Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 60 (since 2009-10-19 10:53:18)

ymedad

Jewish, living in Shiloh in Israel, activist

Website: http://www.myrightword.blogspot.com

Showing comments 60 - 1
Page:

  • Israel will celebrate 50th anniversary of '67 war in -- an illegal settlement!
  • The rabbi's daughter isn't buying AIPAC's defense of Israel on apartheid charge
    • Stupid is as stupid does.
      "Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove of Park Avenue Synagogue says that speaker after speaker at AIPAC said that Israel is not an apartheid state, but his own daughter squirmed and pointed out, If Palestinians can't vote, doesn't that make it an apartheid state?"
      Huh?

      They can vote. For Palestinian elections. But Abbas won't hold them. Undemocratic Palestinian Authority, not apartheid Israel

  • 'NY Times' has double standard for Arab and Jewish reporters
    • I don't understand you referring to a "double standard".

      Do you mean that it is okay for Ms. Hadid to be a "Palestinian activist" but a Jewish reporter can't be a "Zionist"?

  • 'NYT' and 'Washington Post' run professor's articles defending settlements without stating he is a settler
  • 'There is no Jewish terror': Conspiracy theory that Palestinians committed Duma firebombing spreads among Israelis
  • AIPAC taking all but 3 freshmen Congresspeople to Israel in effort to sabotage Iran deal
    • But don't they do this every year? And they bring both Republican and Democrats. So how is this uniquely connected to Iran instead of Israel's US relationship?

  • The ‘hasbara’ tweeps who brought down Jim Clancy, and their ties to Israel and the Israel lobby
    • I was just wondering about this: "On his blog Elder has also advertised a job opening with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.". If I found an ad, for example, for viagra at your site, could I assume you are suffering erectile dysfunctionalism? Is there an automotic identification inherent? If anti-Semites leave comments here, are your anti-Semitic? Whta was the purpose of your observation?

  • Islamophobia reigns in Newsweek comment section-- 'Towel head camel humpers'
  • Goldstone sequel to be co-authored by Amal Alamuddin, Clooney's fiancee
  • Glib, simplistic, and extreme -- the world according to Richard Landes
    • This claim --- "to suggest that an honor-shame culture necessarily means that Palestinians will, therefore, never accept Israel and that they will always hate...is to engage in a fantasy rationalization of a pretty simplistic sort." --- is fantastic itself. No local Arab leadership representing to any degree the resident Arab population or receiving the support of such accepted Israel, recognized any form of Jewish national ethos or accepted Jewish sovereign presence on any territory of what they refer to as "Palestine". Nor have they seriously engaged in any diplomatic resolution nor have they ever yielded the right to "armed struggle" or ceased engaging in so. That's farily simple.

  • Updated: Remote-control gun installed atop wall near Bethlehem -- Ma'an
    • Are those canine or marsupial?

    • I think you are either contradicting yourself or you are incapable of comprehending of what you write.

      In either case, or maybe due to a third option, let me quote a satirical summary of one of the aspects touched upon here - what type of "rights" did non-Jewish and mainly Arab emmigrants from the Arabian peninsula possess while they illegally occupied the Land of Israel as a result of military conquest over the centuries during which they never established any specific "Palestinian" administration or even a nationalism while denying the same to the Jews who continued to reside in their country - as the aborigines, so to say - while subjugated by foreign rule of many types:

      "Palestinian scholars have developed three general approaches to this historical anomaly. The first simply ignores the non-Palestinian nature of the Ottoman empire and pretends that since the Ottomans were, to varying degrees, Muslim, though not Arab, the area could be said to fall under the control of an entity with a sort-of Palestinian pedigree, in the sense that many Palestinians of the Ottoman period were also Muslims, as were the vast majority of the people from West Africa to Southeast Asia. Thus it was not specifically with the establishment of Israel in 1948 that Palestine lost its sovereignty, but in 1918, with Israeli control simply a more severe form of foreign occupation.

      The second simply denies the need for demonstrating any historical sovereignty in order to claim that the Palestinians had it taken away. This approach offers the advantage of not having to find historical research that backs up its assertions.

      The third approach, and by far the most popular, blends the first two, as it simultaneously tries to actively erase documented history – for example, by excavating parts of the Temple Mount to get rid of evidence of ancient Jewish structures – while maintaining that whatever the historical record says is irrelevant, as the Palestinian people have greater rights to all the land in dispute no matter what anybody says."

