestinian territory."

      Get back to me when de facto = de jure and there is an agreement between Israel and Palestine.

      Talknic: “You can quote it as many times as you like. The Israeli statements were lies and the subsequent acceptance into the UN has not changed. ”

      You can claim this as many times as you like. But just quote the lies of Israel’s statement regarding to terrtorial and other differences as being subject of “a process of negotiation”."

      Sure.

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

      Israel has ignored International Law and it's proclaimed borders.

      Talknic: “The UN/UNSC doesn’t directly censure non-Member states.”

      "It even censures non state actors who declare non menber states ... ... ... United Nations Security Council resolution 541

      As with the previous example offered elsewhere, the authorities were censured. The authorities are not the State

      "So far according to your nonsense ISIL could legally create a state by illegaly acquiring its territory and according to the right to self determination as long as it makes sure that it represents the majority of its inhabitans by killing or expelling everyone else and by a simple declaration. "

      If you say so. I haven't.

      "And all of this because of the Montevideo Concention. And the newly created state can’t be held censured, especially if it is not a UN member. ROF"

      You've yet to provide an instance where a non-member STATE is directly censured. Your example on Cypres censure the Authorities, not the State. The State exists regardless of what authorities administer it. The State is a member or not, not the authorities.

    • A) The Montevideo Convention was adopted into the UN Charter 1945. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by any coercive measure, making it by default illegal for Member states to recognize territories acquired by war.

      Re Ashdod. de facto recognition is not de jure. No state has ever recognized any territories acquired by the State of Israel by war since the Israeli plea for recognition

      B) No one has been able to show me a UNSC resolution directly censuring and directly naming a non-member state. The examples previously shown me plead with parties to the issue without actually naming the state. Until Membership, "Israel", was not named in any UNSC resolution other than those dealing with its admission to the UN

      C) echinococcus July 7, 2017, 8:38 am

      "You never, ever even tried to respond to a single one of the multiple objections raised to your unceasing repetition of the same irrelevant statements."

      Nonsense, I am answering to your opinion. As to 'repetition of the same irrelevant statements', the fact that the Palestinians have declared their state hasn't changed, nor has the fact that Palestine, as declared, has been recognized by the majority of the International Comity of Nations.

      " your continuous defense of simultaneous A and non-A. This reaches insanity"

      I have based my opinion and argument in accordance with the Palestinian declaration of statehood, same as the ICJ opinion as asked by the Palestinians

      D) The ICJ gave an opinion only, based on specific questions asked by the Palestinians which were in turn based on the Palestinian stance per their declaration of statehood. Were the ICJ asked to make a ruling on the same questions, it would of course assign what the Palestinians have ceded to Israel as Israeli from the Palestinian POV despite the fact that Israel has yet to accept or place any limitations on its expansionism. The ICJ has not yet been asked for or delivered a ruling and Israel has not yet accepted any limitations to its illegal expansionist ideals

      E) Talkback July 8, 2017, 8:34 am

      Talknic: “Declaration can be a decision by the majority of the inhabitants.”

      "Here go again. The same boring repetitions. Yes, it CAN be, what a strawman. So what?

      First of all the right to territorial integrity is enshrined in the UN. "

      The 1988 Palestinian Declaration was by a body representing the Palestinian majority! I'd really be interested in you pointing out where and when the Palestinians rescinded their declaration of statehood and was un-recognized by the those states who have already given recognition to the Palestinian territorial claims.

      "When it comes to the right to self determination only the citizens of Palestine had the right to exercise it within Palestine. Jewish citizens of Palestine were NOT a nation on their own and therefore “Jewish” is not the citizenship of the newly created state. Most of the Jews weren’t even citizens of Palestine, so there wasn’t a majority of Jews within proposed partition borders. And not a single citizen within proposed partition borders was asked by referendum, not even Jews.

      I concur. http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q#jews-can-live-anywhere and why Palestine, even tho it has declared its territories, in effect ceding 78% of its territories to Israel and thereby forgoing the right to persistent objection, http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=persistent+objection might still pursue the notions put forward by echinococcus and massive compensations far beyond what echinococcus puts forward

      "The declaration of Israel even violated Security Council resolution 46 (1d), because the members of the UN were discussing to put Palestine under UN trusteeship. Now why would they do that, if Jews had a “right” to secede no matter how?"

      Jews didn't actually have the right, only a body representative of the majority of the legitimate inhabitants of a territory has that right. The cleansing by Jewish terrorists under Plan Dalet was an attempt to control as much territory as possible by 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) when the Mandate ended, the Israel plea for recognition however was limited to the borders outlined in UNGA res 181. Not that the Zionist state cares, they are inveterate liars. it was on the basis of Zionist/Jewish Agency lies that the International Comity of Nations recognized Israel and UNGA accepted Israel into the UN. I've never claimed it was correct or legal. We are however, now dealing with the State of Israel, a UN Member

      Talknic: “The majority of the world’s states have recognized Israel per it’s plea for recognition.”

      "The same goes for Ashdod being part of Israel allthough being outside partition borders. "

      de facto recognition is not de jure.

      Talknic: “The PLO even further via the Palestinian declaration of statehood.”

      "And again. Via this declaration within 67 lines it implicitly recognized Ashdod, etc. to be part of Israel and not occupied Palestinan territory, allthough it lies beyond partition borders."

      Indeed. But Israel has never accepted the Palestinian position. Until it does, there is no agreement.

      Talknic: ” I’ll go with that as a starting point to final withdrawal of Israel forces from all non-legally acquired territories since its plea for recognition, …”

      "since you emphasize recognition so much, why don’t you recognize that the countries who recognize Israel recognize that Ashdod and other areas beyond partition borders is a part of Israel and that the UN accepted Israel as a UN member by acknowledging its statement that the boundaries will be decided by negotiation? Do I have to quote Israel’s statement for the fourth time?"

      You can quote it as many times as you like. The Israeli statements were lies and the subsequent acceptance into the UN has not changed. It merely acknowledged the Israeli statements were made. It did NOT change any determination by the UNGA resolution

      (I did BTW attempt to answer these previously asked questions many times without success due to what appear to be system glitches )

  • Dispatch from 'the most ****ed up place on Earth,' Hebron's H2 quarter
    • @ Emet June 16, 2017, 7:12 am

      "The Ottoman Empire chose to side with Germany and entered the Great War by attacking Russia in 1914."

      "And you say the Ottoman’s were attacked and as such had rights in Palestine?"

      Quote me verbatim.

      " The Ottoman Empire ruled over more territory than the Roman Empire. "

      So what? It's irrelevant to the legal status of the State of Israel since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) and its illegal activities in territories outside the State of Israel.

      "Are you also saying that the Ottomans still have rights over all that territory?

      I'm saying what I'm saying, not the idiotsh*te you'd like me to have said. It's simple. Just read what's been written.

    • @ Emet June 16, 2017, 5:27 am

      "You seem very cocky with your history. You might want to show a little humility?"

      Oh WOW!!! If I show a little humility Israel will suddenly end occupation? Pay compensation? Withdraw from all non-Israeli territories, adhere at last to International Law? Is that what you're trying to say?

      "The San Remo Conference gave Jews the sole right to settle in all the area west of the Jordan River, including the West Bank and all of Jerusalem. Both houses of congress voted to support this. A few months after San Remo, Churchill chose to ignore the decision made at San Remo and effectively stole 80% of the land away from the Jewish people."

      So what? Israel proclaimed its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time). The Jewish State has not since legally acquired any further territories by any agreement or legal instrument

  • Map map on the wall, who's most existing of them all?
    • @ JeffB May 1, 2017, 5:51 pm

      " ... nations do have a right to form states and the borders of that state are defined by the borders of the nation not the borders imposed by external entities."

      Uh huh. Israel proclaimed its borders effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 ME time. Nothing that lay outside of its borders was or is now Israeli by any agreement.

      The stench of your hypocrisy is classic ZioNutter. Only a real cretin would make your argument and not also apply it to Palestine, now under Israeli occupation, where Israel demands more of what is not Israeli while offering no thing

    • @ JeffB May 1, 2017, 5:42 pm

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

      So what? Israel proclaimed its borders effective 00:01 May 15th 1948. Nothing outside those borders was Israeli, nor is it by any agreement now.

    • @ Jeff B

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

      At 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) Israel proclaimed the borders in its official plea for recognition effective and it was recognized as such. Nothing outside of those borders was Israeli. No further territories have been legally acquired by Israel by any legal agreement with Palestine.

      GC IV has been ratified by a majority of nations, thereby passing into Customary International Law. All law is binding. Israeli citizens, Arab, Jew, non-Jew alike are prohibited by CG IV to protect the rights of the occupied AND for the protection of the civilian population of the Occupying Power from the likely collateral consequences of belligerently occupying another people and their territories.

      Only a scum government would encourage its citizens to illegally settle in contravention of GC IV thereby putting themselves in harms way in a war zone and only a scum government would lie to its citizens in order to convince them it is their right to settle in occupied territories outside the State. Only scum would support such a government and only scum would purposefully loan specifically poor Jews money specifically at interest, to put themselves specifically on the front lines.

  • 'Why do I not cry out for the right of return?' -- an exchange between Uri Avnery and Salman Abu Sitta
    • Talkback May 4, 2017, 1:35 pm

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

      I 'm not sure Señor Tomás. You work it out. Let me know

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

      The territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine" have never been legally acquired by Israel by any agreement. The State of Palestine could still make a claim to them as did Israel in Aug 1949, long after having declared its borders. Palestine would have a far stronger claim.

      "Either Israel allready “sh**s itself” because of the NON-MEMBER-STATE Palestine’s access to the ICC it allready has or it will never “sh** itself”, because a MEMBER STATE Palestine would not be able to effectively challenge Israel via the UNSC, because of the US veto. "

      I gave a hypothetical where there was no US UNSC veto vote and Palestine was further empowered by full UN Membership. Please read carefully to avoid any further misunderstandings

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

      You made the shift. http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638
      So why hasn't the UN censored a non-member state by name?

      "How could anyone know given your countless repetitions to create straw man arguments to not adress the point of issue? "

      Uh? Did Israel declare its independence effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948? Yes. (legality is another question)
      Did a majority of the world’s States recognize Israel? Again. Yes, they did.
      Was Israel accepted into the UN? And again. Yes it was.
      All facts. Unpleasant, against the UN Charter et al, they never the less DID happen. If you can't accept or acknowledge the fact that all three did happen, you have a problem. I DID NOT write that you are the problem, or that an inability to accept the ugly facts was the problem, YOU did!

      "Now you are even asking others to acquire the same autism. ROFL."

      No. I've been attempting to clear up your initial misunderstanding. Here it is:

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

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

      "So what’s your answer? Does Israel has to compensate those who do not wish to return, because theres is nothing left to refer to because of the destruction Israel’s pre state actors commited beyond 48 borders?"

      I gave my answer. http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-17663

    • Talkback May 3, 2017, 4:24 pm

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

      No. I have answered this question time and again. Although ALL refuges have a RoR, they only have RoR to their normal place of residence

      the term “refugee” appearing in paragraph 11 of the resolution of 11 December 1948 can be defined as follows
      Article 1

      Are to be considered as refugees under paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 persons of Arab origin who, after 29 November 1947, left territory at present under the control of the Israel authorities and who were Palestinian citizens at that date.

      Are also to be considered as refugees under the said paragraph stateless persons of Arab origin who after 29 November 1947 left the aforementioned territory where they had been settled up to that date.
      Article 2

      The following shall be considered as covered by the provisions of Article 1 above:
      1. Persons of Arab origin who left the said territory after 6 August 1924 and before 29 November 1947 and who at that latter date were Palestinian citizens;

      2. Persons of Arab origin who left the territory in question before 6 August 1924 and who, having opted for Palestinian citizenship, retained that citizenship up to 29 November 1947.

      https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/UNISPAL.NSF/0/418E7BC6931616B485256CAF00647CC7

      Many of the 6-7 million would have RoR to the Palestinian state. All 6-7 million do not have RoR to Israel in either the 1948 borders or the '67 borders. The Palestinians are not demanding all 6-7 million return to Israel. Uri Avnery states all 6-7 million refugees returning to Israel. Clearly wrong. Go argue with him and all who make the claim.

      An agreement is NOT required, if nobody else contests Israel’s claim to Ashod, etc"

      de facto is not de jure. The Palestine Question has yet to be answered by agreement between the two parties. One of the two key players Israel, has never agreed to any deal with Palestine. The only borders Israel has accepted were those in its plea for recognition.
      As the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People put it in 1980 "Israel progressively absorbed the areas it had occupied in 1948 beyond its allocated borders until the areas were virtually annexed. " https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/38D6C47FC5FB0CDD852575D6006C70D4 Virtually, not legally. Legal annexation requires an agreement.

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

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

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

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

      "What’s wrong with you, seriously?"

      Nothing. You're barking up an empty tree. Answer these three questions.

      Did Israel declare its independence effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948?

      Did a majority of the world's States recognize Israel?

      Was Israel accepted into the UN?

      Despite our disapproval, despite UNGA res 181 being against the will of the people of Palestine and the UN Charter, in all three instances the answer is yes. Do I think it's an acceptable situation? Certainly not "Despite our disapproval, despite UNGA res 181 being against the will of the people of Palestine and the UN Charter" ... "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 " ... " The Zionist colonization of Palestine is the problem. The fact that the majority of the world’s states, believing Zionist promises to adhere to the law, recognized Israel and its admission to the UN is the problem. The fact that Israel now exists, legal or not, like it or not, is the problem "

      "I’m still waiting for some answers:
      1. Does Israel has to compensate Palestinians if their property has been destroyed/looted by pre state actors outside Israel’s 48 borders and therefore don’t want to return? YES or NO?"

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

      Talknic: “Israel has to compensate because Israel, since it came to exist, has accepted stolen goods and refused RoR for over half a century.” - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638

      and again

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

      "2. Why do you write against the occupation, etc, if it as much of a fact as “the ugly existence of Israel” and given your statement that I have a problem, if I don’t except the latter?"

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

      Leave off amigo, July 15, 1834 has long gone

    • @ 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

    • @ 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.

    • @ 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.

  • 'This miracle, this gift, this jewel' -- Obama's ambassador to Israel declares he's a Zionist
    • @ talkback April 20, 2017, 4:22 pm

      Talknic: “Israel didn’t exist before 00:01 may 15th 1948. You can point the finger at the Zionist movement/Jewish Agency/Jewish terrorist gangs prior to that exact time”.

      "Sure, just don’t point the finger at the Goverment of Israel which gave the territory back when it found out that it was stolen by the people that became the Goverment of Israel. ROFL."

      That's precisely it. The Jewish Agency & Zionist Federation's legal team weren't idiots. Any legal person worth their salt knows a State or person can't be prosecuted for crimes prior to their existence.

      Clever people are not always nice or honest and amongst the legal fraternity there are always those who simply relish the challenge of exploiting legal aspects that enable them or their client to do whatever they wish and get away with it, ethics and/or morality simply aren't of concern

      "Seriously how dd Israel acquire that territory that was not illegaly acquired by it? Receiving of stolen property? Fencing?"

      The way all propaganda and criminal schemes get away things. Thru the rest of the world being way behind the eight ball and in this instance granting recognition, which under law is irrevocable. Another point the Zionist legal advisers would have been quite ware of. Only the citizens of the state can decide, ironically by a plebiscite or referendum, to disband the state or cede territory or rights to another entity. In effect what we have been saying should have been the case with Palestine.

      The law might be in force, but in effect only after it has been discovered to have been broken, if it has been broken. While a decision is being made on the latter, the ball is purposefully kept in the air. A shining example are the so called peace talks or; the time spent arguing over "all" or "the" in UNSC res 242 to keep what was an inevitable resolution being adopted for as long as possible while while consolidating as much as possible of what became illegal facts on the ground. Subsequent UNSC resolutions make it perfectly clear what was meant by UNSC res 242. The argument over "all" and "the" was bullsh*t!

      Know who you're dealing with. The Zionist Federation have always been thinking decades ahead, it's an essential requirement of the enterprise. By 1948 they'd had over half a century of practicing their craft. Slowly putting things in place, making promises they knew they'd never keep, massaging the message, knowing all the while State governments/Presidents/Prime Ministers et al come and go in a relative blink of an eye and; while you wait, there's still plenty to do. It's been 24/365.25 since 1987. Governments sleep. Zionism hasn't.

      Opposition is only a temporary set back and an alternative plan and or person are always readilly groomed and waiting in the wings. Look at how new worms suddenly appearing from out of the wood work when there's a new POTUS

      The declaration of Israeli statehood was planned down to the exact 60 seconds after the Mandate protecting Palestine ended. One minute to declare statehood, while already being in control of territory the Israeli Government readily admitted on May 22nd 1948 was "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      Plan Dalet was a crime a crime for which the State of Israel could not be prosecuted while at the same time preventing the Palestinians from declaring an equivalent even had they wanted to declare independent statehood because they simply weren't in control of all their remaining territories or independent of all others.

    • @ echinococcus April 19, 2017, 10:51 pm

      "Halleluiah. Looks like you start getting it. Or not?"

      Oh FFS. I wrote that particular comment in 2012. Look at the date. It's been the position on the talknic blog since day one (circa 2010 https://talknic.wordpress.com/?s=referendum) and; I've been saying it for at least 30 years.

      "Of course there is no such plebiscite! That’s what I have been pointing out all the time"

      You arrived at MW quite some timer AFTER 2012. I was pointing it out at MW before you arrived.

      // “The acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible” The notion of self determination was Customary International Law some years before Israel ever existed and; no such referendum has ever been conducted in any of the territories Israel has acquired by war”//

      "Well guess what, all the territory of that “Israel” abomination has been acquired by war. Every single f. inch. Not one inch that you can continue to see as “Israel” or whatever the fancy Zionist name"

      Israel didn't exist before 00:01 may 15th 1948. You can point the finger at the Zionist movement/Jewish Agency/Jewish terrorist gangs prior to that exact time. We can also read their official statements at the UN/UNSC and by comparing them to their subsequent statements and actions see that they were vile, scheming, liars. They cannot however be taken to court, sued, made to withdraw, pay compensation. They are for the most part dead!

      Post 00:01 May 15th 1948, you're dealing with a state, that whether we agree with how it came to be , whether we like it or hate it, whether we think it is illegal or not, exists. You can take it and any of its leaders who're still breathing to court and sue or prosecute them for crimes and for compensation. You cannot do the same of dead Zionist liars and murderers.

      "If we leave justice for a moment and talk real world, well a plebiscite is of course a pipe dream but still the only bloodless way out –and as such to be highly recommended"

      Indeed. BTW in the real world Israel exists

      " ... ... There is a reason invasion was described as “inadmissible”"

      The "acquisition of territory" by war is inadmissible. Under the Laws of War, one may invade and occupy territory for strategic military purposes once a war has been started. Wars are started by the party firing the first salvo. It is illegal to start a war without first lodging a Declaration of War with the UNSC. Israel has never declared war. All its wars have been ilegal. As far as I am aware, the Arab States' Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was the last Declaration of War ever lodged with the UNSC .

      Once hostilities are over, the Occupying Power is required to either legally annex occupied territories via a plebiscite/referendum of the legitimate citizens of the territories to be annexed or as with the Egypt/Israel peace treaty, withdraw.

    • @ Talkback April 18, 2017, 9:24 am

      "Again, on the one hand it’s safe to say that the majority of the UN members have inherently recognized Israel within 67 lines while supporting the two state solution. "

      I've been asking the following questions for decades.
      1) Please show an official document of recognition by any state other than those of 1948/49/50.
      2) Please show an official document where territories "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine" were officially annexed in agreement with the Palestinians

      "And any member CAN recognize Israel in any borders they like and even if it doesn’t recognize Palestine"

      Show a document where they have actually recognized Israel other than as proclaimed effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time).

      "On the other hand you could acknowledge that the proclamation of Israel violated SEC RES 46 (1d) and following your own reasoning you would have to come to the conclusion that Israel CAN NOT be recognized in ANY borders. "

      They trashed it. Go complain to the states that recognized Israel by its plea for recognition. It had nothing to do with me

      "But strangely enough you avoid my reference to SEC RES 46 every time I bring it up"

      Too late. The majority of states, rightly or wrong, just or unjust, whether we agree or not, did recognize Israel by the borders in its plea for recognition.

      "The only claim you could make is that Israel SHOULDN’T be recognized beyond 48 borders and until it recogizes Palestine."

      A) How many times must I say Israel shouldn't be recognized beyond the 48 borders?

      // Israel cannot be recognized as existing in any borders other than those proclaimed and recognized as effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=00%3A01+May+15th+1948#sthash.O5v3jYqh.dpuf //

      // Nor does Israel have the finances to even begin to address the massive compensations due Palestinians and dispossessed non-Jewish Israeli citizens, while attempting the relocation of hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers from ALL non-Israeli territories dating back to 00:01 May 15th 1948 - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=00%3A01+May+15th+1948#sthash.O5v3jYqh.dpuf //

      There are HUNDREDS of other examples in the archives here http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=00%3A01+May+15th+1948

      More elsewhere on the internet https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%2200:01%20May%2015th%201948%22%20%22talknic%22

      B) Recognition is not based on the condition that one state must recognize another. There are numerous states in the UN who do not recognize each other. They are however, recognized in some manner or another by a majority of the International Comity of Nations, prior to UN membership

      " But that’s not a legal approach."

      Indeed it isn't. It is however a turn against the Israeli bullsh*t arguments and demands that there must be a peace agreement with Palestine before ending occupation and Palestine must recognize Israel as the Jewish State blah blah. Israel itself was recognized before it recognized anyone and it was recognized before it signed any peace treaties.

      It was in fact recognized while at war with its all its neighbours until the Peace Treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Furthermore it was at war in non-Israeli territories when it was recognized. The UNSC resolutions on the question of Palestine all call for peace "in Palestine" not in Israel. The wars have never been in Israeli territories.

      "And again the question remains why you think it should be recognized at all if its proclamation violated Security Council’s resolution 46 (1d)."

      Oh FFS I've never said or thought it should be recognized or should have been recognized. You're making false assertions.

      The fact is, right or wrong, whether we agree or not, justly or unjustly, it was recognized and as such is bound to adhere to A) It's recognized borders and B) adhere to International Law, the UN Charter and relevant conventions. It has failed on all accounts

      "Your approach sounds as if it is based on legal grounds, but it actually isn’t. It’s a post-Zionist smoke screen to divert from the question ... "

      To put it politely, bullsh*t!

    • @ talkback April 17, 2017, 7:05 am

      "I think you mean that everybody has a right to a nationality. In 1948 Jews exercised this right as citizens of Palestine (or as citizens of any other state). That doesn’t mean that anybody had a right to create a state within mandated Palestine “to live in peace” in it."

      I do and indeed it doesn't. We must also consider the fact that in 1988 the Palestinians under the leadership of Yasser Arafat declared their state and the majority of the world's nations accepted and recognized the State of Palestine. Whatever lay outside of that declaration is not Palestinian, they have relinquished the right to persistent objection under law.

      However, until such time as Israel accepts and recognizes Palestine, Israel cannot be recognized as existing in any borders other than those proclaimed and recognized as effective 00:01 May 15th 1948. As it stands Israel hasn't accepted the territories so generously ceded by the Palestinian Declaration, so it's simply ridiculous to claim recognition of Israel within the Green line when Israel has not itself declared acceptance of that situation.

      In that respect the Palestinian declaration has created a possible third variable http://wp.me/pDB7k-Gl

      "And I might add that it is a kind of strange argumentation to argue that Zionist non state actors weren’t violating “international law” pre the proclamation of the state of Israel"

      Yes quite strange. I've never made any such argument. In fact I said the opposite.

      "So they were terrorists enganged in an illegal coup d’etat to take over a country from within by force and expulsion (and continued to do this later as state actors). They were not different then ISIS in this respect."

      I agree. Seems folk aren't reading my posts care fully

      "To me you are playing a similiar game as some ZIonist commenters here..."

      If you miss read ...

      BTW I don't play games here. Words in this issue have an influence over life and death. Every person who can be shown the deceit of the Zionist Federation is a small step towards resolving the issue by ridding the world of the Zionist scourge

    • @ Sibiriak April 15, 2017, 11:52 pm

      " 1) Did the American Civil War cease to be a civil war the moment the Confederate States of America were proclaimed to be an independent nation?"

      It's arguable because both shared a common nationality. However, it was also a war between the Union ( United States) and the Confederate States . I'm inclined to think that a common nationality made it a civil war

      "2) If part of an existing state declares independence and tries to secede and war ensues, are you saying such a war is not a civil war?"

      A better question might be - If the warring parties do not share a common nationality is it a civil war?

      "3) Is a mere declaration of independence enough bring a state into existence and turn a “non-state actor” into a “state actor”?"

      Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of states says it is. It's called self determination if the majority of the population of a territory decide that's what they want

      "4)Can you cite any legal document, legal authority or scholar that affirms as you do that at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948, when Israel was proclaimed to be an independent nation, the civil war in Palestine ceased to be a civil war?"

      A) The two parties were no longer of the same nationality. B) The Armistice Agreements indicate it was an international conflict

      "5) Can you cite any official definition of “civil war ” in international law?"

      A) Civil wars are not classified as International conflicts. International law allows intervention by request of the majority in a state B) at the moment Israel's Declaration of statehood came into effect at 00:01 May 15th 1948, Israeli forces were acting outside of its borders C) Self education starting point: https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2012/12-10-niac-non-international-armed-conflict.htm

      "6)From 00:01 May 15th 1948 on, it was the State of Israel illegally acquiring territories “outside the State of Israel.

      So prior to that moment, the acquisition of territory by force by Jewish “non-state actors” was not illegal–because it occurred during a “civil war”?"

      I you say so. I said this: Prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 there was a civil war in Palestine. In this period properties were illegally taken by Jewish terrorist groups, non-state actors. - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/miracle-ambassador-declares/comment-page-1/#comment-876641

    • Talkback April 15, 2017, 3:23 pm

      "Why don’t you simply say what your position is? I don’t have the time to go through a list of google results"

      The search results show where I have stated my position numerous times. It doesn't seem to work on some folk who for some really weird reason think that criticism of Zionist liars is support for Zionist liars.

      "There’s no resolution which condemns the expansion of Israeli law (and therefore sovereignity) to the territories it conqured beyond res 181 and within 67 lines (excluding Jerusalem). Israel “exists” there, too"

      Israel wasn't a UN Member when it illegally acquired non-Israeli territories beyond its borders in 1948/49. The UN doesn't directly censure non-member states, nor does it censure Member States for their actions prior to membership even though those actions might be illegal. The place for those censures would possibly be with the ICJ and for war crimes the ICC.

      A large part of Israel's fear of an independent Palestinian state is that once achieved, full Palestinian Membership in the UN is the next obvious step. As a full UN Member, Palestine can then set in motion a number of processes addressing every legal aspect on the Question of Palestine for which Israel actually has no legal defense. (Israel only has US UNSC veto protection against actions which might be taken for its violations of the UN Charter and International Law as described, reaffirmed and emphasized in numerous Chapt VI resolutions reminding Israel of its binding obligations

      Nor does Israel have the finances to even begin to address the massive compensations due Palestinians and dispossessed non-Jewish Israeli citizens, while attempting the relocation of hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers from ALL non-Israeli territories dating back to 00:01 May 15th 1948

      "So what? What is the point to make a difference who (non state actor or state actor) acquired what territory by war and expulsion? It the latter less illegal than the former? ... etc etc ..."

      What occurred in a civil war, even though illegal, were not the actions of a state that didn't exist at the time. A point which, if the Zionist legal team were worth their salt, would have been well aware. They weren't idiots. The same can not be said of Israeli Governments

      " ... would be more clear if you would write: “the territories Israel conquered beyond its recognized borders in accordance with res 181 and which lie within 67 lines.” At least for outsiders

      Noted

    • Talkback April 14, 2017, 2:45 am

      "A.) Your link is a google result … What is anybody supposed to look for?"

      The number of references to MW and elsewhere where I've done what I've been accused here of not doing in respect to the legality of partition . Take your pick

      //B.) ” If, as they insist, Israel has a right to exist, then that state must adhere to the rules. It clearly hasn’t.”//

      "To follow your own logic: It exist, even it doesn’t abide to the rules. So there goes your argument.".

      You're not making sense. There are two conditions. Pre 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) when Israel didn't exist and post 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) when Israel. legitimate or not, did exist.

      Prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 there was a civil war in Palestine. In this period properties were illegally taken by Jewish terrorist groups, non-state actors. Israel didn't exist.

      At precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948, with Jewish forces already in territories outside the proclaimed borders of the State of Israel, the civil war became a war waged by the State of Israel on and in what remained of Palestine. From 00:01 May 15th 1948 on, it was the State of Israel illegally acquiring territories "outside the State of Israel"

      "And it has been de facto recognized within 67 lines by the vast majority of the UNGAR members when they call for a two state solution within these borders. And not a single security council resolution has condemned Israel’s annexation of the territories between the borders it declared in 1948 and the 67 lines. This has become customary law. "

      There's a few slight problems there.

      A) The main player, Israel hasn't agreed. The only proclaimed and actually recognized borders of Israel are those of 00:01 May 15th 1948 per UNGA re 181

      B) de facto is certainly not de jure!

      C) Nor does one conflict instance make customary law. The law, customary or otherwise exists until the law itself is repealed and it while it is in force it applies to everyone at all times. The law existed before and will continue to exist if this is resolved and it will be applicable towards any possible future conflicts, in an attempt to discourage such conflicts from arising and if they do, hopefully act as a guide in determining who is responsible and how the conflict should be resolved.

      D) Israel didn't annex any territories it acquired by war by 1949 and which were, by the Israeli Government's own statement to the UNSC "outside the state of Israel" https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/b4085a930e0529c98025649d00410973?OpenDocument

      It was still unsuccessfully trying in August 1949 as a UN Member State to legally acquire those territories "outside the State of Israel". It was was rebuffed, referred back to the specific article in the Armistice Agreements, making it very clear the Armistice Demarcation Lines were not to be taken as borders http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5#israels-intentions

      E) Israel wasn't a UN Member when it illegally acquired territories beyond its self proclaimed and recognized partition borders. The UN doesn't adopt resolutions directly censuring/naming non member states. Nor does it pass resolutions condemning Member States for their actions prior to becoming Member States. Last I was challenged on this point I was shown examples where no actual state was censured

      "And you are avoiding the question about the legality of Israel’s establishment through conquest and expulsion by implying that if Israel would abide by the rules (basically respecting the borders in which it declared statehood) then everything would be ok."

      Nonsense. My position has been that it will be far from OK. Under the law, Israel must withdraw, take its citizens who're not likely to want to cooperate, pay billions in compensation it can ill afford. A failed state attempting to evict and repatriate hundreds of thousands of angry Israelis who've been duped and now they gotta move? They ain't gonna be happy. A failed state armed to the teeth descending into civil war in territories outside of its borders isn't OK

      "P.S. Please quote what you want to be read from all these links you provide"
      ----------------------
      Talkback April 14, 2017, 12:10 pm

      Talknic: “By this definition many Palestine refugees were from outside of Israel’s 1948 borders.”

      "By which definition where",/.em>
      Again? DEFINITION OF A “REFUGEE” UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948 (UNGA res 194) - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/miracle-ambassador-declares/#sthash.XnkReIlG.dpuf

      " how many Palestinian refugees outside of Israel’s 1948 borders? Please quote and provide a source for numbers."

      OK. This is approximate

      According to the Jewish Virtual Library – On May 14th 1948 Israel was guaranteed a minority of non-Jewish civilians within it’s Sovereign territory. 538,000 Jews / 397,000 Arabs. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-the-u-n-partition-plan

      We are told some 20% ( 79,400 ) of the non-Jewish Israeli population remained. 397,000 minus 79,400 = 317,600 non-Jewish Israelis dispossessed from Israeli proclaimed and recognized territories

      According to the UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE - Covering the period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950, there were 711,000 refugees from Israeli controlled areas ( including areas outside the State of Israel ). https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/b792301807650d6685256cef0073cb80/93037e3b939746de8525610200567883?OpenDocument

      711,000 refugees minus 317,600 non-Jewish Israeli refugees = 393,400 refugees from territories outside the State of Israel's proclaimed and recognized borders of 00:01 May 15th 1948

    • Mooser April 13, 2017, 4:55 pm

      "I’m not sure there is any difference between asking Israel to honor the ’48 lines and asking Israel to destroy itself."

      There's a vast difference.

      To be clear, the UNRWA figure so often cited by Zionist propagandists is only to ascertain who qualifies for assistance whilst they are refugees. The UNRWA mandate (1949) and definition does not extend to final status or RoR nor does it relate to UNGA res 194 (1948). Zionists it seems are spectacularly ignorant of chronological order. UNRWA didn't even exist in 1948.

      DEFINITION OF A “REFUGEE” UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948 (UNGA res 194) By this definition many Palestine refugees were from outside of Israel's 1948 borders. They and their lineal descendants do not have RoR to Israeli territories of 1948.

      They do however, have RoR to non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war since Israel's borders were proclaimed effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 and recognized as such. None of these territories acquired by war have yet become Israeli by any agreement. Although the Palestinians have stated categorically they are willing to cede 78% of their rightful territories to Israel for peace, Israel has yet to accept or agree.

      In respect to the alleged demographic threat, simple maths and a touch of logic tells us the Jewish population long ago exceeded the point where there was any demographic threat by allowing RoR for non-Jewish Israelis dispossessed in 1948/50 to the self proclaimed and internationally recognized Israeli territories of 1948.

      By 1950 there was an influxof some 500,000 Arab Jews from the Arab States alone adding to the number of Jewish Israelis already there by 1948. Added to which there were refugees from Europe, plus an influx of non-refugees from around the world. Whereas the number of non-Jewish Israeli refugees has actually decreased through natural attrition. Even with their lineal descendants, Jewish Israelis and their offspring far outnumber any demographic threat from the declining number of non-Jewish Israelis who were dispossessed and their growing number of offspring.

      IOW the demographic threat to Israel is Zionist bullsh*t!

    • @ Talkback April 13, 2017, 8:51 am

      "You continously suggest that Israel should stick to its self declared borders (in accordance with res 181) as if this was legitimate and that ONLY what followed wasn’t. But you fail to explain the legal and moral difference and won’t answer (t)his question "

      A) https://www.google.com.au/search?q=talknic%20%E2%80%9CThe+contradiction+between+the+letters+of+the+Covenant%22

      B) "ONLY what followed" is relevant to the State of Israel, which didn't effectively exist prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948

      My argument to those put forward by supporters of the Zionist Movement's state is based on what Israel obliged itself to maintain according to the official statements of the Jewish Agency/Zionist Federation, prior to and after Israel's declaration of statehood, all of which shows Israel's leaders, the Jewish Agency and the Zionist Federation to be damnable liars. If, as they insist, Israel has a right to exist, then that state must adhere to the rules. It clearly hasn't

      There are numerous ways of arguing the various aspects of the situation. Each to their own

    • @ DaBakr April 11, 2017, 7:08 am

      " ... the fact remains that the vast majority of Jews, wether, Brit, German, North African, Persian or American don’t either need nor do they desire too be ‘educated,’ about your list of the negative attributes of Israel..."

      Go whine to the Zionist Federation for pushing Israel to be in breach of its legal obligations under International Law.

      " ... and your false narrative of the evils of Zionism."

      What part is false. You forgot to say.

      Is it not true that the Zionist Federation decided in 1897 set up the Jewish COLONIAL Trust in order to specifically colonize Palestine and that they loaned money to specifically poor Jews ( specifically at interest ) on condition that they put themselves on the front lines in Palestine to further the Zionist Colonization process?

      Take your time answering

      "Im sure we are quite comfortable In building the lands thatbelong to the Jews while providing liberty and full civil rights to any minority groups they live among us."

      Wonderful. Might be best tho for Israelis to stick to living in Israel instead of illegally settling in non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war by the Jewish state since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948

    • @ DaBakr April 11, 2017, 7:08 am

      " ... the fact remains that the vast majority of Jews, wether, Brit, German, North African, Persian or American don’t either need nor do they desire too be ‘educated,’ about your list of the negative attributes of Israel..."

      Go whine to the Zionist Federation for pushing Israel to be in breach of its legal obligations under International Law.

      " ... and your false narrative of the evils of Zionism."

      What part is false. You forgot to say.

      Is it not true that the Zionist Federation decided in 1897 set up the Jewish COLONIAL Trust in order to specifically colonize Palestine and that they loaned money to specifically poor Jews ( specifically at interest ) on condition that they put themselves on the front lines in Palestine to further the Zionist Colonization process?

      Take your time answering

      "Im sure we are quite comfortable In building the lands thatbelong to the Jews while providing liberty and full civil rights to any minority groups they live among us."

      Wonderful. Might be best tho for Israelis to stick to living in Israel instead of illegally settling in non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war by the Jewish state since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948

  • Israel’s ‘right to exist’ and the Palestinian right to resist
    • In fact the Palestinians ask for LESS than their legal rights for peace with Israel. Offering to cede some 78% of the rightful territories of Palestine to Israel in return for peace. This has been acknowledged in the majority of the world's nations having recognized Palestine as a state.

      Israel's reply has been to continue refuse to allow Palestinian independence by ending the occupation, continuing instead with its illegal behaviour, as it has done since 00:01 May 15th 1948, in territories that are not yet Israeli by any agreement with Palestine.

  • The liberal double standard on boycotting North Carolina and boycotting Israel
    • @ JeffB April 10, 2017, 9:52 am

      "Actually using your rather unique 1947 borders .."

      Stop talking sh*t JeffB. They're the borders Israel accepted, proclaimed and was recognized by. There's nothing unique about it, nor is it mine. It was the position the Israeli Government took in order to gain International recognition. Seems they lied and they're still lying and useful idiots still believe them

      " ... even RoR is still asking for those refugees to return to Israeli territories"

      Israeli citizens have RoR only to Israeli territories. The only territories actually belonging to Israel are those proclaimed and recognized as Israeli. None of the territories Israel has acquired by war since 00:01 May 15th 1948 has been acquired by any legal agreement with Palestine

      Israel's Jewish population in those territories long ago outstripped any demographic threat from non-Jewish Israeli refugees with a right to return to Israel. For example, some 500,000 Arab Jews became Israeli citizens by 1953 from the Arab states alone, PLUS Jews from Germany and every other corner of the globe.

      The vast majority of Palestine refugees Israel prevents from returning were not from territories that became Israeli

  • Read the full translated text of the leaked Hamas charter
    • @ catalan April 7, 2017, 5:27 pm

      "You and I do not get to define what the Palestinian state will eventually look like."

      That's right. Palestine was defined by default of Israel's only recognized borders, those it proclaimed effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948. Under International Law and the UN Charter the Palestinians have no legal obligation nor do they have any moral, ethical or logical obligation to forgo any of their legal rights to all of their territories

      Under the same laws and Charter, Israel has no legal ethical moral to logical right to any territories outside of its self proclaimed and only Internationally recognized borders.

      Israel is in fact obliged to withdraw from ALL non-Israeli territories , allow all refugees RoR and pay full compensation before the two states start negotiating what further territories the Palestinians are willing to cede to Israel.

      " ... on the Israeli side – they want a state within the 67 borders including the four large settlements with some type of territorial exchanges, preferably of the Arab towns."

      I see . The criminal state you cheer for does get to define what the Palestinian state will eventually look like, including swapping non-Israeli land for non- Israeli land in non-Israeli territories.

      Thanks again for showing folk the kind of vile little hypocritical immoral creeps are attracted to the Zionist cause

      Keep up th' good work

  • The Jewish revolution
    • @ DaBakr April 4, 2017, 3:11 pm

      "As in: pretending that, even in your wildest dreams, israel is a “failure”."

      Fact is, the UNSC has on numerous occasions unanimously adopted resolutions that remind Israel of its failure to adhere to the Laws and UN Charter (both binding). That's a failure.

      Fact is, the Zionist Movement's state has failed spectacularly to uphold the basic tenets of Judaism. Instead, it covets other folks property, has lied for over a century about its intentions. Lied about there being no Israeli borders. Lied about there being no Palestine. Lied to Israeli Jews as to where they can settle (in non-Israeli territories) . That's a failure.

      Fact is, Israel hasn't prevented Jewish Israeli civilians from illegally settling in Occupied Territories where they are very likely to become collateral in the struggle against an ongoing and illegal occupation. That's a failure.

      "And even funnier when someone is already too stupid to realize how absurd, asinine and blind they are to recognize that despite their anger, despite their jealous rage, their indignity of it all, the justice of an ancient people reunited with their land "

      Fact is, there's nothing ancient about today's illegal Israeli settlers and if there was it'd be irrelevant to the Laws Israel obliged itself to uphold governing what a state may not do in other folks territories.

      Fact is, if they're Israeli, Israeli 'land' doesn't include any non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war and never legally annexed to Israel by any agreement or legal instrument. No territories outside of Israel's recognized borders is Israeli.

      Fact is, dislike for Zionist bullsh*t and the idiots who wallow in and propagate it isn't anger or jealousy. It comes from a desire to see peace between Israel and its non-Jewish neighbours, instead of the continual wars perpetuated by the continual theft of non-Israeli territories by the so called 'Jewish' State. A state currently in breach of the most basic of Judaisms common sense tenets

      "Too dumb to know that some people’s wait 1000s of years to gain back what they believe lost in conquest ... blah blah"

      Hilarious. From the Roman era to 1897, Jewish folk could have returned, achieved citizenship, bought land and settled anywhere in the alleged Jewish People's Historical Homeland. Fact is few bothered. Even Herzl could have in his life time. He didn't bother nor did his family. In fact only one of the signatories to the Israel declaration of statehood was from the region.

      Go cry to the Zionist Federation pal. They're the people who screwed any chance of Jewish folk living in anywhere in the alleged Jewish People's Historical Homeland of "5,000" yrs ago. They demanded a state. They got it. They proclaimed its borders. It was recognized as requested. Nothing outside of that state is Israeli

      "Too ignorant to understand that the world we all live in is comprised of one conquest (or, as these hysterically funny fools like to charge: colonial project, lol) upon another and another."

      The ignorance is yours. It has been illegal to acquire territory by any coercive measure, including war since at least 1945 and the advent of the UN and its charter

      " So certain they are of the just nature of their cause. That palestinians, born from mostly Syrian and Jordanian arabs after Israel was re-established might have to wait, acquiece or even worse,negotiate face to face with their ‘enemy’ who after all, has only been around for what?… 5000 give or take. "

      A) Syrian and Jordanians have no claim or RoR to non-Syrian or non-Jordanian territories and they aren't making any claims to or for RoR to any Palestinian or Israeli territories

      B) The State of Israel has only existed since 00:01 May 15th 1948.

      C) Only refugees from the territory that became Israel (effective 00:01 May 15th 1948) have RoR to that territory and; Israel long ago achieved a Jewish majority that by far out weighs any possible demographic threat to Israel with its recognized borders

      D) The vast majority of Palestine refugees only have RoR to non-Israeli territories

      "They it might very well take another 100 yrs before one side understands that their maximalist demands are a total failure and you can’t reset the clock back to may’67 or ’47 or 1916. Those times and the opportunities that cane with them are gone"

      Yet you're trying to set the clock back 5,000 yrs. That's powerful stuff you been takin'. Since 1988 the Palestinians have been willing to cede 78% of their territory to Israel for peace. Israel's response has been to illegally settle and demand more

      "There is no example from the history of earth where a powerful nation willingly gives up strategic, spiritually and archeologically central and developed land to a people sworn to hating then and allied with every single one of the enemies the nation has."

      If it isn't Israeli territory, Israelis have no right to it. Expect blow back

      " not only is Israel successful but wildly sucessful by any measure of the word."

      Deduct 68 years of illegally exploited non-Israeli resources. Deduct billions of dollars paid Israel by the Germans for Holocaust victims now living in poverty in Israel. Deduct billions in US aid, deduct billions in non-Israeli financial support over 68 years.

      If success is measured in illegal activities in non-Israeli territories, indeed it is successful.

      Successful at being immoral, unethical, criminal. Bravo

  • JDL member arrested for attacking Palestinian-American teacher ran anti-Muslim website
    • Poor DaBakr

      @ DaBakr April 1, 2017, 10:02 pm

      "All 10 of the NE US JDL members have difficult inoperable growths in their brains which effect their behavior. Mossad got together with aipac and basically chained them to outposts like cannibal zombies who sense danger and attack."

      If you say pal

      "Meanwhile Nayfeh just got another installment for his retirement fund from the PLO."

      Source?

      "The crescent shaped cut will probably become the most important and exciting moment in his life among The assortment of Israel hating groups"

      DaBakr is on a roll

      "I wish I could say I understand the pro-palestinian strategy of always shooting themselves in the foot but I suppose they believe that slow and steady will win for them what they have already been offered and turned down."

      Israel has offered to swap non-Israeli territory for non-Israeli territory so it can keep non-Israeli territory. I.e., Israel has offered no thing

      "Afaics, Abbas and his cronies have one strategy:
      . Push the Palestinian maximalist demands as simply the opening discussion. Then, in addition demand that the vote in what is now Israel and the West bank be changed into a system of 1vote for 1 person.
      . The smartly strategized little caveat to those who push this crap"

      YOU'RE the one pushing crap pal . The Palestinians have been willing to cede 78% of their rightful territories for peace with Israel. It's been on the table since 1988. The majority of the World's state have recognized Palestine as it declared. Israel refuses what it has been offered, wanting, illegally taking and illegally settling more before any agreement.

      " that the (now what is it, 5,6 or 7 million Palestinian U.N. created that are refugees as well as residents of over 20 Arab nation’s. They would slowly be allowed to trickle back into pre-’48 armistice lines causing the populating to shift from Jewish Majority to non-jewish minority."

      Bullshit. A) The UN didn't create any refugees. The inability to return to their rightful territory creates refugees. Israel refuses their RoR.

      B) Israel long ago reached the point where a Jewish majority is guaranteed within its only recognized borders (of 00:01 May 15th 1948). There has been virtually NO increase in non-Jewish immigration since 00:01 may 15th 1948, , whereas the Jewish population increased by some 500,000 from the Arab States alone by 1950. There has been a further influx of Jewish folk ever since. The demographic threat is ZioPoop

      5,6 or 7 million refugees do not have a right to return to the territory ceded to Israel on May 15th 1948. Only the folk whose normal place of residence and their lineal descendants have a right to return to the territories that became Israeli. The vast majority of Palestine refugees have RoR to NON-Israeli territories outside of the state of Israel

      " That this is the unspoken goal of al..."

      The Zionist mind readr is truly miraculous

  • The rabbi's daughter isn't buying AIPAC's defense of Israel on apartheid charge
    • @ yonah fredman March 29, 2017, 4:00 pm

      " the “existential necessity” involved in keeping out the heirs of those expelled"

      Jewish folk were expelled or fled in the Roman era. Can you see an equal existential necessity of keeping their alleged heirs out of Palestine?

      BTW the demographic existential threat to Israel is a propaganda nonsense.

      Simple maths and Israeli statistics tell us that Israel long ago passed the point where Jews would be a minority even if ALL the rightful refugees and their heirs returned to Israel of 00:01 May 15th 1948

      The existential demographic threat to Israel is only in NON-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war, I.e., in what remained of Palestine after Israel proclaimed its borders effective in order to be recognized

      Furthermor. Israel in its Declaration of statehood welcomed non-Jews to remain in Israel. Why if they were going to be a demographic threat?

      Were the signatories stupid or liars? Are we really expected to believe they didn't know about the ethnic cleansing going on under Plan Dalet?

    • @ yonah fredman March 29, 2017, 7:10 pm

      "A military occupation of the west bank is justifiable on security grounds, control of the mountain Ridge overlooking the heavily populated coastal region"

      You're tawkin' wholly holey Hasbara.

      No state has any more right to security than another state, especially thru invasion AND occupation AND settlement or acquisition of territories by any coercive measure, including war. All states, even a Jewish State, does not have the right to invade and claim other folks territories for their own security.

      "... the military occupation of the west bank was accepted by un resolution 242,"

      More bullsh*t.
      A) UNSC resolution 242 was on "Peace in the Middle East" between warring UN member States. Palestine had no UN status at the time

      B) UNSC Res 242's result can be seen in the Egypt Israeli Peace Treaty. Israel undertaking to withdraw from all Egyptian territories was THE essential condition for peace between those two states.

      UNSC resolutions on the "Question of Palestine" http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/2016.shtml
      tell us in no uncertain terms what is required of Israel in respect to Palestine. UNSC res2334 is just one of some 11 reminders of Israel's legal obligations. E.g;

      Resolution 476 (1980) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2242nd meeting on 30 June 1980
      ...
      ...
      1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem

      "the need for negotiation was clear to those who composed the resolution ."

      Indeed it was. The negotiation is clear by the result of the Egypt/Israeli Peace Treaty, which cites UNSC res 242. Negotiations were when and how Israel would withdraw from Egyptian territories to Egypt's "recognized" borders in order for peace to be assumed

      The Palestinians are under no obligation what so ever to negotiate away any of their legal rights to any state, not even a Jewish state.

      " And until such negotiations, the presence of israeli forces in the west bank was implicitly accepted and never once condemned by the unsc.

      MORE BULSH*T!!!

