Trending Topics:

Is Benjamin Netanyahu the George Zimmerman of the Middle East?

Israel/Palestine
on 36 Comments

This post is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.

Cornel West recently called Barack Obama the George Zimmerman of the world.  Does that make Benjamin Netanyahu the George Zimmerman of the Middle East?

There are so many George Zimmerman’s in our world.  When we move from the individual to the state violence there’s another level of culpability.  Or is individual and collective behavior bound together, like the Jewish settlers in Jerusalem and the West Bank and the policies of the state of Israel?

So if Jews of Conscience speak like Cornel West, stridently, without apology, about the upcoming Washington pow-wow which may or not happen, but also beyond the John Kerry mirage or subterfuge, what should Jews of Conscience say?  Do we concentrate on the negotiating politics at hand or do we go Cornel West on Israel?

Complaint has become a way of life for Israel/Palestine activists.  That’s why we’re afraid of speaking too bluntly about the hopelessness of a negotiation that lacks foundational equality.  It might appear that we’re more or less stuck complaining rather than offering a way forward.  What to do when there isn’t a way forward?  The result is that too often we become assertive about a future we envision – the end of the occupation, one state better than two – even though neither appear on the horizon. 

Talks or no talks, agreement or no agreement, the occupation will continue one way or another.  What might be on the Washington table is some loosening of the occupation’s grip.  Two real states are far from happening. That train left the station decades ago.  One state, dominated by Israel, is the immediate future.

The opposite, the inclusive One State option hardly guarantees justice for Palestinians.  A secular democratic state where Jews and Palestinians live together as citizens does hold out that possibility – without guarantees.  Economic, political and social equality are far from given in a society, even in those societies where apartheid has been overturned – witness the United States and South Africa. 

Elites, favoritism and corruption don’t disappear simply because a more attractive and a more just society are enshrined in law.  One has to suppose that if Jewish elites fail to dominate the one state of Israel/Palestine they will come together with Palestinian elites to control both populations.  At least they will give it a try.  In other words, it would be a constant struggle in one state to make sure that the dream of justice and equality is achieved.  To think otherwise is naïve.

Does a (real) Two State option guarantee injustice for Palestinians? The argument that Palestinians have the right to regain what they lost in the creation of Israel and beyond is forceful.  Nonetheless, the reality before Palestinians is much like the reality before other displaced populations.  What Palestinians need is a negotiated settlement that allows a future where more and more justice can be struggled for.  

In the Palestine of the Two State solution a battle for equality within the state will be ongoing.  There is already a dominating class in Palestinian society.  It is foolish to think they will hand over their power to the Palestinian people just because a real Palestinian state is achieved.

And we haven’t even talked about the corruption that is rampant in Palestinian – and Israeli – political life.  This raises the question of exactly who is at the negotiating table for Israel and the Palestinians and who exactly these leaders represent.

So, the question is at hand.  If the Washington talks go ahead, should Jews of Conscience – and Palestinian activists – enter the political fray within the parameters of the talks themselves?  Or should Jews of Conscience – and Palestinian activists – boycott the talks and go on as if nothing of substance is happening?

Marc H. Ellis
About Marc H. Ellis

Marc H. Ellis is Professor of History and Jewish Studies and Director of the Center for the Study of the Global Prophetic. His latest book is Finding Our Voice: Embodying the Prophetic and Other Misadventures.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

36 Responses

  1. RudyM
    RudyM
    July 24, 2013, 8:42 am

    Way to insult George Zimmerman. Sorry, I’m not buying the liberal party line on Zimmerman. I think I should turn in my card, really. Maybe I could trade it for a concealed carry license. The presentation of the facts around the shooting has been very distorted. Disappointed to see such an idiotic comparison in an article here, even if it is actually riffing on West, but then again it’s just Exile and the Prophetic.

  2. Cliff
    Cliff
    July 24, 2013, 8:48 am

    Most Zionists are the George Zimmerman’s of the ME.

  3. Diane Mason
    Diane Mason
    July 24, 2013, 10:42 am

    Zionism is the collective George Zimmerman of the Middle East.

