100 Most Recent Comments


just
May 25, 2015, 11:08 pm

You’re not at all well, neggy. Both of your comments are proof of that.

(Nice entrance, btw)

Donald
May 25, 2015, 10:41 pm

No, I understood you just fine. You have a tribal morality–you imagine one side in a given conflict as “good” and the other as “evil” and you justify collective punishment for members of the “evil” side. You were clear about this in the first post. The Confederate analogy was also clear– there’s no connection in moral terms between the Palestinian case and the Confederate one, but you wanted to invoke it anyway.

But once you invoke the notion of collective punishment, pretty much all of morality is a joke. It’s just a matter of who is stronger–the moral talk is just gibberish, or maybe propaganda for people weak-minded enough to want to justify atrocities in moral terms, rather than simply saying we do this because we can.

talknic
May 25, 2015, 10:10 pm

Hostage May 25, 2015, 8:59 pm

Claro .. Thx again. (edit)[ echinococcus snap!! ]

Point: ” Well the fact that Israel has declared the UN resolution null and void and never respected its obligations under the Plan for the Future Government of Palestine calls into question how it legally acquired title to anything beyond the 7 percent or so of the territory that was legally owned and inhabited by Jews or the Jewish national trust”

As I understand it, unless one is an inhabitant of a territory, the ownership of real estate does not confer any territorial, citizenship rights. E.g., Japanese, Chinese and other foreign companies, institutions and individuals own real estate in Australia, they cannot vote, they have no territorial rights. Was the Jewish National Trust an inhabitant?
——-

Further Question: It is my understanding that under the notions of self determination territory must be legally annexed by agreement or a treaty with its legitimate inhabitants or their representatives for it to become a part of another entity. We see this in the annexation of Texas to the US, Hawaii…

What did the US actually buy from Russia when it purchased Alaska? Real estate? Territory? Or the right to legally annex Alaska by agreement with the then Russian citizens of Alaska?

lyn117
May 25, 2015, 9:33 pm

Notice how neggy leaves out a few massacres committed by zionists in 1947 before Husseini returned to Palestine in 1948. Also the whole thought and planning zionists had given to how to get rid of Arabs from Palestine in the decades before 1948. Or that the demolition of villages supposedly to deny “enemy sanctuary” occured well outside the borders of that part of Palestine designated by UN resolution 181 as the Jewish state – no attacks on civilians is justified by any rule of war, when it’s a war of aggression like the one the zionists conducted, no attacks on foreign military positions are justifiable either – the Arabs would have been perfectly justified in putting military personnel in villages to protect them. Which they didn’t do in the case of Deir Yassein which wasn’t harboring Arab fighters.

Well I guess neggy had to chime in with some justification for mass murder and ethnic cleansing.

Hostage
May 25, 2015, 9:32 pm

In a synagogue , he’s simply showing proper respect, as I assume he would in a church or mosque.

Better brush up on your Christian literacy: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” 1 Corinthians 11:4

Hostage
May 25, 2015, 9:27 pm

To rectify this perceived flaw in the national character, many religious Jews stay up all night to learn Torah. … It’s quite sad that Annie encountered Jews who don’t have a clue, who lack “Jewish literacy”.

Well its sad to see so many stuck-up Jews who really only like the parts of the Torah about their license to commit genocide bitching about all of us who have read all of that shit and chose to move on to more grown-up night-time activities. You need to stop working on our perceived flaws Jon and focus on the ones in Israel’s national character.

echinococcus
May 25, 2015, 9:17 pm

Hostage,

About what is possibly a side issue for your discussion but may be important for a lot of people.
You say:
Well the fact that Israel has declared the UN resolution null and void and never respected its obligations under the Plan for the Future Government of Palestine calls into question how it legally acquired title to anything beyond the 7 percent or so of the territory that was legally owned and inhabited by Jews or the Jewish national trust.

Isn’t that statement confusing real estate ownership and sovereignty? No matter the size of the lands, where do they get the right to lay down the law?
I mean, even in Somoza’s Nicaragua United Fruit was not officially sovereign, there theoretically was a local government to answer to.

michelle
May 25, 2015, 9:10 pm

.
one wonders would the laughter have stopped if the POTUS
had replaced the word Palestinian with the word Black in
his speech
from the state of the world one doubts if the POTUS would
take issue with the word change
.
he may be chipping at the issue but the clock is ticking and his
time for transparent hope and change is almost up
.
G-d Bless
.

Hostage
May 25, 2015, 8:59 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.

Well the fact that Israel has declared the UN resolution null and void and never respected its obligations under the Plan for the Future Government of Palestine calls into question how it legally acquired title to anything beyond the 7 percent or so of the territory that was legally owned and inhabited by Jews or the Jewish national trust.

In the first place, we need to address the fact that both the Concert of Europe and the Inter-American States had adopted multilateral rules in the 19th Century that were used by their Diplomatic Conferences or Courts of Arbitration to settle boundary disputes, e.g. the Doctrine of Uti Possidetis of 1810. In the 1920s the Hague and Pan American Conferences took up the subject of codifying the rules of international law and a long list of subjects was adopted. By the 1930s, even the isolationists in the United States who refused to ratify the Covenant of the League of Nations admitted that international law governed some of the items on the list:

The subjects for which the United States indicated a preference (from the list submitted) in its memorandum of December 15, 1932, to the Committee at Rio de Janeiro, referred to above, namely, (1) “Extradition”, (2) “National domain”, (3) “Freedom of transit”, with possibly (4) “Rights and duties of States in territories in dispute because of a boundary controversy”, would appear more readily to lend themselves to codification.

link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

For its own part, the United States had even played a role in arbitrating territorial disputes between other parties under the auspices of the Doctrine of Uti Possidetis and the related Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary. Ironically enough, the US government went on to say that it did not accept the principles contained in the draft of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States on the very next page of the same memo. In the end it signed-off on the latter with a bunch of “Banana Republics,” that had no better claim to statehood than Palestine, but failed to codify the well-accepted rules regarding their many boundary disputes.

The 1939 White Paper and 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance effectively partitioned the country into three zones with the intent of establishing the maximum extent or boundaries of the “national home” to those of the “Free Zone”. See the zones in the map here: link to plands.org

Either those boundaries or the ones in the UN Partition Plan have to be the maximum extent of the territory Israel can claim under the Doctrine of Uti Possidetis. Just to refresh your memory, in the Boundary Dispute Case (Burkina-Faso v Mali), the ICJ ruled that:

In this connection it should be noted that the principle of uti possidetis seems to have been first invoked and applied in Spanish America, inasmuch as this was the continent which first witnessed the phenomenon of decolonization involving the formation of a number of sovereign States on territory formerly belonging to a single metropolitan State. Nevertheless the principle is not a special rule which pertains solely to one specific system of international law. It is a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of the obtaining of independence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the independence and stability of new States being endangered by fratricidal struggles provoked by the challenging of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power.

The essence of the principle lies in its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries at the moment when independence is achieved. Such territorial boundaries might be no more than delimitations between different administrative divisions or colonies all subject to the same sovereign. In that case, the application of the principle of uti possidetis resulted in administrative boundaries being transformed into international frontiers in the full sense of the term. This is true both of the States which took shape in the regions of South America which were dependent on the Spanish Crown, and of the States Parties to the present case, which took shape within the vast territories of French West Africa. Uti possidetis, as a principle which upgraded former administrative delimitations, established during the colonial period, to international frontiers, is therefore a principle of a general kind which is logically connected with this form of decolonization wherever it occurs.”

So, it’s hard to see how the customary rule applies in “all cases”, if it doesn’t apply to Palestine. It has been part of customary international law, since 1810, and was an integral part of the Monroe Doctrine cited in Article 21 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. It was capable of being codified in the 1930s – and certainly no later than the adoption and application of the Stimson Doctrine to other territory and armed conflicts in Asia. So I doubt the ICJ could rule-out its application to Palestine, if it were ever asked to decide.

chocopie
May 25, 2015, 8:57 pm

I will read that, thanks.

John Salisbury
May 25, 2015, 8:55 pm

A grotesque injustice it is. Unfathomable too.

RoHa
May 25, 2015, 8:32 pm

And now you are insulting weasels.

Hostage
May 25, 2015, 8:27 pm

What has never been answered to my mind is: Aside from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, what of the other non-Israeli territories that remained of Palestine after Israel proclaimed its UNGA res 181 frontiers? … By what agreement or legal instrument did they become Israeli?

That’s a good question, but you accept some important premises in that framework that are a bit unresolved regarding the legal status of the colonial administrative boundaries adopted by the mandatory government and the status of the territory under the UN Armistice Agreements. Many scholars have pointed out that Right Wings Zionists can’t dispute the provisional status of the territory on the other side of the armistice lines without calling into question the status of the territory on their side as well, e.g. John McHugo, Resolution 242: A Legal Reappraisal of the Right-Wing Israeli Interpretation of the Withdrawal Phrase With Reference to the Conflict Between Israel and the Palestinians International and Comparative Law Quarterly, October 2002, vol 51, pp. 858–9. link to web.archive.org

I’ll comment about some of those issues separately, since you didn’t really ask about them. In any event, the representative of Palestine formally submitted almost the same question that you’ve posed to the Security Council and General Assembly in 1996: link to un.org

The General Assembly in-turn formally submitted it to the ICJ as an implicit part of its request for an Advisory Opinion in 2003, i.e.

Recalling relevant General Assembly resolutions, including resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which partitioned mandated Palestine into two States, one Arab and one Jewish, … What are the legal consequences … considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?

link to unispal.un.org

Unfortunately the Judges concentrated on the provisional armistice arrangements in their legal analysis of the status of the territory, and even then only so far as it was necessary to determine the illegality of the Wall, the associated administrative regime, and the Israeli settlements. The majority opinion never got around to a determination about the ultimate legal consequences of resolution 181(II). Sometimes actions speak louder than words though. The first legal consequence that I noticed was that the Order of 19 December 2003 “Fixing of time-limit: Written Statements” contained two unsolicited invitations from the Court for Palestine to submit a written statement and to participate in the hearings based upon its special status and the fact that it co-sponsored the resolution. FYI, only states are allowed to take part in hearings or oral arguments in accordance with the customary rules and the Statute of the Court. link to icj-cij.org The majority and minority opinions included many statements about Palestine that cannot apply to non-state actors.

But we are getting slightly ahead of ourselves. You need to backup and test the truthfulness of the proposition that “Israel,” per se (the Jewish Agency and Vaad Leumi doing business as a so-called “Provisional Council of Government”) legally constituted the same body described in the UN resolution, despite the fact that neither the General Assembly or its UN Palestine Commission ever selected or established them, as such, and they never operated under UN direction. Appointing the Provisional Council was not one of the steps the UN resolution had called upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take on their part to put the plan into effect.

The selection and establishment of the unelected provisional council was only an intermediate step that fell to the Palestine Commission alone to carryout. The Council was supposed to arrange for democratic elections of a Constituent Assembly organized in compliance with the UN Charter principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples so that the new State would be possessed of a Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction of any kind. Only that elected constituent body or its democratic successor would have been competent under the terms of the GA resolution to declare itself the Provisional State Government.

Moreover, in April when the Jewish Agency claimed that a Provisional Council had already been selected in Tel Aviv, the Palestine Commission scrupulously avoided any implication that it recognized the unilateral action. It also questioned the propriety of taking any action at all in light of the fact that the Security Council had called the General Assembly back into special session to reconsider the whole plan after the Palestine Commission itself had reported than neither of the State Councils would be able to effectively govern their countries, even if they could be appointed by the deadline. Here is a relevant extract that illustrates my point:

With regard to the suggestion that the Commission ask for information from Mr. Shertok, it was proposed that he be asked to communicate with the Commission in writing, since he would need time to receive the necessary information from Tel Aviv. Against this proposal, it was maintained that the Commission, by taking action on a matter concerning which it had no official knowledge, but had only learned about it through the press, it would be setting a bad precedent. In fact, it would be recognizing, by implication, the existence of the so-called government of the Jewish State in-Tel-Aviv. Although it was pointed out that the Commission would simply ask Mr. Shertok whether or not the Jewish Agency was proceeding within the framework of the resolution, when it established the so-called government in Tel Aviv, it was decided that Mr. Shertok should be called for further consultations with the Commission on the question of the selection of the Provisional Council of Government for the Jewish State, so that the Commission should not in fact take action on a matter on which it had not been officially informed. During these consultations, Mr. Shertok could be asked to explain the meaning of the action taken by the Jewish Agency in establishing this government in Palestine and whether the Jewish Agency still wished the Commission to proceed with the selection of the members of the Provisional Council of Government for the Jewish State.

link to unispal.un.org

The only thing the Hague Rules required was that the laws in an occupied territory be respected and changed as little as possible. Both Transjordan/Jordan and Israel adopted transition acts or military orders that retained the laws that had been in effect during the mandate. The mandate itself had prevented the British from simply annexing the territory by applying its own municipal laws. The new states simply granted their own officials the executive powers that were formerly exercised by the British King, Privy Council, or High Commissioner and initially retained the old laws. Under Armistice regimes, it was customary to replace the military commander employed during the belligerent occupation phase with a “High Commissioner” and a more civilian oriented style of government.

talknic
May 25, 2015, 8:26 pm

link to books.google.com.au

Palestine Affairs, Volume 4 / American Zionist Emergency Council, 1949 / Page 7 / “in accordance with the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 11 December 1948″

just
May 25, 2015, 8:23 pm

Yes, chocopie. ;-(

I’ve been so interested in this festival, and have been following some of it on link to twitter.com

I read a stunning piece today by Sarah Carr. The article and pictures are amazing @ link to inanities.org

“What is your occupation” ends with this:

“…Leave the West Bank and enter Israel and there are no more army watchtowers, no more checkpoints, no more walls. You are surrounded by well laid out motorways and tasteful homes on top of spectacular rolling hills. In Haifa the sea laps at the shore while people enjoy drinks in pavement cafes overlooked by the spectacular Bahai Gardens. Here, on first impression, the occupation ceases to exist and Gaza is on another planet. This oasis of pleasantness, where women can wear what they want and people can love who they want and live in nice homes and have access to good healthcare and beautiful beaches. But all of this is built on names wiped off the map, on memories of villages destroyed and people killed and who are still being killed, on families swept around the globe like leaves on the wind, who are forced to put on the coat of another nationality but will never be entirely comfortable in it, who if they don’t acquire another nationality live a precarious existence spent between airport detention rooms and police stations and refugee camps while a stranger enjoys a breeze on the seafront of Haifa without giving it a second thought.

Occupation fills space and time beyond walls and borders, beyond the farmer waiting for the military gate to open, beyond the worker who spends hours at the Qalandia checkpoint, beyond the schoolboy in Hebron arrested because he has dirty hands and therefore might have been throwing stones. To swallow Israeli propaganda about the endless terror and the homemade rockets justifying a bottomless pit of hell is to allow the occupation’s brutality to endure. To fail to challenge the Israeli state’s narrative while three hours away from you people live under military law and are humiliated, detained and worse is to allow the’s occupation’s brutality to endure.”

RoHa
May 25, 2015, 8:20 pm

“some significant father-son divergence”

There certainly seems to have been some. One one stage it looks as though Kim was sent to spy on his father.
Interestingly, both of them were British intelligence agents, and they both threw their lot in with the people they were supposed to spy on.
The father became a Muslim and worked for Ibn Saud.
The son became a communist and worked for the Soviets.

JustJessetr
May 25, 2015, 8:16 pm

No complaints about Abbas going to the ICC?

Lawfare: good for the goose, good for the gander.

talknic
May 25, 2015, 7:59 pm

@ 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.

Interested Bystander
May 25, 2015, 7:59 pm

It’s inteded as “camps in Poland.” Thanks jimpers.

just
May 25, 2015, 7:23 pm

It’s mind- boggling, and leads me to the conclusion that you made in your earlier reply to him:

“You just don’t like to hear what it says.”

just
May 25, 2015, 7:12 pm

2 articles just popped out at me @ Haaretz:

“For Arab politicians, a view from the Jewish street

The politicians’ Knesset speeches upon the presentation of the government went off the air on all three TV channels when it was the Joint Arab List leader’s turn to speak.

Last week the political commentator of Channel 2, Udi Segal, exposed the true face of MK Ayman Odeh, leader of the Joint Arab List. “He is not that nice,” he said in shock, and quoted to the residents of our little shtetl a complaint from a few unnamed Knesset members and government officials: In his meeting with the Norwegian foreign minister, Odeh asked the representatives of the government to leave the room so he could speak to the minister privately.

Heavens above. Declining to be chaperoned by the Foreign Ministry may be understandable to anyone who sat in Prison 6 and spoke to his mother under the eyes of the master sergeant, but not to a former correspondent in the territories for Army Radio. The meeting between Odeh and the guest lasted longer than scheduled, the commentator summarized sourly.

Before the elections, Odeh was asked by many of his interviewers from the Jewish street: “How is it we haven’t heard about you?” Odeh answered that the Palestinians in Israel actually do know him, so for a moment our reporters also liked him (except for Rina Mazliah, another political commentator, the Cassandra between the advertisements: “I don’t buy his smile,” she said, like every protagonist in colonial literature.)”…

link to haaretz.com

and

“Apartheid in Israel is about more than just segregated buses

What in a different situation would be considered apartheid is tolerated by many because it is ostensibly temporary. But the occupation has long stopped being temporary.

…Even after the apartheid bus plan was dropped, this fact hasn’t changed. That’s why we cannot let the debate over the buses hide the fact that grand apartheid, characterized by inherent inequality between Jews and Arabs in all areas of life in the territories, is no less serious in its dimensions, and in many ways more serious, than segregated buses.”

link to haaretz.com

Both articles are behind the paywall, but are worth a look imho.

Kris
May 25, 2015, 7:05 pm

jon s: “The link you provided is to a neo-Nazi website.”

I provided two links. The first was to carolynyeager.net. She accurately reported that Piper did not believe Sandy Hook was a “hoax.” The second was to michaelcollinspiper.podbean.com, where he explained his position (i.e., Sandy Hook was not a “hoax”). His website seems to be about how the media manufactures consent and distributes misinformation.

I can see how you could call carolynyeager.net a “neo-Nazi website.” Here is a sample from her “welcome” page:

“The evidence is overwhelming that all the people of Europe, and genetically European people everywhere, are now the victims of this concerted, long-term effort to replace their historic nations with a globalist, anti-nationalist, multi-racialist ‘New World Order.” The most familiar form of this attack today is non-White immigration, demoralization of White culture, and “hate” legislation aimed against Whites in our White European and Americans homelands. This is what must be understood and resisted with force.”

Seems to me to have an awful lot in common with what Zionists think, only with themselves as the “victims,” of course.

Anyway, unlike you, Yeager was accurate in what she said about Piper.

Bornajoo
May 25, 2015, 6:56 pm

I’m surprised they didn’t give him a longer sentence. Nothing worse for the Zionists than a solder coming to his senses, being honest and telling the truth.

neggy
May 25, 2015, 6:50 pm

Mais non, you have me all wrong, chief. I agree with Ben-Gurion, Benes, and Sherman. If you reread what Sherman was saying, it was that the people of the south encouraged and perpetuated a war that it could not win, and that in doing so, they exposed themselves to all the punishments that would be meted out by the victor. If you read the full text of the letter, you can see that he holds out hope for the southerners, who he still considers his, albeit misguided, countrymen, and therefore that if they lay down their arms, he is happy to have mercy on them.

He is not saying that he would like to force people from their homes and alienate their property, but that the south should be aware of the consequences should the Union’s patience and mercy run out, that is, in the case that the south tried to take up guerilla tactics.

In the Czech case, Henlein’s Sudeten Nazi party, in accord with the Nazi party policy of “Heim ins Reich” connived with the German Nazis (and with overwhelming support among the ethnic German population of the Sudetenland) to dismember the Czechoslovak state by waging a guerilla war using terrorist groups called Freikorps in order to provoke a government response that served as Hitler’s pretext to invade.

Again, the group that started the war lost the war and paid the price by losing their homes, property, and their rights to live in the Czechoslovak state as enforced by the Potsdam agreement and the Benes decrees.

For Israel, the Palestinian Arabs initiated hostilities upon news that the partition proposal had been endorsed by the UN general assembly, and moreover, they invited with open arms fighters from Egypt, Syria, Bosnia, Iraq and elsewhere in the form of several thousand irregulars.

Again, they lost the war, and instead of surrendering like the Germans and the Confederates, they preached a doctrine of ‘war forever’ with the Jewish state, and the Jewish state still restrained itself from expelling the remaining Arab nationals still within its borders at the end of the war, something that the Czechs didn’t do even with a formal German surrender.

I understand and frankly agree with both the Czech policy and the Israeli policy, and I have even more sympathy with the Israeli policy by merit of the fact that the exodus of the aggressor population was generally only gone when either fleeing by themselves or being removed as a consequence of direct military considerations.

The Czech expulsion was retributive and preventive, to deprive Germany of ever again having a pretext to invade, while the Israeli policy was dictated in the course of ongoing hostilities, often as militarily necessary or at least expedient measures.

The real interesting comparison regards the treatment of those attempting to return. In both cases, those who became refugees were denied any right to return and explicitly or implicitly divested of their property with no compensation, though Isael has proposed to provide monetary compensation in exchange for renunciation of a claim to return.

The Czechs aren’t nearly so nice.

just
May 25, 2015, 6:50 pm

Speaking of a real crisis, this is a must- see video interview with Dan Cohen on ‘The Real News':

“Not a Single House Has Been Rebuilt One Year After Israeli War on Gaza”

link to therealnews.com

Transcript available at link includes this:

…”PERIES: And yet despite criticism of the world, the United States is providing $1.8 billion in a deal to Israel. No one, absolutely no one seems to care about what’s happening to the people on the ground. What do you make of this?

COHEN: Yeah. This massive arms deal comes as Israel’s most right-wing government in history has just been elected. And this is, this is a really disturbing precedent, as the weapons that President Obama has just given Israel were used in, to target–specifically to target civilians last summer. The bunker-busters, which Israel just received 750 of, which were designed for Iraq to take out underground facilities, were used last summer to destroy residential and commercial towers that have no military value. Very similar to the tower that I’m in right now. Last summer on the final night of the ceasefire, after the terms of the ceasefire had been agreed to, is when Israel decided to start taking out landmark towers in Gaza with the bunker-busters, just like–American-provided bunker-busters like they have received once again.

So everyone in Gaza, everyone in Israel knows it’s just a matter of time until we see it happen again, and it’s a disturbing thought to think that the tower I’m in is a potential target and could be a smoldering pile of rubble with hundreds of people homeless just like last summer.”…

Hostage
May 25, 2015, 6:48 pm

“Cautionary Crow” is way over his head, and may indeed have “suffered a severe blow to the head”.

Something has to account for the puzzling fact that a Zionist talkback artist has lapsed into the use of the very same arguments and legal-sounding defenses that were employed by apologists for the Nazi regime to excuse crimes committed against Jews who had been rendered “stateless” by acts of aggression and the official Germanization of “occupied territories” in Eastern Europe unlucky enough to belong to “unrecognized” countries or countries with conveniently “disputed” borders.

Bornajoo
May 25, 2015, 6:35 pm

Thanks for the link Just. I was emailed a very graphic photo of this boy’s facial injuries earlier today. Very horrific. So upsetting

“Only people who don’t see others as human and equal could minimize the seriousness of this Palestinian child’s injuries and the recklessness and bestiality of IDF soldiers who did this.” (Marnie)

Well said Marnie

Thank you Kate

michelle
May 25, 2015, 6:33 pm

.
so i heard there were these test monkeys
that were fed and cared for according to the
base need of each individual monkey
they (monkeys and keepers) were all very happy and thriving
a few of the monkeys tested better then the rest
so the keepers gave them more food care space attention
all taken from the other monkeys rations
the other monkeys became sickly and despondent
all the test scores dropped
the keepers and the monkeys became unsettled
unbalanced fighting biting hitting hurting each other
.
G-d Bless
.

echinococcus
May 25, 2015, 6:29 pm

Are you saying that perceiving the Jews as a nation makes one an Anti-Semite?

It certainly does. And “perceive” may be the exact word.
Someone who cannot immediately perceive the monstruosity of labeling a religious group (OK, adding those with ancestry in that religious group) as a “nation” is not just antisemitic but also deranged.

just
May 25, 2015, 6:25 pm

Great comments, Bornajoo.

Thank you.

catalan
May 25, 2015, 6:23 pm

“instead of psychologically remaining a people that chooses to regard Gentiles as irrational Jew-haters” Keith
I can’t speak for other Jews but I do like some Gentiles. Michael Jordan, Steven King and last but not least, Kim Kardashian. See, for any one that looks like her I can overlook the irrational Jew-hatred. Oh, and I am a big fan of all things Chinese.
Keith, seriously, you need to meet some regular Jews. We are not all bankers or Hasidim. There are some regular people. Quite a few intermarry and those they don’t mingle. Gotta read other stuff besides counterpunch.

eGuard
May 25, 2015, 6:23 pm

jon s, so covering a traitor for 25 years is OK when don by that same “Zionist”? (Why the scare quotes btw?).

just
May 25, 2015, 6:22 pm

Lord knows, I have no idea how you hold on to your patience, Hostage.
It’s a thing to behold.

Thank you again for your detailed explanations and links to facts.

