Trending Topics:

Israel’s ongoing colonization prolongs Palestinian suffering and devalues international law

News
on 44 Comments
Israeli settlements in the West Bank (Photo: Reuters)

Israeli settlements in the West Bank (Photo: Reuters)

Israel continues to implement a range of practices, laws and policies seeking to displace and dispossess the indigenous Palestinian population. This is achieved through exerting complete control, apartheid and occupation. Zionism continues to aim to colonize Palestine (also known as ‘historic’ or ‘Mandate Palestine’).

This Israeli colonial regime is not limited to the Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), that is the West Bank (including Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip, but also targets Palestinians residing on the Israeli side of the “1949 Armistice Line”. This has been a long established understanding among all who are familiar with the history of Palestine: Israel’s treatment of non-Jewish Palestinians throughout Israel and the oPt constitutes an overall discriminatory regime with the primary purpose (PDF) of controlling the maximum amount of land with the minimum amount of indigenous Palestinians residing upon it. The main components of this structure violate Palestinian rights in areas such as nationality, citizenship, residency, and land ownership. This system was originally applied during the Palestinian Nakba in 1948 with a view to dominate and dispossess (PDF) all forcibly displaced Palestinians, including the 150,000 who were able to remain within the “1949 Armistice Line”, later becoming Palestinian citizens of Israel.

The UN resolution from 1947 to partition Palestine triggered armed conflict between local Palestinians and Jewish colonists. This fostered an environment in which the Zionist movement could induce massive Palestinian displacement so as to create the Jewish state. The task of establishing and maintaining a Jewish state on a predominantly non-Jewish territory has been carried out by forcibly displacing the Arab-Palestinian majority population. Today, 66 percent of the Palestinian people worldwide (seven out of eleven million) are themselves, or the descendants of, Palestinians who have been forcibly displaced by the Israeli regime. Israeli laws, such as the 1954 Prevention of Infiltration Law and Military Orders 1649 and 1650, prohibit Palestinians from legally returning to Israel or the oPt.

This endeavor has been challenged in different ways, unsuccessfully. The military options of the ‘revolutionary’ Arab regimes of yesteryear proved to dictate politics to their own populations, rather to the new colonizing power in the region. Later political efforts, both Palestinian and Arab testify daily to their futility. In order to fight Zionist-Israeli colonial apartheid, we need to use different tools. Signs of this realization are emerging here and there occasionally across the Middle East.

A solution to the ongoing colonization and oppression of the Palestinian people should be found through a strict rights-based approach. These rights cannot be guaranteed through political negotiations, but through full adherence to, and implementation of, international law and rights. Thus, the conflict must be judged according to the values and standards of international law. 

It is time to ensure that international law is not merely a paper tiger, but a legal system that protects rights, establishes obligations and, most importantly, creates realities in accordance with its values and principles. If this is not achieved, the ongoing Israeli disregard to international law in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict threats to undermine the very legitimacy of this crucial body of legal instruments, human rights, humanitarian law and international criminal law.

Rights-Based Approach

Peace cannot be recognized when fundamental human rights and freedoms are violated. A rights-based approach (PDF) is characterized by mechanisms, methods, tools and activities that are designed to complement the notion of humanity’s struggle for freedom, equality, justice and development for all. In other words, a rights-based approach should integrate norms, standards and principles of the international rights system into the plans, policies and processes that seek solutions to the conflict. In the case of Palestine, this approach would entail solutions based on international law rather than a reliance on political negotiations to bring about a long lasting and just solution.

Seen from this prism, it is morally and legally wrong to refer to illegal Israeli settlements in the oPt as “undermining efforts towards peace”, as it is regularly the case in political circles, whilst in reality these settlements constitute a violation of numerous international standards and principles. As such, they are but one of a growing number of physical manifestations of Israel’s ongoing impunity. This represents an ugly and dangerous precedent, and if the future sanctity of international law and standard is to be protected, its implementation should not be subject to negotiations, but demanded from the outset.

Fundamental to Palestinian rights is the right to self-determination. It is the basis for the implementation of the most important fundamental rights and freedoms such as the right to be free from all forms of racial discrimination or simply to live a life in dignity and free from oppression, occupation and colonization. The International Court of Justice refers to the right to self-determination as a right held by the people rather than a right held by governments alone. The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination is deep-seated in international law, most importantly within the International Covenants on Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and the Vienna Declaration

In addition to that, and equally important, all Palestinian refugees have the right to return. International best practice stresses that refugees be offered their choice of solution in a voluntary and informed manner. A rights-based approach to assistance and protection, moreover, requires that refugees are consulted and given a right to participate in the design and implementation of national and international interventions. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) adopted both the principle of voluntariness (refugee choice) in the search for durable solutions (PDF), and a participatory approach in its operations. The framework for durable solutions for the Palestinians forcibly displaced during the Nakba is set out in Article 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 which resolves that the refugees be allowed to return to their homes at the earliest practical date and that compensation be paid to those choosing not to return, and for loss or damage to property.

Internationally recognized rights and principles trigger specific state responsibilities at the international level. Third party states have a legal duty to cooperate in the process of bringing to an end Israel’s violations and breaches of international law, including the refusal of such states to provide aid or assistance to Israel, or to recognize the illegal situation that has arisen from Israeli acts.

Israel’s continuous and calculated strangulation of the Palestinian people must be properly challenged by the international community, and this challenge must come from an assessment of Israeli actions and policy through the lens of international law. The facts that Israel is leaving all across Palestine demonstrate that such an assessment will reveal elements of an international crime against humanity, and Israel’s regime must be judged accordingly, with the state’s impunity for these crimes brought to an end. The silence of powerful members of the international community in relation to these crimes continues. The resulting reality represents a worst case scenario: the intense and prolonged suffering of a colonized and occupied population, witnessed in conjunction with an emphatic politicisation and devaluing of international law.

Amjad Alqasis

Amjad Alqasis holds a LL.M. in international public law and is a legal researcher and a member of the Legal Support Network of BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights. From 2011-2014 he was the coordinator of BADIL’s international and legal advocacy program. Since August 2014, Amjad has been an advisor at Al Haq Center for Applied International Law. He has published several articles and researches on various topics concerning the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

44 Responses

  1. NormanF on May 12, 2014, 11:28 am

    It should be pointed out Amjad Alqasis and other anti-Israel activists always get Article 11 of UNGA 194 wrong. The Arab states voted against at it at the time because it did not create a formal, collective “right of return.” Instead, it recommended refugees – a wording that could be applied equally to BOTH the Arab and Jewish refugees at the time, be offered resettlement or compensation. Nowhere does it speak of any right, leaving either up to the discretion of the countries involved. Nothing in UNGA 194 speaks of ANY binding legal framework for a settlement of the refugee question and in any case, UNGA resolutions do not establish a rule of international law.

    • talknic on May 12, 2014, 6:48 pm

      @ NormanF “It should be pointed out Amjad Alqasis and other anti-Israel activists always get Article 11 of UNGA 194 wrong”

      What part do they get wrong?

      “The Arab states voted against at it at the time because it did not create a formal, collective “right of return.” Instead, it recommended refugees – a wording that could be applied equally to BOTH the Arab and Jewish refugees at the time, be offered resettlement or compensation.”

      Makes no sense. If it was collective, then both Arab and Jewish refugees would qualify. Get a proof reader or some half intelligent nonsense

      “a wording that could be applied”

      Correction, WAS applied. In fact UNRWA catered for Jewish refugees in Israel until the Israeli Government took over responsibility in 1952 (it’s even in WikI/Pedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Relief_and_Works_Agency_for_Palestine_Refugees_in_the_Near_East )

      “Nowhere does it speak of any right, leaving either up to the discretion of the countries involved”

      Odd

      11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

      “Nothing in UNGA 194 speaks of ANY binding legal framework “

      The United Nations Charter and relative conventions ARE the legal framework!

      “UNGA resolutions do not establish a rule of international law”

      True. However the Laws and UN Charter Chapters they cite and under which resolutions are accordingly adopted ARE binding!

      • Naftush on May 13, 2014, 1:02 am

        The tendentious Mr. Alqasis expands on a key phrase in Res. 194 and omits another one. The expansion: Res. 194 speaks of “the refugees wishing to return to their homes” and not of their descendants around the world unto eternity. And the omission: 194 speaks of refugees wishing “to live at peace with their neighbors,” not those raised and trained in the wish to obliterate them.

      • talknic on May 13, 2014, 2:48 am

        Naftush “Res. 194 speaks of “the refugees wishing to return to their homes” and not of their descendants around the world unto eternity”

        I see, so it only applies to Jewish refugees from Germany or the Arab states? WOW! Not that there are any actual Israel refugees from Germany or the Arab states. Having taken up citizenship in countries other than the country of return, they’re no longer refugees. (see the UNHCR statute)

        “194 speaks of refugees wishing “to live at peace with their neighbors,” “

        Indeed. On an individual basis and; the state of return has the right, after assessment, to refuse.

        BTW the notion that Palestine must have a peace treaty with Israel before RoR is bizarre, completely illogical, drivel.

        A) Returnees would be ISRAELI citizens. Their neighbour would bePalestine … they’d have to agree to live in peace with Palestine? Doesn’t make sense. The resolution refers to them agreeing to live in peace in Israel as Israeli citizens with their Israeli neighbours.

        B) Palestinian negotiators can only fight for the right of individuals, it cannot demand return for everyone because it is an individual decision, return or be compensated. (Israel couldn’t afford compensation even in 1948, now the cost would bankrupt the Jewish state)

        What is really bizarre is the only folk who have a right of return to Israel are folk who had the right to Israeli citizenship and their Israeli descendants. Strange isn’t it. Israel refuses RoR of its own citizens! Weird!

  2. amigo on May 12, 2014, 11:58 am

    Israel needs to be referred to as what it is!!!.

    “Apartheid Israel.”.

    These two words should be inseparable and should be used as such until the Apartheid nation is destroyed and replaced with a Bi National State where ALL
    are equal.

  3. HarryLaw on May 12, 2014, 12:14 pm

    The silence of the International community continues, and so it does, but that inaction could be directed closer to home . Abbas said in a New York Times interview not long ago “I don’t like to go to the courts. I don’t like courts. I want to solve my problems directly between the parties.” Can you believe this man? If that’s his attitude the Palestinians will wait a long time for justice. His chief negotiator Erekat is even now in talks to get the negotiations started again, the Israelis would agree to that, how about 3 months, that’s 5,000 settler homes, then another 3 months, and then…

    • AlGhorear on May 12, 2014, 9:35 pm

      @HarryLaw When I first started in Palestinian activism I kept hearing from Lebanese, Egyptian and Palestinian friends about how leaders of Arab countries do whatever it takes to “keep their chair”– a unique expression for me, but so true for government officials everywhere. For quislings like Abbas to stay in power and enjoy a measure of wealth and freedom that most Palestinians can only dream of, he has to sacrifice the rights of his fellow Palestinians and sleep with the enemy. Talks prolong the privilege and power the quislings enjoy while Israel continues to gobble up Palestine. Where will they go when there isn’t an inch of Palestine left?

      • Walid on May 13, 2014, 12:27 am

        “Where will they go when there isn’t an inch of Palestine left?”

        Saudia.

  4. seafoid on May 12, 2014, 1:00 pm

    Most of all, Israel’s actions devalue Judaism.
    Cut the chosen crap. Any common or garden group can act like bigots.

  5. eljay on May 12, 2014, 1:07 pm

    All nations – especially “moral beacons” like Israel (and the U.S.) – must strive to be as just and moral as they can. This is not the same thing as striving to be less unjust and immoral than the worst offenders.

    No nation – especially not “moral beacons” like Israel (and the U.S.) – should intentionally commit unjust and imoral actions and then justify those actions by pointing to the unjust and immoral actions of others.

  6. Walid on May 12, 2014, 1:17 pm

    “His chief negotiator…”

    In the 20 years he has been negotiating for the Palestinians, what has he gotten for them?

    • talknic on May 12, 2014, 2:06 pm

      When one side refuses to adhere to its legal obligations and is backed by the world’s super power … go figure …. doesn’t matter who the negotiator is, they ain’t gonna get anything but Red Heifer poop!

      • Walid on May 12, 2014, 4:01 pm

        You’d think that after 20 years of not scoring a single goal, they’d give another player the chance at scoring one. His claim to fame is his Guinness record for resignations. The whole team needs to be retired.

        Diana Butto, a former negotiator discusses the zero results of the Palestinian team over the past 2 decades in light of the Palestine Papers that revealed how much Erekat, Abbas and the rest of the group have given up to Israel:

      • Walid on May 13, 2014, 1:40 am

        “… doesn’t matter who the negotiator is, they ain’t gonna get anything but Red Heifer poop!” (talknic)

        For those whose curiosity was piqued by talknic’s Red Heifer poop, a comprehensive essay on the subject (not the poop part though) from PBS’ Frontline series describing the Christian Zionists’ and Jews’ views on the end time in Jerusalem where the building of the third temple is to happen and for which the Red Heifer is a fundamental accessory. To that end, an American from Mississippi worked at breeding the perfectly red and spotless heifer in Nebraska to be sent to Israel:

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/readings/forcing.html

      • talknic on May 13, 2014, 2:15 am

        @ Walid Even if they breed a pure red heifer, the sacrificial altar must first be cleansed ….. with the ashes of a red heifer apparently

      • seafoid on May 13, 2014, 8:42 am

        The red heifer must have been the iron age equivalent of today’s python handbag

      • talknic on May 13, 2014, 10:28 am

        @Walid

        the Lord hath commanded, saying: ‘Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish and upon which never came a yoke.

        3 And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest, that he may bring her forth outside the camp, and one shall slay her before his face.

        4 And Eleazar the priest shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle of her blood directly before the tabernacle of the congregation seven times.

        5 And one shall burn the heifer in his sight: her skin and her flesh and her blood, with her dung, shall he burn.

        6 And the priest shall take cedar wood and hyssop and scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer.

        7 Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water; and afterward he shall come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the evening.

        8 And he that burneth her shall wash his clothes in water and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the evening.

        9 And a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and lay them up outside the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin.

        do the biblical accounts tell us this was ever achieved?

      • Shmuel on May 13, 2014, 10:54 am

        do the biblical accounts tell us this was ever achieved?

        No. Maimonides (Hilkhot parah adumah 3,4, based on the Mishnah in tractate Parah 3,5) offers the symbolic total of 10 animals used in this fashion throughout history: 9 from Moses to the destruction of the Second Temple (although only 2 during the biblical period), and 1 in the days of the Messiah. The ashes apparently go a long way.

        On the connection to ancient Egyptian ritual: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/05/shared-values-2.html#comment-560848

      • talknic on May 13, 2014, 12:30 pm

        Shmuel “The ashes apparently go a long way”

        A little bull goes a long way eh?

        Having said as much, ash does have antiseptic qualities.

      • Shmuel on May 13, 2014, 12:38 pm

        A little bull goes a long way eh?

        Heifer, my dear talknic, heifer. Don’t they teach you the difference “down under”? ;-P

      • Walid on May 13, 2014, 1:31 pm

        The Roman Catholic Church also has something to do with purification by ashes on the first day of lent known as “Ash Wednesday” only it’s not ashes from a burned cow but from the burning of the palms collected on the day of the previous year’s Ash Wednesday. These ashes kept for a complete year mixed with olive oil and blessed are used to make the sign of the cross on the foreheads the morning of Ash Wednesday with the priest pronouncing the quote from Genesis, “Remember, Man is dust, and unto dust you shall return”.

        And for Muslims, Quran al-Baqara 2.67–2.73:
        “And remember Moses said to his people: “Allah commands that ye sacrifice a heifer.” They said: “Makest thou a laughing-stock of us?” He said: “Allah save me from being an ignorant (fool)!

        They said: “Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us what (heifer) it is!” He said; “He says: The heifer should be neither too old nor too young, but of middling age. Now do what ye are commanded!”

        They said: “Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us Her colour.” He said: “He says: A fawn-coloured heifer, pure and rich in tone, the admiration of beholders!”

        They said: “Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us what she is: To us are all heifers alike: We wish indeed for guidance, if Allah wills.

        He said: “He says: A heifer not trained to till the soil or water the fields; sound and without blemish.” They said: “Now hast thou brought the truth.” Then they offered her in sacrifice, but not with good-will.”

      • Walid on May 13, 2014, 1:40 pm

        “Having said as much, ash does have antiseptic qualities.”

        So much so, the high alkalinity in them at times may leave a shadow of the cross for a week after Ash Wednesday.

  7. HarryLaw on May 12, 2014, 2:05 pm

    There are no guarantees in pressuring the ICC to investigate the situation in occupied Palestine and 17 NGO’s have appealed to Abbas to do just that, see http://www.juancole.com/2014/05/palestine-international-criminal.html at the least Palestinians would know, if no investigation took place that the court is a purely political one, and that no Western Individuals, or their friends need worry about future indictments.
    They can then contemplate alternate means of attaining justice.

  8. weareone on May 12, 2014, 2:13 pm

    “Seen from this prism, it is morally and legally wrong to refer to illegal Israeli settlements in the oPt as “undermining efforts towards peace”, as it is regularly the case in political circles, whilst in reality these settlements constitute a violation of numerous international standards and principles. As such, they are but one of a growing number of physical manifestations of Israel’s ongoing impunity. This represents an ugly and dangerous precedent, and if the future sanctity of international law and standard is to be protected, its implementation should not be subject to negotiations, but demanded from the outset.”

    This is the exact point made by Rabbi Weiss of Neturei Karta, an anti-zionist Jewish organization, in an interview- March 21, 2014. http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Interviews/20140321_Weiss.cfm

    He says:

    “If you recognize that it [the land] has been taken illegitimately, then we can come to a proper solution…it is presently an endless river of bloodshed because we are legitimizing these people and we’re trying to deal with an illegitimate start. Let us come to the truth, then we can come to a proper solution of reinstating Palestinian sovereignty…if we will again understand the root of the problem-that it’s an occupation, illegitimately…the solution will be to start all over again and then we can live together with the peaceful, speedy DISMANTLEMENT (my emphasis) of the state[israel] …”

    “It’s not a dream…it’s a history that we’ve been coexisting and that will bring us back to what our rabbis insisted-to follow God’s teachings of the Torah and we can live together in peace.”

    I agree with Rabbi Weiss-the peaceful dismantlement of the occupier is necessary first and THEN, imo, peace can be achieved.

  9. mondonut on May 12, 2014, 3:09 pm

    In addition to that, and equally important, all Palestinian refugees have the right to return.

    This of course, is simply not true. Even if International Law were contorted enough to provide rights to all the actual refugees, there is nothing to support the contention that descendants are equally entitled.

    • tree on May 12, 2014, 4:06 pm

      You are posting lies again, mondonut.

      This has been posted numerous times before but apparently it needs to be posted again. This is from the UNHCR’s definition of refugees, which relates to all refugees anywhere in the world. (UNCHR stands for UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which is the UN Refugee Agency).

      5.1 Derivative Refugee Status

      5.1.1 General Principles

      Family members/dependants of a recognized refugee may apply for derivative refugee status in accordance with their right to family unity.

      Family members/dependants who are determined to fall within the criteria for refugee status in their own right should be granted refugee status rather than derivative refugee status.

      Individuals who obtain derivative status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognized refugees, and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that a child reaches the age of majority. Procedures relating to cancellation and cessation of refugee status will also apply to persons who have received derivative refugee status.

      http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendocPDFViewer.html?docid=43170ff81e&query=Procedural%20Standards%20for%20refugee%20Status%20Determination

      • talknic on May 12, 2014, 4:41 pm

        @ tree It seems mondonut and co don’t read anything factual or admit their rhetoric is nonsense. It’s probably not allowed.

      • eljay on May 12, 2014, 4:57 pm

        >> It seems mondonut and co don’t read anything factual or admit their rhetoric is nonsense.

        Maybe that’s because they have “Jewish street creds” and, therefore, are not “Oreos”…? ;-)

      • Kay24 on May 12, 2014, 5:13 pm

        Talknic, here is an old video of a hasbara videoconference, “training” their mindless minions how to “win” their propaganda wars on the internet.
        Note their instructor Neil Lazarus tells them “if you can’t convince them, confuse them”, this was in 2002, but you can see how many Universities around the world have had their students trained by the Israeli Ministry of Information (more like Misinformation). It seems the confusion is part of their psyche, when you read their comments full of lies, deflection, and denying truth.

      • mondonut on May 12, 2014, 6:37 pm

        @Kay24

        Is that some form of counter argument or just another of your (supposedly banned) ad hominen attacks?

      • mondonut on May 12, 2014, 6:36 pm

        @talknic

        What a hypocrite. That the descendants do not possess a RoR is an argument that you regularly put forth.

      • mondonut on May 12, 2014, 6:31 pm

        @tree

        a) UNHCR’s definition of refugees does not constitute international law. More importantly, it does not grnat the RoR.

        b) “Family members/dependants” does not equal descendants.

    • pjdude on May 12, 2014, 9:51 pm

      To the letter of the law correct the spirit of the law not so much. You could argue the right if return must apply to descendants of refugees where the right was denied in the original refugee was illegally denied. To not do so empowers those committed to commit ethnic cleansing and other such crimes at the expense of their victims, which we can all agree is a bad idea.This should be true for all refugees. This is for all refugees of all conflicts. Of course israel is the only one that has killed refugees returning to their homes simply for daring to come back.

    • Qualtrough on May 13, 2014, 1:20 am

      Mondonut: If all Palestinians refugees do not have a right of return, how then can you claim a right of return for all Jews? I would dearly love to hear your explanation.

  10. weareone on May 12, 2014, 4:21 pm

    Thanks tree. And just in case that wasn’t clear enough, mondonut:

    ” Palestinian citizens who left the area that became Israel have the right to return, that is to recover their nationality…Descendants of these refugees have an identical right. ”

    “UN law renders the right of return unquestionable.”

    http://cjicl.org.uk/2012/11/26/bases-for-the-palestinian-refugees-right-of-return-under-international-law-beyond-general-assembly-resolution-194-2/

  11. talknic on May 12, 2014, 6:11 pm

    @ Kay24 LOL @3:18 a fraudian (sic) slip … “as it was under the apartheid regime here in Israel”

    @3:26 He lies “We even have members of the Knesset who are openly sympathetic to Hezbollah and are allowed to travel to Syria at the same time” Israeli law forbids citizens and residents from entering the territory of a hostile state. Arab Knesset members have been censured.

    • annie on May 12, 2014, 7:11 pm

      ha! he says it! “there is no such discrimination .. as there was under the apartheid regime here in israel”

  12. Kay24 on May 12, 2014, 6:30 pm

    Well good catch…I really missed that one. What a joke eh? John Kerry was attacked for using that word in an appropriate manner. As for the lies…I guess they have to lie to even their minions, so that they can remain devoted to the cause, and be under the false impression, that they are defending the occupier. They are all liars, from Bibi to the IDF. What can you expect?

  13. jon s on May 13, 2014, 4:46 am

    “Fundamental to Palestinian rights is the right to self-determination…The International Court of Justice refers to the right to self-determination as a right held by the people rather than a right held by governments alone…”

    Absolutely. Also applies to the Jewish people.

    • Inanna on May 13, 2014, 8:43 pm

      Why oh why do people not read Hostage’s comments? The right of self-determination is held by people living in a a geographical area regardless of religion or ethnicity. It’s not a right held exclusively for one sub-group in a geographical area/territory. The manipulation and misrepresentation of principles of international law is so rife by Zionists that one wonders if Zionism is inimical to reading comprehension.

      • RoHa on May 13, 2014, 8:59 pm

        “Why oh why do people not read Hostage’s comments?”

        Because they don’t like what he says.

    • pjdude on May 14, 2014, 12:36 am

      No it doesn’t there is no jewish right to self determination. For starters jews are a religion sorry clise to 1900 years as a religion you can’t just become a nation cause you want to. And even if they were a nation still no right to self determination. As that based on territory. Ie. the last legiatmaite legal expression if self determination in ” israel” was when the Palestinians made it clear they didn’t want their territory divided. The current Palestinian actions are self determination. Israel is the anthesis of self determination. Naked conquest and occupation is not self determination

  14. RoHa on May 13, 2014, 6:44 pm

    The Jewish people in Australia have the same rights as other Australians, so they have the same right of self determination as other Australians. Bur that is all. They have that right from being Australians, not from being Jews. There is no right of self determination for “the Jewish people” as a whole.

    If you think there, present an argument for it.

  15. RoHa on May 13, 2014, 8:58 pm

    Ipad version corrected:

    The Jewish people in Australia have the same rights as other Australians, so they have the same right of self determination as other Australians. But that is all. They have that right from being Australians, not from being Jews. There is no right of self determination for “the Jewish people” as a whole.

    If you think there is, present an argument for it.

Leave a Reply