      UNSC res 2334 doesn't contain the word negotiate. Read it.and then at least attempt to stop trying to justify the unjustifiable.

      Israel is in breach of its legal obligations, has been since 00:01 May 15th 1948

  • 'Negation of the diaspora' as Zionist antisemitism: The JCC bomb threats came from an Israeli Jew
    • @ DaBakr March 28, 2017, 8:56 pm

      " this site and the bulk of its commenters are comfortably ensconced in the far left, left wing or whatever you consider is the opposite of the so-called ‘alt-right’."

      Right and wrong are neither 'left' or 'right'.

      The UNSC tells us Israel, the Occupying Power, is in breach of its legal obligations. AKA Israel is in the wrong.

      You support dispossession, the illegal acquisition of territory by war, collective punishment, murder, the coveting of other folks territories and you have absolutely no valid arguments in support of those quite clearly Naziesque traits.

      There are exactly no valid arguments in support of Israel's crimes against humanity. None! From the bullsh*t that Israel didn't declare any borders, to whatever MarkTwain wrote, cherry tomatoes, Nobel prizes, mobile phones, 'we made the desert bloom', it's all nonsense that has absolutely no bearing on Israel's recognized borders and the Jewish State's illegal, immoral, unethical activities outside of those borders since 00:01 May 15th 1948

      Take your pathetic whinging to the Zionist Federation for having decided to and who continue to colonize Palestine against all the principals of the basic common sense tenets of Judaism.

  • Bearing witness: a review of Alice Rothchild's book 'Condition Critical'
    • This shows just how twisted the diseased Zionist mind becomes

      JeffB March 27, 2017, 2:30 pm

      "I don’t think it is accurate to say that Zionism has a goal of expulsion. Zionism was willing to use expulsion when other means failed."

      As has been quoted on MW many time Zionists in their own words contradict your pathetic attempts to justify the unjustifiable

      " To take the most important example expulsion became a serious option for Zionist political leadership in in 1942 after the 1936-9 war. It was clearly discussed as a response to the damage the war had caused"

      It was a civil war, in Palestine, against non-Palestinian colonizers. You speak as though the colonizers owned and ruled the territory. They didn't and at best owned only a tiny amount of real estate

      "Had the colonialism (1927-36) been successful in establishing peaceful relationships (at least long enough for the Yishuv economy to be dependent on Palestinian labor) I see no reason to believe that the Yishuv wouldn’t have moved away from Jewish labor theology"

      Sick dude. You really are really very very sick. WTF makes you think ANYONE is going to simply allow their territory and themselves be taken over and be used by an arrogant foreign colonizing enterprise?

      " A Palestinian people that for 90 years had been integrated into the economy would likely be now be culturally assimilated"

      You're out of your tiny ZioAddled mind. 90 years where it was Palestine being invaded, the majority were not Jews or Zionists. The majority must be assimilated? I believe the expression is ('scuse me folks) 'Go f*ck yourself Jeff'

      "I think a fair description is that Zionism seeks Jewish self determination. "

      A) at the expense of those already living in Zionist coveted land

      B) Zionism is contrary to Judaism's basic common sense tenets

      C) Not all Zionists are Jews and not all Jews are Zionists.

      D) The Zionist Federation on were ALL rich enough to travel to and stay Basel for their founding conferences. Rich enough to invest in a bank in order for it to make money by loaning specifically poor Jews money specifically at interest, to specifically put themselves on the front lines in Palestine where Jews and Zionists especially were a tiny minority

      BTW Jewish self determination via the self appointed Zionist Movement was achieved at 00:01 May 15th 1948 when Israel's independence within the borders of UNGA res 181 was proclaimed effective. Nothing outside of those borders was or has since been legally acquired by the State of Israel through any legal agreement

      "Zionism is willing to reluctantly employ expulsion when Jewish self determination is threatened and other means fail. "

      The Zionists own words tell us you are as Zionism requires, you'll say anything, no matter how stupid it makes you look. Contradicting what the Zionists themselves voiced as their aims is truly cringe worthy JeffB

      Congratulations, keep up the good work

  • Actor Richard Gere in Hebron: 'it's exactly like what the what the Old South was in America'
    • Watching a ZioPuppet unload is funny

      @ DaBakr March 24, 2017, 5:00 pm

      "As if this privileged white man knew what it was like to be black in the ‘deep south’"

      I get what you're trying to say. Americas laws were changed by only black men? WOW!!! I wonder if all those white guys knew?

      Seems there's no end to the fool you'll make of yourself in trying to justify the unjustifiable

      "There are no comparisons to the situation in the I/p because the conflict is not racial, religious or cultural. Is it nationalistic? Yes. But only Jewish nationalism Is condemned. Palestinian nationalism Is championed. "

      The Palestinians didn't decide to invade in 1897, it was the the Zionist Federation decided to colonize Palestine.

      Jews could have immigrated and achieved legitimate citizenship and bought real estate and settled from at least the Roman era until 00:01 May 15th 1948. Few did. Even Herzl in his life time could have. He didn't bother.

      Now Israelis, be they Jewish or non-Jewish are prohibited by the Laws Israel obliged itself to by becoming a state, from illegally settling in non-Israeli territories.

      Go take your pathetic whining to the Zionist Federation for preventing Israeli from settling anywhere in the Jewish People's alleged Historic Homeland by demanding a separate state and then proclaiming that state within the borders outlined in UNGA res 181

      "So many on the far left (and here) have such pseudo intellectual disdain for tribalism and nationalism but only condemn it when it’s Jewish"

      What Israel is doing is illegal you amazingly stupid Zionist moron.

  • A Palestinian state has always been a fiction for Zionists
    • @ aloeste

      The Palestinians have no obligation to accept anything less than their full legal rights to territory and freedoms

      They are also under no legal obligation to forgo any of their legal rights in negotiations.

      Meanwhile, Israel has no right what so ever to any non-Israeli territories acquired by war or any other illegal means and; Israel has a legal obligation to withdraw from all non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war since its borders were proclaimed effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 ME time.

      Israel is also legally obliged pay 70 years of reparations, which it has never been able to afford and it is legally obliged to allow non-Jewish Israeli refugees return to territories the Israeli Government proclaimed May 15th 1948

  • Finders Keepers in the Holy Land: So who was there first?
  • The 50th anniversary of the occupation will rock the Jewish establishment
    • Now. About the coming 70th year of occupation

      May 22nd 1948 Israeli Government statement

      On May 22, 1948 UNSC S/766
      Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?
      "In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa;
      Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem.
      The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed." ... " the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel"

      “international regulations” then and now;

      Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III
      "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

      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".

      12 Aug 1948

      the Provisional Israeli Government proclaimed Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948

      Occupation can actually be dated from 00:01 May 15th 1948, when Jewish forces under plan Dalet were already in occupation of non-Israeli territories even as Israel's borders were being proclaimed effective and recognized. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

  • Trump is putting the crunch on liberal Zionism
    • @ jon s February 25, 2017, 1:12 pm

      "Really? Nobody? How about Hamas, for example?"

      Quote 'em, incl date & source

      The ultimate objective is to achieve a future in which Israelis and Palestinians live in peace, without fear and hatred and bloodshed."

      Simple. F*ck off out of all non Israeli territories. Go live in Israel. It's never been tried. Israel has been acting illegally in non-Israeli territories since 00:01 May 15th 1948

      "I think that partition, two states ,is the best and only realistic solution."

      " Once partition is agreed on in principle, all that can be discussed"

      Strange, it was agreed in principal by the Zionist Federation's Jewish Agency http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx
      It was agreed by Israel and every state that recognized Israel as Israel asked to be recognized http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

      The Palestinians have no legal obligation what so ever to forgo ANY of their rights or territories in negotiations/discussions.

      Israel is obliged to withdraw from all non-Israeli territories whether there are discussions/negotiations or not.

      All that is legally required to be negotiated or discussed is how and when Israel will withdraw, taking ALL its citizens with it. Read the Egypt Israel Peace Treaty, that's the implementation of UNSC res 242 http://wp.me/pDB7k-ZZ

      BTW It's irrelevant that the Arab States didn't agree with partition. They were never legally obliged to agree to it

      UNGA res 181 or not, what ever lay outside of Israel when Israel proclaimed its borders is not and never was Israeli. Like all states, Israel has never had any legal rights to anything beyond its borders!

      "And since you mentioned the refugees : two states is the only path to a resolution of that issue as well."

      What about Israel's non-Jewish Israeli refugees? Will the Jewish State grant its own non-Jewish citizens RoR ?

  • Poll: Canada's politicians drastically out of touch with public on Israel
    • bikingdoc does Hasbara bullsh*t 101

      @ bikingdoc February 17, 2017, 11:07 am

      "... Israel is the Mideast’s only democracy"

      Strange, Palestine held democratic elections in 2006. https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/236F02CF539AA9418525710600587785

      Israel meanwhile has never had a legally elected Government under the promised Israeli constitution http://pages.citebite.com/p2b0i7o9o6xlh

      "Israel" is "the Occupying Power" over non-Israeli territories (UNSC res 476 https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/6de6da8a650b4c3b852560df00663826 ). As such it is bound by the UN Charter Chapt XI and has a " sacred trust" to protect the occupied, their property and their territory and assist them to statehood.

      Instead, the Jewish State illegally settles non-Israeli territories it covets (against one of Judaisms basic common sense tenets) purposefully putting Israeli civilians on the front lines in contravention of GC IV. A convention adopted to protect civilians of the Occupying Power as well as citizens of the occupied

      "... and has more historic and legal claims to the disputed lands of Judea and Samaria than the so-called “Palestinians”, since there isn’t now nor has ever been a country called Palestine."

      Nonsense. Palestine was a state with provisional recognition in 1922, by 1925 it had adopted Palestinian Nationality Law per the League of Nations 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. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7

      Furthermore, Israel proclaimed its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 and was recognized as such. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf However, at the time Jewish forces under Paln Dalet were already in territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      " why was Israel attacked five times by its Arab neighbors BEFORE there were any settlements?"

      It was never attacked. A) Israeli forces were in non-Israeli territories even as Israel's borders were being proclaimed and being recognized. The other Regional Powers had a right to attempt to expel Israeli forces from non-=Israeli territories for the simple reason that it was Israel acting outside of its proclaimed and recognized territories. Israel got there by attacking non-Israeli territories. No Israeli territories have ever been invaded

      Go peddle your Ziopoop somewhere else. You'll only make a complete idiot of yourself here

  • Trump says he's 'happy' with one-state outcome, ringing in a new era
    • @ Citizen February 16, 2017, 11:00 am

      "So, withdraw from all said territories and simultaneously install permanent siege on all of it, as was done to Gaza? "

      Withdrawal = no more occupation = independence = qualification to become a full member of the United Nation. Palestine borders both Jordan and Egypt it would also open Palestinian territorial waters, and; were we take into account Israel's only actual proclaimed and recognized borders of 00:01 May 15th 1948, it would open the borders between Palestine and Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt

  • 'We cannot divide the land': Israeli academic Yehouda Shenhav on bridging the gap between Israelis and Palestinians through Arabic literature
    • @ DaBakr February 15, 2017, 9:32 pm

      "If Jews came from Judea, "

      Not according to Jewish scripture. Our Jewish forefathers invaded and conquered those who were there before them

      "even after being banished by titus and chased across Africa through Spain and up and into eastern Europe they still come from Judea"

      Not according to the scriptures. Our Jewish forefathers invaded and conquered those who were there before them

      " which must absolutely cause caustic ulcers among the anti-zionist/israel crowds so intent on proving Jews from eastern Europe are not from Judea and are really from someplace else"

      Laughter isn't a cause of ulcers AFAIK

      "It would be as absurd and bigoted as claiming a totally assimilated first nations souix who works in a high rise in NYC, dresses like every other million dollar banker and lives on long island in a mansion is not really a Souix or first nation person."

      Indeed it would. However, no one but you has suggested it. BTW they were invaded and colonized. The analogy is fitting for the Palestinians you stupid stupid person

      " And now I can just imagine all the cries of ‘hasbara , stupid meaningless term, whataboutism"

      No need to imagine, your illogical drivel deserves fitting epithets

      " and how anything preWW2 is irrelevant"

      No. What ever occurred before Israel proclaimed it's borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 is irrelevant to the current status of Israel's actual borders and Israel's illegal activities outside of its borders since and even as they were being proclaimed and recognized

    • @ Talkback

      "What territory was legally acquired"

      The territory declared and recognized as Israeli in accordance with the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1932, which by 1948 had been codified in the UN Charter

      " (besides 3% private property and another 3% by the JNF)??? "

      In both instances, you're talking about the ownership of real estate. The ownership of real estate by people, organizations or foreign Governments does not give them rights to territories. The territory of states is owned by all its legitimate inhabitants, whether they own/rent/lease real estate or are homeless living under a bridge. JNF is not a citizen BTW

      " And according to what international law/principle?"

      Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1932

      "The Zionist Terror Agency had allready occupied most of the 78% before 15th May"

      Indeed. However, prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 it was a civil war. On declaring its borders effective, the civil war became a war by the State of Israel on what remained of Palestine

      The Israeli Government didn't proclaim all of the territories it occupied as Israeli, which gave the other Regional Powers the right to attempt to expel Israeli/Jewish forces from the non-Israeli territories.

      If you're going to talk about Israel, it is a state. States have defined territories. The Israeli Government proclaimed Israel's territories, the majority of the International Comity of Nations recognized Israel within those borders. Only one state, Palestine, has recognized any further territories as Israeli. However, Israel has not agreed to that recognition, so its borders remain those of 00:01 May 15th 1948

      ---------------------------------

      @ echinococcus February 14, 2017, 8:50 pm

      Israel, the state exists whether we agree with its existence, how or why it came about.

      ------------
      Maghlawatan February 15, 2017, 4:29 am

      "Israel’s borders were defined by force and will be amended by force. "

      Israel's borders were defined by proclamation. Borders are amended by agreement. Israel might eventually be forced to agree

    • Even better. Have Israel adhere to International Law, withdraw from all non-Israeli territory illegally acquired by war since 00:01 May 15th 1948 when Israel's borders were proclaimed effective and subsequently recognized.

  • To oppose Trump, Jews must join the fight against fascism and Zionism
    • @ Mayhem February 12, 2017, 7:37 pm

      " you seem to be happy to turn the facts upside down to suit your political fancies. The Jews have the major claim to being the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine (as proven by archaeeology)"

      Care to show this archaeological evidence ... thx.

      There is absolutely no evidence what so ever that Jewish folk were ever a majority in the region

      "There is no solid body of evidence for a Palestinian Arab identity until the Jews arrived to stake their claim"

      The Jewish scriptures tell us our Jewish forefathers conquered someone who was there before them.

      BTW your bullsh*t is irrelevant as of the moment Israel proclaimed it's borders effective, precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf As of that moment whatever territpry wasn't proclaimed and recognized as Israeli simply was not and is still not Israeli by any legal agreement

  • The Palestinian state never had a chance: a review of Toufic Haddad's 'Palestine Ltd: Neoliberalism and Nationalism in the Occupied Territory'
    • @ Talkback

      [[ A) Why did Israel wait until the eve of the expiration of the British administration of Palestine before they declared? B) Why was it only effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948, one minute AFTER British control ended? ]]

      "Because otherwise they would have been technically in war with Great Britain

      Not for simply declaring. The British had to end their administration under the Mandate so that either party could if they wished, declare independence per UNGA res 181

      " That’s the reason why the Arab armies waited, too"

      The Arab states waited to see what Israel's borders were, immediately declaring to the UNSC the invasion of Palestine, not Israel. Although Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Iraq were UN Members at the time, there was no UNSC condemnation for either their declaration or their actions for the simple reason that Jewish forces were already outside of Israel's proclaimed frontiers and the other Regional Powers had a right and a duty to attempt to expel them from non-Israeli territories

    • @ Talkback January 16, 2017, 8:28 am

      [[ A) Why did Israel wait until the eve of the expiration of the British administration of Palestine before they declared? B) Why was it only effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948, one minute AFTER British control ended? ]]

      "Because otherwise they would have been technically in war with Great Britain."

      Not by simply declaring statehood. They would not have been "effectively" independent while the British had control. The British had to end the mandate so either party, if they wished, could declare independence per UNGA res 181

      That’s the reason why the Arab armies waited, too"

      The Arab states, as did everyone else, waited to see what territories Israel proclaimed in order to be recognized.

      As there were Jewish forces already outside of Israel's proclaimed territories at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) the Arab States as Regional Powers submitted the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine to the UNSC. (As far as I know, it was the last declaration of war ever submitted to the UNSC). There was no condemnation of that action by the UNSC even though Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Iraq were by then UN Members

    • Watching apologists for the Zionist colonization of non-Israeli territories dodging questions is hilarious. They seem determined to show us how dishonest they can be

      @ Jon66 January 15, 2017, 9:30 pm

      "The Palestinians would have had all of the attributes in the convention. "

      They didn't have effective control of all their rightful territories before or after the expiration of the British administration under the LoN Mandate for Palestine, and;
      as Jewish forces were already outside of the territories proclaimed by the Israeli Government as "effective" at 00:01 May 15th 1948, the Palestinians didn't have effective control of all the territories that remained after Israel proclaimed its borders

      "In fact, they declared a state decades later when they were completely under Israeli control."

      They didn't have effective and sole control of their territories, therefore, they were not effectively independent.

      "" If they can declare themselves a state in 1988 and be recognized, what prevented this action in 1948 when they actually controlled significant territory?"

      They didn't have effective and independent control of all their rightfull territories, therefore, they were not effectively independent

      I've answered all your questions. Answer me this

      A) Why did Israel wait until the eve of the expiration of the British administration of Palestine before they declared? B) Why was it only effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948, one minute AFTER British control ended?

    • @ Jon66 January 15, 2017, 5:04 pm

      "There is no “prerequisite”."

      http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897#art1

      A) Why did Israel wait until the eve of the expiration of the British administration of Palestine before they declared? B) Why was it only effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948, one minute AFTER British control ended?

      @ Talkback January 15, 2017, 5:08 pm

      "There’s no such thing as a “pre-requisite for declaring independence”

      http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897#art1.
      A) Why did Israel wait until the eve of the expiration of the British administration of Palestine before they declared? B) Why was it only effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948, one minute AFTER British control ended?

      "There is a pre-requisite for recognizing or attaining the “independence” (“sovereignty”) of a state which implies control of the territory
      "

      Quite. "effective" control http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

    • Page: 2
    • The Palestinians could have had a state next to Israel
      “if only they’d accepted UNGA Resolution 181 ...”
      or
      “if only they’d accepted some of the concessions Israel has made ..." Offering to return the spare wheel of a stolen car in order to keep the rest, is far from a valid ‘concession’.
      or
      “The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” A notion usually voiced on the understanding that the Palestinians are to blame for their current situation.

      It's all Ziodrivel, nonsense, red heifer sh*t!

      It is a pre-requisite for declaring independence that the entity declaring must control all their territories at the time of their declaration

      It's the reason the Jewish Peoples Council had to wait until the British Mandate ended midnight May 14th 1948 before their declaration came into effect at 00:01 May 15th 1948

      It's the same reason Indonesia had to leave East Timor in order that ET could be independent

      All or part of Palestine has been under the control of a succession of other entities since at least the Roman era

      Under the Mandate for Palestine it was under British control

      In the months preceding May 14th 1948, Plan Dalet was launched and by the end of the British Mandate midnight May 14th 1948 and Israeli independence at 00:01 15th May 1948 Jewish forces were already in control of much of the territory slated for the new Arab State

      At the end of the ’67 war we saw Israel in control of and illegally claiming even more Palestinian territories

      Israel has never withdrawn from any Palestinian territories it has illegally acquired by war, making sure the Palestinians can not declare independence

      At no time in the past 2,000 years has Palestine had full control of all it’s territories in order to become an independent state. There has never been an opportunity to miss.

      It has been the Zionists who've never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The dunce's cap is a Kippa http://wp.me/pDB7k-pE

  • John Kerry picked the wrong timeline for the Jewish state
    • @ Misterioso January 4, 2017, 7:18 pm

      "No it’s not “a relic of the past.” "

      I wrote quite specifically in one continuous sentence, that " ... it’s a relic of the past and irrelevant to the State of Israel’s self proclaimed and Internationally recognized territories and the State of Israel’s illegal activities in non-Israeli territories acquired by war and/or under Israeli Occupation today. " !

      The consequences of what happened prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 live on as a matter of course

      "The inalienable right of return ... etc"

      Of course and it's now the State of Israel's obligation

      "Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is binding on all UN members"

      Same

    • @ Misterioso

      All history, just and /or unjust, is a relic of the past.

      "The thoroughly documented dispossession and expulsion of about 400,000 Palestinians by Jewish forces between passage of recommendatory only UNGA Res. 181, the Partition Plan, on Nov. 29/47 (in violation of the terms of the League of Nations British Mandate and the Atlantic Charter, never ratified by the UNSC and grossly unfair to the native Palestinian Arabs) "

      I agree

      "... and the declaration of the state of Israel by Polish born Ben-Gurion (nee, David Gruen) et al effective 15 May 1948, is hardly a “relic of the past.” "

      I specifically didn't say it was

      "Indeed, for the record, it was only the beginning. "

      It was the beginning of the issue being with the State of Israel. Prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 the conflict was not with the State of Israel.

      Nothing prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 justifies Israeli expansionism.

    • Whatever happened prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) is of historical interest.

      However, it's a relic of the past and irrelevant to the State of Israel's self proclaimed and Internationally recognized territories and the State of Israel's illegal activities in non-Israeli territories acquired by war and/or under Israeli Occupation today.

      There is only one state that has officially recognized Israel beyond it's 00:01 May 15th 1948 borders and that state is Palestine!

  • Resolution for 2017: Stop substituting 'the occupation' for 'Zionism'
    • @ mcohen. January 3, 2017, 3:05 pm

      "Zionism has been a difficult and centuries long political process to win back the state of Israel from various colonizers"

      The scriptures tell us our Jewish forefathers invaded the region

      "did an arab army colonize Israel"

      No. Israel didn't exist between at least the Roman era until 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      "did the Turks colonize Israel"

      See above

      " ... the pushback by Israel is not an “occupation”.it is the on going rebirth of a country on the same land over thousands of years"

      Bullsh*t suits you.

  • Hear O Israel these parting truths -- John Kerry
    • @ DaBakr "which includes jordan"

      Hasbara bullsh*t seems to be all you have.

      FACT IS : Jordan gained independence May 25th 1946
      FACT IS: Jordan was independent BEFORE the UNGA 181 vote 1947 to partition what remained of Palestine at that time.
      FACT IS: Jordan was independent BEFORE UNGA res 181 was accepted as binding by the Jewish Agency http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx
      FACT IS: Jordan was independent BEFORE Israel's frontiers were proclaimed separating the Jewish State from whatever remained of Palestine at the time http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

      FACT IS: Only the legitimate citizens of the territory that became Jordan had an automatic right to Jordanian citizenship in 1946, folk who lived in whatever remained of Palestine in 1946 did not.

      BTW by agreement with who and on what date has Israel legally annexed any of the territories it has acquired by war (Illegal by 1945) since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time).

      FACT IS: Israel has never legally annexed ANY territories.

      FACT IS: it has been illegal for states to recognize any territories acquired by war by any country, including Israel. Even if it is the Jewish State, Israel is still obliged to adhere to International Law and the UN Charter

  • Saving the daughters of Israel from the annihilation of intermarriage
    • Mikhael November 27, 2016, 7:42 pm

      "Now, re-reading my comment, I will admit an error I made when I stated that ““[a]ll Jews can claim these deep roots in the country anyway”. That was a mistake on my part, I should have written “the vast majority of Jews can claim deep roots in the country” rather than “all.”

      Indeed

      " Your example of the Kaifeng Jewish community (or rather, the claimed descendants of the community who have re-embraced a Jewish identity, since the community effectively ceased to fucntion some centuries ago) is, however, a very poor example of a group that has no Jewish ancestry traceable to Ereṣ Yisra’el and indicates racist thinking on your part."

      Typical Zionist in desperation ploy, make a completely unsupportable accusation.

      "Your characterization of them as “very Chinese looking”

      They don't look Chinese? WOW!! I wonder if they know

      " It does show a racist obsession on your part"

      Again with the nonsensical accusation.

      " however. I suppose that if you have children (I shudder to imagine that you have procreated) "

      I believe the expression is "Go f*ck yourself".

      " .. who marry into an Asian-Australian family and produce “very Chinese looking offspring” who in turn marry Asians who have even more “Chinese looking offspring”, you will deny that they can be descended from you"

      A false assumption based on your own imagination. Cute, but not unusual for a Zionist apologist. False accusations on behalf of the Jewish State's ongoing crimes, in total conflict with the most basic of Judaisms common sense tenets. Bizarre

      "... it’s a silly argument to make against Jews having a shared national identity"

      I didn't make any such argument. Another false accusation on your part

      "I am in New York most of the year but I will probably be in ..etc etc etc"

      Proves exactly nothing.

