Trending Topics:

Effort to remove Jews from West Bank is akin to Nazi slaughter — settler spokesman

Israel/Palestine
David Wilder

David Wilder

Earlier today we got a comment from David Wilder, spokesman for the religious settler community in Hebron. Born in the U.S. in 1954, Wilder moved to Israel/Palestine in 1974. His voice is not often heard in the US mainstream media, so we asked him if we could highlight his comment as a post. He agreed. Here it is:

Let’s get the facts down straight: ‘Palestine’ was named such, 2,000 years ago, following the Roman occupation, destruction of the Second Temple and victory over Jewish revolts. The Romans, attempting to change the identity of the land area, called Jerusalem ‘Aliea Capitalina’ after a god of Jupiter, and Judea was changed to ‘Palestine.’ However, this was the name of a land area – not of a people.
There has never been a ‘palestinian people,’ as such. Or perhaps, there was. My mother-in-law, born in Jerusalem to Jewish parents in 1924, was labeled a ‘palestinian’ but the occupying British at that time.
There was never a ‘palestinian’ culture, heritage, leadership, parliament, or anything else. Today’s ‘Palestinian people’ is the biggest PR bluff the world has ever swallowed, invented in part by Haj Amin el-Husseini, a Nazi Jew-hater-killer, and adopted by his successor, Yasir Arafat. The world’s acceptance of such a ‘people’ and its denial of Israeli-Jewish rights to our land, is an abject denial of the San Remo Accords, by which Great Britain was mandated to form a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ in a land area, including what is today South Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and the Sinai, of course, including all of Judea and Samaria.
International demands to remove all Jews from their natural, historic homeland, including Hebron, Jerusalem, Beit El and Shilo is nothing less than a modern-day form of anti-Antisemitism, the likes of which led to the slaughter of some six to seven million Jews 70 years ago.
However, we are not going anywhere. We are here to stay. In all our land. Forever.
David Wilder, Spokesman, The Jewish Community of Hebron

P.S. For another perspective on the Hebron Jewish community, see Scott Roth’s post, The boy on the horse.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

273 Responses

  1. US Citizen
    US Citizen
    February 19, 2014, 12:34 pm

    This man is an idiot. Someone should send him the Great Britain ‘mandate’:

    His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in PALESTINE of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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.

    In addition to be sent the video of the actual truth about Palestine in response to Danny Ayalon’s hasbara:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBYkBqY1-LM

    Finally, someone should inform this ignorant old man that the Palestinians are not going anywhere. They here to stay. On their land. Forever.

    • just
      just
      February 19, 2014, 6:44 pm

      I think he should go home to NJ from whence he came. I hear that they are missing a village idiot or two.

      D. Wilder is of the same ilk as D. Weiss– a thief, liar and proponent of settler and Israeli terrorism.

      • NormanF
        NormanF
        February 20, 2014, 2:02 am

        But you can’t refute his argument can you? That is nothing original and authentic about the “Palestinian” provenance of the Arabs. Can you tell us when an Arab nation in the Land Of Israel first existed? Who were its leaders? What was its capital? What contribution did it bequeath to the world? What is the written record of its history? Who kept it alive – or did exist at all?

        Those are questions anti-Zionists don’t want to face! But they remain there as a challenge and every Jewish child in Israel can answer every question about Jewish faith, history, culture and about the Jewish nation’s leaders, capital, contributions and the record of its history! We Zionists have always had a good case to make to the world. Do you?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 20, 2014, 3:07 am

        But you can’t refute his argument can you? That is nothing original and authentic about the “Palestinian” provenance of the Arabs. Can you tell us when an Arab nation in the Land Of Israel first existed? Who were its leaders? What was its capital? What contribution did it bequeath to the world? What is the written record of its history? Who kept it alive – or did exist at all?

        Actually, we’ve done that in several of the threads. In many cases using information available from third-party verifiable sources, including the Israeli MFA website, the Central Zionists Archives, and the original members of the Zionist Executive. It’s supremely ironic that the Director of Propaganda for Keren Hayesod and the Founding Father of Revisionist Zionism, Ze’ev Jabotinsky wrote this 90 years ago about the national existence of the Palestinians:

        If it were possible (and I doubt this) to discuss Palestine with the Arabs of Baghdad and Mecca as if it were some kind of small, immaterial borderland, then Palestine would still remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence. Therefore it would be necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs, which is the same condition that exists now. . . . because they are not a rabble but a nation”. See The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs), First published in Russian: “O Zheleznoi Stene,” Rassvyet, November 4, 1923 from Daniel Pipes website.

        link to danielpipes.org

        You guys are coming-up short on irrefutable evidence like that. Wilder cites his own self-published crap and you don’t provide any verifiable published sources to backup your bogus claims.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 9:43 pm

        That is nothing original and authentic about the “Palestinian” provenance of the Arabs.

        That’s like saying there is nothing original and authentic about the “Jewish” provenance of Russians.

        Can you tell us when an Arab nation in the Land Of Israel first existed?

        Can you tell us when an Jewish nation in the Land Of Israel first existed?

        Those are questions anti-Zionists don’t want to face!

        It’s not that no one wants to face them it is that they are completely and utterly irrelevant. Muslims rules Palestine for 3 times as long as it was under Jewish control, and even then, Jews only controlled a tiny portion of it.

        But they remain there as a challenge and every Jewish child in Israel can answer every question about Jewish faith, history, culture and about the Jewish nation’s leaders

        That’s a bit like saying every white kid in Connecticut can tell you about the Easter Bunny or every instalment of Harry Potter. The Kingdom of Israel ended 2000 years ago. It was succeeded by other civilizations.

        Your God did not sit on the pause button until 1948

      • walktallhangloose
        walktallhangloose
        February 22, 2014, 9:31 am

        Haim Gerber’s book Remembering and Imagining Palestine shows that the Palestinian identity stretches back to the time of the Crusades. But ancient history is not really relevant.

        The answer to your question is that Palestine became a defined political entity in 1923 under the Mandate. It had all the requirements of a state: a defined territory, a government which controlled that territory, and a settled population. It also had a currency, the Palestine Pound, and its capital was, of course, Jerusalem. The settled population of Palestine were, by definition, Palestinians, and most of them were Arabs.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 22, 2014, 11:28 am

        The answer to your question is that Palestine became a defined political entity in 1923 under the Mandate.

        A little clarification is in order. The provisions of the post-WWI treaties explicitly called the mandates states and required the Central Powers to recognize them as such. Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles stipulated that Germany was required to recognize the dispositions made concerning the territories of the former Ottoman Empire, “and to recognize the new States within their frontiers as there laid down.” The other Central powers and some of the treaty articles that required them to recognize the new states were:
        *Bulgaria Article 60 of the Treaty of Neuilly;
        *Hungary Article 74 (2) of The Treaty of Trianon
        *Austria Article 90 of The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye

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

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

        That same year, the Permanent Court of International Justice ruled in the case concerning the Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions that Palestine, not Great Britain, was the new successor state mentioned in the protocols of the Treaty of Lausanne. http://www.icj-cij.org/pcij/serie_A/A_05/15_Mavrommatis_a_Jerusalem_Arret_19250326.pdf

        So the fact is that Palestine was a new state that came into existence in 1920 and that it had international rights and obligations, as such. Furthermore, the Allied and Central powers had explicit obligations under conventional international law to recognize the state of Palestine and deal with it as another state.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 22, 2014, 2:03 pm

        Great post.

      • walktallhangloose
        walktallhangloose
        February 22, 2014, 2:14 pm

        Hostage: thank you for the information that Palestine was legally considered a State under the Mandate. I mentioned the year 1923 because that is when the borders of Palestine between Syria and Jordan were finally agreed between Britain and France.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 22, 2014, 7:16 pm

        And Jordan (Transjordan) was not Palestine, in 1923.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 22, 2014, 8:07 pm

        I mentioned the year 1923 because that is when the borders of Palestine between Syria and Jordan were finally agreed between Britain and France.

        The treaties I cited required the recognition of the new states before their ultimate boundaries were determined. Israel is a prime example of a state that was recognized and admitted to the UN before it ever had any agreed upon border with its neighboring states. Albania had been admitted to the League of Nations under similar circumstances before its borders were delineated or recognized. In the “North Sea Continental Shelf case (1968), the ICJ noted that fact and advised that:

        “There is no rule that the land frontiers of a State must be fully delimited and defined, and often in various places and for long periods they are not, as is shown by the case of the entry of Albania into the League of Nations (Monastery of Saint Naoum, Advisor): Opinion, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 9, at p. 10).”

        See pdf file page 60 of 109 link to icj-cij.org

      • walktallhangloose
        walktallhangloose
        February 23, 2014, 5:57 am

        Yes, I appreciate the point that States have been recognized without precisely defined borders, although under the Montevideo Convention defined borders is one of the requirements of a State. Actually, you are wrong in the case of Israel. When the State of Israel was declared, it also declared its sovereign borders to be those specified in the UN Partition Plan, and was recognized on those borders. See talknic’s post on this page or his website. There are many occasions in 1948-49 when the Provisional Government referred to these as the borders of the State. Israel has never formally declared its sovereignty over any territory outside these borders. Instead, it simply made the 1949 armistice line the de facto border by the simple device of applying Israeli civil law in captured territory. Since then, Israel has carefully avoided mentioning its declared sovereign borders, creating the false impression that it has never defined its borders.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 22, 2014, 9:45 pm

        Palestine became a defined political entity in 1923 under the Mandate.

        An important fact, no doubt. But just how important? Suppose Palestine had NOT been defined as a a new state in 1923? What would the implications have been? Would that have meant Jews had the moral or legal right to colonize the territory and construct a Jewish state or proto-state there?

        Take it a set further, suppose the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate had referred to “a state for the Jewish people” instead of “a national home”.

        Would that have given Jewish colonization and construction of a Jewish state in Palestine unchallengeable moral and legal legitimization?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 23, 2014, 12:03 am

        suppose the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate had referred to “a state for the Jewish people” instead of “a national home”.

        That alone wouldn’t have made much difference, since the “grounds for reconstituting a state for the Jewish people in that country” would still have an indefinite meaning. “Reconstitute” either means 1) to form again in a different way; or 2) to return to a former state or condition.

        Would that have given Jewish colonization and construction of a Jewish state in Palestine unchallengeable moral and legal legitimization?

        There’s no need to speculate about that. Article 6 of the Mandate explicitly precluded any use of “State lands” for close settlement by Jews if it was needed for other “public purposes” or if it would have “prejudiced” the “rights and position of other sections of the population” in any way. Jewish immigration was likewise only allowed “under suitable conditions”.
        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art6

        The mandate for Palestine was conferred upon the British government, not the Jews, and it really didn’t give the Jewish people any enforceable rights or privileges.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 23, 2014, 7:29 am

        Yes, I appreciate the point that States have been recognized without precisely defined borders, although under the Montevideo Convention defined borders is one of the requirements of a State.

        No, article 1 of the Montevideo Convention doesn’t not establish any legally binding criteria, since it only says a state should possess those qualifications. The ICJ advised that in many cases they simply don’t.

        Actually, you are wrong in the case of Israel. When the State of Israel was declared, it also declared its sovereign borders to be those specified in the UN Partition Plan, and was recognized on those borders.

        No I said Israel is a prime example of a state that was recognized and admitted to the UN before it ever had any agreed upon border with its neighboring states. The Arab neighbors quite obviously did not accept Israel’s unilateral declaration of independence or its claims regarding its sovereign jurisdiction. Even after it signed a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979 which established that “the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is “the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine,” the two states continued to dispute its actual location for nearly a decade. See Reports Of International Arbitral Awards, Case concerning the location of boundary markers in Taba between Egypt and Israel, 29 September 1988 http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XX/1-118.pdf

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 24, 2014, 9:12 am

        Hostage:

        I think that the UN should not have admitted either new state without admitting the other one .

        What were Palestinian nationalists doing at that moment to demand that a Palestinian (Arab) state be admitted next to the Jewish state?

        And were there any Arab states –or any states—demanding that?

      • walktallhangloose
        walktallhangloose
        February 24, 2014, 11:44 am

        Palestinian nationalists were not demanding a state alongside Israel in 1949 – they were demanding that their refugees should return home. They were not willing to discuss anything else until that was achieved.

        It was not until 1988 that the PLO accepted the existence of Israel and proposed a Palestinian state alongside it.

      • eljay
        eljay
        February 23, 2014, 12:13 am

        >> We Zionists have always had a good case to make to the world.

        No you haven’t. All you’ve done is demonstrate that Jews can be as evil and immoral and unjust as non-Jews. That’s not a good case, and it’s nothing to be proud of.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        February 23, 2014, 7:52 am

        walktallhangloose says:
        February 22, 2014 at 2:14 pm

        Hostage: thank you for the information that Palestine was legally considered a State under the Mandate. I mentioned the year 1923 because that is when the borders of Palestine between Syria and Jordan were finally agreed between Britain and France.

        You will actually find in this treaty that the signature of the delegate “binds the state under mandate” (“l’etat sous mandat”).

      • walktallhangloose
        walktallhangloose
        February 23, 2014, 10:12 am

        Hostage. Yes, I agree that the neighboring Arab states were unwilling to recognize Israel within any borders. But, as far as the states that had recognized Israel were concerned, and were presumably voting for its admission to the UN, there was no doubt at all about the borders between Israel and its neighbors. Mandatory Palestine had recognized borders with all its neighbors. Israel declared sovereignty over the area allocated to the Jewish State in the Partition Plan. Where the Plan border for the Jewish State coincided with the border of Palestine, that became the border between Israel and the neighboring state.

        In the debate over the admission of Israel to the UN, some Members had reservations about the uncertainty in the borders between Israel and its neighbors. This uncertainty arose not because Israel did not have defined borders with its neighbors, but because Israel was occupying territory outside the borders it had declared, and was unwilling to give it up. Despite having acquired this territory by war, in violation of the principles of the UN Charter, the General Assembly declared Israel a peace-loving nation and admitted it to Membership.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 23, 2014, 3:40 pm

        You have underlined why Emanuel Cellar of New York told Harry Truman, in the White House, he would be ridden out of town on a rail if he did not immediately recognise Israel.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 23, 2014, 4:21 pm

        But, as far as the states that had recognized Israel were concerned, and were presumably voting for its admission to the UN, there was no doubt at all about the borders between Israel and its neighbors.

        Actually there was still a great deal of room for doubt and disagreement. Resolution 181(II) had merely established provisional frontiers, which divided more than 50 Arab villages from their agricultural lands. The Palestine Commission was supposed to make final determinations on the precise location of the actual boundaries on a case by case basis:

        On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II of this Plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.

        http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

        The General Assembly suspended the work of its Palestine Commission before the plan of partition could be implemented and appointed a Mediator to seek a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/gres186.htm

        The USA had publicly introduced the idea of territorial swaps in November of 1948, long before the hearings on Israel’s membership application were concluded in May 1949. The USA had extended de jure recognition to both Israel and Transjordan on the same day, 31 January 1949. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1949v06&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=713

        On 28 March, 1949, President Truman wrote to King Abdullah:

        “I desire to recall to Your Majesty that the policy of the United States Government as regards a final territorial settlement in Palestine and as stated in the General Assembly on Nov 30, 1948 by Dr. Philip Jessup, the American representative, is that Israel is entitled to the territory allotted to her by the General Assembly Resolution of November 29, 1947, but that if Israel desires additions, i.e., territory allotted to, the Arabs by the November 29 Resolution, it should offer territorial compensation.

        See the FRUS Volume VI 1949, pages 878-879. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1949v06&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=878

        I’ve commented elsewhere and provided links to the verbatim UN records which show that the Soviet Union claimed the map attached to resolution 181(II) defined the borders of Israel. The US avoided the issue and said that many existing members of the UN were not considered independent states and suggested that the meaning of the term, as used in Article 4, was not identical with the term “State” as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law.
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2013/01/settlements-international-governments.html#comment-539434
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/palestinians-circulate-draft-resolution-at-un-as-barak-implores-us-to-help-israel-delay-bid.html/comment-page-1#comment-514267

        This uncertainty arose not because Israel did not have defined borders with its neighbors, but because Israel was occupying territory outside the borders it had declared, and was unwilling to give it up.

        There were also objections from members who did not consider Israel to be a proper state according to the criteria used by their home governments. For example, Israel’s government did not represent a large proportion of the population of the territory, which it had exiled during the elections. It did not have any significant presence or exercise effective control over the Negev, which made up 60 percent of the territory it claimed.

        Despite having acquired this territory by war, in violation of the principles of the UN Charter, the General Assembly declared Israel a peace-loving nation and admitted it to Membership.

        On the contrary, Resolution 273 (III) noted Israel’s obligation to comply with the terms of the Charter going forward “from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations” and “the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee” respecting its obligation to implement resolutions 181(II) and 194(III).
        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 23, 2014, 6:07 pm

        Great post, as usual.

      • walktallhangloose
        walktallhangloose
        February 24, 2014, 3:39 am

        I am aware of and agree with everything you say. BUT, Israel’s request for recognition declared its borders to be those specified in the resolution. What might have happened if the Partition Plan had been implemented by the Commission, or if the Mediator’s plan for land swaps had been implemented, is not relevant to the line of the border between Israel’s declared territory and that of the neighboring states.

      • walktallhangloose
        walktallhangloose
        February 24, 2014, 4:13 am

        Hostage: I am aware of and agree with everything you say. BUT, Israel’s request for recognition declared its sovereign borders to be those specified in the Resolution. What might have happened if the Commission had been able to implement the Partition Plan, or if the Mediator’s plan for land swaps had been adopted, is not relevant to the actual border between Israel’s declared territory and that of the neighboring states.
        Yes, Israel was not obligated to obey the Charter before it became a Member. But a state that had violated core principles of the Charter, by conquering territory outside its sovereign borders, and incorporating that territory de facto into the State by applying there its own civil law rather than the laws of war, should not have been admitted to Membership, in my view. Do you disagree?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 24, 2014, 8:26 am

        BUT, Israel’s request for recognition declared its sovereign borders to be those specified in the Resolution. What might have happened if the Commission had been able to implement the Partition Plan, or if the Mediator’s plan for land swaps had been adopted, is not relevant to the actual border between Israel’s declared territory and that of the neighboring states.

        The UN was supposed to delineate and demarcate the border to minimize the impact on the parties concerned, not the provisional governments and individual UN member states. Israel was acting inappropriately and so were the member states that granted it premature recognition. They were all acting beyond their powers and violating customary international law in the process.

        But a state that had violated core principles of the Charter, by conquering territory outside its sovereign borders, and incorporating that territory de facto into the State by applying there its own civil law rather than the laws of war, should not have been admitted to Membership, in my view. Do you disagree?

        In 1948 Israel portrayed itself as the victim of aggression and the UN simply asked that it accept an undertaking to implement the applicable resolutions and abide by the Charter. It was still administering all of the additional territory under martial law and didn’t apply its municipal laws until after it had been admitted to the UN and the Security Council approved the armistice agreements on August 21, 1949.

        I think that the UN should not have admitted either new state without admitting the other one – and that it should have only done so on the explicit basis of the UN boundaries. It should have also insisted upon the immediate implementation of the minority protection plan and the plan for regional economic union contained in the original resolution. The armistice agreements were provisional, temporary measures adopted under Article 40 of the Charter and were obviously no substitute for the protection of fundamental human rights, freedom of transit, and regional integration in a union with a joint, international governing body. Those were necessary components of the General Assembly plan for the future government of Palestine and they were required to prevent the partition from having onerous economic and political consequences.

      • walktallhangloose
        walktallhangloose
        February 24, 2014, 10:16 am

        Hostage: you say Israel was still administering all of the additional territory under martial law and didn’t apply its municipal laws until after it had been admitted to the UN and the Security Council approved the armistice agreements on August 21, 1949..

        BUT the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance was issued 16th September 1948, and applied retrospectively from 15th May 1948. It specified that all captured territory was subject to Israeli law in effect making it part of Israel. If it was administered under martial law (please give a reference for this), then in the eyes of the Israeli Government it was Israeli martial law, and not a military occupation of territory outside Israel’s borders, subject to the international laws of war.

        You say:I think that the UN should not have admitted either new state without admitting the other one. BUT the Arab side had totally rejected the Partition Plan, and there was no prospect of them declaring a separate state and applying for UN Membership, nor had the UN any authority to force the creation of such a state. So in your scenario there was no prospect of Israel ever becoming a Member of the UN. This would have been unfair to Israel. But let’s stop speculating about what might have been.

    • vicinage
      vicinage
      February 19, 2014, 11:25 pm

      If you are truly interested in truth perhaps a look at […..] would be helpful. It would help you get your facts straight.

      Also, name calling is not a way to win an argument. Just makes you look uneducated.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        February 19, 2014, 11:40 pm

        Waste of effort on your part. It makes no difference whether the Palestinians were “invented” or not. Driving them out of their homes and denying them their rights is still wrong.

      • NormanF
        NormanF
        February 20, 2014, 2:04 am

        Tell that to their fellow Arabs who have oppressed them and denied them basic human rights for decades! Those who live in a glass house should not be the first to throw the stones.

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        February 20, 2014, 3:36 am

        RE: NormanF,
        ….. fellow Arabs, who have oppressed them…..