    I’ll take your land, exile you, kill you, imprison you, demolish your homes, de-develop your economy, torture you in prison, humiliate you at checkpoints etc etc all because you’re the wrong “sort” of people to be allowed to live as equal citizens in your own homeland. But if ever you fight back I’ll kill you and scream that I’m the victim, because you’re the scary Arab Other we’ve been propagandized to fear.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      July 27, 2013, 1:56 pm

      Last time I looked Palestinians were not disproportionately involved in committing crimes in Jewish areas of Israel or the Israeli-controlled OT. And, if anybody is profiling, and abusing police power, it’s the Jewish Israelis. So, yes, the Israeli government pretends they are righteous like Zimmerman, but they don’t even have the slightest evidence, as Zimmerman did, that he had a righteous cause.

  4. Blaine Coleman
    Blaine Coleman
    July 24, 2013, 10:43 am

    “Israel” is the George Zimmerman of the Middle East.

    Israel still massacres thousands of Arabs, still proudly flashes its White License to Kill.

    The U.S. Congress is sincerely grateful for Israel’s white colonial army, proudly committing genocide with impunity. Congress has given Israel over $100 billion to keep doing that dirty job, and is truly happy to do it. It makes the U.S. genocide against the non-white world so much easier to sell. As it is, there is no difficulty in selling genocide to a mass media that’s in danger of breaking its arm, constantly saluting every U.S. and Israeli general that crosses its path.

    So the problem is bluntly stated: Israel = Zimmerman.

    The solution should be bluntly stated: Boycott the Apartheid State out of existence now. Cut all ties to “Israel” now.

    Every campus government should do what the Wayne State Student Council already did: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EbIZBUj7TAg/S9GHXfkzyeI/AAAAAAAAAIg/38lsFh4ofi0/s1600/WSU.bmp
    –pass a resolution expressing total revulsion, total divestment, total boycott against the last openly racist state on Earth: Apartheid Israel itself.

    • miriam6
      miriam6
      July 28, 2013, 1:23 pm

      Please could you moderate this comment?

      it has been waiting more than two days now..

      • annie
        annie
        July 28, 2013, 7:43 pm

        you mean the one with over 60 paragraphs miriam? sure, as soon as someone feels compelled to read it. write phil. maybe he will find the time.

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      July 28, 2013, 8:56 pm

      Rotflmfao. The IDF is white, brown, black, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Druze.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        July 28, 2013, 9:33 pm

        That’s right , hophmi , good comment.

        Is Benyamin Netanyahu the George Zimmerman of the Middle East ?

        Short answer: NO. What a ridiculous , pretentious ,meaningless assertion.

        Ellis invokes a similar, equally silly Cornel West quote, presumably because , given the racial sensitivity of the Zimmerman trial, Ellis feels the need to use the words of an African American academic in order to give a white liberal like himself added street credibility , and the moral authority necessary for Ellis to then gratefully jump aboard the anti- Zimmerman bandwagon.

        Ellis bleats:

        There are so many George Zimmerman’s in our world. When we move from the individual to the state violence there’s another level of culpability.

        Actually, a completely, disingenuous, meaningless statement as George Zimmerman was found NOT CULPABLE, NOT guilty by a court of LAW.
        Disingenuously, falsely accusing a man found INNOCENT by a court of law in America..
        The hypocrisy and irony of those demanding that Israel , and apparently only Israel ,must adhere to international LAW, whilst , at the same time, screeching and complaining and FALSELY accusing George Zimmerman of a crime he was found not guilty of in a court of LAW
        Perhaps Ellis would have preferred to see a kangaroo court , without the defence from the power of the State of a jury affords , the right to presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond doubt taken from Zimmerman.

        However in the REAL world THIS is what trial by media and the lynch mob mentality , and ,lack of culpability inevitably leads to:

        Spike Lee sorry for retweeting false George Zimmerman address.
        Elderly couple forced to leave home after director tweeted address he believed belonged to killer of Trayvon Martin

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/mar/29/george-zimmerman-spike-lee-trayvon-martin

        Ellis asserts :

        There are so many George Zimmerman’s in our world. When we move from the individual to the state violence there’s another level of culpability.

        With this disingenuous statement , Ellis starts with the use of his narcissistic WE.
        This is where Ellis starts to lay out his proposition that ,in an neo-colonialist fashion , with an irony with which Ellis himself is blissfully unaware, complete outsiders like himself and his fellow ISM activists must be empowered , allowed ( by whom exactly? ) to interfere in Palestinian affairs..

        Cheekily, Ellis continues to assert the right of ISM activists to IMPOSE a vision of what those Palestinians themselves, never mind the Israeli people, really ought to want, if they only knew what BEST for them ,that is that they should really allow activists like Ellis to go over the heads of the Palestinians themselves , to commandeer the Palestinian cause for their ( the ISM activist’s)own moral self promotion, and self-importance.
        Ellis continues to discuss possible resolutions to the I /P conflict , whether one state or two, in a way which EXCLUDES the actual participants of the conflict.

        One can and should ask ,at this point , in rebuke to Ellis:

        Whose conflict is it anyway?

        Answer, not Rabbi Ellis’s, nor those activists .

        Again with the tiresome narcissistic WE..Ellis goes on:

        Do WE concentrate on the negotiating politics at hand or do WE go Cornel West on Israel?

        Ellis whines self -pityingly :

        Complaint has become a way of life for Israel/Palestine activists. That’s why WE’RE afraid of speaking too bluntly about the hopelessness of a negotiation that lacks foundational equality. It might appear that WE’RE more or less stuck complaining rather than offering a way forward. What to do when there isn’t a way forward? The result is that too often WE become assertive about a future WE envision – the end of the occupation, one state better than two – even though neither appear on the horizon.

        Then, with an arrogance and temerity that would have caused many an old fashioned imperialist statesman /diplomat of the Sykes-Picot variety to blush , Ellis cheerfully asserts that because the Israeli and Palestinians are so very, very corrupt and bad, and therefore unable to settle their own I/P conflict ,that they must then relinquish all control to outsiders like Ellis and his buddies in the ISM, and abdicate the right to speak and negotiate for themselves.

        And we haven’t even talked about the corruption that is rampant in Palestinian – and Israeli – political life.
        This raises the question of exactly who is at the negotiating table for Israel and the Palestinians and who exactly these leaders represent.

        So, the question is at hand.
        If the Washington talks go ahead, should Jews of Conscience – and Palestinian activists – enter the political fray within the parameters of the talks themselves? Or should Jews of Conscience – and Palestinian activists – boycott the talks and go on as if nothing of substance is happening?

        Either way Ellis clearly feels outside forces and meddlers ought to be given primacy over the actual negotiating Israeli /Palestinian parties themselves ,and carte blanche to impose themselves, either by boycotting the talks or not.

        What arrogance.

        How does Mr Ellis imagine that further undermining Palestinian agency by treating them as if they were clueless children advance real autonomy for the Palestinian people?
        I s Ellis really advocating that he, and a bunch of unelected, accountable only to themselves, ISM types take charge of the future of the Palestinians?
        I think the P.A. and Mahmoud Abbas , corrupt as alleged to be have FAR MORE legitimacy than an meddling outsider like Ellis and the aforementionedactivists>.

        Finally, rather than focusing on the narcissistic collective WE, Ellis goes part way to including one side of the two protagonists in his narcissistic WEdiscussion

        What Palestinians need is a negotiated settlement that allows a future where more and more justice can be struggled for.

        The future of the I/P conflict will, and ought to be decided by both parties themselves, not by opportunist , ISM meddlers , seeking to get their moral rocks off at the expense of ceding Palestinians control over their own lives.

        Furthermore, Mr Ellis should not take it for granted that ALL Palestinians look at the activities of so-called pro-Palestinian activists favour.

        Translator Moe Ali Nayel was shocked by the arrogance of a recent group of Harvard students interviewing in Sabra refugee camp.

        This has been the Palestinian refugees’ dilemma since 1948: watching groups of people from across the globe stroll through the misery of their camps and and then leave.
        Making their personal plight and stories available to writers and advocates is for them a way to induce change and action and to advance their moral cause around the world.

        Palestinian refugees are not at your service

        http://electronicintifada.net/content/palestinian-refugees-are-not-your-service/12464

        Please moderate this comment

    • miriam6
      miriam6
      July 28, 2013, 9:25 pm

      Blaine said:Israel still massacres thousands of Arabs, still proudly flashes its White License to Kill.

      Really?

      You use the word still as though Israel conducts massacres of thousands of Arabs on a weekly basis..

      Tell me , provide evidence about the thousands of Arabs Israel has massacred recently .

      I think you are mixing Israel up with Syria.

      In Syria , the death toll is now estimated at 100,000.

      All because a busted flush of an Arab dictator Assad, refused to relinquish power, even though his regime was crumbling from within anyway , preferring instead to generate a brutal civil war.

      The whole IRONY of your morality tale Good/Evil stance , is that hypothetically a state somewhere in this world might actually have decided to systematically wipe out an entire population.

      However, you would continue to IGNORE such an event because you are too busy singling out Israel as the only so – called evil in the world.

      Also If, as you allege Israel is so incorrigibly racist, then why is Israel still making great efforts to bring Ethiopian Jews to Israel?

      Ahead of the last Falashmura flight, Anshel Pfeffer joins new immigrants on their way to Israel. A first report in a series examining three decades of Ethiopian Aliyah.

      http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/.premium-1.537904

  5. piotr
    piotr
    July 24, 2013, 1:04 pm

    “Or should Jews of Conscience – and Palestinian activists – boycott the talks and go on as if nothing of substance is happening?”

    I am not sure how many people who are not members of “paid audience” claim that something of substance is happening.

    As nothing of substance is happening, I think that the resident prophet could ponder what possible problems exists between the controlling and the controlled, the privileged and the deprived, the paranoid and the hopeless. And if we identify the problems, we can propose solutions.

    A little illustration: about 20 years ago certain former senator was considered for Secretary of Defense, which gave rise to a skit on SNL: “Senator Tower, is it true that you have a drinking problem? My problem is that I do not get enough to drink.” http://articles.latimes.com/1989-02-09/news/mn-3037_1_john-tower

    So if we identify the problem of Sen. Tower as not having enough drink (at the time of bar closing) and the problem of Israel as not having enough security, we can propose to keep bars open for 24h, and perhaps one could even figure out something for Israel. If we identify different problems, we can discuss different solutions. Obviously, I am trying to finesse 1SS versus 2SS.

  6. Citizen
    Citizen
    July 24, 2013, 1:35 pm

    Kerry’s been in Israel a half dozen times now as Secretary of State, that’s about once a month ever since he’s been office, and for pretty long periods (considering that the US State Dept has a few other important things on its agenda). He just pressured the EU to label Hezbollah military arm as officially a terrorist organization, and the EU capitulated at cost to itself, hoping it would help Kerry manage Israel’s reluctance to even sit down initially to chat with Assad. Everybody knows the elephant in the room is the expanding settlements. Like Dumbo’s Ears those settlements have been the single thing constantly flying for decades of peace talks. Apparently Kerry could get the EU to back off on its labeling and shunning of those Israeli entities profiting from those illegal settlements, even though the EU did not include commercial trade in it shunning by labels. I’m not a Palestinian or Jew of Conscience, but I’d recommend boycotting the talks if Kerry won’t even go on record clearly against those settlements, let alone threaten to use aid leverage, as the US does with the Palestinians, and, of course with Egypt, and just look at those severe economic sanctions against Iran!

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      July 26, 2013, 1:58 pm

      @Citizen – – Read Philip Stephens’ comments in the Financial Times today.

      I wonder if John Kerry sees the merit in the position of most European diplomats, that Israel cannot change borders of Palestine by growing illegal colonies of Jews.

      So what, if hundreds of thousands of Jews find themselves in Palestine.

  7. Reds
    Reds
    July 24, 2013, 1:38 pm

    Off topic but thought people would be interested in this esp coming from CNN

    Netanyahu’s crying wolf on Iran

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/opinion/sick-netanyahu-on-iran/index.html?hpt=imi_mid

    “More than 20 years ago, Mr. Netanyahu solemnly informed us that, unless someone intervened, Iran would have a nuclear weapon within five years. That was one of the origins of the “three to five year” mantra. Almost every year since the early 1990s, senior political figures, intelligence specialists and respected commentators have assured us that Iran would surely have a nuclear weapon in three to five years, sometimes less, unless Iran were forced to stop its mad dash for the bomb.”

  8. atime forpeace
    atime forpeace
    July 24, 2013, 1:46 pm

    Not quite….he (Netanyahu) is more like the guy lurking in a crime infested neighborhood under cover of the night, hoodied up, just not as innocent as Trayvon MAY have been? but he does have the media creating the myth of a poor defenseless skittle eating, kid without a neighborhood lurking, in a neighborhood without a people.

  9. James Canning
    James Canning
    July 24, 2013, 2:08 pm

    How many Germans were “displaced” after the Second World War? 15 million?

    Palestinians will do well to keep 22% of Palestine, with 1967 borders (as far as possible).

    • Ludwig
      Ludwig
      July 24, 2013, 2:55 pm

      Recall that 1967 lines are armistice lines, not borders. Also recall that at its inception in the 1920s so-called “historic” Palestine included Jordan and some northern areas in addition to Israel, Judea, and Samaria.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 26, 2013, 1:49 pm

        @Ludwig – – Most European diplomats are going with “1967” borders. This is also true with all Arab countries, and the PA.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        July 26, 2013, 3:27 pm

        No government recognizes Israel outside the 67′ borders. Deal with it.

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye
        July 26, 2013, 3:33 pm

        Yeah, Earwig, Israel declared itself on the UN partition borders, then carried on stealing even more of Palestine from its indigenous people, just like it hasn’t stopped doing yet! Aand – it hasn’t even attempted to declare (illegally, if unilaterally and unrecognised by UN) its extended sovereignty over the land it stole in ’47/48! ‘Only’ (illegally as unrecognised internationally) over the Golan and East Jerusalem and the extended ‘Greater’ Jerusalem stolen parts of Palestine.

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 28, 2013, 10:52 pm

        Ludwig“Recall that 1967 lines are armistice lines, not borders”

        Cease fire lines at best actually. There were no Armistices signed in 1967. Nor were Israel’s Internationally recognized boundaries “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” changed by the 1949 Armistice agreements.

        “Also recall that at its inception in the 1920s so-called “historic” Palestine included Jordan and some northern areas in addition to Israel, Judea, and Samaria”

        True. But by 1946 Transjordan was independent of Palestine. It was NOT a part of the 1947 partition plan accepted as binding by the Jewish Agency http://pages.citebite.com/l1t3s9i2x5shf

        And ” in addition to Israel” is also true. In addition to but not Israeli and never legally annexed to Israel http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

        As the Israeli Govt stated May 22nd 1948 to the UNSC, these territories were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 29, 2013, 12:51 am

        Also recall that at its inception in the 1920s so-called “historic” Palestine included Jordan and some northern areas in addition to Israel, Judea, and Samaria.

        Historic Palestine was not Mandate Palestine. Jordan was already promised to the Shariff of Meccas under a binding treaty in 1915.

    • cbrace
      cbrace
      July 25, 2013, 7:31 am

      Palestinians will do well to keep 22% of Palestine, with 1967 borders (as far as possible).

      Have you looked at a map of Palestine lately? If so, you would know it is now very far from possible.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 26, 2013, 2:30 pm

        @cbrace — You buy into the notion that the presence of Jews requires a change of borders? Apparently this is not the viewpoint of many European diplomats.

        Of course I look at the map. Incidentally, Ingram Pinn has a great poitical cartoon in the FT today (page 9).

      • Ludwig
        Ludwig
        July 26, 2013, 2:44 pm

        Right now there aren’t borders. Only armistice lines. Even during the illegal Jordanian occupation before the liberation of Jerusalem there weren’t defined borders. .

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        July 26, 2013, 3:26 pm

        Jerusalem wasn’t liberated. It never ‘belonged’ to Judaism or to a bunch of Europeans/Khazars/etc.

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye
        July 26, 2013, 3:35 pm

        Israel exists *legally* within the UN partition borders.

      • Ludwig
        Ludwig
        July 26, 2013, 3:53 pm

        Bumblebye,

        Actually, the UN partition plan was not accepted by the Arab side. It would have had to have been accepted by both sides to be legally binding under international law. This means that *legally* the UN partition plan was and is meaningless.

        Also remember, Jordan itself was the illegal occupier of Judea and Samaria for years before its liberation by Jews.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 26, 2013, 6:35 pm

        @Ludwig – – Most diplomats hoping to resolve Israel/Palestine, accept Green Line as the border.

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye
        July 28, 2013, 8:28 pm

        What rot! Israel declared its existence ON the basis of the UN partition borders, then continued its murderous ethnic cleansing outside same – and has never ‘legally’ annexed the extra stolen lands from ’48. And Jordan was NOT an illegal occupier of the West Bank.

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 28, 2013, 10:31 pm

        @ Ludwig ” the UN partition plan was not accepted by the Arab side.”

        Irrelevant. Six months after and knowing the Arabs had rejected it, the Jewish Agency accepted it

        “As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision. of the United Nations. We regard it as binding” http://pages.citebite.com/l1t3s9i2x5shf

        ” It would have had to have been accepted by both sides to be legally binding under international law.”

        Strange. There’s no clause or article in the Resolution calling for a co-signature. Nor could there be. Independence is unilateral otherwise it isn’t independence.

        Your weird theory BTW is dis-proven by the Jewish Agency, who argued the exact opposite

        “The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State” http://pages.citebite.com/w1m3w9e2j6jdw

        Now tell us they didn’t say it….

        This means that *legally* the UN partition plan was and is meaningless

        My you do have some very strange information. Six months after the Arab rejection the resolution was enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and;
        the following day the Israeli Govt subsequently pleaded for the state to be and was recognized 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

        Furthermore 18 months after the Arab rejection, the Israeli Government cited UNGA res 181 in the argument to the UNSC for acceptance into the UN.

        “Also remember, Jordan itself was the illegal occupier of Judea and Samaria for years”
        We should remember bullsh*t? Why? Israel and Transjordan signed an Armistice AGREEMENT which left the West Bank, as it was officially re-named, in Jordanian custody. You do know what an agreement means?

        BTW there are no UNSC resolutions condemning Jordan for controlling or annexing the West Bank at the request of the Palestinians http://www.jcpa.org.il/art/knesset6.htm as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/legsess.html

        Unlike Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, which was soundly condemned by the UNSC 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and EIGHT reminders 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980.

        Where on earth do you get your information? completeidio.ts ? moroncentr.al ? youcanfool.me ?

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 28, 2013, 11:19 pm

        Ludwig “Right now there aren’t borders.”

        Strange. Israel pleaded for and was recognized as

        “an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

        Israel has never legally annexed any territory to those Internationally recognized boundaries (that’s why there are so many UNSC resolutions condemning Israel’s actions “outside the State of Israel” )

        “Only armistice lines” ..

        Quite .. which specifically stated

        It is emphasised that it is not the purpose of this Agreement to establish, to recognise, to strengthen, or to weaken or nullify, in any way, any territorial, custodial or other rights … etc … The provisions of this Agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations … etc . http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/maps/pages/1949-1967%20armistice%20lines.aspx

        “Even during the illegal Jordanian occupation ..”

        “illegal”? Where did the “armistice lines” come from other than Armistice AGREEMENTS?

        ” before the liberation of Jerusalem there weren’t defined borders”

        HELP!!! Your expertise is needed!!! There appears to be no reference what so ever to any “liberation” in any UNSC resolution, Cease Fire Agreement or Peace Treaty with Israel. Perhaps you can point it out for us. Or maybe it’s just another wholly holey moldy old Hasbara mantra

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 29, 2013, 12:48 am

        It would have had to have been accepted by both sides to be legally binding under international law.

        False. It required neither side to accept it seeing as neither were members of the UN at the time.

        Also remember, Jordan itself was the illegal occupier of Judea and Samaria for years before its liberation by Jews.

        False again. There is not a single UN Resolution or court ruling by the ICJ that suggests it was illegal.

        Secondly, it was not liberate by the Jews, since it did not belong to Israel.

  10. Obsidian
    Obsidian
    July 24, 2013, 3:30 pm

    “There are so many George Zimmerman’s in our world”.

    And so many Roland Freislers too.

  11. Citizen
    Citizen
    July 27, 2013, 1:25 pm

    If Roland Freisler was a jew living now, he’d be in the top Jewish Israeli judiciary.

  12. Citizen
    Citizen
    July 27, 2013, 6:37 pm

    Obama and his inconsistent profiling:
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35677.htm

Leave a Reply