      " Your counterfactual and tiresomely tendentious argument that Israel’s borders are delineated only by the 1947 Res. 181 Partition Lines has nothing to with the current topic under discussion"

      Another false accusation.

      A) Israel's Internationally recognized borders were proclaimed effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) by the Israeli Government . There's nothing counterfactual or tendentious about it http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      B) They're Israel's ONLY Proclaimed and Internationally recognized borders. They have everything to do with the current topic

      " My bringing up my ancestry was in direct response to “Mooser”‘s insinuation, that I, a scion of a family that has lived in the country for centuries somehow have a less right to live there as an Israeli Jew"

      You have no right to live in Palestine as an Israeli

  • 'State of Terror,' by Thomas Suárez
    • @ David Gerald Fincham October 23, 2016, 7:49 am

      "Most people in the world (including our friend talknic – see our discussion on this page and my previous article “Understanding the Partition Plan”) think that the unilateral Declaration of the State of Israel was justified by the UN partition plan"

      Let me try another way of saying it because I'm obviously not getting thru.

      Despite the lies, deceit, injustice, illegality, illegitimacy and injustice of how Israel came to be in existence, it now exists, whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not and; as it does exist as a state, it ought to be adhering to its legal obligations under International Law and the UN Charter.

      "That is because they have never actually read the plan carefully"

      I've carefully studied every word, the historical record prior to and after it's drafting and adoption, its structure, grammar, punctuation

      1) Legal, illegal, right or wrong, I sincerely doubt the drafters of UNGA res 181 used the word "independence" and "independent" if they meant something other than independence by definition. I.e., free from the control of all others.

      2)Neither party could declare independence until their respective territories were free of anyone else's control. It's the very reason Israel (right or wrong) waited until 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) after the mandate expired, to proclaim Israel an independent republic.

      3) The Palestinians on the other hand, have never been able to declare independence because they have never been independent of the control of some other party or parties in part or in total. Contrary to Ziospin, there has never been an opportunity for the Palestinians to miss.

      "and because they have unthinkingly absorbed the propaganda element in the actual Declaration which claims such justification with the use of 14 lies .."

      I'll add quite a bit more to that tally http://wp.me/pDB7k-D6

    • @ jackdaw October 19, 2016, 1:33 pm

      "The Balfour Declaration wasn’t about helping the Jews. It was about HMG’s desperate war time gamble to curry favor with wealthy Jews.

      The LoN Mandate wasn’t about helping Jews ‘settle the land’. It was about HMG setting up a quasi-colony to secure oil from Iraq and to buffer the French from the Suez Canal"

      Strange. A) The Zionist Federation decided to colonize Palestine .. in 1897, 20 years before B) Zionists wrote the Balfour Declaration and a quarter of a century before C) Zionists agreed to the LoN Mandate for Palestine

      "Fincham needs to stop pointing his finger at the Zionists, and consider Perfidious Albion"

      See A) B) C)

      Your rhetoric is irrelevant to the fact that Israel and its borders were proclaimed in 1948, effective at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) and that Israel has been in breach of its obligations to International Law from that moment

  • A lot of the grief over Shimon Peres is grief over the end of the two-state solution
    • @ jon s October 1, 2016, 5:12 pm

      "In the period 1922-1948 Palestine was administerd by the British as a League of Nations mandate, so I don’t think that it can be referred to as a “state”- bi national or otherwise – in that period."

      You've been shown what the LoN Covenant and the Mandate for Palestine say several times, yet you continue to bullsh*t. You say you're a teacher. One might be forgiven surely of thinking you teach bullsh*t or that you bullsh*t about being a teacher, because you display the intellect of an imbecile.

      1) The State of Palestine's 'recognition' was conditional. Recognition is entirely dependent on something 1st existing. Example: Israel existed before it was recognized.
      A) See the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." http://pages.citebite.com/t2p1y9s9n7jcr )
      B) See the Lon Covenant

      LoN Covenant 1919
      ARTICLE 22. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22

      To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. (later adopted into the UN Charter as Chapt XI)
      ...

      ...
      Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

      Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa ...

      I don't believe Palestine was in Central Africa

      2)

      LoN Mandate for Palestine ART. 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.
      http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7

      The Nationality Law was adopted in 1925. Palestine was a Nation State when it was partitioned by default of Israel unilaterally proclaiming itself independent of Palestine, effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      BTW .... Thanks again for affording the opportunity to show readers just how empty Ziopuke can be. Keep up the good work

  • 'There's no occupation'
    • How many lies can Alan Baker tell in succession? You'll meet his crappolla over an over. Facts come in handy

      "International law defines “occupation” as one power occupying the lands of a foreign sovereign"

      International Law actually says this:

      Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III
      "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

      "Israel entered the area known as the West Bank in 1967 and took over the authority to administer the land from Jordan, which was never considered to be a sovereign in the area"

      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

      UNSC res 228 “Observing that this incident constituted a large-scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel“

      "In actual fact, Israel and the Jewish people have got claims to the area that go far back into history. "

      The State of Israel only goes back as far as 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      “... 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.”

      "Anybody who reads the Bible can appreciate the fact that there is a very solid historic legal basis to the claim of Israel with respect to the territories ..."

      The bible is not a legal document. The Israeli plea for recognition and subsequent "irrevocable recognitions" by other states were legal documents

      "... Israel is committed to conduct negotiations with the Palestinians in order to find a permanent settlement to the issue"

      Negotiations = Israel wants the Palestinians to forgo even more of their rightful territories after Israel was given completely gratis, more than half of Palestine for the Jewish State. Israel wants and has illegally acquired by war more than Israel proclaimed was Israeli and more than was recognized as Israeli

      "The Jordanians, who occupied the territory after the 1948 war, annexed it, but this annexation was never really recognized or acknowledged by the international community."

      Legality of annexation is not thru recognition, it's thru adherence to the Law in respect to self determination. The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was by request of the majority of that territory's legitimate citizens. It was not condemned by the UNSC, unlike the condemnation of the unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel in UNSC Resolution 476one of at least EIGHT reminders of the 21st May 1968 UNSC Res 252

      " At a later stage the king of Jordan voluntarily gave up any Jordanian sovereignty or claim to the territories to the Palestinian people ..."

      Ooooops. So Jordan was sovereign over the West Bank in 1967 and in 1988 gave up it's sovereignty to the Palestinian people. Those little loose ends in the Ziopuke narrative can be soooooooooooooo embarrassing

      "The international community’s constant referral to the “Palestinian territories” is a complete fallacy and has absolutely no legal or political basis"

      A) Oh what suddenly happened to "Jordan voluntarily gave up any Jordanian sovereignty or claim to the territories to the Palestinian people"
      B) The majority of the International Comity of Nations have already recognized the State of Palestine.

      "There has never been a Palestinian state, as such, and therefore the territories never belonged to any Palestinian entity"

      Article 7 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and the adoption of the Palestine Nationality Law in 1925 tell us the poor man is delusional or a liar. Probably both

      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.

      "There's no international agreement, there's no contract, there's no treaty, and there's no binding international resolution that determines that the territories belong to the Palestinians"

      Recognition of states by the majority of the International Comity of Nations is irrevocable. The majority have recognized the State of Palestine

      " ... the Palestinians themselves, in the Oslo agreement that they signed with Israel, acknowledge the fact that the ultimate permanent status of the territory is to be determined by negotiations. Therefore, even the Palestinians accept the fact that this is not Palestinian territory, its disputed territory whose status is yet to be settled

      So it isn't Israeli territory yet and it's under Israeli military occupation after having been under the sovereignty of Jordan who by 1967 was, including the West Bank, a UN Member State and a High Contracting Power to GC IV under which citizens of the Occupying Power may not illegally settle in Occupied Territories.

      "If the local population owns land, then the administrative power isn't allowed to take the land or use it. But if the land is not private, the administering power can use the land and enjoy the fruits of the land until sovereignty has been finally determined"

      A) Local land ownership is of 'real estate' B) Territory however, belongs to all the legitimate citizens of the territory, whether they own rent or lease 'real estate' or even if they're homeless living under a bridge

      Laws of War Art. 55. “The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”

      Another ooooops moment

      "There's no such thing as 1967 borders. A border is a line between two sovereign entities. In 1967, there was a ceasefire line that had existed since the 1948-1949 war between the Arab states and Israel and after Israel declared its independence. The Jordanians insisted on inserting in the Armistice Agreement of 1949 a provision which says that the armistice demarcation line is not the final border."

      So Israel's only borders are those it proclaimed effective 00:01 May 15th 1948(ME time). Any other territories are not yet Israeli

      "Final borders can only be determined in peace negotiations between the parties"

      Nonsense. They could be determined by Israel withdrawing from all non-Israeli territories held under Israeli military occupation. Never been tried. Israeli withdrawal from other folks territories under the Jordan/Israel and Egypt/Israel treaties resulted in peace

  • Gaza 2 years on: These children are now gone forever and an empty space remains
    • @ echinococcus September 2, 2016, 11:58 pm

      " “Rule of law” my @$$, Talknic. There is no rule of law with a totally illegitimate state."

      Israel, the Zionist Movement's "illegitimate" state, agreed to uphold the law. It hasn't.

      " You guys who defend a “fact on the ground” of a Zionist entity"

      Stating that something exists is not a defense of its existence. The weather reporter doesn't defend the weather

      "... without ever discussing the difference between justice and compromise"

      It's the very basis of my argument. Justice and compromise come about by determining responsibility.

      The statements of the pre-state Jewish Agency, the Zionist Movement and the official statements of representatives of the State of Israel whose borders were set at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time), tell us that the Zionist Movement's state is entirely responsible for the debacle and that it has offered neither justice or compromise. The Palestinians and Arab States have offered both in keeping with and exceeding the requirements of the UN Charter

      "Continue writing nice letters to important people in the hope that they will be put to better use than toilet paper"

      I'd tell you to go stick your head in one, except you rightly ...

      " ... agree that this must be done, too. Only, it should be done without believing in the Tooth Fairy of East Timor "

      East Timor now has its independence. It's a fact

  • Israel bans entry for two more US activists
    • @ Ally_Mayhem August 30, 2016, 10:45 am

      "Wow! The level of anti semitism is very strong here."

      Cite it ... verbatim ... thx

      " Let me give you guys a history lesson. Israel has been home to the Jews for over 5000 years. "

      It's been home for others for far far longer. King David conquered someone who lived there before Judaism was even thought of and Jewish history in the region was as Palestinian Jews for far longer than any Kingdom of David or State of Israel. About 2,000 years, from at least the Roman era until 1948

      " In 1917, there was the Balfour declaration that specifically stated that the Jews had the right to return to the land."

      The Balfour declaration was one government minister. It wasn't even British policy at the time. The declaration wasn't even discussed in the British Parliament at the time! It was only later adopted into the LoN Mandate for Palestine, in particular Article 7

      "In 1922, the land was devided into Jordan for the muslims and British mandate Palestine which was meant for the Jews"

      Bullsh*t! Read Article 7 of the LoN Mandate for Palestine http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7

      "That was still the partition in 1948 when Israel became independent"

      More bullsh*t! The partition plan divided the territory into two parts. The LoN Mandate for Palestine demanded the British keep Palestine as one state for both Jews and non-Jewish Palestinians and assist it to independent statehood. As such the British could not approve of partition.

      " There was no Muslim occupied Palestine at the time "

      So what? Israel proclaimed its frontiers May 15th 1948 in its plea for International recognition 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.:" http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      What lay outside of those frontiers was quite simply not Israeli. Nor has Israel legally annexed any of the territories it illegally acquired by war since declaring its frontiers effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      Go Ziopoop elsewhere

  • Beinart calls anti-Zionists 'revolutionaries'
  • Boycott, from within and without
    • @ Raphael August 17, 2016, 7:06 pm

      "... The Arabs were and are a warlike tribe..."

      So were the French when their country was invaded. Can you name anyone who wasn't warlike when invaded?

      "they are warlike and brutal, and, did not, and do not seek to live with their neighbors in peace"

      Strange, when Israel withdrew from Egyptian territories as required under UNSC res 242, peaceful relations were assumed. Ditto Jordan. While Israel occupies other folks territories, it is at war.

      "so the Israelis were and are justified in the self defense of their land"

      Israelis are entitled to Israeli territory and defense of that territory as it was proclaimed and recognized by the majority of the International comity of Nations and International Law & conventions per the UN. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      Israelis, be they Jewish or non-Jewish, are NOT entitled to settle in non Israeli territories held under military occupation and thus far, Israel has not legally annexed ANY of the territories it has acquired by war since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

      "The Arabs even until this present day refuse to even acknowledge that Israel exists ... "

      So what? Recognition of statehood is not mandatory. ” ..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 for 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 UN Member states who do not recognize each other, yet the UN has accepted them as members.

      States are all required however 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" something Israel has failed to do, having attacked all its neighbours' territories and started every one of its wars including 1966 -67 . http://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AF3BF4FC576922B60525672E0050BEA5

      NO ONE HAS EVER INVADED ANY ISRAELI TERRITORY (ooops my caps were on ... oh well too late now, may as well bold as well) ALL OF ISRAEL'S WARS HAVE BEEN FOUGHT IN NON-ISRAELI TERRITORIES, I.E., IN TERRITORIES THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGED ON MAY 22ND 1948 AS BEING "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      "... because, the Arabs are at war with them ..."

      You have conveniently omitted because Israel occupies non-Israeli territories and has done so for over 68 years http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

      "I’m not even a Jew, I’m a non Jewish Jew; that became a Israeli, so I’m a second class citizen of the Middle East… one class above a Arab that is third class citizen, or resident"

      Irrelevant. BTW if you're not Jewish by birth or religion or conversion, you're not even a non-Jewish Jew

      "I say it in all sincerity ... ... blah blah "

      LOL Your wading around in Ziopoop is hilarious stuff

      "After all is said… it is not the UN, or the US, or the Arab States, or American Jews that the Arabs in Judea and Samaria will have to negotiate a deal with… it is with Israel."

      There's no legal requirement what so ever to negotiate with an Occupying Power except on how and when the Occupying Power will withdraw. See the Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty, which is based on UNSC res 242 which doesn't even contain the word 'negotiate'!

      "why not simply live in peace with one another, by having a nation within a nation"

      There was. Palestine, a Nation State under the LoN Mandate for Palestine Article 7

      "the nation of Israel first?"

      Why? Palestine was there for the major part of 2,000 years from at least the Roman era , far far longer than any Jewish state existed. http://wp.me/pDB7k-GO In fact, Jewish history in the region has been for the major part, as Palestinian Jews

      "Then look at creative ways rather then destructive ways to communicate with each other day to day."

      How about Israel creatively for once F*CK OFF (ooops caps again) from all non-Israeli territories it covets and has illegally acquired by war over the past 68 years

      There is not a single argument you can put forward that will ever justify Israel's crimes against the Palestinians

  • 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? https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/1A03C7BFB8D6C049852560C3004A4AAF

      "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

  • A brief history of the 'Nakba' in Israel
  • The Making of Israel: Zionist settler colonialism in historic Palestine
    • 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. http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/difference-between-occupation/#comment-822707
      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.

  • Resolution 242 does not mean what you may think it means
    • @ David Gerald Fincham May 12, 2016, 4:53 pm

      "I say that the border between two states can only defined by agreement"

      AGAIN : John Quigley in a Memo to the Prosecutor – ICC

      ” THE CREATION OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW refers to secession as separation “from a State” [p. 388] and defines secession as “the creation of a State by the use or threat of force without the consent of the former sovereign” [p. 375]. As regards secession by Israel, the only possible “former sovereign” was Palestine. link to icc-cpi.int

      " If one state makes a unilateral declaration of the mutual border, the other is not bound to accept it, just because external states have recognized it"

      Quite true, however, independence by its very nature can only be unilateral. Israel unilaterally declared itself to be independent. Independent of what or who? Not the British, Palestine was not theirs and the Israeli declaration only came into effect at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time). One minute AFTER the Mandate for Palestine expired. Israel became independent from Palestine. An act of secession.

      When a majority of nations adopt the custom of a convention, it passes into Customary International Law. Likewise when a majority of nations recognize a state., it becomes irrevocable. Majority rules, democracy at work, right or wrong, just or unjust, like it or not.

      For example, the majority of the International Comity of Nations has recognized Palestine as they asked to be recognized and;

      By their unilateral declaration of statehood, the Palestinians themselves have afforded Israel more territory than is legally, ethically, morally or logically due. All Israel has to do is end occupation. There is no legal, moral or ethical justification preventing it from doing so beginning immediately.

      However, Israel refuses to accept the fact that Palestine has a right to be independent. If the Jewish State recognizes Palestinian statehood Deuteronomy 20:15 becomes defunct.

      When the acquisition of territory ends, the Zionist colonial pyramid scheme will be starved of the one basic requirement it needs for its survival, more and more land

      On the other hand if Israel were to now adhere to International Law, it would be sent bankrupt, withdrawing, resettling hundreds of thousands of its citizens back into Israeli territory, paying for 68 years of intransigence.

      UNSC resolutions aren't the problem. The Palestinians aren't the problem. The US UNSC veto vote, Zionist Colonialism and this are the problem “THE STATE OF ISRAEL ... will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel;”

    • @ David Gerald Fincham " ... the border between Israel and Palestine is in a different category to the borders with neighboring states, and does need to be negotiated"

      How is it in a different category?

      Israel's borders were proclaimed in order to gain International recognition.

      By default any territory outside of Israel's proclaimed and recognized borders at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) when those proclaimed borders came into effect and were "recognized" by a majority of states, was quite simply not Israeli.

      Territories not within Israel or the already "recognized" pre-1948 borders of Lebanon, Syria, TransJordan, Egypt, were by default the territory of whatever remained of Palestine.

      The Israel/Lebanon Armistice Agreement of 22 MARCH 1949 for example is quite clear

      "Article V

      1. The Armistice Demarcation Line should follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine." http://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/UNISPAL.NSF/0/71260B776D62FA6E852564420059C4FE

      Israel's 31st August 1949 letter to the Conciliation Commission also makes it clear that the territories Israel occupied under the Armistice Agreements and wished to claim at that time were not yet Israeli. MORE @ http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5#israels-intentions

  • Netanyahu announces 'seminar on Jewish history' in his office-- for European diplomats
    • @ yonah fredman May 8, 2016, 12:55 am

      "your language clarifies your attitude towards Israel and me. Helps a lot. Feel better now?"

      = typical Ziodrivel

      "In fact weeks after the 6 day war, Israel announced that it was willing to exchange land for peace on two fronts: Syria and Egypt, whereas regarding the west bank, its willingness was decidedly unclear {or clearly not). "

      A) More weasel words. Read the Peace Agreement with Egypt. Israel WITHDREW from Egyptian territory for peace. There was no 'exchange of land for peace'. There was compliance with the law. B) Israel's 'willingness' in regards to the West Bank has been a sick joke.

      "... for withdrawal from the west bank to result in a peace accord would have/will require dealing with the issue of the Palestinian refugees, an issue that Israel has always seen as life threatening"

      Nonsense. If they were seen as life threatening, why did the Israeli Declaration of statehood beg non-Jewish Israeli citizens to stay? "We appeal - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions"

      It's amazing that anyone actually believes the people who drafted the Israeli Declaration of statehood were un-aware that under Plan Dalet non-Jews were being cleansed from what would become Israeli territories?

      BTW at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) they were no longer Palestinians. They were non-Jewish Israelis

      "Not nearly as easy an issue as territory"

      It is and has been an issue of territory from the moment Israel proclaimed its borders in its official plea for recognition and was subsequently Internationally recognized by those borders. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

  • Saying Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is not anti-Semitic
    • hoya saxa May 3, 2016, 12:07 pm

      "Always interesting that the world can have dozens of islamic states and no one bats an eyelash but the thought of one jewish state in the world makes some cringe and scream racism and intolerance. Gaza is 99% muslim, sigh. West Bank is 98% muslim, boring. Israel is 75% jewish.."

      What is interesting is that your rant is irrelevant to Israel's self proclaimed and Internationally recognized borders and Israel's illegal activities in non-Israeli territories since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time).

      Interesting also that unlike Israel, none of those Islamic states are acting illegally in territories outside their Internationally recognized borders. Unlike Israel, none occupy territories outside their borders. Unlike Israel, they have for the most part, except for Iraq attacking Iran, had "respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; " per the UN Charter

      Whereas Israel has attacked all its neighbours, occupies non-Israeli territories, illegally settles Israeli civilians in non-Israeli territories, is in breach of International Law, the UN Charter, relative Geneva Conventions, numerous UNSC resolutions and its own Declaration of statehood

  • Woman and child killed in Iraq as US adopts Israeli 'knocker' bombs and leaflet drops
  • 'NYT' manages to make childhood detention story work for Israel
    • @ hophmi "There is a Jewish state and Israel is a democracy"

      A) A state that covets other folks property, steals other folks property and murders to do it, supported by liars and false accusers is NOT a Jewish state, it's an abomiNation

      B) There's nothing about democracy in the Declaration of statehood. In fact it says ISRAEL ... will " be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel;”

      C) There has never been a legally elected government in Israel under the impossible to write, but promised and legally necessary constitution.

      "... it’s always amazing to me that people who oppose a Jewish state because of the Naqba oppose the presence of Jews in Hebron"

      It's Israelis who have no legal place in non-Israeli territory "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine" held under Israeli occupation

      " a place where they were the victims of a massacre in 1929, and from where they subsequently had to flee"

      Go moan to the Zionist Movement, Jewish Agency and Jewish People's Council for proclaiming Israel's borders effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      "Maybe instead of name-calling, you should come up with a plan"

      Israel can f*ck off out of all non-Israeli territories for once instead of breaking the basic tenets of Judaism, International Law, the UN Charter and numerous UNSC resolutions reaffirming and emphasizing binding law

      "Or maybe they have experienced a generation of terrorism that has caused them to question whether it’s possible for them to live in harmony with their neighbors:"

      How true, pre-state Jewish terrorists did slaughter Jews who got in the way ...

      " Israel isn’t a violent society"

      Tell that to the illegal settlers and IDF goons who slaughter non-Jews in disproportionate numbers in order to steal non-Israeli territory coveted by the Zionist Colonization project

      " Please. Look everywhere else in the Middle East if you want to see what a violent society looks like. Look at the United States. We have a much greater murder rate here. We incarcerate a lot more people."

      Whataboutery 101. How pathetic. If other places weren't so violent, Israel would suddenly adhere to International Law? Is that the point your trying to make? Amazing!!! Or maybe it's if folk look at all the other rapists and murderers, your favourite rapist and murderer won't appear to be so bad, despite still being a rapist and murderer.

      "No one is throwing non-Jews out of Israel."

      Israeli propaganda is U

  • When 'Broad City' Went On Birthright, and taught us all a lesson about American Jews and Israel
  • The Tantura massacre of 1948 and the academic character assassination of Teddy Katz
    • Jon66 March 8, 2016, 9:12 pm

      "But Israeli forces did not cross the cease fire lines to attack Egyptian and Syrian forces"

      In 1966 Israel breached the Armistice Agreements https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/1A03C7BFB8D6C049852560C3004A4AAF

      In 1967 Israel illegally acquired by war non-Israeli territories. It failed 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;"

      Since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) Israel has remained the aggressor.

      For the Ziostupid: if some arrogant, moronic, big headed, crap babbling, rrrrrrsol takes over parts of your home and refuses to leave, they are the aggressor, even if they are Jewish

      Try something else, you're losing. You can never justify the unjustifiable

    • @ Jon66 March 8, 2016, 7:58 am ...

      "Can you explain how Israel “started” the Yom Kippur War? "

      Sure, even tho propagandists like yourself aren't the least bit interested. Truth, facts and above all honesty are quite understandably not in your brief.