    • Hostage, you an example of how difficult it is to hold a discussion/debate here. Besides the anti-semitism, the anti-Zionism and other hurdles, the ignorance or prevarications are just too much.

      All of the Jewish prophecies inn the Bible indicate a return, a reflowering and a revitalization of Jewish political, social and religious life in the Land of Israel.

    • The Jewish people originated in a country. That country was known by the name Land of Israel. Egypt around 1200 BCE or so knew it, re: Merneptah Stele.
      Despite conquests and occupations, a tribal federation, two monarchies, a commonwealth and other forms of political and administrative frameworks existed. Two major wars with Rome in 66-69 CE and again in 132-135 CE that were lost basically disenabled the Jews from maintaining independence and with the various other conquests of Byzantium, Persians, Muslims, Crusaders, etc., despite continuous presence of Jews, some people, like you, perhaps, forgot that the country was the Jewish homeland. Jews never did and all our cultural, historical and religious memories, customs, practices and ritual all revolve around this land. Many European anti-Semites knew that when they told the Jews in their countries to "go back to Palestine". The Arab illegal occupation never erased this right that was recognized de facto and finally, de jure. Jesus, the Jew, was born in Judea and was never a Palestinian.

    • Annie writes: "what “right” of “historic homeland” might that be? does this “right” apply to me wrt where my ancestors originated? or is a european christian also able to claim this right because their religion originated in the holy land?"

      a. Ottoman Turkey went to war and lost. In a series of diplomatic, political and international legally binding decisions, culminating in the League of Nations Mandate to Gt. Britian, which read, in part, "...Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;...", the Jewish people gained recognition that its claim to the Land of Israel was to be fulfilled to the extent that, as noted in ART. 6, "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

      Those other sections of the population, Arabs, non-Arabs, Christians, Muslims, agnostics and atheists or whatever, as noted above, had but "civil and religious rights", no more. The Arabs therein, as we know, claimed to be Southern Syrians into the early 1920s and demanded that the Mandate be attached to the French one for Syria/Lebanon. For them, "Palestine" meant the Jewish land. Everyone knew that for centuries.

      Now, if I could figure out what you meant by "wrt", I could try to respond to the rest.

      In any case, I think that Christianity actually originated on the road to Damascus (Acts 9). Do you mean we, you and I, should take over Syria? It might solve the bloodletting there, so let me know.

    • You're correct. But I was referring to Arabs who refused to acknowledge any Jewish right in the Jewish historic homeland recognized by both the League of Nations and the United Nations but not by Arabs who sought to kill all Jews in the nascent state and continued terror as that was the subject at hand. If you want to open a new thread of Kfar Qassem, go right ahead but I won't participate because that was a crime by Israelis which the state recognized and one which was not praised, justified or otherwise condoned unlike the positive treatment Arab killers receive.

    • Er, talknic, you seem to start your history in "mid-life". Try 1920, Jerusalem; 1921, Jaffa & Petah Tikva; 1929, Gaza, Nablus, Hebron, Safed, Jerusalem, etc.; 1936-39 - country-wide attempts at murder, mayhem and maiming by Arabs vs. Jews to attempt to kill and thnically cleanse said Jews.

    • I lived in Israel before 1967 and what you described reminds me of that period when, prior to any "occupation" or even the construction of an "illegal settlement", Israeli children were subjected to infiltration by the pre-PLO fedayeen and incidentally, Fatah started operations in 1965. Some examples:
      Jun 11, 1953 - Kfar Hess
      Terrorists attacked a young couple in their home and shot them to death.
      Mar 17, 1954 - Maale Akrabim
      Terrorists ambushed a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, opening fire at short range. The terrorists boarded the bus, and shot each passenger, one by one, murdering 11.
      Jan 2, 1955 - Judean Desert
      2 hikers killed by terrorists.
      Mar 24, 1955 - Patish
      1 young woman killed and 18 wounded when terrorists threw hand grenades and opened fire on a crowded wedding celebration.
      Apr 7, 1956 - Ashkelon
      1 young woman killed when terrorists threw 3 hand grenades into her house.
      Apr 7, 1956 - Kibbutz Givat Chaim
      2 killed when terrorists opened fire on a car.
      Apr 11, 1956 - Shafrir (Kfar Chabad)
      3 children and 1 youth worker killed, and 5 injured, when terrorists opened fire on a synagogue full of children and teenagers.

