Trending Topics:

In ‘earthquake’ diplomatic move, EU calls on Israel to ‘recognize in writing that the West Bank settlements are not part of Israel’

Israel/Palestine
on 269 Comments
euflag460 1
European Union Flag

Update: Here is the full new EU guidelines on Israeli settlements (PDF)

Update: Haaretz is reporting a “hasty and urgent” meeting took place at the Israeli Prime Minister’s office today, and a statement was released “blasting the European Union over its decision to condition future agreements with Israel on the latter’s recognition of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as occupied territories. “

“We will not accept any external edicts on our borders,” Netanyahu said in a scathing response.
…..

“As the prime minister of Israel, I will not let anyone harm the hundreds of thousands of Israelis living in Judea and Samaria, in the Golan Heights, or in Jerusalem – our united capital,” he said. “The issue of borders will be determined only in direct negotiations between the sides.”

And this certainly has hit a nerve with Danny Dayan. Dimi Reider’s  +972 has been following Dayan’s twitter feed and look what’s popped up : Dani Dayan compares EU move to death camp selection !

(End of updates)

Huge news out of Europe. Effective Friday, a new European Union directive with a ”territorial clause” bans all EU funding of projects in territories occupied by Israel since the ’67 war: the West Bank including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. The new directive(pdf), which covers all areas of co-operation between the EU and Israel, culture, academia, sports, economics and science, requires the Israeli government to “recognize in writing that the West Bank settlements are not part of Israel.”

Harriet Sherwood reporting for the Guardian: EU takes tougher stance on Israeli settlements

Future agreements between the European Union and Israel must include the explicit exclusion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank or East Jerusalem, according to a new EU directive described by an Israeli official as an “earthquake”.

The EU guidelines, adopted on 30 June, will prohibit the issuing of grants, funding, prizes or scholarships unless a settlement exclusion clause is included. Israeli institutions and bodies situated across the pre-1967 Green Line will be automatically ineligible.

The Israeli government will be required to state in any future agreements with the EU that settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are outside the state of Israel.

The directive, part of the 2014-20 financial framework, covers all areas of co-operation between the EU and Israel, including economics, science, culture, sports and academia. It does not cover trade, such as produce and goods originating in settlements.

An EU statement said the guidelines “set out the territorial limitations under which the commission will award EU support to Israeli entities … Concern has been expressed in Europe that Israeli entities in the occupied territories could benefit from EU support. The purpose of these guidelines is to make a distinction between the state of Israel and the occupied territories when it comes to EU support.”

So, the rules do not apply to trade in the private sector, which includes settlement produce. Nonetheless Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi characterized the new rules as “significant“:

“The EU has moved from the level of statements, declarations and denunciations to effective policy decisions and concrete steps which constitute a qualitative shift that will have a positive impact on the chances of peace,” said Ms Ashrawi.

Israeli officials sound stunned. “We are not ready to sign on this clause.”

And: “the result could be a halt to all cooperation in economics, science, culture, sports and academia.”

Barak Ravid reporting for Haaretz:

A senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the new ruling, which was published on June 30, as an “earthquake.”

….

“This is the first time such an official, explicit guideline has been published by the European Union bodies,” the senior official said. “Until today there were understandings and quiet agreements that the Union does not work beyond the Green Line [the pre-1967-war border]; now this has become a formal, binding policy.”

The official noted that the significance of the regulation is both practical and political: From now on, if the Israeli government wants to sign agreements with the European Union or one of its member states, it will have to recognize in writing that the West Bank settlements are not part of Israel.

In the Prime Minister’s Office and Foreign Ministry there is great tension and anxiety over the new regulation and its implications for Israeli-EU relations. The efforts of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin to stop the move have all failed. Senior EU officials say they would like to hold talks with Israel concerning the new guideline, but since it will go into effect by the end of this week, the chance of its being amended is extremely slim.

“We will have to decide what to do from this day forward,” a senior Israeli official said. “We are not ready to sign on this clause in our agreements with the European Union. We can say this to the Europeans, but the result could be a halt to all cooperation in economics, science, culture, sports and academia. This would cause severe damage to Israel.”

In a separate article Ravid also reports, according to US officials, the EU will go further likely requiring the labeling of “settlement goods,” if John Kerry’s efforts to “kick start the peace talks” fail. And that would impact economic trade.

Omar Barghouti, in communication with Mondoweiss, welcomed the new directive while reminding the EU is “obliged, morally and legally, to do much more”:

Given the EU’s profound complicity at all levels in maintaining Israel’s regime of occupation, colonization and apartheid, these guidelines constitute a bare minimal step in the right direction that may open the door to more effective boycotts against Israel in the future. We welcome them, but we also must soberly remind the European establishment that it is obliged, morally and legally, to do much more on the ground to atone for its role in Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people.

Coming on the heels of Israel’s “moment of truth” that we reported yesterday, in which Europe is “exploring” sanctions against companies tied to the occupation, it feels as though the ground is shifting in immeasurable ways.

Will this directive hold? It remains to be seen. But we all know change is inevitable. We’ve known for a long time there would be a breaking point; this could signify the beginnings of a radical departure from business as usual. Europe is leading. Where is the United States?

(Hat tip Freddy V)

annie
About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

269 Responses

  1. radii
    radii
    July 16, 2013, 1:42 pm

    at last … putting israel on record for its theft and occupation

  2. ramzijaber
    ramzijaber
    July 16, 2013, 2:01 pm

    Indeed. BDS is moving forward. ICC/ICJ will add more pressure.

    This must have really hit a major raw nerve of the zionists. Check out the JPost comments on this news and you see what I mean!

    • yrn
      yrn
      July 16, 2013, 2:14 pm

      This is a great victory for the peace process and for most Israelis that want peace.
      This is a great victory to the two state solution.
      Great timing, hope it will have an impact on the coming negotiations.
      Palestine take those territories and create your own country.
      May Peace be on Israel and Palestine.

      • annie
        annie
        July 16, 2013, 2:19 pm

        let’s toast, as a historic moment in the world’s recognition of the occupation.

      • ramzijaber
        ramzijaber
        July 16, 2013, 2:25 pm

        Annie and yrn, I’ll toast to that too. But I caution that if a 2SS is not signed-sealed-delivered in 2013, then it’s only 1S1P1V after that thanks to the zionist regime’s intransigence. A just and lasting peace to all of us!

      • Theo
        Theo
        July 17, 2013, 10:45 am

        Annie

        In my opinion that earthquake is just a tiny tremor and long overdue and we cannot exoect too much from it.
        The european politicians are playing pussyfooting, trying not to step on any toes in Israel.
        The real earthquake will be when the EU will decide to stop all money transfers to Israel, puts their leaders on the no fly list, and makes it clear that nothing will improve until the zionists move back to the pre-1967 borders and take all the settlers with them. After all one cannot expect a new state of islamic peoples to have in their middle over 500,000 crazy jewish orthodox beings who will do everything to sabotage the creation of that state.
        Am I dreaming? Perhaps, however who ever thought the soviets give up a great part of states they subjugated for a century our even longer.
        Sometimes miracles happen.

      • MRW
        MRW
        July 17, 2013, 6:43 pm
      • annie
        annie
        July 17, 2013, 7:11 pm

        “It’s Lieberman’s fault,” Netanyahu mumbled, “he told me nothing.”

        this is crazy MRW, on dec 10th or 9th lieberman went on national radio and made a spectacle of himself yammering on about how the europeans were committing another holocaust, jpost buried the lead but it’s all in the jpost article. i wrote about it at the time and posted it downthread:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/in-earthquake-diplomatic-move-eu-calls-on-israel-to-recognize-in-writing-that-the-west-bank-settlements-are-not-part-of-israel.html/comment-page-1#comment-577649

        there’s no way this was kept a ‘secret’ from netanyahu, at all. from the dec 10 jpost source link: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=295553

        Liberman’s comments came a day after the 27 EU foreign ministers met in Brussels as the Foreign Affairs Council and, using unprecedentedly tough language, blasted Israel for the E1 and settlement construction plans.

        In addition, the statement called on Israel to ……………That statement also said that the EU would work to ensure that all agreements between Israel and the EU “must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967…

        and everyone in israel paying attention knows this.

        http://www.timesofisrael.com/when-europe-accidentally-demanded-israel-surrender-the-western-wall/

        from yesterday

        The European Union has indeed long held that view. It won’t invest or cooperate with communal or civic organizations over the Green Line, and has been one of the most reliable critics of Israeli settlement policy for decades.

        Even the details of the directive aren’t new. On December 10, 2012, the European Union’s Foreign Affairs Council stated that “all agreements between the State of Israel and the EU must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967.”

        But the fresh directive is still sending a shock wave through Israeli diplomatic circles — not because anyone is surprised about the position it takes, but because of the precision with which the EU indicates it is to be implemented.

        so when lieberman goes on national army radio screaming about a 2nd holocaust and jpost writes about it back in december…that’s not a secret being withheld from netanyahu.

        and veterans today is not a reliable source imho.

      • homingpigeon
        homingpigeon
        July 20, 2013, 3:21 pm

        “if a 2SS is not signed-sealed-delivered in 2013, then it’s only 1S1P1V after that”

        Habibi, I’ve been hearing this “if not in the next six months, then……” since 1967. Khalas, if we believe in the one country solution, then let’s work for it and not talk about the next six months forever.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 20, 2013, 7:00 pm

        Agreed.

        It’s time to stop taking in Friedman units.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 16, 2013, 2:48 pm

        “Palestine take those territories and create your own country.”

        And israelis mind your own business and stay out of the Palestinians’ land, airspace, waterways, resources and armaments.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        July 16, 2013, 2:53 pm

        This is a great victory for the peace process and for most Israelis that want peace.

        So you and “most Israelis that want peace” are OK with the inclusion of East Jerusalem (Gilo, French Hill, Pisgat Ze’ev, Ramot, the Jewish Quarter, Har Homa etc.) and the Golan in the European Commission Notice? Remember, no “settlement blocs” or “Alon Plan” or “Holy Basin” or anything. Occupied is occupied and 1967 is 1967.

        http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/israel/press_corner/all_news/news/2013/20131607_02_en.htm

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        July 16, 2013, 3:25 pm

        A decent comment, yrn. Sincerely.

        The question that you will now have to consider and address is, as Annie highlighted in the article, whether Israel/GoI will do anything to respond constructively in the direction of two sovereign states, or whether they will just go on with biz as usual. It doesn’t look like the GoI’s intent is to respond constructively.

        @Annie Agree. “Earthquake.” Thanks. So hopeful, especially coupled with your report yesterday. Significant public AND private shifts in proposed practice.

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 17, 2013, 2:42 am

        @ ritzl “The question …. is … whether Israel/GoI will do anything to respond constructively in the direction of two sovereign states”

        The usual http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.536173

    • piotr
      piotr
      July 17, 2013, 2:55 am

      A word of caution: if you check JPost editorials (not to mention the comments) you see “raw nerves” all the time. What driving cars is to Americans, flirting is to the French, self pity and “existential” dramatics are to Israelis.

      • SimoHurtta
        SimoHurtta
        July 17, 2013, 5:52 am

        Israelis have real symptoms of serious megalomania and are victims of their own propaganda. They really seem to believe, that Israel is the bellybutton of the world. These cranky “babies” in their comments say that Israel should boycott EU and EU would suffer without those wonderful Israeli products (they probably mean mini tomatoes). They also “laugh” that then EU must continue using Russian gas and oil, because Israel doesn’t sell them gas in future. A bit unclear to them seems to be to whom Israel is going to sell gas if not to EU.

        Also this Israeli confidence to Israeli high-tech hilarious. Compare Israel’s achievements to Sweden, Norway, Finland, Holland etc. then the Israeli “high-tech” image faints to its real size.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        July 17, 2013, 6:56 am

        Like the foolish Greek rabbi described by Abraham Ibn Ezra, in his poem Nedod hesir oni:

        And a grasshopper arrives/ a Greek, raised among them/ and riding on every shoulder/ is thought a giant.

        Or the flea in Haim Hefer’s “How the Flea Rose to the Top” (Hebrew version of Norman Thomas’ “Naughty Little Flea”), who gave himself airs because he had managed to rise to the “head” of government.

      • Walker
        Walker
        July 17, 2013, 7:40 am

        Israelis . . . really seem to believe, that Israel is the bellybutton of the world.

        It’s apparently not just Israelis who believe this. Look at the NY Times treatment of this story. It’s jam-packed with Israeli caterwauling with no attempt to put the move in the context that, yes, the entire world including (officially) the US considers all Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank to be illegal.

      • amigo
        amigo
        July 17, 2013, 8:45 am

        “Why would any Palestinian leader agree to re-engage if they can get what they want without negotiating?” the official said. “Why enter the give and take of negotiations when you can just take what is offered by international bodies?”NYT

        He means the Palestinians give and the Zionist take.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 17, 2013, 9:15 am

        would any Palestinian leader agree to re-engage if they can get what they want without negotiating?”

        That’s what the Zionists have been doing all along – changing facts on the ground and building settlements on stolen land without negotiating

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 17, 2013, 9:27 am

        These cranky “babies” in their comments say that Israel should boycott EU and EU would suffer without those wonderful Israeli products

        That’s nothing. Does anyone remember the reaction in Israel to Obama’s Cairo speech? She sheer tone deafness and sense of entitlement they exhibit was best illustrated by one member of the Knesset, who suggested that Israel should punish Washington by…I kid you not….spending the military aid they received from Washington on weapons from another country.

        That’s right. Their idea of punishing Obama would be to take money from Obama but not buy US made weapons with it…to spite Obama. The mere suggestion that the US could cut that welfare cheque at any time never entered this person’s mind.

        Then of course, there was the venom directed at Stephen Hawking. I think we all agree that when it comes to sheer spite, bile, venom and vitriol, the Zionists are the undisputed champions.

        Anything that exposes this mentality to the general public is a good thing. The world has to be made aware of the mental sickness that Zionism induces. Then they will come to realize what a monster the world has created.

      • American
        American
        July 18, 2013, 3:14 pm

        ‘“How the Flea Rose to the Top” (Hebrew version of Norman Thomas’ “Naughty Little Flea”), who gave himself airs because he had managed to rise to the “head” of government.’…Shmuel

        LOL…that is so appropriate!

  3. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    Maximus Decimus Meridius
    July 16, 2013, 2:04 pm

    Sorry, but knowing the EU’s record of pandering to Israel – which has become much worse in recent years – I can’t be too excited about this move. Firstly, I doubt it will be enforced. Secondly, numerous loopholes will be found to get around it. Thirdly, it’s not even that big a deal – after all, the biggie, trade, is exempted, and I consider it extremely unlikely that there will ever be EU trade sanctions against Israel, certainly not when ‘Baroness’ Ashton is in charge.

    Naturally, the Israelis will huff and puff and call this a second holocaust, but that’s their MO. Any move against Israel – however insignificant – is portrayed as either an ‘existential threat’ or, if it is a ‘fait accompli’ as a ‘Meh, nothing here to see’. We saw something similar over Syria’s supposed purchase of Russian missiles a month or two ago: when it looked as though the sale might be halted, it was all about how this was a ‘calamitous’ event for Israel. When it became clear that the deal was going ahead it was all, ”Meh, these missiles are kids’ toys compared to what we’ve got.” Always the same routine.

    • American
      American
      July 16, 2013, 3:24 pm

      Yep the Israelis squeal like piglets over every small thing.
      But the ‘moment of truth’ will not arrive until Israel itself is sanctioned and/or boycotted into severe economic distress.
      Israel ‘might’ give it up if they are reduced to economic starvation status– but not until then imo.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      July 16, 2013, 6:44 pm

      Thirdly, it’s not even that big a deal – after all, the biggie, trade, is exempted, and I consider it extremely unlikely that there will ever be EU trade sanctions against Israel, certainly not when ‘Baroness’ Ashton is in charge.

      The problem of course is that ‘Baroness’ Ashton doesn’t call that shots on trade. The minute that the UN allowed Palestine to sign multilateral treaties, it became impossible to maintain the status quo on Israeli use of resources, airspace, waterways, radio spectrum, & etc. Those are all governed by multilateral treaties. There are 130 other countries with the right to take Israel to the WTO for interfering in their trade relations with the State of Palestine.

      I’ve pointed out time and again that the landmark cases on retroactive recognition of statehood in international law resulted from the British and US governments pursuing private financial claims and interests, like the gas concessions granted to British firms by the Palestinian Authority. Ashton will do what she’s told when push comes to shove.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      July 16, 2013, 8:11 pm

      Sorry, but knowing the EU’s record of pandering to Israel – which has become much worse in recent years – I can’t be too excited about this move.

      I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that the EU made this move, which they did not have to do. What forced the EU’s hand?

      Another positive I take from this is that it represents a major set back for Israel’s PR campaign to sell the idea that Israel has a legitimate claim to the West Bank.

      Lastly, it also suggests that the EU might be open to the PA referring Israeli crimes to the ICC.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        July 17, 2013, 4:31 pm

        I think it also shows

        -that Israel won’t get anything by killing the dialogue
        -that Israel can’t rewrite international law, even if Congress backs it up
        -that Israel’s standard of living is a great negotiating issue
        – that facts on the ground and time wasting may well be pointless
        – that power can easily tire of upstart countries

    • Ira Glunts
      Ira Glunts
      July 17, 2013, 7:28 am

      Here is Rudoren in the NY Times today. The piece seems to validate MDM’s skepticism.

      I think the Barghouti quote at the end of Annie’s post is telling.

      Still each small step in the right direction is helpful and deserves our notice. Thanks to Annie for covering this important story.

      BTW, Naftali Bennett today threatened the EU with killing Kerry’s peace efforts if they go through with their threats.

      http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/in-earthquake-diplomatic-move-eu-calls-on-israel-to-recognize-in-writing-that-the-west-bank-settlements-are-not-part-of-israel.html

      The European Union is Israel’s largest trading partner, with nearly $40 billion of imports and exports in 2011. The guidelines cover only projects financed directly out of the bloc’s next long-term budget, which covers 2014 to 2020; officials said that it was impossible to estimate the projects’ value, but noted that it was not a large sum.

      “This is not about money,” said Rosa Balfour, a senior analyst at the European Policy Center, based in Brussels. “It’s about politics.”

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 17, 2013, 7:28 pm

        EU’s action should help Kerry.

  4. FreddyV
    FreddyV
    July 16, 2013, 2:33 pm

    Wow Annie! Thanks for the hat tip, but I’m not sure it’s deserved for the link I sent you against the amazing amount of work you’ve put in bringing this important news to light.

    Exciting stuff!

    • annie
      annie
      July 16, 2013, 5:33 pm

      freddy, of course you deserve it. it takes a while to throw this stuff together and had i not woken up to your email alert it would have taken me much longer. we all very much appreciate links readers send us, we depend on them.

  5. mijj
    mijj
    July 16, 2013, 2:35 pm

    was the NSA created for nothing? … surely enough blackmail info has been collected to enable the pulling of a few behind-the-scene strings?

    Until concrete, on the ground events occur to prove otherwise, the whole thing is political theater. (Intentions are irrelevant)

  6. Amar
    Amar
    July 16, 2013, 2:35 pm

    This is a big story. But I’ll bet the U.S. press will sweep it under the rug. Reason is that its far more damaging to Israel in terms of public perceptions of IP conflict than the EU action in itself. Many in U.S. think that the territories are indeed ‘disputed’ (rather than illegal) with Israel having a more legitimate claim over them than the ‘intransigent’ Palestinians. But if most Americans were to read about the EU action, it would cause them to think “so why the hell is our government supporting a rogue state that steals land, ethnically cleanses it and builds settlements on it?!” Israel would be seen as the main obstacle to peace. And a negative standing in American public opinion would be a greater threat to Israel than anything else.

    • annie
      annie
      July 16, 2013, 2:57 pm

      Amar, it’s true many if not most americans are either brainwashed into thinking it’s disputed instead of occupied, or don’t know the difference. but nonetheless it’s time for them to realize that no matter how it’s spun, it is still not part of israel, inside israel’s ‘borders’..they just act like it is.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        July 16, 2013, 5:50 pm

        Most Americans were not aware at the time, and are not aware now, that the US was the only veto at the UN on the last time the UNSC addressed a UN resolution making Israel accountable in 2011. They are virtually oblivious to the US’s severely unbalanced policy wrt Israel, and the fact that before Israel became a state the US had no enemies in the Arab world, and now, the US is alone in the world defending Israel right or wrong, and that their own nation, America has lost a lot of soft power, not to mention a giant bundle of treasure, supporting Israel’s whims.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 16, 2013, 7:26 pm

        Oblivious is what well describes the average American, regarding idiotic US policy toward Israel (and Israel/Palestine).

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        July 17, 2013, 3:34 am

        Citizen,

        I think the times they are a-changing. If you consider yahoonews readers to be your average Joe and Jane, then you might be surprised now by how many commentators approve of the EU’s measure against isreali settlements:
        http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-leader-condemns-eu-move-settlements-162653704.html

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        July 17, 2013, 9:08 am

        @ Taxi
        I’m grateful for those people you mention on yahoo news, but I come from a lower middle class family, and I have a large extended family across America, and I’ve lived with really average Americans nearly my whole life, and still do, and they have very little interest in politics if such politics don’t directly impact their income or property. “Lunch bucket issues, small business stuff, etc” The usual social dynamics on holidays and more regular social events is avoidance of more macro political and religious discussion–it’s not polite and so disrespects the host, family, etc. Sports is always acceptable conversation, as is shopping, brand names, any kind of consumer goods or services, etc.
        Younger generations, college educated, tackle the larger political issues but very superficially, usually with PC fixation, and invariably, with no knowledge of the I-P situation or US “special relationship” with Israel, or the Israel Lobby at all.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        July 17, 2013, 10:37 am

        More, 10 things most Americans (not just the lower middle class) don’t know about America: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35563.htm

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 16, 2013, 7:06 pm

        many if not most americans are either brainwashed into thinking it’s disputed instead of occupied,
        ———————————————
        Many Americans understand correctly that it is not either/or. It is in fact both. It is occupied and it is disputed.

      • annie
        annie
        July 16, 2013, 8:52 pm

        mondonut, under international law it is occupied. now you can dispute that, but that won’t turn it into a disputed territory by any internationally recognized legal definition of the term.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 16, 2013, 9:09 pm

        Many Americans understand correctly that it is not either/or. It is in fact both. It is occupied and it is disputed.

        Rubbish. Not even the US government’s position is that it is disputed. Every member of the UNSC that voted for UNSC242 recognizes it as occupied.

        The only government that considers it disputed is Israel’s.

      • eljay
        eljay
        July 16, 2013, 9:09 pm

        >> Many Americans understand correctly that it is not either/or. It is in fact both. It is occupied and it is disputed.

        The difference:
        – The average American doesn’t understand.
        – The average Jewish supremacist – in America and Israel and elsewhere – does understand, but doesn’t give a flying f*ck because he is a supremacist.

        What lies outside of Israel’s / Partition borders does not belong to the supremacist “Jewish State”. But Jewish supremacists are hateful, greedy and immoral, so they don’t care. They just want everything they can get their greedy little supremacist hands on.

        For Jewish supremacists like mondonuteee, it’s not enough to terrorize, cleanse, kill, steal, hate, destroy and colonize within your own borders – you have to take it outside your borders; you have to make your supremacist state “Greater” (while, paradoxically, making it considerably “lesser”).

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 16, 2013, 9:27 pm

        BTW. You’ve got to laugh at Mibdonut’s claim that Americans understand anything about this issue, given how incredibly ignorant they are of this topic. Another recent poll shows that Israel’s international standing is not only at an all time low, but plummeting. The only country in the world where Israel enjoys any popularity is the US.

        Even in Canada, despite it’s obscenely pro Israeli government, Israel is viewed negatively.

        As for what Americans understand, most would even be able to find Israel on a map, much less know who the ICJ (who unanimously rejected thr e”didputed” argument) is.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 17, 2013, 12:21 am

        Many Americans understand correctly that it is not either/or. It is in fact both. It is occupied and it is disputed.

        The problem for you is that the ICJ didn’t find any of Israel’s claims to be valid.

        Every year, just like clockwork, the General Assembly
        1) Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and of the population of the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, including land, water and energy resources;
        2) Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, cease the exploitation, damage, cause of loss or depletion, and endangerment of the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan;
        3) Recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to claim restitution as a result of any exploitation, damage, loss or depletion, or endangerment of their natural resources resulting from illegal measures taken by Israel, the occupying Power, and Israeli settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.

        It’s way past time for Palestine to take that issue to the ICJ and get the restitution by freezing Israel’s financial assets and transfers from its reserve accounts.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 17, 2013, 1:00 am

        Annie Robbins says: mondonut, under international law it is occupied. now you can dispute that, …
        ================================================
        Dispute it? That’s what I just said. It’s occupied.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 17, 2013, 1:08 am

        Shingo says: Every member of the UNSC that voted for UNSC242 recognizes it as occupied.
        ==========================================
        That’s because it is occupied. It is also disputed.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 17, 2013, 1:27 am

        Hostage says: The problem for you is that the ICJ didn’t find any of Israel’s claims to be valid. Every year, just like clockwork, the General Assembly…
        ==============================================
        Well that is not a problem at all. The ICJ and the GA cannot set the borders between Israel and Palestine, only the parties to the dispute can.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 17, 2013, 1:31 am

        Shingo says: … given how incredibly ignorant they are of this topic.
        ===============================================
        Let me guess. The millions who support are not ignorant but the millions who support Israel are.

      • piotr
        piotr
        July 17, 2013, 3:02 am

        Nowadays people would not find even New Jersey on the map, you just follow GPS directions. However, ignorance of “most of Americans” is quite monumental as we discussed here. For example, when “tea party” Republicans attempt to ape talking points of extremist Zionist, what comes out is almost verbatim 1SS position. Apart of the now lost art of reading maps, most people have a very dim idea what is going on.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 17, 2013, 5:06 am

        The ICJ and the GA cannot set the borders between Israel and Palestine

        They don’t have to. Israel did that when they declared independence.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 17, 2013, 5:14 am

        That’s because it is occupied. It is also disputed.

        No it’s not.

        1. It’s not a dispute when only one state out of 194 says it’s disputed
        2. Israel has NEVER had a legal or legitimate claim to those territories.
        3. Israel did not even consider them disputed until after they had captured them.
        4. Israel itself originally stated that it has no claim to the territories.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 17, 2013, 5:16 am

        Let me guess. The millions who support are not ignorant but the millions who support Israel

        In this case, yes.

      • Tzombo
        Tzombo
        July 17, 2013, 7:11 am

        It is exactly as disputed as Tel Aviv.

      • Walker
        Walker
        July 17, 2013, 7:44 am

        It’s not “disputed” except by Israelis and their supporters. Even the US has never officially recognized the territories as anything other than occupied.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 17, 2013, 8:33 am

        One more thing Mindonut,

        Hostage has explained repeatedly that with regard to the so called border dispute in Palestine, the ICJ does indeed have authority to decide.

        And seeing as they have already decided, there is no dispute. That’s why the US and Israel are so anxious to keep the matter out if the hands of the UN, ICJ and ICC.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        July 17, 2013, 9:15 am

        Not “many”–very few in fact “understand correctly that it is not either/or. It is in fact both. It is occupied and it is disputed.” Nor do they have a clue that a substantial majority of the world’s experts on international law do not buy Israel’s legal arguments that the land is “disputed.”

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 17, 2013, 9:22 am

        “Let me guess. The millions who support are not ignorant but the millions who support Israel are.”

        The people in the US who support the Apartheid state are religious nutters, racists who are in love with your system of legalized anti-Arab bigotry or traitors who have more loyalty to that alien state than their own. To hell with all of them

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 17, 2013, 9:32 am

        Shingo says: Hostage has explained repeatedly that with regard to the so called border dispute in Palestine, the ICJ does indeed have authority to decide.
        =====================================================
        If the ICJ has the authority to decide they would have by now. The absence of an authoritative decision pretty much indicates they cannot.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 17, 2013, 9:34 am

        Well that is not a problem at all. The ICJ and the GA cannot set the borders between Israel and Palestine, only the parties to the dispute can.

        They don’t have to dummy. They just rubber stamped the armistice lines that are still in full force and effect according to Security Council resolutions 62 and 73. Try reading the paragraph 72. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

        The ICJ has advised that General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), “The Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations” reflects the applicable customary law and treaty obligations on the subject. It provides that:

        Every State… has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

        So there’s no bar to prosecuting, and upon conviction, throwing Zionist officials in jail for establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories. There were 173 state parties with courts capable of doing that that were signatories of the 1st Additional Protocol, before the Obama Administration finally admitted that its was customary law and binding on non-signatories, like the US and Israel. It says the settlements and many other acts committed by Israel are grave breaches and war crimes:

        Article 85 – Repression of breaches of this Protocol

        4. In addition to the grave breaches defined in the preceding paragraphs and in the Conventions, the following shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the Protocol:
        (a) the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Convention;
        (b) unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of prisoners of war or civilians;
        (c) practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination;
        (d) making the clearly-recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been given by special arrangement, for example, within the framework of a competent international organization, the object of attack, causing as a result extensive destruction thereof, where there is no evidence of the violation by the adverse Party of Article 53, subparagraph (b), and when such historic monuments, works of art and places of worship are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives;
        (e) depriving a person protected by the Conventions or referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article of the rights of fair and regular trial.

        5. Without prejudice to the application of the Conventions and of this Protocol, grave breaches of these instruments shall be regarded as war crimes.

        http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 17, 2013, 9:34 am

        Walker says: Even the US has never officially recognized the territories as anything other than occupied.
        ============================================
        Yes the US considers it occupied. And that the final borders have to be negotiated, in order to end the dispute.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 17, 2013, 9:36 am

        Tzombo says: It is exactly as disputed as Tel Aviv.
        ==========================================
        Good point. Yes, the Palestinians believe they are entitled to Tel Aviv as well.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 17, 2013, 9:43 am

        That’s because it is occupied. It is also disputed.

        Pull your head out. Disputes over settlements established in territory that is “also occupied” in deliberate violation of the Geneva Conventions and their Protocols are still grave breaches and war crimes. So arguing about it won’t get one minute off the prison sentence.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 17, 2013, 9:47 am

        Hostage says:They don’t have to dummy. They just rubber stamped the armistice lines that are still in full force and effect according to Security Council resolutions 62 and 73. Try reading the paragraph 72. link to icj-cij.org
        ================================================
        Rubber stamp the armistice lines that specifically declare that the lines are not borders? Surely if the ICJ or the GA actually had the power to authoritatively set the borders of Palestine they would have done so by now. But they have not. Because they cannot.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 17, 2013, 9:59 am

        Hostage says: So arguing about it won’t get one minute off the prison sentence.
        ==============================================
        Get real. There will never be “prison sentences” over the settlements and you know it. The Palestinians will either agree to settle the very real dispute or they will agree to a 1ss solution for the West Bank.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 17, 2013, 10:13 am

        Yes the US considers it occupied. And that the final borders have to be negotiated, in order to end the dispute.

        Wrong again. The State Department made it clear that they did not consider the resolution of the conflict to involve any territorial changes.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 17, 2013, 10:16 am

        Surely if the ICJ or the GA actually had the power to authoritatively set the borders of Palestine they would have done so by now.

        The fact that Israel refuses to comply – with the help of the US – doesn’t mean those borders don’t exist.

        138 countries already recognize them after all.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 17, 2013, 10:18 am

        There will never be “prison sentences” over the settlements and you know it.

        Yes, that explains why Tzipi Livni and other Israeli leaders cannot travel to a number of countries for fear of being arrested.

        The Palestinians will either agree to settle the very real dispute or they will agree to a 1ss solution for the West Bank.

        Or they will take Israel to the ICC.

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 17, 2013, 10:38 am

        @ mondonut “Yes, the Palestinians believe they are entitled to Tel Aviv as well

        Show us the official Palestinian claim tarzan….

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 17, 2013, 10:43 am

        “The Palestinians will either agree to settle the very real dispute…”

        The only “very real dispute” that the Palestinians have with you jackals is the same “dispute” that a rape victim has with the rapist.

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 17, 2013, 11:00 am

        mondonut “It is occupied and it is disputed”

        It is indeed occupied. There begins the unraveling of your fetid olde Hasbara security blanket.

        The Occupying Power has a ” sacred trust” to protect the occupied, protect their property and protect their territory.

        The ‘dispute’ has no legal basis what so ever.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        July 17, 2013, 11:07 am

        To most of us ‘occupation’, by distinction from ‘control’, implies a temporary status. The place in question is not really the property of the occupiers and only during an episode of war are they entitled to control it; peace implies relinquishment of all territory to which the term ‘occupation’ applied. So there cannot be a right to partition a territory which is ‘occupied’ in that sense. This being the rule about the final settlement the borders that will exist after that settlement cannot be in dispute.
        I presume that Israeli lawyers, perhaps with official American and western support, use ‘occupation’ in a rather different sense. They refer to any area under control from outside exercised by military means. Meanwhile a ‘disputed territory’ exists simply if people do as a matter of fact disagree about what a fair and just final solution to the problem of the territory’s future would be. The only fair solutions, they add, are such as may be negotiated, without preconditions, between the disputing parties.
        I wonder if I’ve got that right.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        July 17, 2013, 11:15 am

        mondonut says:
        “Hostage says:They don’t have to dummy. They just rubber stamped the armistice lines that are still in full force and effect according to Security Council resolutions 62 and 73. Try reading the paragraph 72. link to icj-cij.org
        ================================================
        Rubber stamp the armistice lines that specifically declare that the lines are not borders? Surely if the ICJ or the GA actually had the power to authoritatively set the borders of Palestine they would have done so by now. But they have not. Because they cannot.”
        ______________________

        Hostage, Mondonut raises some fascinating legal issues:

        1. If the so-called 67 Green Line borders are really only temporary armistice lines, isn’t the extra 22 percent of Palestine conquered and occupied by Israel in 1948 also “occupied” territory under Geneva?

        2. If so, isn’t all Israeli conduct within that post 1948 conquered territory also illegal and a war crime under Geneva?

        3. Isn’t there some legal basis for saying Israel’s only legal borders are the limits set forth in the 1947 Partition Plan which was later ratified by UN vote?

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 17, 2013, 11:25 am

        MHughes976: So there cannot be a right to partition a territory which is ‘occupied’ in that sense.
        ===============================================
        So to take your theory to its logical conclusion, the only country in the world that is excluded from negotiating the status of the land is the one country that actually controls it.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 17, 2013, 11:33 am

        Nothing to negotiate. It beling to them and not to you theiving people.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 17, 2013, 11:34 am

        talknic says: The Occupying Power has a ” sacred trust” to protect the occupied, protect their property and protect their territory.
        ===========================================
        Protect their territory? Did you just make that part up? I guess as soon as its determined what territory actually belongs to the state of Palestine, the Israelis will be obligated to “protect their territory”.

      • eljay
        eljay
        July 17, 2013, 11:40 am

        >> mondonuteee: So to take your theory to its logical conclusion, the only country in the world that is excluded from negotiating the status of the land is the one country that actually controls it.

        The Jewish supremacist argues that the thief should – nay, must! – be entitled to negotiate how much of his ill-gotten gains he should have to return.

        This would be amusing if it weren’t so typically hateful and immoral.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        July 17, 2013, 11:47 am

        MHughes976 says:
        “To most of us ‘occupation’, by distinction from ‘control’, implies a temporary status. The place in question is not really the property of the occupiers and only during an episode of war are they entitled to control it…”
        =============================
        I believe “occupation” and “occupied territory” are terms of art that stem from the provisions of Geneva IV. As I recall, a belligerent who conquers part or all of the territory of another belligerent (or non-belligerent) can legally “occupy” that territory for a limited period of time to restore order but must relinquish the territory occupied once hostilities have ceased and order is restored.

        The US “occupied” Italy, Germany, and Japan after conquering all three during WWII (with help of allies), but relinquished control back to all three after restoring order. I think the post WWII US occupation lasted about 4 years for Italy, 6 year for Germany, and 8 years for Japan. In Israel’s case, its post 1948 occupation of the 22 percent it conquered in 1948 has gone on 65 years; its occupation of its 1967 conquests (WB, EJ, and GH) is now 46 years old. Both continue with no end in sight. Neither occupation qualifies as reasonable or legal under Geneva 4.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 17, 2013, 11:51 am

        If the ICJ has the authority to decide they would have by now. The absence of an authoritative decision pretty much indicates they cannot.

        LOL! You seem to have basic problems with literacy, facts, and logic. The fact is that Israel argued that the Geneva Conventions didn’t apply, and that the territories had a unique (sui generis) legal status, and were not being held under a regime of belligerent occupation.

        The ICJ findings of fact, which concluded that Israel had violated its obligations under international law by establishing the settlements and constructing the wall, were based upon the necessary preliminary step of performing a written analysis of the status of the territory, including Israel’s missing reversioner argument. Here is how the discussion in paragraphs 68-101 was introduced:

        68. The question put by the General Assembly concerns the legal consequences of the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. However, in order to indicate those consequences to the General Assembly the Court must first determine whether or not the construction of that wall breaches international law (see paragraph 39 above). It will therefore make this determination before dealing with the consequences of the construction.

        69. To do so, the Court will first make a brief analysis of the status of the territory concerried, and will then describe the works already constructed or in course of construction in that territory. It will then indicate the applicable law before seeking to establish whether that law has been breached.

        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

        And that is exactly the way the analysis was performed and the law laid down, precept upon precept.

        Once again, the ICJ is the only international court with statutory jurisdiction to resolve disputes regarding the interpretation of treaties and conventions. It doesn’t matter whether or not it performs that task in an advisory or contentious case. The results are the same.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 17, 2013, 12:13 pm

        Yes the US considers it occupied. And that the final borders have to be negotiated, in order to end the dispute.

        The fact is that the official documentary record of major US foreign policy decisions revealed that the US had recognized the validity of the resolutions of the Jericho Congress, the national elections, and the sovereignty of the new joint Jordanian entity over the West Bank. International law requires reversion to the former sovereign and prohibits an occupying power from acquiring any captured or occupied territory.