      However you offer yet another opportunity to inform genuinely interested folk

      " A cease-fire had been in place along the fronts after 1967"

      DOCUMENT A/L.519 19 June 1967

      Noting that Israel, in gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the universally accepted principles of international law, has committed a premeditated and previously prepared aggression against the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan, and has occupied parts of their territory and inflicted great material damage upon them,

      Noting that, in contravention of Security Council resolutions 233 (1967), 234 (1967) and 235 (1967) of 6, 7 and 9 June 1967, on the immediate cessation of all hostilities and a cease-fire, Israel continued to conduct offensive military operations against the above-mentioned States and seized additional territory,

      Noting further that, although military activities have now ceased, Israel continues its occupation of the territory of the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan, thus failing to halt its aggression and defying the United Nations and all peace-loving States,

      Regarding as unacceptable and unlawful Israel’s territorial claims on the Arab States, which prevent the restoration of peace in the area,

      1. Vigorously condemns Israel’s aggressive activities and the continuing occupation by Israel of part of the territory of the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan, which constitutes an act of recognized aggression;

      2. Demands that Israel should immediately and unconditionally withdraw all its forces from the territory of those States to positions behind the armistice demarcation lines, as stipulated in the General Armistice Agreements, and should respect the status of the demilitarized zones, as prescribed in the Armistice Agreements;

      3. Demands also that Israel should make good in full and within the shortest possible period of time all the damage inflicted by its aggression on the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan and on their nationals, and should return to them all seized property and other material assets;

      As Israel had ignored its legal obligation and broken the ceasefire, under the UN Charter Chapter VI, the other Regional Powers had and still have the right to attempt to expel Israeli forces from non-Israeli territories in order to "restore" their sovereignty.

      Contrary to the Israeli propaganda citing Schwebel's deviously worded Right of Conquest Schwebel/Lautherpacht/Herzog actually tell us that States may "restore" their sovereignty over territories illegally 'acquired by war' by another party. Israel has never had any sovereign territory taken from it to be restored. The Arab states have! http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#Schwebel

      BTW once started, a state of war exists until an agreement formalizing surrender of one party or; both sign a Peace Treaty. A Peace Treaty such as that between Egypt and Israel required Israel to withdraw from Egyptian territory. It's not the weasel worded 'land for peace', it's withdrawal for peace

      To your question: Prior to Israel's Declaration of Statehood and subsequent proclamation of its borders in order to gain International recognition , Plan Dalet saw Jewish forces in territories not slated for the Jewish state and outside of Israel's proclaimed borders at the moment those borders were proclaimed effective, that was the start of all of Israel's wars. The other regional Powers had and still have every right to attempt to expel Israeli forces from territories acquired by war by Israel since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      @ Jon66 March 8, 2016, 5:13 pm

      " If he means that they are all an extension of the War of Independence"

      Israel's War of Independence ended the moment Israel proclaimed itself independent. With what became Israeli forces in non-Israeli territory it immediately became a war by the State of Israel against whatever remained of Palestine and Palestinian allies.

      There has never been a Peace Treaty with Palestine and Israel has never fully withdrawn from any Palestinian territories it has occupied since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

    • Ooooops sorry about the thread jump

      @ Jon66 March 8, 2016, 7:58 am

      "Can you explain how Israel “started” the Yom Kippur War? "

      Sure, even tho propagandists like yourself aren't the least bit interested. Truth, facts and above all honesty are quite understandably not in your brief.

      However you offer yet another opportunity to inform genuinely interested folk

      " A cease-fire had been in place along the fronts after 1967"

      DOCUMENT A/L.519 19 June 1967

      Noting that Israel, in gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the universally accepted principles of international law, has committed a premeditated and previously prepared aggression against the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan, and has occupied parts of their territory and inflicted great material damage upon them,

      Noting that, in contravention of Security Council resolutions 233 (1967), 234 (1967) and 235 (1967) of 6, 7 and 9 June 1967, on the immediate cessation of all hostilities and a cease-fire, Israel continued to conduct offensive military operations against the above-mentioned States and seized additional territory,

      Noting further that, although military activities have now ceased, Israel continues its occupation of the territory of the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan, thus failing to halt its aggression and defying the United Nations and all peace-loving States,

      Regarding as unacceptable and unlawful Israel’s territorial claims on the Arab States, which prevent the restoration of peace in the area,

      1. Vigorously condemns Israel’s aggressive activities and the continuing occupation by Israel of part of the territory of the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan, which constitutes an act of recognized aggression;

      2. Demands that Israel should immediately and unconditionally withdraw all its forces from the territory of those States to positions behind the armistice demarcation lines, as stipulated in the General Armistice Agreements, and should respect the status of the demilitarized zones, as prescribed in the Armistice Agreements;

      3. Demands also that Israel should make good in full and within the shortest possible period of time all the damage inflicted by its aggression on the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan and on their nationals, and should return to them all seized property and other material assets;

      As Israel had ignored its legal obligation and broken the ceasefire, under the UN Charter Chapter VI, the other Regional Powers had and still have the right to attempt to expel Israeli forces from non-Israeli territories in order to "restore" their sovereignty.

      Contrary to the Israeli propaganda citing Schwebel's deviously worded Right of Conquest Schwebel/Lautherpacht/Herzog actually tell us that States may "restore" their sovereignty over territories illegally 'acquired by war' by another party. Israel has never had any sovereign territory taken from it to be restored. The Arab states have! http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#Schwebel

      BTW once started, a state of war exists until an agreement formalizing surrender of one party or; both sign a Peace Treaty. A Peace Treaty such as that between Egypt and Israel required Israel to withdraw from Egyptian territory. It's not the weasel worded 'land for peace', it's withdrawal for peace

      To your question: Prior to Israel's Declaration of Statehood and subsequent proclamation of its borders in order to gain International recognition , Plan Dalet saw Jewish forces in territories not slated for the Jewish state and outside of Israel's proclaimed borders at the moment those borders were proclaimed effective, that was the start of all of Israel's wars. The other regional Powers had and still have every right to attempt to expel Israeli forces from territories acquired by war by Israel since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      @ Jon66 March 8, 2016, 5:13 pm

      " If he means that they are all an extension of the War of Independence"

      Israel's War of Independence ended the moment Israel proclaimed itself independent. With what became Israeli forces in non-Israeli territory it immediately became a war by the State of Israel against whatever remained of Palestine and Palestinian allies.

      There has never been a Peace Treaty with Palestine and Israel has never fully withdrawn from any Palestinian territories it has occupied since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

    • @ Jackdaw "Every war has war crimes"

      Indeed. Starting a war is a war crime. Israel started all its wars, without which there'd have been no war crimes in this conflict

      "So why is Israel’s 1948 War of Independence exceptional? ?"

      Uh? The only person here referring to it as exceptional is YOU!

      BTW Israel's war of independence was over at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf at which time Israel was independent and thru the preemptive Plan Dalet in military control of (AKA occupying) territories the Israeli Government itself said on May 22nd 1948 were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

  • In Canada, BDS loses in the House of Commons but wins on university campuses (Updated)
    • @ Juan R. February 27, 2016, 7:31 pm

      "The Treaty of Lausanne stated that the status of territories not named in the treaty must be agreed upon by the parties concerned."

      You're spouting twaddle pal. The parties concerned are named in Article 1 of that treaty. The documents you cite DO NOT support your Ziopoop

      Never the less, it and everything that went before 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) was superseded by the Israeli Declaration, the subsequent plea for recognition and subsequent recognition by that[pleas borders.

      Whatever lay outside of Israel's borders was not Israeli. It's that simple, except of course to moronic little Zionist trolls, have nothing better than bullsh*t to peddle

      " Israel did not exist then. Nor did Palestine, except as a Mandate."

      Oh FFS. It was a Class A Mandate and Article 7 of the Mandate for PALESTINE makes it VERY CLEAR to all but a moron that Palestine was a state, by 1925 it had adopted the Palestinian Nationality Law. It was a Nation State in which Jews could get PALESTINIAN citizenship

      "But Great Britain signed it and they bound themselves to try to get the concerned parties into agreement. "

      Hey idiot, read Article 7 of the League of Nations Mandate for PALESTINE and stop posting garbage

      " The Palestinians attacked Israel with the Arab armies behind them and lost."

      How do you know they attacked Israel? You said Israel had no borders, so it must have been absolutely impossible to tell if Israel had been attacked.

      The Israeli Government on May 22nd 1948 didn't mention Israel being attacked. The war was in territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      "The Jordanian Arabs did not want the green lines to be a boundary so there wrote that into the armistice agreement and signed it."

      More crap. Israel AND Jordan signed it and the West Bank as it is now known, was legally annexed at the request of the majority of its legal inhabitants The annexation was as a trustee only by DEMAND of the other Arab States (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950).

      " Israel acted defensively"

      Bullsh*t. Under Plan Dalet Jewish forces were already outside Israel's borders on the day Israel proclaimed them in its plea for recognition.

      " and so they gained sovereignty over the 22%"

      Since 1945 it has been illegal to acquire territory by war or any coercive measure. Read the UN Charter and the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States http://pages.citebite.com/y1f0t4q1v4son

      " The Arabs tried again in 1967"

      More bullsh*t. Israel was attacking its neighbours in 1966 https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/1A03C7BFB8D6C049852560C3004A4AAF

      There are no UNSC resolutions condemning ANYONE for invading or attacking Israel, because Israel started all its wars and they were all fought in territories "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      " Let’s have lunch ... "

      No thanks when I have lunch I like to enjoy it, not be treated to Ziovomit by an idiotic Israeli propagandist

      " ... as soon as I get back from Damascus"

      Save it pal. Nothing you've provided as a fact has in fact been true, why on earth do you think anyone in their right mind would believe you're going to Damascus?

  • Palestine and the anxiety of existence
    • "There is an interesting dynamic in Salaita’s essay: pretense."

      Nonsense

      " As if when one proposes a solution that solution is the only thing that exists and all other possible outcomes disappear because the speaker doesn’t recognize their existence"

      A rational person would surely know it's impossible to discuss every possibility. No mention in the bible about the InterNet, Nuclear power, Drones, billions in US military aid for Israel's hi-tech human slaughtering equipment, etc etc

      " Due to the oppression of the Palestinians Salaita does not feel burdened by the reality of what might occur, he is satisfied with his proposal of what he feels should occur"

      You must be so disappointed that the discussion of every possibility is impossible.

      "Those who can imagine some other outcome than the one Salaita harbors in his heart are paranoid and subject to peculiar insecurities"

      See you couldn't do it either. No mention of the Zionist Federation's decision in 1897 to Colonize Palestine thru an outrageous profit making pyramid scheme that depends on more and more land and more and more gullible Jews. No mention of the Jewish Agencies blatant lies to every body ever formed attempting to bring peace to the region. No mention of the numerous UNSC resolutions Israel has ignored

      " While supporters of the Palestinians may rejoice in his words, there really is not an inch ceded to either Jewish history, Middle Eastern history or the reality on the ground"

      Why should there be? The moment Israel proclaimed its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) in order to gain International recognition, Jewish history became irrelevant to the actual territory of the Jewish state and its illegal activities outside if its officially proclaimed and Internationally recognized boundaries

      "Yes, he is right to speak for the Palestinians, but when he claims as if he is speaking to the Jews (Zionists), it is a lie. He is scoffing. And he knows it.

      Whatever accusations you need to make in order to keep your bile flowing, head in the sand delusions alive

      " his words get us no nearer to the truth or to a better future"

      The Zionist Federation, Jewish Agency and Israeli Hasbara words have never been truthful and Israel's illegal actions in the continued illegal colonization of Palestine have never brought anyone nearer peace

      The time has long passed for you realize your pathetic responses and the Israeli narrative are either straw or have no basis in truth and Israel's demands for other folks territory for Israeli defense and recognition by Palestine have absolutely no basis in law.

      Like there's no such thing as a little bit pregnant, a wrong is a wrong and trying to excuse the inexcusable even a little bit by ridiculous accusations, is inexcusable.

    • Can anyone answer these two questions honestly? :

      1) What actual defenses do the Palestinians have against Israeli fighter bombers or helicopter gunships or artillery fired from Israeli warships, ground artillery or weaponized drones?

      2) How many Israeli fighter bombers, helicopter gunships, Israeli warships, ground artillery or weaponized drones have the Palestinians (not the armies of the Arab States) been able to destroy in the last 68 years?

      Iin place long before Israel was declared and a well established part of International Law that Israel obliged itself to uphold, the Laws of War, Art. 25., tells us and Israel's military leaders of the past 68 years that: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited

      Seems there have been 68 years of war crimes by every Israeli military leader as of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time), when Israel's border took effect.

  • Israel demolishes only elementary school for Bedouin community in Jerusalem
    • International Law, the UN Charter and numerous International Conventions were adopted in large part on the treatment of our fellows under the Nazi regime.

      Every minute of every hour of every day since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948(ME time) Israel has been in breach of its obligations to International Law, the UN Charter and Human Rights conventions and of the basic tenets of Judaism.

      Israel is worse than the %^&* Nazis.

  • Jews aren't special
  • Law firm pulls $250,000 gift to Harvard over Palestine event (demonstrating Zionism's pervasiveness)
    • @ cfulbright "... Jews, on the other hand, have been living in Israel for over 3,000 years. "
      A) Some did. Amongst the other indigenous inhabitants. However, Jews have actually only ever been a minority in the region
      B) The Kingdom of David lasted a few hundred years max. The State of Israel has existed only 68 years. Palestine existed for at least the 2,000 years after the Roman era.
      C) Jewish history in the region has been as Palestinians , far longer than any Jewish regime.

      "Greedy, belligerent and intransigent Zionism” – of course the word “greedy” in there reveals the author’s anti-Semitism, because everyone knows that Jews are greedy"
      Antisemitism is specific to the hatred of Jews, not Zionism. The author didn't say Jews, YOU DID! Like all idiot Ziopoopers you had to alter what was said!

      "Israel has been attacked ten times and counting by one or more Arab countries that surround it, either by outright invasion in 1948 and 1973"
      No Israeli territory has ever been invaded. There are no UNSC resolutions condemning anyone for attempting to expel Israeli forces from territories the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT said on May 22nd 1948 were territories were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      naval blockade (which is an act of war) in 1956 and 1967
      A blockade can only exist (be real) if it is been enforced. No blockade on Israel has ever actually been enforced. BTW that makes the Israeli blockade on Gaza an act of war!

      " Every country is entitled to defend itself, even a Jewish one. But Israel is the only country that has won all its wars but is not supposed to claim any fruits from those victories."
      The acquisition of territories by war or any coercive measure has been illegal since at least 1933, http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897#art11 certainly by 1945 under the UN Charter.
      Schwebel, Lauterpacht, Herzog tell us that territories may be "restored' by war, not 'acquired' by war. https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/UNISPAL.NSF/0/65A12B78BC3108A8052565FD0056A8BE

      " Israel was created with a UN resolution in 1947. "
      It was created the moment the Israeli Government proclaimed its borders effective at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      "“Palestine” at the time was a piece of the former Ottoman Empire for which the UK had been given a League of Nations mandate in 1919. It wasn’t a country."
      Article 7 of the LoN Mandate for PALESTINE (1922), tells us Jews could attain PALESTINIAN citizenship.

      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 per the Mandate was adopted in 1945. Palestine was a Nation State by the time it was partitioned by default of Israel's proclaimed borders 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      "The only invasions were Arab invasions of Israel
      The bible tells us our Jewish forefathers invaded and created the short lived Kingdom of David. The Romans invaded. The Roman Empire disintegrated. Jewish folk who remained in the region lived as Palestinian Jews amongst the other indigenous people for some 2,000 years. The Ottomans invaded. The Zionist Federation began invading in 1897 in order to colonize Palestine. Jewish forces under plan Dalet were already beyond the borders proclaimed by the Israeli Government on the day they became effective. The Arab Regional Powers had a right to attempt to expel Jewish/Israeli forces from non-Israeli territories. The Israeli Govt tells us they invaded "Palestine" http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/5%20Arab%20League%20declaration%20on%20the%20invasion%20of%20Pales.aspx

      The Palestinians have never invaded

      "Israel took the West Bank and the Golan in 1967 "
      The acquisition of territory by war is illegal http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/b86613e7d92097880525672e007227a7/6de6da8a650b4c3b852560df00663826?OpenDocument and http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un497.htm

      "As for genocide, I have to laugh. How do 300,000 Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank in 1948 turn into 5 million Arabs in 2016 in a genocide? "
      By your criteria there was no Holocaust because now there are more Jewish folk

      "But please check the number of Jews remaining in Muslim countries"
      Countries at war have every right to expel or intern possible allies of their enemies. They have a duty to also allow their return after hostilities except if they have taken citizenship in a country other than that of return, thereby foregoing their refugee status and their right to return

      "keeps killing unarmed civilians at the slightest opportunity – You’ve got to love that “unarmed”. At least count, 29 Israelis and 5 Americans have been killed by Arab terrorists ... etc "
      Doesn't change the fact that far far more un-armed Palestinian civilians have been slaughtered by Israel

      " In 2014 Hamas fired over 4,000 rockets into Israel, and if they’d been successful, more than 4,000 Israeli civilians would have died. That’s hardly unarmed."
      But they weren't successful and 4,000 Israeli citizens DIDN'T die.

      "ask Saudi Arabia to take some of those Syrian Muslim refugees"
      http://www.newsweek.com/gulf-states-are-taking-syrian-refugees-401131

      " Arabs only got to Israel in the 7th century "
      Israel didn't exist in the 7th century. Palestine did

      "The “disaster” was a disaster for the Arabs because they attacked Israel in 1948 and again in 1967"
      A) There are no UNSC resolutions condemning any one for attempting to expel Israeli forces from non-Israeli territories in 1948 B) UNSC res 228 of 1966 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unres228.html tells us Israel was waging war before 1967

      "just as not all Muslims are Islamic nationalists, and not all Glaswegians are Scottish nationalists, so not all Jews are Zionist.
      So being against Zionism isn't Antisemitism

      " The Zionist Federation decided to colonize Palestine in 1897, they still support the dispossession and slaughter of non-Jews in Palestine and Israel – No, they supported resettlement in the ancient homeland of the Jewish people"
      They currently support Israelis to settle outside the state of Israel, in non-Israeli territories under Israeli occupation

      " and they were willing to buy land from Arabs to settle there."
      They buy 'real estate'. Real estate is not territory. Chinese companies own real estate in Australia, they have no territorial rights. Israel paid NOTHING for its territory

      " And exactly what slaughter of non-Jews has there been, given the Arab population has grown 1667% in 70 years?"
      By your criteria there was no Holocaust because now there are more Jewish folk

      It became apparent about a year ago that ordinary western moderation was not adequate to deal with Zionist comments . “Let’s just shut the Jews up.”
      Again you have to change Zionist to Jews

      YOU are deceitful and full of Ziopoop pal

  • 'An Arab is an Arab'
    • @ Boris

      "From what I can see this identity was created in late 60’s in order to undermine the legitimacy of the only Jewish state "

      When the only thing you look at is Zionist crap, that's all you'll see

      League of Nations Mandate for PALESTINE

      Article 7 of the League of Nations Mandate for PALESTINE " 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. "

      PALESTINIANNationality Law was passed in 1925.

      Palestine was a Nation in 1925. It had a defined territory, laws and International trading partners, its own currency.

      The State of Israel didn't exist until, according to the provisional Israeli Government, precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf and it was limited by proclamation and International recognition to the territory " within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" and for the first few months Israel used the PALESTINIAN pound as its official currency

      Take your Ziodrivel elsewhere pal, it's boring

  • Park Slope Food Coop puts up firewall against boycott of Israeli goods
    • In all my years of searching and asking, no one has yet been able to point to any document whereby territories acquired by war by Israel post 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) have been legally acquired by or legally assigned to or agreed by consensus of a majority, to be Israeli.

      The ICJ statements define Occupied Palestinian Territories based on the Palestinian declaration of statehood, wherein Palestine is willing to accept only 22% of its territory. Because the question they were asked to consider didn't include the extent of Israel's sovereignty, the ICJ statements do not actually define Israel's territories

      In respect to the "embassies" moved from Jerusalem:
      1) they were 13, a minority of nations
      2) of the 13, were they all before moving in fact embassies or were some only consulates to Israel or;
      3) of the 13, were they all embassies to Israel or were some embassies in what was expected to have been the Corpus Separatum?
      4) The majority of nations who recognized Israel have never had embassies to Israel outside the UNGA res 181 borders
      5) The British have an Israeli embassy in TelAviv. The British Consul-General in Jerusalem meanwhile is not accredited to any state

      Some countries including the US, now maintain a consulate in Jerusalem as part of the "Consular Corps of the Corpus Separatum". Corpus Separatum was of UNGA res 181, same as the US's recognition of Israel per Israel's plea for recognition. This would seem to indicate that the US has yet to recognize any further territories as Israeli

      ----

      @ Sibiriak

      Re all the references to the Armistice Agreements of 1949. You are presuming that by default the territory is Israeli. But they do not actually define Israeli territory. The Armistice Agreements specifically state that the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed as a territorial border.

      The ONLY document defining Israeli territory is the Israeli Government plea for recognition

    • @ Sibiriak

      Closer reading necessary "[Hostage:] The principles of international law regarding annexation of territory did not apply to the civil war (a non-international armed conflict) between the communities of the Palestine mandate. "

      The Mandate terminated midnight 14th May 1948. At 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) Israel was no longer a community of the mandate. Nor was whatever remained of Palestine. It was no longer a civil war

      "[Hostage:] After the mandate was terminated, Israel declared its independence ..."

      ... within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf @ 00:01 on the 15th May 1948 (ME time) no territory outside of the UNGA 181 defined boundaries belonged to Israel

      22nd May 1948 the Israeli Government itself claimed it had territories "outside the State of Israel" under Israeli military control http://pages.citebite.com/x1r0b4d1y6mkv

      Territories under Military Control are occupied Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III @ 22nd May 1948 no territory outside of the UNGA 181 defined boundaries belonged to Israel

      12th Aug 1948 Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations+since+1947/1947-1974/2+Jerusalem+Declared+Israel-Occupied+City-+Governm.htm @ 12th Aug 1948 still no territory outside of the UNGA 181 defined boundaries belonged to Israel

      31st of August 1949 Israel tried to lay claim to those territories (as a UN Member state) http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5#coveting-land @ 31st of August 1949 still no territory outside of the UNGA 181 defined boundaries belonged to Israel

      Israel's 31st August 1949 claims were rebuffed, citing the Armistice Agreements, specifically the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to “be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”

      Summary: As late as 31st August 1949 the territories acquired by war as of 00:01 May 1948 (ME time) were quite simply not yet Israeli.
      --------------
      "Hostage: Sovereignty is just a synonym for jurisdiction. The two sides signed international armistice agreements that permit them to govern the respective territories until hell freezes over absent any mutually agreed upon modifications of the armistice borders"
      A) "govern" It did not assign those territories to them, in fact the Armistice agreements specifically stated the Armistice Demarcation Lines were not to be construed as territorial boundaries
      B) The Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel was superseded by the Israel Jordan Peace Treaty. At which point hell froze over and the issue became one between Palestine and Israel.

      3) “Annexation is nothing more than the de jure application of a State’s municipal laws to a new territory.” (Hostage)

      'de jure' being the operative word. Israel's 31st August 1949 claims were rebuffed (see above)

      The UN sponsored and internationally recognized 1949 Armistice Agreements gave Israel the legal right to extend its municipal laws to the territory acquired in 1947-9

      Israel's 31st August 1949 claims were rebuffed (see above)

  • What's the big difference between Israel's 1967 occupation and its 1948 occupation?
    • @ Sibiriak

      "I. First of all, whether or not the UN is prohibited from censuring non-members is a red herring. According to the international legal and political consensus, the “Green Line” is the dividing line between “Israeli Territory” and “Occupied Palestinian Territory”. That has been affirmed in numerous UN resolutions and in the ICJ Wall case."

      The ICJ was not asked to rule on any issues pre- Israeli Membership. The ICJ opinion concerns only "territory that came under lsraeli military government control in 1967" and it only affirms the necessity of " ... ending the conflict on the basis of the two- State solution of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security based on the Armistice Line of 1949, in accordance with relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, ".

      It affirms the necessity because there has not yet been an agreement on the matter per the agreements re the Armistice Demarcation lines

      "2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary , and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question." http://www.avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm01.asp#art5

      "There isn’t a single UN resolution or ICJ opinion that affirms that the dividing line between Israeli territory and “Occupied Palestinian Territory” is something other than the Green Line"

      There is not a single UN resolution or ICJ opinion that actually assigns any territory acquired by war by Israel since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) to Israel for the simple reason that there is yet to be a final agreement on the Question of Palestine

      "Therefore a prohibition on censure, even if it did exist, does not at all address the issue of the multiple UN/ICJ affirmations which posit the Green Line, not UN res 181 partition borders, as the provisional border between Israel and Palestine"

      "provisional" being the operative word

      "For example, the UN resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 May 2004, 58/292: "

      By which time Israel is a UN Member and by which time Palestine had signaled its willingness to accept only some 22% of their rightful territories for peace. Israel has yet to agree. Nothing has been finally determined

      "The UN resolution does not “censure”; it “affirms” and “expresses”

      https://www.google.com.au/search?q=United%20nations%20censure

      "There is nothing that prevented the UN from affirming that ” Palestinian territory occupied outside the partition borders defined by UN res181 remains one of military occupation.” The UN could have done that, but they chose not to."

      Like a football club censuring a non members, it'd be meaningless.

      However, Israel itself stated the territories it had acquired by war by May 22nd 1948 were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine" and " under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard"

      Ditto - the Provisional Israeli Government proclaimed Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948

      Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

      "Furthermore, there was nothing that prevented the UN from applying the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force to the territory between partition lines and the Green Line. The UN could have done that, but they chose not to."

      Israel isn't mentioned in any UNSC resolution until its membership application/s

      "There is nothing that prevented the ICJ from expressing the opinion that the wall was illegal because it was “in departure of the partition borders established by UN res 181. The ICJ could have done that, but they choose not to."

      They weren't asked

      " there is no prohibition on the censure or condemnation of non-members. I quickly found a few examples. "

      None of which directly order anything of the offending state. They tell Member states what they may/might do to encourage that state to comply

      "But if the UNSC can authorize enforcement measures to be taken against non-members, including economic sanctions and military action, then surely any such measures would be preceded by resolutions condemning the non-member for violations that justify those enforcement measures"

      Condemn and inform Members what they may/might do, but no direct censure to the offending state.

      "It is completely nonsensical to argue that UNSC has the authority to unleash war on a non-member yet is prohibited from censuring that non-member"

      UN Charter: The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

  • Why Rabbi Susan Talve was called a 'real terrorist' by St Louis activists
  • Israel's 'security' wall has provided little security
    • @ genesto "I guarantee this second option to be much more effective, more gratifying for all affected – and a hell of a lot cheaper!!"

      Cheaper? Not so. It is the greatest fear of any nation is to become a bankrupt state and/or embroiled in a civil war, especially if that war is in territories not yet belonging to that state by any legal agreement or legal instrument.

      Israel cannot now after 68 years of breaking International Law afford to suddenly adhere to it.

      Little understood is the fact that the UN cannot censure non-members for their actions nor can it censure a Member State in retrospect for its actions prior to membership. There are no UNSC resolutions naming Israel prior to Israel's applications for UN Membership. Such actions can never the less be in contravention of International Law which is binding on all states.

      Jewish forces under Plan Dalet were already in non-Israeli territories at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) when, according to the Israeli Government at the time, Israel's proclaimed borders came into effect http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

      The law requires rightful compensation for 68 years of transgressions as of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) and the removal of hundreds of thousands of illegal Israeli settlers who will;
      A) either need to take Palestinian citizenship if they're welcome or need to be resettled back in Israeli territory and who will be;
      B) really p*ssed off at being lied to by successive Israeli Governments and who will undoubtedly;
      C) start class actions against the State of Israel for being lied to for 68 years and;
      D) the return of non-Jewish Israeli citizens to within Israel's actual borders of 00:01 May 15th 1948, land and housing compensation AND their compensation for 68 years of hardship while dispossessed

      Israel would become a bankrupt, failed state.

      Furthermore, as Israel has never legally acquired by any legal mechanism or agreement any territories outside of its self proclaimed and Internationally recognized borders, the evacuation/relocation of hundreds of thousands of entrenched illegal Israeli settlers will likely result in a civil war in those non-Israeli territories needing to be evacuated

      An Israeli civil war in non-Israeli territory will turn into a nightmare and would give other UN Member States and the other Regional Powers the right to military intervention under the UN Charter Chapt VII as the Arab States did in 1948. For which BTW there was no UNSC condemnation against any Arab state even tho four of those five regional powers were UN Member states at the time

      Israel must plea bargain and strike an agreement under which territory is ceded to it thru a legally binding agreement.

      The Palestinians in front of the world at the UN http://pages.citebite.com/e9p5s8u2yhcd and the Arab peace initiative have shown their willingness to reach such an agreement despite the fact that;

      There is no moral or legal basis for the Palestinians to forgo any of their legal rights in order to achieve independent statehood and final full UN Membership under which they could demand full restitution

      Israel alas, protected only by the US UNSC veto vote, vainly chooses to remain in the pot

    • @ MaxNarr "please keep in mind there is no “border” with Judea and Samaria"

      Correct.
      1) The West Bank as it was officially renamed by the sovereign of 1950, was legally annexed at the request of the majority of the legitimate inhabitants. Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950).

      2) As such, the West Bank was under Jordanian sovereignty by 1967. Jordan was by then a UN Member State and as a signatory to GC IV, a High Contracting Power which is why the UNSC tells us Israel in breach of GC IV http://wp.me/pDB7k-W8

      "... there were armistance lines ... "

      Correct. The Armistice Demarcation Lines that, according to the Armistice AGREEMENTS Israel AGREED TO by signing the Armistice AGREEMENTS, were specifically not to be construed as territorial boundaries http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm01.asp

      "made after the illegal Jordanian aggression into Jewish lands"

      Strange. In the Israeli Government plea for recognition the Israeli Government itself claimed that the Jewish state's borders were in accordance with UNGA res 181 http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf It was subsequently recognized according to its plea for recognition. Jordan didn't enter any Jewish state territory

      By 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) there were already Jewish forces under Plan Dalet in territories NOT proclaimed as being of the Jewish State

      " where they illegally occupied Judea and Samaria"

      Strange. There was an Armistice Agreement. Do you know what an agreement is Max? Israel signed it, agreeing that TransJordan was the Occupying Power.

      You're peddling idiotic Ziopoop written specially for morons Max

  • 'I endorse the cultural boycott of Israel': Prominent artists support New York-based campaign for cultural boycott of Israel
    • @ hophmi " Since most BDS activists know little about the Holocaust"

      Source ?

      "and since BDS literature consciously excludes mention of the Holocaust from its history of the conflict, these misguided activists should be reminded of that aspect of the pain they cause"

      Why would they mention it? The Zionist Federation decided to colonize Palestine in 1897, long before the Holocaust and Israel was "proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947 " effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) some time AFTER the Holocaust.

      The Holocaust is irrelevant to BDS and it's irrelevant to Israel's illegal actions in territories the Israeli Government itself claimed were"outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine".

      The Holocaust in no way justifies Israel's illegal behaviour in the Occupied Territories

      Try something else

  • Israel gets to use violence. Palestinians don't. That's the rule
    • @ olive52 <em" both Arabs and Jews were coexisting there for centuries"

      Correct. All Jewish folk could have returned to Palestine from after the fall of the Roman empire til 1922. Few bothered. Even Herzl could have in his life time. He didn't bother, nor did his family and those Jews who'd stayed in Palestine lived in relative peace and were in the main against the UNGA partition plan 1947

      " when Arabs rejected the British mandate to divide the land

      Oh? Under what LoN Mandate for Palestine article? Please quote it .... after you've read Article 7 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7

      According to the Israeli Government [ http://pages.citebite.com/d2w2m2n6a3mad ] the LoN Mandate for Palestine terminated BEFORE Israel's borders were proclaimed effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) [ http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf ]

      "(land that never belonged exclusively to Arabs)" It didn't belong exclusively to Jews either. In fact only a small percentage of 'real estate' in Palestine was bought by Jews http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Palestine_Land_ownership_by_sub-district_(1945).jpg

      Private and institutionally owned 'real estate' does not give anyone the right to 'territory'. Numerous foreign companies and govts own 'real estate' in Australia, they have absolutely no territorial rights what so ever.

      In fact Israel was given completely gratis the territory for the Jewish state. It cost the state of Israel absolutely nothing.

      "but of course the blame must always be on Israel"

      Israel is carrying on illegal activities in territories "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      The Palestinians demand their legal rights in accordance with the UN Charter and International Laws Israel agreed to uphold. Israeli demands for recognition, land swaps and a demilitarized Palestine have no legal basis what so ever

  • 'Why I am a Zionist'
    • Sibiriak "... the borders based on the armistice agreements of 1949 and subsequent peace agreements.."

      There has never been an Armistice Agreement or Peace Agreement with Palestine.

      The Peace agreement between Israel and Egypt states that Israel will first withdraw from all of Egypt's sovereign territory before peaceful relations are assumed. Doesn't mention and Peace Treaty with Palestine.

      " With respect to Palestine, the armistice line, aka “Green Line” or “pre-1967 borders,” has become the provisional border that divides “Israeli territory” from “occupied Palestinian territory“"

      Armistice Agreement :

      "2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

      There has been no ultimate settlement of the Palestine question. The territories Israel has acquired by war since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) are not yet Israeli

      " it is to be the basis for a final agreement and permanent border between Israel and Palestine. "

      "is to be" meaning it is not yet!

      "This conception was cemented by UN res 242 "

      UNSC res 242 says nothing about Palestine. UNSC res 242 was to achieve peace between the warring UN Member states. The Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt is an example. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/isregypt.asp

      Note where it refers to UNSC res 242. Furthermore UNSC res 242 does not mention any negotiation over borders. All the warring UN Member states already had proclaimed and "recognized" borders. http://wp.me/PDB7k-6r

      "... under international law it is the Green line–not the original UN -recommended “partition borders”–that define the extent of Israeli sovereignty"

      International Law says it is inadmissible to acquire territory by force/war/any coercive means. Israel has never acquired any territory beyond its proclaimed borders by any legal agreement.

      "Until and unless the parties involved agree to changes to that provisional border, Israeli retains full sovereignty within the Green Line"

      Until and unless the parties involved agree, no territory acquired by Israel by any coercive measure since proclaiming its borders effective, is yet Israeli.

      "Thus, an invasion across the Green Line would be an act of armed aggression"

      Schwebel, Lauterpacht, Herzog disagree. The sovereign may "restore" their territory by force. This would be especially true when all peaceful means via UN Chapt VI resolutions have failed.

  • A majority of Palestinians support armed intifada as means of self-defense
    • @ hophmi "International law does not support stabbing innocent civilians"

      That's right and I would never say it does. So did you have a point?

      BTW Since when has an illegal settler been innocent? Go whine to the Israeli Government

      In fact International Law demands that the Occupying Power keep its civilians OUT of Occupied Territories lest they become embroiled in the violence sure to ensue when a state invades and occupies another people and their territory. Go whine to the Israeli Government

      The occupied are however allowed to kill any armed foreigner in the Occupied Territory and; once a war has started they're allowed to kill military personnel of the Occupying regime where ever they are. Israel started the war at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 when it had forces in non-Israeli territory. Go whine to the Israeli Government

      BTW International Law does not allow the illegal acquisition of territory by any coercive measure. It does not allow dispossession. It does not allow illegal settlers. It does not allow the killing of innocent occupied civilians. It does not allow the incarceration of children. It does not allow the things you support!

  • Executed: Dania Ersheid, 17, from Hebron
    • @ Sibiriak " it is perfectly legal for Israeli citizens to live outside the “partition borders”, as long as they are within the “Green Line”"

      When did Israel legally annex any territories beyond its self proclaimed borders of May 15th 1948? Why hasn't any state recognized any territories "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine" as Israeli?

      "You will not find a single UN resolution or ICJ statement that asserts that Israeli settlement outside “partition borders” but inside the Green Line is illegal"

      Correct. Because the UN cannot censure non-members for their actions nor can it censure Members retrospectively for their actions before becoming Members. The ICJ meanwhile has not been asked for an opinion on that matter.

      " that’s the reality as far as international law is concerned"

      The reality is International Law says there must be an agreement. There is no agreement. Israel has not legally annexed any territory it has acquired by war since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time).

    • @ Jon66 "There may not be an Agreement, but the PLO and according to them the international community, have agreed that the Green line is the recognized border"

      That's right. Very generously giving Israel the major part of what remained of Palestine after Israel proclaimed its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

      Generously conceding to only 22% of their rightful territory so Israel can keep what it has acquired illegally by war since proclaiming its borders and agreeing to adhere to the UN Charter and International Law

      Meanwhile Israel has never offered anything. NOTHING! NADA! NOUGHT! ZIP! NIL! (oops I must have hit the caps key)
      Israel has only sought to take

      It seems to escape some folk that "Israel, the Occupying Power" hasn't agreed in any treaty or recognition or in any manner as required by the instruments of International Law and/or the UN Charter, including the right to self determination inclusive of the Palestinians

      Israel had its opportunity to self determination at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) and whatever territory Israel has acquired by war since proclaiming its borders effective, is quite simply not Israeli until there is an agreement between the two parties

      You never know, it might not be enough for the Zionistas. It never seems to be

      After being given, completely gratis, more than enough territory for a homeland state for the entire Jewish population of the world today, the Zionist project demanded and took more

      Now the fat kid sitting like a frog in a pot of warming water, with their fat hand trapped in the cookie jar!

      If fatso doesn't let go the cookies they can't escape the pot and; fatso can't afford to extract his greed governed fat hand by now adhering to the law.

      It's been 67 years and the law says the fat kid must

      Let go the cookies
      End the occupation and withdraw from all non-Israeli territories
      No illegal settlers to sell non-Israeli land to
      No exploiting non-Israeli resources
      No rich over seas investors in the illegal settlement enterprise
      Reparations would be due for having exploited resources in occupied territories for 67 years
      Compensation for loss/dispossession/hardship
      Get the illegal settlers out and back to Israeli territory and re-house them
      Allow its non-Jewish Israeli citizens who were dispossessed, their rightful to return to Israel as that state was proclaimed and recognized in 1948.

      It is Israel must strike a plea bargain with Palestine or eventually face the above because without and AGREEMENT, International Law tells us none of the territories Israel has ever occupied, are yet Israeli.

      "In the decades since the armistice a consensus has developed. It may not be formalized in documents, but the PLO is no longer claiming to the territory inside the Green line"

      Hey there wake up! Israel hasn't agreed! It has more than enough and it still wants more ...

    • Sibiriak "Initially no more than a armistice line, the Green Line has evolved into an internationally recognized provisional border between Israeli and Palestinian territory which is to be the basis for a final settlement and permanent border."

      Uh huh. So there is no final settlement yet. Until a final settlement Israel's de jure borders are the same as they were when they were proclaimed in the Israeli Government's plea for recognition, effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      Israel as been driving the car for 67 years without a license

  • 'Most-read' article at Washington Post calls Israel 'savage, unrepairable society'
    • Naftush "It wasn’t only Ben-Gurion; the Government of Israel under his successor, Levi Eshkol, put this proposal on the table as such and was requited with the three no’s of Khartoum"

      The three no’s of Khartoum were based on valid legal argument in reply to the nonsense demands of Israel

      No peace with Israel. No recognition of Israel. No negotiations with Israel.

      Most importantly, what were the conditions that prompted the Arab states to adopt this stance?

      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 withdraw from all Egyptian territory before peaceful relations were assumed.

      On withdrawal, Israel got peace with Egypt.

      No recognition of Israel: There is no legal basis for demanding recognition.

      A) States can't demand recognition. 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. Israel has failed dismally, having invaded and at some time occupied territories belonging to ALL its neighbours

      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 negotiated peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was by default an act of recognition and; after Israeli 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 can keep non-Israeli territory illegally acquired by war, illegally annexed and illegally settled by Israel since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) when Israel proclaimed its borders to the world http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

  • Fact Check: MSNBC’s Palestinian loss of land map
    • Naftush " The starting year, 1946, is chosen mendaciously because the UN allows any Arab in Mandate Palestine from that time on to claim Palestinian refugee status"

      Strange UNGA res 194 (1948) applied to Jewish folk as well. In fact UNWRA, which came 12 months after UNGA res 194 and acted in accordance with UNGA res 194, provided assistance for Jewish refugees in Israel until 1952 when Israel took over the responsibility after having given nothing to UNRWA for the work they did in Israel for Jewish refugees

      "The 1946 map is festooned with the word “Palestine” as if there were a state that went by that name — there wasn’t — and as if there were an Arab people that went by that name — there wasn’t"

      Whatever crap you need to walk in pal. All legitimate citizens of Palestine had PALESTINIAN Citizenship http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7 the Nationality Law was adopted in 1925. Palestine was a Nation State in 1946.

      The partition of Palestine did not alter that status for what remained of Palestine after Israel proclaimed its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

    • @ hophmi "There was no Palestinian state or Palestinian state in waiting in 1946"

      Completely irrelevant. The state of Israel was "... proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" by the Israeli Government. Effective as of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      Nothing outside of those borders is Israeli by any legal instrument or agreement. In fact since 1933 it has been illegal for any state to recognize any territories acquired by any coercive means http://pages.citebite.com/y1f0t4q1v4son

    • @ ahadhaadam "... the map does not distinguish between private ownership ..."

      That's real estate. E.g., Real estate is owned by Japanese and Chinese companies, individuals and even Japanese and Chinese Govt institutions in Australia. They have absolutely no territorial rights what so ever.

      "... the fact that you cannot have an accurate map is because Israel made and still makes a conscious decision to blur these concepts and refuses to even declare its borders"

      Not so. Israel proclaimed its borders May 15th 1948 effective as of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) in its official plea for recognition http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf They are the only borders recognized by the International Comity of Nations as Israeli.

      Here is an accurate map down to a few hundred yards http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk#googlemap

  • State Dep't slams Netanyahu's Hitler story as 'inflammatory' and against 'scholarly evidence'
    • What the Mufti did or didn't do is completely irrelevant to the actual extent of Israel's self proclaimed and Internationally recognized sovereign territory and Israel's illegal activities in territories it has illegally acquired by war and/or occupied since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) in its plea for recognition

      IOW it's simply more stupid Israeli propaganda designed for useful morons to propagate on its behalf. A distraction, a nonsense typical of everything said on Israel's behalf against the Palestinians. Complete BULLSH*T!.

      What is interesting is that it clearly demonstrates a just how mind numbingly stupid Israel's apologists can be. Even simple maths eludes them

      It's now 2015 ... 1941 was 74 years ago. Life expectancy in 1941 was about 42 yrs. No Palestinian alive today voted for him or fought for him or even knew who he was. They would have been at most, tiny babies.

  • Divine Violence?
    • @ DaBakr "should have used the word: control as we did not give sovereignty over the mount to Arabs"

      1) On what date and by what legal mechanism, co-signed by whom, did Israel ever have sovereignty over any territory beyond its self proclaimed and Internationally recognized borders of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)? http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad169.asp

      Fact is; it was not and still is not sovereign to Israel. You cannot give what is not yours to give. UNSC 476 [ 1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; ] http://wp.me/pDB7k-W8

      2) Why do you and your fellow propagandists keep posting nonsense when you have been thoroughly proven wrong so many times? I don't believe its because you like purposefully making fools of yourselves

  • Hamas calls for intifada, takes aim at Palestinian Authority
  • East Jerusalem is closed for Palestinians, but settlers march unimpeded
  • Video: Israeli forces open fire on Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza killing seven
    • @ Jackdaw "Every country has a right to protect its borders"

      Indeed. However, Israel is protecting the Ceasefire/Armistice Demarcation Line which is specifically NOT to be taken as a territorial boundary.

      The ONLY borders Israel has are those it proclaimed effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) in the Israeli plea for recognition. Israel has not since legally acquired any territory.

      http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk#googlemap

      You can of course prove me wrong by showing the agreements with Palestine whereby Israel legally acquired territories beyond its proclaimed extent.

  • Israeli politicians exploit refugees' suffering for political gain
    • @ jackdaw "The majority, though, are leaving their homes in France and Ukraine because of violent bigotry and war."

      That's NOT what your article says

      " If you prefer that these olim don’t migrate to Israel,"

      Their migrating to territory that's actually in Israel is fine by me. Territory outside of Israel's self proclaimed borders of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk , occupied territory, territory illegally acquired by war, illegal annexation, illegal settlement is quite simply not Israeli.

      -------------

      See the arrows on your map?

      Syria is not between Africa and Israel.

    • @ jackdaw "The majority, though, are leaving their homes in France and Ukraine because of violent bigotry and war."

      That's NOT what your article says

      " If you prefer that these olim don’t migrate to Israel,"

      Migrating to territory that's actually Israeli is fine by me. It doesn't include any territory outside of Israel's self proclaimed borders of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk Occupied territory and territory illegally acquired by war, illegal annexation, illegal settlement is quite simply not Israeli.

  • Health Advisory: Notes from a sandstorm
    • @ jon s "This country is both the Jewish and the Palestinian homeland, and that’s the essence of the conflict: one territory, two nations"

      As of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk the conflict has been over Israel, a state, occupying and illegally acquiring what remained of Palestine after Israel's sovereign extent had been proclaimed

      "Two peoples who love and feel an allegiance to the same homeland. Any initiative to peacefully resolve the conflict has to take that into account."

      Strange, most countries go by their borders. See the Egypt/Israel peace treaty as a prime example, where Israel was required and agreed to withdraw from all Egyptian territory before peace was assumed. http://wp.me/pDB7k-ZZ

  • One year later, Gaza is still in crisis
    • @ jon s

      In short you can't, because there is no destruction in Israel that warrants or justifies Israel not withdrawing from all non-Israeli territories or its military actions to those who oppose its illegal activities in non-Israeli territories

      "Of course the population of Gaza sustained much more casualties and far more extensive property damage than Israel and the causes of the imbalance are also well known"

      Indeed. Israel is by far the overwhelming power in the region. Given a free ticket to engage in its criminal activities outside of its borders thru carefully maintaining the US veto vote in the UNSC, without which it would become a failed state

      "But since when does the number of your casualties and the extent of the destruction on your side prove the justice of your cause? "

      There is no justice in Israel's cause. In fact there's no valid moral, legal or ethical reason for any of the crimes Israel has committed since proclaiming its borders effective 00:01 May 15th 1948.

  • Can Holocaust compensation agreements be a model for Nakba reparations?
    • Interesting article but only the half of it

      Property and or real estate is a different matter from territory. Add to the bill the illegal acquisition of non-Israeli territory, over half a century of Israel illegally exploiting the resources in that territory.

      We might also factor in class actions by hundreds of thousands of Israelis for having been duped by the State of Israel for more than half a century

      I've been saying for a long time now, Israel has never been able and is certainly not able now to afford to adhere to the laws it first broke by having Jewish forces in territories outside the State of Israel at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) when Israel's borders were proclaimed effective.

      That's the cause and the fear and the driving force behind Israel's desperate need to maintain a UNSC veto vote, without which it would become dismal, bankrupt and failed state, scorned even by its own citizens who'd rightly want to dis-associate.

      Zionists and everything they stand for would become the laughing stock and just as Holocaust denial is illegal, so too would Nakba denial. Egg will meet face in one almighty splatter and it will be incredibly difficult to separate Judaism and Jews from the ensuing Zionist created mess

  • Leading American writer Abulhawa is denied entry to Palestine
    • @ Palikari "As a Jew, I am banned from Saudi Arabia and some Islamic countries"

      Bullsh*t! Israelis and people, even non-Jewish people, with an Israeli stamp in their pass port are banned .. Your Ziocrap need to conflate Jews with Israelis is noted.

      "I, personally, have never been denied entry anywhere, but many people have"

      So how do you know you're banned from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries for being Jewish rather than because you're either Israeli or have an Israeli stamp in your passport?

      "Many Israelis have been denied entry in Europe or America"

      "Israelis" .... your flip flop Ziopoop conflations are sooooooooo cute. Keep up th' good work pal

      "Israel, as a sovereign state, has right to deny entry to whoever it wants. Period."

      As a sovereign state it must have borders, let's start with those proclaimed by the Israeli Government in its plea for recognition as effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) and work forward thru to territories LEGALLY acquired since ....

  • Iran deal is overwhelmingly supported by American voters -- 54 to 38 percent
    • WIKI ... "no one can find the book Taheri claimed as his source in the Library of Congress or a search of Persian works in libraries worldwide. The statement itself can't be found in databases and published collections of Khomeini statements and speeches" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taheri#Khomeni_quotation

      If you want to believe and/or cite a proven liar, you've got a problem

      Give up dude. Nothing justifies Israel's current stance on the M East or the Palestinians. It has been a belligerent state as of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)!

  • Poll: 51% of Jewish Israelis support reconstruction of Gaza settlements
    • LOL hophmi is a hoot

      "The pullout from Gaza was an agonizing experience for most Israelis"

      Odd, most Israelis weren't illegally settled in Gaza. Perhaps you mean ... not breaking International law is agonizing for most Israelis

      " and it was sold to them as a way to avoid the constant conflict Israel found itself in with Hamas on the border"

      The salesman was a lying schmuck. It's an Armistice Demarcation line. Israel's actual borders are as proclaimed effective 00:01 May 15th 1948. Israel has not since legally acquired any territory

      ".... along with the moral opprobrium Israel received from the international community"

      Lucky for Israel. Hussein's Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait by force of arms

      ," and to give the Palestinians a territory on which to start building something

      Not Israel's to give and Israel keeps destroying what has been built

      "Israelis in Gaza liked it there, and most were not ideological settlers"

      It's normal that citizens of one country aren't permitted to live in another country unless they take citizenship of that country, even if they are Israelis

      "Pulling out has so far resulted in three wars and far more opprobrium than before"

      The war started in 1897 by the Zionist Federation, became a war with Israel 1948, when that state was declared

      "So it’s not a surprise that Israelis would want to go back to the way things were before. What’s surprising is that 49% would advocate the status quo today"

      When a population is fed a diet of bullshit, they're inclined to believe it.