      And as for your close: "people who are at least trying to expose the truth whether they are right or wrong", if they know they are wrong and they are purposefully lying what are they if not derogatoring the truth?

    • informed it is remote riot dispersal - capable of water cannon, skunk & tear gas. Not armament.

  • D.C. scribes party with red wine, vinyl, and image of a terrorist
  • Scarlett Johansson not only abandons Oxfam but throws it under the bus
    • I would think, if I was an anti-settlement activist, that this Oxfam 2012 statement was a call for BDS: http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/reactions/eu-statements-not-helping-halt-israeli-settlements ---

      "Jeremy Hobbs, Oxfam International's Executive Director, said:

      "Europe's condemnation of Israel's settlement expansion is welcome but words alone mean nothing when people's lives keep worsening.

      "Similar statements came out of last year's EU-Israel Association Council. Yet we've seen a sharp rise in new settlement construction across the West Bank. Meanwhile, Palestinian displacement and Israeli-led demolition of Palestinian homes and water cisterns, many of which were funded by EU taxpayers, has increased.

      "To see positive change on the ground, Europe needs to step up and take a leadership role. EU governments must match their words with urgent and concrete measures to push for an immediate end to settlement construction and the unlawful demolition of Palestinian civilian infrastructure.”"

  • Speakers at settlers conference in NY say Temple Mount 'belongs to us'
    • Before the conquest of Jerusalem by invading Arab tribes from a faraway land who then occupied the city, to whom did the Temple Mount belong?

  • Christian Zionists help settler-farmers take over Palestinian lands
    • Thank God for Christians who realize the truth of the Biblical narrative and seek to fulfill the words of Isaiah 60:10 "And foreigners shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee; for in My wrath I smote thee, but in My favour have I had compassion on thee.".

  • Israel lobby group counters Palestinian dispossession with-- Jewish creationism
    • "The Hasbara notion that Jordan was an illegal occupier can be easily countered by the Armistice Agreement between Israel and Transjordan. Israel agreed!" Nope.

      a) The object of the agreement was “to facilitate the transition from the present truce [from the liquidation of armed conflict] to permanent peace in Palestine” so the geo-political entity still was a “Palestine”, not Jordan.

      b) In Article II, 1, it states that “no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce” and “political” would include Jordan stealing away the “Arab State”.

      c) In that same Article, 2, it states “It is also recognised 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.” Again, there is in this no “recognition of Jordan” as a ‘legal occupier’.

      d) Article VI, 9, reads “The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.” Again, Jordan is awarded no standing.

    • Funny how only Jews are specifically mentioned whereas everyone else is in the non-Jews category which could mean Armenians, Druze, Christians, Muslims, or whatever. Only the Jews were the recognized national group with political rights.

      I think we have been trough this before but simplicity is, well, too complicated?

      From the Mandate foreward: " the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" and "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country". Article 2: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble" and Article 4: "An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine...The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency".

      A review of the correspondence of British politicians all reveal terms such as "state", "homeland", "commonwealth", etc.

      At the San Remo Conference, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, noted in his diary that there had been a ‘two-hour battle’ among the British and French delegates, ‘about acknowledging and establishing Zionism as a separate State in Palestine under British protection’.

      Churchill wrote in the Illustrated Sunday Herald on 8 February 1920 that
      Zionism offered the Jews ‘a national idea of a commanding character’... ‘if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event
      will have occurred in the history of the world which would from every point of view be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.’

      Everyone knew it was a state, a Jewish state to be.

    • "it was added, not lopped off in 1923."

      so why Article 25?

    • I personally especially like the fable about the Prophet flying off on his winged steed to Sinai and then hopping off to Jerusalem (or wherever) and rising to heaven and that is why the Western Wall is called Al-Buraq and why there is an indentation of the Foundation Stone on the Temple Mount (and three beard whiskers, too?).

    • a) San Remo was April 1920. The lopping off was authorized by the League of Nations in July 1922, preliminarily and finally, September 1923.

      b) oh, and Shingo still knows naught of what he writes (or wraughts).

    • you know not of what you write.