        Didn’t the 12 Semite Tribes fight amoungst eachother, even though they practised the same beliefs? Even though they called eachother GOY, in respect as Tribes of the same NATION?
        ziusudra
        PS Wenn du denkst, dass du denkst, du denkst nur, dass du denkst!
        ( If you think that you think, you only think that you think!)

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 12:15 am

        If you are truly interested in truth perhaps a look at

        Thanks for the Hasbara oh educated one. Except that your Pathetic link is old news.

        There was no such thing as “the Jewish people” either until they were invented in the late 1800s by a couple of hacks who came up with the idea.

        Secondly, Pierre Orts, chairman of Mandate Commission of the League Of Nations, said that Rhe mandate, in Article 7, obliged Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed Palestinians formed a nation, & that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. Now how is it that the blogger you linked to couldn’t fund this fact?

        Thirdly, whether the concept of a “Palestinian people” existed or not is completely irrelevant seeing as all human beings have the same rights as any other.

        So unless your position is based on social Darwinism, you’re argument is entirely meaningless.

      • NormanF
        NormanF
        February 20, 2014, 2:09 am

        The Jewish nation is the oldest in the world after the Chinese. The Palestinians under the British Mandate were the Jews. The Palestine Mandate was intended to establish a “national home for the Jewish people.” It is a matter of historical record. No one has prevented the Arabs from enjoying human rights. But its telling the regimes that govern them today – Fatah and Hamas do not rule through the will of the people and they have no popular legitimacy. That is a relevant fact and and any one who defends such dictatorships is far removed from the realities of life in the Middle East. Facts are stubborn things.

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        February 20, 2014, 3:31 am

        No one has prevented the Arabs from enjoying human rights.

        NormanF can you please quote the relevant section of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights or UN Charter where they talk about ethnic cleansing, massive property, land and resource theft and torturing children being ‘enjoyable’ human rights?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 20, 2014, 3:55 am

        The Jewish nation is the oldest in the world after the Chinese.

        Jewish mythology supplies a table of nations in Genesis Chapter 10 which claims that everyone is descended from nations that are equally as old. There’s plenty of scientific evidence which establishes that Palestinians share common ancestors with many modern-day Zionists. So you really can’t prove you are from an older nation than theirs.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 20, 2014, 4:36 am

        NF said:

        The Jewish nation is the oldest in the world after the Chinese.

        Absolute horseshit.

        What Jewish nation?

        China has been around for thousands of years. Israel hasn’t been around for 60 yet.

        There is no such thing as a singular Jewish people. There is no land of Israel. The Bible is a fiction. Judaism is no more legitimate than Scientology – along w/ all other religions, superstitions, cults, etc.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 6:15 am

        The Jewish nation is the oldest in the world after the Chinese.

        Actually the Australian aborigines date back at least 10 times as long, as well as North and South American populations.

        The Palestinians under the British Mandate were the Jews.

        Wrong. The Palestinians under the British Mandate were all the inhabitants of Palestine, of which Jews were a small minority.

        The Palestine Mandate was intended to establish a “national home for the Jewish people.” It is a matter of historical record.

        No, it was called the Palestine Mandate because it was intended to create the state of Palestine. It was bot called the mandate for the
        Jewish National Home.

        No one has prevented the Arabs from enjoying human rights

        You can’t enjoy what is denied to you. That is why Israel has been found to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions on human rights.

        But its telling the regimes that govern them today – Fatah and Hamas do not rule through the will of the people and they have no popular legitimacy.

        It’s equally telling that Israel rules over the West Bank and East Jerusalem, contrary to the will if the majority if the people.

      • February 20, 2014, 6:48 am

        The Jewish Nation came into being 65 years ago Norman F. How does that make it the oldest in the world after the Chinese?

        Hamas was elected by the people of Gaza and, although the Israelis and their US puppets once again tried to stick their nose in and cause “regime change”, that is the very definition of ruling thru the will of the people.

        You know who does not have any popular legitimacy; the Israel “Lobby”.

        The Zionists are the only ones defending dictatorships in the Middle East — in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt.

        You say the craziest things. Even for a Zionist dupe

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        February 20, 2014, 12:22 pm

        The Jewish nation is the oldest in the world after the Chinese.

        LMAO. In all this years this HAS to be the most ignorant comment on Mondoweiss ever!!!

        But how do you know about the Chinese? They are not mentioned in the bible. ROFL.

      • American
        American
        February 22, 2014, 12:32 pm

        NormanF says:
        February 20, 2014 at 2:09 am

        ” The Palestinians under the British Mandate were the Jews.”

        Really….? Then why did the “Palestines” under the mandate identify themselves as Muslims in every census.

        The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.
        The division into religious groups was:

        590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews
        73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze
        808 Sikhs
        265 Bahais
        156 Metawalis
        163 Samaritans.
        J. B. Barron, ed. (1923). Palestine: Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922. Government of Palestine.

        The 1931 census of Palestine was carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine on 18 November 1931 under the direction of Major E. Mills.
        The total population reported was 1,035,821 an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.
        The population was divided by religion as follows:
        759,717 Muslims,
        174,610 Jews
        91,398 Christians
        9,148 Druzes
        350 Bahais
        182 Samaritan
        421 “no religion”

        less than 2% of the Palestine Muslim population in 1931 was born outside of Palestine
        E.Mills, British Mandate Census of Palestine 1931, Population of villages, towns and administrative areas”

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 22, 2014, 3:50 pm

        Great post. Bravo. And we should remember Jews in Palestine in mid-19th century were regarded as Arabs.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        February 23, 2014, 8:00 am

        The Palestinians under the British Mandate were the Jews.

        Yawn. The Palestinians under the British Mandate were according to Palestine’s nationality law former “Turkish subjects habitually resident in Palestine” and naturalized immigrants, Jewish or not.

        The Palestine Mandate was intended to establish a “national home for the Jewish people.” It is a matter of historical record.

        Yawn. A “national home”, not a “state”. Another intention was the establishment of self-governing institutions. Why? To release the dependent state of Palestine into independence.

        Are you educationally impaired, by any chance?

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 24, 2014, 8:15 am

        NormanF:

        The Jewish nation is the oldest in the world after the Chinese.

        Are American Jews then a nation within the American nation?

        Also: What different ethnic groups make up the Chinese nation?

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 24, 2014, 10:57 am

        NormanF:

        The Jewish nation is the oldest in the world after the Chinese.

        Jewish sovereign nationality has existed only for a very short period of time in history –a short period in ancient times, followed by centuries of non-existence, and now Israel.

        So what do you mean by “the Jewish nation”? What gives a human group the right to call itself a “nation”?

      • tokyobk
        tokyobk
        February 20, 2014, 5:15 am

        Shingo,

        I find NormanF’s arguments equally despicable and by the way not just in a general way but in a way which I think is a particular abuse of Jewish history, meaning not giving a shred of empathy to other people when we have often been denied that. And its semantics. The Palestinians were the people living in Palestine. Period.

        But your not quite getting the Sand thesis. Its not that the Jewish people were invented in the 19th century its that a people with a contiguous kingdom to nation state lineage who conceived of themselves as nation like other modern nations was invented. The Jewish people has been a diverse and self consciously united religion throughout the ages.

        B’nei Yisrael is a biblical term used throughout and Am Yisrael “The Jewish People” is a very old term as well.

        His title is less sensational in French and Hebrew.

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 20, 2014, 7:37 am

        @tokyobk – That’s all irrelevant. What counts is that, in the absence of “modern” Prussian-style nationalism, what’s left is religion for the religious; cultural particularities for those communities that happen to have them are regional only –not “Jewish”. Period. Exceptions like the Ottoman and Russian Empire, where individual identity was tied to a nominal religious tag, are gone forever.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 20, 2014, 6:56 pm

        How do you place Lebanon, in above context?

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 21, 2014, 12:20 am

        @Canning – The one approved and defended by the fascist Falange only? Do you think it’s a good time to revive old corpses and sell them as the latest fashion?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 22, 2014, 7:37 pm

        ????

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 22, 2014, 10:34 pm

        [Puppies:] What counts is that, in the absence of “modern” Prussian-style nationalism, what’s left is religion for the religious

        The Jewish religion was/is a religion about a nation, about the relation between God and a people , so belief in Judaism involves belief in a Jewish nation/people. Jewish religion and some form of Jewish “nationalism” has been inseparable. So even “in the absence of “modern” Prussian-style nationalism”, Judaism involved nationalism (but not necessarily a territorial/political nationalism).

        [tokyobk:]The Jewish people has been a diverse and self consciously united religion throughout the ages.

        And that religion, to repeat, was always a religion about a particular nation/people . So, believers in the religion, including recent converts, believed they were part of an ancient nation/people even if they had no other connection other than that religious belief, i.e. even if there was no other linguistic, cultural, or “ethnic”-genetic element making the unitary Jewish “people” a “people”.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        February 23, 2014, 8:02 am

        The Palestinians were the people living in Palestine. Period.

        If they had become citizens of Palestine between 1925 and 1948.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 24, 2014, 11:26 am

        “The Jewish nation is the oldest in the world after the Chinese. ”

        That is what they teach at school in Israel. Egypt is older than Abraham’s property transaction. But never let a fact get in the way of Zionism.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 20, 2014, 12:35 am

        Also, name calling is not a way to win an argument. Just makes you look uneducated.

        Well you’ve written an unhistorical propaganda article that says no one can find historical references to the Palestinians and that the Ottomans tossed the Arabs out after 300 years of rule. That makes you look grossly under educated. The Ottoman officials ruled most of Palestine through the local Arab notables and Muslim religious leaders.

        The Israeli MFA article, “Ramla – Arab Capital of the Province of Palestine,” illustrates that you didn’t look very hard:

        According to historical sources, Ramla was founded at the beginning of the 8th century by the Umayyad Calif Suleiman ibn Abd el-Malik. It served as the Umayyad and Abbasid capital of the Province of Palestine (Jund Filistin), and the seat of Arab governors of the province in the 8th and 9th centuries.

        link to mfa.gov.il

        Jerusalem eventually became the capital of Jund Filistin, after the Fatimids conquered the district from the Abbasids. Its principal towns were Ashkelon, Ramla, Gaza, Arsuf, Caesarea, Jaffa, Jericho, Nablus, Bayt Jibrin, and Amman. So Filistin had been the name of the province during the Arab Golden Age.

        The 19th century British Foreign Office Confidential Prints FO 424 and early 20th century Arab Bureau Papers FO 882 relate that the origins of the Husayni (aka al-Husseini), Khalidi, Nashashibi, ‘Abd al-Hadi, Tuqan families, and the many clans and tribes – including the Beersheba Bedouin – pre-date the first Zionist Aliya and that all of the groups had been settled there for centuries.

        Muhammad Ali was an Albanian mercenary who became the King of Egypt. Palestinian nationalism began long before the first Zionist Aliya when his son, Ibrahim Pasha laid siege to Palestine (in 1832) and encountered massive resistance.

        In Baruch Kimmerling and Joel Migdal, The Palestinian People: A History, Harvard University Press, 2003 the authors wrote that Palestinian nationality was already clearly evident during the Egyptian-Ottoman war (1831-1833). Israeli Historian Butros Abu Manneh noted that in 1830, on the eve of Muhammad Ali’s invasion the Sanjaks of Jerusalem and Nablus were transferred to the control of Abdullah Pasha the Governor of Acre and that the move had united the whole of Palestine in one administrative unit. See The Israel/Palestine Question: A Reader (Rewriting Histories), Ilan Pappé (Editor) Routledge (April 2, 1999), page 38.

        The account in the Foreign Relations of the United States confirms Manneh’s account in its discussion regarding the Convention of July 1840. It offered a grant to Muhammed Ali, during his natural life, of the government of the region described alternately as “Southern Syria”, “Palestine”, or “the Pashalik of Acre”. See Index to the executive documents of the House of Representatives for the second session of the forty-fifth Congress, 1879-’80 page 1019

        The Ottomans were afraid to unite the districts under a single ruler. In 1884 a member of the Sultan’s entourage in the Yildiz Palace, Ahmed Hamdi, complained that between Aqaba in the south and the northern towns of Nablus and Salt there was a stretch of 800 hours travel distance of an anarchic nature where no single government employee was ever seen or heard from and which was entirely left to the Bedouin shaykhs (‘urban mesayihine terk olan)”. He went on to say that in order to effectively strengthen the state’s authority in the region, it should be discussed whether it was not wise to unite all territories around the District of Jerusalem into a new province. However, he strongly advised that this entity should not be called ‘Palestine’ (Filistin), as this might arouse the curiosity of the Europeans, especially the British. He noted self-critically that the Ottomans did not even possess a map of the southern deserts of Palestine. See the discussion on pages 53 & 54 link to books.google.com

        Although the officials, like Rauof Pasha were the nominal heads of the Sanjak or Mutasarrifyya of Jerusalem, they frequently turned-up elsewhere exercising authority over government works in neighboring Sanjaks in their role as “the Governor of Palestine”. Here is a report from the Palestine Exploration Fund about excavations in the Sanjak of Balka (Nablus) – part of the Vilayet of of Beirut – and the actions taken by there by the Governor of Palestine to secure the archeological discoveries:

        I Discovery on Mount Gerizim of a Marble Pedestal Onnamented With Bas Reliefs and Inscriptions
        About the middle of last year an important archaeological discovery was made in a celebrated locality of Palestine which had not previously supplied us with anything particularly interesting in the way of antiquities Some works undertaken by the Ottoman authorities for the construction of a building at Nablous the ancient Shechem at the foot of Mount Gerizim brought to light a considerable number of fragments of sculptured marble Among these was found a large pedestal of marble about a metre in height triangular or rather hexagonal in shape with three broad and three narrow sides covered with bassi relievi and Greek inscriptions M Paulus a talented sculptor resident in the Holy City and the Governor of Palestine His Excellency Raouf Pasha whose enlightened zeal cannot be too highly praised and who has taken steps to secure the preservation of this beautiful monument kindly sent me as soon as possible different photographs of it.

        – Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly statement, The Society, 1884, pages 187-188
        link to books.google.com

        Acting in that same capacity, he ordered all of the western consuls to deport their Jewish subjects from the districts that comprised Palestine. See Index to the executive documents of the House of Representatives for the second session of the fiftieth Congress, 1888-’90, page 1560, link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Neville J. Mandel said that throughout the 19th century the Ottoman Government employed the term “Arz-i Filistin” (the “Land of Palestine” ) in official correspondence, and that it meant, for all intents and purposes, the area to the west of the River Jordan which became “Palestine” under the British in 1922.
        Mandel also pointed out that one of the pre-war newspapers, the Filastin, frequently carried articles that spoke about Palestine as a distinct national entity. He also noted that in 1914, a circular entitled “General Summons to Palestinians – Beware Zionist Danger” was distributed and published in the press. It warned that “Zionists want to settle in our country and expel us from it” and it was signed anonymously by “a Palestinian”. He quotes extracts and provides analysis of its contents, which leaves no doubt that it reflects well established Palestinian nationalist views. So there has never been any basis in reality for the Zionist myth you guys are trying to peddle here that the term Palestinian wasn’t used; that it only applied to Jews before the 1960s; or that it’s hard to find historical references to the Province or Land of Palestine and the Palestinians. See Neville Mandel, The Arabs and Zionism before World War I, University of California Press, 1980, pages 127 and 220.

      • NormanF
        NormanF
        February 20, 2014, 2:14 am

        There was no Palestinian national consciousness before the 1960s. Palestinian Arab nationalism is a reaction to Zionism and remains as such to this very day.
        The Arabs of Palestine have nearly the same flag as the Arabs of the Hejaz and of present day Jordan. And the differences between them are unremarkable to say the least.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 20, 2014, 2:48 am

        There was no Palestinian national consciousness before the 1960s.

        Can you get Hasbara Central to send some smarter people to Mondoweiss? You are responding to a comment of mine that contains a link to several third-party verifiable of sources which indicate you are either a completely clueless dumb shit or a habitual liar. Here again is a link to a Palestinian nationalist political pamphlet entitled “General Summons to Palestinians – Beware Zionist Danger” that was distributed and published in the press in 1914. A copy of it was even collected and preserved by those clever folks over at the Central Zionist Archives. It warned that “Zionists want to settle in our country and expel us from it”. It was signed anonymously by “a Palestinian”.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 6:46 am

        The Arabs of Palestine have nearly the same flag as the Arabs of the Hejaz and of present day Jordan.

        The flags of Britain, New Zealand and Australia all contain the Union Jack.

        The flags of Italy and Hungary are very similar too.

        So are the flags of France and Russia.

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        February 20, 2014, 7:17 pm

        “you are either a completely clueless dumb shit or a habitual liar.”
        Could he, possibly, be both? He never backs up his claims, keeps repeating what undoubtedly he doesn’t believe himself as he has been regularly debunked and never answers to factual and well argumented counter claims. So yeah, a dumb shit and a liar.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        February 20, 2014, 7:44 pm

        “There was no Palestinian national consciousness before the 1960s. Palestinian Arab nationalism is a reaction to Zionism and remains as such to this very day.”

        Not true, but even if it were, so what? That doesn’t give Zionists the right to invade Palestine and drive out the native inhabitants.

        “The Arabs of Palestine have nearly the same flag as the Arabs of the Hejaz and of present day Jordan. ”

        The Italian flag is very similar to the Mexican flag. The state flag of Hawaii has a Union Jack quartered, just like the Queensland state flag. So what?

      • amigo
        amigo
        February 20, 2014, 8:28 am

        “If you are truly interested in truth perhaps a look at link to upww.us would be helpful. It would help you get your facts straight.”vicinage

        Thanks for introducing us to another in a long line of anti Arab , Islamophobe blogs.

        Another newbie from Hasbara central.I envy you.You have much to learn.

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        February 20, 2014, 7:31 pm

        “So are the flags of France and Russia.”
        The Italian, Dutch and Irish are colour or order variations of the French flag. Dates from the French revolution.

      • annie
        annie
        February 20, 2014, 10:00 pm

        name calling is not a way to win an argument….There has never been a ‘palestinian people,’

        but denying someone’s history and identification is AOK! hypocrite.
        btw vicinage, you can’t link to islamophobic sites here, i deleted your link. see comment policy.

    • NormanF
      NormanF
      February 20, 2014, 1:55 am

      This “ignorant old man” that you despise has more truth in his little finger than you do in your entire body.

      The British did not give the Jewish people anything they didn’t already have; it was Jewish hard work, sweat, blood and tears that built the Jewish State.

      In contrast, the Arabs expect the world to build one for them. No one has ever built a nation by expecting it to coming into existence like a gift from Aladdin’s lamp. The Arabs are true fabulists.

      And the Jews succeeded because they were realists and worked a miracle by their own hands. They deserve to keep it because that is G-d’s gift to them!

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 20, 2014, 5:30 am

        The British did not give the Jewish people anything they didn’t already have; it was Jewish hard work, sweat, blood and tears that built the Jewish State.

        The shit’s getting pretty deep. The British gave you Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall of bayonets to keep the Palestinians from putting a stop to the Zionist colonial project. It’s hypocritical of you to claim otherwise. The Jewish state was built through the pillage and plunder of other peoples lands and property. Jewish officials testified in 1947 that they had only managed to purchase less than 7 percent of the land after 25 years. As for the OPt:

        When the occupation began, the land owned by Jews before 1948 and administered by the Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Property in the West Bank was estimated at 30,000 dunums out of a total area of 5.50 million dunums (a dunum is 1,000 sq.m.). These lands were located mainly in the Jerusalem metropolitan area and the Etzion Bloc, situated south of Jerusalem. By 2003, land appropriated, inter alia, for Israeli settlements in the West Bank (including Jerusalem) constituted 2,346,000 dunums i.e. 41.9 percent of the total area of the West Bank.

        — Written Statement submitted by Palestine to the International Court of Justice, 29 January 2004 http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1555.pdf

        In contrast, the Arabs expect the world to build one for them.

        No they just ask you to stop stealing their land. It’s a war crime when it happens to Jews. When someone plunders or pillages Jewish land, we claim it represents “generations of hard work and creativity” and harmed “Jewish economic and cultural activity”:

        Expropriation of Jewish property was an essential element of Nazi anti-Jewish policy. The Nazis systematically plundered land and property throughout Europe that had been obtained through hard work and creativity for hundreds of years and which were an important part of Jewish economic and cultural activity

        — Yad Vashem, “The Holocaust, The Outbreak of World War II and Anti-Jewish Policy: Expansion of German Conquest and Policy Towards Jews” http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/02/expansion.asp

      • bintbiba
        bintbiba
        February 20, 2014, 6:17 am

        Hostage… Thank you, thank you, such clear-headed repliques and truth telling. I have no words for Norman F. You give me so much to read and think about. I come from a family of nationalists. My father was exiled in 1937 for speaking out (peacefully!!) by the British. Spent 18 months on the island of Seyschelles and upon release was not allowed back into Palestine for another year.

      • bintbiba
        bintbiba
        February 20, 2014, 6:20 am

        Correction: My father was exiled by the British in 1937 for speaking out (peacefully!!).

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 20, 2014, 8:23 am

        Hostage… Thank you, thank you

        @bintbiba, you’re welcome.