      "I suppose if one advocates the one-state solution as most here do, there should be no problem with Jews living in Gaza"

      Ah ... that olde sudden switch from, from Israelis to Jews. The problem is not with Jews you stupid person, it's with Israelis. Non-Jewish Israelis are also prohibited from illegally settling in non-Israeli territories under occupation. GC IV doesn't discriminate

      Why do you keep trying to sell bullsh*t? You know you're wrong. Paid by the post?

  • ICC rules prosecutor to reconsider 'Mavi Marmara' investigation
    • @ Jackdaw //“If you’re trying to rattle anyone here with arrogant Zionist smugness"//

      "No, no. That’s the farthest thing from my mind.."

      Then goes on to prove himself a liar

      Israel has never legally acquired an inch of territory beyond what it proclaimed to the world in it's plea for recognition, effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time). http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      HUNDREDS of thousands of Israelis live in territory yet to be legally acquired by Israel, by annexation under an agreement. In fact 1/3rd of the territory Israel claims as its own http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk#googlemap simply ain't yet Israeli

      WTF do you thing Israel spends so much time, effort and money maintaining the US veto vote? Faced with the legal consequences of over six decades of creating illegal facts on the ground, Israel would go broke. All those mega millionaires and their investment money would scoot. No more exploiting other folks resources. A million or more Israelis suddenly having to face the truth, the Zionist Movement's state has been shafting them all their lives

      "No rush to make up your mind. Israel is still going to be here for a few years anyway"

      Will it still be in other folks territories in breach of the UN Charter, International Law and acting against the basic tenets of Judaism?

  • California students resist authorities’ attempt to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism
    • @ [email protected] "Anti-Semites demand that Israel gives in to Palestinian demands, even if that means – especially if that means – self-destruction"

      Well the Anti-semites are wrong.

      Palestinian demands for RoR are based on UNGA res 194 (1948) adopted AFTER Israel became a state and before UNRWA was formed in 1949. The UNRWA definition of a refugee has nothing what so ever to do with RoR under UNGA res 194.

      Under UNGA res 194 there's no demand for any Palestinians return to Israeli territory.

      Under UNGA res 194, non-Jewish Israeli citizens who were dispossessed have a Right of Return to Israel.

      The remainder, who were not Israelis, only have RoR to what remained of Palestine after Israel's sovereign extent was proclaimed and recognized.

      The truth of the matter is that Israel has created so many illegal facts on the ground in non-Israeli territories it has illegally acquired by war since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) , it can not now afford to adhere to the law and withdraw from all non-Israeli territories and repatriate all its illegal settlers back to Israeli territory. The costs would be astronomic and there'd very likely be a civil war (in illegally settled non-Israeli territory what's more). The result would be a failed rogue state

      67 years of purposefully creating illegal facts on the ground, illegal settlements, illegal razing of non-Jewish, non Israeli villages, homes, towns, farms in territories the Israeli Government itself claimed were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine", is one mighty big hole Israel has dug for itself

  • United Church of Christ votes to boycott & divest from companies profiting from Israel's occupation
  • In op-eds, church leaders say BDS is moral response to Netanyahu's rejection of Palestinian statehood
    • Edit Under UNGA res 194 non-Jewish Israeli citizens have a RoR to Israel’s proclaimed and recognized territories of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time). Today’s Israeli Jews far outnumber the non-Jewish Israelis original dispossessed 1948, their lineal descendants, the 20% who remained in Israeli territory and their lineal descendants.

    • @ Shalom "the third is clearly supporting “the promotion of a Right of Return,” that if realized would eliminate the state of Israel.."

      Bullshit! The Palestinian claim of RoR is under UNGA res 194. Under UNGA res 194 only non-Jewish Israeli citizens have a RoR to Israel's actual proclaimed and recognized territories of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time), Israel's Jewish population has grown to a point where there is no demographic threat what so ever. Today's Israeli Jews far outnumber the non-Jewish Israelis original dispossessed, their lineal descendants of Israel's dispossessed non-Jewish citizens of 1948 and the 20% who remained in Israeli territory.

      The remaining dispossessed Palestinians only have RoR to non-Israeli territories.

      Currently Israel refuses RoR for non-Jewish citizens to Israel and refuses RoR for Palestinian citizens to the non-Israeli territories that remained of Palestine after Israel proclaimed its sovereign extent and was recognized as such.

      It's Israeli propaganda policy to scare monger Israelis with the completely false assertion based on the idiotic and wrongful notion that the entire UNRWA figure is for return to Israel.

      UNGA 194 was adopted in 1948. UNRWA didn't exist in 1948! UNWRA's definition does not apply to UNGA res 194. The UNRWA website itself tells us it has no mandate to effect final status. http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=87#final_status

      Further more states do not cease to exist simply because their demographics change and a real democracy changes to accommodate its majority.

      The actual threat is to all the territories Israel has illegally acquired by war since proclaiming its boundaries effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) (ibid). It's not Israeli territory! Israeli propaganda has been deceiving Israelis for 67 years, that's how low the Zionist Movement's state has sunk!

  • Israel's race to economic (and moral) bankruptcy
    • @ tod77

      "I offered a strategy. You must haved missed my comments..."

      You must have missed the fact that "Israel, the Occupying Power" would refuse your suggestions as it has done for the last 67 years, preferring instead to stick to the Jewish Agency/Zionist plan to illegally acquire by force of arms, non-Israeli territory that remained of Palestine afterthe Israeli Government "proclaimed" its sovereign extent

      "I’m saying that to me it seems impractical, time consuming and possibly counterproductive."

      Israel has had 67 years to comply with International Law, the UN Charter, numerous relative conventions. It has failed. It is a rogue state.

      Your suggestion is the same as UNGA res 181, which the Jewish Agency claimed was "binding" and accepted , then after becoming a state according to its conditions (ibid), completely ignored it

      " Imagine pictures of Robbie Williams taking a tour of Hebron and interviewed stating hoiw horrified he is"

      "imagine" is the operative word. Do you really think Israel, the Occupying Power would allow it.

      "If the end goal is 1 truly democratic state (or 2 states living in peace – take your pick), Israelis and Palestinians have to learn to live together"

      Israel could simply adhere to International Law, except that now after 67 years of occupying non-Israeli territory, populating it with Jewish Israeli citizens, exploiting non-Israeli resources, dispossessing non-Jewish Israeli citizens from Israel and non-Israeli citizens from non-Israeli territory, Israel cannot now, nor has it ever been able to afford to adhere to the laws it first broke at < 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) by keeping Jewish forces from Plan Dalet, in non-Israeli territory.

      The law requires Israel to withdraw from all non-Israeli territories, take it's Israeli citizens and p*ss off back to Israel as it was proclaimed and recognized in 1948, allow the return of non-Jewish Israeli citizens to Israel, allow the return of Palestinians to Palestinian territory and pay reparations for all the above, relocation for its own citizens and the class action law suits they might bring for 67 years of Israeli Government deception, compensation for dispossession of non-Jewish Israelis and Palestinians, 67 years of exploited non-Israeli resources.

      It would send the Jewish state bankrupt, the Jewish Israeli citizens not wanting to move from non-Isaeli territory would start an Israeli civil war (in non-Israeli territory). Israel would become a failed state, it has illegally created too many facts on the ground to now follow its legal obligations.

      Israel has dug its own hell hole from which it cannot legally escape without the Palestinians generosity. But even their generosity in being willing to accept only 22% of their rightful territories for peace with Israel was not enough. Israel chose to ignore it and build more illegal settlements.

      You're talking to the wrong people. Go bark at the Israeli Government and the Zionist Federation

  • After a hard week in the news, Israeli gets valentines all weekend from NPR
  • Gaza’s al-Nasser Salah al-Din Brigades prepares for next Israeli war
    • @ DaBakr June 4, 2015, 5:07 pm

      The soldiers in Gaza “prepare” it is said here. We say they are preparing for their next attack which is far into the planning stages. "

      Nothing you say can be trusted. The whole notion behind being a propagandist is to lie, feign ignorance, falsely accuse, never honestly answer reasonable questions, never learn from facts, in fact to ignore facts and pop your empty head up again later still trying the same schtick that didn't work last time you tried it. You and your fellow workers can be spotted a mile away. Demonstrating a level of intelligence that would otherwise render you unemployable. Keep up the good work BTW

      Under the Laws of War they are allowed to prepare to defend and attack ANY armed foreigner in ANY of their rightful territories and once a war has started as the one with Israel did at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) with Jewish/Israeli forces already in territories "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"", Palestinians may attack armed Israelis even across actual borders MAP, in fact anywhere in the world.

      "starting whatever and whenever the coming war commences’ "

      When did the 1897- Zionist colonialist war on Palestine ever end? There has never been a Ceasefire Agreement, Armistice Agreement or Peace Treaty with Palestine.

      "and generally blaming Israel for anything that happens"

      It's Israel in breach of its own borders and the UN Charter. It's Zionist colonialism has been at work for over a century. The Palestinians didn't colonize Israel.

      "Of course Israel is planning too. It would be insane not to."

      Most countries prepare for defense of their own territories. Israel prepares for war in order to keep non-Israeli territories it has illegally acquired by war.

      It's also insane to expect to steal other folks territory since being afforded, completely gratis the territory for a Jewish State, and not have repercussions.

      "Funny how its not even surprising any longer. Its just how it is. "

      It's just how Zionist colonialism and people like you have made it pal.

  • Goldberg predicts 'civil war' between American and Israeli Jews as Israel is 'defined as an apartheid state'
    • Goldberg talking about a Jewish spring in the US? Cute. No article favoring Israel = no income. Goldberg and his kind will say anything no matter how inane or stupid or wrong as long as it doesn't go anywhere near the real issue that has had world's leaders in a bind for decades.

      The possibility of a failed, bankrupt, rogue state with nukes in the hands of the insane.

      I predict that if Israel were made to adhere to International Law, its obligations as a state and as a UN Member, the astronomical costs of attempting to resettle hundreds of thousands if not millions of its citizens in actual Israeli territory and the cost of rightful reparations to the Palestinians for property, hardship, dispossession, theft of resources and territories for 67 years will send the Jewish state bankrupt.

      Civil war will break out in non-Israeli territory between the state and hundreds of thousands of disillusioned and very angry settlers who have been willingly or un-wittingly implanted illegally in non-Israeli territory by successive Israeli Governments Israel since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time).

      The civil war will quickly spread and engulf all of Israel as the military is rendered in-effective due to infighting, leaving Israel's nukes vulnerable to complete nut cases backed by the likes of Nuke 'em Adelson and his evil friends as they desperately try to hold on to their investment in the ultimate religious relic.

  • ‘They said we drink the blood of children’—Netanyahu goes off the deep end after FIFA campaign
    • @ Mayhem. " Time for the Palestinians to be given their state. Time to move their offices to Jordan to be with the rest of the Palestinians. "

      Strange. When Jordan gained independence only the people living within its borders had automatic right to permanent Jordanian citizenship (same as those folk who lived in the area that became Israel had an automatic right to Israeli citizenship, those outside did not). Those Palestinians who did not live within the territory that became Jordan did not have any automatic right to Jordanian citizenship, nor did the non-Jewish Israelis dispossessed by Israel.

      Jordan only has Jordanian citizenship. Apart from Syrian refugees in Jordan, non-Jordanians in Jordan are mostly refugees from non-Jordanian territory, including dispossessed non-Jewish Israelis. (ibid)

      @ Mayhem June 4, 2015, 7:10 am

      "there is no parallel between the situation of the Jews and the Palestinians in that the Jews have established their state with UN recognition"

      Strange, the UN doesn't recognize states. It votes to accept already recognized independent states AFTER they have been recommended by the UNSC AFTER they have been recognized by the majority of the International Comity of Nations (individually, not by vote at the UN) AFTER they have proclaimed independent statehood per the requirements of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.

      "the Palestinians have not"

      Catch up. They have observer state status at the UN

      "Jews don’t have to migrate from the United States because that isn’t necessary for achieving any unfulfilled purpose."

      Except to become Israelis in order to maintain Jewish majority in what is very likely an already Arab DNA majority state

      " Jordan presents itself potentially as the nation state of the Palestinians. It should be considered as a prime candidate to become the basis for a Palestinian state"

      Why ? The Palestinians have had their own state since at least 1922, with Israeli/Jewish forces in occupation of what remained of Palestine after Israel proclaimed its borders 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      Oh BTW Thanks for affording the opportunity to show folk just how idiotic Israel's apologist propagandameisters are.

      Keep up the good work and please come back ... often

  • New West Bank settlement casts light on clandestine role of international support for settlers
    • @ Walid June 8, 2015, 10:26 am

      "Talknic, you often mention the borders between Lebanon and Israel being the actual borders that existed back in the early 1920s between Lebanon and Palestine..."

      No. The only actual borders of any state are those territories proclaimed as sovereign and recognized as such. MAP

      There may be additional territories legally annexed to a state by some agreeable mechanism, treaty or referendum (see the US annexation of Texas, Hawaii, Alaska), which do not require recognition because there is an agreement.

      Like the agreed annexation of the West Bank was legally annexed at the request of the Palestinians Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950). So when the Hasbarristers say the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was only recognized by two states, they're A) talking out of their rrrrrses and B) Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem wasn't recognized by anyone so their ignorant argument fails on all accounts

      Israel has never legally annexed any territories. It's actual borders are as they were proclaimed and recognized. There has never been a "final settlement" (per the Armistice Agreements) between Israel and Palestine.

      Millions of Israelis live in territories that have never been legally acquired by Israel. See the MAP (ibid) Successive Israeli Governments have purposefully created 67 yrs of illegal facts on the ground in non-Israeli territories knowing full well the state was simply incapable of paying the astronomical costs involved in adhering to the laws it 1st broke at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) by having forces in non-Israeli territories.

      "Too bad Israel doesn’t want to have a constitution maybe it has something to with defining borders that goes against Israel’s grain"

      Being a majority Jewish state and a democracy have been obviously irreconcilable from the outset

      Furthermore without a constitution, Israel has never had a legally elected Government, under the promised and legally required constitution. The Zionist Movement's state has spent the last 67 years duping the majority of Israelis of their rights, selling them land in non-Israeli territories, endangering their lives by encouraging them to illegally settle in Occupied Territories.

  • Corey Robin revisits Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem
  • Congress and state legislatures are on the warpath against BDS
    • @ Hostage May 25, 2015, 12:48 pm

      To put it in a nutshell

      Whether Palestine was or was not a state is actually irrelevant to the fact that no territories outside the frontiers proclaimed effective as of 00:01 May 15th 1948 by the Israeli Government in its plea for recognition have ever been legally acquired by the State of Israel.

    • @ Jackdaw Doesn’t ‘pillage’ require that there be an ‘armed conflict between two States’?"

      Israel is un-armed? AMAZING!!

      If there’s no ‘armed conflict’ between the State of Israel and the nascent State of Palestine, then how can a settler, whatever his citizenship, be guilty of pillage?"

      If there's no armed conflict why does Israel insist on a peace agreement? If there's no armed conflict why does Israel keep slaughtering civilians in Gaza?

      Bouvier : War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it

      With Jewish forces already in territory not slated for the Jewish state, Israel proclaimed its boundaries effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) . The Civil War that had been escalated under Plan Dalet in the months preceding the termination of the British administration of Palestine immediately became a war waged by Israel on what ever remained of Palestine.

      There has never been a peace treaty between Palestine and Israel. Israeli forces have never left Palestinian territory and Israel has never legally annexed any of the territories it has illegally acquired by war. http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk#googlemap

    • @ Jackdaw

      "The war did not start when the Arab States declared war in May."

      Correct. The war with Israel started at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time), when with Jewish forces already in territories outside those slated for the Jewish state, Israel proclaimed its independence within the borders recommended by UNGA res 181 http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      "The war started the first week after the passage of the U.N. partition plan"

      That was the civil war. It began on the planned Zionist Federation's colonization of Palestine 1897

      "Simply put, Israel’s War of Independence began in late 1947, albeit at a state of lower-level terrorism and violence"

      Israel declared itself independent at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time). The 1948 war was fought primarily in and over non-Israeli territories already invaded by Jewish forces by 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time).

      There are no UNSC resolutions condemning any Arab state for having gone to the defense of non-Israeli territories and attempting to evict Israel forces illegally invading territories the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT itself claimed were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      No UNSC resolution on the Question of Palestine calls for 'peace in Israel' they DO call for "peace in Palestine". If Israel had been invaded they'd call for peace in Israel, but ....... they don't because Israel was the invader

    • @ Jackdaw "Firstly, the Syrian Army, after invading Israel"

      Date/time and what Israeli territory did they invade prior to Jewish forces being in non-Israeli territory at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)?

      The war was started by Israeli forces being outside the territory of the State of Israel at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ibid). Once a war has been started, cross border incursions are quite legitimate and not considered invasion.

      "destroyed two kibbutzim, Masada and Shaar Hagolan, on May 18, inside Israel"

      May 18th is after May 15th, after the Israeli invasion of non-Israeli territories .

      "The Iraqi Army invaded Israeli territory and unsuccessfully assaulted Kibbutz Gesher"

      Date/time ?

      "The Egyptian Army, while halting, or being forced by the IDF to halt, at Isdud (Ashdod) in early June 1948"

      Isdud was not within the territory of the state of Israel
      https://youtu.be/blrspfAOpvg

      " had invaded and conquered Israeli territory between the Gaza Strip and Beersheba and between Majdal (Ashkelon) and Beit Jibrin"

      Date/time? Ashkelon was not within the proclaimed boundaries of the State of Israel, nor was Beersheba http://wp.me/pDB7k-tM#beersheba

      "while the Jordanian Army did not invade Israeli territory, it did much more than take up “defensive positions” in the Old City of Jerusalem. It conquered, and razed, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and took up positions in Latrun, Lydda, and Ramle, blocking the main Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road and laying siege to the holy city. "

      That's normal kind of stuff in a war!

      "And on May 12- 14, before the pan-Arab invasion began"

      The pan-Arab invasion was of "Palestine" according to the Israeli Govt website http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/5%20Arab%20League%20declaration%20on%20the%20invasion%20of%20Pales.aspx Israel was independent of Palestine at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) (ibid)

      " the Legion attacked and destroyed the settlements of the Etzion bloc"

      A) Part of the civil war and; B) Not within Israel's "proclaimed" (ibid) boundaries.

      "In short, the neighboring Arab states (save for Lebanon) simultaneously, on May 15, attacked Israel, its settlements, and its territory"

      The dates and locations you have given thus far are for the civil war (before Israel existed), and the 18th May '48 after the war had been started by Israel.

      " One of their aims was to destroy, or at least to mortally wound, Israel, if not to eradicate the Yishuv. The documentary proof is abundant"

      So give the documentary proof. Date/times before Israel's invasion of non-Israeli territories and the areas within Israel's self proclaimed boundaries .... thx

      "That the Arab armies were “ill-prepared” and incompetent does not diminish the fact of their aggression"

      The defense of non-Israeli territories was a response to the aggression Israel displayed by having Jewish forces in non-Israeli territories at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      "And there can be little doubt that had the invading armies, including Jordan’s, encountered no or weak resistance, they would have pushed on to Tel Aviv."

      Anyone can speculate. Lemme try .. If the world wasn't round, it would be a cube. WOW! What fun!

      Say maybe you can explain this ISRAELI GOVERNMENT statement of the 22nd May 1948 to the UNSC about being in complete control of all Israeli territories and of territories "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

    • DoubleStandard "That resolution did not take into account the war"

      It was written before the war. Very difficult to write something in retrospect when it hasn't happened at the time of writing. Your lack of logic is simply amazing, do you train a lot?

      " You can’t reject the resolution .... "

      Nonsense. UNGA res 181 gave an opportunity for "either" party to declare independence if they desired and if "either" party did declare per UNGA res 181 they could be admitted to the UN but only if they declared according to UNGA res 181 which Israel did , long after the Arabs rejected the resolution.

      The UN could not force either or both parties to accept a resolution under which they could declare independence for the simple reason that the very meaning of independence is to be free of the control of or under an obligation to outside parties, which is why Israel didn't declare statehood before the British administration under the LoN Mandate for Palestine ended.

      The Jewish Agency officially accepted UNGA res 181 as "binding" on itself and claimed, officially, that “The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.” (ibid) On May 15th 1948 Israel's independence took effect in accordance with UNGA res 181

      However, even if the Arab states had wanted to declare independence on the termination of the Mandate, Jewish/Israeli forces prevented it by already being in control of territories "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine" slated for an Arab state on May 15th 1948. Independence was impossible over what remained of Palestine after Israel's frontiers were proclaimed. There was never an opportunity for the Palestinians to miss.

      " .... start a war to prevent its implementation ... "

      With Jewish forces already in territories not slated for the Jewish state at 00:01 May 15th (ME time) the civil war exacerbated by Plan Dalet in the months leading up to the end of the British administration under the Mandate, immediately became a war waged by the State of Israel on what remained of Palestine the moment Israel's boundaries were proclaimed. Israel started the war.

      The Arab states, being UN Members (with the exception of Jordan) and being Regional Powers, had a right to attempt to expel Jewish/Israeli forces from non-Israeli territories. Which is why there are no UNSC resolutions against any Arab State for having started a war or for having invaded Palestine. There was no war in Israel. In fact it wasn't even a 'War of Independence" That was fought with the British prior to independence.

      Israel was already independent as of precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) (ibid). The war was fought in territories according to the Israeli Government at the time "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine" (ibid).

      " and then afterward complain that the rights it promised you were violated"

      The rights it promised were already International Law prior to the adoption of UNGA res 181 .

      "The world doesn’t work that way"

      I hope you'll be representing Israeli war criminals at the ICC

  • 'For Palestinians, history is never behind us': Family memories on Nakba Day
    • @ Jackdaw

      "In the 1830’s, Palestine was a battlefield as the Egyptian pasha clashed with the Ottomans. Then the Druzim took up arms and clashed in the Galil (killing Jews in Safed, of course) ..... etc etc etc etc ...... etc etc etc etc ..... All this disorder, death and destruction wrought without the’ toxic fungus’. How can that be?"

      Simple pal. Israel didn't exist until 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time).

      Now, all those other crimes are in the past, over, finished. International Law since and the UN Charter attempt to ensure those crimes against humanity do not occur again.

      Israel is in breach of those laws and is TODAY creeping deeper and deeper into Palestine, like a fungus https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Armillaria+mellea+kills

    • @ echinococcus " You are repeating that no matter what, its very existence legitimates the Zionist entity as a state."

      Not at all. I think the creation of the State of Israel legitimate or not, was a costly and foolish exercise. Had it been attempted today it would likely have failed because there is too much information available via the internet that would show the Zionist Federation scams and lies so easily now proven to be what they were and still are. Not so in 1948.

      Today I can and have at times lobbied almost every politician in Australia with the simple click of a button and lead them to the statements made by the Zionist Federations and Jewish Agency and the Israeli Government. I can show them how Australia recognized Israel, per UNGA res 181, borders and all. I can show the lies and deceit. In 1948 it took phone calls, telegrams, letters and cross referencing took months if not years.

      The LoN Mandate was the closest Palestine ever came to being a democratic state for all it's citizens equally. It was not enough for the Zionist colonizers who wanted control of the ultimate relic

      Today however, Israel legitimate or not, exists and aside from the Palestinians having been ripped off, walked all over, slaughtered and deprived of their rights, there are now millions of Jewish folk who have, for the most part innocently, been caught up in the Zionist created mess. They're deprived of key facts and been fed lifetimes of Hasbara bullsh*t, sold land that doesn't even belong to the state

      They've naively created their lives, homes businesses in non-Israeli territory illegally acquired by war from 1948 and 1967.

      I don't have a home or family or business illegally in territories outside of my state, but I have fought my own way clear of Zionist propaganda and I can attest it was still a traumatic experience to be shown almost everything you believed in was bullsh*t!

      Imagine the quandary innocent Israelis would be in to find they have been ripped off and misled by their own state for 67 years and that their religion and the Holocaust has been used and abused in the Zionist cause, which is nothing more than a self perpetuating money making scam that without the US veto vote in the UNSC would collapse, leaving Israel as a bankrupt failed state owing billions in reparations and billions for the resettlement of unwitting illegal settlers and those who have purposefully broken the law, resulting in millions of dis-illusioned, very angry and scared Israelis.

      If we do not also show compassion for them, we have failed, no matter what the outcome.

      They and the Palestinians deserve justice. The closest we will ever get to justice in this matter will be thru a legal process, that's why I advocate adherence to the law and the law as a basis for resolving otherwise intractable situations and if Israel must exist, it must exist as it was proclaimed, in compliance with its self imposed legal obligations.