    • You write: "Never mind the League of Nations never designated the whole region from the Jordan river to the sea for a Jewish homeland, never mind that Trans-Jordan was never included in the Palestinian mandate."
      Is that a statement of truth?

      Well, what is written in the Mandate for Palestine?

      This:

      "ART. 25.
      In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions"

      Even a simple-minded human would understand that, at the very least, the region designated for a Jewish homeland had to be from the sea to the Jordan River.

      What was in dispute was the area from the Jordan River eastward. And that eastern boundary was not yet determined in 1922.

      Moreover, there's:

      "ART. 5.
      The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."

      All the other partition suggestions could not have been legal if the League of Nations hadn't somehow acquiesced to them and the 1939 White Paper was not so authorized. In fact, appeals were made to the Mandates Commission in Geneva that summer to deny the British their whittling away of the territory of the Jewish Homeland but the outbreak of World War II thwarted that process.

      And the administration angle?

      Even Wikipedia informs all that

      The Emirate of Transjordan...was a British protectorate established in April 1921...The territory was officially under the British Mandate for Palestine but had a fully autonomous governing system from Mandatory Palestine. In 1946, the Emirate became an independent state.

  • Pro-settler group uses nudity to promote cause in U.S.
  • Killed 65 years ago, Bernadotte was committed to Palestinian refugees' right to return
  • Symbols of occupation in Hebron: evicted settlers are allowed to return, stones taken from Ibrahimi Mosque
  • Palestinian journalist is humiliated by Israeli security at US ambassador's July 4th party
  • 'NYT' lecture to Palestinians on democracy was written by former 'Hasbara Fellow'
  • Eric Yoffie says Jewish leaders can criticize the settlements, but nobody else
    • Walid, it's not fair claiming that Arabs "never posed a real existential danger". They (you?) tried very hard. They effected ethnic cleansing of various Jewish communities all throughout the Mandate period, including the ancient Hebron community centuries old. As a result of the 1948 war, newer communities (Atarot, Neveh Yaakov, 4 kibbutzim in Gush Etzion, Bet Haaravah, for example) and much more ancient ones (like Jerusalem's Old City Jewish Quarter) were also ethnically cleansed. That was very very existential. Fedayeen operations of infiltration followed by PLO/Fatah terror prior to 1967 not to mention threats of extinction from 1948 on sort of unnerves people.

    • but I was referring to the final status resolution. if the establishment of a "Palestine" requires removal of Jews from that territory, all for peace mind you, why not achieve a 'better' peace and remove Arabs from Israel. no friction, no animosity, no minority discrimination. just challenging logical processes.

    • But didn't the UN decide a Jewish state be established?

      Are we always on the wrong side of the divide between the rational types and the raving Judeaphobes?

    • You don't have to be an anti-Semite to be ignorant and misleading, although it helps.

      Let's take your thinking to another place. We term Nazereth, Um El-Fahm and Rahat "Arab settlements" and we call them illegal. What then? After all, the world recognizes Israel in (at least?) its pre-1967 boundaries. If Jews can't live in "Palestinian territory", we should Arabs be permitted to live in Jewish territory?

    • Remind me, exactly how did Israel "start" that 1967 war? You know, the one after a half-dozen years of fedayeen terror. After two-and-a-half years of Fatah terror. The closing of the Tiran Straits. After kicking U.N. peacekeeping forces off the Egypt-Israel border. After verbal threats about the liquidation of the Zionist existence and the wiping of Israel off the face of the map and mass demos and mobilization. Etc., etc.

      Yes, we all know that Tom Segev thinks that the fears of Israel of an Arab attack "had no basis in reality." But we all know Segev ... and the Arabs. As I was in the country that year and suffered terror attacks at my moshav site of Amatzia, I'll go with my memory of the period.

  • Israeli govt to provide grants to build hotels in West Bank settlements
  • What '60 Minutes' & Bob Simon got right and wrong
  • Separate Is Not Equal: Standing in solidarity with the Palestinian Freedom Riders
    • in the army? don't know but I think even one would be more than enough for you so what's your point? do you stand in front of the mirror and laugh to cause yourself joy?

    • silly. did I write that? in the past 40+ years living in Israel, I have spoken with, debated and discussed matters with many hundreds of Arabs. I meant what I wrote "Arabs I know" and I meant it. I did not mean, imply or suggest whatever suits your fanicful fancy. so you can stop tickling yourself.