        The State Department recognized the King’s sovereignty in line with the principles underlying the Jericho resolutions. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, page 1706 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1706

        Secretary of State Acheson subsequently stated at his April 26, 1950 press conference that:

        “The elections which were held on the 11th were on the basis of the incorporation of Arab Palestine into the Hashemite Kingdom. Those elections have taken place and this action of the parliament will be to ratify that decision. Now, our American attitude is that we have no objection whatever to the union of peoples mutually desirous of this new relationship.”

        See pages 1163-1168 “Acquisition of Sovereignty Over Territory”, Marjorie M. Whiteman (editor), Digest of International Law, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963)

        The 1950 FRUS contains a Memorandum of Conversation, between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Mr. Abdel Monem Rifai, Counselor, Jordan Legation in Washington, June 5, 1950 which officially documents the US recognition of the union between Arab Palestine and Jordan and the sovereignty of the new joint entity over the new territory. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921

        The Mitchel report, which was incorporated in the Quartet Road Map and endorsed by the Security Council requires Israel to withdraw from all the occupied territories before the Palestinians subsequently drop their belligerent claims.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 17, 2013, 12:23 pm

        P.S. Here is the relevant material from the Mitchell report (aka The Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee report, 2001). The findings were fully incorporated in the Middle East Quartet’s Road Map, which was adopted in-turn by both the Security Council (resolution 1515) and the General Assembly:

        PHASE 1

        SETTLEMENTS
        GOI [Government of Israel] immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
        • Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).

        link to avalon.law.yale.edu
        The Mitchell report noted that the Palestinians could only be expected to drop their belligerent claims and begin serious negotiations “subsequent” to the Israeli withdrawal and termination of the expansion of the illegal Israeli settlements:

        The Fourth Geneva Convention
        During the June War of 1967, Israeli armed forces occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed in 1968, restated the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and applied this international principle specifically to the Israeli occupation of Arab territory. Since then, all serious efforts to end the Israeli-Arab conflict have depended on implementation of this resolution requiring the Israeli withdrawal from Arab territory acquired by force and the subsequent termination of all states of belligerency.

        The Committee’s recommendations are in line with the Convention, and appear directly linked to the Convention’s application. Israel’s settlement policy, for example, is “illegal under international law” [not merely “unhelpful”] precisely because of the application of Article 49 of the Convention which prohibits the transfer of an Occupying Power’s civilian population into the territory it occupies.

        CONCLUSION
        Israel’s emphasis on security considerations alone, while taken very seriously by the Palestinians, cannot dictate the course of peace talks or attempts to end the current crisis. The PNA has repeatedly expressed its desire to resume security cooperation with Israel within the context of those elements necessary to make such cooperation sustainable. The Committee has correctly identified that security cooperation is not sustainable without meaningful political negotiations and that such negotiations cannot exist while Israel continues to colonise the territory from which it is ostensibly negotiating a withdrawal.

        – See pdf file pages 65-68 link to consilium.europa.eu

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        July 17, 2013, 12:35 pm

        Mondonut says:
        “So to take your theory to its logical conclusion, the only country in the world that is excluded from negotiating the status of the land is the one country that actually controls it.”
        ========================
        Using your logic, Nazi Germany should have been allowed to negotiate the status of France, Belgium, Holland, and other conquered lands because it “actually controlled” those lands.

        The whole point of the Fourth Geneva Convention and its antecedents, is that which is conquered by might must be returned to the original owners after hostilities cease and order is restored, regardless of original fault in the hostilities. That’s why the US returned the conquered portions of Italy, Germany and Japan to their rightful owners after WWII, despite the atrocious conduct of the owners and their leaders during that war.

        Your, or the Zionist argument is that might makes right. “We’re stronger, we took it, ergo it is ours. We stole it fair and square. ” The status of Palestinians as the rightful owners of their land is indisputable. In my view, they have a valid legal claim to the 44 percent allotted to them under what was a very unfair partition of their land by the UN. The fact that they refused to agree to that unfair partition does not mean they ceded all rights to their land.

      • annie
        annie
        July 17, 2013, 12:54 pm

        Protect their territory? Did you just make that part up?

        no he did not.

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 17, 2013, 1:04 pm

        @ irishmoses Mondonut raises some fascinating legal issues

        mondonut is in complete denial

        1. If the so-called 67 Green Line borders are really only temporary armistice lines, isn’t the extra 22 percent of Palestine conquered and occupied by Israel in 1948 also “occupied” territory under Geneva?

        It was some 50% of the territories that remained of Palestine after Israel was declared and recognized http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk and; The Geneva Conventions were ratified 1950, but the already existing Laws and Customs of War on Land adequately covered the matter

        (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III
        “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. “ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp#art41

        and; Israel itself admitted those territories

        “outside the State of Israel” were “under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard “

        So yes, they were occupied. However Israel was not a UN Member State at the time. The UN cannot directly censure non-members or censure their actions in retrospect prior to becoming a Member. (“Israel” is not mentioned in any UNSC resolution on the Question of Palestine prior to gaining Membership). So there is no UNSC mention against Israel of the occupied status of those territories

        After becoming a UN Member, Israel’s 31st Aug ’49 http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/fd807e46661e3689852570d00069e918/c96e0252e7710bce85256d95006bc157?OpenDocument attempt to claim those territories were rebuffed http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC25IS37.pdf citing the Armistice Agreements

        The territories have never legally annexed to Israel. Were Israel to now attempt to unilaterally annex those territories as a UN Member State, it would be condemned. Similar to UNSC res 252 and its EIGHT reminders (UNSC res 476 sums it up nicely http://wp.me/pDB7k-W8 )

        2. If so, isn’t all Israeli conduct within that post 1948 conquered territory also illegal and a war crime under Geneva?

        Not under the GC’s. Yes, under the 1907 Hague conventions.

        3. Isn’t there some legal basis for saying Israel’s only legal borders are the limits set forth in the 1947 Partition Plan which was later ratified by UN vote?”

        By Israel’s plea for recognition

        “the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

        By Israel’s admissions that the territories were “outside the State of Israel”, by the fact that they have yet to be legally annexed to Israel and; by the fact that it has been illegal to acquire territory by war since at least 1933

        Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States : ARTICLE 11

        The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure http://pages.citebite.com/y1f0t4q1v4son

        Armistice/Cease fire lines have changed. Borders have not.

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 17, 2013, 1:13 pm

        @ mondonutProtect their territory? Did you just make that part up?

        I don’t make anything up. Fantasy can be left to you and your kind. You’re so good at it

        ” I guess as soon as its determined what territory actually belongs to the state of Palestine “

        Irrelevant. It isn’t the territory of the Occupying Power.

        Enjoy your dip Tarzan

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 17, 2013, 1:25 pm

        eljay – – Mondonut needs to grasp Israel gets a good deal if the world accepts Green Line as border of Palestine.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 17, 2013, 1:27 pm

        @Mondonut – – Almost every country on the planet says “Green Line” is the border.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 17, 2013, 1:31 pm

        Rubber stamp the armistice lines that specifically declare that the lines are not borders?

        No that’s your rewording. The armistice agreement doesn’t actually say that they are not borders. It specifically prohibited the land, sea, and air forces or para-military forces of either Party and their civilians from advancing beyond or passing over the Armistice Demarcation Lines for any purpose whatsoever. Whatever you choose to call that line, Israel is in flagrant violation of its legal obligation to observe and implement those terms pending a mutually agreed upon final settlement.

        I’ve pointed out UN member states are legally obliged to respect any international demarcation line established under the auspices of the UN Security Council in accordance with Article 40 of the Charter. Israel is no exception. Armistice lines are synonymous with the terms frontiers, boundaries, and borders in customary state practice. For example, see
        *Tripartite Declaration Regarding the Armistice Borders : Statement by the Governments of the United States, The United Kingdom, and France, May 25, 1950 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mid001.asp

        *The General Assembly resolutions, which say the credentials of the delegation of Israel do not apply to the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, and the verbatim record of the General Assembly discussion of the matter in resolution 58/292 which indicates the words “pre-1967 borders” had intentionally been adopted to replace the words “Armistice Line of 1949”.
        * link to un.org
        *A/58/L.48, 15 December 2003; General Assembly 58/292, 17 May 2004.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 17, 2013, 1:59 pm

        Get real. There will never be “prison sentences” over the settlements and you know it. The Palestinians will either agree to settle the very real dispute or they will agree to a 1ss solution for the West Bank.

        No, Israel owes too much to the Palestinians in the form of compensation and restitution and there will be war crimes complaints in line with Article 85 of the 1st Protocol over the failure to repatriate refugees on a timely basis in any event.

        I know that the Rome Statute doesn’t permit declarations or complaints to be withdrawn and that agreements on exile or amnesty aren’t allowed.

        I figure that Israel’s former Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice knows better than you do whether or not there is a real possibility of prosecutions. See “A-G: New Hague court may indict settlers for war crimes”, Jun.11, 2002 .

        I’m certain that the officials who established the settlements committed war crimes that aren’t subject to any normal statutory of limitations. Forever is a long time to escape justice and avoid arrest or prosecution. For example see:
        *Hungary indicts 98-year-old for Nazi war crimes
        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57589879/hungary-indicts-98-year-old-for-nazi-war-crimes/
        *Germany investigates commander of Nazi-led unit
        http://www.wahpetondailynews.com/article_30497132-dcd6-11e2-9a80-0019bb2963f4.html
        *The president of the International Criminal Court, Song Sang-Hyun, appointed a three-judge panel this week to consider preliminary procedural hurdles to opening a criminal investigation against Israel. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/the-hague-weighs-criminal-probe-of-israel-over-2010-marmara-raid.premium-1.534663

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 17, 2013, 2:04 pm

        Hostage says: The armistice agreement doesn’t actually say that they are not borders.
        ==============================================
        Article V

        2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 17, 2013, 2:07 pm

        Annie Robbins says:Protect their territory? Did you just make that part up?
        no he did not.
        ==============================
        Then look into the link he provided and show it to me.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 17, 2013, 2:23 pm

        MHughes976: So there cannot be a right to partition a territory which is ‘occupied’ in that sense.
        ===============================================
        So to take your theory to its logical conclusion, the only country in the world that is excluded from negotiating the status of the land is the one country that actually controls it.

        Shortly after the establishment of the UN, the General Assembly started fulfilling its Charter function of codifying customary practices of the organization in applying the principles of international law. The Secretariat legal department was required to gather and publish the authoritative evidence in the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council.

        Articles 52 and 53 of the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties and the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council on resolution 242 both stipulate that peremptory norms of international law will govern the terms of any final agreement between the parties. The latter explicitly states that
        the terms that govern the final settlement include the prohibition against the threat or use of force contained in article 2 of the UN Charter and the principle that the acquisition of territory by war is “inadmissible”. The former explicitly states that any treaty obtained through coercion or the use of force is null and void. So final negotiations can’t be concluded during an armed occupation.

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 17, 2013, 2:56 pm

        @ mondonut

        “Article V 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary , and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question. ” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm01.asp

      • eljay
        eljay
        July 17, 2013, 5:58 pm

        >> eljay – – Mondonut needs to grasp Israel gets a good deal if the world accepts Green Line as border of Palestine.

        Like many (most?) hateful and immoral Jewish supremacists, mondonuteee isn’t interested in “a good deal”. He wants “the best deal” – for “the Jews” only, of course – which includes:
        – a “Greater Israel”;
        – a supremacist “Jewish State” within its “Greater” borders; and
        – absolutely no accountability for past and ON-GOING (war) crimes.

        Justice, morality, equality, human rights and accountability mean nothing to a Jewish supremacist like mondonuteee.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 17, 2013, 7:31 pm

        Protect their territory? Did you just make that part up?

        Are you pretending to be that clueless? The territory is always supposed to revert back to the original sovereign in line with the principles of the UN Charter which prohibit the use of threats or force against the independence and territorial integrity of any state and the corollary prohibition against acquisition of territory by war.

        That’s why Israeli officials have tried so assiduously to create the legal fiction of the “Missing Reversioner”. The UN put an end to those exercises when it established the principle of the permanent sovereignty of indigenous and colonized peoples over the natural resources of their countries on 14 December 1962. The Palestinian people aren’t missing or lost. http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/ga_1803/ga_1803.html

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 17, 2013, 8:41 pm

        “Article V 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary

        That was considered platitudinous boilerplate by the Israelis. It was inserted to protect Arab leaders against reprisals from their own people for signing the agreements. Abba Eban noted afterward that it was an unfortunate fact that nearly every Arab leader who had dealt with Israel in the Armistice negotiations had been assassinated – Nokrashy in Egypt, Zaim in Syria, Riad Solh in Lebanon, and Abdullah in Jordan. Eban said this striking coincidence, if it was a coincidence, would undoubtedly be a strong deterrent to any other Arab leader dealing with Israel. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1951v05&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=794

        The armistice agreements in Korea and Palestine created permanent stalemates, not permanent political settlements. They did not require any of the parties to pursue an ongoing or a future process of new negotiations and agreement.

        Eban also noted that the Israeli and Arab Courts had promptly extended their civil jurisdictions right up to the territorial limits of the demarcation lines. It also goes without saying that neither side tolerated any enemy political activity beyond the lines and treated violators as spies or infiltrators. So the demarcation lines certainly were construed in every sense as political and territorial boundaries – and it has always been nonsense to suggest otherwise.

        During the Security Council’s 433rd meeting, Abba Eban stated that they clearly defined the State’s jurisdiction and had the normal legal characteristics of frontiers:

        The armistice lines do not merely separate armed forces. They mark the clearly defined areas of full civil jurisdiction. The Government, the courts, the legislatures, the security authorities of each respective State operate smoothly and unchallenged up to the appropriate armistice line. These lines thus have the normal characteristics of provisional frontiers until such time as a new process of negotiation and agreement determines the final territorial settlement.

        The Armistice Agreements are not peace treaties. They do not prejudice the final territorial settlements. On the other hand, the provisional settlement established by the Armistice Agreements is unchallengeable until a new process of negotiation and agreement has been successfully consummated.

        link to un.org

        The Chapter VII resolution 62, backed-up by the authority to use coercive enforcement measures, ordered the immediate adoption of an armistice and the establishment of “permanent armistice lines of demarcation” beyond which the armed forces of the respective parties shall not move.

        The actual armistice agreement endorsed under Chapter VII resolution 73 prohibited the movement of either civilians or armed forces across the permanent demarcation line for any reason whatever in line with the laws and customs of war.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 17, 2013, 9:01 pm

        So to take your theory to its logical conclusion, the only country in the world that is excluded from negotiating the status of the land is the one country that actually controls it.

        It is when the country that controls it acquired control through illegal means.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 17, 2013, 9:02 pm

        Hostage says: The armistice agreement doesn’t actually say that they are not borders.
        ==============================================
        Article V

        2. The Armistice Demarcation Line

        I’ve already responded to this by pointing out that Israeli officials admitted the lines serve as the legal frontiers for the exact purposes of political and territorial jurisdiction – and that neither party is required under the terms to ever enter into a future process of negotiations or agreement to alter them.

        These clauses were inserted to protect Arab leaders from reprisals for accepting the partition of Palestine under the guise of a permanent armistice, e.g.:

        ‘Jerusalem, on December 1, reported -that the “Meeting yesterday between Dayan and Abdullah Tel conducted in atmosphere extreme cordiality” and that “Scope present talks and large area included is such [as] may lead to de facto
        armistice between Transjordan and PGI and informal demilitarization Jerusalem. Conduct talks under guise implementing truce, on present level and between Arab and Jewish spokesmen, ready compromise, and.who trust each other possesses many advantages. Minimizes opportunity for criticism King Abdullah by other Arab states on grounds accepting partition and entering direct negotiations with Jews. Permits conclusion practical functional arrangements with minimum regard to final political settlement.” (Telegram 1511,867N.01/12-148)

        http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1638

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 17, 2013, 9:03 pm

        1. If the so-called 67 Green Line borders are really only temporary armistice lines, isn’t the extra 22 percent of Palestine conquered and occupied by Israel in 1948 also “occupied” territory under Geneva?

        It was before the exchange of letters between Israel and the PLO in 1993, whereby the PLO recognized this territory as belonging to Israel.

        2. If so, isn’t all Israeli conduct within that post 1948 conquered territory also illegal and a war crime under Geneva?

        No, just beyond the Green Line. See above.

        3. Isn’t there some legal basis for saying Israel’s only legal borders are the limits set forth in the 1947 Partition Plan which was later ratified by UN vote?

        See above.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 17, 2013, 9:13 pm

        Protect their territory? Did you just make that part up? I guess as soon as its determined what territory actually belongs to the state of Palestine, the Israelis will be obligated to “protect their territory”.

        No he didn’t make that part up – the Israeli Supreme Court says the same thing.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        July 17, 2013, 9:25 pm

        Hostage,
        Something seems inconsistent in your analysis (or maybe I’m just dense):

        1. How did the armistice Green Line border become Israel’s legal border if it acquired that additional 22 percent of Mandate Palestine by force?

        2. How can armistice agreements made with other sovereigns (Egypt, Syria, Jordan) give away Mandate territory belonging to the intended Arab State under the 1947 Partition Plan?

        3. If Israel increased its “legal” borders by force in 1948, why aren’t its 1967 acquisitions by force also legal?

        I’m having a hard time seeing why Israel cannot be held to task for its 1948 acquisitions by force if it can be held to task for its 1967 acquisitions. Talknic seems to be saying that Geneva IV can’t be used for 1948 illegal conduct but Hague would apply in that case.

        I’m missing some important step here. Please fill in the blanks for me.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 17, 2013, 11:54 pm

        Hostage says: That was considered platitudinous boilerplate by the Israelis.
        =========================================
        So rather than admit you were (obviously) mistaken you choose instead to double down with hundreds of words of BS, that in no way support your previous statement.

        The fact of the matter is that the armistice lines were not created as borders, they were not intended to be borders, and nothing has happened since then to change that fact.

        But please feel free to fire up your LexisNexis and spew forth another excessively long reply.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 18, 2013, 12:04 am

        talknic says: I don’t make anything up. Fantasy can be left to you and your kind. You’re so good at it …. Irrelevant. It isn’t the territory of the Occupying Power.
        ===========================================
        Well if you did not make it up where did you get it? It certainly was not in link that you provided. Can’t you scour your ridiculous website and find it somewhere?

        And BTW, it is completely relevant as I never maintained that it was the territory of the occupying power, I said it was disputed. Which it is, and apparently you agree.

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 18, 2013, 12:06 am

        @ mondonut

        Tarzan, you’ve already admitted the territories are occupied http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/in-earthquake-diplomatic-move-eu-calls-on-israel-to-recognize-in-writing-that-the-west-bank-settlements-are-not-part-of-israel.html#comment-577635

        Prior to the UN Charter and still in force

        Laws of War Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp#art55

        UN Charter Chapt XI

        Article 73 Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories etc http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml

        All we have to reference from you is an apologist wailgob desperately flapping away.

        Little do you seem to realize at every piece of garbage you post, other readers are supplied with more and more factual information showing the depth of Israel’s deceit and just how far you’re willing to lower yourself

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 18, 2013, 12:09 am

        Woody Tanaka says: It beling to them and not to you theiving people.
        ===========================================
        You are correct that it does not belong to “us”. But then again, the Irish Catholics have never claimed it.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        July 18, 2013, 2:27 am

        Shingo said:
        “It was before the exchange of letters between Israel and the PLO in 1993, whereby the PLO recognized this territory as belonging to Israel.”
        ==================================
        That’s a huge concession by the PLO, giving away half of 44 percent allotted for an Arab state in the original Partition Plan. What did they get in return?

        I wonder if the Green Line border somehow became legal when Jordan annexed the West Bank after the 1948 war?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 18, 2013, 2:33 am

        That’s a huge concession by the PLO, giving away half of 44 percent allotted for an Arab state in the original Partition Plan. What did they get in return?

        Actually it is 50% allotted for an Arab state in the original Partition Plan. 44% of Palestine id what they were allotted. And yes, it was extremely generous.

        I wonder if the Green Line border somehow became legal when Jordan annexed the West Bank after the 1948 war?

        Yes, seeing as in 1966, all 15 member of the UNSC recognized it as the territory of Jordan.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 18, 2013, 2:34 am

        And BTW, it is completely relevant as I never maintained that it was the territory of the occupying power, I said it was disputed. Which it is, and apparently you agree.

        No it’s not and no one agrees with you and no one agrees with Israel.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 18, 2013, 2:36 am

        The fact of the matter is that the armistice lines were not created as borders, they were not intended to be borders, and nothing has happened since then to change that fact.

        Well if you are going to insist they are not legitimate borders, then what you are left with are the 1948 borders that Israel declared, but if you want to give up all that territory between the green line and the 1948 borders, who are we to argue?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 18, 2013, 4:10 am

        Hostage, Mondonut raises some fascinating legal issues:

        I’ve answered most of those in the past. I would prefer that the questions be addressed to the ICJ in a request for an advisory opinion. I would begin a few preliminary steps before your starting point.

        All of the parties were given a deadline by the mandatory to reach an agreement before the matter was referred to the General Assembly for arbitration. All of the parties accepted the competence of the General Assembly to immediately terminate the mandate on terms favorable to their party’s position.

        I think that the Question of Palestine was properly submitted to the UN for binding arbitration by the mandatory and that its decision was not subject to appeal or revision under the terms of existing customary international law. Some of the historical sources for that proposition are laid out here: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/01/headline-projects-states.html#comment-531010

        From a historical standpoint and that of legal positivism, the General Assembly had the power to adopt decisions regarding dependent territories and peoples under the (now) senescent provisions of the Charter regarding the subject, no matter how wicked that appears in hindsight. All of those powers, and the role played by the evolving self determination norm have subsequently been played-out in cases involving South West Africa/Namibia and The Frontier Dispute case (Burkina Faso/Niger). I’ve discussed the significance of the frontiers that were adopted on 29 November 1947 here http://mondoweiss.net/2013/02/threatened-brooklyn-speakers.html#comment-540598

        The Security Council didn’t, and still doesn’t have the authority to overturn the decision taken by the General Assembly, but it could recommended its own provisional solution. The State Department advisory opinion on the subject was discussed here: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/02/denied-entry-to-her-school-by-israel-american-teacher-schedules-skype-call-with-90-students-to-say-goodbye-saturday.html/comment-page-1#comment-544493

        The obvious problem with that approach is that the Council hijacked the organ created by the General Assembly for its own functions and purposes, the office of the UN Mediator, to impose its armistice. There are several problems with those agreements 1) they have neither been enforced nor repealed by the Security Council; 2) some of the Palestinians still living in the West Bank did participate in the government that concluded the agreements, but that entity did not include the whole Palestinian people or allow for the exercise of their collective right of self determination, free from outside interference. The latter was the standard adopted by the General Assembly, Security Council, and ICJ in the Namibia apartheid/self determination international status cases.

        Israel refused to negotiate with any Arab Palestinian faction on the grounds that it wasn’t a sovereign entity. That decision calls into question the application of contract or treaty law theories of “acceptance” on the part of the Palestinians. In any event, the recommendation of the Mediator for a political union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan was rejected by the General Assembly and the PCC on the grounds that the UN could no longer impose a solution on the parties, since they had been emancipated from the mandate. So they were treated as sovereign entities, but were still treated as unrecognized states. That also complicates the application of contract or treaty law principles of agency for the refugees in other countries.

        I think if the case went to the ICJ, the worst outcome would be the Green Line and the probable outcome would be the frontiers adopted in the partition plan through the application of the doctrine of uti possidetis.

        I think an advisory opinion needs to be obtained on the related problem of the rights placed under UN guarantee by the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II) and the failure to repatriate refugees in a timely manner. That has become grave breach and a war crime under the terms of the customary international law reflected in the 1977 1st Additional Protocol, article 85. The related matter of compensation, estate claims, and reimbursement for stolen resources should also be addressed.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 18, 2013, 6:01 am

        So rather than admit you were (obviously) mistaken you choose instead to double down with hundreds of words of BS, that in no way support your previous statement.

        No the term borders doesn’t appear in the agreement, only in your reworded claim. I pointed out that the government of Israel told the Security Council for the record that the lines did indeed mark the limits of its government’s civil jurisdiction and served the same purpose as other normal frontiers.

        The first session of the International Law Commission noted that some delegations to the San Francisco Conference on UN Organization had objected to the use of the term “sovereignty”. The concept was used to deny recognition to others during the colonial era and its only application in the Charter was once again to deny equality and membership to the UN trusteeships. But it was agreed that membership in the organization was based upon juridical equality and that the only tangible manifestation of the abstract principle of “sovereignty” is the exercise of “jurisdiction”.

        FYI, extending the territorial scope of a country’s jurisdiction through the operation of its Courts and municipal laws is tantamount to a claim of sovereignty and the very definition of the legal term of art “annexation”. The proof of that can be found in the application and use of the Emergency Regulations (1945) to those territories under the sole auspices of the State of Israel’s Transition Act ,which revived their use. The King of England and his Privy Council had revoked them three days before the mandate expired.

        I think you probably are aware of the fact that the Israel Supreme Court has ruled time and again that all of the territory inside the Green Line is subject to Israel’s sovereign jurisdiction, Israel’s Basic Laws, & etc.

        That fact is that right wing Zionists try to pretend that the territory on the Jordanian side had a disputed status that can accrue to Israel’s benefit, that did not (somehow) apply to the territory on the Israeli side. It’s really just a thinly disguised attempt to revive the law of conquest using an armistice agreement as an excuse. But any agreement that violates the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by war would be null and void in the first place under the Law of Treaties.

        Prof. John McHugo has written all about that in 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090319134710/http://www.nad-plo.org/nego/permanent/borders/related/McHugo.pdf

        It was cited in the written submissions of the interested state parties during the Wall case.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 18, 2013, 6:13 am

        That fact is that right wing Zionists try to pretend that the territory on the Jordanian side had a disputed status that can accrue to Israel’s benefit, that did not apply somehow apply to the territory on the Israeli side. It’s really just a thinly disguised attempt to revive the law of conquest using an armistice agreement.

        Yes it’s quote a bizarre argument isn’t it? The insistence that the territory outside the 1967 borders as disputed actually reveals that the right wing Zionists recognize the Green Line as a border which signifies the termination of undisputed territory – meaning that they know it’s a border and are simply trying to pull the wool over the international community by seeing how much they can steal beyond it.

        After all, as you point out, if the territory beyond the Green Line is disputed, and the Green Line is nothing but an Armistice line, then clearly all the territory from the Jordan to the Mediterranean is also disputed.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 18, 2013, 6:18 am

        The fact of the matter is that the armistice lines were not created as borders, they were not intended to be borders, and nothing has happened since then to change that fact.

        I cited the Declaration of the three P-5 states regarding the Armistice Borders and the deliberate adoption of the term 1967 borders in General Assembly resolutions instead of the term armistice lines. That speaks for itself and is evidence of customary state practice in that respect. So are statements by the government of Israel calling the lines “normal provisional frontiers”. There are no examples in actual state practice of provisional frontiers between states that do not function as borders.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        July 18, 2013, 6:42 am

        Articles 52/3 seem very reasonable to me!
        But it does strike me that there is a common, moral use of the word ‘occupy’ in political discussion outside legal definitions (not that these aren’t essential). In this usage, ‘occupy’ is like ‘borrow’, a word which describes a current situation and prescribes or calls for a final outcome which is specific, and therefore excludes (even the right to negotiate for) other outcomes. If I’ve ‘borrowed’ your collection of commentaries on the Minor Prophets the expected outcome is that I return them all but all, not that I have a right to negotiate to return Obadiah and Malachi and retain the rest.
        I fully concur that in this usage it is especially significant that one who currently occupies land or currently holds a borrowed book should be dissuaded from any thought that current power confers any right. Not that I claim to own the words. If someone wants to use the words in question in ways other than mine I ask only for an explanation of the usage (s)he has in mind.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 18, 2013, 7:17 am

        1. How did the armistice Green Line border become Israel’s legal border if it acquired that additional 22 percent of Mandate Palestine by force?

        Because the Mediator had been given the authority by the General Assembly to promote a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine, by resolution 186 (S2) and the Security Council ordered him and the parties concerned to implement an armistice, including permanent armistice demarcation lines. The Mediator negotiated and accepted the agreements on behalf of the UN organization and the Security Council endorsed them and ordered that they be implemented and observed by the parties pending a future final agreement. They can’t be altered without Israel’s consent. That was done under the auspices of resolution 73 and Chapter VII.

        So the decision to recognize the legal competence of the parties to exercise jurisdiction under the agreements and mutually define the final boundaries has to be respected by all the member states, while those resolutions still remain in effect. The Security Council could rescind them tomorrow and impose another solution, because they are only Article 40 “provisional measures”. But the US and Israel have blocked that from happening in the past. See for example Javier Solana’s proposal for a UN-imposed settlement http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl200709ed28.html

        FYI, after the Tinoco Arbitration case, there were no longer any meaningful legal differences between the so-called “de facto” or “de jure” recognition of a regime. The existence of either has the very same legal consequences, unless there is a UN imposed regime of non-recognition in effect. So the terms de facto and de jure with regard to recognition gradually became deprecated, obsolete, and have fallen into disuse. The exercise of de facto jurisdiction led the international community to eventually accept the armistice lines with the exception of the special status of the Corpus Separatum, and the notion that the parties might mutually agree to boundary rectifications one day to the benefit of everyone in the region.

        Ambassador Abba Eban commented that:

        “Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states.”

        — See “Effect on Armistice Agreements”, FRUS Volume VI 1949, page 1149 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 18, 2013, 7:54 am

        How can armistice agreements made with other sovereigns (Egypt, Syria, Jordan) give away Mandate territory belonging to the intended Arab State under the 1947 Partition Plan?

        Your point is well taken, especially with regard to the states that were never part of the Mandate. Transjordan’s application for membership in the UN was rejected on the grounds that it was still part of a joint mandate that hadn’t been legally terminated. The Ad Hoc Committee actually voted on proposals in November 1947 to include parts of the territory of Transjordan in the new Jewish state. The Arab state that finally was created included both Arab Palestine and Transjordan. But the inhabitants of those areas did not represent third-party Palestinian Arabs living elsewhere. So they obviously had no legal standing to cede territory to Israel.

        The whole missing reversioner theory always has been nonsense. Ben Gurion told the US representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission that the status of Arab Palestine could be recognized through the device of a federal union with Transjordan. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, page 927
        http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1949v06&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=927

        * The representatives of the Jewish Agency had spent decades pitching the idea to the British and US that Transjordan could be made economically viable by incorporating the territory of Arab Palestine. See:
        *Dr Goldmann, Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. The Near East and Africa, Volume VII, Page 680-681 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
        *Mr. Shertok, Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Part 2, Page 945 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
        *Rabbi Silver, Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts),Volume V, Part 2, Page 900 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Discussions about the partition plan tend to overlook the fact that the change of sovereignty was not supposed to effect private property rights, deny anyone equal rights or representation, or grant preferential access to public land on the basis of their ethnicity.

        In fact, Palestine should have remained one country with a common currency, right of transit on a common transportation network, and freedom of access to the Holy sites.

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 18, 2013, 8:06 am

        @ Shingo “Yes, seeing as in 1966, all 15 member of the UNSC recognized it as the territory of Jordan..” … by which time Jordan was a UN Member State and; a signatory to GC IV 29th May 1951. The West Bank was a part of an Independent Sovereign State. A “High Contracting Party”

        The wholly holey moldy olde Hasbara mantra “the territory didn’t belong to a state” and; “because it didn’t belong to a state, the GC’s do not apply” simply fail …. again!

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 18, 2013, 8:11 am

        It was before the exchange of letters between Israel and the PLO in 1993, whereby the PLO recognized this territory as belonging to Israel.

        The PLO is not clairvoyant. They’ve been unsuccessful so far in their attempts to get Israel to provide maps containing any borders. The Interim Agreement of 1995 specified that neither party shall be deemed “to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions” (Art. 31-6). The current Palestinian leadership has offered to negotiate on the basis of the 1967 borders and the Arab Peace Initiative, but nothing stops the next administration from adopting the US and Israeli approach of starting over from scratch.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 18, 2013, 8:14 am

        Thank you Hostage,

        But if the Interim Agreement of 1995 specified that neither party shall be deemed “to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions” , what does it matter if the decisions prior to 1995 already established the Armistice line as defacto borders?

        And if they were to start from scratch, where would scratch be?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 18, 2013, 8:50 am

        I wonder if the Green Line border somehow became legal when Jordan annexed the West Bank after the 1948 war?

        No, the annexation didn’t serve to implicitly cede the leftovers to Israel, Egypt, or Syria. In fact, Abdullah considered Gaza to be part of Arab Palestine and continued to negotiate with Israel over a corridor between it and West Bank.

        It was the fact that the armistice lines could not ever be changed without Israel’s consent under the terms of the armistice agreements themselves. Contrary to Mondonut’s claims, David Ben Gurion made it perfectly clear to the Knesset that he had no doubts whatever about the permanent nature of the lines and those agreements.

        During the 62nd Sitting of the first Knesset, 1 August 1949, Prime Minister Ben Gurion acknowledged that Israel had tacitly recognized the borders of the Arab states. He explained that the UN and the states that recognized Israel had not yet recognized its expanded borders, but that the Arab States had given in and recognized them through the armistice agreements. He said “I will not go into pointless argument on who gave in to whom. I will admit quite openly and simply that we gave in too… We gained immensely, on both a political and territorial level from all of these documents, precisely because we knew when to give in.

        So much for the notion that he didn’t view the face saving Arab reservations (about the lines not affecting political or territorial status) as platitudinous boilerplate. He explicity acknowledged there had been political and territorial gains and even called the lines borders.

        He continued “Every time we gave in… we expanded our borders and strengthened our position.” He stated that the UN resolution had only granted Israel “14,900,000 dunams, and that only one-third of that area had been genuinely in our hands. In nearly ten million dunams in the south we barely had a hold of any kind. Now the state consists of over twenty million dunams, all of which we control. In theory the state has grown by only five million dunams, but in practice it has grown by fifteen.” He added that about five million had been added by conquest and that five hundred thousand had been added by peaceful means in the armistice agreements with Jordan and Syria. See pages 541 and 542 of Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981, Volume 2, Netanel Lorch, University Press/JCPA, 1993.
        http://www.jcpa.org/text/KnessetDebatesVol2.pdf

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 18, 2013, 8:50 am

        @mondonut “Well if you did not make it up where did you get it? “

        Supplied http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/in-earthquake-diplomatic-move-eu-calls-on-israel-to-recognize-in-writing-that-the-west-bank-settlements-are-not-part-of-israel.html/comment-page-1#comment-577928

        “Can’t you scour your ridiculous website … ?”

        You’re quite welcome to go prove it’s ridiculousness Tarzan. Perhaps with some contrary, equally verifiable documentation that doesn’t have the usual gaping Hasbara holes. Should be easy …. right?

        “And BTW, it is completely relevant as I never maintained that it was the territory of the occupying power. I said it was disputed. “

        Well Tarzan, perhaps you’d be so kind as to everyone where it says (verbatim please) ‘disputed’ in a United Nations Security Council resolution … we’ll wait http://talknic.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/waiting_for_the_israeli_propagandist.gif

        The UNSC resolutions on the Question of Palestine calling for “peace in Palestine”, all seem to say “occupied”, “Israel, the Occupying Power”, “Occupied Territory”, “Occupied Territories”, “Territories Occupied” … nary a mention of the theoretical ‘disputed’. Now why would that be?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 18, 2013, 9:28 am

        But please feel free to fire up your LexisNexis and spew forth another excessively long reply.

        I don’t need LexisNexis when I can just quote David Ben Gurion from the JCPA’s authoritative publications on the subject (again).

        He told the Knesset that the armistice documents had resulted in both political and territorial gains and enlarged, wait for it, . . . . Israel’s borders.

        The replies aren’t excessively long, your attention span is just too short.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 18, 2013, 10:39 am

        by which time Jordan was a UN Member State and; a signatory to GC IV 29th May 1951. The West Bank was a part of an Independent Sovereign State. A “High Contracting Party”

        Which brings me to a question I haven’t found an answer to. Some hasbarat on another forum made this argument.

        Seeing as Palestine is now a recognized state, but not a “High Contracting Party” do the settlements in the WB and EJ still violate the GCs?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 18, 2013, 11:16 am

        “You are correct that it does not belong to ‘us’. But then again, the Irish Catholics have never claimed it.”

        The “you thieving people” I was referring to are the zionists, and who gives a damn what their ethnicity and religion, because you all are conspirators in that great crime. And any Irish Catholic who would support this Apartheid is a damned insult to the memory of all those Irish Catholics whose lives were destroyed by the similar policies of theft and Apartheid practiced on them, all those people you’re pissing on as we speak. Shame on your parents for not raising you better.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        July 18, 2013, 12:27 pm

        talknic says: Well Tarzan, perhaps you’d be so kind as to everyone where it says (verbatim please) ‘disputed’ in a United Nations Security Council resolution … we’ll wait link to talknic.files.wordpress.com

        The UNSC resolutions on the Question of Palestine calling for “peace in Palestine”, all seem to say “occupied”, “Israel, the Occupying Power”, “Occupied Territory”, “Occupied Territories”, “Territories Occupied” … nary a mention of the theoretical ‘disputed’. Now why would that be?
        ==============================================
        Why would you expect to find the word “disputed” in a UNSC resolution? They do of course say occupied, because the disputed territory is indeed occupied. More importantly, there is no UNSC resolution that defines the borders of Palestine or that declares the entirety of the occupied territories as the territory of the State of Palestine.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 18, 2013, 2:25 pm

        All Arab countries accept the Green Line as Israel’s border with Palestine. Provided Israel gets out of WB and Golan Heights.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 18, 2013, 5:28 pm

        what does it matter if the decisions prior to 1995 already established the Armistice line as defacto borders?

        And if they were to start from scratch, where would scratch be?

        First, the armistice lines did not establish de facto borders for Jerusalem, because of the IN positions on the Corpus Separatum and non-recognition of the annexations by Israel.

        If they started from scratch to have the ICJ adjudicate the situation, they could have the General Assembly ask for an advisory opinion to answer their perennial questions:
        1) Did the UN have the authority to partition the country or adopt solutions without obtaining the consent of the non-self-governing inhabitants?
        2) Why has the doctrine of uti possidetis not been applied with respect to the administrative boundaries adopted by the General Assembly on 29 Novemember 1947?
        3) If the Security Council and General Assembly are unconditionally bound by customary international law, can they adopt provisional measures that violate the laws respecting uti possidetis, unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of prisoners of war or civilians, and establishment of illegal colonies?
        4) Why has the UN not protected the rights that were placed under UN guarantee by resolution 181(II)?
        5) Why has the UN not enforced the provision measures adopted by Security Council resolution 73, 1515, 1860. etc.?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 18, 2013, 6:46 pm

        Seeing as Palestine is now a recognized state, but not a “High Contracting Party” do the settlements in the WB and EJ still violate the GCs?

        Who claims they are not a party to the Convention? Palestine : On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council “that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto”.

        On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, “due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine”.
        http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesParties&xp_treatySelected=380

        The ICJ majority opinion noted that, for its own part, the Swiss government considered the PLO declaration on behalf of Palestine in 1989 to be a valid accession.

        In other words, the Swiss government recognized the State of Palestine as another State Party and the legal consequences that flow from that recognition for both governments: “Furthermore, Palestine gave a unilateral undertaking, by declaration of 7 June 1982 (sic), to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention. Switzerland, as depositary State, considered that unilateral undertaking valid.” See paragraph 91 on page 79: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

        All of the Geneva Convention signatories are represented in the UN General Assembly. They adopted resolution 67/19 (2012) upgrading the observer status of Palestine, based upon the 1988 Algiers Declaration of the State of Palestine. See the text of the resolution: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/19862D03C564FA2C85257ACB004EE69B

        We know for certain that about 104 of them had recognized the State of Palestine by the end of 1989, when Palestine applied for membership in UNESCO the first time. The co-sponsors of Palestine’s application listed 92 states before the scheduled vote which had already formally recognized the State of Palestine. See Annex II of UN Doc. 131 EX/43, 12 May 1989 http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/94D9C3C3DC87698D85257919005223A3

        The Geneva Conventions are open for signature by all states and recognition by 92-104 state parties simply means that existing states recognized Palestine as state that had the same rights and duties as any other. The bottom line is that the General Assembly didn’t suddenly transform Palestine into a State, it already was one for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions.

        I’ve also noted elsewhere that Jordan’s disengagement from the West Bank was qualified, among other things, by the non-renunciation clauses of GC IV. The text of the recent Palestine-Jordan treaty on the Holy Sites makes Jordan’s continuing jurisdiction clear. http://en.lpj.org/2013/04/04/full-text-of-the-jordanian-palestinian-agreement-on-holy-places-in-jerusalem/

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 18, 2013, 7:03 pm

        Why would you expect to find the word “disputed” in a UNSC resolution?

        Because if there was a dispute, the resolution would surely refer to resolving the “dispute” as opposed to the resolution of the conflict.

        In fact, it wasn’t for another decade that even Israel started referring to a dispute or disputed territories.

        Clearly Israel did not consider the territories disputed so much as it’s birthright.

        hey do of course say occupied, because the disputed territory is indeed occupied.

        No, because if the dispute had any basis, there would be no occupation.

        More importantly, there is no UNSC resolution that defines the borders of Palestine or that declares the entirety of the occupied territories as the territory of the State of Palestine.

        Doesn’t matter because there IS a resolution that defines the borders of Israel, therefore designating territory outside of Israel as not belonging to Israel.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 18, 2013, 7:32 pm

        More importantly, there is no UNSC resolution that defines the borders of Palestine or that declares the entirety of the occupied territories as the territory of the State of Palestine.

        Wow are you misinformed. The Emergency Sessions of the General Assembly convened under the Uniting for Peace resolution demanded that Israel immediately and unconditionally withdraw from the occupied Arab territories and subsequently declared Israel’s continued occupation in violation of UN resolutions an illegal act of aggression in line with its Definition of Aggression (14 December 1974) A/RES/3314 (XXIX). See:
        *General Assembly Resolution ES-9/1 link to un.org
        *General Assembly resolution 39/146 link to un.org

        That definition of aggression was adopted and incorporated into the Rome Statute by the review conference of the ICC Assembly of State Parties in 2010.

        Pending Palestine’s full membership, the General Assembly Credentials Committee allows representatives of the permanent observer mission of “Palestine” to participate in the business of the UN without presenting credentials from either the “PLO” or “PNA”. The UN reports and resolutions about that also mention “their State, Palestine”. They describe the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 as “their territory” and say that “the credentials of the delegation of Israel do not cover that territory”, which has recently been formally admitted to UNESCO as a full member state. The General assembly also reaffirmed “the pre-1967 borders” of the State of Palestine on the basis of “international law” in the recent resolution on its observer status. See A/58/L.48, 15 December 2003; General Assembly resolution, A/RES/58/292, 17 May 2004 and the discussion of those resolutions on page 192 of John Quigley, “The Statehood of Palestine”. The verbatim record of the General Assembly discussion of the resolution indictes the words “pre-1967 borders” had replaced the words “Armistice Line of 1949”. link to un.org and A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012.

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 18, 2013, 9:12 pm

        mondonut Why would you expect to find the word “disputed” in a UNSC resolution? “

        Oh, I just thought that maybe there was an official LEGAL document describing them thus. Appears it’s only a mantra spouted by driveling apologists

        “They do of course say occupied, because the disputed territory is indeed occupied”

        No Tarzan, they say occupied because they are under the military control of a party to which they do not belong.

        “More importantly, there is no UNSC resolution that defines the borders of Palestine or that declares the entirety of the occupied territories as the territory of the State of Palestine”

        Irrelevant to the Internationally recognized sovereign extent of the State of Israel and Israel’s illegal activities as the Occupying Power over non-Israeli territories.

        If you eat 56% of an orange, the remaining 44% of the orange is still orange. The states surrounding Palestine, including Israel, all had defined boundaries by May 15th 1948. What remained of Palestine was and still is, by default, Palestine. Whether it is a state or not is irrelevant. Until there is some agreement changing its status, it simply is not nor has it or any part of it ever been Israeli territory.

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 18, 2013, 10:42 pm

        Shingo “Seeing as Palestine is now a recognized state, but not a “High Contracting Party” do the settlements in the WB and EJ still violate the GCs?

        The GC’s elaborate on, refine, are an addition to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 in force prior to Israel becoming a state and prior to Israel becoming a UN Member. In both instances Israel obliged itself to adhere to International Law. All law is binding.

        Do the people effected by war need to be High Contracting Parties? Seems not

        Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.

        They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

        They continue …

        Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden –
        To destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp#art23 (the settlement of civilians is not a necessity of war)

        Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp#art42

        Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp#art55

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        July 19, 2013, 5:39 am

        They aren’t disputed. No one outside of your pariah apartheid State ‘disputes’ them.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        July 20, 2013, 6:11 am

        @irishmoses

        Yep. It’s also why the US is getting out of Iraq, and has already significantly done so. The Zionists like to argue that all states were originally erected on land won by war, so why pick on Israel? Geneva 4 itself, and its progeny were all preceded by the principles laid down at Nuremberg in 1945. Israel is in violation of those principles as developed, as you suggest. Goering’s conviction that might makes right was rejected legally.

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 20, 2013, 10:04 pm

        mondonut “the US considers it occupied. And that the final borders have to be negotiated, in order to end the dispute”

        That’s only an option put forward by one state to save Israel’s from the possible consequences of its illegal activities. The US could simply withdraw the UNSC veto vote.

        Negotiations only mean one thing, the Palestinians forgoing their full legal rights to Israel’s gain. However, even in negotiations the Palestinians are under no legal obligation to forgo any of their legal rights.

    • ritzl
      ritzl
      July 16, 2013, 3:28 pm

      Great point, Amar. Even little shifts in perceptions generate “cover” if you want to call it that, for more little shifts. Biz begets biz. Snowballing, it is.

  7. JohnAdamTurnbull
    JohnAdamTurnbull
    July 16, 2013, 2:36 pm

    One of Israel’s “Get out of Jail Free” cards just went missing.

    • Justpassingby
      Justpassingby
      July 16, 2013, 4:45 pm

      they still got the almighty “holocaust card”.

      • lysias
        lysias
        July 16, 2013, 6:56 pm

        That Holocaust card is an ever-diminishing asset as time goes by.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 17, 2013, 10:49 am

        Exactly. Witness the fool who referenced the “selections” and how that attempt to play the Holocaust card was met with laughs and derision. The boy called wolf way too many times.

  8. Balfour
    Balfour
    July 16, 2013, 2:49 pm

    I guess the IDF will need to go into full survival mode, now, and “secure the borders” by arresting scores of 5 year old rock-throwing terrorists- note to self: ask Daddy America to increase my $3.6 billion dollar yearly allowance.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      July 16, 2013, 5:52 pm

      Obama has already signed onto the Congressional promise to raise that annual dole to Israel another billion dollars for the next decade package of aid to Israel.

  9. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    July 16, 2013, 3:05 pm

    Way to go, EU. I think that we need to see it applied to everything, including private trade. Good first step. Next, I would like to see these countries down grade their embassies to missions and withdraw recognition of israel unless it agrees in writing to the 1967 borders.

  10. Dutch
    Dutch
    July 16, 2013, 3:27 pm

    Haaretz: “We will not except any external edicts on our borders,” Netanyahu said in a scathing response.

    Shouldn’t that be ‘accept’?

    @ Netanyahu: thanks for being so clear. I take that as a ‘goodbye Europe’.

    • annie
      annie
      July 16, 2013, 4:23 pm

      good catch dutch. i will go check and see if haaretz editted/updated. they did not, it still says

      “”We will not except any external edicts on our borders,” Netanyahu said in a scathing response. ” at haaretz. hmm..one of our MW editors must have chosen to improved upon haaretz quote. because it certainly wasn’t me!

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      July 16, 2013, 6:06 pm

      Netanyahu is working away daily to replace EU trade with China trade.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 16, 2013, 7:13 pm

        Netanyahu is working away daily to replace EU trade with China trade.

        So is everyone else in the region. It’s remarkable that the Egyptian generals haven’t yet offered Putin facilities on the Mediterranean to augment his naval facility in Tartus, Syria. Every time I went to Egypt, I ended up on one or another Russian-constructed air base. So there are plenty of facilities they could put at Putin’s disposal.

      • American
        American
        July 16, 2013, 8:50 pm

        Lest I be accused of crystal balling let me say ‘IMO” Israel will never get what it wants from China…..there will be no ‘favortism’ in dealings with Israel based on the holocaust debt card .
        Netanyahu has pitched China on two things ….Isr high tech and alluded to the international Jewish wealth /network as a benefit to
        China in their global expansion. The tech they can get anywhere, the Jewish network they probably dont need, they’re doing fine in global business partnerships because they are doing it right….they are putting the ‘long term’ retruns of their business relationships ahead of short term greed.
        China would be a big market for Isr but Isr’s market is nothing to China.

      • CloakAndDagger
        CloakAndDagger
        July 16, 2013, 10:48 pm

        @ American

        I agree with you. I am in China again this week. The general populace doesn’t even know where Israel is or what their significance is. The Holocaust is not even common knowledge. On the other hand, most people are very aware of where their oil comes from. The recent visit from the Pakistani president got a lot of press here, and terms like “friend”, “partner”, and even “brother” were bandied about.

        Despite the unrest with the Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang province, and historical friction with the Mongols, there seems to not be the same fear and trepidation about the muslim world as in the west. Around Beijing, you see lots of old mosques and there is a thriving muslim section downtown. “Aventi” is a very famous restaurant here steeped in Arab culture, including music and dances from that region. “Halal” food is easily obtainable from shops and restaurants with Arabic inscriptions on them.

        The government is very keen to continue to build its relationship with the muslim world, including Iran. If we don’t wake up soon, the entire middle east and west asia will soon be in China’s sphere of influence, and perhaps Russia’s as well.

        Israel is fooling itself if it thinks that China can replace America as its parasitic host. Ain’t gonna happen.

      • piotr
        piotr
        July 17, 2013, 3:14 am

        I would add few details. Mongols are Buddhist, like Tibetans. I think most of Muslim in China are Chinese, and one of Chinese national heroes, Zheng He (or Cheng Ho) was a Muslim. Pakistan is not an important trade partner, but is for decades a strategic partner because both Pakistan and China have territorial disputes with India. China has a very dim view on interference in Syria and Sudan and important investments in Iran and Sudan. Chinese have also a very dim view on trade prohibitions.

      • CloakAndDagger
        CloakAndDagger
        July 17, 2013, 3:49 am

        I would add few details. Mongols are Buddhist, like Tibetans.

        Yes they are, however, the Mongols had great influence over what today comprises much of the Muslim world. The fact is that the prevalence of the surname “Khan” in south Asia has its ancestry in the Mongol conquests of yesteryear by the great Mongol Genghis Khan which led to the “Mughal” empire in India from a nephew of Genghis Khan.

        I think most Muslim in China are Chinese

        :-) Every national of China is Chinese! However, if you mean they are of the “Han” ancestry, that would not be true. Most in the Xinjiang province, which is predominantly Muslim, are of turkish/mongolian descent with facial features that are easily discernible from those of Han descent, including other physical characteristics.

        Interestingly, “mandarin” is not of Han origin!

      • jonah
        jonah
        July 17, 2013, 5:03 pm

        “Israel is fooling itself if it thinks that China can replace America as its parasitic host. Ain’t gonna happen.”

        Here we go with the anti-Semitic topoi. They couldn’t miss, since anti-Israel discourse mostly hints at them.

      • annie
        annie
        July 17, 2013, 7:25 pm

        China can replace America as its parasitic host.

        how is that racist? it’s mean..but racist? i don’t get it. once you take 100 billion then ‘parasite’ lingo is par for the course. i could be wrong, but it’s looking very one directional to a lot of people who are footing the bill.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 17, 2013, 7:37 pm

        Golden Horde became Muslims. Ilkhans in Persia did too.
        Tamerlane was a more distant relation of G Khan.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 17, 2013, 9:18 pm

        Here we go with the anti-Semitic topoi.

        It’s not anti-Semitic if it’s true.

      • American
        American
        July 18, 2013, 1:28 am

        ‘China can replace America as its parasitic host. Ain’t gonna happen.”

        I dont think it’s either anti semitic or mean…parasite is a accurate description of the Israeli relationship to the US…and to any other country, not to mention Palestine , that they can get something out of without offering anything in return.

      • CloakAndDagger
        CloakAndDagger
        July 18, 2013, 1:59 am

        @ jonah

        Here we go with the anti-Semitic topoi.

        You lost me on the anti-semitic part.

        Do you actually have a point (or counter point) to my assertion that Israel has no hope of leeching off of China the way it has leeched off of the US, or are you just using anti-semitic as your standard rejoinder in the absence of an argument? If it is the latter, you must know by now that this hornet no longer has a sting, or have you been living under a bridge? I guess you have been used to this line of defense for so long that you haven’t learnt how to engage in real debate.

      • CloakAndDagger
        CloakAndDagger
        July 18, 2013, 2:01 am

        @ annie

        it’s mean..

        Oh annie! That hurt so much more than being called “anti-semitic”! LOL!

      • annie
        annie
        July 18, 2013, 4:08 am

        well, it’s mean phraseology… but i wouldn’t go so far as saying i didn’t agree with it. it’s not nice but i have looked up the definition and it’s accurate. precise actually, it’s a parasitic relationship.

        it’s mean so it sounds mean when you say it. there’s just nothing pleasant about that aspect of our relationship with israel.

      • jonah
        jonah
        July 18, 2013, 4:48 pm

        Thank you all for confirming evidence of your anti-Semitic prejudice. Let me remind you that the term “parasites” is a stereotype of the classical anti-Semitism. Jews were considered “parasites” for their “host peoples”, a concept that became central in the Nazi ideology. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/weltparasit.htm

        Using this very stereotype to characterize Israel in relation to the US turns out to be the modern rendition of the old anti-Semitic prejudice, the same way as anti-Israel criticism related to BDS appears to be infected by this kind of ugly prejudices.

        Yet, it’s not only ugly and anti-Semitic, it’s in fact also wrong and calumnious as it can be only a bias driven by hatred. To speak of Israel as a “parasite” of America is completely misguided and malicious, and the reasons are obvious:
        US Foreign Assistance is roughly 1% of the total federal budget, for example, in the fiscal year 2011 the United States spent $31,7 billions in foreign economic aid to a total of approximately $3,600 billions of federal spending. To these $31,7 billions, $17,8 billions more are added in foreign military assistance, for a total of $49.5 billion.
        The top recipients in 2011 were Afghanistan with over 12 billions (in 2012 $2,3 billions), the Arab countries (Iraq, Paqistan, Egypt, Jordan) with a total of $7 billions and finally Israel with $3 billions, the only democratic country in the Middle East and reliable ally and partner of the United States in all domains, in a region shaken by war, extremism and terror. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid#Amounts

        Some other hard facts about the benefits of US-Israel relations worthy of note for people sadly in denial like you: […….]

      • annie
        annie
        July 19, 2013, 12:24 am

        Using this very stereotype to characterize Israel in relation to the US turns out to be the modern rendition of the old anti-Semitic prejudice,

        your perceptions are not synonymous with what ‘turns out to be’. it’s hurtful and grotesque what nazis said about jews however that’s not applicable (nor is the description at the link) with what has been said about the state of israel.

        also, the US spends a lot more money and energy on israel than the mere 3 billion a year obviously. evidence of that is everywhere including the statements of samantha powers this week. the attention and focus of congress, as evidenced by the work of aipac, zoa, standw/us and all the other lobby groups impacts much more than merely our3 billion in aid. it impacts our (huge) defense budget.

        and example of that is the recent article in haaretz about rand paul http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.536283

        see, paul being an isolationist … that impacts more than just funding israel.

        When speaking to small government conservatives, Paul makes the case that Presidential overreach is responsible for the land wars in which we Americans have been engaged; if the power to declare war and fund the troops were returned to Congress, things would be different. When speaking to mainstream Republicans, he identifies himself with Ronald Reagan; Reagan, he insists, talked tough, but focused on diplomacy rather than interventionism. The Senator has endless arguments for an American retreat, each one plausible-sounding and artfully put.

        Paul will probably not be President, but he should not be underestimated. He has a touch of political genius, and he can change the nature of the national conversation about America’s role in the world; indeed, he is already doing so.

        And American Jews are taking note. Why? Because, by temperament and experience, they are internationalist and interventionist in their political inclinations; because the assertion that “America can’t make a difference in the world” strikes Jews as objectively wrong and morally problematic; because Senator Paul shows no understanding of the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Syria, and has no answers for the dangers that Israel faces from Iran; and because American champions of Israel know, despite the real differences between those on the right and those on the left, that without American activism, leadership, and military and foreign aid in the Middle East, no peace between Israel and her neighbors will ever be possible.

        get it? “without American …military and foreign aid in the Middle East, no peace between Israel and her neighbors will ever be possible”

        israel depends on american aid and american military might to make the entire region safe for israel. and that costs lots in blood and treasure. way more than 3 billion.

        ask yourself how much it costs for the american military to be in the middle east? and if that has nothing to do w/israel then israel’s lobbiests should stay the hell away from it. and they don’t.

        israel needs to make peace w/its neighbors and not rely on the US congress and the US military and the US tax payers to make nice for israel. who did not notice when the arab spring broke out the first thing on every pundit/media/politicians lips was..but what about the treaty w/israel? how is that our first concern and how is that reflected in the 3 billion? it isn’t. what it costs us to focus on israel is a lot more than that, which is why the israel lobby exists. they already have their commitment for the 3 billion a year, they could pack their suitcases and all go on holiday for the next 10 years, but they don’t. why is that? how much has the US spent focusing on iran? and the president, didn’t he say he had to deal with netanyahu every day? , that’s not free. and do you think the sec of states trips to the i/p region (6 so far) come out of that 3 billion? no, they do not.

        btw, flame is a propaganda/hasbara site full of lies and distortions. you can’t link to it as a source here, memri, the israel project or stand w/us either.

      • American
        American
        July 19, 2013, 1:06 am

        jonah says:
        July 18, 2013 at 4:48 pm

        Thank you all for confirming evidence of your anti-Semitic prejudice. Let me remind you that the term “parasites” is a stereotype of the classical anti-Semitism. Jews were considered “parasites” for their “host peoples”, a concept that became central in the Nazi ideology…>>>>

        Let us remind you please that you do not ‘own’ words or the use of any words.
        99.99% of the world does not go around with what the nazis said about Jews in the forefront of their minds even when discussing Israel.
        This hasbara trick you are using of equating anything said about Israel to saying it about The Jews is very, very old.
        Maybe you need a hasbara refresher course.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 19, 2013, 1:11 am

        Thank you all for confirming evidence of your blatant self centered world view.

        Let me remind you that the term “parasites” is a stereotype of the classical anti-Semitism.

        So what if it is? Israel’s relationship with the US is entirely parasitical. Israeli leaders, as with the leaders of apartheid South Africa, have said openly that it matters not what the world thinks about Israel so long as they have the US on their side. Thus, they have focused all their resources and efforts into corrupting and infiltrating the US political elite.

        And seriously Jonah, do you not find it disturbing and macabre that 2 successive US ambassadors to the UN have boasted about the exorbitant time they have spent “defending” a tiny little country that is a strategic liability at the UN?

        So if ti bothers you to hear Israel described as a parasite, perhaps you should turn your attention to putting an end to this arrangement rather than complain that anyone happened to notice it.

        US Foreign Assistance is roughly 1% of the total federal budget

        Wrong!! The 3 billion (and rising) is only the tip of the iceberg. On top of that there is supplemental funding, loan guarantees and loans that are entirely forgiven. The total has been estimated to be about $15 billion a year, and that’s before you include the insanely one sided trade agreement that the GAO has described as effectively a $10 billion annual grant.

        Afghanistan is not receiving 12 billion in military and economic aid – the US is militarily involved and rebuilding buildings they are destroying.

        The aid to Egypt and Jordan is in fact part of the total expense to the US of supporting Israel, so you can add an extra 3-4 billion to the liability that Israel represents.

        Iraq is still a war zone and Pakistan has been laid to waste.

        Israel is not the only democratic country in the Middle East – seeing as it’s an apartheid state.

        So your facts turn out to be little more than lame and recycled hasbara.

        You need new materail

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 19, 2013, 1:36 am

        Jonah,

        What would you call a state who’s leaders boast openly about how they have the US president under their thumb, or who’s leaders have the gall to:

        1. Tell the US that they have no right to dictate Israel’s policies while a US presidential nominee runs on a platform of suggesting US Middle East policy be outsources to Israel?

        2. Have the chutzpah to suggest punishing the US president for his Cairo speech by spending the 3 billion in military aid from the US, by buying their weapons from other countries instead?

        3. Who’s prime minster received more standing ovations from Congress than would Ronald Reagan if he had risen from the grave. As MJ Rosenberg has revealed, not only were those standing ovations entirely orchestrated by key Senators and Congressmen in the audience, but that wealthy Jewish donors were sitting up on high, and watching to see if anyone failed to see not only if anyone failed to stand, but did so with insufficient enthusiasm.

        The spectacle was so gratuitous that even Thomas Friedman couldn’t stomach it.

        People think about parasites as taking the host’s energy and lifeblood. But, in biology, the smart parasites do something else: They take over the brain of the host. They make the brain think that the parasite is part of the body, to be protected.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 19, 2013, 2:07 am

        Thank you all for confirming evidence of your anti-Semitic prejudice. Let me remind you that the term “parasites” is a stereotype of the classical anti-Semitism. Jews were considered “parasites” for their “host peoples”, a concept that became central in the Nazi ideology. link to calvin.edu

        Except that we’re Jews too and happen to be talking about Israelis, not Jews.

        FYI, Israel is a parasite sucking money out of our payroll taxes that would be much better spent on things we desperately need right here at home in the USA.

      • yrn
        yrn
        July 19, 2013, 4:20 am

        Annie
        “your perceptions are not synonymous with what ‘turns out to be’.”
        What other prejudice synonymous do you have aside “parasites” and the Issue that Zionist Jews plans are to take over Syria Lebanon and Jordan…….
        Or is it not prejudice synonymous to the Zionist plan to take over the area and who know what more.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        July 19, 2013, 4:52 am

        jonah says:

        Using this very stereotype to characterize Israel in relation to the US turns out to be the modern rendition of the old anti-Semitic prejudice, the same way as anti-Israel criticism related to BDS appears to be infected by this kind of ugly prejudices.

        Talking about a country is not antisemitic. Israel is not a Jewish person. It is a country. A racist, apartheid settler colonial State.

        And the word ‘parasite’ is not trademarked by the Holocaust Industry or the Israel Lobby.

        It’s only racist/bigoted if you imply that there is something intrinsic to someone’s ‘DNA’ (sweeping generalization) that makes them a parasite.

        In this case, calling a country a leech is totally legitimate.

        The Israel Lobby and Israel are parasites. Thats the only way Israel can survive. With some stronger power supporting it.

      • mijj
        mijj
        July 19, 2013, 5:40 am

        hang on .. are you saying Israel can never be accused of being parasitic (like any other nation could) because that would be anti-semitic?

        So, identifying Israel’s relationship to the west will never be about evidence of nefarious activity or parasitic economic behavior, it will always be about Israel’s holy position in the Western mind thanks to the Holocaust Religion.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 19, 2013, 9:35 am

        Except that we’re Jews too and happen to be talking about Israelis, not Jews.

        Thank you Hostage.

        Amy claim that there was any suggestion that Jews were parasites is repugnant and incredibly dishonest. Anyone with a brain would recognize that Jewish people have been among the greatest contributors to all the societies to which they belong.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        July 19, 2013, 9:48 am

        For that matter, we non-Jews, are also talking about Israel, Israelis, Israeli conduct, and not Jews.

        The fact that some or many anti-Semites in the past used a particular term in reference to Jews does not mean that use of that particular term is always evidence of antisemitism.

        I find it remarkable that whenever these discussions go south for the hasbarites, their final refuge is always the antisemitism card. If you are losing on logic, facts, and law, why not try ad hominem? On my own blog, their final comment always seems to be some version of “Oh, and you are a Jew hater as well.”

      • jonah
        jonah
        July 19, 2013, 2:51 pm

        Annie –
        If you don’t like flame, maybe you will accept the U.S. Department of State which expresses the same arguments. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3581.htm

        So you believe that Israel is behind the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also behind all the deployments But are you aware of how many U.S. troops are deployed around the world and how much does all this cost? More than 300’000 personnel worldwide for a total cost of $96 billions in 2012. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/overseas.pdf None of them are stationed in Israel. Nevertheless, in your opinion Israel (and its ‘lobby’) is responsible for all US spending in the ME, isn’t it? I ask you: How can you be so blind to the evidence?

        In fact, this accusation are unfounded and stems from a hidden bias: not only the critics of Israel say that Israel is a parasite of America, they even claim that Israel (thanks her ‘Jewish lobby’) dominates US politics from within and is the driving force behind the interventionist American foreign policy in ME. Besides, Israel appears in their words as the main and only cause of war there, also this a clear misconception of history.
        All these anti-Israel preconceptions demonstrate undeniable parallels to classical anti-Semitic stereotypes, as you just need to replace “Israel” with “Jews” and America with “Germany” or “Europe” to get the old result. This doesn’t necessarily mean you are anti-Semites, but it indicates that you do use masked anti-Semitic concepts on Israel as the the only Jewish state in ME and worldwide.

      • annie
        annie
        July 20, 2013, 2:51 am

        in your opinion Israel (and its ‘lobby’) is responsible for all US spending in the ME, isn’t it? I ask you: How can you be so blind to the evidence?

        is this some kind of rhetorical tool? where you ask a question, answer it in your mind and then proceed w/the next question based on your fantasy response.? #fail.

        btw, i notice you didn’t address this:

        ask yourself how much it costs for the american military to be in the middle east? and if that has nothing to do w/israel then israel’s lobbiests should stay the hell away from it. and they don’t.

        face it yonah, it costs the US a lot more than 3 billion a year to satisfied israel’s thirst for ‘security’. and it costs many americans (including jewish americans) their morality.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 20, 2013, 4:33 am

        US Foreign Assistance is roughly 1% of the total federal budget

        When our Congress is sequestering funds for everything else and can’t even agree on food stamps, every 1% spent elsewhere is charity we need to spend at home.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 20, 2013, 6:11 am

        If you don’t like flame, maybe you will accept the U.S. Department of State which expresses the same arguments

        That would be the same U.S. Department of State which gave us John Bolton, Susan Rice and now Samantha Power right?

        Thanks for the comic relief.

        None of them are stationed in Israel.

        No, they are stationed all around Israel. Mind you, the US has bases in Israel.

        not only the critics of Israel say that Israel is a parasite of America, they even claim that Israel (thanks her ‘Jewish lobby’) dominates US politics from within

        So do Israeli lobbyists – they even boast about it.

        All these anti-Israel preconceptions demonstrate undeniable parallels to classical anti-Semitic stereotypes

        It just happens to be a case of life imitating art.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        July 20, 2013, 6:24 am

        I’d say it’s more than mean when the USA has an arm’s length relationship with all foreign states except one because that one state “shares our values and there’s no sky between America and Israel.” It’s crippling.

      • mijj
        mijj
        July 20, 2013, 9:08 am

        > I find it remarkable that whenever these discussions go south for the hasbarites, their final refuge is always the antisemitism card.

        That “antisemitism card”, is a “white flag of surrender on rational argument”.

        So, the “antisemitism card” a useful weakness. They are clearly signaling their failure in the rational argument. Now all that’s left is their hope to scramble and confuse the issues in terms of the Holocaust Religion whereupon everyone will become defensive (they hope).

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 21, 2013, 11:51 am

        @ Shingo It’s not antisemitic at all . Conflating Israel/a state, with Jews/a people is common practice. However, what was actually written is still there, showing how deceitful Israel’s apologists are.

      • piotr
        piotr
        July 16, 2013, 10:26 pm

        Netanyahu has a lot on his plate, like fighting BDS, selecting ice cream, resolving disputes between Mrs. Netanyahu and her maid and so on. I am not sure how many minutes can be spared for China.

  11. ritzl
    ritzl
    July 16, 2013, 3:33 pm

    I wonder what this means, actually what the GoI’s refusal to “sign on to this clause” means for Israel’s inclusion and participation in the OECD. Will their seeming refusal to be willing to come to address this development constructively put them outside that box?

    As others have said upthread, “We’ll see…”

    Thanks, Annie and Freddy V.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      July 17, 2013, 1:00 am

      I wonder what this means, actually what the GoI’s refusal to “sign on to this clause” means for Israel’s inclusion and participation in the OECD.

      Decisions of the OECD are binding on all the Members, but they can only be adopted on the basis of the mutual agreement of all the Members, including Israel. See Article 5 and 6 of the OECD Convention. http://www.oecd.org/general/conventionontheorganisationforeconomicco-operationanddevelopment.htm

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        July 17, 2013, 1:38 pm

        So now that Israel is in, it essentially has veto power over OECD decisions. Amazing. But I guess that’s the Cooperation part of the name.

        Thanks again for the info pointer, Hostage. Will read.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        July 20, 2013, 6:31 am

        There was significant objection to Israel joining the OECD because it did not fulfill the organization’s criteria for membership, and, as well, when it submitted a tailored model of itself to fit in, there were objections to that tailoring because, if memory serves, realistic details about the economic state of all the people were left out to reach the minimum floor of economic standard of living. Then this issue seemed to vanish in the media, and next thing I know Israel is an OECD member with, basically a veto power. Anyone know how this went down at the OECD?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        July 20, 2013, 6:55 am

        Here’s the dirty details on how Israel hoodwinked the US/EU OECD and attained conditional membership, with that condition subsequent having no teeth since Israel as an accepted conditional member was foolishly given that all important veto: http://original.antiwar.com/cook/2010/03/08/israels-oecd-bid-poses-problems-for-members/
        Basically, Israel’s application details included settlers data, but not Palestinian data from the OT. If that were included, the 20:1 ratio difference in standard of living would fail a component of OECD criteria for membership. The condition subsequent was Israel was given a year to remove the settlers from the data and resubmit. But, apparently, even if it did so and failed, the OECD could not kick Israel out because Israel could veto such action. Other major criteria failures were (1) the 3:1 difference in income/wealth gap between Jews and Palestinian citizens in Israel proper (biggest gap of any OECD member), (2) gross patent violations, and (3) gross corruption, mostly in Israel’s arms industry.

        Reminds me of how Israel evaded the condition subsequent to its UN membership, which was ASAP return of the natives scared off the land.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        July 20, 2013, 8:00 am

        More, the OECD members who objected to Israel joining the OECD were Norway, Ireland, and Switzerland. Before acceptance, Israel had been trying for 20 years to join the OECD, the main motive being it added legitimacy to Israel’s occupation, and less primary, there’s obvious benefits in terms of greater networking with the wealthiest states, which is why the Bank of Israel was always been a major supporter. You get in the international financial network more solidly and get more credit more easily, etc.

        I can’t find anything on what conditions subsequent were imposed on Israel once it was accepted into the OECD in 2010, except it had to file a progress report within two years on some internal problems related to inadequate education discrepancies, and providing more economic opportunities for its citizens. It seems Israel is the poorest state in the OECD, with the widest income gap, but it’s the #2 member in terms of % of citizens with higher education, Canada being #1.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 20, 2013, 2:29 pm

        And Israel continues is very dangerous (to the US) campaign to gain admission to Nato.

  12. Shmuel
    Shmuel
    July 16, 2013, 3:52 pm

    Dani Dayan compares EU move to death camp selection !

    You mean the “worldly and pragmatic leader of the settlement movement”?

    Must be a different Dani Dayan. That Dani Dayan would be too busy collecting art and wine to notice that Europe is one giant death camp.

    This Dani Dayan stands by his obscenely ridiculous tweet, accusing his critics of hypocrisy. That Dani Dayan is way too classy. Couldn’t possibly be him.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      July 16, 2013, 4:04 pm

      “This Dani Dayan stands by his obscenely ridiculous tweet”

      I think that the appropriate response would be if one of the EU leaders would make a big, fantastic stink about this accusation, calling both Netanyahu and the israeli embassador to task and demanding that the highest levels of the israeli government (1) denounce Dayan’s comments as being a gross insult to those who died in the Holocaust and (2) call for such statements never be made again.

      It’ll never happen, but it should.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 16, 2013, 6:35 pm

        Amen Woody.

        These pathetic blowhards are like school kids who think they are tough because they are allowed to acts like brats without being reprimanded. It’s time they were humiliated in public for their infantile behavior.

  13. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    July 16, 2013, 4:03 pm

    All states are under an obligation of non recognition of illegal situations and must not aid or assist Israel in its settlement enterprise, Professor James Crawford in his opinion here, http://www.tuc.org.uk/tucfiles/342/LegalOpinionIsraeliSettlements.pdf thought it doubtful that the obligation to ensure compliance with the Geneva Conventions extends to require any positive action on the part of individual states, so that in the Namibia case he references on the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia [South West Africa] notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276, he argues that states could recognize the existence of an unlawful situation only in a very narrow sense, for instance the compiling of statistics for the purposes of births, deaths and marriages, the effect of which can be ignored only to the detriment of the inhabitants of the territory, but states could not facilitate or give money to acquiesce in that unlawful situation. So the EU are simply applying International Law which they are required to do , and not before time.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      July 16, 2013, 10:47 pm

      Professor James Crawford in his opinion here, link to tuc.org.uk thought it doubtful that the obligation to ensure compliance with the Geneva Conventions extends to require any positive action on the part of individual states

      It’s not without irony that 14 Judges of the International Court of Justice adopted the view that an erga omnes obligation exists for all States, while respecting the Charter and international law, “to see to it” that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self- determination is brought to an end. They obviously came to that conclusion without much help from Professor Crawford, who oddly enough was one of the lawyers for team Palestine during the oral arguments phase of the case.

  14. seafoid
    seafoid
    July 16, 2013, 4:08 pm

    The US and the EU may be on divergent paths. The levant is in the eu’s backyard and the region is a mess, due in no small part to the Israel project and its aftershocks. Israel has had 20 years to do something with the palestinians but the right wingers won and they did nothing other than build homes for irredentist jews in the west bank. If israelis start to pay for all of this it will be richly deserved.

    They can have greater israel or a first world economy but not both. Starting with cultural and sporting links is good, Israel is vulnerable to a proper economic bitchslap, but should be given a chance. Not that it is capable of a coherent response. Finklestein is right. Israel is a joke now.

    Any sort of serious economic action eould hit the bond market, raise mortgage rates and trigger a house price crash.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      July 16, 2013, 10:02 pm

      “Any sort of serious economic action could hit the bond market, raise mortgage rates and trigger a house price crash.”

      A house price crash in Australia would be great. Then I, and a lot of others, might be able buy one.

  15. gingershot
    gingershot
    July 16, 2013, 4:11 pm

    How far behind the EU will South Africa be until it follows suit – till the end of this week? How about the rest of the BRICS, Latin America, and Africa?

    What kind of enormous momentum will this impart to the BDS campaign, and to the movement to drag Israel to the ICC in Sept?

    What potential is there for starting to penetrate the AIPAC-controlled US mainstream media, with the shocking news that Israel has been found to be an Apartheid state?

    There are FINALLY points on the board

  16. Erasmus
    Erasmus
    July 16, 2013, 4:27 pm

    Cannot be so thrilled about this EU step

    Although it might be a little step in the “right direction”, i think there is no reason to be utterly thrilled about the latest EU directive even though the outrageous reactions from Israel may let it appear to be an “earthquake”.
    To me it rather appears to be a mini-minute face saving exercise by the EU. What it really amounts to remains to be seen, and in all probability the direct effect will be likeweise minimal only.
    Considering the decades of eternal “concerns” and “serious concerns” uttered by the Quartet and the EU wrt to the ongoing colonisation of occupied Palestine, much more ROBUST ACTION is long overdue.
    A more consequent step and commensurate to GoI continued violations of International Law and Human Rights would be SUSPENDING the entire EU-Israel Association Agreement until a final agreement with the Palestinians will have been reached.
    Such a policy would indeed be called for and induce the necessary re-orientation process of the israeli electorate.

    BTW, has anybody seen the exact wording of the directive/ guideline??

  17. Justpassingby
    Justpassingby
    July 16, 2013, 4:31 pm

    Guys relax, its just semantics, settlements wont end and EU wont take any other measures, like actual sanctions etc.

  18. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    July 16, 2013, 4:31 pm

    ritzl “I wonder what this means, actually what the GoI’s refusal to “sign on to this clause” means for Israel’s inclusion and participation in the OECD. Will their seeming refusal to be willing to come to address this development constructively put them outside that box?” The OECD have controversially already included all occupied territory including the Golan Heights in Israels National statistics see David Morrison, Sadaka here. http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/sadaka/briefings/BRIEFING-OECD_approving_Israeli_illegality.pdf it is to be hoped my comment above applies to these statistics.

    • ritzl
      ritzl
      July 16, 2013, 7:07 pm

      @HarryLaw. I understand what has gone before, but these developments do, at least to me, seem to be different. At least a shift in tactics, if not patience.

      Sometimes I get the feeling that the EU, because of its horrific treatment of Jews in the last century, has bent over backwards to make that right. My view of these public and private pronouncements is that that bending over backwards is at or approaching a very real end.

      The OECD is just one question on the effect of this. Will the Germans continue to supply submarines to Israel, given that the are, largely, the EU? I don’t know. You’re there. Is the proverbial tide shifting? I guess that is the fundamental question.

      • mijj
        mijj
        July 16, 2013, 10:08 pm

        > … the EU, because of its horrific treatment of Jews in the last century, has bent over backwards to make that right.

        That doesn’t hold up to examination. If Europe was concerned about horrific treatment of peoples, then it wouldn’t have enthusiastically indulged in the numerous examples of mass murder, national devastation and economic looting perpetrated since WWII – including the recent mid-east and north africa examples. Which means Europe’s behavior is not founded on atoning for the past horrific treatment of Jews. (Assuming each human being is essentially no more significant than any other.)

        Therefore .. there is no morality in the EU is bending over backwards – it’s all due to political control.

  19. Patrick
    Patrick
    July 16, 2013, 4:33 pm

    With a doubt, an encouraging development. As noted by Paul Woodward at warincontext.org notes, there are some caveats:

    “It turns out that these guidelines are not binding on EU member states, they will not be applied to all entities in the occupied territories and they do not go into effect until 2014. More details when I have them. – See more at: http://warincontext.org/#sthash.FOXuvYpJ.dpuf

    • Justpassingby
      Justpassingby
      July 16, 2013, 5:08 pm

      Great Points, people here actually belive EU would ever sanction Israel. Thats naive.

      “Non binding” just shows how toothless this is.

      • Dutch
        Dutch
        July 16, 2013, 10:50 pm

        @ Justpassingby

        As far as I understood the EU-measures will be binding for all member states. Surely there is reaon for scepticism, but one thing is true: at some point too many people within the EU are or will soon be pissed off with Israël — accelerated by the inspiring reactions from the Israeli’s, who seem to have forgotten that Europe backed them up for decades, no matter what. A second important fact is that the support for Israel among the European populations is rapidly disappearing.

        I believe this baby is far from toothless.

  20. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    July 16, 2013, 5:53 pm

    RE: “We will not accept any external edicts on our borders,” Netanyahu said in a scathing response.

    MY COMMENT: Netanyahu seems to be channeling Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky (who wrote in 1923 that Jews must unilaterally decide Israel’s borders).

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Iron Wall (essay)]:

    [EXCERPT] . . . Jabotinsky argued that the Palestinians would not agree to a Jewish majority in Palestine, and that “Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.”[1] The only solution to achieve peace and a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, he [Ze’ev Jabotinsky] argued, would be for Jews to unilaterally decide its borders and defend them with the strongest security possible. . .

    SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Wall_(essay)

    ENTIRE ‘IRON WALL’ ESSAY: “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)”, By Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1923 – http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm

    • irishmoses
      irishmoses
      July 16, 2013, 10:21 pm

      Dickerson 3870 said,

      “Netanyahu seems to be channeling Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky (who wrote in 1923 that Jews must unilaterally decide Israel’s borders).”

      Dickerson, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall essays are the playbook for modern Zionism. These are brilliant essays, whether you agree or not, as they provide the strategy and moral justification for the Zionist takeover of Palestine, including all of its modern oppressive behavior. His essays are must reading for understanding what’s happening today and really from 1923 on. Here’s a clip from Avi Schlaim’s The Iron Wall book.

      http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/shlaim-wall.html

      Schlaim provides a great analysis of various pioneer Zionists’ view of “the Arab Question” and closes with a wonderful analysis of Jabotinsky and his two essays: “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)” and “The Morality of the Iron Wall” which Jabotinsky wrote in response to moderate Zionist criticism of his first essay.

      Schlaim’s analysis opened my eyes for the first time to the basis for Zionist behavior. I never really could understand their strategy and rationale until reading what he said about Jabotinsky who I now feel is the true father of Zionism. Herzl and the others were mere moderate lightweights by comparison.

      I have not been able to find Jabotinsky’s second essay, “The Morality of the Iron Wall” on line (or off). I would really be grateful if anyone would share a link to that essay.

      Incidentally, Jabotinsky’s idea of Eretz Israel was the entire, original Palestine Mandate, including then Trans Jordan. No compromises allowed. In my view, Jabotinsky is the patron saint of Likud, Netanyahu, his father, and the others.

      Liberal Zionists really avoid dealing with moral imperative of Jabotinsky’s analysis of the “the Arab Problem”, and the moral dilemma it poses. I think this also explains general Jewish silence on this issue. If you talk about it, you are forced to deal with the morality of Jabotinsky’s analysis. As he said, you have to conclude that aggressive, acquisitive Zionism is moral, or else it is immoral to even think about it. If you deny the legitimacy of Zionism you also deny the legitimacy of any Jewish claim to Palestine.

      The Schlaim chapter and Jabotinsky’s two essays should be required reading for any registered Mondoweiss participant.

      Gil Maguire

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 17, 2013, 8:22 am

        I have not been able to find Jabotinsky’s second essay, “The Morality of the Iron Wall” on line (or off). I would really be grateful if anyone would share a link to that essay.

        The essays were first published in Razsviet, a Russian language publication. I think that the title is translated “The Ethics of the Iron Wall”, 1923 on the jabotinsky.org website. http://www.jabotinsky.org/multimedia/upl_doc/doc_191207_181762.pdf

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        July 17, 2013, 11:54 am

        Hostage,

        Bingo! Thanks for the link. What a treasure you are to MW.

        p.s. I’d be interested in hearing your view on whether Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall essays provided the play book and justification for Likud Zionism.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 17, 2013, 9:12 pm

        What a treasure you are to MW.

        I would go further. What a treasure he is to the whole discussion on the internet.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 18, 2013, 4:51 am

        p.s. I’d be interested in hearing your view on whether Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall essays provided the play book and justification for Likud Zionism.

        Oh certainly, and from the very outset. I’ve commented before about the deliberate employment of his strategy and thinking among the early Zionist leaders, and the role he played in creating the founding mythology that portrayed the aggressors as victims. I’ve cited portions of the Iron Wall a number of times:
        * Here is an example that compares and lists his views with those of other leaders: http://mondoweiss.net/2011/02/welcome-to-palestine%E2%80%A6now-let%E2%80%99s-reset-the-relationship.html#comment-280480
        Here are some on the early use of force and terror by Revisionists:
        *http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/do-you-feel-more-arab-or-more-american-two-arab-american-womens-story-of-being-detained-and-interrogated-at-ben-gurion.html/comment-page-1#comment-459830
        *http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/do-you-feel-more-arab-or-more-american-two-arab-american-womens-story-of-being-detained-and-interrogated-at-ben-gurion.html/comment-page-1#comment-461241
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/do-you-feel-more-arab-or-more-american-two-arab-american-womens-story-of-being-detained-and-interrogated-at-ben-gurion.html#comment-463158

        I think he was correct when he said that there were no meaningful differences between the meat eating Revisionist “militarists” play book and the one employed by the more “vegetarian” Labor Socialists.

        Ben Gurion’s remarks to the Zionist Congress on the rights to all of Eretz Israel and his Palestine Post article “The Jews” made it clear that the only thing that was preventing him from seizing control of the whole territory was the threat of British or other rule by armed force. I commented on that here http://mondoweiss.net/2013/04/diaspora-against-return.html#comment-558711

  21. James Canning
    James Canning
    July 16, 2013, 6:09 pm

    The EU will do Israel a signal service by making clear growing illegal colonies in the West Bank will not change Israel’s borders. Bravo, EU.

  22. Hostage
    Hostage
    July 16, 2013, 6:23 pm

    The directive, part of the 2014-20 financial framework, covers all areas of co-operation between the EU and Israel, including economics, science, culture, sports and academia. It does not cover trade, such as produce and goods originating in settlements.

    The definition of “financial instruments” is limited to:
    *”TITLE VI GRANTS”,
    *”TITLE VII PRIZES”, and
    *TITLE VIII [Other] FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS.

    It does NOT include:
    *”TITLE V PROCUREMENT”.

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:298:0001:0096:EN:PDF

  23. rensanceman
    rensanceman
    July 16, 2013, 6:38 pm

    I have a recurring fantasy day-dream that a Resolution will be introduced to boot Israel out of the U.N. That action, coupled with the E.U. measure would be a real earthquake to this pariah of a state. The U.S. has for too long seen its foundational precepts compromised and distorted by our association with the Zionist entity. But, realist that I am, our indentured leadership would not allow this to happen, what with the added might of Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands joining to block such a move.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      July 16, 2013, 8:27 pm

      But, realist that I am, our indentured leadership would not allow this to happen

      Yes, I was wondering that too. How long before the EU gets a nasty phone call from John Kerry or Obama and they reverse their position?

      • annie
        annie
        July 16, 2013, 9:22 pm

        How long before the EU gets a nasty phone call from John Kerry or Obama and they reverse their position?

        i don’t think this would have happened without their approval. it’s pressure obama is likely using to his advantage, because he can’t pressure thru congress. kerry was visiting the region tonight (5 hr dinner w/abbas) and pointedly not visiting jerusalem. so my marbles are on ..they’re in on it. just a hunch. didn’t kerry just get back from doha where he met w/a bunch of european heads of state?

        there’s no way this caught him by surprise.
        http://www.voanews.com/content/john-kerry-to-doha-for-syria-talks/1686381.html

        Kerry and British Foreign Minister William Hague….
        EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton ….French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius

        that’s my hunch. and then obama in germany…they’ve hatched this plan together.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 16, 2013, 9:58 pm

        You’ve gotta love the way that the hasbara machine has kicked into gear to try and create room to reverse the decision: After reading the document, Elkin immediately sent it to Netanyahu. According to the senior Foreign Ministry official, Netanyahu was shocked.

        “Only three weeks before he had met with EU Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton, and she didn’t say a word about the move,” the official said. “In retrospect, it’s not clear to what degree Ashton herself even knew about it.”

        Maybe Netanyahu just needs to work on his listening skills? FYI, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy also wears the hat of Vice-President of the European Commission that adopted this set of guidelines:

        In November 2009 Catherine Ashton was appointed as the EU’s first High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission (HR/VP).

        http://www.eeas.europa.eu/ashton/index_en.htm

      • MRW
        MRW
        July 16, 2013, 10:26 pm

        I agree, annie. It’s starting to dawn on me that maybe they’ve ALL hatched this together, including Netanyahu. Don’t forget they have a parliamentary system. Bennett could call a no-confidence vote anytime and oust Netanyahu.

        This EU move is perfecto for Netanyahu. Marginalizes Bennett who is full of political testosterone at this point, and a threat. If some peace deal comes out of it, whatever, Netanyahu gets the Nobel.

        Call me cynical, but there is no uproar from the Rice crowd about this, yet, did you notice, and this doc was readied for prime time on June 30th. That’s an eon ago in diplomatic terms. Nary a word.

        So they’ll huff and they’ll puff and they’ll blow the house down.

      • piotr
        piotr
        July 16, 2013, 10:36 pm

        Perhaps Ashton did not know or it was pointless for her to mention it to Netanyahu.

        Clearly, it is a small and calibrated move, sounds like delegated to some committee. Ashton herself has no rule making power. A number of government were promising vaguely to “do something” because of Israeli obstruction of charitable activities — destroying the results of aid projects. That gave the mandate to the rule makers to do something.

        One aspect of the glacial way EU is governed is that once enacted, it is hard to remove a rule. So a slow ratchet may have some cumulative effect. The practical aspect is that the move helps internal Israeli opponents of the settlement expansion etc. While this is an earthquake close to the bottom of the Richter scale, it shows that the tectonic plates of EU-Israel relationship do have some tension.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 16, 2013, 11:01 pm

        One aspect of the glacial way EU is governed is that once enacted, it is hard to remove a rule. So a slow ratchet may have some cumulative effect.

        That’s a very good point Piotr. The Israeli case has always rested on the ability of Israel and it’s enablers to keep their fingers in every hole in the dyke. That is why they have been so fierce and often times, over the top is snuffing out any criticism, disagreement, veering from the script,. no matter how benign.

        Once the cracks start to appear in the facade, the momentum will be irreversible.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 16, 2013, 11:04 pm

        that’s my hunch. and then obama in germany…they’ve hatched this plan together.

        You’re probably right Annie, though the real agenda remains unclear. Did Obama hatch this to put pressure on Israel or did he hatch it to kill it later and put the 2ss to bed once and for all?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 17, 2013, 12:34 am

        Perhaps Ashton did not know or it was pointless for her to mention it to Netanyahu.

        The idea that the EU Commission could have adopted restrictions against funding the Narcissistic state without it coming to the attention of the Vice-President’s cabinet is just too far-fetched. She’d have to make an example out of all these nice people;-) See Team Ashton http://eeas.europa.eu/ashton/team/

      • American
        American
        July 18, 2013, 4:45 pm

        ‘Kerry and British Foreign Minister William Hague….
        EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton ….French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius

        that’s my hunch. and then obama in germany…they’ve hatched this plan together.”……annie

        I tried to buy that theory several years back also—-that Obama had a deal with the EU that they would play bad cop to US good cop so it would appear for domestic political purposes ( to the Lobby) that O & Dem servitude to Israel was rock solid.

        If this is the game , as for a for instance, having the EU issue those guidelines and then pretending to have Kerry rush to beg the EU not to do it.
        THEN— all the game boils down to is having the EU pressure the Israelis and make them nervous so the US can rush in as their defender but use the EU world as a reason the Israelis need to lighten up or get serious about peace.
        BUT…..this game is not going to have jack shit effect on Israel.
        BECAUSE it is Not their premier ‘enforcer’ and defender in the world, the US, who is pressuring them and issuing the edicts.
        AND as long as it’s not US doing the arm twisting on Israel ,Israel isnt going to budge.
        So it’s a useless game.

    • eljay
      eljay
      July 16, 2013, 8:42 pm

      >> The U.S. has for too long seen its foundational precepts compromised and distorted by our association with the Zionist entity.

      One might argue that the Zionist entity’s precepts and those of the U.S. aren’t so different after all.

  24. eGuard
    eGuard
    July 16, 2013, 6:54 pm

    At last indeed. And Israel being nervous: bonus points!

  25. gingershot
    gingershot
    July 16, 2013, 7:32 pm

    I think this is so important because it puts a marker down, it puts points up on the board, and it can be used as a reference point for reframing decades of Zionist propaganda

    Now when a guest on Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews or any other news/talking head show deliberately brings up the ‘EU Boycott on the Israeli occupation/Apartheid’ – there is a much clearer and cleaner reference point from which to begin

    Finally – there are facts on the ground that are ‘on our side’

    Coming into the UN General Assembly in Sept when Palestine presumably is going for ICC membership and dragging Israel into the ICC – this sets the stage perfectly

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      July 17, 2013, 1:45 am

      I think this is so important because it puts a marker down, it puts points up on the board, and it can be used as a reference point for reframing decades of Zionist propaganda

      Exactly All those years of pushing the narrative about the territories being “‘disputed”, that there were no “‘Palestinians”, all that hard work , PR, hasbara and all those facts on the ground, have been unraveled and gone down the drain.

      Shucks!!

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        July 17, 2013, 4:47 am

        I am looking forward to reading the updated webpages of the Israeli foreign ministry concerning the legal status of the territories.

  26. talknic
    talknic
    July 16, 2013, 7:39 pm

    giggle

  27. Hostage
    Hostage
    July 16, 2013, 7:40 pm

    But, realist that I am, our indentured leadership would not allow this to happen

    Clarification: Articles 5 and 6 of the UN Charter do not prevent the General Assembly from rejecting the credentials of any regime without consulting the Security Council. In fact, that happened in the cases of the Union of South Africa and Taiwan. The latter would have otherwise had the right to veto any recommendation adopted by the Security Council on the subject. See for example UN General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI), which does not contain any reference to a recommendation on the membership of China from the Security Council. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/2758%20%28XXVI%29

  28. MRW
    MRW
    July 16, 2013, 7:49 pm

    “We will not accept any external edicts on our borders.

    What borders, white man?

    • Justpassingby
      Justpassingby
      July 17, 2013, 9:39 am

      “We will not accept any external edicts on our borders.”

      Great, I guess it goes both ways, meaning Palestinians could claim Tel Aviv, after all, Israel even admit they have no borders.

  29. MRW
    MRW
    July 16, 2013, 8:08 pm

    In his tweet, Dyan compares the EU move to death camp selection.

    Someone should tweet him back that, Nah, it will be just like the Israeli checkpoint selection.

    • Justpassingby
      Justpassingby
      July 17, 2013, 9:41 am

      of course, brining up the holocaust card, how surprising. If the elevator is out of order, Dayan would compare it to the holocaust and on top of that blame Iran.

  30. American
    American
    July 16, 2013, 8:20 pm

    ”Arabs ready anti-Israel resolution over nukes”

    After 2-year hiatus, Mideast countries relaunching efforts to corner the Jewish state over its alleged nuclear arsenal

    By George Jahn July 15, 2013, 11:05 pm — After a two-year hiatus, Arab nations are relaunching efforts to single out Israel for criticism at a major international conference by preparing a resolution over the country’s alleged nuclear arsenal, suggesting that the Jewish state’s refusal to acknowledge it has such arms is threatening Middle East peace.

    The Arab push was a mainstay of recent annual meetings of the 159-nation International Atomic Energy Agency, where it was usually narrowly voted down by Israel’s allies. It was suspended in 2011 and 2012, in what Arab nations viewed as a concession to keep hopes alive of high-profile talks on banning weapons of mass destruction from the Mideast.
    That attempt, co-sponsored by the United States, Russia and Britain, was called off late last year. While Syria’s civil war, nuclear tensions with Iran and other Middle East frictions were cited as the official motive for the cancellation, diplomats then acknowledged that the real reason was the failure to bridge Arab-Israeli differences.

    Israel has long said that a full Palestinian-Israeli peace plan must precede any creation of a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction. The Israelis refuse to confirm or deny whether they have nuclear weapons. They also describe Iran and its alleged work on nuclear weapons as the real regional menace.

    Iran denies wanting such arms, while it and the region’s other Muslim nations assert that Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal presents the greatest threat to peace in the neighborhood. They insist that Israel should declare such weapons and join the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as part of any peace talks.

    The renewed Arab push is reflected in a draft resolution seen by The Associated Press on Monday and endorsed by all 18 Arab members of the IAEA.

    An official from one of the Arab delegations confirmed that the supporting nations even include Syria, where President Bashar Assad’s government is at odds with some of its Arab neighbors — such as Saudi Arabia — over its war with rebels trying to topple him.

    The Arab move underscores the failure of attempts from the outside to persuade the Israelis and the Palestinians to compromise and — if submitted for a vote at the September conference — will exacerbate international divisions on the issue.

    The resolution “expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities, and calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all of its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA” purview.

    The Arab official said the document was formally submitted to IAEA chief Yukiya Amano late Monday for inclusion on the conference agenda. An explanatory note from the Arab group accompanying it and seen by the AP said the resolution was timely because “Israel alone possesses nuclear capabilities, which are undeclared and not subject to international control thus constituting a permanent threat to peace and security in the region.”

    The official said the Arabs blamed “the attitude of the United States and Israel” for the failure of the planned Mideast meeting and said Arab nations decided to resume direct criticism of Israel at the September meeting in Vienna as a result.

    He demanded anonymity, saying he was not authorized to discuss the resolution and related matters because the document remains confidential until it is formally published by the IAEA as an agenda item.

    Copyright 2013 The Associated Press

    Well if the world wont actually ‘do’ anything maybe it can worry them into having a stroke.

    • annie
      annie
      July 17, 2013, 6:44 am

      While Syria’s civil war, nuclear tensions with Iran and other Middle East frictions were cited as the official motive for the cancellation, diplomats then acknowledged that the real reason was the failure to bridge Arab-Israeli differences.

      american, the reason the conference was called off was because after iran announced they were going the US (one of the sponsors of the event) backed out. i wrote about it here: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/12/un-call-on-israel-to-open-its-nuclear-program-is-opposed-by-us.html

      Last month, four days after Iran announced that it planned to attend a high-profile meeting on the banning of WMD’s in the Middle East, the US backed out, saying that the “time is not opportune.”

      But along with Russia and the UK, the U.S. was one of the key sponsors of the conference, set to take place in Helsinki, Finland, by the end of 2012. 189 member nations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty had agreed to attend, but not Israel. Now the meeting has been called off.

      That is the backdrop behind the UN General Assembly’s approval of a resolution last week calling on Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and open its nuclear program for inspection:

      Time Magazine, UN Calls on Israel to Open Nuclear Facilities:…

      and here is the specific embed/source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/10/middle-east-nuke-talks-called-off-the-time-is-not-opportune/#

      Hopes for such a meeting were alive as recently as Tuesday, when Iran joined Arab nations in saying that it planned to attend, leaving Israel as the only undecided country. Tehran’s announcement came at a Brussels seminar on a Mideast nuclear-free zone also attended by Israel and the Arab countries, and described as largely free of regional tensions. But the two diplomats said the decision to call off the Helsinki meeting had already been made by the time Iran declared Tuesday that it would attend.

      yeah, so two diplomats retroactively then said the decision to call off the Helsinki meeting had already been made by the time Iran declared Tuesday that it would attend, there’s just absolutely no record of that ‘decision’ being made or announced anywhere. what a coincidence.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 17, 2013, 7:32 pm

        Bravo, Annie. And yes, Obama very stupidly cancelled American participation when it became clear Iran would attend the conference. Stupidity and cowardice on part of Obama.

  31. thankgodimatheist
    thankgodimatheist
    July 16, 2013, 9:00 pm

    Reactions in Israel are symptomatic. One official says it’s “reminiscent of the holocaust” and another, “death camp selection”, no less. Yup!

  32. RoHa
    RoHa
    July 16, 2013, 9:52 pm

    Tricky one for the Israelis. If they agree that the territories are occupied, they open themselves to questions about the settlements, etc. If they deny that the territories are occupied, they open themselves to the suggestion that the territories are part of Israel, and that all the residents should have full citizenship rights.

    Better make couple more Holocaust films as soon as possible.

  33. thankgodimatheist
    thankgodimatheist
    July 16, 2013, 9:53 pm

    More frantic reactions:
    Naftali Bennett (Economy Minister of the rogue state): “The European Union’s decision to boycott Israeli bodies located beyond the 1949 Armistice lines is nothing short of economic terrorism”
    Keep the psychopathic reactions rolling, folks..I’m waiting for “it’s a second holocaust” scream just about anytime now..
    (Sorry for not providing link but I refuse to link to far right extremist violent settlers’ mouthpiece Arutz Sheva, Israelnationalnews)

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      July 17, 2013, 1:42 am

      “The European Union’s decision to boycott Israeli bodies located beyond the 1949 Armistice lines is nothing short of economic terrorism”

      So how would he describe a blockade and care to explain how Israel is not terrorizing Gaza?

      BTW. I can’t wait to see Caroline Glick’s head explode over this. She’s make Bennet’s response look positively restrained.

  34. Shingo
    Shingo
    July 16, 2013, 10:24 pm

    BTW. Has anyone seen this?

    Chief of staff says 250 people working to find ways to save money, says IDF must take large steps to save money.
    http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Gantz-IDF-in-20-billion-deficit-I-dont-recall-a-time-like-this-319896

    It seems that in spite of being the recipient of eh biggest welfare cheque in the world, the IDF still can’t pay it’s bills. You can therefore imagine the panic they would be in over the prospect of economic decline.

  35. anthonybellchambers
    anthonybellchambers
    July 16, 2013, 10:47 pm

    At last, the EU has woken up!

    How long will it take John Kerry to realise what a fool they are making of him?
    THE CHARTER OF THE LIKUD PARTY OF WHICH NETANYAHU IS LEADER DEMANDS A GREATER ISRAEL FROM THE SEA TO THE RIVER WITH ALL INDIGENOUS ARABS TRANSFERRED TO NEIGHBORING STATES.

    Can he not read? It’s there in black and white! Netanyahu will never agree to peace. NEVER!

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      July 17, 2013, 2:16 am

      How long will it take John Kerry to realise what a fool they are making of him?

      If Annie’s theory turns out to be true, it could be that Kerry has had the last laugh.

      • Shegetz
        Shegetz
        July 17, 2013, 9:09 am

        They’ve been sucker punched. Look at them scramble.

        And…

        “They handed us the document a few days back and said they wanted to have a dialogue, but that it will be adopted and is irreversible,” the Israeli official said. “What kind of dialogue is that? It’s a mockery of a dialogue.”

        Now where have I observed an attitude like that before? The Israelis are about to be Israeli’d and their own ambiguity wielded against them if they’re not careful. When you refuse to clearly define your position you open yourself up to having it defined for you by other actors and circumstances.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        July 17, 2013, 4:19 pm

        “What kind of dialogue is that? It’s a mockery of a dialogue.”

        It’s the kind of dialogue Israel imposes on its Untermenschen
        Did the Bedouin ever get any chance to respond?

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      July 17, 2013, 8:44 am

      THE CHARTER OF THE LIKUD PARTY OF WHICH NETANYAHU IS LEADER

      Nope, Netanyahu no longer controls his own party. See:
      Analysis | The rise of Danonism || Likud convention slips through Netanyahu’s fingers as Danon takes control
      Far-right Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon clinches easy victory among Likud party members, leaving the prime minister in the worst possible situation for a party chairman: he’s not even a player.
      http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.532064

      If you want a real knee slapper there are obviously still some fascist writers to the right of Danon: See There is Nothing Radical About New Likud Leader Danny Danon http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/07/03/there-is-nothing-radical-about-new-likud-leader-danny-danon/

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      July 17, 2013, 9:40 am

      @anthonybellchambers
      Kerry’s probably read the HAMAS charter a number of times, to defend Israel. He may never have read the Likud Charter, although Netanyahu belongs to that party. HAMAS charter does call for destruction of Israel. Likud Charter does express the sole goal of Greater Israel at native expense, and is against 2 ss.

  36. ToivoS
    ToivoS
    July 17, 2013, 12:20 am

    annie you are right about this. My first reaction was one of defeatism and pessimism that it means nothing. But given the reaction inside Israel it does sound like it might be major. Noam Sheizaf at 972mag convinced me this could be big. His major point was that however this works out for now the EU has put the occupation itself front and center. It is the occupation, not “disputed territories”. If that is all it does, then that is progress.

    Netanyahu has been pushing Iran for the last few years in order to distract attention from the occupation. That is now over. The occupation is now part of the debate.

    annie you do have good instincts.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      July 17, 2013, 1:34 am

      His major point was that however this works out for now the EU has put the occupation itself front and center. It is the occupation, not “disputed territories”. If that is all it does, then that is progress.

      I agree. Teeth or no teeth, this is a major shift in the narrative and denied the Israelis any legitimate claim to the occupied territories.

      The occupation is now part of the debate.

      let’s hope it stays that way. Again, Washington’s uncharacteristic silence on this is unnerving.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 20, 2013, 7:09 pm

        Again, I think the EU annoys Israel but in fact does Israel a service, by making clear it cannot keep the West Bank.

    • annie
      annie
      July 17, 2013, 3:15 am

      toivo, this is not coming completely out of the blue. anyone following what the europeans have been saying have been waiting for this moment:

      http://mondoweiss.net/2012/12/liebermans-wild-claim-that-europe-is-ignoring-another-holocaust-masks-effort-to-rob-palestinians-of-423-million.html

      Just what are the Europeans doing? Israel’s actions have led to sharp criticism from European ministers. After Israel announced it planned to colonize the E-1 area on the West Bank, as retaliation for Palestine’s UN upgrade, EU foreign ministers warned Israel to avoid “undermining the financial situation” of the PA and hinted at enforcement measures. At that time the ministers issued a statement indicating future agreements “between the EU and Israel will explicitly say that they do not extend to areas beyond the Green Line.”

      That statement also said that the EU would work to ensure that all agreements between Israel and the EU “must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, namely the Golan Heights, the West Bank including east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

      According to diplomatic officials, this means that future agreements between the EU and Israel will explicitly say that they do not extend to areas beyond the Green Line.

      Ouch.

      and i mentioned in the thread of comment section: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/12/liebermans-wild-claim-that-europe-is-ignoring-another-holocaust-masks-effort-to-rob-palestinians-of-423-million.html/comment-page-1#comment-523289 this is what lieberman is all jacked up about. the snowballing effect of a european boycott.

      at the time i remembered thinking jpost buried the lead.

    • annie
      annie
      July 17, 2013, 3:36 am

      oh! and one more thing toivo. i loved Noam Sheizaf ‘s article today and tweeted it earlier. especially this:

      The prime minister could have used the outside pressure to prepare the Israeli public for concessions or at least to win some ground in his political battle with the settler bloc in his government. Instead, he is reciting talking points written for campus activists. Even if he wanted to get the Europeans to change their policies, it doesn’t seem like he is willing to offer them anything in return. Just as it was with the recent decision to appoint Ron Dermer – known for his opposition to the two-state solution – as his envoy to Washington, it seems that there is no new Netanyahu – just the old Netanyahu, older.

      http://972mag.com/the-day-europe-got-israels-attention/75864/

      and i assume the mention of ‘campus activists’ /hasbara he was referring to was netanyahu’s comments about syria/iran which i didn’t even bother including they were so redundant i found them utterly distracting. this part:

      I would expect those who wish to see peace and stability to deal with this topic only after dealing with a number of more pressing regional issues, like the Syrian civil war or the Iranian race towards nuclear weapon.

      triple yawn.

  37. Abdul-Rahman
    Abdul-Rahman
    July 17, 2013, 6:37 am

    When I heard this good news about the EU’s move against the occupation, I thought of two things specifically right away!

    First, I knew the Zionist propagandists would go nuts and started spewing the same disgusting propaganda and misuse of history that Norman Finkelstein so eloquently documented in his classic work “The Holocaust Industry” http://normanfinkelstein.com/category/the-holocaust-industry/

    http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Industry-Reflections-Exploitation-Suffering/dp/185984488X

    And I didn’t have to wait long there as (as this article notes) we already have a ludicrous and disgusting “death camps” comment made by these same disgusting and pathetic Zionist occupiers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSwVz7JTRCA

    With these Zionists spewing this same tired propaganda line, I was also of course reminded of historian Lenni Brenner’s classic work “51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis” (and Mr. Brenner’s earlier book “Zionism in the Age of the Dictators” as well) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gUwqKBfUgs

    And then lastly I actually also thought of those demented/nutty imperialist “Christian Zionist” rapture-seekers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig

    As many of these rapturist buffoons often claim the European Union (EU) will be somehow associated with the “anti-christ” http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/European_Union#The_Antichrist

    I recommend the very interesting (somewhat dated) book of scholar Tim Callahan on that general topic (if one for some reason wants to “debate” with those Hagee style nutcases!) http://www.amazon.com/dp/0965504700

  38. Citizen
    Citizen
    July 17, 2013, 7:24 am

    Caroline Glick is on record as saying either all of Israel is legitimate, or none of it is. That’s what she wrote a few years ago, Israel-OT, indivisible. http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/03/israels-indivisible-legitimacy.php

    • amigo
      amigo
      July 17, 2013, 8:31 am

      I read through the first column or two.

      Any further is too hard to swallow.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 17, 2013, 9:17 am

        Yes, after reading Caroline Glick, swallowing razor blades begins to look appealing. And listening to her speak (she whines so intensely she sounds like she’s about to burst into tears at any moment) is about an pleasant and listening to someone rubbing calk on a blackboard.

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        July 17, 2013, 9:42 am

        …as with any supremacist.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      July 17, 2013, 9:12 am

      And she’s right: None of it is. It is a wholly illegitimate state brought about by an evil ideology.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        July 17, 2013, 4:25 pm

        Exactly. Israel was only ever possible with massive doses of violence.

  39. amigo
    amigo
    July 17, 2013, 9:28 am

    Meanwhile back at the illegal ranch mayhem rules.

    “State Comptroller’s report || Planning and construction in West Bank is a free-for-all, state comptroller finds
    Prevailing atmosphere in Israeli settlements in the West Bank is ‘everyone does as he sees fit’; Civil Administration fears settlers’ reactions if it enforces law.”

    link http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.536257

    Netandyahoo between a rock and a hard place.Is there a Yigal Amir in his future???.

  40. CloakAndDagger
    CloakAndDagger
    July 17, 2013, 11:06 am

    More evidence that Kerry knew about the EU decision and supports it:

    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/.premium-1.536047?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.216%2C2.217%2C


    Breaking the Palestinian-Israeli deadlock || U.S. official: EU will take further measures against Israeli settlements if Kerry’s peace bid fails
    Measures could include labeling settlement goods and requiring travel visas for settlers.

    A senior American official involved in efforts to kick-start peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians has warned that should U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts fail, European Union members states will adopt additional measures against Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

    “The Europeans are giving us the time and allowing us to try and get the talks going,” the official said. “But if we don’t succeed, they would want to go in other directions and take steps. The Israelis know it very well.”

    Things appear to be heating up here in the right direction. Suddenly I feel a lot more optimistic.

    • annie
      annie
      July 17, 2013, 1:12 pm

      thanks for calling attention to that link C&D. i mentioned/linked it in the article (after the first Barak Ravid blockquote) including “according to US officials, the EU will go further likely requiring the labeling of “settlement goods,” if John Kerry’s efforts to “kick start the peace talks” fail.”

      so yeah, that’s why i think this is only the beginning.

      • CloakAndDagger
        CloakAndDagger
        July 18, 2013, 3:13 am

        @ annie

        Sorry, I had missed that! You are very thorough in your research!

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      July 17, 2013, 1:43 pm

      John Kerry should be able to see that the EU needs to take an increasingly strong position against the illegal colonies in the West Bank.

  41. mijj
    mijj
    July 17, 2013, 12:26 pm

    let me get this straight ..

    If Israel has no borders, does that mean all of the world is Israel?

    • talknic
      talknic
      July 17, 2013, 3:25 pm

      @ mijj

      If Israel has no borders:

      How can anyone know what territory is sovereign to Israel?

      How can anyone know if Israeli territory has ever been attacked?

      How was it recognizable?

      These and many other very simple questions the zionutters of the world can never give a straight answer for

      Finally and most importantly, according to this statement by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs of all organizations, under the same rules they hold to be true for Palestine, Israel cannot be a state either!

      Like all Hasbara it’s one almighty FAIL!

      You can fool some of the people some of the time , but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Israel however, manages to fool itself 100%, 100% of the time.

  42. James Canning
    James Canning
    July 17, 2013, 1:23 pm

    @mijj – – Cute. “No borders” nonsense is simply cover for illegal colonies in WB.

  43. ritzl
    ritzl
    July 17, 2013, 1:47 pm

    Have to say that Palestinian non-violence is, to me, a major factor in considering both the timing and seriousness of this EU decision. If the Palestinians had not adopted their policy of non-violence, this would have never happened.

    Huge congrats to the Palestinians in Palestine, and the global Palestinian activist community for creating the context that enabled this to happen. Tangible Success! Well Done!! Lead On!!!

    I hope that this decision (or one like it) can spiral out to Gaza under similar circumstances, though that is a tougher situation.

  44. amigo
    amigo
    July 18, 2013, 8:07 am

    Some good advice for Israel from Justice Al-Khasawneh.An excerpt from his opinion on the 2oo4 decision.

    “10. There is no doubt that the Green Line was initially no more than
    an armistice line in an agreement that expressly stipulated that its provisions
    would not be “interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate
    political settlement between the Parties” and that “the Armistice Demarcation
    Lines defined in articles V and VI of [the] Agreement [were] agreed
    upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or
    boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto” (Advisory
    Opinion, para. 72).
    11. It is not without irony that prominent Israeli jurists were arguing
    before the 1967 war that the General Armistice agreements were sui
    generis, were in fact more than mere armistice agreements, could not be
    changed except with the acceptance of the Security Council. Whatever
    the true significance of that line today, two facts are indisputable:
    (1) The Green line, to quote Sir Arthur Watts, “is the starting line from
    which is measured the extent of Israel’s occupation of non-Israeli
    territory” (CR200413, p. 64, para. 35). There is no implication that
    the Green Line is to be a permanent frontier.
    (2) Attempts at denigrating the significance of the Green Line would in
    the nature of things work both ways. Israel cannot shed doubts upon
    the title of others without expecting its own title and the territorial
    expanse of that title beyond the partition resolution not to be called
    into question. Ultimately it is through stabilizing its legal relationship
    with the Palestinians and not through constructing walls that its
    security would be assured.

  45. James Canning
    James Canning
    July 18, 2013, 1:44 pm

    Separation barrier should have been built on the Green Line. Condoleezza Rice very stupidly (to be kind) failed to comprehend that fact.

  46. Hostage
    Hostage
    July 18, 2013, 6:08 pm

    Separation barrier should have been built on the Green Line. Condoleezza Rice very stupidly (to be kind) failed to comprehend that fact.

    She wasn’t the Secretary of State at the time. Secretary Colin Powell did publicly criticize the Wall saying that “A nation is within its rights to put up a fence if it sees the need for one. However, in the case of the Israeli fence, we are concerned when the fence crosses over onto the land of others.” See “Powell Criticizes Israeli Fence in West Bank” link to foxnews.com

  47. James Canning
    James Canning
    July 18, 2013, 6:42 pm

    @Hostage – – Condoleezza Rice gave the go-ahead for building the separation wall hither and thither in the West Bank. Yes, she was not Sec of State at the time. And yes, it was epic stupidity on her part.

Leave a Reply