      Israel has never been able to afford the compensations it owes for not adhering to the laws it first broke 00:01 May 15th 1948. Today there are so many illegal 'facts on the ground' Israel must strike a plea bargain with the Palestinians, acknowledging the debt and hoping for Palestinian compassion and generosity. It is the only legal way in which Israel can legitimize itself

    • @ echinococcus "It took a couple of readings to see that where we disagree is in your opinion that, no matter the illegitimacy even by colonialist-accepted formal rules, once an outlaw band calls itself a state and gets saluted by fellow bandits it’s entitled to international recognition and protection"

      You have me wrong there. Israel exists whether we like it or not or whether we consider it to be legitimate or not, whether you and I or anyone else agrees. The majority of UN Nations were not by 1948 colonialists or outlaw bands BTW.

      One can only argue against the State of Israel from the moment it came into existence. Israel drew its line in the sand following the boundaries outlined in UNGA res 181, effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time). There has never been any agreement under which any further territories have since been legally acquired by, ceded to, or annexed to Israel.

      Nothing that happened prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948, the cherry pickings of Twain said, whether or not Jews "made the desert bloom", whether there were massacres or whether Jews owned 'real estate' pre- Israeli statehood, effects the legal status of Israel's self proclaimed and Internationally recognized sovereign extent as of 00:01 May 15th 1948.

      I've tried to narrow down to the least amount of reading as possible the premise of the obligations undertaken in official statements towards and on behalf of the Jewish state by officials representing the Zionist Federation, the Jewish agency and the State of Israel.
      http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx
      and
      http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

      Statements which in their own words, show consecutive governments and the Hasbara apologists to be either irrelevant nonsense or blatant lies.

      By their own official statements, Israeli sovereignty was limited to the borders described in UNGA res 181. By their own words that Palestine did exist after Israel was proclaimed independent of Palestine and that Israel was operating in and fighting its so called 'war of Independence' in non-Israeli territory. Israel was officially independent 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time). the 1948 war between Israel and the other regional powers was fought in and over territories "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      By their own words that Israel is hugely indebted to: A) the International Comity of Nations, the UN and the people of Palestine for there even being a Jewish state and; B) far from Israel making generous concessions, the Palestinians have been incredibly generous in their offers to cede some
      78% of their rightful territories to Israel for peace
      and; that Israel has offered absolutely nothing towards peace. Not one thing, ever.

      What Israel calls 'concessions' are nonsense. Israel has never legally acquired any further territories to those it proclaimed effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time). The offer to swap non-Israeli territory for non-Israeli territory so Israel can keep non-Israeli territory is NOT a concession. It's arrogant theft, ignoring the official statements of the Israelis, the Jewish Agency, the Zionist Movement and hundreds of UNSC resolutions affording Israel hundreds of opportunities to comply with the binding Laws and UN charter reaffirmed and emphasized in those resolutions. Laws and UN Charter the Israelis agreed, in their own words, to adhere to.

      The offer to accept absolutely minimal RoR to Israel is NOT a concession, it's the right of Israel's non-Jewish Israeli citizens and of Palestinian refugees to return to Palestine is also a right. (Refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars do not all have a right to return to Israel). Adhering to the law, is not a concession, it's an obligation.

      Their own words and contrary actions to which the Hasbarristers never have any answers.

    • @ chinococcus

      "May I take the liberty to pick a couple nits, talknic, or offer interpretations that are at least equally plausible according to the documentation we all have?

      //A) It was a war between Jewish Palestinians and non-Jewish Palestinians.//

      "Between Zionist colonizers and invaders authorized by the British colonial overlord (or illegally on the land even according to the British colonial overlord) against Palestinians"

      What you will, it was never the less by definition a civil war, i.e., non Jewish Palestinian against Jewish Palestinian until precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time), when it became a war by the State of Israel on what remained of Palestine.

      Under the Mandate for Palestine the British were to control the immigration of Jews according in a manner that did not overburden the country or disadvantage the local non-Jewish population. They made this clear in both the White Papers, reiterating the LoN Mandate for Palestine. There was a huge outcry from the Zionists when the British administration curtailed Jewish immigration to comply with their mandate as administrator under the LoN Mandate for Palestine.

      "Palestinian Jews of long date cannot be counted on the aggressor side and, in their majority, opposed the Zionist project so that most of them had already been run out of the country"

      It wouldn't surprise me. Best to supply sources

      "There were no Israeli territories, not at least for anyone not recognizing the unilateral proclamation."

      They were and still are a minority.

      "The GA partition plan was just a failed proposal, accepted by neither the Zionist entity....."

      Nonsense. Friday, 5 March 1948 Rabbi Silver stated to the UNSC

      “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. “

      "The terrorists’ “proclaiming themselves independent of Palestine” had no legitimacy at all behind it"

      The Zionist Movement and the Jewish People's Council declared independence according to UNGA res 181 which did not require both parties to agree. Independence by it's very nature unilateral. "Either" party could declare independence independently of the other and be admitted to the UN if they declared according to UNGA res 181. If they had to agree for independence to take effect, they'd not have been independent. Simple really.

      "So the status of any Zionist terrorists anywhere in Palestine, not only outside that proposed without result for partition but also in that proposed for some hypothetical Jewish fraction, was not that of “foreign forces” but terrorist bands.."

      Then it would have been State terrorism AFTERr Israel was proclaimed.

      "their not being supressed by the outgoing mandate holder Great Britain obliged the other UN members present to try to keep order it in its stead"

      The UK had no mandate after the Mandate for Palestine expired. Of course it was up to the Arab Regional powers to maintain order in non-Israeli territories. That's why there are no UNSC resolutions against any Arab state for attacking Jewish/Israeli forces in what remained of Palestine after Israel proclaimed its independence effective.

      //Israel’s independence came into effect within the “frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″//

      "Worthless, as that GA resolution not only had no legal teeth, it had not been implemented by any of the parties."

      I gave the Israeli Government's official plea for recognition and how Israel was recognized and admitted to the UN.

      // Is that counting the illegal Jewish immigrants too? //

      "Is immigration approved/authorized by the colonial authority Great Britain as mandate holder legal according to you? As opposed, I mean, to an Ottoman subject. Makes quite a difference"

      There were legal and illegal Jewish immigrants into Palestine during the Mandate. The illegal immigrants did not have approval from the British administration.

      Israel exists, like it or not. In order to exist and become a UN Member state the Jewish Agency agreed to adhere to UNGA res 181 and Israel on admittance to the UN agreed to adhere to International Law as a state and the UN Charter as a UN Member.

      It hasn't.

    • @ Jackdaw "This was a civil war between Jewish Palestinians and Muslim Palestinians. A civil war, until the Arab States invaded"

      A) It was a war between Jewish Palestinians and non-Jewish Palestinians. Arab Christians and even Arab atheists were also dispossessed.

      B) The Israeli Govt web site says they invaded "Palestine"

      C) There were Jewish forces in non-Israeli territories the day Israel's borders were proclaimed. The neighbouring Arab states, as UN Members (except for TransJordan) and regional powers, had right to attempt to expel foreign forces from what remained of Palestine after Israel was proclaimed independent of Palestine.

      D) With Jewish forces already in territories not slated for the Jewish state, at exactly 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) when Israel's independence came into effect within the "frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947", the civil war that had been exacerbated by Plan Dalet in the months leading up to the termination of the British Mandate, became an armed invasion by the state of Israel on what remained of Palestine.

      E) No UNSC resolution on the Question of Palestine calls for peace in Israel, they call for "peace in Palestine". The Israel Government itself on the 22nd May 1948 confirmed the war was fought in territories "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine"

      "One third of all citizens of 1940’s Mandatory Palestine, 600,000 souls, were Jews"

      Is that counting the illegal Jewish immigrants too? BTW how many were Jewish Arabs indigenous to the region?

  • AIPAC-backed legislation targeting BDS movement advances in Congress
  • EU must take stronger action to sanction Israel following high court decision banning boycott
    • @ HarryLaw "Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? "

      Yes. Subsequent UNSC resolutions make it very clear. UNSC res 476 sums it up rather nicely UNSC res 476 1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

      "According to Artur J Goldberg one of the drafters of the resolution the answer is no. In the resolution, the words ‘the’ and ‘all’ are omitted."

      Opinion rendered before or after the resolution was adopted, is meaningless, only the actual words of resolutions are relevant. The omission of 'the' and/or 'all' does not change the meaning of the resolution. The arguments over 'the' & 'all' during the drafting of the resolution were a well worn tactic used to delay the adoption of resolutions for as long as possible.

      Wikipedia is by it's editorial policies third hand opinion, which can be written by anyone.

      "The bottom line is, the major movers and shakers all agree, final borders have to be negotiated by all sides"

      There is no legal basis for demanding negotiations. Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt's borders were defined prior to 1948. Israels' borders were proclaimed effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) by the Israeli Govt. Israel has not legally acquired any territory since that proclamation and recognition. Palestinian territory was defined by default of its neighbours, including Israel.

      Their demand is akin to blackmail. Israel must negotiate because Israel cannot afford to adhere to the law under which reparations would be astronomical and the relocation of hundreds of thousands of Israelis back into actual Israeli territories would result in civil war in non-Israeli territories. A nightmare scenario, leading to a failed state

      " Who is going to stop them?"

      There is only one veto vote stopping them. That's why the Zionistas spend so much time, effort and money on maintaining the US UNSC veto. Draining the money pool thru BDS has a chance

  • Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: An argument
    • @ JeffB

      "Jews believe that Jews have the same right to Judea, as Chinese do to China and French do to France."

      Drivel. If Jews were to become Palestinian citizens they might have a similar right. However, the West Bank as it was officially named, isn't in Israeli territory. Israelis, Arab or Jew, do not have a right to settle in Palestine as Israelis.

      The Zionist Federation by demanding a separate Jewish state destroyed the opportunity for Israeli Jews to live anywhere in the Jewish People's Historic Homeland in Palestine.

      "Everybody acquired territory by force. Everybody. "

      Nonsense. We were given, completely gratis, the territory for our Jewish state. The war of independence ended the moment Israel became an independent state at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      "In the mid 1800s when Zionism started, there was no distinct group of Palestinians. The people whose descendants would identify as Palestinians didn’t have an independent national aspirations."

      So what? Your argument is entirely irrelevant. Israel was proclaimed within the territory allotted it under UNGA res 181. Israel has not since acquired any territory by any legal means. What remained of Palestine at 00:01 May 15th 1948 was not Israeli then, is not Israeli now. Territories outside of Israel are quite simply NOT Israeli

      "Asserting that the Palestinians had the right to construct a nation-state based on strict geographic criteria is like asserting that they had the right to construct a satellite telescope."

      They have the right to do both

  • Understanding the Jewish National Home
    • hophmi " There was no other nation on that land"

      You're spouting bullsh*t. Palestine nationality law was passed in 1925, under which Jews could get Palestinian Nationality, buy land and settle anywhere in the Jewish People's Historic Homeland in Palestine as Palestinians

      "To call the 1948 Israelis colonists greatly simplifies the history"

      Jewish COLONIAL Trust 1897 ring a bell? Long before the Holocaust.

      "This is not some European behemoth marauding around the world plundering resources."

      True, Palestine is not around the world.

      "This is a collection of refugees who were the victims of European colonists"

      A) The Zionist Federation of 1897 were not
      B) Some Israelis were victims of Nazi Germany. European countries were also victim to Nazi Germany
      C) Now Israel is in breach of Laws adopted in large part because of the treatment of our fellow Jews under the Nazis.

      "The terminology is simply inaccurate here, and it is morally offensive to suggest that the Israelis, who were the victims of the Europeans in every way"

      There were no Israelis prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) according to the Israeli Government

      " it is morally offensive to suggest that the Israelis, who were the victims of the Europeans in every way should pay some price for colonialism when the Europeans have paid no price for it. That is disgusting"

      Right. I understand your need, because they did it, you should be allowed to do it too. In that way two wrongs make .... two wrongs.

      //Even if we were to ignore that the land was taken by the gun, the Israelis never lived up to the terms of the documents and decrees that “justify” its “legal” creation.”//

      "The terms of the documents? You’re being silly
      "

      Well, let's just take the declaration of statehood. Is there a constitution? NO! Has there been a Government legally elected under that constitution? NO! Is there religious freedom? NO! Were non-Jews asked to stay in the Declaration but already cleansed by Israel, welcome to stay? NO! Is it open to all Jews? NO!

      "There isn’t a nation on Earth, least of all Western nations, that can offer better justifications for their legal creations'

      No state can offer justifications for illegal facts on the ground in territories outside the state.

    • Historically interesting and an insight into Zionist deceit. However what happened prior to the moment Israel was "proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" became effectively irrelevant as of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      POINT: "The word “Certain” at the beginning of the last paragraph indicates that not all such communities were to be provisionally recognized as independent states. We will see later that Palestine was the exception"

      Iraq, Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon were all under a class A Mandate and;

      Article 7 of the LoN Mandate leaves no doubt as to the status of Palestine

      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.

      The Nationality law was adopted in 1925.

      Further reading http://bcrfj.revues.org/6405#tocto1n2

  • A response to Michael Douglas
    • @ Dan "I guess we can all become lawyers now"

      If you can read what's written you're part way there Dan.

      "No need for training, no need to understand precedents, prior judgments, terms of definition. That’s great – no need for law schools, for high fees, representation"

      If you say so pal. I'd say reading what is actually written is a major prerequisite for all those things. Andrew Kent fabricates instead and is then shown to be wrong by what he quotes to prove his point. That's a major fail anyway one looks at it

      "I guess the next time you get into a legal dispute, you won’t need to hire a lawyer. You’ll just google some documents and quote out of context

      Only an idiot is gonna take your advice there pal

      BTW Which documents have I quoted out of context ... thx I'll wait ...

      "The rest of your response does not address the points Kent makes with a counter, LEGAL argument"

      The record shows otherwise

      Dan " I suggest you read it again, because you haven’t read very carefully, particularly the section regarding 194"

      I read everything very carefully. He waffles on with what is best described as meaningless drivel. E.g., Despite the Arab states rejecting UNGA res 194. Well, golly. WOW! Interesting. But, so what? It was adopted anyway! The guy is writing for or is himself a simpleton!

      On his notions about "formally nonbinding U.N. General Assembly resolutions". He must of course omit one of the most crucial pieces of information about UN resolutions in order to make his argument appear correct.

      The UN Charter is binding in its entirety on all UN Member states and by it's very nature, all International Law is binding. The articles of Law and the UN Charter reaffirmed and/or emphasized or otherwise mentioned in any UN resolution are binding! In this way thru Chapter VI resolutions the UN reminds its members of their obligations to binding Law and the UN Charter. That's the very essence of what Chapter VI resolutions are about!

      Israel has had hundreds of opportunities afforded to it to adhere to the Law and UN Charter thru hundreds of VI resolutions reaffirming and emphasizing binding Law and the UN Charter. The only thing protecting Israel from any consequences for it's illegal activities is the US UNSC veto vote on Chapt VII resolutions. Although no Chapt VII action has been taken, Israel is still in breach of the Law and the UN Charter.

      He further compounds his nonsense by completely omitting the fact that UNGA res 194 called for the return of all refugees, Jewish and non-Jewish alike and that Israel encouraged Jewish refugees to take Israeli citizenship, forgoing their refugee status.

      He also omits the rather obvious fact that it is non-Jewish Israeli citizens who have right of return to Israel. Not Palestinians.

      Palestinians only have a right to return to Palestinian territory "outside the State of Israel" as it was at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      This is cute "By contrast, there is a much smaller amount of written, binding law governing non-international conflicts"

      "non-international conflicts"? The ceasefires, Armistice Agreements and two Peace treaties with Israel in the wars over what remained of Palestine after Israel was proclaimed, are all International Agreements!

      Is the guy for real?

    • "Along the same lines, could you please tell us your qualifications with respect to International Law."

      I can read what is written.

      Andrew Kent omits and fabricates. His article conveniently forgets to mention one crucial fact. All civilians have a right to flee the violence of war and all civilians have a right to return to their homes simply because they're civilians!

      "the Article concludes ... that international law did not provide a right of return"

      UNGA res 194 tells us Andrew Kent is a f*(&ing idiot.

      11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C758572B78D1CD0085256BCF0077E51A

      The UNGA res 194 definition of a refugee is here BTW

      Andrew Kent then goes on to spout the usual Hasbara nonsense "1. INTRODUCTION
      The two-year war which gave birth to Israel ..."

      Strange. Israel was proclaimed independent effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time). "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" http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      There was no two year war of independence. The '48/49 war was fought by the already independent State of Israel in and over non-Israeli territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on the 22nd May 1948 were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine". None of the UNSC resolutions on the Question of Palestine call for peace in Israel. They all call for "peace in Palestine".

      "... also made refugees of approximately 600,000 to 760,000 Palestinian Arabs."

      A) The UN gives a more exacting figure ".. refugees from Israel- controlled territory amount to approximately 711,000"

      B) Never the less, poor Andrew steps in ziopoop again. They were not all Palestinian Arabs, some 482,000 ( " In addition to roughly 600,000 Jews, 350,000 Arabs resided in the Jewish state created by partition. Approximately 92,000 Arabs lived in Tiberias, Safed, Haifa and Bet Shean, and another 40,000 were Bedouin ") were, according to the Israeli Declaration of Statehood itself non-Jewish Israelis

      By the signing of the Armistice Agreements in 1949, there were only about 20% non-Jewish Israelis remaining in Israel. (150,000 or so)

      Simple maths tells us of the 711,000 non-Jewish refugees, approximately 332,000 non-Jewish Israelis were dispossessed from Israel by Israel and some 379,000 Palestinians were dispossessed from territories "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine" by Israel.

  • Two-state-solution is at last disputed in Israeli elections (though not 'nation state of the Jewish people')
    • @ Mikhael " If Israel would strip citizenship from its non-Jewish citizens and the attendant full and equal rights they enjoy as Israeli citizens and then tell them that they were citizens of the PA while denying the PA any meaningful attributes of sovereignty, then perhaps the analogy might have some validity"

      Israel has stripped non-Jewish Israelis of their rights you stupid stupid person. Non-Jews who have a right to return to Israel (as proclaimed by the Israeli govt 15th May 1948 http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf ) are Israeli citizens http://pages.citebite.com/b3n4r7v9f8xit

      " I support something close to the 1949 Armistice Lines that were signed into existence between Israel and Jordan (erroneously referred to as the pre-June 1967 borders) with large post-1967 Israeli settlement blocs being annexed to Israel "

      Care to explain why anything should be annexed to Israel? Especially as Israel has no legal right to claim any territories beyond its proclaimed and recognized borders.

      "Most of Jerusalem, as well, should remain under Israeli sovereignty"

      Again, why? Israel has no legal right to claim any territories beyond its proclaimed and recognized borders.

      " The “borders” that existed prior to June 1967 were mere armistice lines between two belligerent states at the end of hostilities"

      Strange, the Israeli Government proclaimed Israel's boundaries effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) and was subsequently recognized as such (ibid)

      "Has the Palestinians shown more flexibility .... etc .... "

      Odd. It is ONLY Israel who has its military forces beyond its proclaimed and recognized boundaries and refuses to withdraw to its own territories. ONLY Israel refuses to allow the return of its own non-Jewish citizens. ONLY Israel illegally occupies and illegally claims territories beyond its boundaries. The Palestinians have long ago shown their willingness to forgo 78% of their rightful territory for peace with Israel. Israel has offered nothing, ever

      ...nonsensical, impossible demands like the return of “refugees”"

      Non-Jewish Israeli citizens have every right to return to Israel. It is neither impossible or nonsensical.

      ... they might have had their state in something close to those borders
      several years ago, now we will be stuck with more intransigent leadership from both sides for a while more"

      Your fantasies are cute. Israeli forces have been in territories that the Israeli Government on May the 22nd 1948 claimed were "outside the State of Israel" ... "in Palestine" for 67 years

      Your drivel doesn't pass scrutiny

  • Netanyahu flips off Harry Truman
    • @ David Gerald Fincham

      I do not recall reading reading official documents that describes borders as being ‘legal’ or ‘de jure’. I suggest ..."

      I suggest you read UNSC resolution 252 and it's EIGHT reminders and; the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is International Law (Law determined between Nations).

      Israel followed the letter of the law in making its declaration and in proclaiming that declaration to the world in order to gain recognition and UN Membership. Since being admitted to the UN, Israel has ignored the Law, the UN Charter and hundreds of UNSC resolutions calling Israel's actions inadmissible, having no legal legitimacy etc ... AKA illegal.

      "Borders are usually described using such terms as declared, defined, recognized, agreed, determinate, fixed, permanent."

      Borders are 'described' like this

      The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of ... etc etc

      They may be 'called' "declared, defined, recognized, agreed, determinate, fixed, permanent"

      "If two neighboring countries define their borders such that they both include a particular piece of territory, then there is a border dispute. In the disputed territory, there is indeed the type of confusion you describe: who may settle where etc. The only solution is for the two states to come to an agreement on the position of their mutual border. Only then could it be said that the mutual border is recognized etc."

      Uh huh. But that is NOT the situation. Israel did not declare its boundaries to include any of the territories allocated for the Arab state under partition. Israel has not legally acquired any further territories. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war (illegal), There is a breach of International Law and the UN Charter by Irael, which is not a border dispute.

      "Where there was a common border between Mandatory Palestine and the Arab states, the partition line, i.e Israel’s border, followed that border. The Arab states did not dispute those lines.

      Why would they dispute their own borders defined before Israel existed?

      "But the case of the border interior to Palestine, between Israel and what we may call Arab Palestine to avoid confusion, is different. It is different because the Arab states, on behalf of the Arab Palestinians, and later the PLO, did not recognize that border"

      Nonsense straight from the Hasbara manual.. It's irrelevant to ISRAELI sovereignty. States exist by unilateral declaration if they fullfil certain legal conditions, like a defined territory beforerecognition. Whatever lay outside of Israel is simpy not Israeli! It doesn't matter whether its called Palestine, whether it was/is a state or not, whether it was desert or not, whether the Ottomans had it or the Jews had it 3,000 years ago nor does it matter if the Palestinians or Arabs recognized Israel or not. If it isn't territory within the proclaimed borders of Israel or legally acquired by Israel, it is not Israeli!

      "That territorial dispute can be settled only by agreement between Israel and Palestine."

      It is a breach of International Law by the State of Israel, not a territorial dispute. Israel is required by law to withdraw to Israeli territory.

      "So far, that border is not determinate."

      It was determined by Israel effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      "If the Arab side had accepted the existence of Israel inside the partition line, the dispute may have been resolvable in 1948-49. But they didn’t."

      Speculation. Israel has never had any intention of returning any territories. http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5

      "I suggest your understanding of the conflict has been colored by your belief that the Arab forces entered Palestine on May 15, 1948 in order to to expel Israeli forces from non-Israeli territory...."

      There is no UNSC condemnation of the Arab Delaration on the Invasion of Palestine and; although there were cross border skirmishes, no UNSC condemnation for any alleged invasion of Israeli territory.

      "Because of that mistaken belief you replied, when I said that the PLO Charter claimed sovereignty over all of Mandatory Palestine, the Arab States would not allow it. But in fact they did claim that, and the Arab states supported them, at least to some limited extent, for example by allowing Palestinian fighters to cross the Green Line to carry out raids"

      A) The Green line is not the border, it was a cease fire line negotiated in 1948.
      B) The Arab States as UN Members were/are not required to recognize Israel or any other entity. They are however required to "have respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

      "going from a border declaration in 1948 to a conclusion that it still applies in 2015 would involve a complicated legal argument that only the ICJ could sort out. "

      It is actually quite simple. On what date and under which agreement has Israel legally acquired any further territories since declaration?

    • @ David Gerald Fincham

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

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

      Independence is unilateral and the British mandate to administer under the LoN Mandate for Palestine had to end in order that the territories be free of outside control so either party could unilaterally declare independence if they so wished . That's self determination and independence by its very nature and definition. Nor was declaration mandatory, , because having to declare is not independence . Nor was it required that both parties agree to declare as that would require co-signing. Co-signing would mean each was dependent on the other. Again, not independence. The Jewish Agency said as much prior to declaration http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx

      The British administration effectively ended at midnight May 14th 1948 (ME time). At that point the territory for the Jewish state was free of all outside control and although the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was made on the 14th May 1948, it did not come into effect until precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

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

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

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

      States exist BEFORE recognition. One cannot recognize something until it exists. Logic 101! http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897#art3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      "1. See my reply to Mooser" et al

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

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

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

      *******

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

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

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

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

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

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

      *****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Quote?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Showing comments 247 - 201
Page: