Trending Topics:

Protest Sunday: The Israeli settler movement is not welcome in New York City!

Israel/Palestine

Israel AdvocacyOn Sunday, November 17, at 1:30 PM, at the West Side Institutional Synagogue, 120 West 76th Street, several groups will protest a conference (see link below, poster left) supporting the Israeli settler movement, featuring leaders of the Shomron Regional Council, the Zionist Organization of America, a U.S. congressional representative (Michael Grimm, Republican of Staten Island/Brooklyn), and others. They are meeting to discuss “why Judea and Samaria [which is the Israeli-occupied West Bank] must be the main focus of today’s Israel advocacy.”

All Israeli settlements in Israeli-occupied Palestinian Territories violate international law, according to major human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the International Court of Justice, and governments worldwide. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying country from moving its citizens into the occupied area as residents.

The Shomron Regional Council claims to represent over 30 Israeli settlements in the Northern West Bank, including settlements, like Yitzhar and Itamar, known for attacks on Palestinian residents. The Shomron Regional Council’s slogan is “Shomron: The Heartland of Israel.” It claims that “The geographical area comprising the Shomron Municipality is larger than any municipality in all of Israel,” though the entire area is located in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. (link)

The pro-settler forces expect that U.S. policy makers, Jews, and others will remain either unaware of or unbothered by the knowledge that the settlers engage in violence against West Bank Palestinians’ lands, persons, and properties. Most recently, extremist Jewish settlers near the Yitzhar settlement used clubs and stones in their attack on Palestinian farmers and Jewish volunteers who were harvesting olives; the Israeli security forces failed—in this and other instances of settler violence—to protect Palestinians (Rabbis for Human Rights, October 21, 2013). As of mid-October, 2013, settlers had vandalized 1,650 olive trees in a two-month period, attacks that struck at a key part of the Palestinian economy (Rabbis for Human Rights, October 17, 2013).

Shavei Shomron is only one among many settlements that have dumped waste water onto nearby Palestinian villages to pollute their land and isolate their farmers in an attempt to force Palestinians to leave their homes–so settlers can move in to them. (Stop the Wall, March, 3, 2012). These attempts are part of a decades-long Israeli strategy to appropriate land from the Palestinians. This strategy includes the demolition of Palestinian homes “on the grounds that the structures were built without permits, but in practice such permits are almost impossible for Palestinians to obtain in Israeli-controlled areas, whereas a separate planning process available only to settlers grants new construction permits much more readily” (Human Rights Watch 2012 World Report). “Through a combination of legal, military and administrative means and citing various rationales, Israel prohibits Palestinian construction and development in about 40% of the West Bank – about 70% of Area C, which is under full Israeli control . . . .” (B’Tselem, November 3, 2013).

The speakers routinely demonize Muslims and Arabs. Gershon Mesika of the Shomron Regional Council, for example, believes that Israel is the only barrier “to stop the Muslim flood from washing over Europe” (Israel National News, May 20, 2012).

“We certainly hope that a movement that fosters anti-Arab/anti-Muslim hatred and acts of violence would not be welcomed into a synagogue in our—or any other—city,” said Elly Bulkin of Jews Say No!, one of the groups organizing the protest. In the past week, Yuval Steinitz, Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs, said at the Jerusalem Press Club, “We will build in the settlements during the negotiations” (Democracy Now, November 14, 2013). Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace, another of the groups organizing the protest, noted: “The settler movement and its supporters advocate building still more settlements on Palestinian land. We see their advocacy for what it is: an insuperable obstacle to peace and justice and continued expansion on Palestinian land.”

The protest is sponsored by Jews Say No! and Jewish Voice for Peace NY and several endorsing groups— Adalah-NY: The New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel, Brooklyn For Peace, NYC Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, John Jay Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Rutgers Newark SJP, Brooklyn SJP, Hunter SJP, Rutgers New Brunswick SJP, CUNY Law SJP, New Yorkers Against the Cornell-Technion Partnership

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

135 Responses

  1. November 16, 2013, 10:26 pm

    god bless you good people- YOU are god’s chosen! i remember seeing two of your girls on the n&r many years ago
    keep up the good work and don’t ever, ever give up!

  2. ayala
    ayala
    November 17, 2013, 12:36 am

    Someone here has a problem. All the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan ( and actually including Jordan) was given back to the Jewish People in 1922 at San Remo and under the British Mandate which also carved up the rest of the Ottomon Empire and gave it to the Arabs. Why do you insist on defaming the Jewish people? Do you hate yourself? And besides, the rel Palestinians are the Jews. My husband was born in Palestine in 1945, he is a Jew and has been in the Holy Land for 13 generations. The name Palestina was given to Judea by the Romans to try and take away the Jewish name Judea for the Holy Land. You are promoting big lies …is that how you make a .living?

    • FreddyV
      FreddyV
      November 17, 2013, 3:54 am

      Hi Ayala,

      Welcome and prepare to be educated. Sadly, your country has fed you and your fellow countrymen lies and propaganda from the outset. Allow us to help you.

      San Remo eh?

      I asked questions about San Remo once. Take a look at Talknic’s reply:

      http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/the-era-of-sanctions-against-israel-has-started-official-bds-movement-statement-on-new-eu-regulations-against-settlements.html/comment-page-1#comment-578138

      Regards

      Fred.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 17, 2013, 9:19 am

        @Freddy;

        “Welcome and prepare to be educated”? How? Maybe by telling Ayala the falsehoods you all believe?

        “allow us to help you” – better you tone down your arrogant response and start educate your self.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        November 17, 2013, 10:13 am

        Kahane the potato seller,

        The San Remo meme has been disproven over and over.

        The new troll is not saying anything we haven’t heard before.

        So yes, prepare to be educated.

        Last I checked, you get your ass handed to you on a regular basis. So I don’t know why you’re accusing FV of arrogance.

        Hostage, Shingo, Talknic, etc. have all demolished this type of hasbara bullshit.

      • talknic
        talknic
        November 17, 2013, 10:24 am

        @MahaneYehude1 “Maybe by telling Ayala the falsehoods you all believe?”

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/the-era-of-sanctions-against-israel-has-started-official-bds-movement-statement-on-new-eu-regulations-against-settlements.html/comment-page-1#comment-578138 Care to point the falsehood out …. thx

        I’ll wait … http://talknic.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/waiting_for_the_israeli_propagandist.gif

        If you can’t point to a falsehood, you’re making an idiot of yourself

      • FreddyV
        FreddyV
        November 17, 2013, 10:46 am

        @Mahane:

        Its not arrogance.

        Its pity……..

      • amigo
        amigo
        November 17, 2013, 11:12 am

        “Welcome and prepare to be educated”? How? Maybe by telling Ayala the falsehoods you all believe?” mehane 1,2 or 3??.

        It is admirable of you mehane defending a fellow Hasbarist who it would seem has just graduated from the ZUH , (Zionist University of Hasbara) and has been thrown to the lions to be torn apart.

        By the way, what falsehoods are you referring to ???.

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        November 18, 2013, 12:13 am

        Mahane
        So what in your world is the right response to someone (Ayala) who believes that San Remo “gave” the Jewish people the whole land from the river to the sea? Unless you’re a right wing settler (oxymoron) yourself your response should not be any different Freddy and others have already gave. Get some education. San Remo gave nothing and promised nothing. BTW, The League of Nations is defunct. It happened long time ago and it has never been more than a collection of a limited number of nation dominated by colonial powers. You don’t even believe what the UN says today so why should you believe a long dead body?

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 18, 2013, 9:49 am

        @thankgod:

        Tell me, please, did I ever discuss San Remo in my comments? Look, I don’t need papers to prove Israel is my homeland. The sources and documents I upload here from time to time are for the readers here and for the sake of the debate because I have to play the same game in this site. When a Palestinian kisses the land of Palestine and says “Falasteen is my homeland” be sure he doesn’t hold any UN resolution document. What is good for the Palestinians, good for Mahane:
        http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00446/135664503_446860c.jpg
        http://www.haaretz.co.il/polopoly_fs/1.2086088.1375276867!/image/2235333227.jpg

      • Reds
        Reds
        November 18, 2013, 10:06 am

        Or you could point this out.

        Sir John Shuckburgh (refering to Jordan)

        “It is not Palestine but it is part of the area administered under the authority of the Palestine mandate”…. He then goes on to say

        “The point that it is our interpretation of the country east of the Jordan river not west falls within which we promise during the war to recognized”

        “TransJordan is a wholly different position from Palestine and it was considered necessary that the special arrangement should be made there

      • eljay
        eljay
        November 18, 2013, 10:17 am

        >> Look, I don’t need papers to prove Israel is my homeland.

        The geographic region that was (Mandate) Palestine is your homeland and the homeland of everyother Palestinian born there. It is not the homeand of “the Jews”, contrary to what you or ayala or like-minded Zio-supremacists might think / wish / expect / demand.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        November 18, 2013, 12:27 pm

        Kahane

        For the Palestinians and minority of Jews who resided in Historic Palestine for thousands of years, Palestine IS their homeland and they do not need papers.

        Whereas Jewish colonists and thieves like you and your forefathers the vast majority of Israeli Jews – papers and legal spittle like the San Remo Whatever are necessary.

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        November 18, 2013, 10:15 pm

        Mahane
        By jumping on the first (Freddy) to counter Ayala’s bullshit you’re implicitly endorsing her outrageous post. What Freddy wrote is innocous in comparison to the falshood of her claims. Every single sentence she (likely a right wing settler) wrote oozes disdain and arrogance. Read her post again.
        As for your claim that Palestine is your homeland I’d agree only if you were a native. I have no obligation to believe in your fairy tales of 4000 (or maybe 40000?) years of connection if you’re just off the boat from Brooklyn. Sorry.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 19, 2013, 12:23 am

        “Look, I don’t need papers to prove Israel is my homeland. ”

        What do you mean by “homeland”?

      • amigo
        amigo
        November 20, 2013, 7:50 am

        “allow us to help you” – better you tone down your arrogant response and start educate your self.mahane to freddy.

        “You continue to ignore their primary intentions and you don’t want to think about the consequences of the war if we were not the stronger side. I prefer that the UN condemn us but, at least, I can seat now in Jerusalem and write you my replies. Not sure about this if we were the weak side.”mahane 1,2 or 3??.

        What was that you were saying about arrogance.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 20, 2013, 8:12 am

        @Amigo;

        “What was that you were saying about arrogance”

        If you refer to the second paragraph, no arrogance at all. I stand behind this argument and behind all my responses to talknic.

    • Inanna
      Inanna
      November 17, 2013, 5:02 am

      Someone here has a problem

      That’s the first step to getting help, ayala. Dig deeper and you might see just why so many Jews are turning away from the diet of bullshit they’ve been fed. Then go meet a Palestinian who was kicked out of their home and talk to them. You might realize that they got a raw deal and we should try to fix things up for them too. Just because they are human and as such are just as worthy of being treated well as anyone else.

      • Abe Bird
        Abe Bird
        November 18, 2013, 6:19 am

        Most Jews stand firm for Israel and against the planned and orchestrated misinformation proPALganda attacks against Israel. The Arabs in Palestine and around didn’t and still don’t accept the notion that non-Islamic state will exist in the ME. That’s why Christians had been persecuted, bitten and killed by Muslims in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt for the last 100 years. Israel is “the big pig and the big monkey” (They project their hatred of Jews on Israel and see her as the ultimate pig … Jew) that stuck before their eyes without any power to do something substantial against her, but swallow or spit. Muslims prefer now to spit on Israel (with the help of far left useful idiots in the west. Few of them Jews that operating on these circles but don’t contribute some really substantial credit but some curiosity and curvebally ) and what they have left to do is to complain’ to blame, to lie, to fabricate and to terrorize Israel.

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        November 18, 2013, 12:23 pm

        Wow. Perfect illustration of Israel’s Problem. Abject insularity.

        To kill, suppress, subjugate, meticulously deprive, and ethnically cleanse millions of people for decades and ongoing and then turn around and claim irrational/intrinsic hatred of the perpetrators of that ongoing violence is a real work of magical (re: hallucinogenic) thinking.

        1) If you want your neighbors (where you chose to forcibly locate, btw) to even begin to think of Israel as somewhat deserving of respect, stop killing (etc.) them. Simple.

        2) This absolute dismissal of reality is why Israel as you want it to remain, in isolation, is headed for inevitable collapse. If you don’t want that, reflect and adjust. You’ll have to give up something. Actually, a lot.

        As eljay says so often, “Aggressor-victimhood is a tough gig.”

      • eljay
        eljay
        November 18, 2013, 12:40 pm

        >> The Arabs in Palestine and around didn’t and still don’t accept the notion that non-Islamic state will exist in the ME.

        What they quite rightly did not accept is the Zio-supremacist belief that Jews:
        – were/are entitled to most (if not all) of Palestine;
        – had/have a right to ethnically cleanse the indigenous population from their homes and lands; and
        – had/have a right to set up an oppressive, colonialist, expansionst and supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine.

        >> Muslims prefer now to spit on Israel … and what they have left to do is to complain’ to blame, to lie, to fabricate and to terrorize Israel.

        And while Muslims spit and blame, Zio-supremacist Jews continue with impunity to oppress, steal, colonize, destroy, torture and murder…and cry “Victim!” and “Holocaust!” as they do so.

        Yeah, it sure is a tough gig… :-(

      • amigo
        amigo
        November 19, 2013, 7:42 am

        “Muslims prefer now to spit on Israel (with the help of far left useful idiots in the west. abe bird

        http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/christians-in-jerusalem-want-jews-to-stop-spitting-on-them-1.137099

        I look forward to your response .That is if you have not flown the coop, bird.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      November 17, 2013, 5:49 am

      ayala: “All the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan ( and actually including Jordan) was given back to the Jewish People in 1922 at San Remo …”

      Lie # 1. Cause no legal document of San Remo exists to prove your claim.

      … and under the British Mandate …”

      Lie # 2. Cause nothing in the mandate text proves your claim.

      Why do you insist on defaming the Jewish people? Do you hate yourself?”

      Lie #3. Cause he didn’t defame the Jewish people.

      And besides, the rel Palestinians are the Jews.

      Lie #4. It is more likely that Palestinians are descendants of ancient Hebrew than Jews from Ashkenaz.

      My husband was born in Palestine in 1945, he is a Jew and has been in the Holy Land for 13 generations.

      Good for him. One of the minority of Jews in Palestine who actually was a citizen of Palestine and had the political right to decide its future with all other Palestinians by referendum. The rest of Jews in Palestine on the other hand …

      The name Palestina was given to Judea by the Romans to try and take away the Jewish name Judea for the Holy Land.

      LOL. What was the name of the mandate again, you claim to have handed over territory to the Jews and which has what name?

      You are promoting big lies …is that how you make a .living?

      You mistake him for “Comical Danny” Ayalon. Btw. what’s your excuse for promoting your big lies?

    • Walid
      Walid
      November 17, 2013, 6:03 am

      “And besides, the real Palestinians are the Jews.”

      Apart from the San Remo mistake, Jews were definitely Palestinians since 13 generations, but so where Arabs since an equally long period.

      Aya, are you saying that during all these past generations, there weren’t any Arabs living in Palestine?

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        November 17, 2013, 11:46 am

        Walid,

        Don’t fall for the jews versus Arab BS. We have Arab jews, Arab moslems, and Arab christians. We also have european jews – colonizing Arab land in the middle east.

        Judaism is not a people or a race or a country, it’s a religion.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        November 17, 2013, 7:45 pm

        Taxi: Judaism is not a people or a race or a country, it’s a religion.

        Most important, “Jewish” is not a nationality like Palestinian which makes a “Jewish state” a pretty racist entity.

    • just
      just
      November 17, 2013, 6:11 am

      “My husband was born in Palestine in 1945, he is a Jew and has been in the Holy Land for 13 generations.”

      Wow– he must be ancient.

      Your post is riddled with untruths and is, quite frankly, more than a little creepy.

      Welcome to MW.

    • ziusudra
      ziusudra
      November 17, 2013, 6:13 am

      Greetings Ayala,
      …. My husband was born in Palestine in 1945, he is a Jew.
      You are confused even as to your own history.
      Peleset predates Palistine named by the Egyptians.
      Judea is the name of the conjectual southern Kingdom of
      Judea.
      ……..Palestine was given to Judea by the Romans…….
      Here you go off de bat totally.
      Palestine was Canaan 4K BC. (6K yrs ago!)
      Jerusalem was Schalim, a walled in City under the Canaanites.
      The 12 tribes don’t glance opon the spendor of Canaan until 1200BC.
      The Romans don’t arrive until 63BC.
      … the holy land….
      The holiest of the ancients happened before the 12 tribes even
      set foot in Canaan.
      All that was ever written about them are really tales of foreignors
      which were Judaised:
      King Ziusudra of Sumeria predates Noah in his deed of the great Eurphrates Flood
      in 2900BC.
      Abraham gives the Canaanites Anthropo (poly) Theism in 1700BC.
      Moses steals the 10 Commandments from the Egyptians.
      Joshua dies when Moses is but a year old.
      World Jewry ne’er called Falesteena the holy land from 200BC to 1945AD.
      If anything is considered holy, it was the other fairy tale of the Catholic Church
      of which the conjectual Jesus was born. Islam also fell for these tales.
      All 3 have a dog in the fight.
      ziusudra
      PS I’m so happy for you that your Husband has been living for 13 Generations.
      Psst Husband is Anglo-Saxon & means one who is banded to the house after marriage : Hus =House, band= banded.

    • thankgodimatheist
      thankgodimatheist
      November 17, 2013, 7:19 am

      “My husband was born in Palestine in 1945, he is a Jew and has been in the Holy Land for 13 generations.”
      Are you telling us you’re actually Mrs. Methuselah?

      • just
        just
        November 17, 2013, 8:03 am

        LOL. Precisely.

        This is, unfortunately, not just a grammatical error, it is apparently the author’s profound belief.

        Wow. Mrs. Methuselah, indeed.

        (sorry for my own punctuation errors)

    • thankgodimatheist
      thankgodimatheist
      November 17, 2013, 7:21 am

      “All the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan ( and actually including Jordan) was given back to the Jewish People in 1922 at San Remo”
      Could you please provide the clause where it says so?

      • NickJOCW
        NickJOCW
        November 17, 2013, 8:31 am

        Could you please provide the clause where it says so?

        She just wrote it.

      • ayala
        ayala
        November 17, 2013, 9:14 am

        If the link didnt come through see google myts and facts by eli hertz

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        November 17, 2013, 10:14 am

        who is eli hertz

      • talknic
        talknic
        November 17, 2013, 10:40 am

        @ ayala your “myts and facts by eli hertz” has the same wholly holey Hasbara holes as your ‘San Remo’ nonsense. The documents he cites DO NOT support the alleged ‘facts’ he ties to perpetuate

      • amigo
        amigo
        November 17, 2013, 12:01 pm

        ayala, you will be telling us to read Joan Peters next.

        Go back to hasbara classes.You are not nearly ready to do battle with some of MW,s Gladiators.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        November 17, 2013, 6:54 pm

        If the link didnt come through see google myts and facts by eli hertz

        At least we know now, why you are failing to argue or prove your point, ayala. Eli Hertz has the same problems.

      • Djinn
        Djinn
        November 18, 2013, 3:06 am

        Why check some secondary interpretation of the source? You claimed specific documents conferred certain things. Cut and paste the clause, or admit you have no idea what the documents you cite actually say. Unfortunately for you, most people commenting here are aware of the contents of those documents.

    • amigo
      amigo
      November 17, 2013, 8:14 am

      “Someone here has a problem. All the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan ( and actually including Jordan) was given back to the Jewish People in 1922 at San Remo and under the British Mandate”ayala

      Looks as if Hasbara central is sending out more raw recruits with very little training.

      Keep em coming guys.They provide comic relief.

    • Shmuel
      Shmuel
      November 17, 2013, 9:09 am

      A few questions, ayala,

      All the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan … was given back to the Jewish People in 1922 at San Remo

      “Given” by whom? “Back” from whom? Who gave the givers the right to make such a decision?

      My husband was born in Palestine in 1945, he is a Jew and has been in the Holy Land for 13 generations.

      What do his rights as a Palestinian have to do with those of non-Palestinian members of his religion/ethnicity, and why should they trump those of Palestinians of other religions/ethnicities?

      The name Palestina was given to Judea by the Romans to try and take away the Jewish name Judea for the Holy Land.

      Why on earth should that give modern-day non-Palestinians the right to forcibly dispossess the actual inhabitants of the land? By what ethical or legal rationale? Could you please explain how that works, in terms capable of transcending specific cultural/religious context.

      • ayala
        ayala
        November 17, 2013, 10:36 am

        No one has moved or disposses anyone….have you visited? Read? Researche? Dont be a pawn in other’s conflicts

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 17, 2013, 4:57 pm

        No one has moved or disposses anyone

        False. You might want to start by reading Benny Morris’ Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.

        have you visited?

        I assume you mean Israel/Palestine. Lived there for the better part of my life and have visited many times since.

        Read?

        Yes.

        Researche?

        Yes.

        Dont be a pawn in other’s conflicts

        I’ll try to remember that.

        You haven’t answered my questions.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 17, 2013, 5:30 pm

        @Ayala:

        in addition to Shmuel recommendation, let me, please, recommend you two sources, both appear in Hebrew too:

        1) “1948, Israel, and the Palestinians —The True Story” by Efraim Karsh
        http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/1948-israel-and-the-palestinians%E2%80%94the-true-story/
        E. Karsh has written several books and many articles about the conflict, especially on the refugee’s problem. You can find the list in the web. Among them, I recommend to start with: “Fabricating Israeli history: the ‘new historians’/ Efraim Karsh” (also Hebrew edition 1999).

        2) “Y. Gelber: Komemioot and Nakba: Israel, the Palestinians and Arab countries 1948” (Hebrew).

        Of course, the common responses here will be “they are BS Hasbara”, but, please, don’t pay much attention. Many here can’t deal with the facts written in those sources.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        November 17, 2013, 7:00 pm

        ayala: No one has moved or disposses anyone

        Are you nuts? According to the Haganah’s SHAI report about 72% of the refugees until June 1948 were a result of Israel’s direct actions. After that it was even more, if not 100%. Israel looted bank accounts and confiscated the property of the refugees.

        You’re not different from Holocaust deniers.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        November 17, 2013, 7:05 pm

        MahaneYehude1: Many here can’t deal with the facts written in those sources.

        What “facts”, MahaneYehude1? The fact that Israel misappropriated the property of the refugees? The fact that no serious historian questions that most Palestinian were expelled but some question, if this was planned? The fact that refugees who are not allowed to return are considered expelled anyway? Or the fact that your Israel needs them expelled and denationalized to maintain its racist character?

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        November 18, 2013, 12:27 am

        “let me, please, recommend you two sources, both appear in Hebrew too”

        Hah, Mahane. Glad to see that her ignorance was obvious to you as well. Hehe.

      • talknic
        talknic
        November 18, 2013, 12:29 am

        @ MahaneYehude1

        “Many here can’t deal with the facts written in those sources.”

        Why read second hand material when one can read the official record per the Israeli Government, the UN/UNSC, the LoN and the relevant Governments recognizing Israel.

        Your so called facts are attempts to justify the illegal acquisition of non-Israeli territory. They are BS Hasbara. Nonsense for people who don’t bother, don’t want to think or who’re trying to purposefully justify the unjustifiable (propagandists)

        The events that transpired prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time), the precise moment according to the then Provisional Government of Israel that Israeli independence took effect http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf , are of historical interest only.

        From precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time), the territories that lay “outside the State of Israel” ..”in Palestine” http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk were quite simply not Israeli. They have yet to be legally annexed to Israel.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 18, 2013, 12:59 am

        @talknic:

        “Why read second hand material when one can read the official record per the Israeli Government, the UN/UNSC, the LoN and the relevant Governments recognizing Israel.”

        You should address your comment to Shmuel who recommended Ayala Morris’s book.

        About the rest of your comment and your other comments, I already responded to you in a comprehensive way. As I told you, you have no ability to deal with my sources, reject them from odd reasons (“He was fired…”, “credible source…”). If a creature from Venus will come to visit planet Earth, and will read your comments (In case he has nothing else to do), he would think that the Arabs sent soldiers to the battle fields, holding the “The International law handbook” and citing the UN resolutions instead firing. You continue to ignore their primary intentions and you don’t want to think about the consequences of the war if we were not the stronger side. I prefer that the UN condemn us but, at least, I can seat now in Jerusalem and write you my replies. Not sure about this if we were the weak side.
        http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10E13FF385A157B93C0A91783D85F4C8485F9

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 18, 2013, 1:06 am

        @thankgod:

        “Hah, Mahane. Glad to see that her ignorance was obvious to you as well. Hehe”

        Hah, Hah, thankgod, maybe she is ignorant (I am not sure about this), but her honest comment “touched” me and, I think, better from all other sophisticated comments you can read here.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 18, 2013, 2:42 am

        her honest comment “touched” me

        Which “honest comment” was that? The one about San Remo (all the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan rightfully belongs to the Jewish people); the one about Jews being “the real Palestinians”; or the one about no Palestinians having been dispossessed?

        Do you believe that any of these assertions have a basis in reality? If so, how do you reconcile them with your comments on post-67 settlements, peace and reconciliation? All of Palestine belongs to the Jewish people (because the European and East Asian victors of WWI “gave” it to them)? Jews and Jews only (no matter where they are actually from) are the native inhabitants of Palestine and everyone else is some sort of imposter? There are no Palestinian refugees, no expropriated Palestinian property, no “present absentees”?

        Or was it the “honest” tone of ayala’s comment that “touched” you? You know, the part about “self-hatred” and “promoting big lies for a living”? I thought you liked to keep things clean and polite.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 18, 2013, 3:16 am

        @Shmuel:

        You are too smart and intelligent to understand me. I never claimed I agreed with Ayala arguments, but, let’s be fair and admit, that such comment is not coming from “professional Hasbara” as you all like to say, but from a person that really don’t understand why people treat us so harshly.

        In contrary to Ayala’s comment, I agree with your sentence “…with your comments on post-67 settlements, peace and reconciliation” – Yes, Shmuel, although I am a Zionist and love the state of Israel, with all her faults, I believe the land must be divided (Including EJ), independent Palestinian state, peace and reconciliation.

        BTW, Shmuel, my original comment was addressed to the arrogant comment of Freddy and has nothing with Ayala’s comment. I would write such comment again to Freddy even without reading Ayala’s comment. Read Freddy again, please, and tell me if you agree that people talk to you in such way.

        Shalom.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 18, 2013, 3:48 am

        MY1,

        You said you were “touched” by ayala’s “honest comment”. There was nothing honest in her comment.

        Now you say you were merely upset by Freddy’s arrogance (something about the chronology and the threads doesn’t fit, but never mind), yet ayala’s arrogance and abusiveness in her original comment didn’t seem to faze you. Reminder: “Someone here has a problem… Why do you insist on defaming the Jewish people? Do you hate yourself? You are promoting big lies …is that how you make a .living?”

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 18, 2013, 4:26 am

        Shmuel:

        There was nothing honest in her comment.

        Well, if she honestly believed her assertions were true then her comments were “honest”, imo. They could have been honest and heartfelt, however false.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 18, 2013, 5:02 am

        Well, if she honestly believed her assertions were true then her comments were “honest”, imo. They could have been honest and heartfelt, however false.

        Sibiriak,

        I have no doubt that ayala sincerely believes that all of the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people and that Palestinians are interlopers, but I find the particular arguments she cited in support of her belief (San Remo, her husband’s lineage, the origin of the name Palestine and the non-dispossession of Palestinians) to be dishonest (absolutely false in the case of dispossession – even if one believes, like Morris, that it was “necessary”).

      • FreddyV
        FreddyV
        November 18, 2013, 10:19 am

        @Mahane:

        As you well know, this place and many others gets hit on a regular basis with Hasbarists or defenders of Israeli Government policy posing as innocent posters who have just ‘found’ Mondoweiss and are shocked by having large portions of the narrative as they know it to be refuted.

        Alternatively, Ayala could really be an innocent who is shocked to hear the true narrative of the Israel / Palestine conflict.

        Either way, the truth is the truth and posting up here with Ayala’s post you’re going to get educated.

        If she’s honest, ‘educated’ means she’ll learn something. However, if she’s a hasbarist, take ‘educated’ to mean having her ass handed to her. As I said, the truth is the truth. Sorry if peeps can’t handle that. “you’re wrong” usually don’t go down too well, but the truth isn’t about being nice. Sorry. I’m sure she’s a lovely girl and all and I’m sure you, Hoppy, FredBlogs and all the other defenders of Israel’s policies are fabulous people and all.

        I’m sorry if that sounds arrogant Mahane and I hope Ayala was being honest, but as honest as Ayala appears, her post is like a third grader walking into a sixth grade maths lesson and telling everyone that they’re full of shit. “Oh really? Come and take a seat my dear and learn something”.

        Or maybe she’s a bot.

      • straightline
        straightline
        November 18, 2013, 1:46 pm

        Is this or is this not Nakba denial, thereby requiring banishment by Mondoweiss?

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 18, 2013, 3:39 pm

        @Fred:

        “I’m sorry if that sounds arrogant Mahane and I hope Ayala was being honest”

        I very appreciate your honest comment. Since you wrote you are sorry, I also sorry if my response to you was harsh but I sure you understand me. It was not the content of your and Ayala’s comments, but the way things were written. Wish you all the best.

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        November 18, 2013, 9:15 pm

        Can I share with you, Mahane, that when I was a kid, I thought the worst job in the world was being a potato peeler on a pirate ship (all thanks to being enamored by Popeye cartoons). To this day, I see the potato as a symbol of abject misery.

      • FreddyV
        FreddyV
        November 19, 2013, 7:09 am

        @Mahane:

        Thank you for your reply. I do find these online interchanges interesting as we occasionally step over lines we would never cross in real life and these serve as checks and measures to remind us to be cordial, polite and honest. I appreciate your comments and take them on board.

        Regards

        fred

      • amigo
        amigo
        November 19, 2013, 7:57 am

        “Read Freddy again, please, and tell me if you agree that people talk to you in such way.” mahane 1,2 or 3??.

        How else should one address a Zio supremacist and colonialist liar and a thief.

        If you had a kern of credibility you would have at least pointed out her errors but you chose to jump right in and defend her thereby showing us your cards.

        You cannot now backtrack.

      • talknic
        talknic
        November 19, 2013, 9:14 am

        MahaneYehude1 “You should address your comment to Shmuel who recommended Ayala Morris’s book”

        You failed to answer my question. Why am I not surprised.

        “About the rest of your comment and your other comments, I already responded to you in a comprehensive way”

        And I have responded with verifiable OFFICIAL Articles from the LoN Mandate for Palestine, OFFICIAL Jewish Agency statements, verifiable OFFICIAL Israeli Government statements from either the OFFICIAL Israeli Govt website, the OFFICIAL US Government record and the OFFICIAL UN/UNSC record. All of which show your drivel to be….well….drivel

        ” you have no ability to deal with my sources, reject them from odd reasons (“He was fired…”, “credible source…”)”

        See above

        “If a creature from Venus will come to visit planet Earth….”

        Your stupid comments have no actual bearing on the matter what so ever. Israel started a war, using weapons. The Arab states responded accordingly.

        However, prior to Israel’s war on what remained on Palestine, from circa 1920 till the present day the Arabs have fought the legal battle, citing the LoN covenant, the LoN Mandate for Palestine, International Law, the UN Charter and International Conventions and have in fact adhered to the above meticulously. That’s why there are no UNSC resolutions condemning their actions in retaliation to Israel breaking the law

        “You continue to ignore their primary intentions”

        There are no UNSC resolutions against any Arab state in support of the Hasbara narrative.

        ” I prefer that the UN condemn us “

        But you bitch when they do

        “..but, at least, I can seat now in Jerusalem and write you my replies. Not sure about this if we were the weak side”

        Weak, schmeak. ILLEGAL under International Law

        “http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10E13FF385A157B93C0A91783D85F4C8485F9”

        August 02, 1948 CAIRO, Egypt, Aug. 1 — Sheikh Hassan el-Bana, head of the Moslem Brotherhood, largest of the extremist Arab nationalist organizations, declared in an interview today: “If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea.

        A) It doesn’t make sense. Ever heard of chronology? August 1st 1948 was almost three months AFTER the Jewish state became a fact on May 15th 1948

        Not only is the chronology awry, he’s allegedly speaking in the future tense, “becomes”, about a matter in that occurred three months prior.

        B) It’s one alleged statement, by one Arab official speaking in an unofficial capacity.

      • talknic
        talknic
        November 19, 2013, 9:39 am

        @MahaneYehude1

        The NY Times abstract of the Dana Adams Schmidt article ( http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10E13FF385A157B93C0A91783D85F4C8485F9 ) doesn’t tell the full story

        Schmidt hastens to write that the sheikh, who was referring to the quarter-million Jews living in Arab countries at the time, said that he was merely using a “figure of speech,” even though he added, “facetiously, that ‘of course, if the United States send ships to pick them up, that would be all right.'”
        By the end of the interview al-Banna, then in the penultimate year of his life, offered a solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute over the Land of Palestine. He suggested that the Jews should settle in the empty areas of Australia: “We sympathize with the homeless Jews, but it is not humane that they should be settled in an area where they render homeless other people who have been settled thousands of years.” http://archive.is/Oo18s

    • eljay
      eljay
      November 17, 2013, 10:00 am

      >> Someone here has a problem.

      Yes, you do. But Zio-supremacism can be overcome. It’s not easy, but if you’re sincere about getting better, you can do it. I wish you well.

    • EUR1069
      EUR1069
      November 17, 2013, 10:28 am

      “And besides, the rel Palestinians are the Jews”

      Not quite.. It’s rather the other way around: Palestinians are the real semites here. You used to be the same people 2000 years ago, but while the exiles mixed with Germans, Hungarians, Russians & then some, boosted the Ashkenazim numbers with the mass conversion of the Khazars into Judaism (ZERO connection to the “historic Homeland”), – the predecessors of the modern-day Palestinians stayed put, kept their semite roots intact & thus have more claim to the land.

    • Taxi
      Taxi
      November 17, 2013, 1:44 pm

      Oh dear, them colonialists all think alike:
      ” The British Mandate which also carved up the rest of the Ottomon Empire and gave it to the Arabs”.

      Surely you mean ‘returned’ it to the Arabs.

      The holy land belongs to Arab Palestinians, not to euro jews, not to other Arab jews, not to Ottomans and most certainly not to Brits.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        November 17, 2013, 5:52 pm

        Rights in a territory are not to be given to or withheld from those who live there by outsiders, they are inherent in those who live there.
        I have never seen even the beginnings of a justification of Zionism by any generally recognised principle of morality.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 17, 2013, 8:08 pm

        “I have never seen even the beginnings of a justification of Zionism by any generally recognised principle of morality.”

        I’m still waiting for that, too.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      November 17, 2013, 7:06 pm

      Someone here has a problem. All the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan ( and actually including Jordan) was given back to the Jewish People in 1922 at San Remo and under the British Mandate which also carved up the rest of the Ottomon Empire and gave it to the Arabs.

      Nope. The prohibition of pillage (aka plunder, spoilage, etc.) of public and private property was prohibited by the customary law of nations in the early 19th century.

      That was long before the rule was codified in the annex to the Hague IV Convention of 1907. So, there was no way for the San Remo Conference to legally “give” Palestine to any party other than the inhabitants who were already living there.

      That’s the short version. If you’d like the longer more exhaustive one, which includes material from the Israeli Supreme Court decision in the Gaza Coast Council vs Knesset case, then just click on the Hostage link at the top of this post and simply search for San Remo yourself.

    • homingpigeon
      homingpigeon
      November 17, 2013, 8:32 pm

      Ayala, welcome to Mondoweiss, but I must warn you that you’ll have to deepen your knowledge some if you’re going to correct the commentators here. San Remo indeed. How about if some African representatives meet in Mozambique and decide that Peru should be “given” to the gypsies? Do you think people in Peru will calmly accept the conclusions of this conference? Maybe a conference of East Asians in Hong Kong could decide to award me and my fellow Druids all the the land around Stonehenge. When we throw the people presently living there out of their houses I could send them to you to explain the logic and justice of the matter to them.

    • thankgodimatheist
      thankgodimatheist
      November 18, 2013, 12:58 am

      Honestly now, Ayala. I don’t think any of us here has ever dreamed of having a less cogent contradictor or a sparring opponent. I’m imagining the smile you must have brought to our collective face.

      • Walid
        Walid
        November 18, 2013, 2:05 am

        “Honestly now, Ayala. ” (TGIA)

        Slow day at Mondo; better than nutting, everyone also using the opportunity to try making good catholics out of the Magnificent Mahane Twins.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 18, 2013, 3:22 am

        @Walid:

        After the long and very informative thread about the origin of Ashura among Sunni, I asked several Arabs about it. Many didn’t know about it but few people heard about the Hadith and, I was surprised to hear from two of them that they are fasting (but two days, not one, in the 9th and 10th of the Islamic month (think Muharram) which came last Wednesday and Thursday.

      • Walid
        Walid
        November 18, 2013, 6:56 am

        “Many didn’t know about it ”

        Not surprising, One group was taught that it started at Kerbala and the other group wasn’t taught at all about it and neither have any interest in history. You could assume the same limited knowledge with people of all faiths. I found your learned twin’s explanation of the half-life of an isotope very interesting .

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 18, 2013, 8:38 am

        @Walid:

        Thanks for your information. I like very much the thread about the Shia/Sunna and the origin of Ashura. I hope to see more like this in MW:
        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/netanyahus-greatest-linkage.html/comment-page-1#comment-611396

        I glad you find the explanation interesting, although I only wanted to mention the term “Biological half-life”.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        November 18, 2013, 11:48 am

        Thanks for the hint, Walid I didn’t notice there are Mahane twins. Although yes, although I wondered about the number, at one point.

        Odd shifting of the topic based with a seemingly very interested use of an “informative thread”, indeed. I wasn’t aware to what extend it has been a topic here: Ashura

        Obviously you are all struggling here with opponents that surely today look somewhat pretentious. I surely admire Hostage’s patience, maybe I should start to admire your’s too. Maybe I should be more often careful with giving the benefit of doubt to some of them, after all the really could be trying to learn. ;)

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        November 18, 2013, 11:54 am

        MehaneYehude1, what made you choose your name? This accidentally? Or are you using it simply to show you sternly belong into a specific camp?

        Why do you address Walid with a type of argument, you surely cannot have read out of what he wrote. Thus, are you sure it was interesting?

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 18, 2013, 11:39 pm

        LeaNder:

        “you surely cannot have read out of what he wrote”
        Are you seriously about this after the long thread we had in which you also participated?

        What is the purpose of your questions? I do remember you from the “Zigeunerschnitzel” thread.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 18, 2013, 11:42 pm

        @Walid:

        I please ask you to stop writing about the “Twins”. This insult me and decrease my credibility. We can continue debate, disagree or sometime cooperate, but please stop with it. It is not Walidic to behave like this.

      • Walid
        Walid
        November 19, 2013, 4:02 am

        “I please ask you to stop writing about the “Twins”. ..” (Mahane)

        Take it as a compliment, Mahane, not many could accomplish what you have done, having 2 people share a common name and having everyone here pretending they don’t see it. Debate with or without the potatoes is still good.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        November 19, 2013, 7:46 am

        Mahane, this is what Walid wrote in the discussion you link to:

        Walid: Ziusudra had a small notion and a general time frame of when it happened and I simply tried to sharpen them with as few onerous details as possible. I took the opportunity to put in a few words about Ashura since we were past the midpoint of the 10 days that are so solemn for the Shia and slightly less for the Suni; today is the tenth of Muharram, Ashura.

        This is exactly what I liked about it. My memory of the history of Islam is very, very old. Funny, by the way, I am very aware of this, and I won’t even bother to go back to check if it is based on the discussion or if Walid’s short summary helped me to take a closer look. It’s not important what is important that he sharpened historical essentials and connected it to the present. …

        And this is your use here apparently to change the topic. What is your intention by suggesting that the Hadith that refers to the origin of Ashura is not known? That he wrote something wrong? To sharpen readers perception that they have to look at Arabs in a specific way? Via Orientialism or a little Israeli expertise on “the Arab mind”? Are you trying to point out the fact that Arabs are collectively misguided sheep and the new Nazis? That Muslim are sheeple manipulated by religious leaders? Yes, always out there, nothing new there “it feels”. But that is the obvious result if one firmly belongs into a camp.

        How many Israelis or for that matter Jewish citizen in the diaspora, are aware of Jewish customs in earlier centuries. Or possibly matters they picked up somewhere else over the centuries? … To not go into the latest custom of sanctifying the state and it’s relation to the selective use of tradition?

        Why do you bring “Zigeunerschnitzel” up here? Why is my struggle with German Lefty important in this context? To remind me that I have to always be on your side? Personally I consider philosemites just as suspicious as antisemites. I hope that helps. …

        Don’t bother to answer.

      • amigo
        amigo
        November 19, 2013, 8:12 am

        “Take it as a compliment, Mahane, not many could accomplish what you have done, having 2 people share a common name and having everyone here pretending they don’t see it.” Walid.

        Walid, I wonder which Mahane is laughing loudest.I found it side splitting.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 19, 2013, 11:48 am

        @LeaNder:

        Don’t bother to answer? Why? You wrote a very severe accusations against me, all of them are no more than nonsense. I don’t understand why asking Arabs about the Ashura is bad? Why, for instance, don’t you see the positive thing in this issue: I enjoyed reading and learning new things (Yes, even from people that are not from my “camp” as you say) and I enjoyed talking about the information in the next day with Arabs, which I learned more things from them, too. That is the only reason I wrote my comment to Walid and I sure he understood it this way. I thanked them (Walid and Gammal) for the information they wrote and I thank them again here.

        “What is your intention by suggesting that the Hadith that refers to the origin of Ashura is not known? That he wrote something wrong? To sharpen readers perception that they have to look at Arabs in a specific way? Via Orientialism or a little Israeli expertise on “the Arab mind”? Are you trying to point out the fact that Arabs are collectively misguided sheep and the new Nazis? That Muslim are sheeple manipulated by religious leaders?”

        Lea, read your paragraph again. It is unbelievable (especially the following sentence: “Are you trying to point out the fact that Arabs are collectively misguided sheep and the new Nazis?”). Why a naive and nice comment, after I spoke with Arabs, deserve such accusations? How a person that love the Arabic tradition, listen to Arabic music and consider himself Arab, receive such accusations?

        “How many Israelis or for that matter Jewish citizen in the diaspora, are aware of Jewish customs in earlier centuries?”
        Did I say something wrong? I aware that many people from different religions don’t know all things. I wish I had 5% knowledge about Judaism. I am not sure I have 1% of that.

        Lea, I don’t care in which “side” you are. If I want people be in my side, MW is not the place to find them.

        “Personally I consider philosemites just as suspicious as antisemites. I hope that helps. …”
        What do you mean? Which “help” do you expect? Look, lea, I am sitting in Jerusalem and you in some place in other country. I don’t think that you can analyze me in such way only I wrote Walid my comment. At least, you can search my profile before writing such severe accusations that I don’t think reach the correct address.

        Lea, I don’t consider my self a naive or oversensitive person. But, although I am in my sixth decade of my life, this time, when I read your comment I felt so bad and worse than that. Sentences like “Are you trying to point out the fact that Arabs are collectively misguided sheep and the new Nazis?” are not easy to read at all.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 19, 2013, 12:04 pm

        @Walid:

        “Take it as a compliment”
        No, it is not a compliment. Look, although we had many debates, several of them were not pleasant, I sincerely respect you. For the last time, I ask you to stop with all this issue of “Mahane Twins”. I sure you know it is wrong, and I hope you don’t use it to decrease my credibility. I will not ask again and I think it is the time to stop with it.

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      November 18, 2013, 2:40 am

      ayala:

      …All the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan ( and actually including Jordan) was given back to the Jewish People in 1922 at San Remo…

      You are quite mistaken, Ayala. Eretz Yisrael was given to the Jewish People by a God, not by some imperialists at San Remo.

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        November 18, 2013, 7:57 am

        Greetings Sibiriak,
        ….Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel) was given….. by a God…….

        A foreign God. He was called EL by Abraham & like Abraham of Mesopotamia, who had 70 children Deities, one of which was
        Yahweh – a minor deity of agriculture- worshipped to by King Saul
        as his private Family Deity- The Pharisees dropped EL for Yahweh
        after Babylonian captivity in 536BC.
        See Israel, Isra= He fights EL=God.
        ziusudra
        PS Silly Symbols or Allegories, a very confused People.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        November 18, 2013, 8:39 am

        @ Sibiriak

        That’s how the first belligerent takeover of this land was justified. It’s obvious who had an interest to suggest that this was sanctioned by God.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      November 18, 2013, 2:46 am

      The name Palestina was given to Judea by the Romans to try and take away the Jewish name Judea for the Holy Land. You are promoting big lies …is that how you make a .living?

      No the Greeks had already been using the term for hundreds of years before the Romans even arrived on the scene. FYI, the delegates attending the first Zionist Congress promoted big lies and unanimously adopted the Basel Program on the morning of the second day. Like the ancient Greeks, they opted to call the region Palastina, instead of Eretz Israel in their historical documentary record of the occasion.

  3. EUR1069
    EUR1069
    November 17, 2013, 10:47 am
  4. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    November 17, 2013, 12:21 pm

    I still claim (my main argument was here on June 22) that ‘Palestine’ was a traditional name that the Romans chose to restore and that it is the one and only name properly attested for Palestine in pre-Roman times.
    Much more important is what Shmuel says here, that there cannot be a right of international conferences to bestow territory regardless of the will of inhabitants. Not that the Balfour Declaration and the dynasty of documents and decisions descended from it ever openly claimed (I don’t deny Balfour’s duplicity; these British politicians!) that the rights of non-Jewish inhabitants were to be disregarded or reduced.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      November 17, 2013, 8:02 pm

      Much more important is what Shmuel says here, that there cannot be a right of international conferences to bestow territory regardless of the will of inhabitants.

      Experts on international law agree that the customary practice regarding the creation of new states by international organizations, like the Concert of Europe, the League of Nations, and the UN, conditioned any cessions of territory, diplomatic recognition, and even recognition of statehood upon the acceptance of an international undertaking by the new government to protect the rights of the indigenous populations of the affected territories.

      The Versailles Peace Conference assigned the work to a single “Committee on Minorities and the Creation of New States”. See also Oscar I. Janowsky, “The Jews and Minority Rights, (1898-1919), Colombia University Press, 1933, page 342; Carole Fink, Defending the Rights of Others: The Great Powers, the Jews, And International Minority Protection, 1878-1938, Cambridge University Press, 2006, page 37; and Part III Creation of States in International Organizations, Chapter 13 “Mandates and Trust Territories” in James Crawford, “Creation of States in International Law, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2006, page 565

      So that practice existed long before the San Remo Conference required the British administrators to accept a formal undertaking to protect the existing right of legal equality held by the non-Jewish communities of Palestine under the terms of Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878). Likewise, there was never any UN proposal for an Arab or Jewish state in Palestine that didn’t contain an integral and compulsory minority rights undertaking.

      No one has moved or disposses anyone

      That’s just delusional. All of the territory acquired by the JNF from PM Ben Gurion in 1948 was acquired by pillaging private property in violation of international law. The same goes for the public and private property and natural resources that are pillaged today by the JNF and other private corporations, the State of Israel, and illegal settlers in Palestine. For general discussion of the applicable law see: James G. Stewart, Corporate War Crimes: Prosecuting the Pillage of Natural Resources http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/pillage-manual-2nd-edition-2011.pdf and Corporate War Crimes [Trials] Begin http://opiniojuris.org/2013/11/14/corporate-war-crimes-begin/

      If the 130+ other countries that recognize the State of Palestine begin prosecuting the corporations that profit from pillaging Palestinian natural resources, the Zionist state will be up the river without a paddle or any partners.

  5. seafoid
    seafoid
    November 17, 2013, 1:44 pm

    Proven strategies to communicate

    1. Call them anti-Semites
    2. Bring up the Shoah
    3. Kill their careers
    4. Just kill them

    But none of them work any more

  6. November 17, 2013, 4:01 pm

    Shalom, Ayala.
    I use this blog to learn about the twists of the anti-Zionists arguments. And for the relevant links. The people here even when they quote something do not really have patience, training or skills to read and understand what is written there. I do and I often learn how incorrect their confident replies are.
    Here is what I learned today following your remark and unprofessional replies to it. I decided to (finally) look at the San Remo story and used the link
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art1

    which was cited by one “expert” here..

    Bottom line – you are exactly right and I recommend that you read the document yourself too. It is clear and much more unequivocal than what I expected from a diplomatic document. Here is my summary
    1. San Remo document was issued by the League of Nations which was the predecessor of the today UN. Actually it was issued by the League Council which was similar to what is today UN Security Council.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

    “The League Council acted as a type of executive body directing the Assembly’s business.[48] It began with four permanent members (Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan) and four non-permanent members that were elected by the Assembly for a three-year term.”
    2. Following the victory in the WW1 these powers dealt with how to divide the Ottoman Empire which lost and was being dismantled. So League Councils acted like US, UK, France and USSR acted after WW2 and had full jurisdiction to decide how to divide the former Ottoman Empire. Exactly as they did for example to the Austro-Hungarian Empire by dividing it into several countries.
    3. The document starts with the Preamble. In the 2nd paragraph of this Preamble the San Remo document says “the Principal Allied Powers have agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,”.
    4. In the 3rd paragraph of the Preamble it says “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;”
    5. The rest of the document is a list of short Articles.
    a) Article 1 states “The Mandatory (i.e. Britain – SL) shall have full powers of legislation and of administration.
    b) Article 2 states “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble”
    c) Art. 3 “The Mandatory shall … encourage local autonomy.”
    d) Art. 4 “An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body. …in the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine,….. The Zionist organization, … shall be recognized as such agency. “
    e) Art. 5 “The Administration of Palestine, … shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
    f) Art. 11 “The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency … 4 to construct or operate… any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country…”
    g) Art. 22 “English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine”

    End of my summary.

    • amigo
      amigo
      November 17, 2013, 6:52 pm

      The people here even when they quote something do not really have patience, training or skills to read and understand what is written there. I do and I often learn how incorrect their confident replies are.Levit,

      Why did you not include art 6 and 7.

      stick to science levit, Law is not your strong point.Neither is understanding plain English.

      In any event this San Remo nonsense ended when Israel declared Statehood as pointed out to you by Talknic.Of course being the zionist coward that you are, you declined to follow the link he provided.

    • Ellen
      Ellen
      November 17, 2013, 7:06 pm

      fnlevit, How come you left out the preface in the Preamble: , it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and …

      As that never happened (Think plan Dalet) and is still not the case, wouldn’t that make the execution of the San Remo resolution of almost 90 years ago invalid. I.e. it simply was not carried out according to the resolution. Ergo the resolution was never executed.

      The San Remo resolution was based on a shared territory and preservation of the rights of the indigenous. What the Zionist did and Israeli state is independent of the San Remo resolution.

      The San Remo resultion was under the agis of the League of Nations, which failed to exists 27 years after it’s founding. It died in irrelevance. Can you name a single League of Nations resolution that exists today?

      And do you know the US never joined the League of Nations? It never signed onto any agreement made by that body.

      And if Great Britain had the right to even allow for the resolution is another question for scholars and historians.

      These points will not be resolved on a blog, if ever.

      But just keep this in mind. The legitimacy is as water tight as the bogus soggy paper documents created by the Spaniards arriving in the new land, declaring vast amounts of territory as “legally theirs.” Like the Zionist they referred to religious myths for imagined legitimacy to plunder, disposes and cleanse a people for colonial desires.

      But the world has progressed from the 15th and 16th century!

      I know Hasbarists are instructed to keep talking about the San Remo as if it the word of Moses, but it is really tenuous at best.

      It was made under the failed League of Nations. It was never ever recognized by Israel’s benefactor, the USA.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        November 17, 2013, 7:34 pm

        Ellen: fnlevit, How come you left out the preface in the Preamble

        For the same reason he left out article 6, Ellen: He’s dishonest. Encouraging close settlements is not ‘giving back all of the land’. The mandatory had nothing to give, because he didn’t own Palestine. That’s why the call it a mandate.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 18, 2013, 4:09 am

        fnlevit, How come you left out the preface in the Preamble

        It really doesn’t matter, since the resolution of the Council of the League of Nations containing the British Mandate for Palestine and the resolution of the San Remo Conference of Allied Powers are two completely different documents.

        In the “Interpretation of Article 3‚ Paragraph 2‚ of the Treaty of Lausanne” case, the Permanent Court of International Justice ruled that resolutions of the Council of the League of Nations were mere recommendations that were only binding on state parties that had agreed to be bound by them. http://www.icj-cij.org/pcij/serie_B/B_12/01_Article_3_du_traite_de_Lausanne_Avis_consultatif.pdf

        In a number of cases, the Supreme Court of Palestine ruled that the Mandate was not a self-executing international agreement and that its provisions were only enforceable in the Courts of Palestine if they were incorporated in the Palestine Order in Council or some other piece of enabling legislation. FYI, the Courts of Israel, the UK, and the USA do not recognize any legal right of action on the basis of non-self-executing international agreements.

        So the San Remo resolution, which required the approval of the League of Nations, wasn’t self-executing or legally enforceable either.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        November 18, 2013, 8:41 am

        Hostage: In a number of cases, the Supreme Court of Palestine ruled that the Mandate was not a self-executing international agreement and that its provisions were only enforceable in the Courts of Palestine if they were incorporated in the Palestine Order in Council or some other piece of enabling legislation.

        Any quick links?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 18, 2013, 9:39 am

        Any quick links?

        That depends. If you just want to read about the general principle or about all of the old Palestinian cases.

        Under the British system, treaties are never part of domestic law in the absence of implementing legislation. Strictly speaking, they aren’t even part of the law in the presence of such a statute. See
        Re McKerr, paras. 26, & 64-70
        http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/12.html
        R. v. Lyons, para. 27
        http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2002/44.html

        Here is the text from R v Lyons:

        And it is firmly established that international treaties do not form part of English law and that English courts have no jurisdiction to interpret or apply them: JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418. Parliament may pass a law which mirrors the terms of the treaty and in that sense incorporates the treaty into English law. But even then, the metaphor of incorporation may be misleading. It is not the treaty but the statute which forms part of English law. And English courts will not (unless the statute expressly so provides) be bound to give effect to interpretations of the treaty by an international court, even though the United Kingdom is bound by international law to do so. Of course there is a strong presumption in favour of interpreting English law (whether common law or statute) in a way which does not place the United Kingdom in breach of an international obligation. As Lord Goff of Chieveley said in Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No.2) [1990] 1 AC 109, 283:

        “I conceive it to be my duty, when I am free to do so, to intepret the law in accordance with the obligations of the Crown under [the Convention]”.

        28. But for present purposes the important words are “when I am free to do so”. The sovereign legislator in the United Kingdom is Parliament. If Parliament has plainly laid down the law, it is the duty of the courts to apply it, whether that would involve the Crown in breach of an international treaty or not.

        There are quite a few Palestinian cases cited in Volume II of the 1950 Yearbook of the International Law Commission starting at page 212 (if you don’t mind the 15mb download). Here is one example:

        EFFECT OF TREATIES ON THE INTERNAL LAW OF PALESTINE
        15. The position of the Palestine Mandate in the internal law of Palestine was considered by the Supreme Court of Palestine in the case of Jamal Effendi Husseini v. Government of Palestine (1 P.L.R. 5O). In that case
        the Court heard a petition asking for the withdrawal of certain stamps from circulation on the ground that the Hebrew lettering appearing on the stamps was not a literal translation of the English, and therefore contrary, inter alia, to Article 22 of the Palestine Mandate (laying down that English, Arabic and Hebrew will be the official languages of Palestine and providing that any statement or inscription in Arabic shall be translated into Hebrew, and vice versa). In its judgment the Court said :
        ” The terms of the Mandate are enforceable in the Courts only as far as they are incorporated by the Palestine Order-in-Council, 1922, or any amendment thereof. Now, although as regards legislation the Palestine Order-in-Council, 1922, and the amendment Order-in-Council of 1923, both contain a provision prohibiting the passing of an Ordinance inconsistent with the Mandate, there is no similar provision with regard to executive acts either in general or with special reference to the terms of Article 22. In so far as the Mandate is not incorporated into the law of Palestine by Order-in-Council, its provisions have only the force of treaty obligations and cannot be enforced by the Courts. It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether the lettering on the postage stamps is in accordance with Article 22 or not.”

        http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/Ybkvolumes%28e%29/ILC_1950_v2_e.pdf

        You can also read about unsuccessful Jewish legal challenges to the 1939 White Paper and 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance (e.g. Rosenblatt v Registrar) in the subsection on Mandates, from the Chapter on States in international law, Volume 1 of the US State Department (aka Whiteman’s) “Digest of International Law”, 1963 GPO. The same rationale was applied to dismiss arguments grounded in the terms of the Mandate. A summary is available online behind a Questia paywall, but many public libraries or schools have a subscription that patrons or students can use to access that material for free.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 18, 2013, 10:28 am

        P.S. The Mandate and the Covenant of the League of Nations were not the only treaties that governed the final settlement in Palestine. The Order-in-Council had stipulated: “And whereas, by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine.”
        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C7AAE196F41AA055052565F50054E656

        So you had to apply the provisions of Articles 30 and 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne with respect to the Nationality Law (Article 7 of the Mandate) and to determine what properties on the Ottoman civil lists would be transferred to the newly created State and included within the scope of the term “State lands” (Article 6 of the Mandate).

        Here are some links and information on those subjects:
        *The former Attorney General of Palestine, a Jewish expert on international law named Norman Bentwich, published an article in the British Yearbook of International Law in 1946. Bentwich explained that the Courts of Palestine had just decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an ”allied successor state’‘ and that Article 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne could not be legally challenged in the Courts of Palestine. The article is available online, See Professor N. Bentwich, “State Succession and Act of State in the Palestine Courts”, XXIII British Year Book Of International Law, 1946, pages 330-333.
        link to archive.org
        A fellow Jewish expert on international law, Sir Hersh Lauterpacht, also reported on the case. You might recall that Zionists insisted that Jewish settlers in Palestine be allowed close settlement on surplus “State lands” of Palestine in accordance with the terms of the Mandate. The Courts of Palestine ruled that the Mandate was only legally enforceable in so far as it had been incorporated in domestic enabling legislation. The Palestine Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Amendment Ordinance, 1926, added Article 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne to the Schedule of the Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Ordinance, 1925. Article 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne stipulated that:

        The States in favour of which territory was or is detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars or by the present Treaty shall acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated therein.

        The Supreme Court of Palestine settled a dispute with the heirs of the Sultan when it ruled that Turkey’s ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne was a valid act of state that ceded lands and properties on the Ottoman civil lists to the successor states, including Palestine. It was not a matter that was subject to private claims or challenges in the Courts of Palestine. See Hersh Lauterpacht (editor), International Law Reports, Volume 14, Cambridge University Press, 1951, pages 36-40.
        *Norman Bentwich had already written another article which explained that the coming into force of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne on August 26, 1924 allowed the governments of the States of Palestine, Syria, and Iraq to issue Nationality Acts. According to Bentwich, the guiding principle adopted was that Ottoman subjects habitually resident in the detached territories became ipso facto nationals of the State to which the territory had been transferred. link to heinonline.org

        In all of these cases the de jure existence of the “newly created” Mandated State of Palestine was affirmed, not only by treaties, but also by Palestinian ordinances (which were not repugnant to the terms of the Mandate in any sense).

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        November 19, 2013, 8:01 am

        Thank you, Hostage.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      November 17, 2013, 7:31 pm

      fnlevit: The people here even when they quote something do not really have patience, training or skills to read and understand what is written there.

      And you are a perfect example, fnlevit. Because nothing what you have quoted or summarized proves ayala’s nonsense that “All the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan ( and actually including Jordan) was given back to the Jewish People in 1922 at San Remo and under the British Mandate …”

      Bottom line – you are exactly right and I recommend that you read the document yourself too. It is clear and much more unequivocal than what I expected from a diplomatic document.

      Lol, such a troll.

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        November 18, 2013, 12:05 pm

        Greetings Talkback,
        The tales of fullofit & Ayala:
        .. All the land from the Med. Sea to the Jordan river
        was GIVEN BACK to the Jewish People in 1922 at
        San Remo & under the Brit. Mandate……..

        There was ne’er a time in history from their shuffling into Canaan in
        1200BC to 586BC where the 12 tribes resided, occupied, owned, rented,
        conquered or ruled! They had but 2 Kingdoms under diff. ruling Empires. From 456BC after 5k returned to Jerusalem, they ne’er again
        had any say in Falesteena. They started migrating voluntarily under Macedonian rule in 200BC. From 200BC to 1945 the majority of descendents miscegenized with converted Euros & Khazarians in European Ghetti!
        ziusudra
        PS
        12 tribes had a federation in the northern Kingdom of Israel. of 7.3K Sq Km of Land till 722BC.
        2 tribes break away in 933BC & create the southern Kingdom of Judea
        of 5.0K Sq Km of Land till 586BC.
        Canaan/Falesteena was 408K Sq Km at said times. They were but puny
        tribes living amoung many diff peoples.
        They have a hyperbolic ‘rubberband’ size mentality when they speak of Israel or the Homeland!

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      November 17, 2013, 8:44 pm

      1. San Remo document was issued by the League of Nations which was the predecessor of the today UN.

      No, you don’t know what you are talking about.

      The League of Nations mandate was written after the San Remo Conference and was revised several times. Just compare the final text from the Avalon website that you cited with the text of the first draft mandate from the The Yearbook of the League of Nations. Article 1 granted Great Britain the right to exercise all of the powers of a sovereign state and Article 4 subjected the Jewish Agency to its control. http://books.google.com/books?id=MwOtAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q&f=false

      The San Remo resolution was adopted on April 25, 1920 during the San Remo Conference, a post-WWI meeting of the four so-called “Principal Allied Powers”, i.e. Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. It was based upon the draft Treaty of Sevres which was never ratified.

      Bulgaria and the United States attended as observers. The resolution itself conferred the mandates in Ottoman Asia on France and Great Britain and authorized them to draft the terms of the League of Nations mandate instrument, subject to the final approval of the League. The text of the resolution itself noted that Italy did not agree to accept those terms and reserved it’s position until its additional demands were met. The text of the San Remo resolution and draft articles on Palestine are available here: http://www.cfr.org/israel/san-remo-resolution/p15248

      The is nothing in it that is legally enforceable by the Jews. The Supreme Court of Israel has repeatedly ruled that all rights under the mandates ceased to exist when they were terminated. See the Gaza Coast Council v Knesset case and CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950) http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/49/410/000/z01/49000410.z01.pdf

    • talknic
      talknic
      November 17, 2013, 10:35 pm

      @ fnlevit “The people here even when they quote something do not really have patience, training or skills to read and understand what is written there. I do and I often learn how incorrect their confident replies are”

      League of Nations Mandate for Palestine
      Article 7 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

      End of my summary.

    • LeaNder
      LeaNder
      November 18, 2013, 9:11 am

      Isn’t the San Remo treaty a draft like the later Treaty of Sèvres, fnlevit?

      I use this blog to learn about the twists of the anti-Zionists arguments. And for the relevant links. The people here even when they quote something do not really have patience, training or skills to read and understand what is written there. I do and I often learn how incorrect their confident replies are.

      Personally, I would warn you to challenge Hostage via fast googling activities. I am pretty sure I wouldn’t have the patience to look into the whole context and all the activities before the treaty of Versailles was signed. ;)

  7. just
    just
    November 17, 2013, 5:44 pm

    Goodness me! It’s a hasbararian study group. Precious.

    MW– “The War of Ideas in the Middle East”. Unlike other places, here, you have to tell the TRUTH.

    Lots and lots of smart folks here……….(I do not claim to be one of the best nor the brightest)

  8. November 18, 2013, 4:00 am

    It is stupid to argue – League of Nations was the most respectful international body in the relevant period. RELEVANT PERIOD!!!! There were no other organizations even close to its caliber. Exactly like UN now. Its Council was like UN Security Council now. League of Nations was created as a result and by the victors of the WW1 just like later UN after WW2. It indeed ran its course just like UN seems to be now with all the disgraces which are going on there.
    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/un-anti-israel-votes-are-indeed-a-little-weird/
    https://www.facebook.com/israel.fans?ref=hl

    But at that time League of Nations was just one year old and very vigorous. Most importantly – Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungarian empire were being dismantled and the fate of the area called Palestine (which included present Jordan) was being decided by them. In that a “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”. What can be less clear.
    It then says that “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such … conditions … to secure the establishment of the Jewish national home”. Clear as light. And in the following this is detailed – “The Administration of Palestine, … shall facilitate Jewish immigration” and it “shall encourage close settlement by Jews on the land”.
    One thing which is absolutely clear is that this publicly (and as officially as it was possible at that time) gave a green light, full legitimacy and encouragement for many years to come for Jews to immigrate and settle in the Palestine. To stress again – this is following the internationally recognized and supported declaration of the most respectable international organization of that time.
    So for one – stop talking about “colonization” etc. Palestine was internationally declared to be the place for the Jews to immigrate and establish their national home. Not yet a state but a home. And actually if you look at Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which is mentioned on the 1st line of the Preamble then you learn that the Mandate was designed to be the way to an independent state.

    • Shmuel
      Shmuel
      November 18, 2013, 4:21 am

      So for one – stop talking about “colonization” etc. Palestine was internationally declared to be the place for the Jews to immigrate and establish their national home.

      Foreign powers declared a region conquered in war the “national home” (to be established through immigration) of a third party, against the will of the vast majority of the region’s native inhabitants. Sounds like colonisation to me.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 18, 2013, 6:02 am

        So for one – stop talking about “colonization” etc.

        That’s an impossible request to honor. The Zionist Organizations major subsidiaries were incorporated under a Jewish Colonial Trust and they are still holding deeds today, because they are the legal successors in interest of a slew of properties purchased and settled by various other Jewish colonial societies.

        Palestine was internationally declared to be the place for the Jews to immigrate and establish their national home.

        FYI, you don’t have to apply for immigration to your internationally recognized country of nationality. The same Allied Powers adopted a number of treaties on minorities which stated that Jews were still nationals of several other countries as well. Nothing in the Mandates affected their rights and position in those other countries or made Palestine their national home. The persons who were habitual inhabitants, together with those allowed to immigrate became “Palestinian”, not Jews. See the Preamble and Article 7 of the Mandate.

        Article 6 of the Mandate explained that the mandatory administration was only obliged to facilitate Jewish immigration to Palestine under “suitable conditions,” and only so long as it didn’t prejudice the rights and position of other sections of the population.

        The bottom line is that those Jews who were denied immigration certificates or who opted to remain elsewhere were still foreign aliens and Palestine was never internationally “recognized” as their legitimate national home.

    • Shmuel
      Shmuel
      November 18, 2013, 4:32 am

      And actually if you look at Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which is mentioned on the 1st line of the Preamble then you learn that the Mandate was designed to be the way to an independent state.

      Yes, let’s have a look at the relevant part of Article 22:

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

      The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

      The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

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

      There doesn’t seem to be anything there about “national homes” for anyone but the inhabitants and communities of the “colonies and territories” in question, whose “wishes … must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory”.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      November 18, 2013, 5:16 am

      It is stupid to argue – League of Nations was the most respectful international body in the relevant period. RELEVANT PERIOD!!!! There were no other organizations even close to its caliber. Exactly like UN now.

      That’s an anachronistic view. The peace conferences were run by the Allied Powers and the mandates were conferred and written by the Allied Powers. The authority to lay down the boundaries was also retained by the Allied Powers – precisely because there was no consensus or agreement among the experts or members during the relevant period that “international organizations”, like the League of Nations were full-fledged “persons of international law” with the necessary legal competence to perform those tasks or conclude treaty agreements on their own behalf.

      But those were functions and powers that the UN Charter explicitly reserved for the relevant UN organs from the very outset. Nonetheless, the State of Israel challenged the legal personality and authority of the UN Organization. An ICJ advisory opinion was requested in the “Reparations” case to answer the question and resolve the dispute over the terms and meaning of the Charter in that connection. The Court noted that the members had created and empowered a new type of legal entity that wasn’t simply a collection of its members. It had its own personality, principles of operation, and was tasked with broad enforcement powers and functions that even affected non-member states. See for example Article 2(6) of the UN Charter.

      The Court also noted that the members were required to respect decisions and agreements concluded by the Organization on its own behalf with non-member states or third parties, e.g. the trusteeship agreement with Italy concerning Somalia. Nowadays it’s commonplace for treaties that serve as the constitution of an international organization to explicitly state whether or not the entity has its own legal personality and necessary legal competence to perform its functions. See for example Article 4 of the Rome Statute. The Covenant of the League of Nations didn’t address the subject. Any member present and voting could prevent the League from adopting a decision or talking action, since unanimity was required under the explicit terms of the Covenant. Non-member states were under no obligation to respect the decisions of the League.

    • talknic
      talknic
      November 18, 2013, 7:33 am

      @ fnlevit
      “And actually if you look at Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which is mentioned on the 1st line of the Preamble then you learn that the Mandate was designed to be the way to an independent state”

      According to Article 7 of the LoN Mandate for Palestine, which is NEVER mentioned by Israel’s propagandists like yourself, it was to have been a state where Jews could get Palestinian citizenship. I.e., a Palestinian state

      Article 7 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

      “link to blogs.timesofisrael.com
      link to facebook.com”

      For goodness sake.. why read garbage? Read the LON Mandate for Palestine Article 7

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      November 18, 2013, 8:53 am

      fnlevit: It indeed ran its course just like UN seems to be now with all the disgraces which are going on there.
      link to blogs.timesofisrael.com
      link to facebook.com

      Your sources are a disgrace. UN-Watch is a disgrace – directed by the former assistant clerk at Israel’s supreme court Hillel Neuer – which condems other nations EXCEPT FOR ISRAEL for human rights abuses and that they don’t allow UN delegation to enter. The article in TimesofIsrael is a disgrace, because the UN interpreter NEVER used the word “anti-Israel votes” but resolutions about Israel, Syra and Palestine. And finally, Israel is a disgrace for not being able to abide by international law and UN resolutions.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      November 18, 2013, 8:59 am

      fnlevit: In that a “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”. What can be less clear.

      Well, why don’t we read what the first General Attorney of Palestine Mr. Norman Bentwich – a Jewish Zionist – had to say about “home land”:

      “It signifies a territory in which a people, without receiving rights of political sovereignty, has nevertheless a recognized legal position and the opportunity of developing its moral, social, and intellectual ideas.
      http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/1343338D30D39DCF85256E5C00578E01

      What could be clearer?

  9. November 18, 2013, 9:12 am

    Many “experts” here don’t actually understand what they read. Not to speak about their ability to make logical connections between things. This is why you see a chorus of contradicting cries – contradicting each other and what is written and the logic. A big soup. But never mind – Israel is wrong in any case.

    I was going to reply to those spigots of hatred but enough is enough. Just a remark I can’t help not to make – Article 7 is actually equivalent to the Right of Return for Jews. Read again the FORMULATION of it in the essential details :

    The Administration should enact a nationality law with provisions to facilitate the citizenship by Jews who take up permanent residence… .

    Only Jews. British are not mentioned. Or other nationals. Say Russians, French or Arabs. Only Jews have this right. Because this “state in the making” is meant to be the Jewish national home.

    Thanks for drawing my attention to this Article – I am going to quote it everywhere I post my Hasbara things :

    Article 7 of the San Remo Declaration was a precursor of the Israeli Right of Return for the Jews in Palestine. Great!

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      November 18, 2013, 11:08 am

      Article 7 is actually equivalent to the Right of Return for Jews.

      There was never a time when either the British administrators or the League of Nations recognized a Jewish right of return. During most of the Mandate era Jewish immigration was strictly limited and a quota system was imposed in keeping with the terms of the mandate that admitted immigrants, subject to “suitable conditions”.

      Because this “state in the making” is meant to be the Jewish national home.

      I’ve already noted that, in a de jure sense, the Mandates were already existing states with international obligations. The parties to the Treaty of Lausanne called them:

      the States newly created in territories in Asia which are detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty. All the above States shall also participate, under the conditions laid down in the present Section, in the annual charges for the service of the Ottoman Public Debt from the dates referred to in Article 53 [1st March 1920].

      http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Lausanne

      Article 30 said

      Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

      Article 60 said:

      The States in favour of which territory was or is detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars or by the present Treaty shall acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated therein.

      http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Lausanne

      It would be absurd to argue that any of those provisions required the termination of the mandate regime in order to fulfill the corresponding legal obligations.

    • talknic
      talknic
      November 18, 2013, 12:59 pm

      @ fnlevit “Article 7 is actually equivalent to the Right of Return for Jews. Read again the FORMULATION of it in the essential details :

      The Administration should enact a nationality law with provisions to facilitate the citizenship by Jews who take up permanent residence…”

      LOL… you can’t even complete the “essential details” in Article 7 without it showing that you are spouting nonsense.

      “Only Jews. British are not mentioned. Or other nationals. Say Russians, French or Arabs. Only Jews have this right.”

      No British Jews? No Russian Jews, French, Australian, German, Polish, Chinese, Japanese, Canadian, United States, Iranian, Chilean or Arab Jews?

      BTW The Mandate expired BEFORE Israel’s independence could become effective. It had to otherwise there’d have been no independence from British administration. http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm

      And the Law of Return didn’t exist before Israel was declared. Israel is the only state in the world declared on behalf of a people in the region and a movement regardless of the fact much of that movements membership were not citizens of the territory being declared.

      Accordingly we, members of the People’s Council, representatives of the Jewish Community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist Movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British Mandate over Eretz-Israel …. http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm

      ” Because this “state in the making” is meant to be the Jewish national home”

      You didn’t finish Article 7 . They could become citizens of Palestine = the state of Palestine

      “Thanks for drawing my attention to this Article – I am going to quote it everywhere I post my Hasbara things”

      LOL. OK Prove yourself wrong… capable help must be really hard to come by at Hasbara central

      Article 7 of the San Remo Declaration was a precursor of the Israeli Right of Return for the Jews in Palestine”

      The Jews “in Palestine” had no need to return. Nor was Article 7 the precursor for RoR of Jews ‘to’ Palestine. It was an immigration policy for Palestine which the Jewish Agency and Zionist Federation abused.

      The mandate was no longer relevant after midnight 14th May 1948 (ME time). At precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 Israel was defined by the Israeli Government 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

      At 00:01 May 15th 1948 two entities were created. Israel and what remained of Palestine, none of which was or is today, Israeli. Israel has not legally acquired ANY territory outside of its proclaimed and Internationally recognized borders.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 18, 2013, 1:30 pm

        Article 7 of the San Remo Declaration was a precursor of the Israeli Right of Return for the Jews in Palestine”

        I hate to keep brining this up, but the San Remo resolution didn’t even have 7 Articles. The 7th paragraph was an undertaking that required Turkish acquiesce to any decision taken with regard to the mandates:

        Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.

        http://www.cfr.org/israel/san-remo-resolution/p15248

      • eljay
        eljay
        November 18, 2013, 3:26 pm

        >> I hate to keep brining this up, but the San Remo resolution didn’t even have 7 Articles.

        Maybe the perfesser “reconstituted” it. ;-)

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      November 18, 2013, 6:40 pm

      fnlevit: Many “experts” here don’t actually understand what they read. Not to speak about their ability to make logical connections between things. This is why you see a chorus of contradicting cries – contradicting each other and what is written and the logic. A big soup.

      Again, read article 6 of the mandate, your arrogant shmock:

      The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions …

      It was not a right, but a restricted facilitation. And that doesn’t mean that others couldn’t immigrate at all.

      This was the actual part in the nationality law regarding this facilitation:

      Article 7: Naturalisation

      1. The High Commissioner may grant a certificate of naturalisation as a Palestinian citizen to any person who makes an application and therefore and who satisfies:
      a. That he has resided in Palestine for a period not less than two (2) years out of the three (3) years immediately preceding the date of his application.
      b. That he is of good character and has an adequate knowledge of either the English, Arabic or Hebrew language.
      http://www.marsad.info/en/download/file/fid/198

      That’s it, nothing else! The whole nationality law doesn’t even use the word “Jews”.

    • amigo
      amigo
      November 19, 2013, 10:14 am

      “Many “experts” here don’t actually understand what they read. Not to speak about their ability to make logical connections between things” levit.

      What you really mean is they are incapable of performing the necessary mental gymnastics that you do to come up with your version of facts.

      You are entitled to your opinion perfessor but you don,t get to make up your own facts.

    • American
      American
      November 19, 2013, 10:47 am

      ”I was going to reply to those spigots of hatred but enough is enough. Just a remark I can’t help not to make …..fnlevit

      You zionist can waste all the time you want revising and mispresenting history.
      It is you who are too stupid to grasp that what ‘matters’ is that the world ‘today’ ‘is tired of Israel’…..increasingly fed up with Israel.
      Thats todays reality.
      You are headed to the bottom of the world’s sympathy and tolarence pit —going down, down,down with every step you take.
      And too stupid to stop digging when you find yourselves in a hole.
      That buddy, is the Ultimate Stupid.

  10. November 18, 2013, 10:06 am

    Another remark – League of Nations by far the most prominent international body AT THAT TIME declared it loud and clear

    “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;” .

    Not colonization of Palestine – reconstitution of their national home there!!!! And all the nations of the world AT THAT TIME did not contradict.

    • Shmuel
      Shmuel
      November 18, 2013, 11:03 am

      Not colonization of Palestine – reconstitution of their national home there!!!! And all the nations of the world AT THAT TIME did not contradict.

      AT THAT TIME, colonialism was still acceptable (albeit on its way out) — to the colonisers, their allies and their subordinate colonies, territories, dominions, etc. Although creating a “national home for the Jewish people” was not in keeping with the spirit of the Covenant of the League of Nations or Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” (the beginning of the end of colonialism), the colonial powers proposed a colonialist project for Palestine, and the members of the League they had put together didn’t say boo. How many members of the League of Nations, AT THAT TIME, represented the “peoples” or “communities” of the former Ottoman Empire? How many favoured decolonisation?

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      November 18, 2013, 11:14 am

      Another remark – League of Nations by far the most prominent international body AT THAT TIME declared it loud and clear

      “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;” .

      In fact that wording amounted to a political and legal setback. It’s a matter of public record that the Principal Allied Powers decided there were no bases for any Zionist “legal entitlement” on the ground of the sympathy that was expressed in the Balfour Declaration. So Lord Balfour suggested that some polite words about recognizing the “historical connection” of the Jewish people and “immigration under suitable conditions” be added to the Mandate instead. The travaux préparatoires of the British Foreign Office Committee that was tasked with drafting the Mandate said:

      “It was agreed that they had no claim, whatever might be done for them on sentimental grounds; further that all that was necessary was to make room for Zionists in Palestine, not that they should turn “it”, that is the whole country, into their home.

      – See PRO FO 371/5245, cited in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972, pages 99-100

    • talknic
      talknic
      November 18, 2013, 1:10 pm

      @ fnlevit “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;”

      Not colonization of Palestine – reconstitution of their national home there!!!! And all the nations of the world AT THAT TIME did not contradict.”

      Problem … The Jewish COLONIAL Trust was set up in 1897 and since being declared Israel contradicted it by colonizing via the illegal acquisition of territory, big chunks of non-Israeli territory “outside the State of Israel” http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973

      That’s why there are so many UNSC resolutions against Israel’s illegal actions in non-Israeli territories

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 18, 2013, 8:33 pm

        Not colonization of Palestine – reconstitution of their national home there!!!!

        See AGRICULTURAL COLONIES IN PALESTINE: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/907-agricultural-colonies-in-palestine

        Do you realize just how disingenuous you sound to the members of the audience here who were raised on these articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia about all of the agricultural colonies, like Pitah Tikvah and people like Montefiore and Rothschild? Many cities or towns were established in Palestine by the various Jewish colonial groups and societies.

        When Edmund Rothschild died the titles to many of the colonies were simply re-assigned to the Jewish National Fund (originally called the Jewish Colonial Trust), which still holds them in trust for the Jewish people to this day.

    • eljay
      eljay
      November 18, 2013, 1:19 pm

      >> Not colonization of Palestine – reconstitution of their national home there!!!!

      Call it reconstitution or “making rainbows”: People of the Jewish faith – citizens of countries around the world – had no just or moral right to engage in terrorism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and lands, and to create an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine.

      They still do not have that right. No-one has a right to terrorize, ethnically cleanse, colonize and set up a supremacist state.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      November 18, 2013, 4:22 pm

      “Another remark – League of Nations by far the most prominent international body AT THAT TIME declared it loud and clear ”

      Which they had no legal right to do, even by their own prinicples.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        November 18, 2013, 5:25 pm

        They certainly had no such right. But many people exploited the ambiguity of ‘national home’. I think that Balfour and Lloyd George, who started the whole process, were convinced Christian Zionists who, though they could not say so quite explicitly, thought that the mandate of God overrode all normal human standards and principles.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 19, 2013, 5:57 pm

        They had no right to establish a “national home” for the Jews in Palestine, either. It was one of the great crimes of the 19th and 20th centuries. And I agree that Balfour and Lloyd George were religiously motivated, in part, to steal the land. They should have given the Jews Wales or Northumberland if they wanted a “national home.”

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      November 18, 2013, 6:54 pm

      fnlevit: And all the nations of the world AT THAT TIME did not contradict.

      Lol, just keep piling up ideocies you cannot prove. And than repeat them as if they could proof themselves just by repetition. And don’t forget to imply that only you are intelligent enough to understand your ideocies or the quotes you use which so far haven’t proven anything what you claim. You just repeat them to suggest, that they do. Therefore make sure, you never ever counter an argument that was presented to you and just keep repeating your claims and quotes like other hopeless Hasbara trolls.

    • amigo
      amigo
      November 19, 2013, 11:36 am

      Levit , cut the zionist bs.

      The IHCJ ruled that the Occupied Territories are “Held under Belligerent Occupation ” By Israel.

      That means that they are not Sovereign Israeli territory and only idiots like you are spouting nonsense about San Remo .

Leave a Reply