“Cautionary Crow” is way over his head, and may indeed have “suffered a severe blow to the head”. I don’t think it was “recent”, though.

justicewillprevail
May 25, 2015, 6:21 pm

It’s a one party state: the military party. Israel is governed by the military. Civil government is simply a rubber stamp for their policies.

Hostage
May 25, 2015, 6:14 pm

@ Hostage

ICRC Definition of Pillage: ….So how can civilian settlers ‘pillage’?

Have you recently suffered a severe blow to the head? I cited several cases of pillage committed by civilians that were tried by US Courts and gave you a link to the summaries on this ICRC webpage where they appear under the heading “Customary IHL” (International Humanitarian Law):
United States of America
Practice Relating to Rule 52. Pillage
Section B. Pillage committed by civilians
V. National Case-law
link to icrc.org

Try to hone your reading comprehension skills and locate the answer to your questions there and stop spamming the thread. You asked for case law and you’ve been given the case law dummy. You just don’t like to hear what it says.

Bornajoo
May 25, 2015, 6:13 pm

“Do you for your part really see this as a foundation of peace?”

No. Definitely not. Anything half baked forced upon the Palestinians will never work. It will disintegrate from within and will become a failed state in no time. Only a true and just agreement could ever hope to satisfy all the various Palestinian factions

Unless the agreement is real, full and proper it can never work. If Obama really is going to try and make this happen (which I now believe is fairy tale stuff) he simply must understand that Palestine has to be a made into a full and proper state with all the usual components along with a signed peace treaty with israel on day one. They must be free to run their own affairs and answer to no one

Let’s put the settlement/refugee issues to one side for the moment and assume there is a way to solve those massive problems

The Israelis continually say that any future Palestinian state has to be demilitarised. Oh, okay so what do they do when the likes of ISIS show up? Or any other potential future enemy? It means they have to rely on the Jordanians in the East, the Egyptians in the south and the Israelis everywhere else. Just this demand alone makes the whole proposition ridiculous.

Israel and the USA cannot demand the terms. Either it has to be everything or it can’t work. And this is why the 2ss is dead because what really needs to happen will never be allowed and anything less is doomed to fail.

What needs to happen is for the USA, the enabler of the occupation, to withdraw the veto, get out of the way and leave it to the UN. The greatest legacy Obama could ever leave behind is to stop protecting israel at the UN in order to force them to finally comply with international law.

sharonsj
May 25, 2015, 6:09 pm

Waleed Al Husseini, Daily Beast, December 8, 2014:
“I used to run a blog in Arabic called “Nour Alakl” and ran a satirical Facebook page under the pseudonym “Allah.” But in October 2010, Palestinian security forces stormed into an Internet cafe and arrested me. Until then, I had been under the impression that I had a right to freedom of speech and to the freedom of belief. But in jail, I was told that my online statements about religion and Islam were illegal. I was told that society didn’t accept such criticisms.
“I was beaten by prison guards who demanded to know who had made me write against Islam. In their minds, I could only say these things as the result of some plot, some conspiracy. The idea that I might simply want to express my independent thoughts was alien to them.
“The 10 months I spent in Palestinian prison were the worse of my life. I faced constant pressure to retract my statements. I was told they had removed my blog and that I must apologize for publishing it. Even once I was freed, I was told I should never again use the Internet, nor meet with the media.
“For months after my release, I was harassed by the security services, who further interrogated me and detained me without cause. I received letters from people saying they wanted to kill me.”

I wonder if Mondoweiss ever runs any articles detailing what happens to Palestinians in Gaza who criticize Hamas?

Shingo
May 25, 2015, 5:59 pm

A professor of Judaic studies at Wayne State University, he said at the forum that American Jews have the “luxury” of living far away from Hamas.

Another Israeli supporter who admits Israel is less safe for Jews than the diaspora.

Hostage
May 25, 2015, 5:59 pm

I counsel caution, Hostage. Caution.

Caution my ass. No one is questioning the applicability of the War Crimes Statute. If the Supreme Court can compel an officer of the United States to perform a duty in Marbury v Madison, then why not initiate an action to compel the US Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury to prosecute and freeze the assets of American nationals who commit war crimes, including pillage, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories? See 28 U.S. Code § 1361 – Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty link to law.cornell.edu If nothing else it would establish whether or not our government is officially “unwilling or unable” to act after Congress belatedly adopted the enabling legislation to formally implement the criminal sanctions required under the terms of both the Hague (1907) and Geneva Conventions (1949).

In any event, there is only one subsection of RICO, §1961, which defines acts of racketeering for both of its subsections on criminal and civil remedies. There’s no evidence that Congress ever intended to distinguish between extraterritorial acts for which only criminal remedies would be available, and no one is talking about overturning any criminal convictions for money laundering crimes involving acts committed overseas.

I’ve already pointed out that the individual standalone criminal statutes cited in §1961 undoubtedly have extraterritorial criminal scope and applicability. The minority are arguing that the related civil remedies under RICO might not apply to acts of racketeering because of a Judge-made rule regarding the presumption of non-extraterritoriality. For some mysterious reason that same rule applies with equal force and effect to every criminal statute too, except on this occasion. In the end, Congress chose to list all of the laws under § 1961 and said they were constituent acts of racketeering, without any disclaimers of civil liability.

It was the Courts of the United States which established the principle that civil reparations are required under “the law of nations” for war crimes and that they are an integral part of our domestic system of law which is enforceable in the State courts, e.g.

It is no surprise that New York’s Court of Appeals decided last week that a “spoils of war” legal theory could not be upheld. That state’s highest court ruled that pillaging during World War II does not invest a possessor of stolen cultural heritage with title.

— See Rick St. Hilaire, “New York’s Highest Court Rejects The Right to Pillage”, Monday, November 18, 2013 and In the Matter of Riven Flamenbaum

That’s an example of Court-ordered property restitution as a result of a crime committed outside the United States decades ago. But they were citing WWII War Department guidelines on customary law that applied to pillage and restitution of real, movable, and intangible property.

just
May 25, 2015, 5:58 pm

I don’t believe that there’s such a thing as “liberal Zionism”, except as a great example of an oxymoron.

You are either a Zionist, or you are not.

Citizen
May 25, 2015, 5:58 pm

Yep, nothing’s changed, nor will it, listening to the POTUS candidates. The three unchangeable factors: Weapons industry; the Milltary -industrial-security complex Ike warned about to no avail, Israel First politics, (Washington warned us about generically) the domain of really big, single focus special interest money, main media ‘s complicity.

a blah chick
May 25, 2015, 5:53 pm

Wow, that’s what happens when you don’t use the edit button.

jimpres
May 25, 2015, 5:52 pm

The term ‘Polish camps’ is incorrect. The German Nazis established the ‘ camps’ on occupied Polish soil. The camps were not Polish as implied by the comment. Please correct the error.

Keith
May 25, 2015, 5:50 pm

PHIL- “The Jewish community will divide more and more clearly in the next year or so between Zionist Jews and non-Zionist ones.”

And if it does, it is the Zionists who will have the preponderance of money, organization and power.

Keith
May 25, 2015, 5:26 pm

“Down-playing the role of anti-Semitism presents “a dire and existential threat to Jewish well-being,” says Deborah Lipstadt (according to Robin).”

Perceived anti-Semitism is the mother’s milk of Zionism. It is the ideological glue which defines, unites and motivates Jewish tribalism, keeping Zionist Jews psychologically separate from the surrounding Gentile communities. It is this Jewish kinship which is a key component of organized Jewish Zionist power-seeking and Jewish Zionist material success. Zionism is the modern, secular equivalent of Classical Judaism. Apparently Deborah Lipstadt feels that this tribal unity is essential to Jewish well-being (power) and that the lack of tribal feelings of kinship due to lack of fear of anti-Semitism would result in Jews simply becoming part of the surrounding Gentile community instead of psychologically remaining a people that chooses to regard Gentiles as irrational Jew-haters would constitute “a dire and existential threat to Jewish well-being.” She is probably correct.

Bumblebye
May 25, 2015, 5:19 pm

Zionism is antisemitic, especially if it makes the argument of claiming all Jews everywhere as members of the same nation. The Israeli “nationality” of Jew is grossly antisemitic. It allows the conflation of all Jews everywhere with the crimes perpetrated by Israel. Which then, of course, leads to spikes in what *you* would call antisemitism when diaspora Jews (who may not even be pro-Israel no matter how it acts) are challenged over Israel’s actions. Israel’s unvirtuous circle maybe – a deliberatly hoped for response to spur migration?

a blah chick
May 25, 2015, 5:16 pm

No more charging up Ammunition Hill. You now get your medals by liquadating families or destroying neighborhoods. Oh, and threatening stone throwers with rape.

Can you blame these guys for take their separation bonuses and get stoned in India?

a blah chick
May 25, 2015, 5:10 pm

I’ve heard a story about Ariel Sharon and how he knew he would go far in the IDF after he got his MAPAI party card. Then there is Isser Harel who, as head of the Mossad, use to sit in on party discussions. So this idea that the IDF or the security people are apolitical is an illusion. I think that the reason Ben Gurion held both the PM office and the Defense portfolio for a time was because he wanted to control the officer corps and see that most of them were good party members.

The military there has always been political.

MHughes976
May 25, 2015, 4:54 pm

He may indeed have had pro-‘Arab’ sympathies inculcated, though I think his dad was actalally a convert to Islam and he never was, which indicates some significant father-son divergence. But he was a master of disguise and evasion and I would be surprised if he would have given himself away by writing unmistakably pro-Soviet propaganda. I suspect he just reported with a certain amount of objectivity and that many journalists and diplomats did exactly the same for decades. For the same length of time Zionist fanatics like Margaret Thatcher, sitting in London, saw this as anti-Semitism.

jon s
May 25, 2015, 4:51 pm

Just, it’s true that I’ve made this point before, on the lack of Jewish literacy, because it does concern me:

link to mondoweiss.net

As to your question, assuming you’re really interested:
I don’t teach only “Israeli History”.
The farthest back I go in the courses I teach is the Second Temple period.
“Jewish literacy” means not being ignorant of your heritage, having at least basic knowledge of Jewish traditions, culture, history ,language and so forth. To go back to the example I used in my previous comment, it would mean catching Leonard Cohen’s reference in “Who By Fire”, and not losing a bet to Annie out of ignorance.

MHughes976
May 25, 2015, 4:45 pm

It cannot be assumed of any rational person that (s)he will honour an agreement accepted under extreme duress and perpetuating suffering and radical unfairness.
I didn’t say that I sympathised with the Israeli hard men: they speak for cruelty and injustice. I just think that they are right to say that there is no easy way out based on an agreement extracted from the Palestinians under extreme duress, permitting the fruits of injustice (or at least what must seem to the Palestinians to be injustice) to be enjoyed for ever and sanctifying permanent inequality of rights. Do you for your part really see this as a foundation of peace?

just
May 25, 2015, 4:44 pm

Incredible photo via Belal Dabour, MD:

“A Palestinian woman sets on the rubble of what used to be her house east of Gaza. Sorry grandma, Israel wants this. ”

link to twitter.com

The photographer from Gaza, Atia Darwish, is truly gifted. Link to his work @ link.

Donald
May 25, 2015, 4:40 pm

You seem to be replying in part to some other post. That seems a little weird. But anyway, you make it clear that you do support ethnic cleansing and defend it by quoting Sherman on his lack of sympathy for Confederate slave owners while condemning us for not spending time condemning the actions of Czechs which don’t personally bother you.

I’m enjoying this.

michelle
May 25, 2015, 4:33 pm

.
something like arresting the illegal immigrant workers
without first
making sure that they were paid in full for their work
(according to that countries standards for all workers)
arresting those who hired and exploited their illegal status
charging any and all who profited off the exploitation of these people
(seems like a good fee would be double projected profits from the labor and all deportation expenses)
after all crime shouldn’t pay/profit
if these employees truly want the services of ‘that particular person(s)’
they should make the effort to make it above board/legal

.
if i see one more movie that depicts the employer as a good unselfish honest person ….

.
G-d Bless
.

Kay24
May 25, 2015, 4:31 pm

Again Bibi sends message to the world. He appoints Dore Gold anti 2SS to the Foreign Ministry.
Is the US government so naive, that they cannot get that message? There is absolutely no hope for a 2SS, and the US is simply playing games pretending to believe there is hope. The usual good cop/bad cop routine is lame now.

“Dore Gold, who was appointed Monday as the director general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, is considered to have relatively hawkish views on the Palestinian issue and has never publicly voiced support for the two-state solution, the establishment of a Palestinian state or Netanyahu’s 2009 speech at Bar-Ilan University, in which the prime minister came out in favor of the two-state solution.

Gold also dealt extensively with the issues of defensible borders and security arrangements under any deal with the Palestinians as the head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs think tank.

But in recent years Gold has been most vocal in his column in Israel Hayom, the Sheldon Adelson-owned daily newspaper known for its support of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

His most recent columns have been critical of the talks between Iran and the West over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. In a column published last month Gold wrote that “there has been a whole school of thought in Washington that firmly believed that the U.S. was the main source of Middle Eastern tensions and not Iran.” In a column a month before, Gold cautioned that “Iran is clearly exploiting its nuclear talks with the West to establish its hegemonic position and erect a new regional order from Yemen to Kurdistan.”

link to haaretz.com

just
May 25, 2015, 4:31 pm

Good comment, Krauss. Thank you.

Kate linked to a great article today that’s not entirely off- topic for this thread:

“Why won’t Israeli peace groups talk about the Nakba? / Tom Mehager Haokets 23 May — It’s 2015 and Israeli peace groups still refuse to talk about the mass dispossession of Palestinians in 1948, including those who became Israeli citizens. Tom Mehager says it is time for a real conversation about the right of return” – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

Donald
May 25, 2015, 4:11 pm

You’ve made similar points before and you might be right, but in a way it is irrelevant what Obama’s private motives are. We should point out that what he actually said was unfair and if enough people point this out, it would provide cover for Obama or some other politician to be more truthful.

jon s
May 25, 2015, 4:10 pm

kris,
I assumed that was Piper’s position based on this:
link to michaelcollinspiper.podbean.com
In truth, I couldn’t bring myself to wade through all the disgusting nonsense, so I may have been wrong on the debate he was having with his fellow kooks.
The link you provided is to a neo-Nazi website.

Donald
May 25, 2015, 4:04 pm

Hophmi, those ties might explain why Obama pandered to his audience, but doesn’t excuse it. And you’re not even trying to excuse it. Good.

JWalters makes a more interesting point below–not sure I agree, but Obama must know how hypocritical his speech is and I wonder what it would take for him to be honest

Krauss
May 25, 2015, 3:51 pm

You should. Obama’s neo-colonialist rhetoric(“making the desert bloom”), his endless pandering and frankly his betrayal of the Palestinians is all about chasing Jewish money.

That understanding is based on what Phil outlined: that the Jewish community is cohesive. That’s the Jewish community Obama grew up to understand. That community is now splintering.

Your larger point is of course correct: people shouldn’t have to wait for Jewish approval to go for BDS or not. Even if the Jewish community was uniformly against that should not matter: only moral principle should matter.

But there’s a thing called practical politics and regardless of the moral dimension, a splintering among Jews will push the process further along as fewer and fewer Jews, especially young Jews, are willing to base their identity on a state whose raison d’être is Jewish apartheid. It’s not even possible to deny it anymore.

jon s
May 25, 2015, 3:44 pm

RoHa
Could you refer me to a book or academic paper which lays out in detail the p-nation, n-nation, c-nation distinctions?

jon s
May 25, 2015, 3:36 pm

Bumblebye,
Are you saying that perceiving the Jews as a nation makes one an Anti-Semite? What kind of upside-down logic is that? You realize that regarding the Jews as a nation was one of the precepts of modern Zionism? Does that make every Zionist who ever was and every Jew who immigrated to Israel out of Zionist ideals- an Anti-Semite? Or is it just me?

Hostage
May 25, 2015, 3:34 pm

@Hostage

Before you pack your gunny sack and rush off to the Hague, you might stop and consider this. Five judges wrote separate opinions to accompany the disposition, illustrating the Second Circuit’s internal disagreement over RICO’s extraterritorial scope.

1) the Hague can prosecute American citizens who have committed crimes on the territory of Palestine without regard to RICO or any other statute in the US Code.

2) There isn’t any doubt that the Congress intended the War Crimes Act to have extraterritorial applicability to members of the armed forces and US national civilians, because that’s exactly what each of the public laws under US Code Title 18 explicitly stated: Pub. L. 104–192, § 2(a),Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2104, § 2401; renumbered § 2441,Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 605(p)(1),Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3510; amended Pub. L. 105–118, title V, § 583,Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2436; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(e)(7),Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1810; Pub. L. 109–366, § 6(b)(1),Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2633.), i.e.:

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b) … (b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act). … (c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct— … (2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;

FYI, Article 28 is the Prohibition of Pillage

(3 Likewise there can’t be any presumption of non-extraterritoriality in the statutes listed in § 1961 – Definitions of 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 – RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS, like the ones I cited above. link to law.cornell.edu

The majority of the Judges of the 2nd Circuit agree that Congress intended § 1956 – Laundering of monetary instruments to apply to acts committed overseas:

(a)(2) Whoever transports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit, or transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States or to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States
(A) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or
(B) knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that such transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or in part—
(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
(ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,
shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. For the purpose of the offense described in subparagraph (B), the defendant’s knowledge may be established by proof that a law enforcement officer represented the matter specified in subparagraph (B) as true, and the defendant’s subsequent statements or actions indicate that the defendant believed such representations to be true.
link to law.cornell.edu

The Judges who could NOT figure that out, should be checked to see if they have college level reading skills or own any RJR Nabisco stock.

just
May 25, 2015, 3:26 pm

wrt “How Jerusalem makes Palestinians disappear / Orly Noy” – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

Today, there’s this:

“Israel orders wife of Palestinian jailed for Facebook comments expelled from Jerusalem

…With Omar in prison, Muna is the sole parent taking care of their six children, who are aged 7-22 years old, Arab48 adds.

Held in Gilboa prison in northern present-day Israel, Omar is one of an estimated 5,820 Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli lockup, according to the Ramallah-based prisoner support group Addameer.

The order does not specify the “security threat” that his wife poses — she has not been accused of any crime — by remaining in their family’s home. Although Israel’s interior ministry claims that it gave her 21 days to appeal the order, Shalabi denies that she was given any such opportunity.

Since receiving the order, Muna and her children have lived in “a situation of worry and fear” and she “appeals to relevant human rights and legal institutions and the international community for quick intervention… to stop Israel’s ethnic cleansing policies against Jerusalemites and [Palestinians’] presence in Jerusalem,” Arab48 reports.

Israel’s practice of banning Palestinians from Jerusalem is nothing new. …

…Residency revoked

More than 300,000 Palestinians live in neighborhoods throughout East Jerusalem, where they regularly endure harassment and violence by Israeli occupation forces and settlers alike. Palestinians native to the city are treated by Israeli occupation authorities as if they, not Israel which occupied the city in 1967, are the newcomers.

Banning Palestinians from the city is just one of several methods Israel employs to expedite the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem and push the indigenous population out. Israel also regularly demolishes Palestinian homes in the city and revokes Palestinians’ residency status.

Since Israel’s military occupation of the city in 1967, at least 14,416 Palestinians have had their residency revoked, according to the Israeli rights group Hamoked. In 2014 alone, Israel revoked the residency of 107 Palestinians from East Jerusalem, among them 56 women and 14 children.

These revocations have a much greater impact than on the individual targeted, as they often split married couples from each other and parents from children. Families are left with the prosepct of leaving the city en masse in order to stay together.

Thousands of children living in East Jerusalem do not carry residency papers and are thus denied access to healthcare, education and other basic services, as The Electronic Intifada has reported in the past.”…

link to electronicintifada.net

And, as for “Israel thanks US for stand on Mideast nuclear arms ban at UN” – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

The US is a freaking serial hypocrite (among other things), and so are very many of its ‘allies’.

eGuard
May 25, 2015, 3:26 pm

How great and generous the the Jewish community finally, finally wants to discuss the Israel question. A lot of victims are anxious to heard what the outcome is. (Can you hurry on? They are waiting quite some time already).

Or, better take the topic of Zionism away from that “Jewish community” right away. Ever since Book One, Zionism was at the cost of others without those others.

eljay
May 25, 2015, 3:03 pm

|| Not Your Casual Mondoweisser: The territories gained after the 1948 War are necessary for Israel’s existence as the previous borders were simply indefensible. ||

Israel accepted its (Partition) borders, so it must not have had concerns about their defensibility.

Israel defended its (Partition) borders, so they must have been defensible.

In order to exist, Israel does not need to keep any of the land it has stolen, occupied and colonized.

Not Your Casual Mondoweisser, but most definitely Your Typical Zio-supremacist.

tree
May 25, 2015, 2:58 pm

The territories gained after the 1948 War are necessary for Israel’s existence as the previous borders were simply indefensible.

This takes me back full circle to the very beginning of my questioning of the Israeli narrative at the turn of the millenium. This bit of hasbara is so illogical and yet it is repeated mindlessly by so many Zionists. If the 1948 borders (or the even smaller 1947 Partition Plan borders) were “simply indefensible” then Israel would not have been able to defend them. That is the clear meaning of “simply indefensible” and yet it is so clearly not the case with the Partition Plan borders, the 1948 borders and even the current de facto borders, which includes all of Mandate Palestine. All have been easily defended by Israel, and in fact Israel has continually expanded its “indefensible” borders, and even managed to commit offenses again numerous adjacent borders (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon) over the years without any significant danger to its own borders.

And of course, if “indefensible borders” was a legitimate excuse for the acquisition of territory through war, then the Palestinians would have every right to do what the Zionist Israelis did, which is ethnically cleanse Israel and claim all of Palestine, because of Palestine’s “indefensible borders”. But of course, the hasbarists don’t really believe that “right” of acquisition accrues to anyone else, and most certainly not to Palestinians. Its simply a bit of apologia to excuse Israel’s naked agression.

So why do Zionists repeat these untruths? Do they really believe, counter to all evidence to the contrary, the crap they spew, or is the need to be a part of the cult so strong that they don’t bother to question the idiocy they repeat to see if it has any logical consistency?

truth2power
May 25, 2015, 2:57 pm

This video is truly, truly, truly shocking. The body language of both Shachar Berrin and Dani Dayan (despite the difference of what comes out of their mouths) is the same … MASSIVE GUILT – as is also Dina Zachov’s (if I got his name right?). How can any country live with itself when it is making all of its subjects feel this guilt for what is being done it it’s name? This video should be shown in every house in Israel – particularly those whose occupants sit in the Knesset – Mr Netanyahu, are you watching? – and around the world. This is SO dreadful – that a political belief/abomination is making its citizens, both those in support and those who object, feel such anguish about what is happening in their name. This is truly the face of wickedness, most assuredly. Messrs Berrin & Zachov should be applauded for their courage! Mr Berrin is a hero and being made a prisoner for his truthfulness, shames the Israeli cause one thousand times more. Mr Berrin – I salute you!

eljay
May 25, 2015, 2:42 pm

Howard Lupovitch: “ … Jews have an obligation to criticize the state, but this criticism has to be constructive.” He appeared to question the existence of “the occupation,” and said Jews must “engage the gray” of what Israel is, rather than take extreme positions. “The goal is to be a Zionist and a critic of the state simultaneously.”

People have an obligation to criticize the rapist, but the criticism has to be constructive. (E.g.: He should bathe more often. He should lengthen his victims’ chains a bit.) Criticize the rapist, yes, but “engage the gray” and do not take extreme positions. The goal is to be in favour of the rapist and to be a critic of the rapist simultaneously.

Mr. Lupovitch is a hateful and immoral person.

just
May 25, 2015, 2:40 pm

From your link:

“US State Department officials have expressed puzzlement about Israel’s hesitance in naming a price, but it likely that this split will continue for awhile until Israel issues actual demands.”

Seems to me that the US has always continued to ply Israel with weapons/means to deliver the weapons. From Kate’s list today:

“My big fat Israeli arsenal / Uri Misgav Haaretz 23 May — It warms the heart to hear of the Pentagon’s “compensation deal” with Israel in exchange for the agreement with Iran. The deal consists of 8,000 smart bombs, 14,500 smart bomb guidance systems, 50 bunker busters, 4,100 “small” bombs (only 110 kilograms of explosives) and 3,000 Hellfire missiles for the Apache helicopters. The overall cost is $1.8 billion. This does not include separate deals for another 3,000 bomb guidance kits and enlarging the F-35 stealth bomber fleet. What is all this armament intended for and where? To ensure an Israeli attack in Iran, immediately after the powers sign an international agreement with it? Perhaps just to replenish stockpiles after the last war rampage in Gaza, which broke all the Israel Defense Forces’ records in ammunition use? The Pentagon announced that these deals reflect the “American commitment to Israel’s security.” Funny thing, the pace of armament keeps increasing, yet I don’t feel any safer over the years. History has proved that reckless armament doesn’t lead to security. It leads mainly to wars. Since 2006, when Israel began to base its warfare almost exclusively on fire power and pounding from the air, we’ve had one war in Lebanon and three in Gaza. Four wars in less than a decade. That’s why it appears to me that these deals reflect mainly the American commitment to the American arms industries. One suspects that Israel is indeed “the American aircraft carrier in the Middle East.” But not as a metaphor or a simile — a real aircraft carrier. An enormous arsenal. An impenetrable bunker whose scope is impossible to discuss, not to mention its very existence. According to this bitter logic, the Americans won’t help us end the conflict, at the most they’ll help us manage the flames. The conflict produces just too many jobs for them and their politicians.” – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

Germany recently “rewarded” Israel, as well.

amigo
May 25, 2015, 2:39 pm

“Their freedom and dignity is far more important than revenge. But it has to be real freedom and not just a reworked model of what we have now. “.Bornajoo.

This is true of South Africa and Northern Ireland.The Irish government has not sued GB for one penny as a result of what Irish people suffered over centuries of British oppression and brutality.Our ancestors just got on with the business of running their own nation .I think the same can be said mostly about SA , I am not aware of Blacks running amok and carrying wholesale slaughter of White South Africans.

But Israel,s right wing zealots and bigots have no intention of making peace with Palestinians.They never did and never will unless someone puts the appropriate pressure on them.I do not see that pressure coming from inside Israel because the Israeli Government is afraid of the Illegal Settlers.Remember Rabin.

Economic pressure is the only way to stop Israel .Take away the money and you take away the oxygen that keeps the whole enterprise going.

Kris
May 25, 2015, 2:34 pm

A better link for info about Michael Collins Piper is here: link to americanfreepress.net

He says that there are actual conspiracies and cover-ups, like JFK’s assassination and 9/11, and then there are events like Sandy Hook, which internet “provocateurs” use to cast doubt on the claims of those who are trying to expose the actual conspiracies.

I can’t find any report where Piper says that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Please share your link!

@jon s: “RoHa, Your link is to a book by an Anti-Semitic white -supremacist.”

As a history “teacher,” you no doubt recognize the fallacy of your own ad-hominem argument.
You should also realize that “anti-semitic” doesn’t mean anything, and “white-supremacist” could easily describe Zionist Israeli Jews, like you, whose lives are based on racial privilege.

traintosiberia
May 25, 2015, 2:27 pm

This information has some lessons for anybody who wants to know why Bush Cheney gang was not expsoed for negligence,stupiditues,dereliction of duties ,wilfull deafness to the emerging concerns to the events of pre 911 despite beung briefed by numerous agneices on numerous occassions .
Someone would have definitely shone light on the discrepancies in the governmnet’s positions , and on the abscence of any responses to the threats as were revealed to the administration as most likley to happen sooner than later if Bush didnt get on board to attack Iraq , genertae the hysteria around post 911 with subtle islamophobia,threats to muslim countries,and if he agreed to negotaited handover of Osama per inetrnational rules.
This ‘someone” would have been from the very same group who created and allowed the atmosphere of general dismissiveness and disdain for pre 911 intellignece .They would have leaked to the media as anonymous sources .Think Tank that they patronized or hung around would have asked for details and demanded enquires by outside agencies.
Bush saved his back( it also made his dream to be a war president come true ) by inserting himself fully in the agenda of the neocons.

David Doppler
May 25, 2015, 2:25 pm

Off topic, see Jason Ditz at Antiwar.com on the split within the Israeli government over whether or how to cut a deal to allow the US to bribe it with military equipment to acquiesce in the Iran deal.

link to news.antiwar.com

Question: is there any dealmaking with right-wing hardliners? Or is it just a question of whether you will acquiesce fully in their leadership, falling unquestioningly in line and in step, or else become their mortal enemy?

Walker
May 25, 2015, 2:22 pm

The Jewish community will divide more and more clearly in the next year or so between Zionist Jews and non-Zionist ones. This open division will license politicians who depend on Jews (as donors, or as voters in blue states, or as an opinion-forming elite inside the Democratic Party) to divide themselves.

Phil, this would be more believable if we had evidence of major Jewish donors who truly support justice, as opposed to mere Liberal Zionists who dislike Netanyahu but oppose placing serious pressure on Israel. That would be a worthy subject for a thread.

just
May 25, 2015, 2:20 pm

““On her neck was a necklace with a Jewish star and a bullet.”

‘Nuff said.”

Well said, abc.

Bornajoo has written about personal experience with family in Israel~ as early as this morning, Phil. Many others have also written about it.

If there’s is a crisis, it’s that not enough of the American Jewish community will open their eyes to the consequences of placing apartheid, fascist, nuclear- armed Israel above all else in their minds and motivations. I am sure that there have always been those that have not, but with today’s rapidly moving internet and information, it becomes curiouser and curiouser that many are still holding fast to their impossibly naive ideas about Israel as being the best and the brightest.

Mooser
May 25, 2015, 2:11 pm

“Is the same thing as the person who claims: “there sure must be something wrong with those Jews because there is an awful lot of anti-semitism around here. a double blind argument to say the least. i think your actually better then that and wrote too quickly. But maybe not.”

Hey, all, looky here! A new tactic in the Zionist war on quotes. Here we have a quote mark (“) at the beginning of a statement (“there sure must be….) but no end-quote mark! So what on earth is that lone quote-mark supposed to mean?

You know, Zionists may have put Gaza “on a diet” but there’s one thing they are very generous with. They will always put words in somebody else’s mouth.

traintosiberia
May 25, 2015, 2:05 pm

Not at all,even when one rats out somebody for conveneince or perosnal belief or gain of any degree or magnitude . Criminals do that all the time By staying silent she allowed him to continue spying for along time.He possibly would have got exposed much earlier .

neggy
May 25, 2015, 1:58 pm

Interesting how you left out the Sassen interviews, the tapes of which still survive. In them, Eichmann brags that he was not simply taking orders but actually that he was a “thinking” member who helped to plan the extermination, claiming he was an idealist.

It’s also interesting how you equate decisions that had at least direct and significant strategic (denying an enemy sanctuary by displacing and demolishing villages of enemy sympathizers) and tactical (clearing villages in Operation Nachshon (including Deir Yassin) to halt enemy raids against vital convoys traveling along the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem coastal road) impact on the conduct and success of the Jews in the Palestine civil war (where hostilities were begun by the Arab side under Abdel Qadr al Husseini, a man with the dubious honor of being recognized for his mutilation of his enemies) with the deliberate, gratuitous, unprovoked, and militarily counterproductive expulsion and later mass-murder of the Jews in and around territory occupied or annexed by Germany.

At worst, you could compare it instead with the clearly worse behavior of Czechoslovakia in 1945 regarding the disposition of the Sudeten German population as well as the Benes decrees declaring the seized property of those expelled as reparations for a war brought on by that population. But then, I don’t expect Mondoweiss or her commenters to have the integrity or consistency to condemn the Czechs with anything resembling the force or frequency of her condemnation of Israel.

I happen to be bothered by neither case.

I think it is apposite to quote Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman’s letter to his subordinate during the Vicksburg campaign:

“If they want eternal war, well and good; we accept the issue, and will dispossess them and put our friends in their place. I know thousands and millions of good people who at simple notice would come to North Alabama and accept the elegant houses and plantations there. If the people of Huntsville think different, let them persist in war three years longer, and then they will not be consulted. Three years ago by a little reflection and patience they could have had a hundred years of peace and prosperity, but they preferred war; very well. Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is too late.
All the powers of earth cannot restore to them their slaves, any more than their dead grandfathers. Next year their lands will be taken, for in war we can take them, and rightfully, too, and in another year they may beg in vain for their lives. ”

But that is war.

justicewillprevail
May 25, 2015, 1:39 pm

It’s quite encouraging that she met people who happen to be Jewish, rather than people who think it makes them something other, a zealous foot soldier of a nationalist, segregationist ideology who imagine that everybody must subscribe to their narrow-minded fixations because they share some cultural beliefs.

justicewillprevail
May 25, 2015, 1:30 pm

Wow, talk like the mob, act like the mob. Gangsterism is the preferred MO of the ISF (Israeli Sick Forces), they should really wear the pointy white headgear to go with the attitude. Yes, apparently God is on their side. Or so their tiny minds believe. An example to us all. Just not in the way they imagine.

a blah chick
May 25, 2015, 1:29 pm

“On her neck was a necklace with a Jewish star and a bullet.”

‘Nuff said.

Boomer
May 25, 2015, 1:23 pm

JWalters, you say, among other things, that Obama was sensible to speak as he did because “. . . so much of the Jewish American community is still oblivious to the true nature of Israel. They do not even acknowledge the past and present injustices perpetrated by Israel, let alone the outright crimes . . . ”

That may be true (I am surprised that such ignorance would be common among Jewish Americans, but then I’m surprised that so many people deny climate change), but–if it is true–I wonder if that is not all the more reason for the President to speak plainly to them, rather than seek to ingratiate himself by reinforcing their stereotypes and rationalizations regarding the Palestinians, who are the victims, not the perpetrators.

broadside
May 25, 2015, 1:22 pm

“Fine; let the community split, and the debate begin.”

I don’t care about any debate the American Jewish community is having or not having. It is too slight, and overdue, to give a damn.

Boycott. Divest. Sanction.

just
May 25, 2015, 1:21 pm

argh. Incredibly painful to read~ it never gets better, does it?

I’ve loved the stories about free bread, including the one from your May 23rd compilation:

“IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation started a project involving distribution of free bread to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The Gazans are living in very hard conditions due to the blockade imposed by Israel. Therefore IHH has started a campaign to deliver free bread to the people for one month. “- See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

I’m hopeful about the Freedom Flotilla 3 and the Gazan boats meeting them, but with the daily shooting at fisherman, Israeli violations of the ‘ceasefire’, etc., I can’t help but be fearful.

I don’t know if you saw the video that I linked to on your previous thread, Kate:

Via Yousef Munayyer:

“VIDEO: Shows moment when Israeli forces shot 10 year old boy standing on street in the face. link to facebook.com …”

link to twitter.com

– See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

Many thanks, Kate.

Jackdaw
May 25, 2015, 1:14 pm

@ Hostage

ICRC Definition of Pillage:

‘Pillage (or plunder) is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “the forcible taking of private property by an invading or conquering army from the enemy’s subjects”.–Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, West Publishing, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1979, p. 1033.
Black’s cites to, American Ins. Co. v. Bryan. 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 573, 37 Am. Dec. 278.

So how can civilian settlers ‘pillage’?

just
May 25, 2015, 12:58 pm

“It’s quite sad that Annie encountered Jews who don’t have a clue, who lack “Jewish literacy”.”

jon s~ seems like you spend a great deal of time worrying yourself silly and sad about what other Jews do. I find it odd that you teach “Israeli history”… it’s so short in relative terms, you know? How far do you try to reach back anyway? This “Jewish literacy” that you write of~ what is it, and do you teach it?

David Doppler
May 25, 2015, 12:51 pm

It is unwise for anyone seeking to wield influence in the US to attack one of our core foundational values in such a blatant fashion. Those public servants who side against the First Amendment are forgetting their oath of office, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Only a foolish enemy of the US would rejoice in publicly turning one its public officials in such a corrupt way.

Hostage
May 25, 2015, 12:48 pm

My assertion was an entity can not be “independent” under belligerent occupation. In the case of the West Bank/Jordan there was an agreement (self determination)

The reason that a hockey match breaks out every time this discussion comes up is because we are employing symbolic, legal shorthand terms, like “non-self-governing”, “self-determination,” “independent, “sovereign,” and “state” that do not have a shared meaning for Zionists talkback artists sitting in their parent’s basement in Petah Tikva pounding out canned replies on the basis of 200 year old dogma their political movement incorrectly assigns to those terms today.

If you mean that the Palestinians could not obtain their freedom from occupation by simply declaring an independent sovereign state, then you are correct. But that doesn’t mean, as some Zionists contend, that they were precluded from having an independent, sovereign state in accordance with the legal criteria of international law, merely because they were under a Jewish occupation. The Permanent Mandates Commission and the Council of the League of Nations had both addressed that very point when they published a resolution on the criteria for terminating any mandate regime in 1932. The legal independence of the mandated states had already been provisionally recognized. In the case of Iraq and Transjordan the establishment and recognition of independent governments didn’t result in any change in their mandated status, since establishment of self-governing institutions had always been a basic requirement. The Council reasoned that “the ability to stand alone” or to “exercise effective control” did not mean that a government had to be able to fend off acts of foreign aggression. They pointed out that even the great powers had to form alliances in such cases and that the newly emancipated state should be encouraged to swiftly apply for membership in the League of Nations. where it would enjoy the benefits of collective protection under the terms of Article 10 of the Covenant.

Part of the criteria for terminating a mandate regime was the requirement for the independent government to provide a legally binding declaration to the League guaranteeing the rights and equality of minorities. See the report on the resolution in Luther Harris Evans, “The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758, American Society of International Law link to jstor.org

There were a dozen newly created, successor states established during Allied belligerent and armistice occupation regimes in Europe and Asia after both of the World Wars. The establishment of the Mandated State of Palestine inside the boundaries of the OETA during the Armistice of Mudros is one of many such examples. Everyone is familiar with Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles (aka the LoN Covenant). But Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles also stipulated that Germany was required to recognize the dispositions made concerning the territories of the former Ottoman Empire, “and to recognize the new States within their frontiers as there laid down.” The other Central powers and some of the treaty articles that required them to recognize the new states were:
*Bulgaria Article 60 of the Treaty of Neuilly;
*Hungary Article 74 (2) of The Treaty of Trianon
*Austria Article 90 of The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye

More importantly both the Treaty of Sèvres and the Treaty of Lausanne required the new states separated from the Ottoman Empire to begin paying-off their shares of the Ottoman Public Debt to foreign bondholders no later than March of 1920 (not 1923). They also required any dispute regarding the assessments to be settled through a special Court of Arbitration appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It’s determinations were final. The expenses of the Court were to be divided among the State parties to any dispute. In 1925 a dispute involving Italy, Bulgaria, Greece, Transjordan, Palestine, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon was decided. The arbitrator’s final ruling on the state parties responsible for the costs said:

“The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other.” — See Volume I of the Reports of International Arbitral Awards (United Nations, 1948), “Affaire de la Dette publique ottomane. Bulgarie, Irak, Palestine, Transjordanie, Grèce, Italie et Turquie. Genève, 18 avril 1925″, pages 529-614

That same year, the Permanent Court of International Justice ruled in the case concerning the Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions that Palestine, not Great Britain, was the new successor state to which the protocols of the Treaty of Lausanne had subrogated the concessions. link to icj-cij.org
So two international courts with final jurisdiction laid to rest the notion that Palestine was not a state. They both ruled that it came into existence in 1920 – and that it already had international rights and obligations, as such.

Kris
May 25, 2015, 12:41 pm

@jon s: “He also claims that the Sandy Hook shootings was a “hoax”.

Could you please link to your evidence of this? I just wasted several minutes online discovering that, once again, you are using lies in an effort to bolster your point of view.

As it happens, Michael Collins Piper annoyed many in his circle by arguing AGAINST their theory that Sandy Hook was a hoax. The opposite of your assertion.

“Thus, I was quite suprised to hear Mr. Friend join in as Jim Fetzer began to ridicule Mike Piper for not showing up “because he was not prepared” ((because of illness)) to make a decent argument against their Sandy Hook Conspiracy theory.” link to carolynyeager.net

SQ Debris
May 25, 2015, 12:36 pm

Not so fast on absolving the USA regarding the Holocaust Boomer. The refusal of the USA to allow entry to Jews fleeing the Nazis is a matter of record. Ship loads were denied entry. It is truly shameful. I’ve never seen an authoritative source on the role of the American Jewish community in the formulation of that policy.

As far as the shared Israeli/American value of liquidating indigenous peoples is concerned, if the genocide of native Americans was happening right now, what would a person of conscience do? Everything in their power to oppose it. That’s what.

just
May 25, 2015, 12:35 pm

Via Yousef Munayyer:

“VIDEO: Shows moment when Israeli forces shot 10 year old boy standing on street in the face. link to facebook.com …”

link to twitter.com

just
May 25, 2015, 12:27 pm

Kris~ my guess is that he/she is trying to establish a MW personality before attempting to go head- to- head with Hostage like “Cautionary Crow”, Jackdaw, on this thread:

link to mondoweiss.net

lol.

Mooser
May 25, 2015, 12:20 pm

Admit it, Hophmi. The latest tonsorial fad among men with alopecia, shaving one’s head, was a real kick in the guts to Jewish conversion efforts. Who needs a yarmulke now?

Kris
May 25, 2015, 12:19 pm

Annie, why is NYCM commenting on this article from last October?

Is this an attempted diversion from something else that Hasbara Central doesn’t want discussed right now?

Mooser
May 25, 2015, 12:15 pm

Is it any wonder that Jewish kids today only pass their Scripture Knowledge test by dint of caffeine and a list of begats inscribed on their shirt-cuffs? No, not when we consider that:

In Israel there’s a rising tide of racism , xenophobia and anti-democratic tendencies, especially (though not exclusively) among the Orthodox Jews. – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net “Jon s”

hophmi
May 25, 2015, 12:13 pm

The Occidental Observer? I see that we’re STILL putting through comments from overtly anti Semitic sources.