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        February 20, 2014, 7:40 pm

        There’s something particularly malicious about this character repeating the same denial statements (that has been running counter all evidence provided by all sorts of sources from both sides) over and over again. We’re in loathsome revisionist territory here. There should be a limit imposed on what this propaganda character is allowed to throw around mainly because it’s tiring, boring.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 21, 2014, 3:36 am

        There should be a limit imposed on what this propaganda character is allowed to throw around mainly because it’s tiring, boring.

        I personally agree, but the moderator’s make those decisions. I tend to post a reply with more evidence or detail whenever someone says we’ve failed to rebut one of these idiotic claims.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        February 22, 2014, 1:10 pm

        I can see limiting and eliminating from MW the likes of the Richard Wittys, but I think there is a real benefit in allowing the occasional mindless forays of the Norman F types. While it bores and frustrates us in having to repeatable debunk their nonsense, any reasonably neutral newcomer to MW really benefits from seeing Hostage’s (and others’) reasoned and documented responses to Hasbara-Central propaganda efforts.

        I just wish we had some sort of MW hasbara response database in which the various Hasbara claims are listed with the debunkings attached.

        My profound thanks to Hostage, and all the others, who continue to have the patience to respond. I wish I had your stamina and dedication.

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        February 20, 2014, 6:24 am

        The British did not give the Jewish people anything they didn’t already have; it was Jewish hard work, sweat, blood and tears that built the Jewish State.

        You left out who the blood, sweat and tears came from: Palestinians.

        Let’s not forget that the Nakba not only involved ethic cleansing but massive theft of property, and land, and natural resources. Where the houses were not demolished – after being stripped for what they could – zionist squatters move right on in.

        The Israeli New Historians told us all about it NormanF – the fact you choose to pretend otherwise discredits yourself, zionism, and Israel.

        From Simha Flaphan The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities on looting in Lydda and Ramla, p.100 [my emphasis]:

        With the population gone, the Israeli soldiers proceeded to loot the two towns in an outbreak of mass pillaging that the officers could neither prevent nor control. In those days there was no military machinery able to deal with the problem. Even soldiers from the Palmach – most of whom came from or were preparing to join kibbutzim – took part, stealing mechanical and agricultural equipment. One must remember that soldiers from the Palmach had a reputation for maintaining a high moral code, even in the thick of fighting. However mythical, this code, known as “purity of arms”, is still considered the educational basis of Israeli military conduct. That they stole not so much for themselves as for their kibbutzim may have provided them with some justification, but only a marginal one.

        This was not the first time that Israeli soldiers had engaged in looting. Not was looting a problem confined to the army. Jewish civilians also rushed to plunder arab towns and villages once they were emptied of their inhabitants.

        Ben Gurion knew about it, wrung his hands and then ignored it (a slight variation on that old zionist chestnut “shooting then crying”):

        Ben-Gurion had shown considerable concern over the phenomenon even before the events at Ramleh and Lydda. On June 16, he wrote: “There is a moral defect in our ranks that I never suspected existed: I refer to mass looting, in which all sections of the population participated. This is not only a moral defect but a grave military defect.” Six weeks earlier, on May 1, he had noted that, in Haifa, professional thieves took part in the looting initiated by the Irgun, and that booty had also been found in the possession of Haganah commanders. He described other unsavoury aspects of the operation al well: “There was a search for Arabs; they were seized, beaten and also tortured”. In October, he again referred to large scale looting by the Haganah in Beersheba, which would appear to indicate that his previous exhortations had not been effective. His moral revulsion, however, did not lead him either to insist that offenders be brought to trial or abandon the strategy of evictions. Indeed, very few soldiers and civilians were tried for looting or indiscriminate killing.”

        Everything below referenced and footnoted here:

        Wikipedia / 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle / Looting of refugees and the towns

        Further gruesome details of events on Lydda and Ramle, from The Economist, 21 August 1948:

        The Arab refugees were systematically stripped of all their belongings before they were sent on their trek to the frontier. Household belongings, stores, clothing, all had to be left behind.

        George Habash, PFLP founder, recalled in 1990 (full quote in footnote #67):

        The Israelis were rounding everyone up and searching us. People were driven from every quarter and subjected to complete and rough body searches. You can’t imagine the savagery with which people were treated. Everything was taken—watches, jewelery, wedding rings, wallets, gold. One young neighbor of ours, a man in his late twenties, not more, Amin Hanhan, had secreted some money in his shirt to care for his family on the journey. The soldier who searched him demanded that he surrender the money and he resisted. He was shot dead in front of us. One of his sisters, a young married woman, also a neighbor of our family, was present: she saw her brother shot dead before her eyes. She was so shocked that, as we made our way toward Birzeit, she died of shock, exposure, and lack of water on the way.

        Bechor Sheetrit (Minister for Minority Affairs) said:

        …the army removed 1,800 truckloads of property from Lydda alone.

        – – – – –

        And the Jews succeeded because they were realists and worked a miracle by their own hands. They deserve to keep it because that is G-d’s gift to them!

        A little less ziocaine would do you good NormanF.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        February 22, 2014, 12:57 pm

        One of the few refreshing things about Avi Shavit’s current best seller, My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel is his brutally honest depiction of the 1948 sacking of Lydda by Israeli army forces, the wanton massacres of civilians in the city followed by the infamous Lydda Death March.

        I think Shavit’s book is a must read as it provides an invaluable insight into the moral and ethical contortions a well-known and well-respected liberal Israeli Zionist has to go through to justify Zionism and its Jewish State. See my review, Banality in the Promised Land: Admitting and Rationalizing Zionism’s Evil Deeds

        https://savingisrael.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/banality-in-the-promised-land-admitting-and-rationalizing-zionisms-evil-deeds/

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 22, 2014, 7:18 pm

        A letter in the Financial Times Feb. 22nd raised some interesting issues regarding Shavit’s book, as to what Herzl was planning for the existing population of Palestine, in 1895.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 22, 2014, 9:27 pm

        A letter in the Financial Times Feb. 22nd raised some interesting issues regarding Shavit’s book, as to what Herzl was planning for the existing population of Palestine, in 1895.

        The Charter of Herzl’s Jewish-Ottoman Land Company (JOLC) contained an article which reserved the right of the Zionists to involuntarily transfer or deport the non-Jewish population of Palestine to other parts of the Ottoman Empire. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2537267

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 23, 2014, 7:22 pm

        Interesting. Herzl’s diary indicates he hoped to get rid of the poorer Christians and Muslims, and keep the richer ones in Palestine.

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 22, 2014, 11:21 pm

        Hostage – Couldn’t access the full text as I have lost privileges. At any rate, I’m pretty sure such a clause would have been illegal in an Ottoman company charter post-1876, but kosher as a personal understanding between the Sultan and Vambéry as a proxy for Herzl (until 1908 when the Sultan’s personal decree was supposed to be insufficient to exile populations.) It gives us a reliable date for when the Zionist program as we know it can be safely called full-fledged –with ethnic cleansing.

      • amigo
        amigo
        February 20, 2014, 11:48 am

        “The British did not give the Jewish people anything they didn’t already have; it was Jewish hard work, sweat, blood and tears that built the Jewish State. “NF

        So why don,t you Zionists take back what is yours???.

        BTW, The Jewish State???.

        Surely you mean Israel!!!.The State of the Israeli people.No.

      • American
        American
        February 20, 2014, 1:01 pm

        NormanF says…

        “And the Jews succeeded because they were realists and worked a miracle by their own hands. They deserve to keep it because that is G-d’s gift to them!”>>>>>

        delusions of grandeur – a delusion (common in paranoia) that you are much greater and more powerful and influential than you really are
        delusion, psychotic belief – an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
        megalomania – a psychological state characterized by delusions of grandeur

        According to the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for delusional disorder, grandiose-type symptoms include grossly exaggerated belief of:
        self-worth
        power
        knowledge
        identity
        exceptional relationship to a divinity or famous person. [God]

        The bad news is these people like Norman and Wilder arent curable so some other solution for their sickness has to be found:

        ”Patients suffering from grandiose and religious delusions are found to be the least susceptible to cognitive behavioral interventions.”[21]

        Also why there is very little point in conversing with them. Any lurkers reading their comments will recognize how mentally disturbed they are.

      • eljay
        eljay
        February 20, 2014, 1:34 pm

        The British did not give the Jewish people anything they didn’t already have; it was Jewish hard work, sweat, blood and tears that built the Jewish State.

        So…the British are not responsible for Jewish terrorism; Jewish ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and lands; Jewish theft, colonization and occupation of those homes and lands; and the past and on-going Jewish campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction, torture and murder. Got it.

        And the Jews succeeded because they were realists and worked a miracle by their own hands. They deserve to keep it because that is G-d’s gift to them!

        So…”god” rewards those who terrorize; engage in ethnic cleansing, land theft, colonization and occupation; and who wage campaigns of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction, torture and murder. Got it.

        In contrast, the Arabs expect the world to build one for them. No one has ever built a nation by expecting it to coming into existence like a gift from Aladdin’s lamp.

        Either:
        – you want them to do as you have done, in which case stop with your bitching and moaning and let them do their job; or
        – you don’t want them to do as you have done, in which case stop being such a hypocrite.

      • tree
        tree
        February 20, 2014, 1:44 pm

        The British did not give the Jewish people anything they didn’t already have; it was Jewish hard work, sweat, blood and tears that built the Jewish State.

        In contrast, the Arabs expect the world to build one for them. No one has ever built a nation by expecting it to coming into existence like a gift from Aladdin’s lamp.

        Here is a partial accounting of the work that Palestinians built that the Zionists and the State of Israel stole from them in 1948:

        The provisional government used the Arabs’ land, dwellings, and possessions for its Jewish population, and primarily for recent immigrants. Ben Gurion ordered that abandoned Arab housing be allocated to Jews. By April 1949, he reported to the Knesset, the government had settled 150,000 Jews in Arab housing.

        The government also took housing from Arabs who remained inside the armistice lines. In Haifa in July 1948 the IDF forced out Arab residents of the Carmel ridge area to make room for Jews. It forced Arabs from their homes in Acre into what became an Arab ghetto. Many “internal refugees” tried to return to their homes. Their land, like that of the Arab “external refugees”, was considered “absentee” property and was controlled by the custodian of absentee property, who rented it to Jews-the rent money going to the government.
        …..

        The value of the land taken from the Palestine Arabs was estimated at 100 million Palestinian pounds. It included stone quarries, 10,000 acres of vineyards, 25, 000 acres of citrus groves, 10.000 business establishments, 95 percent of what became Israel’s olive groves, and 50,000 apartments.
        …..

        The government took over fully equipped plants. In Ramleh, it distributed 600 shops to Jewish immigrants. In Lydda it seized 1800 truckloads of property, including a button factory, a carbonated drinks plant, a sausage factory, 7000 retail shops, 500 workshops, and 1000 warehouses. It confiscated cabinetmaking shops, locksmith works, turneries, ironworks, and tinworks, which it then leased and sold to Jews.

        From “The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective”, John Quigley

        It should be noted that in the 1950s, Israel’s largest export was oranges, with over half of the crop formerly owned by Palestinians prior to 1948, according to the British Survey of Mandate Palestine. Its third largest export was olives, which were 95% Palestinian prior to 1948. By 1954, 35% of Israeli Jews lived on land and/or property confiscated from Palestinians. Even with all the confiscated property from the ethnically cleansed Palestinians, and the few “present absentees” (Palestinians who managed to remain in Israel but had their property confiscated through immoral legal manuever) Israel was reliant on reparation from Germany for 87.5% of its state income in the 1950’s and 60’s.

        I’m sure some, perhaps even most, Israeli Jews worked hard but Israel got where it is today by stealing from the Palestinians and taking handouts from other countries. Its nothing to be particularly proud of, and Israel more closely resembles a state that expects other states and/or people to hand it what it wants on a platter, or at least allow it to go on stealing.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        February 22, 2014, 3:42 pm

        “From “The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective”, John Quigley”

        Prof. Quigley is listed as one of the speakers at the National Summit to Reassess the US-Israel Special Relationship in Washington DC on Friday, March 7.

        I’d like to get together with any other MW attendees but we’ll need a secret sign to identify each other. Looks like quite an event with a lot of good speakers and panels. Stephen Walt, Paul Pillar, Michael Scheuer, and a bunch of others including our own Phil Weiss.

        Here’s the link: link to natsummit.org

        NOTE TO MONDOWEISS CENTRAL: YOU SHOULD BE PROMOTING THIS IMPORTANT EVENT, MAYBE WITH AN ARTICLE OR A NOTICE ON THE MAIN MW PAGE, OR BOTH.

      • tree
        tree
        February 20, 2014, 2:29 pm

        And here is more of how Israel put its finger (actually its whole fist) on the scales to favor Jews over Palestinians when it came to both agricultural and industrial production.

        Article 125 of the Defense (Emergency) Regulations was also used to confiscate land. It permitted the closing of any area for security purposes and expulsion of its inhabitants. The government closed substantial tracts under Article 125 and expelled theri inhabitants. Once the Arabs were gone, the minister of agriculture confiscated the land as “uncultivated”. Shimon Peres, who later would be prime minister of Israel, said this use of Article 125 was not in fact security-related but was “a direct continuation of the struggle for Jewish settlement” and Jewish immigration.

        The government typically confiscated valley lands, leaving Arabs with rocky hillsides. It took major tracts in the Little Triangle area, which came under its control by cession from Transjordan in 1949. The government confiscated water pumps in abandoned Arab orange groves and gave them to Jewish farmers. Members of kibbutzim and moshavim in the Galilee took over flocks of cattle and sheep left by departing Arabs. The goverment confiscated over 85 percent of the land of the Bedouin Palestinians of the Negev Desert and concentrated the remaining Bedouins into small, largely uncultivable areas.

        The Arabs were left with a few towns and villages. Only in the Galilee were towns and rural areas sufficiently contigous to allow economic interchange. In Nazareth, the largest Arab-populated city following the 1948 war, tiel and match factories were no longer viable. The modest industrial potential that remained was eroded by land confiscation. To found the Jewish town of Carmiel in the Galilee, the government confiscated quarries of high-quality marble that had provided for hundreds of persons. The armistice line with Transjordan cut Arab manufacturers and merchants from their traditional connections in the territory that had become the West Bank. The Arabs became dependent on the Jewish economy for industrial and consumer products.
        The government promoted economic development for the Jewish sector but not for the Arab sector. It used martial law powers to prevent the development of Arab industry. It denied Arabs permits to start businesses in areas closed to Arab habitation. The Israel Land Authority denied a permit to an Arab to open a marble quarry in Carmiel, on grounds that the area was closed to non-Jews.

        The government did not make available to Arab entrepreneurs the financial subsidies and loans it gave to Jews. The ministry of the interior allocated to Arab towns only a fraction of the funding it allotted to Jewish towns. Jewish towns received funds from Zionist agencies abroad, but the government did not permit outside funds to Arab towns. Industry could not develop in Arab towns because the government did not fund sewage treatment, roads, or education.
        ….

        Through market and price controls, the government prevented the modest Arab agriculture that survived the land confiscations from competing with Jewish agriculture. Government purchasing agencies paid more to Jewish farmers than to Arab farmers for similar products.

        A tobacco-purchasing agency was established, owned jointly by the Jewish Agency, the Jewish National Fund, and the government. It was given a monopoly in tobacco purchasing and marketing and bought tobacco from Jewish growers at a price higher than that at which Arab farmers could sell – a lower price set by the government. The Agency and Histadrut provided financial assistance to kibbutzim or mashavim, but not to Arab farmers. Arab farmers were, and still are, excluded from membership in kibbutzim and moshavim.

        By the 1959 Water Law the Knesset declared all water in Israel “public property” and authorized the minister of agriculture to designate “rationing areas”. The minister’s Water Regulation of 1976 rationed water in the entire country. The regulation gave Arabs only 2 percent of the water allotted for agriculture, though they farmed 20 percent of the cultivated land, half of it in the arid Negev Desert. The rationing system deprived Arab farmers of water they needed to compete with Jewish agriculture.

        Quigley, see above

        And these are just a few examples of the rigged system that Israel set up for the benefit of Jews to the detriment of the Palestinians. This was all done within Israel’s green line, in pre-1967 territory, in the state that called itself a democracy. It of course reveals the same kind of immoral actions that Israel would later use in the occupied territories to again benefit Jews to the detriment of Palestinians. This is the crux of the immorality and bigotry of Israel, and the crux of the conflict.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 9:38 pm

        The British did not give the Jewish people anything they didn’t already have

        They had nothing. Without the British, there would be no Israel today.

        In contrast, the Arabs expect the world to build one for them.

        That must have come as quite a shock seeing as 56% of the territory was taken from them, then a further 22%.

  2. American
    American
    February 19, 2014, 12:36 pm

    yawn….whats the average IQ or ignorance measurement of cult members and bigots ….I bet it hovers somewhere around the minimun 100 or below. Humm….I’ve never seen a scientific study on the IQ of bigots or anyone do an ignorance measurement…..wonder if there is one. I will google around and see if I can find one..

    • Mndwss
      Mndwss
      February 19, 2014, 1:21 pm

      “yawn….whats the average IQ or ignorance measurement of cult members and bigots ….I bet it hovers somewhere around the minimun 100 or below.”

      I agree with Roger Waters. The cult members must have an IQ below room temperature.

      An Interview with Roger Waters:
      http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/06/an-interview-with-pink-floyds-roger-waters/

      “This is so transparent that you’d have to have an IQ above room temperature not to understand what is going on. It is just dopey.”

  3. eljay
    eljay
    February 19, 2014, 12:57 pm

    >> International demands to remove all Jews from their natural, historic homeland …

    The religion- and supremacism-inspired fantasies of Zio-supremacists notwithstanding, Israel is not the “natural, historic homeland” of all Jews.

    • NormanF
      NormanF
      February 20, 2014, 2:17 am

      David,

      Mondoweiss is an anti-Zionist blog. I’m not sure you’re aware of this but between us – we aren’t going to get a fair hearing from those who hate the Jews and Israel!

      But for others that read this site, it does let them know Zionists present another side of the story and we have nothing to fear from telling the truth!

      • amigo
        amigo
        February 20, 2014, 8:33 am

        “But for others that read this site, it does let them know Zionists present another side of the story and we have nothing to fear from telling the truth!” nf

        So when are you going to start telling the truth.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 21, 2014, 6:10 am

        @ NormanF “Mondoweiss is an anti-Zionist blog …. I’m not sure you’re aware of this but between us – we aren’t going to get a fair hearing from those who hate the Jews and Israel!”

        Zionists are Jews and Israel?

        “But for others that read this site, it does let them know Zionists “</em.

        Oooops.. back to being Zionists

        “..present another side of the story and we have nothing to fear from telling the truth!”

        So why does the Zionist side of the story include such gems as “the LoN Mandate gave Jews the right to a state”? Article 7 shows it clearly did not!

        Why does the Zionist side of the story on UNSC res 242 claim it says borders must be negotiated? When the word ‘negotiate’ simple does not exist in that resolution!

        Why does the Ziofied side of the story on UNSC res 242 claim Israel wasn’t required to withdraw from all territories captured during the recent war (of 1967)? When subsequent UNSC resolutions and Peace Treaties citing UNSC res 242 do require Israel to withdraw from all territories captured during the recent war (of 1967)!

        You wouldn’t know the truth if it fell on you

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 21, 2014, 6:38 am

        Resolution 242 does not say withdrawal from all territories, it says withdrawal from territories and it does not even include the word “the”. And those who negotiated Resolution 242 (from the side of the US) have written that they conceived minor changes in the border and the ambiguity of Resolution 242 was for that purpose.

        Here’s what Dean Rusk said:
        There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from “the” territories or from “all” territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning “the.” We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be “rationalized”; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. We also wanted to leave open demilitarization measures in the Sinai and the Golan Heights and take a fresh look at the old city of Jerusalem. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided. This situation could lead to real trouble in the future. Although every President since Harry Truman has committed the United States to the security and independence of Israel, I’m not aware of any commitment the United States has made to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War.[9]

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 21, 2014, 7:45 am

        Yonah

        That resolution was bought, like everything else to do with Zionism and international law.

        The forces at play now are larger than Jewish money, honey.
        We are going back to 1948, baby.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 21, 2014, 7:46 pm

        Going back to 1967 would be a singular achievement.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 21, 2014, 2:53 pm

        Resolution 242 does not say withdrawal from all territories, it says withdrawal from territories and it does not even include the word “the”.

        That’s a common fallacy promulgated by Abba Eban, who had no legal training. The vote of the French representative in favor of the resolution was conditioned upon the understanding that that the French version was equally authentic and that the sponsor of the draft resolution would not disagree or object if he made a statement to that effect as part of the official UN record. All of the English-speaking Cabinet Secretaries involved in drafting resolution 242 stuck to those terms and subsequently confirmed that the French version is “equally authentic” and that it represented their intended meaning. UK Foreign Secretary George Brown explained the negotiations regarding the resolution in an interview published by the London monthly, The Middle East, in 1978:

        But the English text is clear. Withdrawal from territories means just that, nothing more, nothing less. The French text is equally legitimate. In the French translation the word “des” is used before territories, meaning “from the”, implying all the territories seized in the ’67 war. The Israelis knew this.

        See Palestine and the law: guidelines for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict, by Musa E. Mazzawi, Ithaca Press, 1997, ISBN: 0863722229, page 209

        The US Secretary of State in 1967 was Dean Rusk. He wrote:

        There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from “the” territories or from “all” territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning “the.” . . . we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided. This situation could lead to real trouble in the future. Although every President since Harry Truman has committed the United States to the security and independence of Israel, I’m not aware of any commitment the United States has made to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War.

        — Rusk “As I Saw It”, Dean and Richard Rusk, W.W. Norton, 1990, ISBN 0393026507, page 389

        In any event, UN resolutions can’t be used to create loopholes to circumvent the prohibitions contained in customary international law or the UN Charter. Customary norms preempt any conflicting source of law, including UN Security Council resolution 242, that’s why they are called peremptory norms.

        The prohibition against the acquisition of territory by war is “jus cogens” or compelling law. It is cited explicitly in resolution 242, in three places if you count the references to the UN Charter principles. The resolution explicitly states that the fulfilment of UN Charter principles requires the withdrawal of the armed forces of Israel. That’s why the references in UNSC resolution 242 regarding the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by war and the obligation of all members to act in accordance with Article 2 of the UN Charter, including a prohibition against threats or use of force against the political independence and territorial integrity of any state, have always been listed in the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council as the enunciation of terms that will govern the final settlement. http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/66-68/66-68_08.pdf

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 21, 2014, 7:44 pm

        Great post. And Lyndon Johnson blundered badly by not backing the British effort to get Israel out of the occupied territories asap.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 21, 2014, 8:49 pm

        Resolution 242 does not say withdrawal from all territories, it says withdrawal from territories and it does not even include the word “the”.

        You know what’s hilarious? Is that Hasbrats think they are being clever by sticking to the literal meaning and significance of the word “the”, yet completely missing the gaping hole in their logic.

        Even if you ignore the resounding argument made by Hostage, one need only realize that withdrawal of territories occupied means that this condition will only be met once Israel withdraws from all the occupied territories. Simply put, if they withdraw from anything less than all of the occupied territories, there will still be an occupation on territories occupied in the ’67 war.

        If an employee embezzles money from an employer and is ordered to pay it back, a demand to return money stolen surely does not mean returning most of some of it just because the word “the” was not included.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 21, 2014, 8:52 pm

        We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be “rationalized”

        Notice how this omits therefore the legitimacy of any claim to territory inside those borders. Lord Carradon stated that this ambiguity did not legitimize any of the settlements in the West Bank or East Jerusalem and that such settlements were a violation of the Geneva Conventions

      • eljay
        eljay
        February 21, 2014, 10:56 pm

        >> Resolution 242 does not say withdrawal from all territories, it says withdrawal from territories and it does not even include the word “the”.

        Resolution: Rapist must withdraw from victim.

        Rapist: Aha! It does not say that I must withdraw from all of the victim, and it doesn’t include the word “the”. So, as long as I “rationalize” the situation by taking it out of here and putting it in over there, everything’s fine.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 21, 2014, 11:48 pm

        Rapist: Aha! It does not say that I must withdraw from all of the victim, and it doesn’t include the word “the”. So, as long as I “rationalize” the situation by taking it out of here and putting it in over there, everything’s fine.

        Not so fat. FIRST, the victim must reject violence, reject any form of aggression against me, end all forms of incitement, stop delegitimizing me and recognize my right to have sex with her.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 22, 2014, 7:03 am

        @yonah

        [Dean Rusk:] But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war…

        So, absolutely all territories or all territories with a few minor adjustments — this is the distinction you are at pains to draw?

        Well, it’s a distinction without significance, since the Palestinians long ago have signaled acceptance of minor land swaps while Israel has always insisted on major annexations of territory occupied in 1967, in clear violation of 242 even under Rusk’s interpretation.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 22, 2014, 7:38 am

        I was attempting to rebut certain statements by talknic (not anything beyond that) and I used UN resolution 242 as interpreted by Dean Rusk for that purpose. I’m sorry if you find Dean Rusk hilarious or if you find my point insufficient for other purposes than the one I was making.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 22, 2014, 10:40 am

        I was attempting to rebut certain statements by talknic (not anything beyond that) and I used UN resolution 242 as interpreted by Dean Rusk for that purpose. I’m sorry if you find Dean Rusk hilarious or if you find my point insufficient for other purposes than the one I was making.

        Dean Rusk interpreted 242 as allowing for mutually agreed upon minor swaps. But he did not interpret it as allowing Israel to dictate them or that Israel could use them as a condition for delaying its immediate withdrawal after 338 was adopted. He certainly did NOT accept the bullshit spouted by Dore Gold about 242 allowing Israel to retain territory for security purposes:

        With Secretary Rusk yesterday, Eban turned aside discussion of thorny issues and talked out the clock. He made just about the same pitch to Secretary Rusk as he had to me. While Eban did most of the talking, the Secretary did manage to put across the following: We understand Israel’s desire to maintain a common front, but this depends on our knowing where that front is. Israel has gone its own way, consulting us little. The Secretary also made clear that our support for secure permanent frontiers doesn’t mean we support territorial changes.

        http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d487

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 22, 2014, 2:10 pm

        Bravo.

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      February 20, 2014, 6:33 am

      International demands to remove all Jews from their natural, historic homeland … is nothing less than a modern-day form of anti-Antisemitism

      1) Palestine is not the “natural, historic homeland” of Jews who have
      “homelands” in Europe and elsewhere, and who are not direct descendants of Jews who lived had lived in Palestine (Eretz Israel etc.).

      2) It’s meaningless to qualify a “homeland” as “natural”.

      3) There is no moral or legal right, nothing in international law, that confers to a group of people political sovereignty over a territory just because that territory was a “historic homeland”, i.e. a homeland in distant history or mythology. Serbians, for example, have no right to sovereignty over all of Kososvo, simply because they claim Kosovo was once part of the ancient Serbian homeland.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        February 21, 2014, 8:25 am

        @Sibiraik

        There is no moral or legal right, nothing in international law, that confers to a group of people political sovereignty over a territory just because that territory was a “historic homeland”, i.e. a homeland in distant history or mythology.

        That’s absolutely 100% correct. Sovereignty over territory doesn’t extend past one generation after occupancy stops.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 21, 2014, 7:48 pm

        Interesting. But Poles wanted Poland back on the map, during the long period it was absent. And Palestinians are descendants of the occupants of Palestine from 200 years ago.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 22, 2014, 4:07 am

        JeffB “Sovereignty over territory doesn’t extend past one generation after occupancy stops”

        Conclusion: Zionutters will say anything.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 22, 2014, 6:44 am

        JeffB:

        [Sibiriak:] There is no moral or legal right, nothing in international law, that confers to a group of people political sovereignty over a territory just because that territory was a “historic homeland”, i.e. a homeland in distant history or mythology.

        [JeffB: That’s absolutely 100% correct

        Glad we can agree that one of the central themes in Zionist discourse is bunk.

        [JeffB:] Sovereignty over territory doesn’t extend past one generation after occupancy stops.

        Did you just make that up? It makes no sense.

        For example, U.S. sovereignty over some U.S. territory does not cease if the “occupancy” of that territory completely changes for whatever period of time. So what are you talking about?

        With all due respect, I think you need to reconsider your cute formula relating sovereignty , territory and occupancy.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        February 22, 2014, 3:15 pm

        Sibiriak:

        For example, U.S. sovereignty over some U.S. territory does not cease if the “occupancy” of that territory completely changes for whatever period of time. So what are you talking about?

        With all due respect, I think you need to reconsider your cute formula relating sovereignty , territory and occupancy.

        I’m not agreeing with your “for example”. That’s how virtually the entire South West became states. The occupancy changed from natives and people who identified with Spain to people who identified with United States.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 22, 2014, 9:19 pm

        JeffB:

        That’s how virtually the entire South West became states. The occupancy changed

        Nonsense. I took quite a bit more than an alteration “occupancy” for sovereignty to change–i.e. political, military and legal action. A quick glance at the history of Texas in the 19th century, for example, makes that glaringly obvious.

        According to your cute formula, if a portion of the South West became “occupied” by folks identifying with Mexico, not the U.S., past one generation , the U.S. would, by that alone , lose sovereignty over the area. Again, nonsense. There is no such “one generation non-occupancy = loss of sovereignty rule”.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 22, 2014, 11:36 pm

        I’m not agreeing with your “for example”. That’s how virtually the entire South West became states. The occupancy changed from natives and people who identified with Spain to people who identified with United States.

        You obviously are ignoring the fact that the Mexican inhabitants didn’t leave. There were certainly new arrivals, but the existing Mexican inhabitants were not driven off or denied citizenship. In 1832, the Supreme Court addressed the fact that a change in sovereignty does NOT alter the relationship between the people or the ownership of their property:

        The modern usage of nations, which has become law, would be violated; that sense of justice and of right which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilized world would be outraged if private property should be generally confiscated and private rights annulled on a change in the sovereignty of the country. The people change their allegiance, their relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved, but their relations to each other and their rights of property remain undisturbed.

        – United States v. Percheman – 32 U.S. 51 (1832) link to supreme.justia.com

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 23, 2014, 12:29 am

        According to your cute formula, if a portion of the South West became “occupied” by folks identifying with Mexico, not the U.S., past one generation , the U.S. would, by that alone , lose sovereignty over the area.

        Oceans of ink have been spilled over the subject. See for example Robert Jennings, The Acquisition of Territory in International Law, Manchester University Press, 1963
        * http://books.google.com/books?id=NhfpAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA20&ots=vq5QhyUoPD&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q&f=false
        * http://books.google.com/books?id=NhfpAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA52&ots=vq5QhyUoPD&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false

        Sovereignty over a territory can no longer be obtained by way of occupation or unlawful force. Full stop. Acquisition by prescription requires peaceful and unchallenged exercise of sovereignty. That obviously doesn’t apply to situations where the armed forces are required to govern and even they can’t obtain regular allegiance from pre-pubescent indigenous stone throwers. That really only leaves lawful secession; mutually agreed upon cessions of territory; or consolidation of lawful title through union and annexation.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        February 23, 2014, 1:29 am

        “Did you just make that up?”

        Of course he did. Zionists make things up and then use their fictions as the base for their wild claims all the time.

        Let them get on with. Arguing about it spoils their fun.

        (And that misery-guts Hostage is an even worse spoilsport than you. He keeps dragging in a lot of dull facts about tedious law and boring treaties. Total downer. What does reality have to do with Zionist claims?)

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 23, 2014, 4:43 pm

        How is Texas a counter example rather than a perfectly good example? Texas is a part of Mexico. The population starts to shift and there is a minority that considers itself part of an independent country with ties to the United States.

        Please provide some evidence to support the notion that the inhabitants who supported secession, including the Tejano elites, were a minority. Historians say that the roots of rebellion and resistance to the rule of central government from Mexico City lay in the Tejano community and predate the disaffection of the johnny-come-lately Anglo settlers by at least 50 years, e.g. http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/adp/archives/newsarch/tejano.html

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 23, 2014, 6:04 pm

        Various Americans had their eyes on Texas and Louisiana, by the time the ink was dry on the Treaty of Paris (1783).

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        February 23, 2014, 8:07 am

        @sibiriak

        Nonsense. I took quite a bit more than an alteration “occupancy” for sovereignty to change–i.e. political, military and legal action. A quick glance at the history of Texas in the 19th century, for example, makes that glaringly obvious.

        How is Texas a counter example rather than a perfectly good example? Texas is a part of Mexico. The population starts to shift and there is a minority that considers itself part of an independent country with ties to the United States. As they grow more powerful they provoke a war. While losing the first battle the United States beats Mexico. The legal issues are resolved with Mexico quickly on the basis of that military defeat. The population of Texas is overwhelming willing to be loyal and part of the United States and so Texas is quickly granted admittance to the United States

        According to your cute formula, if a portion of the South West became “occupied” by folks identifying with Mexico, not the U.S., past one generation , the U.S. would, by that alone , lose sovereignty over the area. Again, nonsense. There is no such “one generation non-occupancy = loss of sovereignty rule”.

        Yes. See the Philippines vs. Guam and Hawaii where precisely that happened.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 23, 2014, 3:34 pm

        The scheme to detach Texas from Mexico was supported by some of the major landowners in Texas, who thought Texan independence, and subsequent annexation by the US, would raise property values.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 23, 2014, 4:29 pm

        How am I obviously ignoring it?

        By claiming that “The occupancy changed”, when the Mexican inhabitants were not driven off or their properties expropriated.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 23, 2014, 6:06 pm

        Very few “Mexicans” left California, or Texas (or in-between), after US annexation.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        February 23, 2014, 8:12 am

        @Hostage

        You obviously are ignoring the fact that the Mexican inhabitants didn’t leave. There were certainly new arrivals, but the existing Mexican inhabitants were not driven off or denied citizenship. In 1832, the Supreme Court addressed the fact that a change in sovereignty does NOT alter the relationship between the people or the ownership of their property:

        How am I obviously ignoring it? The people in the case of the American Southwest were willing to identify with America. They weren’t particularly loyal to Mexico. That continues to today Mexican immigrants are still willing to be ethnically Mexican Americans. I’m not ignoring it, I was stating it. There was a population willing to identify as American.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 23, 2014, 3:37 pm

        The creation of British Columbia in the 1850s owed a good deal to Britain’s concerns that the area of what is now Canada west of the Rockies, would try to join the US.

  4. dwilder
    dwilder
    February 19, 2014, 1:10 pm

    If anyone is interested in truly understanding, comprehensively, the opinions of Hebron’s Jewish Community, I suggest you download the booklet ‘Breaking the Lies’ by David Wilder at http://goo.gl/y6MprW or go to http://www.davidwilder.org to view other material.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      February 19, 2014, 2:11 pm

      Maybe if I were younger and writing a PhD on group psychosis I’d spend some time in Hevron. In Hebron the Palestinians seem to have all of the dignity.

      • bintbiba
        bintbiba
        February 19, 2014, 4:09 pm

        Oh seafoid, You say such wonderful things…. You bring tears as well as laughter , often.

      • Henry Norr
        Henry Norr
        February 19, 2014, 4:12 pm

        >>Maybe if I were younger and writing a PhD on group psychosis I’d spend some time in Hevron. In Hebron the Palestinians seem to have all of the dignity.

        Absolutely right, Seafoid. Back in 2006 spent two months in Tel Rumeida, the part of Hebron next to the old city, home of the Tel Rumeida settlement [where the infamous Baruch Marzel lives, along with many other Kach types], where students and teachers going to the Qurtuba school are routinely attacked by Mr. Wilder’s friends, etc. I’d previously spent time in Gaza and in various parts of the West Bank, but nothing else felt as crazy as that place.

        We spent all day, every day, out on the street, with the idea our prince and our cameras and cellphones might deter some of the settler attacks. I’m not sure we deterred them at all, but to some extent we distracted them – some of the time they attacked us instead of the locals, so to that extent we made life a tiny bit less miserable for the Palestinians.

        It wasn’t just the viciousness of the settlers and the complicity of the Israeli soldiers on every corner that was crazy-making – it was also that the whole world was in some sense watching, but not doing anything effective to stop it. The place was swarming with layer upon layer of international observers – not just our group (the now-defunct Tel Rumeida Project, which worked in collaboration with ISM) and the Christian Peacemaker Teams, but also religious people from the World Council of Church’s Ecumenical Accompaniment Project (EAPPI), retired Northern European cops and civil servants earnestly taking notes for TIPH (Temporary International Presence in Hebron – a special international monitoring force created after the Baruch Goldstein massacre), people from several UN agencies, and so on.

        That summer TIPH was paying to put in a small retaining wall and paving stones on the path the Qurtuba students and teachers had to take across a hillside to get to the back door of the school (because to get to the main door they would have had to walk in front of the Beit Hadassah settlement, and that was prohibited). The settlers would regularly stone and threaten the Palestinian workmen, so we got into the habit of sitting out there all day, in shifts. In that case, we had some effect – they only attacked a couple of times while we were there. But at night, when we and the workers had gone home, the settlers would come out and rip out the paving stones and mess up the concrete installed the day before.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 19, 2014, 4:23 pm

        Odious people. And they call themselves Jews. Trade description breach- they should be fined for bringing the religion into disrepute. Hebron is jewish nihilism distilled.

      • NormanF
        NormanF
        February 20, 2014, 2:21 am

        Hebron is Jewish survival exemplified. And it illustrates like nothing else, the truth of the Jewish return to history.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 20, 2014, 8:18 am

        Henry

        I was in Hebron twice. I found the Jewish part to be nuts. Really sick.
        OK, it may have been where Abraham bought the cave but what religion would justify the abuse required for 5000 extremists to lord it over 150,000 Palestinians? How much does the IDF spend every year pretending the situation is normal? How many Jewish soldiers have died for the sake of the Hebron settlers ? Where is the rule of law ? What are property rights in Hebron ? All the Palestinian homes taken over and used as military zones.
        Shuhada street deserted. All the checkpoints. The economic waste of potential.

        The Ashkenazi Yank Jews who sponsor libraries, clinics and freeloaders like Wilder- do they have any idea of the mayhem and pure evil they are supporting ? And the Jewish kids- how damaged are they at this stage ?

        It is awful.
        And if you look at it on the net there is no brand management. This stuff is known across the Middle East.

        People can be really stupid. Even Jews.

        And how are they ever going to repair the damage ?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 9:47 pm

        But at night, when we and the workers had gone home, the settlers would come out and rip out the paving stones and mess up the concrete installed the day before.

        Such enlightened souls. Now I understand what NormanF was referring to when he talked about blood, sweat and tears. Tearing up pavers, and vandalizing homes and orchards in the middle of the night must be hard work.

      • NormanF
        NormanF
        February 20, 2014, 2:20 am

        Hebron was the first capital of Israel. King David was crowned there. Its the oldest Jewish city in the world after Jerusalem – and the ancestors of the Jewish nation – Avraham and Rivkah – are buried in the Ma’arat Hamechpelah.

        Jews may be a small minority but they have outlasted every adversary. And this will be true as well in the future.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 20, 2014, 3:15 am

        Thanks for the laughs norman. I had lunch with a Zoroastrian yesterday. They are still around and haven’t descended into ethnic madness. Their cuisine is really excellent too.

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        February 20, 2014, 3:40 am

        @ NormanF

        Hebron was the first capital of Israel. King David was crowned there. Its the oldest Jewish city in the world after Jerusalem – and the ancestors of the Jewish nation – Avraham and Rivkah – are buried in the Ma’arat Hamechpelah.

        Mythology isn’t history, still less a land deed.

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        February 20, 2014, 4:16 am

        Re: NormanF,
        …. Hebron was the first capital of Israel…..

        Hebron was a Capitol? A capitol of what?
        Hebron was a puny village Kingdom in 1029BC!
        20 yrs later Jerusalem was a dirt village with 2K
        inhabitants under King David! A Capitol?
        There was no Israel anything before it became, but
        a Kingdom under King David, but defunct in 722BC
        on 7.3K Sq Km of Falesteena proper being 408K Sq Km!
        ziusudra

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 20, 2014, 4:36 am

        @ NormanF “Hebron is Jewish survival exemplified. And it illustrates like nothing else, the truth of the Jewish return to history”

        Pity it isn’t in Israel

        @ NormanF “Hebron was the first capital of Israel … etc etc … Jews may be a small minority but they have outlasted every adversary”

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

        Israel has not since legally acquired any territory.

      • eljay
        eljay
        February 20, 2014, 7:16 am

        >> Hebron was the first capital of Israel. King David was crowned there. Its the oldest Jewish city in the world after Jerusalem

        If Hebron was indeed the first capital of the Kingdom of Israel, it would be an Israelite or Israeli city, not a Jewish city.

        >> Jews may be a small minority but they have outlasted every adversary. And this will be true as well in the future.

        Homosexuals have outlasted every adversary. And this will be true as well in the future. Unlike Zio-supremacists, homosexuals aren’t out stealing and colonizing land, or oppressing, torturing and slowly killing an indigenous population.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        February 20, 2014, 12:37 pm

        Hebron was the first capital of Israel. King David was crowned there. Its the oldest Jewish city in the world after Jerusalem – and the ancestors of the Jewish nation – Avraham and Rivkah – are buried in the Ma’arat Hamechpelah.

        Hebron and Jerusalem were originally Canaanite cities and Hebron was not capital of the Kingdom of Israel, or the United Kingdom of Israel, but of the Kingdom of Judah.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 9:49 pm

        And it illustrates like nothing else, the truth of the Jewish return to history.

        I somehow doubt that the custom of throwing human excrement out of windows onto people on the street illustrates like nothing else, the truth of the Jewish return to history.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 9:51 pm

        Hebron was the first capital of Israel. King David was crowned there.

        Kind David never existed.

        Its the oldest Jewish city in the world after Jerusalem

        It is no a Jewish city seeing as it was not built by Jews.

        Avraham and Rivkah – are buried in the Ma’arat Hamechpelah.

        They don’t exist either.

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        February 20, 2014, 9:24 pm

        >>Maybe if I were younger and writing a PhD on group psychosis I’d spend some time in Hevron. In Hebron the Palestinians seem to have all of the dignity.”
        You see?! We told you they don’t want to share. :)

    • amigo
      amigo
      February 19, 2014, 2:33 pm

      We know all we need to about you wilder.Threatening to hang people and leading terrorists night raids on Palestinians harvesting their crops.You should be in prison and kept there for the rest of your miserable life.

      “Talk turns to David Wilder, “The crazy man,” as Issa remarks. According to Issa, two weeks ago on Olive Day, settlers attacked Palestinians harvesting their own olives and as usual the Israeli soldiers dismissed the Palestinians. David took photos and film of the event, describing Issa on his website as “the head terrorist in Hebron.” Three months ago, according to Issa, David directly threatened him at Tel Rumeida Street and David told him that he will be hanged by a ledge and eaten by birds. This was all captured on video: (google: Hebron human rights press).
      http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/authors.php?auid=32689

      Then there are your neighbors who I am certain you know intimately.Here are just a few examples of your terrorist friends daily activities.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJUCNCX8gfg

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV_BHlAK

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPpuz_fMZos

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URzDc8wvDZA

    • puppies
      puppies
      February 19, 2014, 2:47 pm

      @dwilder – What a strange idea! Why on earth should anyone try to understand the “opinion” of the Zionist criminals occupying Elkhalil and collectively torturing the owners of the place? The designation “Hebron’s Jewish Community” is by itself criminal. Despicable criminals like these must be arrested and punished. Understanding them can wait till after they are neutered, just like it was with the Nazis. Also kindly refrain from renaming Palestinian towns.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      February 19, 2014, 4:59 pm

      If anyone is interested in truly understanding, comprehensively, the opinions of Hebron’s Jewish Community

      I understand them truly and completely, but your narrative is based upon shop-worn propaganda from the heyday of the Political Department of the Jewish Agency for Palestine. It was false and misleading then, and it is false and misleading now. On 29 November 1947, and on several occasions during the hearings on Israel’s application for membership in the UN, the Government of Israel accepted the terms of resolution 181(II) which explicitly stated that Jews would not have the right to citizenship or residency in the Arab state:

      Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting.

      See resolution 181(II), Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

      The so-called “San Remo Accords” was merely a joint resolution adopted by four of the Allied powers, which was subject to several reservations. It’s available online, so anyone can read it a see exactly what it does and doesn’t say. It didn’t provide the Jewish people with any enforceable rights that could be used as the basis of a claim for which an international court could grant relief. http://www.cfr.org/israel/san-remo-resolution/p15248

      For that matter, the Knesset, the Attorney General, and the Israeli High Court of Justice, rejected these same quirky arguments in the Gaza Coast Regional Council v Knesset of Israel case by a vote of 10-1.

      The San Remo resolution announced that the mandates for Ottoman Asia had been conferred on Great Britain and France, not the Jewish people. It granted Great Britain the right to draft the terms of its own mandate for Palestine, subject to “an undertaking that it would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. Those rights included full civil and political rights which were protected against any discrimination on religious grounds by Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878):

      Article LXII. The Sublime Porte having expressed the intention to maintain the principle of religious liberty, and give it the widest scope, the Contracting Parties take note of this spontaneous declaration. In no part of the Ottoman Empire shall difference of religion be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, in any locality whatsoever.

      http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1878berlin.asp

      The Palestinians had enjoyed full representation in the Ottoman Parliament, which among other things, had established suitable legal conditions for Jewish immigration. Here is a link to a debate on the subject that took place in 1911. Two lawmakers from Jerusalem, al Khalidi and al Husayni, argued with Jewish lawmakers that “the district of Palestine” had reached the limit of its capacity of Jewish immigrants, and that they should be settled elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire. See Yuval Ben-Bassat and Eyal Ginio, Late Ottoman Palestine: The Period of Young Turk Rule (Library of Ottoman Studies), 2011, page 111 et seq link to books.google.com

      Great Britain was tasked with implementing its own Balfour Declaration. It contained an expression of sympathy with Zionists aims, subject to reservations concerning the rights and position of non-Jewish communities in Palestine. 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

      The League of Nations left the job of interpreting and implementing the British Balfour Declaration to the British government, which it had granted “full powers of administration”. The British in-turn defined the scope of the national home that would not further impair the position and rights of the Arab communities in accordance with the 1939 White Paper, the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance, and Sections 13 to 15 of the Immigration Ordinance, 1941.

      The Palestine High Court of Justice upheld the validity of the 1940 Land ordinance that prohibited land sales to Jews in most of the country. The case was Bernard A. Rosenblatt (petitioner) Vs. the Registar Of Lands, Haifa (1947). It cited an earlier case, Jamal Effendi Husseini v. Government of Palestine (1 P.L.R. 5O), and reaffirmed that “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.” The latter case is discussed on page 219 of 398 in the Yearbook Of The International Law Commission 1950 Volume II, http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/Ybkvolumes%28e%29/ILC_1950_v2_e.pdf

      The pink areas on this map indicate the final territorial scope of the Jewish National home under the terms of the Palestine Mandate. http://www.plands.org/articles/images/029-02.jpg

      Decisions of the Council and the Assembly of the League of Nations could only be adopted on the basis of unanimity in accordance with the explicit terms of Article 5 of the Covenant. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art5

      So no action could be taken to overturn the White Paper in the Council or the Assembly without obtaining the consent of all the members, including the British Government itself, the British Commonwealth countries, and the India Colony.

      Ben-Gurion had to perform a delicate dance during the UNSCOP hearings in order to portray the de facto partition under the White Paper policies on immigration and land transfers as a prohibited form of discrimination, while claiming on the other hand that those same mandate protections against discrimination should be immediately abolished in order to allow the Jewish Agency or the UN itself to employ force to impose a different partition scheme on the Arab majority. Ben Gurion employed the fiction of a Jewish legal entitlement to the entire country (which no sane intellect had ever accepted) and portrayed his plan for direct administration by the UN (under the terms of Article 81 and 85 of the Charter) as the acceptance of a British compromise proposal by the Zionist Organization. — See A/364/Add.2 PV.19, 7 July 1947, http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/06728C052629426085256E8B007092DF

      • NormanF
        NormanF
        February 20, 2014, 2:29 am

        The British White Paper and its legal instruments constituted a legal and moral breach of the Mandatory towards the Jewish people. It was never accepted by them as the legitimate law of the land. They did everything they could to resist it and after Israel became independent, it was immediately abolished. British colonialism sought to subvert the rights of the Jews and failed. Moreover, San Remo did not grant the Jewish people any rights – it only acknowledged what they already possessed. And those rights ultimately could not be taken away even by the British government.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 20, 2014, 4:38 am

        San Remo has no legitimacy.

        The majority population of the land was Arab, not Jews.

        Who cares what a group of Europeans and Americans thought of the situation.

        Their opinion has no moral ground.

        You are a cultist thief.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 20, 2014, 7:14 am

        Who cares what a group of Europeans and Americans thought of the situation.

        Clarification: The USA and Bulgaria were merely observers.

        Japan stipulated from the outset that it already had the Pacific mandates it desired, so it didn’t care what Great Britain and France decided to do with Ottoman Asia. Italy was on the verge of a civil war and the validity of its representative’s plenipotentiary powers were in question. So there was considerable doubt that it would even attend the conference. In the end, it did not accept the terms of the resolution and the last clause reserved its position in Ottoman Asia. So we are really only talking about conditional agreement between Great Britain and France. No other countries attended or participated in the conference.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 20, 2014, 6:59 am

        The British White Paper and its legal instruments constituted a legal and moral breach of the Mandatory towards the Jewish people.

        You guys keep offering your private legal interpretations of the San Remo resolution, and etc. But Article 26 of the Mandate required that “any dispute whatever” between the Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations over the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate were to be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice. Obviously, no other state in the international community ever disputed the British interpretation of its own Balfour Declaration and the San Remo resolution did not grant the Jewish communities any unqualified or legally enforceable rights that could form the basis of a claim for which the Court could grant relief.
        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art26

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 9:57 pm

        The British White Paper and its legal instruments constituted a legal and moral breach of the Mandatory towards the Jewish people.

        False. It was legitimized by the Articles of the Mandate.

        It was never accepted by them as the legitimate law of the land

        There was no law of the land.

        British colonialism sought to subvert the rights of the Jews and failed.

        It was British colonialism that opened the door to ISraelbeing created in the first place. Without the British, there would have been no ISrael.

        But that’s how Israel has always treated its “friends”.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 22, 2014, 7:42 pm

        Wilson refused to have the US take control of Palestine, after the first World War.

    • American
      American
      February 19, 2014, 6:12 pm

      I have a question for Wilder……do you know who the Palestine is whose land and home you took and are living on? What happened to the Palestine whose land you stole…do you know his name?

      • NormanF
        NormanF
        February 20, 2014, 2:31 am

        It never existed. If you google for “Palestine” before 1964, be so kind as to post the relevant results.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 4:09 am

        It never existed. If you google for “Palestine” before 1964, be so kind as to post the relevant results.

        Sure, just read the Balfour Declaration of 1917

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 20, 2014, 7:28 am

        Sure, just read the Balfour Declaration of 1917

        While you’re at it read the Basel platform of the Zionist Congress. There’s no mention of Eretz Yisreal there, just the well-known German or Austrian Consular jurisdictions of Palistina with their German subjects and Eastern European and Russian protoges living in all six Ottoman districts West of the Jordan under the regime of the Capitulations.
        http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/The_%22Basel_Program%22_at_the_First_Zionist_Congress_in_1897.jpg

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 20, 2014, 6:43 am

        It never existed. If you google for “Palestine” before 1964, be so kind as to post the relevant results.

        Every time someone challenged Palestine’s statehood in any connection with a case before an international or national Court, dealing with the period prior to November of 1947, the decisions uniformly held that Palestine was a State – no “ifs, ands, buts, or maybes”.
        Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles stipulated that Germany was required to recognize the dispositions made concerning the territories of the former Ottoman Empire, “and to recognize the new States within their frontiers as there laid down.” The other Central powers and some of the treaty articles that required them to recognize the new states were:
        *Bulgaria Article 60 of the Treaty of Neuilly;
        *Hungary Article 74 (2) of The Treaty of Trianon
        *Austria Article 90 of The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye

        Turkey and the US were signatories of the Treaty of Lausanne. The US ratified the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention. It did, and still does, recognize Palestinian nationality and statehood as a matter of inter-temporal law. In 1995 the State Department published a Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963) regarding Jerusalem. Bar-Haim said “The use of the term “Palestine” is historical fiction; it encourages the Palestine entity concept; its “revived usage enrages” individual Israelis”. Crawford replied “It is difficult to see how it “enrages” Israeli opinion. The practice is consistent with the fact that, ”in a de jure sense”, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty. That it was not a simple matter, since there was a ”quota nationality”, in regard to which U.S. legislation and regulation continue to employ the term Palestine. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, ISBN 0160451590, page 341. US immigration law, U.S. TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, § 1101. Definitions says “(a) As used in this chapter— (14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.
        Here are a few examples of the legal consequences of those treaties for you:
        *The decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Kletter v. Dulles (1950):

        The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.
        When the Congress speaks of a ‘foreign State,’ it means a country which is not the United States, or its possession or colony- an alien country- other than our own, bearing in mind that the average American, when he speaks of a ‘foreigner,’ means an alien, non- American. Uyeno v. Acheson, D.C., 96 F.Supp. 510.
        Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.

        *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
        Another 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 explicit terms of Article 6 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
        *The International Law Reports annual summarized a decision by the Mixed Courts of Egypt which had ruled that the former Ottoman territories placed under Mandate had the character of regular States, and that their inhabitants possessed the nationality of those States in accordance with Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne. The Court held that the Arab plaintiff had Palestinian nationality, and was a foreign subject in Egypt. — Reports: Gazette des Tribunaux – Mixtes, 1926, p. 119; 53 Clunet (1926), p.1069 cited in Case No 34 “Mandated States”, John Fischer Williams, Hersh Lauterpacht (editors), International Law Reports, Volume 3, Cambridge University Press, 1929, page 48 link to books.google.com
        All of those cases and many more are cited in volume 1 of the US State Department’s (aka Whiteman’s) Digest of International Law, GPO, 1963. It contains an entire Chapter devoted to the various types of States, including the Mandated States.

        In addition, the United States operated its own Consular Courts there under the system of capitulations. They exercised civil and criminal territorial jurisdiction over US citizens living in the country from Consulates in cities, including Jerusalem, Haifa, Acre, and Jaffa. –See Ruth Kark, American consuls in the Holy Land, 1832-1914, Wayne State University Press, 1994
        By the late 19th Century, the Consuls in “Jerusalem, Palestine” submitted Daily, Annual, and Special reports on the Trade and Commerce of the Country of Palestine to the US Bureau of Foreign Commerce, e.g.:

        “Fruit Culture in Palestine Report By Consul Merrill of Jerusalem”
        In answer to the circular from the Department of State dated December 4 1883 respecting fruit culture in this country, I have the honor to make the following report on the culture of olives, oranges, grapes, and figs in Palestine:” . . . & etc.

        Consul report for 1884.
        Here is an extract from a regional report which mentions the responsible local authorities of the countries visited, including Palestine:

        Commerce Of The East And Of North Africa And The Share Of The United States Therein Report of Minister Noyes Of Paris
        I have the honor to report that in compliance with instructions contained in State Department dispatch No 178 of date August 29 1879 I left France on tbe 16th day of October last and returned on the 27th day of February 1880 I should have arrived in Paris at least three weeks earlier but for unavoidable delays occasioned by severe and almost unprecedented storms on the Mediterranean Sea which interrupted the various steamship lines During my absence I visited Genoa, Pisa, Florence, Rome, Naples, and Brindisi in Italy; the islands of Corfu, and Syra, the Piraeus and Athens in Greece; Mytelene, Constantinople, Smyrna, Rhodes, and Cyprus; Beyrout and Damascus in Syria; Jaffa and Jerusalem and the neighboring places of interest and importance in Palestine; Alexandria, Cairo and the other principal points for several hundred miles up the Nile . . .
        . . . At all the points visited by me I conferred freely with the diplomatic and consular representatives of the United States wherever such were to be found regarding the subject matter of my special mission consulted many private persons of business capacity and prominence in commercial affairs and had many interviews with the responsible local authorities of the several countries. Among the latter may be mentioned the leading members of the Sultan’s government at Constantinople, the governors general at Beyrout, Damascus, and the Lebanon district in Syria, the governor general of Palestine at Jerusalem, . . .

        –Commercial relations of the United States: Reports (Nos. 1, 2, and 3) 1880 By United States Bureau of Foreign Commerce link to books.google.com
        Here is an extract from a monthly report:

        Jaffa Jerusalem Railroad Report By Consul Merrill of Jerusalem
        I have the honor to report that the formal opening of the Jaffa and Jerusalem Railroad occurred on the 26th of September, on which date the company that had contracted to construct the road gave it over into the hands of the company which owns it. The event was celebrated on the part of the Mohammedans by an address from an imam one of their priests of high rank in Jerusalem . . . it was celebrated by a dinner given in the evening under tents at the Jerusalem station Djelal Pasha aide de camp to the Sultan was present from Constantinople to represent the Sultan in the opening exercises M. Collas the president of the road and several eminent engineers from Paris were also present likewise the governor of Jerusalem and Palestine together with the civil and military authorities and the members of the diplomatic and consular corps.

        – Monthly consular and trade reports, Volume 41, Issues 148-151
        By United States. Bureau of Manufactures, United States Bureau of Foreign Commerce (1854-1903)., United States. Dept. of Commerce and Labor Bureau of Statistics link to books.google.com

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 20, 2014, 8:09 am

        NormanF “It never existed. If you google for “Palestine” before 1964… “

        Lemme see now ..
        Either the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine is full of spelling mistakes or typos and/or;

        the 1480, 1655, 1845 and other maps in the Zionism & Israel Information Center and in the Jewish National and University Library don’t exist or are Pallywood forgeries or;

        you’re a brain dead moron who, like the other moronic propagandists for Israel, will say anything no matter how utterly stupid it makes you look

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        February 20, 2014, 8:04 pm

        “If you google for “Palestine” before 1964, be so kind as to post the relevant results.”
        Poor clueless Norman. Confusing the date the PLO was established and The Palestinian National Charter was adopted (May 28, 1964) with the day/year/decade/century the Palestinian nation has come to being. Staggering ignorance!
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Covenant

      • Naftush
        Naftush
        February 20, 2014, 3:57 am

        Mr. Wilder stole no one’s land. Title to his home and the other Jewish properties in Hebron is explicit, unchallengeable, and non-Arab.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 4:11 am

        Mr. Wilder stole no one’s land. Title to his home and the other Jewish properties in Hebron is explicit, unchallengeable, and non-Arab.

        What do you mean unchallengeable? He title is likely based on Israeli law which has no legitimacy in Hebron.

      • Naftush
        Naftush
        February 20, 2014, 5:09 pm

        No. His home was built by the Hadassah organization during the late Ottoman era. The other Jewish-owned properties in Hebron have equally valid title. Furthermore, governance in that part of Hebron is entrusted to Israel under its accord with the PLO concerning that city, hence legitimate.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 21, 2014, 12:48 am

        Furthermore, governance in that part of Hebron is entrusted to Israel under its accord with the PLO concerning that city, hence legitimate.

        Correction: The ICJ performed a legal analysis of the Oslo Accords and advised that, under the terms of the applicable international law, all of the Israeli settlements had been established in violation of Israel’s customary and conventional obligations, and were thus illegal. You can’t occupy a country and conclude a valid treaty agreement with its leadership that waives the rights and protections of the inhabitants under Article 49(6) against forced displacement and colonization. Try reading the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 52 & 53 and Articles 6, 7. and 8 of the 4th Geneva Convention on non-renunciation, special agreements, and repatriation – and stop making a damned fool out of yourself.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 20, 2014, 4:49 am

        Mr. Wilder stole no one’s land. Title to his home and the other Jewish properties in Hebron is explicit, unchallengeable, and non-Arab.

        There is no such thing as an unchallenged non-Arab title during an armed conflict outside the sovereign jurisdiction of the State of Israel. FYI, the government of Israel has repeatedly advised the UN that the Occupied Palestinian territory is “part and parcel of an armed conflict” and is NOT part of its sovereign territory or jurisdiction, e.g. See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 or E/1990/6/Add.32, para 6-7

        Wilder appears to be a spokesman for a corrupt organization, i.e. the whole Kiryat Arba community is situated on illegally expropriated land. Article 6(b) of the 1945 International Military Tribunal Charter (Nuremberg) included “plunder of public or private property” (Hague IV, 1907, Article 28) in its list of war crimes recognized by all civilized nations as of 1939, for which there must be individual criminal responsibility.
        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp#art6

        Article 147 of the 4th Geneva Convention stipulates that extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly is a brave breach of the convention. http://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/380-600169

        If American citizens are transferring titles or monetary proceeds or aiding and abetting the crime of pillage, whether inside or outside the United States, they are committing war crimes and Class “A” felonies. Everyone knows there are about 44,000 US citizens living illegally in the West Bank in violation of the armistice agreements, UN Security Council Chapter 7 resolutions 62 and 73, and Articles 33 and 49(6) of the 4th Geneva Convention.
        18 U.S. Code § 2441 – War crimes
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
        18 U.S. Code Chapter 95 – RACKETEERING:
        18 U.S. Code § 1956 – Laundering of monetary instruments
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1956
        18 U.S. Code § 1957 – Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1957

        It is also a violation of the IRS code for tax exempt organizations in the US to spend more than an insubstantial amount of their time encouraging or engaging in illegal acts, such as the federal war crime of pillage. See ACTIVITIES THAT ARE ILLEGAL OR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicj85.pdf

        See also 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 – RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
        18 U.S. Code § 1963 – Criminal penalties
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1963
        18 U.S. Code § 1964 – Civil remedies
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1964

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 20, 2014, 4:51 am

        @ Naftush “Mr. Wilder stole no one’s land. Title to his home and the other Jewish properties in Hebron is explicit, unchallengeable, and non-Arab”

        Isn’t there an education system in Israel or wherever you’re from?
        They have title to ‘real estate’.
        Real estate is not ‘territory’.
        The territory is not Israeli (UNSC res 476).
        They’re Israeli citizens.
        Israeli citizens, be they Jewish or Arab or whatever, are expressly prohibited from illegally settling in territories under Israeli occupation.
        Mr. Wilder is another really stupid illegal settler, endangering himself and his family by breaking GC IV adopted to protect ALL civilians including those of the Occupying Power from becoming collateral.
        What sort of a moronic Government purposefully encourages its citizens to break a law adopted to protect them?

      • Naftush
        Naftush
        February 20, 2014, 5:18 pm

        False from A to Z. Israeli citizens are not prohibited from moving to Hebron. GC IV speaks of transfer of population by a government and in no case bars individuals from occupied territory, as is the case here. As for the territory not being Israeli, Resolution 476 is unnecessary; Israel never annexed it. Your mention of Kiryat Arba is irrelevant; Mr. Wilder lives in Hebron. Of course, there is a verse in Genesis that defines Kiryat Arba and Hebron as one and the same, but if you had this in mind, then please accept the rest of Genesis’ comments about these locations and cede them to the Jews unequivocally.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 20, 2014, 11:20 pm

        False from A to Z. Israeli citizens are not prohibited from moving to Hebron.

        We’ve already pointed out that UN Security Council resolutions 62 and 73 were adopted under the auspices of Article 40 Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and that Israel signed an armistice agreement that it is still bound to respect, i.e.:

        Article IV

        1. The lines described in articles V and VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Lines and are delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948.

        2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

        3. Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI.

        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm03.asp

        The peace treaty with Jordan did not alter the status of the territory:

        Article 3 – International Boundary
        1. The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
        2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

        http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/peace_1-5.html

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 10:06 pm

        Israeli citizens are not prohibited from moving to Hebron.

        Yes they are. They are not citizens of Palestine and have not obtained permission to move there from the PA.

        GC IV speaks of transfer of population by a government and in no case bars individuals from occupied territory, as is the case here.

        False again. The transfer of population includes enabling and facilitating the movement of the population, which includes individuals. The Israeli government is fully complicit as an occupier and facilitator.

        As for the territory not being Israeli, Resolution 476 is unnecessary; Israel never annexed it.

        Resolution 476 does not pertain only to annexed territory seeing as none of Israel’s annexation is legal anyway.

        please accept the rest of Genesis’ comments about these locations and cede them to the Jews unequivocally.

        No they do not. No part of Genesis’ cede any location to Jews.

    • talknic
      talknic
      February 20, 2014, 4:40 am

      @ dwilder “If anyone is interested in truly understanding, comprehensively, the opinions of Hebron’s Jewish Community..”

      I suggest they read the plethora of Israeli Government statements to the UN and UNSC to see just how the notions of Hebron’s Jewish Community are built on lies, misinformation and delusions.

    • thankgodimatheist
      thankgodimatheist
      February 20, 2014, 8:18 pm

      “the opinions of Hebron’s Jewish Community”
      Did you mean the opinions of Hebron’s squatters community? We’re familiar with the stuff. Would have made Gobbles proud.

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        February 20, 2014, 8:38 pm

        You know, the motto “repeat a lie long enough, etc.”

  5. agatharchides
    agatharchides
    February 19, 2014, 1:24 pm

    An effort to remove Jews would indeed be a problem. An effort to remove illegal squatters from lands they have no title to is not.

    • Naftush
      Naftush
      February 20, 2014, 3:57 am

      See my remark above in regard to the Jewish properties in Hebron.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 10:07 pm

        We gave and your argument have been resoundingly debunked.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 22, 2014, 5:08 am

        @ Naftush ” His home was built by the Hadassah organization during the late Ottoman era. “

        So what? The moment Israel was proclaimed “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” the Zionist movement and Jewish people’s council stripped Israelis of the right to live anywhere in Palestine unless they became Palestinian citizens.

        “The other Jewish-owned properties in Hebron have equally valid title.”

        ‘real estate’ is not ‘territory’ . The ‘territory’ is under occupation by Israel.

        “governance in that part of Hebron is entrusted to Israel under its accord with the PLO concerning that city”

        As the Occupying Power.

        Why is ignorance and stupidity is so common amongst Israel’s apologists?

  6. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 19, 2014, 2:43 pm

    I think that the Hebron settlers are up there with the Janjaweed, ISIS, the Gulf monarchies, the BJP and the North Korean leadership as amongst the most miserable specimens of humanity.

    • NormanF
      NormanF
      February 20, 2014, 2:32 am

      You describe people with ill will whom you’ve never met! That is more a judgment of you than it is of them.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 20, 2014, 4:59 am

        NormanF “You describe people with ill will”

        Indeed. Settling in someone else’s territory sure ain’t a sign of good will

        “whom you’ve never met! That is more a judgment of you than it is of them.”

        Met or not illegal settlers are amongst the most miserable specimens of humanity. They break the most basic of Judiasm’s tenets, which is rather bizarre for Jewish people of the Jewish state.

      • amigo
        amigo
        February 20, 2014, 7:42 am

        “You describe people with ill will whom you’ve never met! That is more a judgment of you than it is of them.”Norman F.

        If you like murderers and racist land thieves that is more of a judgment on you that me.

        I never met Manson but I sure as hell have ill will towards him.

        You spout pure desperate nonsense norm.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 20, 2014, 8:22 am

        I have met settlers, Norman. To call them misguided would be generous. It is all going to crash and the weakest are going to be shafted. That is the way of the world.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 20, 2014, 9:15 am

        Stephen Robert, “Apartheid on Steroids”

        Excerpts:

        I grew up in a small town in Massachusetts where my parents headed our local synagogue, Hadassah and the United Jewish Appeal. My first trip abroad after university, in 1962, included a week-long visit to Israel, where I was awed by its accomplishments, as well as by its vulnerability. After the Six-Day War in 1967, I basked in the courage and military prowess of my fellow Jews. The eloquence of foreign minister Abba Eban, defending his beleaguered country at the United Nations, still fills me with pride. In the years since, I’ve been a contributor and fundraiser for the UJA-Federation of New York, a governor of the American Jewish Committee, which is dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, and a founding director of the Museum of Jewish Heritage—A Living Memorial to the Holocaust. I’ve made five additional visits to Israel since 1962, the last this summer as part of a humanitarian aid trip to East Jerusalem and the West Bank. As a Jew who has been an ardent supporter of Israel since its independence, it pains me to record what I saw there. But it is my love for Israel and for the Jewish people that drives me to speak out at this treacherous time.

        What I witnessed in the West Bank—home to about 2.5 million Palestinians and 400,000 Israeli settlers—exceeded my worst expectations. While the world’s statesmen have dithered, Israel has created a system of apartheid on steroids…

        —————-
        […]Hebron is the West Bank in miniature, and it is well worth examining. We toured Hebron with the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH), a civilian observer mission called for by both the Israelis and Palestinians. It monitors breaches of agreements and human rights, but its reports are confidential. The TIPH staff told us that they rarely get any reply to their reports, rendering the mission somewhat irrelevant. They do, however, have an acute sense of what is happening in Hebron.

        Walking through Hebron, the largest town in the West Bank, we witnessed grievous and malicious violations of human rights. The main settlement sits above the old Arab market. Settlers throw huge rocks and garbage down on the market causing serious injury and disruption. In defense, the Arabs have erected a large net above their market to protect them. Now, the settlers throw Molotov cocktails that burn through the rope nets.

        We spoke with an Arab father whose 12-year-old son was recently blinded by a container of acid tossed from above. Children are stoned and beaten going to school, and Arab fields are torched when the settlers are angry, often at some policy of the Israeli government. If the government disappoints the settlers, the Palestinians pay the price. Many Palestinian shops have been shuttered by Israeli security, and 1,800 families have lost their income as a result.

        For the benefit of 800 Jews living in Hebron, life for 170,000 Palestinians living in the city center has come to a standstill. Most sickening of all, in a settlement called Kiryat Arba, the Jews have built a monument to Dr. Baruch Goldstein. In 1994, Goldstein stormed the Ibrahimi Mosque, killing twenty-nine praying Muslims. Small wonder that the TIPH believes that if the IDF were to exit Hebron, without question, the Jews would be massacred.

        We asked the TIPH what the IDF does to stop crimes against the Arabs. They responded that the army views their mission as only protecting the settlers. Any action to contain these felons would be blocked by the government’s right wing. As we were hearing this appraisal, we saw about twenty IDF soldiers hassling a young Arab kid for walking on a street reserved only for Jews. For that he could be arrested, but blinding an Arab boy is not investigated.

        How can Jews, who have been persecuted for centuries, tolerate this inhumanity? Where is their moral compass? How can this situation be acceptable to Judaism’s spiritual and political leaders? I don’t have that answer; except to say that Israel’s biggest enemy has become itself.

        http://www.thenation.com/article/162756/apartheid-steroids?page=full#

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 20, 2014, 9:30 am

        An Israeli soldier describes his work in Hebron:

        …Suddenly, out of the blue, a group of about six Jewish women landed on us, with about six-seven girls, little girls, and simply started running around, started kicking stalls and turning them over, and we were just two people and we didn’t know what to do and they started going wild and SPITTING ON ARABS AND SPITTING ON ELDERLY PEOPLE.

        There was Mohammad who… didn’t do a thing except just sit there, he was just there, he simply didn’t do a thing, and they just came and kicked him and spit on him and yelled at him to go away and overturned stalls.

        I remember we came to the worst moment, when one of the women simply picked up a rock and shattered a window of two meters by two meters, of a barber shop that was there. And she just shattered its front window to bits…


        “That morning, a fairly big group arrived in Hebron, around 15 people or so, of Jews from France. They were all religious Jews, French Jews, they didn’t really know Hebrew, and spoke half English, half Hebrew, and half French.

        They were in a good mood, really having a great time, and I spent my entire shift following this gang of Jews around and trying to keep them from destroying the town.

        In other words, this is what they were busy doing for hours. They just wandered around, picked up every stone they saw off the ground, and started throwing them in arabs’ windows, and overturning whatever they came across…

        Maybe someone told them that there’s a place in the world where you can just, I don’t know… that a Jew can take all of his rage out on the Arab people, and simply do anything, do whatever he wants.

        http://www.refusersolidarity.net/

        —————
        Photo (in slideshow): A hateful Jewish settler throws wine at a cowering Palestinian woman on Shuhada Street in Hebron.

        http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/09/13/world/20090913SETTLERS_6.html?_r=0

        The approach of some settlers towards neighboring Palestinians, especially around Nablus in the north and Hebron in the south, has often been one of contempt and violence.

        Photos: Nazi-like anti-Arab graffiti in Hebron:

        http://photographywithoutborders.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/JDL-Grafitti.jpg

        http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3587/3427740395_64e3fe5d59_z.jpg

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 10:08 pm

        You describe people with ill will whom you’ve never met!

        Which is pretty much how you have described most Palestinians.

    • Naftush
      Naftush
      February 20, 2014, 5:18 pm

      Which does nothing to invalidate lawful title to an apartment.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 10:09 pm

        Which does nothing to invalidate lawful title to an apartment.

        The title is not lawful since it is not in Israeli territory and has not been granted by the government of Palestine.

        It is therefore illegal

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 22, 2014, 5:15 am

        Naftush “Which does nothing to invalidate lawful title to an apartment”

        Title to an apartment is title to a piece of ‘real estate’. It is not a title to ‘territory’. ‘territory’ belongs to its legitimate citizens, (sans illegal settlers) whether they own ‘real estate’, rent ‘real estate’, are homeless and living under a bridge or even dispossessed and living in a refugee camp in some other country.

  7. Krauss
    Krauss
    February 19, 2014, 2:47 pm

    I recognize all the major Hasbara points from Wilder.

    A few points to note:

    1. While it is true that the Mufti was an anti-Semite and cozied up to Hitler, why does Mr. Wilder omit the fact that the Zionists in Israel were negotiating with the Nazis, too? To a much lesser extent, to be sure, but during much of the 1930s, they had contact with the Nazis in order to create pressure on the British.

    2. There are actually coins and other historical artifacts dating back to at least the 1800s with words like “Palestine” on them. And this is in English. So the whole Sheldon Adelson-esque hasbara of “it was invented during WWII” is incorrect. But nice try.

    3. Wildstein must explain who lived in Palestine between 2000 years ago and today? The vast majority of them were not Jews during this time. Does this legtitimize ethnic cleansing, mass expulsion and Apartheid in his eyes? Everything he writes suggests he thinks so.

    But to take the argument of “we were here in a majority thousands of years ago”, we could well start to re-colonize Africa under the pretext that all human beings came out of Africa 10,000 years ago, so it belongs to all of us. Let’s re-start Colonialism! Let’s kick out the blacks out of South Africa and finish the job! Kenya to the British! And so on.

    His logic is fundamentally the same. Just because you lived somewhere thousands of years ago doesn’t mean you can come in 2000 years later and just start doing massive campaigns of ethnic cleansing of the people who already live there. Wildstein thinks so, the rest of the world disagrees. I wonder who will win. (Actually, I don’t, we already know who is winning the argument).

    4. Wilder’s statement is notable for what it is not touching upon. Such as the fact that West Bank Palestinians can not vote, their land is being taken from them, settler violence is on the rise and their condition is in many ways worse than that of blacks under Apartheid South Africa. He doesn’t mention any of this because he fundamentally supports it all.

    Wilder, you’re the George Wallace of the Jewish people.
    (And that’s an insult to George Wallace).

    Good luck.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      February 19, 2014, 4:24 pm

      Kastner also spoke with the Nazis, of course.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 19, 2014, 5:46 pm

        Kastner also spoke with the Nazis, of course.

        The accounts of Holocaust survivors say that the SS used thousands of Kapos to control the enormous populations of Jewish prisoners.

        Israel only conducted 70 or so token trials. It still keeps the records of those sealed to this day under a 70 year court order implemented in the 1990s. The only case that’s still accessible is “Attorney General v Friedman”, See:
        * Michael J. Bazyler and Julia Y. Scheppach, The Strange and Curious History of the Law Used to Prosecute Adolf Eichmann, 34 Loy. L.A.
        Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 417 (2012).
        Available at: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr/vol34/iss3/7
        * Cassese, The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice, page 681 http://books.google.com/books?id=ANb0YYQ-m4AC&lpg=PA681&ots=K_C8V6xaPw&dq=i&pg=PA681#v=onepage&q&f=false

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 20, 2014, 1:29 am

        WW2 is toxic for Zionism and those memes of theirs about Jewish destiny . What their own people did.
        I’m not surprised they don’t want to go there.

    • ziusudra
      ziusudra
      February 20, 2014, 6:30 am

      Greetings Krauss,
      ……Wildstein must explain who lived in Palestine 2K yrs ago & today…….

      In 200BC, the descendents of Rebbe, Scribe Ezra, who returned with only 5K People in 456BC, dropped the Hebrew Dialect for the Aramaic Dialect being so few in number. They also started migrating to Greece voluntarily.
      If they were so great in numbers why did their capitol, Jerusalem, Kingdom of Israel, only have 2K inhabitants?
      Eclectic Semites, the Arab Semite Cousins of the 12 tribes were the majority, but always ruled by greater powers. The only thing that separated the 12 tribes from the other tribes was their adptation of a Religion from the Canaanites calling it Judaism after the biblical figure, Judah, son of Jacob, who was the Father of 12 sons of 12 tribes. Beats me why they didn’t call it Abrahamism, Noahism, Mosesism, Israelism? It shows just how little the Rebbe, Scribes writing their biblical fairy tales after Babylonian captivity betw 536BC & 456BC knew of their actual history.
      World Jewry today doesn’t see the disconnect betw. Jew & Judaism.
      ziusudra

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        February 22, 2014, 1:50 am

        Ziusudra, Jerusalem is a city.
        Therefore it used to be the capitAl of the Kingdom of Israel.

        A capitOl is an American government building in an American capitAl.

        (The term is not used for government buildings in other countries.)

      • eljay
        eljay
        February 22, 2014, 8:52 am

        >> A capitOl is an American government building in an American capitAl.

        Stop using capitol letters, in the middle of words Roha. Its uncorrect.

        :-D

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        February 23, 2014, 6:33 pm

        >:P

  8. Shingo
    Shingo
    February 19, 2014, 3:04 pm

    Let’s get the facts down straight: ‘Palestine’ was named such, 2,000 years ago, following the Roman occupation, destruction of the Second Temple and victory over Jewish revolts.

    I stopped reading after this blatant falsity. The name Palestine was already being used 5 centuries BC, when Herodotus wrote about it.

    And before the name Judea it was known as Canaan, so why should the name Judea be the only one that sticks?

    No wonder they call Hebron hell on Earth.

    • MHughes976
      MHughes976
      February 19, 2014, 4:25 pm

      I gave most of the ancient (at least pre-Roman) evidence about names, and the multicultural reality they help to reveal, in my article here on June 22.
      The name ‘Judaea’ first appears in an Assyrian inscription from Nimrud of 730-odd, whereas ‘Palestinians’ appear in Ramesses III’s famous ‘Sea Peoples’ inscription of around 1175. Much older. It’s very true that it was used by Herodotus, also that it was restored, not invented, by the Romans after 135 CE.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        February 19, 2014, 4:47 pm

        The ‘it’ in that badly written sentence of mine means ‘the name Palestine’.

      • Naftush
        Naftush
        February 20, 2014, 4:07 am

        Drawing a connection between the “Sea Peoples” and today’s self-defined Palestinians is a perfect irony. The Semitic root PLS (or PLSH), from which Palestine derives, denotes an invader. Egyptians, Canaanites, and Hebrews indeed viewed the “Sea Peoples” as invaders. Ethiopians centuries ago viewed Jews as invaders and termed them Falashas, using the same root. Today, an Arab population in Eretz Israel that calls itself Palestinian, i.e., invader, proclaims itself indigenous to the country.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        February 20, 2014, 1:03 pm

        I think ‘Philistine’ is Indo-European, from words like phyle/hestia, ‘People of the Hearth’, making ‘Palestine’ (-‘ina’ being an IE place name ending, some say Hittite) Land of Hearth and Home, a rather beautiful name. Ramesses’ propaganda suggests one view of Palestinian origins, Genesis 20-21 another. Whether the Palestinians of old regarded themselves as invaders and marauders or called themselves such I doubt. By contrast the Israelites adopted, at any rate in later centuries, a story in which they had entered unprovoked, deprived, burned, expelled and killed. Not that this deprived the later Israelites of their rights.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 10:12 pm

        Drawing a connection between the “Sea Peoples” and today’s self-defined Palestinians is a perfect irony.

        Not nearly as perfect as claiming that those who arrived by boat or airliner for the first time were returning home.

        The Semitic root PLS (or PLSH), from which Palestine derives, denotes an invader.

        The book of Joshua also described an invasion by the Hebrews does it not?

        Egyptians, Canaanites, and Hebrews indeed viewed the “Sea Peoples” as invaders.

        And similarly, the Egyptians and Canaanites indeed viewed the Hebrews as invaders.

        Today, an Arab population in Eretz Israel that calls itself Palestinian, i.e., invader, proclaims itself indigenous to the country.

        Which makes it even more ironic when people like NormanF and other Zionists insist that the only Palestinians in 1922 were the Jews.

        Too funny.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 22, 2014, 5:21 am

        Naftush “The Semitic root PLS (or PLSH), etc etc”

        Irrelevant to the fact that the State of Israel was proclaimed and recognized “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf Israel has never legally acquired any further territories.

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 22, 2014, 10:19 am

        “restored”? Never stopped being used.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        February 22, 2014, 3:02 pm

        Yes, I agree that it never stopped being used – was indeed used by the Jewish writers Philo and Josephus in the first century. But it had to some extent been overwritten in official language by the use of ‘Judaea’ for the Herodian kingdom. That overwriting, if I can call it that, ceased in the mid-100s CE.
        I’m maybe giving a talk to a local group, interested in ancient history, on these questions – the ancient names and what we can learn from them. ‘The restoration of the name “Palestine”‘ was a title – not too snappy! – that had occurred to me. Perhaps someone can suggest a better one.

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 22, 2014, 6:32 pm

        You’re right about some “overwriting”; the fact is that Herod did use the name “Judaea” for his kingdom as he had taken over from the Hasmoneans, underlining his being their continuation/heir (as Mariamne’s husband), albeit an Idumean himself. The Hasmoneans initially were Basileis of Judaea, of course, and had kept the title in different documents, even though it had now become a pentapolity. Of course the world around, the Roman or local administration and population, did not magically stop using the traditional name of Palestine for the area. Why not open a naming competition for your title? My favorite would be “Ever since the Peoples of the Sea…”

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 22, 2014, 11:17 pm

        underlining his being their continuation/heir (as Mariamne’s husband), albeit an Idumean himself.

        It’s just as likely that Herod the Great was Jewish and that the tradition that he was an Idumean can be attributed to his political and religious adversaries or rivals. His childhood tutor recorded that his parents were from noble Jewish families (more below). It seems that everyone was looking for a fulfillment of Genesis 49:10 by either a King of Judah or a newcomer, after the last King of Judah had departed the scene.

        It was, and still is, fairly common for Jews to disenfranchise other Jews and establish social boundaries by casting aspersions or doubts about the descent of individuals or groups of other Jews or by “cutting them off” and re-designating them Gentiles, i.e. rumors about Sabbatean orgies, Yeshu ben Pandera, the members of the Reform movement are “another people” who caused the Holocaust, Sabbatai Zevi saying “God has made me an Ishmaelite”, & etc.

        Étienne Nodet was one of the scholars who helped produce the new translations of Josephus works in the late 1990s. He wrote a paper for the University of York year 2000 symposium about a special section from the Slavonic version of Josephus. It contains additional material about King Herod not found in the Greek versions. It includes a fascinating debate within the Jerusalem Sanhedrin when the members conclude that they were mistaken about the prospect that Herod would fulfill the Messianic prophecies (start on page 5 .pdf). It indicates that the Jews originally thought that Herod, his brother Pheroras, or one of their descendants would be the Messiah.

        Nodet also shows that by interpreting the same prophecy contained in Genesis 49:10 differently, individuals like Josephus and Rabbi Johanan Ben Zakkai may have concluded that the Messiah was Vespasian or a successor from the Flavian line of Emperors (see also John Taylor’s Tydale paper regarding the application of 4 Esdras chapter 12-25-28 to the Flavian Emperors).

        Nodet mentioned that the Jews thought the prophecy had been fulfilled on other occasions too, but didn’t elaborate (Isaiah/Cyrus?). The Maccabees took on the role of both Priests and Kings in line with the prophecy contained in the Testament of Levi, which claimed the Messiah would come from that tribe. For centuries it was suspected of being a Christian forgery, but fragments discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls are thought to belong to it. That raises the possibility that it was genuine. The Hasmoneans did make changes to the laws regarding the collection of tithes and the celebration of the holy days. For example the community treated Yom Kippur like a festive occasion – almost like Valentine’s Day – not a day in which the soul is supposed to be afflicted, e.g.:

        The daughters of Jerusalem would go forth, dressed in white, and dance in the vineyards – “And what did they say? – ‘Young man! Raise your eyes and behold what you choose for yourself ” (Ta’an. 4:8).

        Compare that with Vayikra – Leviticus – Chapter 23:27-30 especially 29 “For any person who will not be afflicted on that very day, shall be cut off from its people.”

        There is a great deal of evidence that messianic expectations included the antinomian idea that the fasts and festivals ordained in the Torah, including the recitation of the Passover seder itself will be abolished and that only Purim will be observed after the advent of the Messiah. link to torah.org

        Shabbatai Zvi evidenced a general desire for innovations aiming at the abrogation of all laws and customs. For example, he transformed the fasts of the Seventeenth of Tammuz and the Ninth of Ab (his birthday) into feast-days; and it is said that he contemplated even the abolition of the Day of Atonement. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13480-shabbethai-zebi-b-mordecai

        In that connection see also Gershom Scholem, The Crisis of Tradition in Jewish Messianism link to scribd.com

        Josephus said that an Essene prophet named Menahem had predicted that Herod the Great would become King. The Essenes are never specifically mentioned in the Christian’s New Testament, but from this account we can conclude they were probably among the “Herodians” who conspired with the Pharisees to destroy Jesus (see Matt 22:16, Mark 3:6, Mark 12:13). In the Slavonic versions of Josephus works the Sanhedrin only declared Herod an uncircumcised Arab AFTER they decided that he was a false Messiah.

        Herod quickly fulfilled one of the Messianic expectations by renovating the Temple and purging the Sanhedrin. Josephus contradicts a statement made by Herod’s childhood teacher, Nicolas of Damascus. Nicolas had claimed that Antipater’s family were actually among the Jewish nobility who had settled in Palestine after returning from Babylon. Epiphanius also mentioned in the Panarion that the Jews (i.e. Herodians – Mark 3:6) recognized Herod the Great as the Messiah.

        Josephus describes an incident in which the Pharisees had foretold that the kingdom would be taken from Herod and given to his brother Pheroras. Josephus makes it clear this was a Messianic prophecy when he
        says the Pharisees told one of Herod’s court eunuchs that afterward he
        would be able to father children:

        Bagoas, he had been puffed up by them, as though he should be named the father and the benefactor of him who, by the prediction, was foretold to be their appointed king;for that this king would have all things in his power, and would enable Bagoas to marry, and to have children of his own body begotten.

        Josephus relates that Herod established a colony with 500 returning Babylonian Jewish archer-cavalrymen who were expert warriors. He granted them a universal exemption from paying taxes (ala Matthew 17:26). Even more telling is the fact that the colony he established was Batanea. The Talmud relates that after Hillel resolved a question they had regarding a possible conflict between the weekly Sabbath and the Passover, the elders of that particular Jewish colony had the necessary authority to appoint him as Patriarch.

        In an article describing Josephus’ disdain for the Zealots, Etienne Nodet supplied some interesting information about Jamnia (Yavneh):

        At the same time, another attempt to restore Judaism was launched by Gamaliel (ca. 90), another prominent Pharisee, in a little town of Judea called Jamnia, south of Jaffa. It should be noted that this Jewish city had been since Herod’s time a private property of Caesar, remotely connected to Jerusalem. So this movement started under a Roman umbrella, too, and tried to avoid any Zealot spirit.

        Here is an extract from Amram Tropper’s “Yohanan Ben Zakkai, Amicus Caesaris: A Jewish Hero in Rabbinic Eyes” – courtesy of Bar Ilan University:

        In a famous rabbinic legend, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai flees besieged Jerusalem, surrenders to the Romans and heartens the Roman leadership by predicting their military success and Vespasian’s promotion to emperor. This very same legend, in three of its four versions, also describes how Vespasian enabled Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai to establish a rabbinic academy in Yavneh, the academy that would come to be viewed retrospectively as the central core of the burgeoning rabbinic movement. Thus the foundation myth of Yavneh, the story designed to describe the providential establishment of the rabbinic academy in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem, risks depicting its central hero as a deserter, perhaps even as a defector and a traitor. Why would the rabbis have portrayed one of the most important sages of the formative period in rabbinic Judaism in this apparently unfavorable manner?

        Perhaps this unflattering interpretation of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s
        role in the Yavneh legend is anachronistic in that it projects modern ideologies and ethical sensibilities into the past. Thus, for example, when Y. Baer rejected the historical veracity of this escape story on the grounds that a man of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s stature would never have fled to the Romans, he may very well have been influenced by modern ideological considerations, whether Zionistic or otherwise.

        In Antiquities of the Jews Josephus proved that Hal Lindsey wasn’t the first fellow who wrote a bestseller based upon his interpretations of the Book of Daniel and what it might say about the Messiah and the Roman Empire:

        The golden head was indicating both you and the Babylonian kings who were before you. But the hands and the shoulders signify that your sovereignty is to be destroyed by two kings.

        But a different one from the west wearing bronze will put down their rule, and yet another like iron will bring its power to an end, and this one will dominate everything because of the nature of iron – for it is stronger than gold and silver and bronze. And Daniel also explained to the king about the stone, yet it seemed to me proper not to recount this, being obligated to record past events and things that have happened but not what is about to happen. But if anyone, anxious for precision, will not be deterred from being curious to the extent of even wishing to learn about the unexplained – what is to happen – let him make the effort to read the
        book of Daniel. He will find this among the sacred writings.

        In Wars of the Jews Josephus actually concluded that Vespasian was the Messiah, and so apparently had many other Jewish leaders like Rabbi Johahnan b. Zakkai:

        But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how,” about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.” The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea.

        I think it’s safe to say that in this case Josephus’ conclusion isn’t a
        Christian forgery. Rabbi Akiva (also spelled Aqiba or Akiba) is remembered as a pious man who mistakenly followed a false Messiah into yet another war against the Romans. The Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4.5 says:

        Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai taught: ‘Aqiba, my master, used to
        interpret a star goes forth from Jacob as ‘Kozeba goes forth from
        Jacob’. Rabbi Aqiba, when he saw Bar Kozeba, said: ‘This is the king
        Messiah!’ Rabbi Johanan ben Torta said to him: ‘Aqiba! Grass will grow
        on your cheeks and still the son of David does not come!’

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 22, 2014, 11:49 pm

        @Hostage – Fascinating, that look at it from the other side of the barricades, ie from the Hebrew/Nabatean/religious perspective and its plumb crazy stuff. Nice to know that the Messiahhood of the Flavians had been taken so seriously by its propaganda targets. Anyway, I may be prejudiced but will only reluctantly follow any such religious sources. I am pretty sure that the Idumean father and Nabatean mother of Herod, inclusive of his hereditary basileia of Nabatea, had been confirmed by source(s) independent from the Hebrew religious stuff and the post hoc Sanhedrin, etc. (will confirm if and when my Tcherikover and others come out of the bottom of the box.)

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 23, 2014, 6:47 am

        I am pretty sure that the Idumean father and Nabatean mother of Herod, inclusive of his hereditary basileia of Nabatea, had been confirmed by source(s) independent from the Hebrew religious stuff and the post hoc Sanhedrin, etc. (will confirm if and when my Tcherikover and others come out of the bottom of the box.)

        No the ancient sources contradict each other, so rationalizations have to be employed to discount, harmonize, or interpret them. In many cases, they clearly state that Herod was a natural born Judean, not an Ideumean. There’s even difficulty dealing with terminology, like “half-Jew” if both of his parents were Idumean or Nabatean. It’s certainly possible that his father was a Judean who was appointed to govern Idumea.

        The Christian historian Eusebius claimed that Herod’s grandfather was a Gentile slave who served in the Temple of Apollo on Ashkelon. That story probably reflects a Christian attempt to discredit his legitimacy. Nicolaus of Alexandria was a Greek historian and philosopher, not a Hebrew or Christian religious source. He joined Herod’s court and instructed him and his children and said they were descended from a noble Jewish family from Babylon. The Roman historian Strabo depicted Herod as a descendant of Hyrcanus and a native of the country, who slinked into the priesthood. See: The Geography of Strabo published in Vol. VII of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1932 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/16B*.html

        You can get an idea of the difficulties involved in letting the ancient sources speak for themselves by reading “Was Herod a Jew?” in Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, University of California Press, 1999, starting on page 15 http://books.google.com/books?id=vX8moleho2kC&lpg=PP15&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false

        He guesses that Nicolaus of Damascus was being dishonest; that portions of Idumea were annexed and were subsequently called Judea; and that Herod was thus an Idumean who was a natural born Judean and also in some sense a half-Jew. Josephus described him as all three at various times.

    • ziusudra
      ziusudra
      February 20, 2014, 6:44 am

      Greetings Shingo,
      …. and before the Name Judea it was known as Canaan……
      It is safe to say that the Canaanites with a culture going back to 4K BC that the whole territory was called Canaan: Syria, Lebanon, Falesteena, Jordan.
      Judea was but a Southern Kingdom on 5.0K Sq Km in Canaan, first establish in 933BC falling in 586BC. It was not contiguous Canaan. There is no mention of Judea under King Saul, Hebron Capitol & Jerusalem Capitol under King David.
      ziusudra
      PS Judah, father of the Judean tribe nor the Judean Kingdom have any claim to fame. Nothing he did can justify a mythology or religion being named after him.
      PPS The descendents of the Judeans perhaps couldn’t remember that they were first called Israelites & before that Hebron subjects.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 10:14 pm

        Great comment ziusudra

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        February 22, 2014, 11:40 pm

        “almost like Valentine’s Day – not a day in which the soul is supposed to be afflicted”

        Your Valentine’s Days must have been different from some of mine.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        February 22, 2014, 11:42 pm

        “I think it’s safe to say that in this case Josephus’ conclusion isn’t a
        Christian forgery.”

        But a smart move on Joe’s part.

  9. MRW
    MRW
    February 19, 2014, 3:40 pm

    Effort to remove Jews from West Bank is akin to Nazi slaughter — settler spokesman

    Except this time they signed on for it. No settler can get or occupy a house in the WB without signing a document that says they might be asked to leave, and if so, must do so.

    Don’t have a link for it. In the archives somewhere.

  10. Daniel Rich
    Daniel Rich
    February 19, 2014, 3:44 pm

    Well, so much for the Nutzis. For something completely different; mankind is completely safe now Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor made history Tuesday when representatives of 170 countries unanimously nominated the Israeli diplomat to preside over the elections for the UN Human Rights Committee.

    I want to be violently ill… May I?

    • bintbiba
      bintbiba
      February 19, 2014, 4:05 pm

      May I join you? …May I?
      n It just gets badder and badder every day! :(

    • mcohen
      mcohen
      February 20, 2014, 5:52 am

      Daniel rich says………..

      the Nut Z

      well one mans lunatic is another man,s butternut

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      February 20, 2014, 10:15 pm

      I want to be violently ill… May I?

      Look at the bright side Daniel. ISrael and it’s minions will no longer be able to malign the UN Human Rights Committee and having no credibility, or being controlled by the Arabs blah blah blah.

  11. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 19, 2014, 4:43 pm

    Everything in Israel is like nazi slaughter. Bad mark at school, wife forgets to pick up kids after playgroup, girlfriend is late for date, dinner left 5 minutes too long in oven, arse falls out of paper shopping bag, car breaks down- you name it, straight to bergen belsen.

  12. LanceThruster
    LanceThruster
    February 19, 2014, 5:24 pm

    The trick of declaring war against the armed resistance and then attacking the resisters’ unarmed kin as well as the sur­rounding population with the most gruesome products of Death-Science — this trick is not new. American Pioneers were pioneers in this too; they made it standard practice to declare war on indigenous warriors and then to murder and burn villages with only women and children in them. This is already modern war, what we know as war against civilian populations; it has also been called, more candidly, mass murder or genocide.

    Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that the perpetrators of a Pogrom portray themselves as the victims, in the present case as victims of the Holocaust.

    Herman Melville noticed over a century ago, in his analysis of the metaphysics of Indian-hating, that those who made a full-time profession of hunting and murdering indigenous people of this continent always made themselves appear, even in their own eyes, as the victims of manhunts.

    The use the Nazis made of the International Jewish Conspiracy is better known: during all the years of atrocities defying belief, the Nazis considered themselves the victimized.

    It’s as if the experience of being a victim gave exemption from human solidarity, as if it gave special powers, as if it gave a license to kill. ~ Fredy Perlman

    from: http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/PerlmanFredy/antisemitism.htm

    • gamal
      gamal
      February 22, 2014, 2:38 pm

      “Herman Melville noticed over a century ago” have you read Typee, I cant be trusted as regards Melville, I was long ago seduced by his style, Typee is excellent and deals with the same issues from another standpoint. It can be read for free online.

      http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1900

  13. James Canning
    James Canning
    February 19, 2014, 6:44 pm

    This guy is Exhibit A for “Greater Israel” programme. Insane. And dangerous for the American people.

    • puppies
      puppies
      February 20, 2014, 12:35 am

      @Canning – Problem is, this kind of insane morons are generally American-born and American-grown exports. There may be something there; in the air, the water or the schooling? I don’t know but it’s worth looking into. To give the full measure of crazy, perhaps the Prussian twin sister of Nazism and the Old Testament genocidal god had to meet the spirit of the NRA, the Columbine shooters and stand-your-ground legal murder.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 10:17 pm

        It’s interesting you should say that puppies.

        When Baruch Goldstein went postal, the first reaction from many Israelis was that he had to be an American immigrant.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        February 21, 2014, 3:14 am

        When Baruch Goldstein went postal, the first reaction from many Israelis was that he had to be an American immigrant.

        The better to avoid taking responsibility. He was religious, an immigrant, an American. Nothing to do with us.

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 21, 2014, 9:14 am

        @Shmuel – Bingo.

      • Walid
        Walid
        February 21, 2014, 11:28 am

        Speaking of that guy, Palestinians today demonstrated in Hebron a few days before the 20th anniversary of massacre there by the crazy “American”. The IDF fell on them like a ton of bricks: 30 injuries, several from live ammunition, others from tear gas. Al-Mayadeen’s cameraman shot in the leg.

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 21, 2014, 5:56 pm

        Stop calling it “Hebron”, it somehow raises my blood pressure.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 22, 2014, 7:39 pm

        Does anyone have an idea of relative numbers? American fanatics in Israel, compared to immigrants from other countures?

      • Jethro
        Jethro
        February 22, 2014, 1:06 am

        I’m going to stick up for America here and say these American squatters who end up in Palestine are losers who couldn’t make it here. They take their subsidies from Israel, and the coddling, and the warm welcome they wouldn’t get anywhere else, and reinvent themselves as the heroes of Zionism. Pathetic, and lethal.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 22, 2014, 5:56 am

        Jethro:

        …these American squatters who end up in Palestine…

        But they are not members of the American people, but rather the “Jewish People”–or are they?– and their homeland is not America, but rather “Eretz Israel” –or is it?

      • Jethro
        Jethro
        February 22, 2014, 8:41 pm

        They are Americans. And I, as an American, apologize to Palestine.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 22, 2014, 7:23 pm

        Americans among the illegal settlers probably tend to be zealots. Many of the Israeli Jews simply are opportunists, from a property standpoint. (Cheaper flats etc)

      • Jethro
        Jethro
        February 22, 2014, 8:36 pm

        “Americans among the illegal settlers tend to be zealots…”

        Like I said: they are losers who couldn’t make it in America.

  14. dbroncos
    dbroncos
    February 19, 2014, 8:08 pm

    I give the man credit for being honest. If all Zionists were this honest about their racist ideals they would have been rejected a long time ago. As it is we’ve had to endure the deceitful likes of Shimon Peres, Roger Cohen, etc. who essentially share Wilder’s views but who cloak themselves as liberals, prolonging the suffering of Palestinians with a contempt for justice stamped with “I care”.

  15. a blah chick
    a blah chick
    February 19, 2014, 8:26 pm

    Well, there wasn’t anyone calling themselves Israeli prior to May 1948, so how come their not an “invented” people.

    And isn’t all human culture invented?

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      February 19, 2014, 10:29 pm

      “‘Palestine’ was named such, 2,000 years ago,”
      “There has never been a ‘palestinian people,’ as such. ”

      I really do not see the point of these claims.

      There were, and are,non-Jewish people living in the territory.
      They were, and are being, driven out of their homes and farms.
      It matters no a jot whether or not they constitute “a people”.
      It matters not a jot when the territory got its name.

      Driving them out is wrong.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 20, 2014, 6:00 am

        RoHa:

        It matters no a jot whether or not they constitute “a people”. It matters not a jot when the territory got its name. Driving them out is wrong.

        Exactly. It doesn’t matter if the Arab inhabitants of mandatory Palestine ( a territory carved out by imperial powers and set to become an independent state) constituted a “people” or were portions of another people or group, or had overlapping identities along with an emerging Palestinian nationalism (Rashid Khalidi, “Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness”).

        Foreign Jews from Europe and elsewhere had no right to flood in and create a Jewish state in Palestine against the wishes of the current inhabitants and they had no right to displace those inhabitants.

    • Naftush
      Naftush
      February 20, 2014, 4:16 am

      I’ll assume that this is an honest question and not an exercise in Shlomo Sandism. In Genesis, Jacob on his deathbed refers to his descendants as Yisrael. For centuries, one of the two Hebrew kingdoms went by the name Yisrael. In all rabbinic literature from the Mishna to the present day, the word Yisrael denotes a Jew in the singular and in the plural, as opposed to a Gentile/Gentiles. The Hebrew name for the State of Israel, Medinat Yisrael, really translates as “State of the Jews.”

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        February 20, 2014, 7:09 am

        Greetings Naftush,
        ….The Hebrew Name for the State of Israel, Medinat Yisrael, really translate as ‘State of the Jews’………
        Nafttush= Jiddisch for Flatbush. Ever been there?
        Israel translates : Isra, He fights EL, God= He fight (with) God.
        He fought with God in a dream.
        Who? Jacob, Hebrew, He deceives.
        Jacob is the biblical figure father of 12 sons of 12 tribes.
        ziusudra
        PS The mental state of Zionists = They fight Mankind.

      • Naftush
        Naftush
        February 20, 2014, 5:28 pm

        You’re the second commenter who places my provenance in Brooklyn. Bad wrong. Furthermore, I can’t make sense of the rest of what you said but it doesn’t seem to address, let alone refute, what I said about how the word Yisrael/Israel has been used in Jewish sources for centuries.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 20, 2014, 7:48 am

        I’ll assume that this is an honest question and not an exercise in Shlomo Sandism. In Genesis, Jacob on his deathbed refers to his descendants as Yisrael.

        I assume you realize that even Jewish tradition says that self-serving account was written hundreds of years after the fact by an author who was not an actual eye witness.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 20, 2014, 8:04 am

        Naftush:

        …not an exercise in Shlomo Sandism. In Genesis….

        “Shlomo Sandism”– you mean modern historical analysis based on factual evidence and logic, as opposed to religious mythology.

      • Naftush
        Naftush
        February 20, 2014, 5:30 pm

        No. Sand himself embellished facts known even to amateur historians will vituperative adjectives and tendentious conclusions. Sandism builds scurrilous and blatant falsehood on that foundation.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 20, 2014, 7:29 pm

        Naftush:

        No. Sand himself embellished facts known even to amateur historians will vituperative adjectives and tendentious conclusions. Sandism builds scurrilous and blatant falsehood on that foundation.

        Please provide evidence for those personal attacks on Sand’s integrity.

        What facts did Sand “embellish”? What “vituperative adjectives” has he employed? What “scurrilous and blatant falsehoods” has he asserted that are directly built on those alleged “embellished facts” and “vituperative adjectives”?

        Please provide actual quotes from Sand and your arguments–not just links to anti-Sand hit pieces.

        And please note: all historical works are subject to debate, needless to say–that’s how history works. But to show evidence of “scurrilous and blatant falsehoods” you need to show more than that certain points are subject to some disagreement.

  16. James North
    James North
    February 19, 2014, 11:33 pm

    Our usual Hasbara Promoters seem to be avoiding this thread. Yet they are active on other threads. Why?

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      February 20, 2014, 12:12 am

      Why would supporters of Israel, particularly those who favor a 2SS, avoid a report about one of Hebron’s radical Jews who favors a 1SS? The question is so preposterous as to require no answer.

      Then again we have here if not a false headline, surely a misleading headline:
      Effort to remove Jews from West Bank is akin to Nazi slaughter — settler spokesman

      The quote from Mister Wilder:

      “International demands to remove all Jews from their natural, historic homeland, including Hebron, Jerusalem, Beit El and Shilo is nothing less than a modern-day form of anti-Antisemitism, the likes of which led to the slaughter of some six to seven million Jews 70 years ago.”

      Leaving aside Mister Wilder’s “anti-Antisemitism” and assuming he meant antisemitism (or capitalized), the statement does not draw an analogy between removing the Jews to the slaughter itself, but draws a line between removal of the Jews and antisemitism, and then a line between antisemitism and the slaughter.

      The line between antisemitism and the slaughter is widely accepted, even by the authors of this post. The question is whether the removal of the settlers fits in the category of antisemitism. The rhetoric of the settlers alleging antisemitism involved in disallowing the settlement of Jews has for a long time included the reference of Judenrein, the terms the Nazis used to refer to the towns and ultimately the countries that they cleansed of Jews or hoped to cleanse of Jews. Thus the rhetoric of antisemitism in reference to prohibiting the settlement of Jews, and so much more so, the removal of the Jews from the West Bank, is in fact old and no surprise. But the headline promised something far worse, a direct analogy between removal of the settlers and the hurban. The article, or Mister Wilder’s quote, provided no direct analogy. The headline was a bait and switch. Promising one thing (something unusual) and providing something far less (much more mundane.)

      Typical of mondoweiss: not to deal with Avrum Burg’s recent op-ed in Haaretz, nor dealing with Shulamit Aloni’s death and eulogies, but instead dealing with David Wilder’s pronouncements and then baiting Israel supporters on why they don’t participate in a stupid discussion of a stupid man. War of ideas, ha! Tabloid antiZionism, yes.

      • James North
        James North
        February 20, 2014, 9:34 am

        Yonah: Mr. Wilder is not an isolated voice crying in the wilderness, but a spokesman for the major motivating force in Israeli politics over the past few decades. He is a far greater obstacle to your 2-state solution than any of us are, (particularly because some regulars at Mondoweiss also favor the 2SS).
        How do you propose to counter Mr. Wilder? Let’s not forget: the settlers promise armed resistance to any removal, and one of them murdered your prime minister.
        Instead of facing this issue, you quibble at length over the headline on top of Mr. Wilder’s post?

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 20, 2014, 10:40 pm

        James: First allow (yet another) quibble: Yigal Amir was not a settler. He was a firm supporter of the settler movement, but he was not a settler.

        Now to the gist: The settlers of Hebron are an important historical factor in the settler movement and eventually if there is ever a withdrawal of the settlers from Hebron, one can expect there to be blood shed in Hebron, unlike the bloodless withdrawal from Gaza.

        But in fact, ignoring for a moment the historical beginnings of the settler movement and the conceivable end of the settler movement, and emphasizing the here and now of the possibility of a peace agreement, Naftali Bennett and the settlers of Ariel and Maaleh Adumim are more disruptive to the possibility of a 2 state solution than the “outliers” from Hebron. Hebron’s Jews were more relevant at the beginning of the settler enterprise when Levinger began the settler movement in earnest, but the settler movement went mainstream with Gush Etzion and Amital and it is the large settlements like Ariel and maaleh adumim that are far away from the Green Line that represent the major stumbling blocks to a peace settlement.

        Although I do not know enough about Mister Wilder to accuse him of condoning violence against the Arabs (Palestinians) of Hebron or elsewhere on the West Bank, I must mention that the attitude that he demonstrates is very often found in those who feel that they have the right to act violently towards the Palestinians. Aside from dangers to the 2SS, (which is more to be found in Ariel and Naftali Bennett than in Wilder and Hebron) the actual violence being perpetrated against West Bank Palestinians is an issue that deserves attention and insofar as Wilder’s rhetoric reminds me of that violence, he is in fact relevant.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 20, 2014, 1:38 pm

        yonah fredman “we have here if not a false headline, surely a misleading headline:
        Effort to remove Jews from West Bank is akin to Nazi slaughter — settler spokesman

        The quote from Mister Wilder:

        “International demands to remove all Jews from their natural, historic homeland, including Hebron, Jerusalem, Beit El and Shilo is nothing less than a modern-day form of anti-Antisemitism, the likes of which led to the slaughter of some six to seven million Jews 70 years ago.””

        “some six to seven million Jews 70 years ago” weren’t slaughtered by the Nazis? WOW!!! Best go tell all the Holocaust museums….

        ” The question is whether the removal of the settlers fits in the category of antisemitism”

        Easy. No! All Israelis, Jewish or not , are prohibited by LAW from illegally settling in territories occupied by Israel. The fact that they’re Jewish only, reflects the apartheid nature of the Israeli settlement enterprise

    • NormanF
      NormanF
      February 20, 2014, 2:36 am

      I am on this thread! Of course the difference between Zionists and theur enemies is we are civilized.

      The people your side defends are fueled by hate, fanaticism and and a love of death! That I think, says it all.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 20, 2014, 4:46 am

        NF said:

        The people your side defends are fueled by hate, fanaticism and and a love of death! That I think, says it all.

        The only people who love death and are fueled by hate are Zionists.

        Israel killed more people in 2.5 weeks (1400+) than all suicide attacks in a 30+ year period (806).

        Israel kills 10 times the number of children and 5 times the number of civilians.

        Israel is obsessed with the Holocaust and making sure Jews are inundated with the Zionist-contextualized Holocaust mindset of fear and paranoia and hatred of the Other.

        Israel is the one occupying and colonizing and practicing apartheid – not the Palestinians.

        That says it all.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 6:19 am

        Of course the difference between Zionists and theur enemies is we are civilized.

        Not according to Moshe Dayan, who said Israel must behave like a rabbid dog.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 20, 2014, 6:29 am

        Of course the difference between Zionists and theur enemies is we are civilized.

        Correction, I’ve pointed out elsewhere that Article 6(b) of the 1945 International Military Tribunal Charter (Nuremberg) included “plunder of public or private property” (Hague IV, 1907, Article 28) in its list of war crimes recognized by all civilized nations as of 1939, for which there must be individual criminal responsibility.

        The bozos in your government keep claiming that the OPt is part and parcel of an armed conflict outside the sovereign territory and jurisdiction of the State of Israel, e.g. See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 or E/1990/6/Add.32, para 6-7

        That means there is no “state land” there that can belong to the Jewish people and that the settlers on expropriated land, in places like Kiryat Arba, are part of a joint criminal enterprise.

      • Naftush
        Naftush
        February 20, 2014, 5:41 pm

        Utter rubbish. The Government of Israel never refers to the contested territories as OPt (sic), even correctly capitalized. And it need not “claim” that the territories are not sovereign; it has never intimated that they were. Furthermore, building homes on vacant land cannot possibly meet the definition of “plunder.” Finally, individual citizens of an occupying power are not prohibited from living and doing business in an occupied territory under Geneva IV or any legal provision that you and I have heard of.

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        February 20, 2014, 6:18 pm

        @Naftush- Who decides whether land in the WB/Palestine is “vacant land” or not? Israel.

        It’s not Israel’s place, under any even remotely arguable circumstances, to make that judgement. It’s Palestine’s. Palestine is precluded from doing so. Next question.

        There’s probably some Latin term for what you just did, but it’s flat out wrong on its face. Self-contradicting.

        It’s also a perfect, stand-alone example of the obvious and generic flaws in pro-Israel argumentation. I think it’s important for any noobs or lurkers to see that basic flaw, so thanks for the example.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 20, 2014, 6:36 pm

        The Government of Israel never refers to the contested territories as OPt (sic), even correctly capitalized.

        It doesn’t matter, since pillage is considered a war crime in both international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts.

        Furthermore, building homes on vacant land cannot possibly meet the definition of “plunder.”

        In point of fact, Israel routinely pillages grazing and agricultural lands to build illegal settlements. It’s still a felony.

        Any conversion of private, public, or state resources or property for private use is pillage. Anyone involved in laundering or marketing the proceeds is aiding and abetting a war crime and a member of a joint criminal enterprise.

        FYI, charges of pillaging have been leveled in many of the indictments in the cases currently pending before the International Criminal Court: in Republic of the Congo: Germain Katanga, Bosco Ntaganda, Callixte Mbarushimana, Sylvestre Mudacumura, and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui; Central African Republic: Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo; Uganda: Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen; Darfur, Sudan: Ahmad Muhammad Harun (“Ahmad Harun”), Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”), Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, and Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein. Information obtained from “All Cases http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/cases/pages/cases%20index.aspx

        The private pension funds and European banks that have severed their ties with enterprises involved in building, marketing, and mortgaging units in illegal settlements have finally realized that, if criminal complaints get filed in the international tribunals, their proceeds will be subject to forfeiture.

        For example, the UK is a contracting state party bound by the terms of Article 28 of the Hague rules of 1907. General Allenby even applied the rules and the convention to the OETA of Palestine. The UK is also bound by Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention regarding personal criminal responsibility for pillage, and Article 8(2)(e)(v) of the Rome Statute. It has its own domestic statute that requires investigation of proceeds from ICC crimes and identifying the extent or whereabouts of property derived directly or indirectly from any ICC crime: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/17/section/37

        The governments in Europe have finally started investigating companies that pillage, i.e. Swiss refiner Argor accused of laundering DRC gold
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24811420
        Swiss firm alleged to have laundered pillaged DRC gold
        http://www.osisa.org/economic-justice/drc/swiss-firm-alleged-have-laundered-pillaged-drc-gold

        Those will be the easiest cases for Prosecutors to establish the guilt of the responsible Israelis, Israeli officials, and those who have aided and abetted them in laundering the proceeds, e.g.
        Massive Norwegian state fund to divest from Israeli company Ethics board finds Shikun and Binui ‘in breach of international humanitarian law in East-Jerusalem’ http://www.timesofisrael.com/massive-norwegian-state-fund-to-divest-from-israeli-company/

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 10:31 pm

        The Government of Israel never refers to the contested territories as OPt (sic), even correctly capitalized.

        False.

        1. The territories are not contested, they are occupied. No one but the Israeli government refers to them as such
        2. Then president of the Israeli Supreme Court, Aharon Barak, in a High Court of Justice ruling from 2005 (Alfei Menashe):

        The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation… His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been “annexed” to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907… These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949… The State of Israel has declared that it practices the humanitarian parts of this convention… We are aware that the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice determined that The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the Judea and Samaria area, and that its application is not conditional upon the willingness of the State of Israel to uphold its provisions.

        Furthermore, building homes on vacant land cannot possibly meet the definition of “plunder.”

        Of course it does when the land belongs to another state.

        And finally, the ICJ has already dismissed the argument that individual citizens of an occupying power are not prohibited from living and doing business in an occupied territory under Geneva IV.

        The fact you have not heard of it is you problem.

      • annie
        annie
        February 20, 2014, 10:41 pm

        maybe in israel the court system is not part of the federal government?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 10:43 pm

        maybe in israel the court system is not part of the federal government?

        Or rather, the federal government is lawless.

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 20, 2014, 11:58 pm

        Norman – Civilized people comply with international law, do not invade, do not start states on others’ land and, fisrt and foremost, do not practice nationalism.
        Get it, caveman?

      • Naftush
        Naftush
        February 23, 2014, 3:44 am

        “And, fisrt [sic] and foremost, do not practice nationalism.” There we have it: the crime of “practic[ing] nationalism.” So it’s not about Hebron or 1948 or 1967, it’s about practicing nationalism. As for why to tear down Israel and no other nation on those grounds, well, you gotta start somewhere (and end at the same somewhere). Hey, on what forum do you counsel Palestinian Arabs to “fisrt and foremost […] not practice nationalism”?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 23, 2014, 4:59 pm

        There we have it: the crime of “practic[ing] nationalism.”

        Yes, the practice of using force to evict or expel other ethnic groups to reserved areas or to exile them in neighboring states with the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life in their country is the crime of apartheid.

        As for why to tear down Israel and no other nation on those grounds, well, you gotta start somewhere (and end at the same somewhere).

        Actually the international community started with the Afrikaners, South Rhodesians, the white supremacist Portuguese colonists in Angola and Mozambique, and the ethnic crimes committed against minorities in the former Yugoslavia.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 23, 2014, 6:44 pm

        Why do you keep insisting that complying with international law and human rights requires Iseael to be torn down?

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 23, 2014, 7:10 pm

        @Naftush – “There we have it: the crime of “practic[ing] nationalism.” ”
        Absolutely. To caricaturize Justice Jackson, it contains the concentrated evil of all your other crimes.
        Anyway, that other caveman was talking about civilization, and any nationalism bars you from it.
        In this case it is a fake nationalism invented for rabble-rousing effect by the same crew that philosophized out Nazism. There is no “nation”. You couldn’t properly do it based on religion. So you guys merely adopted the almost identical racial criteria for “Jewish” as the Nazis.
        So it is murderous fake nationalism.
        No, it’s not just about Elkhalil (your biblical bullshit names grate) or 1948. Your crime against humanity starts with the intent to colonize on behalf of the British (as a twin team with Cecil Rhodes and Weizmann’s best buddy Jan Smuts and the Negro-eating Litwaks). All-out war against Palestine started in 1947 and never stopped.
        Time to get rid of this boil on the asscheek of the world.

  17. piotr
    piotr
    February 19, 2014, 11:55 pm

    The last Jewish kingdom became a Roman province when the Empire approved the petition of the subjects of the last king, a nasty piece of work by all accounts. Then the ingrates did not want to pay taxes, rebelled and were legally punished by the lawful authority.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      February 20, 2014, 12:28 am

      piotr- “The ingrates were legally punished by the lawful authority.” I take it from this that you approve of the destruction of the Temple and all the Judeans killed and crucified by the Roman authorities. (Maybe you make an exception when the crucifixions can be blamed on the quislings rather than the authorities, that that crucifixion was not a legal punishment.)

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 20, 2014, 12:33 am

        I take it from this that you approve of the destruction of the Temple and all the Judeans killed and crucified by the Roman authorities.

        I take it from this that you approve of the destruction of Jericho by Joshua.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 20, 2014, 1:47 pm

        yonah fredman “I take it from this that you approve of the destruction of the Temple and all the Judeans killed and crucified by the Roman authorities.”

        Israel destroys mosques in Occupied Territories, conducts targeted assassinations in Occupied Territories AND in other territories outside the extent of Israel’s sovereign or occupational military authority. I take it you don’t approve?

      • piotr
        piotr
        February 20, 2014, 5:54 pm

        I think crucifixion was a standard punishment for rebellion. “Approving” would mean that I agree with that standard, but this is a-historical thinking: even five hundred years ago it was the legal norm. Jewish rebels lost their individual and communal property, and from Imperial standpoint, the Temple was a focus of sedition. Pax Romana required some eggs being cracked.

        What I am trying to say is that the legal title that Jews had 2000 years ago was definitely lost. Right now, Mr. Wilder is illegally allowed to settle in an occupied territory.

  18. mcohen
    mcohen
    February 20, 2014, 2:31 am

    James North and Phil Weiss on February 19, 2014

    nice piece guys especially the follow thru with the “” Hostage says:
    February 20, 2014 at 12:35 am””

    but you are wasting your time…..here is the link take the trip

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs

    when you get to the halfway down you read this

    Israeli authority[edit]

    Cave of the Patriarchs, 2010
    After the Israeli victory in 1967, in which Israel gained control of Hebron, the first Jew who entered the Cave of Machpelah for about 700 years, was the Chief Rabbi of the Israel Defense Forces, Major general Rabbi Shlomo Goren. “About 700 years ago, the Muslim Mamelukes conquered Hebron, declared the structure a mosque and forbade entry to Jews, who were not allowed past the seventh step on a staircase outside the building.

    all things considered the gentleman above ,a mr wilder,knows why he is in hebron and the answer is simple.

    he is there to ensure that the days of forbidding jews entry to jewish holy sites in israel are over.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      February 20, 2014, 6:10 am

      all things considered the gentleman above ,a mr wilder,knows why he is in hebron and the answer is simple.

      he is there to ensure that the days of forbidding jews entry to jewish holy sites in israel are over.

      1) Hebron isn’t located in Israel; and 2) there’s no evidence that either the Palestinians or the Israelis have actually located the Tomb of the Patriarchs (if they ever really existed at all).

    • Light
      Light
      February 20, 2014, 1:23 pm

      all things considered the gentleman above ,a mr wilder,knows why he is in hebron and the answer is simple.

      Yes, he is the Jewish equivalent of a Christian Creationist. The unfortunate difference is that he has an army to enforce his crazy beliefs.

    • talknic
      talknic
      February 20, 2014, 1:52 pm

      mcohen “After the Israeli victory in 1967, in which Israel gained control of Hebron, the first Jew who entered the Cave of Machpelah for about 700 years, was the Chief Rabbi of the Israel Defense Forces, Major general Rabbi Shlomo Goren. “About 700 years ago, the Muslim Mamelukes conquered Hebron, declared the structure a mosque and forbade entry to Jews, who were not allowed past the seventh step on a staircase outside the building”

      Yet it was 1948 Israeli law (still in force) that forbade Israeli citizens and residents from entering the territory of a hostile entity, thereby preventing Israelis from worshiping at religious sites under Jordanian control from ’48 – ’67

      • mcohen
        mcohen
        February 20, 2014, 4:11 pm

        Talknic says…………yet it was israel

        UNtalknic

        does not change the fact that moslems have restricted jews from visiting jewish holy sites in jerusalem and hebron.
        the settler movement has ensured that jews worldwide have access to there holy sites.
        that is there main responsibility
        no amount of arab propaganda sprouted by you can change the historical ties jews have to hebron and jerusalem

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 20, 2014, 7:45 pm

        mcohen:

        no amount of arab propaganda sprouted by you can change the historical ties jews have to hebron and jerusalem

        No amount of Zionist propaganda can change the fact that “historical ties”, imagined or real, do not confer rights of ownership or sovereignty on any individuals or groups.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 20, 2014, 9:42 pm

        mcohen “does not change the fact that moslems have restricted jews from visiting jewish holy sites in jerusalem and hebron”

        You seem to have a problem with International Law and normality.

        A) Israeli citizens, Jewish or not, have no right to be in Jerusalem or Hebron. They’re both in territory that has never been legally acquired by Israel.

        B) Since when did Jews worship in Mosques? It isn’t normal. Do Muslims demand to worship in Synagogues in Israel?

        C) It is normal for parties to prevent entry of, expel or inter and freeze the assets of aliens and possible 5th columnists whilst at war. The US , UK, Australia did it to aliens and their OWN German and Japanese citizens during WWII. It’s also normal to allow return to normality after hostilities are over.

        “the settler movement has ensured that jews worldwide have access to there holy sites”

        A) Israel’s illegal settler movement are illegal aliens in non-israeli territory and ;
        B) Once the Torah has been removed from a building, it is no longer a Synagogue, it’s just another building. No longer a holy site. (Mosques are not Jewish holy sites)

        “no amount of arab propaganda sprouted by you … “

        What Arab propaganda? Quote me/it…

        False accusations are against the basic tenets of Judaism. That you’d make a false accusation on behalf of the Jewish state is really quite bizarre, but not unusual for Israel’s un-Jewish apologistas

        When we look back at the litany of lies told by the Jewish Agency, the Zionist movement and successive Israeli Governments, it is quite clear the State of Israel has nothing what so ever to do with Judaism.

        “… can change the historical ties jews have to hebron and jerusalem”

        Who’s trying to change historical ties? The fact is, historical ties are history. TODAY, Israelis are prohibited by the International Laws Israel obliged itself to uphold from being in non-Israeli territory without the express permission of the people to whom the territory belongs.

        What kind of moronic Government encourages its citizens to break laws adopted to protect ALL civilians including those of the Occupying Power from the possible violent consequences of occupying another people and their territory? It’s stupidity to willingly put the lives of one’s family’s at risk in coveting someone else’s property.

      • eljay
        eljay
        February 20, 2014, 9:48 pm

        >> no amount of arab propaganda sprouted by you can change the historical ties jews have to hebron and jerusalem

        No amount of hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist propaganda spouted by hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists like you can changes the fact that those “historical ties” did not and do not entitle Jews to a supremacist “Jewish State” or to engage in terrorism, ethnic cleansing, land and resources theft, occupation, colonization, destruction, torture and murder.

  19. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 20, 2014, 10:09 am

    “Removing Jews”, which is supposed to be emotive, because Jews are special. What about “removing thoughtless colonist arseholes” ? It hardly matters whether they are Jewish or not. Does Judaism qualify for a special pass on evil ?

  20. Talkback
    Talkback
    February 20, 2014, 12:48 pm

    David Wilder: However, this was the name of a land area – not of a people. There has never been a ‘palestinian people,’ as such. Or perhaps, there was. My mother-in-law, born in Jerusalem to Jewish parents in 1924, was labeled a ‘palestinian’ but the occupying British at that time.

    Yes, how should someone who was born in Jersey in 1954 and became and illegal settler after 1974 know that his mother in law was a citizen of the mandated State of Palestine and belonged to the Palestinian nation. It’s not mentioned in the Torah, LOL.

  21. The JillyBeans
    The JillyBeans
    February 21, 2014, 6:09 pm

    Has Mr Wilder not inadvertently confirmed that Palestinian expulsion from the very lands the settlers do not want to be removed from as being a criminal and morally wrong act? After all the land was being lived on and worked by Palestinian villagers, was it not? So a removal was required in order to create living spaces for the settlers.

Leave a Reply