    • and they put it up because Arabs, catching Jews on that road, might, alright, probably, wouldn't think twice about doing physical damage to the car and its occupants. it is a warning sign by Israel but the reason is that Arabs don';t like Jews on "their" roads so you are being a bit sophistic.

      as for equality and freedom, every Arab I know and the vast majority of Arabs polled prefer living in Israel than any other Arab state including "Palestine". A fairly recent poll, conducted in Arabic, surveyed the opinions of Arabs living in Jerusalem. 35% of these people said they would choose to become Israeli citizens while 30% said they prefer being Palestinian citizens.
      The Pechter Poll for the Council on Foreign Relations can be examined here: http://pechterpolls.com/?p=317
      Don't yopu guys know anything about which you have an opinion?

    • i know you are trying to be sacrcastic but be careful, some might presume you an ignoramus. Since I want to make sure you aren't, check out the boundaries of 29 November 1947 as per the UN delineation:

      ...The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road and then follows the western side of that road in a north-westerly direction to the junction of the boundaries of the Sub-Districts of Beisan, Nablus, and Jenin. From that point it follows the Nablus-Jenin sub-District boundary westwards for a distance of about three kilometres and then turns north-westwards, passing to the east of the built-up areas of the villages of Jalbun and Faqqu'a, to the boundary of the Sub-Districts of Jenin and Beisan at a point northeast of Nuris. Thence...

      Did you notice the use of Judea and Samaria?

    • a) Vladimir Jabotinsky asserted at the time that Palestine is a territory whose "chief geographical feature" is that "the Jordan River does not delineate its frontiers but flows through its center."

      b) you cannot deny that the rights awarded to Jews in quite a particular fashion applied between 1922 - 1948 to the territory now know as the "West Bank" but more properly, as the 1947 UN Partition recommendation delineates, Judea and Samaria.

      c) If Israel is in Palestine, so is Jordan. Imagine the ramifications of that. Remember: in 358 territory east and south of the Dead Sea were separated and called Palaestina Salutaris. Shortly thereafter, Palaestina Primera (capital: Caeserea) and Palaestina Secunda (capital: Scythopolis, the modern Beit Shean) came into being. Palaestina Salutaris was renamed Palaestina Tertia (capital: Petra). The Jordan River did not divide these regions. When the Arabs conquered the area in 634, they inherited and kept the Roman divisions for over three centuries, so their provinces too straddled the river.

      Consider too that the thirteenth Zionist Congress passed this resolution in August 1923: "Recognizing that eastern and western Palestine are in reality and de facto one historic, geographic, and economic unit, the Congress expresses its expectation that the future of Transjordan shall be determined in accordance with the legitimate demands of the Jewish people." Or that the Jewish National Fund owned land on the east bank until the late 1940s.

      d) forget Jews. In 1926, 'Abdallah asserted that "Palestine is one unit. The division between Palestine and Transjordan is artificial and wasteful." Prime Minister Zayd ar-Rifa'i told an interviewer in 1975 that "Jordan is Palestine. They have never been ruled as two separate states except during the British Mandate. Before 1918 the two banks of the Jordan River were a single state." King Hussein in 1981 pronounced that "Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan." As recorded in the Palestine Royal Report, July 1937, Chapter II, p. 20, the whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge’.

      Again, we are still left with Judea and Samaria as part of the territory where Jews were granted at least the right to live in "close settlement" no matter the political resolution of any conflict, this way or that.

      So, what's your point?

    • How can I do that? The Arabs have rights of residency, even the League of Nations assured the "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion" along with the purpose to "secure the establishment of the Jewish national home". And the Mandate authority was obliged to "facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes." That "land" included Judea and Samaria. And you do know that "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power." and so, at the least, as I assert, Arabs and of course Jews could and should be living in Judea and Samaria.

      But Arabs were not awarded any special rights or any primacy. As decided, it was: "clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". The definition of the Mandate as supervising the reconsitution of the Jewish national home highlighted the 'non-Jew' without regard to any other race or religion as protected as a citizen but not as one who could wrest political dominance from the Jewish people.

  • US Freedom Riders woke a nation. Palestinian Freedom Riders must wake the world

Showing comments 60 - 1
Page: