Trending Topics:

Supreme Court slam dunks the Israel lobby on Jerusalem, 6-3 (and Rubio, Oren, and Engel are angry)

US Politics

As you know by now, the Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 that the Obama administration was right to insist that a passport for a boy born in Jerusalem in 2001 not state, “Jerusalem, Israel,” as the boy wished– and as Congress also wanted. Nope. The president makes foreign policy, and the Congress overstepped in a 2002 law allowing citizens born in Jerusalem to list their place of birth as “Israel.”

The case is having huge reverberations, reflecting the fact that it was a power struggle over foreign-policy making; and the decision puts the Supreme Court on the president’s side on a crucial question. We’re seeing a lot of anger from Israel supporters. This case was never about some little boy’s desire to have Israel on his passport, it was about the Israel lobby’s effort to use the Congress and the court to make foreign policy.

Well, the Supreme Court slam-dunked the lobby. “A blow to the pro-Israel lobby,” Robert Siegel just said on National Public Radio.

Here’s Anthony Kennedy’s ruling, up at Haaretz. Eloquent. He notes that even when Truman recognized Israel in 1948, he didn’t recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem.

Over the last 60 years, various actors have sought to assert full or partial sovereignty over the city, including Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians. Yet, in contrast to a consistent policy of formal recognition of Israel, neither President Truman nor any later United States President has issued an official statement or declaration acknowledging any country’s sovereignty over Jerusalem. Instead, the Executive Branch has maintained that “‘the status of Jerusalem . . . should be decided not unilaterally but in consultation with all concerned.’

The president has autonomy here. If the little boy is so upset, he can pick the city’s name, but not the country:

If a citizen objects to the country listed as sovereign by the State Department, he or she may list the city or town of birth rather than the country. The FAM [Foreign Affairs Manual], however, does not allow citizens to list a sovereign that conflicts with Executive Branch policy. Because the United States does not recognize any country as having sovereignty over Jerusalem, the FAM instructs employees to record the place of birth for citizens born there as “Jerusalem.”

Politics have to stop at the water’s edge, Kennedy said:

the Nation must have a single policy regarding which governments are legitimate in the eyes of the United States and which are not. Foreign countries need to know, before entering into diplomatic relations or commerce with the United States, whether their ambassadors will be received; whether their officials will be immune from suit in federal court; and whether they may initiate lawsuits here to vindicate their rights. These assurances cannot be equivocal.

Recognition is a topic on which the Nation must “‘speak . . . with one voice.’”

And Kennedy said that the tradition of politics stopping at the water’s edge was respected by Congress, even during the Taiwan-China policy battles. Right; as always, Israel is a special case.

Over the last 100 years, there has been scarcely any debate over the President’s power to recognize foreign states. In this respect the Legislature, in the narrow context of recognition, on balance has acknowledged the importance of speaking “with one voice.”

Kennedy says that Jerusalem is a sensitive question, and affirms the U.S. policy here.

As a matter of United States policy, neither Israel nor any other country is acknowledged as having sovereignty over Jerusalem.

Antonin Scalia in his dissent writes that “The Jerusalem passport law has nothing to do with recognition,” but Scalia’s stance is undermined by the angry reactions to the Supreme Court decision from Israel supporters. For them, it was never merely about a parent’s “right” to list Israel on their child’s passport if the child was born in Jerusalem, it was about forcing the hand of the executive branch to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Marco Rubio hopped right on it and indicated that if/when he’s president, this won’t happen:

The administration’s policy makes no sense. They somehow maintain that all of Jerusalem is disputed territory.

Individuals born in Jerusalem should be listed in U.S. passports as having been born in Israel if they or their families so desire, and I hope this administration and future ones will change the policy, while also working to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, which is and will always remain Israel’s capital.”

Knesset member Michael Oren, formerly Netanyahu’s ambassador, is also not happy. He says it damages Israel’s alleged sovereignty over Jerusalem:

The ruling by the US Supreme Court today, negating the right of Americans born in Jerusalem to denote Israel as their official place of birth, is damaging to Israel’s sovereignty and to the alliance of Israel and the United States.

The mayor of Jerusalem is also steamed, and spouts nationalist ideology:

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat responded to the ruling, saying that “much like Washington D.C. is the capital of the U.S., and London is the capital of the U.K., and Paris the capital of France – thus Jerusalem is and always will be the capital of Israel.”

Barkat said that “in days like these, when anti-Semites are trying to raise their heads and the BDS – which supports Hamas’ positions – endangers world peace and denies Israel’s right to exist, we expect the U.S. to strengthen Israel and recognize Jerusalem as its capital.

Haaretz acknowledges that this case was always about the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, not about some little boy’s right to have his birthplace acknowledged.

Nabil Abu Rdaineh, spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, told Reuters: “This is an important decision which accords with international resolutions and the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly. This is a clear message that Israel occupies East Jerusalem as well as the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

“A very very wrong decision,” says Rep. Eliot Engel of NY, on National Public Radio.

In Commentary, Jonathan Tobin is also incensed. He says the case is more evidence that Obama is ignoring “the cold hard reality of Palestinian rejectionism, Islamist terror, or Iran’s ambitions for regional hegemony.” Obama is living a fantasy, says Tobin.

Obama is entitled to pretend that the city of Jerusalem isn’t the capital of Israel or even part of the Jewish state. This triumph may cause celebration in the White House as well as among Israel’s foes. But it should also be put down as yet another win for fantasy over reality as well as one that won’t further the cause of peace.

Obama, more than any other president since 1967 has encouraged this delusion by treating these Jewish neighborhoods as being as offensive to him, and the Jews who live there as just as liable to be thrown out of their homes as the most remote West Bank settlement.

This was a hard won fight. Remember, Annie Robbins nailed this last November, high stakes for the Israel lobby:

The case brought before the court, pushed by stalwarts of the Israel lobby, including but not limited to the Zionist Organization of AmericaAmerican Jewish Committee, the Anti Defamation League,  and the Louis D. Brandeis Centerseeks a ruling that essentially grants Congress the authority to bypass the executive branch on Jerusalem, thereby stripping the president of the power to conduct foreign affairs. And yes, in Congress, the lobby rules.

But not in the Supremes.

On NPR, Nina Totenberg noted that the majority included the Supreme Court’s three Jews.

And in his dissent, Justice Roberts noted that the 2012 Democratic platform contradicted the executive’s position, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Right. The lobby pushed for that and Obama didn’t want to alienate the lobby in an election year.

About Phil Weiss and Annie Robbins

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net. Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss

Other posts by .


Posted In:

213 Responses

  1. MRW
    MRW
    June 8, 2015, 6:26 pm

    What’s wrong with “Jerusalem” all by its lonesome?

    Whoever says Vatican, Italy? Singapore is Singapore, city state.

    • JLewisDickerson
      JLewisDickerson
      June 8, 2015, 7:45 pm

      It is time to finally make Jerusalem an ‘international city’ pursuant to General Assembly resolution 181 (II) November 29, 1947, which provides for the full territorial internationalisation of Jerusalem: “The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.”
      Netanyahu recently made it clear that as far as he is concerned there will never be a sovereign nation-state of Palestine in the West Bank (with, or without, E. Jerusalem as its capital). Consequently, unless Jerusalem is protected by virtue of its being made an ‘international city’ administered by the UN, it is just a matter of time before the Dome of the Rock, the Al-Aqsa mosque and numerous other historic sites come under existential threat as Israel’s radical, extremist nationalists (like Yehuda Glick and Moshe Feiglin of the Temple Institute) become more and more determined to completely “Judeaize” the city.

  2. John Douglas
    John Douglas
    June 8, 2015, 6:45 pm

    I am very pleased with the result of this ruling, that Jerusalem not be handed over to Israel by a bought and paid for Congress.

    But I am wary of the reasoning behind the decision, which leaves little recourse for Congresses in the future to act as bulwarks against bad executive branch foreign policy decisions. So if in the future there is an overwhelmingly rational Congress and a Marco Rubio president, the Congress could do nothing but sit on its hands while Rubio rules for Israel and collects multi-millions in contributions.

    • annie
      annie
      June 8, 2015, 7:30 pm

      i don’t think so. the congress sets the budget and controls the purse strings so there’s a lot they can do. there’s also the war powers act. but it’s not in their jurisdiction to recognize the sovereignty of other nations, apparently. that’s the state department. our foreign diplomacy is at the discretion of the state department under the purview of the executive branch.

      • annie
        annie
        June 9, 2015, 6:28 pm

        our foreign diplomacy is at the discretion of the state department under the purview of the executive branch.

        i was wrong http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/opinion-analysis-walking-on-a-tightrope-on-mideast-policy/

        The administration had argued that the Constitution gives the president “exclusive authority to conduct diplomatic relations,” as well as “the bulk of foreign-affairs powers.” In making that plea, the government lawyers had relied upon a sweeping statement by the Court, in the 1936 decision in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., that the president acted as “the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.”

        The Court, Justice Kennedy stressed, “declines to acknowledge that unbounded power.” To concede that the occupant of the White House has a broader power in this case than control over recognition of foreign governments would present “different issues” and was not necessary to decide this case, Kennedy said.

        here’s more: http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/executive-branch-prevails-in-jerusalem-passports-case-in-plain-english/

        In their view, the Constitution gives the president the exclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns and their boundaries, and presidents have done so throughout our history. Congress should not be allowed to interfere with that power, the majority continued, because it would impede the president’s ability to speak with one voice in deciding whether to recognize a particular country. The 2002 law runs afoul of that exclusive power, the Court explained, because even if listing Menachem Zivotofsky’s place of birth as “Israel” would not itself formally recognize Jerusalem, it would effectively force the president to contradict his earlier statements about the government being neutral when it comes to the status of Jerusalem. And, the Court added, Congress clearly intended to do exactly that when it passed the law, as evidenced by the statement – in one of Congress’s reports on the law – indicating that the proposed law “contains four provisions related to the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.”

        Even if the president and the executive branch won this round, though, it was not the broader constitutional triumph they might have hoped for. The federal government had asked the Court to rule that the executive branch has extensive foreign relations powers, including the “exclusive authority to conduct diplomatic relations.” But the Court declined to do so, on the ground that it didn’t need to answer that question to resolve this specific case.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 9, 2015, 9:22 pm

        our foreign diplomacy is at the discretion of the state department under the purview of the executive branch.

        i was wrong

        I wouldn’t put too much stock in demurrals that are buried in dicta about questions the Court decided to avoid. For all practical intents and purposes you really weren’t wrong. For example, the Supreme Court’s own “political question doctrine” explicitly states that even if the statute in question is unconstitutional, the Article III Courts cannot restrain the President by injunction from exercising his discretion to put the damned thing into effect anyway.

        The Supreme Court even went so far as to say that an Article III Court should not even allow a lawsuit for that purpose to be filed. The Doctrine rests on the settled proposition that some of the President’s duties are “purely executive and political” lying in a constitutional area wherein “judicial interference with Executive discretion” is not permitted and the President is subject only to checks and balances delegated to the other “political” branch. See Mississippi v. Johnson 71 U.S. 475 (1866). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/475/case.html

        In other words, under the impeachment clauses in Article I of our Constitution, it is the Congress which operates the only Court that can enjoin and remove a sitting President (or Supreme Court Justice for that matter) who crosses a red line by neglecting to see that the laws are faithfully executed, i.e. committing a “high crime or misdemeanor” (treasons, misprisions, neglects and contempts) that piss-off enough members of Congress.

        In this case the Court invoked a somewhat inapposite home made test it created in the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case to determine the extent of President Truman’s authority in the absence of either specifically enumerated power under Article II of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The statute cited in this case was obviously not really silent on the subject matter and it did not transgress on any specifically enumerated power located solely or exclusively in Article 1. It intruded on 230 years of customary practice in international law, including principles that were only established by a series of decisions in earlier Supreme Court cases (stari decisis). That means that nothing would prevent Chief Justice Roberts and these same judges from reversing themselves on the same subject next year. For example, the difference between night and day is much smaller than the difference between these two Supreme Court cases: Reid v. Covert 351 U.S. 487 (1956) and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        June 13, 2015, 4:40 pm

        @Hostage

        “No I haven’t. ”

        Oh yes, you very much have.

        I’m done here.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 13, 2015, 6:31 pm

        I’m done here.

        You mean you’re done making an ass out of yourself? I doubt it. This thread started out when I said that Ben Gurion learned that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, and nobody believed the testimony that you cited.

        The Court of Criminal Appeals let the conviction stand because there were credible allegations and evidence of bribery and perjury. Now you’re trying to to tell readers here that there was “Zero evidence” that Jews murdered Arlosoroff, despite the fact that there was enough evidence to lead to a conviction of a known Jewish terrorist by the Jewish trier of the facts and the evidence. That conviction was only overturned on the basis of a legal technicality that other civilized systems of criminal justice don’t employ or consider essential.

        A verdict of not guilty in this case was NOT a determination of innocence or zero evidence as you suggest.

      • just
        just
        June 13, 2015, 6:15 pm

        @ Jackdaw’s “I’m done here.”

        A wise decision. Have a nice evening.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        June 14, 2015, 1:31 am

        @Hostage

        The Trial Court initally convicted Stavsky based on Mrs Arlosorov’s testimony and the corroborative evidence of two Bedouin trackers.
        One of the three judges dissented, his belief being the the murder was an intended sexual assault.
        At trial, both Bedouin trackers brought to the Tel Aviv beach in June 1933 were deeply discredited and embarrassed on cross-examination by defense attorney Horace Samuel as Samuel laid bare the fallibility of their methods: rather than following the footprints of the alleged murderers, cross-examination indicated that the they had likely followed the prints left by other policemen who arrived at the scene earlier. The footprints had been a key piece of evidence for the prosecution: they corroborated Arlosoroff’s widow’s identification of Abraham Stavsky, which (despite Samuel’s undermining) initially led to his conviction at the Court of Criminal Assize and to the death penalty. On appeal, however, the Supreme Court found that the trackers’ evidence should have been given absolutely no weight, leading to Stavsky’s acquittal.–64 A.A. 7/1934 Abraham Stavsky v. A.G. 2 PLR 148, 150-151
        (1935).

        http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5zJpURB-8kkJ:law.huji.ac.il/upload/Mad.Dogs.and.Englishmen.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=il

        This is no ‘mere technicality’, and begs a question.
        Why were the two Trial Court justices so foolish as to accept the testimony of the trackers as ‘corroborative’, after that testimony had been discredited at trial. ? Because the two justices were dummies?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 14, 2015, 12:23 pm

        This is no ‘mere technicality’, and begs a question.

        Yes it does beg the question why you don’t accept Ms. Arlosoroff’s identification and are still beating the dead horse that there was zero evidence of Jewish vigilantes or assassins.

        In any event, Ben Gurion and the Zionist Executive ultimately exacted their revenge on the Revisionists during The Hunting Season. Stavsky escaped that, but ultimately died at the hands of the Haganah during the Battle of the Altalena, when the Irgun defenders refused to surrender the weapons and munitions on board to Yitzhak Rabin, and Ben Gurion ordered him to attack the vessel.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        June 14, 2015, 1:09 pm

        @Hostage

        “Yes it does beg the question why you don’t accept Ms. Arlosoroff’s identification and are still beating the dead horse that there was zero evidence of Jewish vigilantes or assassins.”

        I’d have no problem sending Stavasky to the gallows based on Mrs. Arlosoroff’s identification, except that seven eyewitnesses put Stavasky in Jerusalem on the night of the assassination. Two of the eyewitnesses were children. That’s a lot of eyewitnesses.

        Putting aside the fact that Arlosorov was murdered on a beach under a moonless night, Mrs. A. originally identified Suspect Number 2 (Rosenblatt ) as ‘an Oriental’. Let’s remember that Rosenblatt had a pretty solid alibi on the night of the murder. He was in Kfar Saba at a political meeting.

        So Mrs. Arlosoroff’s identifications are a bit sketchy. No?

        Now what about Herr Goebells?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 14, 2015, 4:28 pm

        I’d have no problem sending Stavasky to the gallows based on Mrs. Arlosoroff’s identification, except that seven eyewitnesses put Stavasky in Jerusalem on the night of the assassination. Two of the eyewitnesses were children. That’s a lot of eyewitnesses.

        Once again, there were allegations of bribery and perjury and the presiding Judge had no doubt that those witnesses were not credible.

        Now what about Herr Goebells?

        He has nothing to do with the subject. He was a better propagandist than you are, but he also engaged in hyperbole that was not to be taken seriously as well as exaggerations that he hoped would be considered sound.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        June 15, 2015, 12:20 am

        @Hostage

        “Once again, there were allegations of bribery and perjury and the presiding Judge had no doubt that those witnesses were not credible”

        Whoa. Backup.

        Bribery and perjury allegations pertaining to the (inculpatory) ‘jailhouse witness(es)’, or bribery and perjury allegations pertaining to the (exculpatory) seven Jerusalem eyewitnesses?

        Big, big difference.
        Let’s clear that up.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 15, 2015, 9:47 am

        Whoa. Backup.

        Bribery and perjury allegations pertaining to the (inculpatory) ‘jailhouse witness(es)’, or bribery and perjury allegations pertaining to the (exculpatory) seven Jerusalem eyewitnesses?

        Big, big difference.
        Let’s clear that up.

        Okay, let’s clear it up. None of the defense witnesses were considered reliable. The Chief Justice’s opinion for the majority on appeal didn’t even take up the subject of the witnesses in Jerusalem, because none of them offered exculpatory testimony that placed him there during the critical window of time at 10 pm, when the murder took place. In fact, only the defendant himself testified that he was there at the Sharon restaurant all evening. Two policemen who were at the restaurant between 7:30 and 8:30 testified that he wasn’t there then, and his landlord testified that the defendant had been at home in Tel Aviv in the early evening. See the summary in the Preface pages XV-XIX of “The Arlosoroff Murder Trial: Speeches and Relevant Documents”, by Zvi Rosenblatt (editor). https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Arlosoroff_Murder_Trial.html?id=52c1AAAAIAAJ

        The Arab who confessed, subsequently withdrew his confession and said he had been bribed by the Revisionists. There was also a statement to the Police and testimony from another Jewish man, who had been in jail with the defendants, who swore that Zvi Rosenblatt had confessed to the murder. See Moses Cohen’s Statement to the Police http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/SharedView.Article.aspx?parm=CltQf5%2BazoF4blpR4dsMP%2B%2BbJY4ExqUS5jeQeQqHcpxSokpztvW8YyCB3HPoudBkYw%3D%3D&mode=image&href=PLS%2F1933%2F08%2F27&page=4

  3. just
    just
    June 8, 2015, 6:55 pm

    Thanks, Annie and Phil.

    I loved this from Elena Kagan:

    …”“Passport power” resides with the State Department, attorney Alyza Lewin argued in return, meaning that Congress had not encroached on any presidential authority.

    The ability to request Israel on the passport was “created to give individuals the right to self-identify”, Lewin said. Justice Elena Kagan quipped that if that were the case, Congress had passed “a very selective vanity plate law”.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/08/supreme-court-jerusalem-israel-passport

    Rubio is a complete disaster. I guess those millions don’t come cheap:

    …”I hope this administration and future ones will change the policy, while also working to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, which is and will always remain Israel’s capital.” ”

    Barkat continues to bark at the moon:

    “Barkat said that “in days like these, when anti-Semites are trying to raise their heads and the BDS – which supports Hamas’ positions – endangers world peace and denies Israel’s right to exist, we expect the U.S. to strengthen Israel and recognize Jerusalem as its capital.”

    I guess the world knows that at least one branch of US government is not entirely controlled by TA or the mayor of West Jerusalem.

    I was interested to learn more about Lewin, and found this article about her in Hadassah:

    “Profile: Nathan and Alyza Lewin”

    http://www.hadassahmagazine.org/2014/03/17/profile-nathan-alyza-lewin/

    • annie
      annie
      June 8, 2015, 7:36 pm

      The ability to request Israel on the passport was “created to give individuals the right to self-identify”

      US passports are not in the business of recognizing “self identities”, it’s about how the US recognizes and identifies it’s citizens. they do not even name people’s religions. if i wanted my passport to say i was a scientologist what do you think they’d tell me? buzz off!

      Passport power” resides with the State Department, attorney Alyza Lewin argued in return, meaning that Congress had not encroached on any presidential authority

      ah, except that the state department is under presidential authority, isn’t it?

      • just
        just
        June 8, 2015, 7:40 pm

        “they do not even name people’s religions”

        Thank heavens!

        (How do Israel’s immigration authorities figure out people’s religions, etc. anyway?)

      • annie
        annie
        June 8, 2015, 7:42 pm

        they ask at the border and they don’t take ‘none’ for an answer either.

      • annie
        annie
        June 8, 2015, 7:48 pm

        and another thing re ‘self identify’, claiming jerusalem as being inside israel is not a self identity. it’s asking to define the city’s identity and demand the state department honor your definition. that’s the stupidest thing i’ve read all day.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        June 13, 2015, 1:28 pm

        @Hostage

        “He denied knowing the Hebrew language however, adding that he did not write the name of David Ben Gurion on an unfinished building foundation at Petach Tikvah. The name of the member of the executive committee of the Jewish Agency for Palestine had been found inscribed on mortar under the legend “Death to Ben Gurion.”

        http://www.jta.org/1933/11/16/archive/stavsky-restates-denial-of-guilt-in-arlosoroff-murder-case-asks-release

        In your rush to judgment, you’ve confused Arlosoroff and Ben Gurion.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 13, 2015, 2:29 pm

        In your rush to judgment, you’ve confused Arlosoroff and Ben Gurion.

        No I haven’t. David Ben-Gurion was a member of the Jewish Agency Executive and Arlosoroff was one of its lieutenants in charge of the Political Department. The Haavara Agreement didn’t die with Arlosoroff, because it had been concluded at the behest of the Executive and all of the members of the Labor Socialist wing were receiving death threats from the Revisionists at one and the same time. That evidence was relevant and came out during the trial.

  4. eljay
    eljay
    June 8, 2015, 7:31 pm

    The mayor of Jerusalem is also steamed, and spouts nationalist ideology:

    Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat responded to the ruling, saying that “much like Washington D.C. is the capital of the U.S., and London is the capital of the U.K., and Paris the capital of France – thus Jerusalem is and always will be the capital of Israel.”

    Not at all like that, Mr. Barkat. Jerusalem is not legitimately the capital city of Israel and it should not be the capital city of either Israel or Palestine. It should be either:
    – a Free City (Corpus Separatum); or
    – the capital city of a legitimate one-state-solution country.

  5. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson
    June 8, 2015, 7:38 pm

    This decision would seem to indicate that the U.S. Congress does not have the power to mandate that the embassy in Israel be moved to Jerusalem.

    • annie
      annie
      June 8, 2015, 7:44 pm

      no they do not. i think some other law tried to slip that in also awhile back. frankly, i don’t take kindly to israel (and their lobby) pitting our branches of government against each other.

      • JLewisDickerson
        JLewisDickerson
        June 8, 2015, 7:54 pm

        SEE: “Obama Blocks Move of US Embassy to Jerusalem”
        By Raphael Poch ~ June 7, 2015

        [EXCERPT] In a move that is becoming all too typical of the U.S. President Barack Obama and his policies towards Israel the President enacted a waiver, preventing the move of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem for at least another six months.

        The move which goes against Congressional legislation mandating that the US moves its embassy to Israel’s capital, successive administrations going all the way back to the Clinton regime, have postponed the implementation of the legislation. Each by citing “National Security concerns”. Thus the past three presidents, spanning more than 16 years, have continuously pushed off this piece of legislature.

        Jerusalem is not recognized internationally as the capital of Israel, even after the annexation of the eastern half of the city. Today, no country houses their embassy in the capital. Up until 2006 there were countries who did, however the last two, Costa Rica and El Salvador, moved their embassies to Tel Aviv in 2006. . .

        SOURCE – http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/42429/obama-blocks-move-of-us-embassy-to-jerusalem-jewish-world/#6Df66T6DxFt6Kclf.97

      • annie
        annie
        June 8, 2015, 7:58 pm

        thank you dickerson. i knew our craven compromised congress had already passed that.

      • just
        just
        June 8, 2015, 8:21 pm

        Wonder how Congress et al meant to get the land to illegally move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem… like this?

        “Two Palestinian families are brutally attacked in Jerusalem as their homes are taken from them” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/palestinian-brutally-jerusalem#sthash.3y9jN4Vk.dpuf

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        June 9, 2015, 1:21 am

        J Lewis Dickerson,

        Thank you for the link. It made my day.
        Especially at:

        Possible Republican Presidential candidate, Jebediah Bush,…

        We knew he was thoroughly sold to the Zionists but not that he also had become biblical… a Haredi?

      • Steve Grover
        Steve Grover
        June 9, 2015, 3:37 pm

        Annie sez:
        “frankly, i don’t take kindly to israel (and their lobby) pitting our branches of government against each other.”
        The most truthful statement I’ve seen on Mondoweiss.
        http://youtu.be/kJytV7s-aUU

      • annie
        annie
        June 9, 2015, 3:47 pm

        The most truthful statement I’ve seen on Mondoweiss.

        speaking of truthful, what is not truthful is cherrypicking words from someone by chopping a sentence in half, with the intention of changing the meaning of those words, and then proceeding to claim your butchered edit job is someone else’s “statement”.

        and it’s also extremely stupid to try it out on a moderator who has admin access to fix/correct her own quote (which i did, did you notice?).

        i just thought i’d mention that for readers who might misconstrue your meaning.

      • Steve Grover
        Steve Grover
        June 9, 2015, 4:11 pm

        Annie,
        Have you or the Mondoweiss staff written anything positive about Israel? I absolutely did cherry pick because I believe that is what Mondoweiss is all about.

      • Bornajoo
        Bornajoo
        June 9, 2015, 6:58 pm

        “Annie,
        Have you or the Mondoweiss staff written anything positive about Israel?” (Steve Grover)

        Maybe you can give the MW staff a few tips about these positive things you’d like them to write about? (I had a think but couldn’t come up with any except for some tourist information which doesn’t really count in this conversation)

      • annie
        annie
        June 9, 2015, 6:40 pm

        I absolutely did cherry pick because I believe that is what Mondoweiss is all about.

        cherrypicking sentences to change their meaning? maybe you can give us some examples of that. (besides the grassy knoll example, i already heard enough on that :)

        Have you or the Mondoweiss staff written anything positive about Israel?

        we’ve written positive things about some people and organizations in israel, yes. i’ve been there. there are some wonderful people there. zionism on the other hand — not so much.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        June 9, 2015, 7:22 pm

        “Have you or the Mondoweiss staff written anything positive about Israel? I absolutely did cherry pick because I believe that is what Mondoweiss is all about.”

        And if you can get Annie to admit it, a SWAT team from Homeland Security will invade Mondoweiss Plaza and arrest everybody?
        Is there something wrong with not liking Israel? Is it against the law or something?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        June 9, 2015, 9:19 pm

        “Have you or the Mondoweiss staff written anything positive about Israel?”

        I’m not staff, but I have (admittedly, in a spirit of mockery) acknowledged that Israel has sexy beach girls.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        June 10, 2015, 12:25 am

        “Is there something wrong with not liking Israel? Is it against the law or something? ”

        I’m pretty sure it is.

        Don’t write anything against Israel. Don’t say anything against Israel. Don’t even think anything against Israel. Remember, these days you can go to jail for what you are thinking, let alone that woo look in your eye.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 10, 2015, 10:42 am

        “Is there something wrong with not liking Israel? Is it against the law or something? ”

        As a US citizen and a Anti-Zionist person of Jewish descent, I have a perfect legal and moral right to object to my own government’s attempts to assist in the establishment of a “Jewish state” and to absolutely abhor the proposition of such a thing if I feel like it. Anti-Zionist Jews were instrumental in preventing the words “Jewish State” from being utilized in the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate. Jews, like Rabbi Elmer Berger protested against the partition of Palestine and insisted on the inclusion of a minority rights plan to protect the non-Jewish inhabitants from the virulent racist doctrines of the Zionist movement.

        I’d like to point out here (once again) that the 1st and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution do not permit the establishment of a Jewish state anywhere within the territorial or maritime jurisdiction of this country, nor do they permit our lawmakers to adopt any law respecting the establishment of a Jewish state anywhere else. In Reid v Covert the Supreme Court adopted the proposition that the President and the Congress are merely creatures of the Constitution and that they have no authority whatsoever to commit any acts outside of our territorial jurisdiction if they are prohibited by that document.

        Nonetheless, as a member of Jewish Voice for Peace, I can assure you that Zionists and agents of the State of Israel are trying their damnedest to get US lawmakers to adopt unconstitutional legislation against any respectable form of Jewish Anti-Zionism. It’s “as if” they think the Congress can use the “Commerce clause” to regulate political speech and political boycotts in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments and the landmark Supreme Court civil rights cases on the subject, like NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958) and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982). Bottom line, despite Netanyahu’s shreying to the contrary, it isn’t 1939 again, and even if it were, I’d still have the same legal and moral rights.

        Back then, the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention (1924), 44 Stat.2184; Treaty Series 728 explicitly guaranteed that the Zionist’s so-called “national home” enterprise would not be allowed to undermine the civil or political rights of any Anti-Zionist Jew living in this country. Back in 1924, there were still plenty of Non-Zionist and Anti-Zionist Jews, because the majority of Reform Jews still subscribed to the Pittsburgh Platform and views like this were de rigueur:

        We recognize, in the modern era of universal culture of heart and intellect, the approaching of the realization of Israel’s great Messianic hope for the establishment of the kingdom of truth, justice, and peace among all men. We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state.

        https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/pittsburgh_program.html

        You have to remember that many of our own Jewish ancestors warned against the Zionist movement and said that many of its leaders and members were little more than murderous racists and racketeers pursuing their own enrichment at the expense of the rights and property of others. By 1924, they had co-opted and taken over the Palestine Yishuv, They had already organized a crew of assassins who were murdering Jews, like Jacob Israel DeHaan. So it was not without relevance to note that non-Zionist and Anti-Zionist Jews demanded that legal safeguards be included in the Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and the Anglo-American Palestine Convention stipulating that there would be no attempts by these thugs or anyone else to do anything that would prejudice the political or civil rights of non-Zionist or Anti-Zionist Jews living in this or any other country. Furthermore, it was stipulated that nothing would be done to violate the rights of the non-Jewish communities of Palestine. We all know how well those legal undertakings have turned out and exactly who to blame.

      • James North
        James North
        June 10, 2015, 10:46 am

        Hostage. A moral giant.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        June 11, 2015, 8:49 am

        Hostage. A moral giant.

        As well as an intellectual one.

      • just
        just
        June 10, 2015, 10:48 am

        Many thanks for that fantastic comment, Hostage!

        +1, James North.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 10, 2015, 12:23 pm

        “As a US citizen and a Anti-Zionist person of Jewish descent, I have a perfect legal and moral right to object to my own government’s attempts to assist in the establishment of a “Jewish state” and to absolutely abhor the proposition of such a thing if I feel like it. Anti-Zionist Jews were instrumental in preventing the words “Jewish State” from being utilized in the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate. Jews, like Rabbi Elmer Berger protested against the partition of Palestine and insisted on the inclusion of a minority rights plan to protect the non-Jewish inhabitants from the virulent racist doctrines of the Zionist movement.”

        As a US citizen and as a Zionist Jew (rather than as an anti-Zionist “person of Jewish descent”), I have a perfect legal and moral right to disagree with all of Hostage’s comment, and to note the absolute lack of context he provides. Anti-Zionist Jews who prevented the words “Jewish state” from being utilized in the Balfour Declaration were by and large either frightened and persecuted people who felt that any acknowledgement of a collective Jewish identity would disturb their place in Western society, or simply, clueless people whose views would be repudiated by the Holocaust. They included people like Berger, an extreme Reform Jew who believed assimilationism was the best path for Jews, and who loved the Soviet Union and referred to Soviet Jews, who were facing harsh persecution under Stalin, as “recently emanicipated” and as living in freedom; Soviet Jews, he wrote, had no need for a Palestine. Anti-Zionist Jews like Berger were self-haters; there isn’t a better term to describe people who think that the best expression of Jewish identity is its effective negation through assimilation.

        “I’d like to point out here (once again) that the 1st and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution do not permit the establishment of a Jewish state anywhere within the territorial or maritime jurisdiction of this country, nor do they permit our lawmakers to adopt any law respecting the establishment of a Jewish state anywhere else. In Reid v Covert the Supreme Court adopted the proposition that the President and the Congress are merely creatures of the Constitution and that they have no authority whatsoever to commit any acts outside of our territorial jurisdiction if they are prohibited by that document.”

        As far as Hostage’s arguments on legislation: most of the proposed legislation is targeted at the boycott movement, and has a firm foundation in American laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of national origin. Boycotts certainly are a form of speech, and individuals are certainly welcome to advocate discriminatory boycotts against Israeli interests. But governments and state institutions are a different story. The Congressional legislation, for instance, arguing that government-sanctioned BDS violates the provisions of GATT. Other state legislation is based in law banning discrimination on the basis of national origin. None ban Hostage, or any other discriminator, from refusing to buy Israeli products or from promoting that position to others.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 10, 2015, 4:43 pm

        As a US citizen and as a Zionist Jew (rather than as an anti-Zionist “person of Jewish descent”), I have a perfect legal and moral right to disagree with all of Hostage’s comment, and to note the absolute lack of context he provides.

        Let me give you some context then. As a person who is still drawing pay from a regular component of the US armed forces, and under an obligation to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. I would NOT take too kindly to any attempt on your part to establish Jewish rule over Kansas and turn it into another West Bank, Gaza, or Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. So if you think the 1st and 14th Amendment don’t mean exactly what I claimed, you had better come armed with something more than just your feeble fucking intellect and some Zionist propaganda talking points, because you do not have the right to disagree with me on that subject, and I am not alone in saying that. Bottom line, if it isn’t immoral or illegal for Americans to adopt a constitutional plan that prohibits the establishment of a Jewish state here, then it was never immoral or illegal for the Palestinian majority to exercise the same right in their country.

        Anti-Zionist Jews who prevented the words “Jewish state” from being utilized in the Balfour Declaration were by and large either frightened and persecuted people who felt that any acknowledgement of a collective Jewish identity would disturb their place in Western society, or simply, clueless people whose views would be repudiated by the Holocaust.

        Correction: During the war years, Edwin Montagu was many things, i.e. UK Secretary of State for India, UK Financial Secretary to the Treasury, a member of both the UK Privy Council and the UK War Cabinet. But he was never frightened or persecuted and his principled objections could never be repudiated by the Holocaust. The most clueless person involved was Lord Rothschild whose written reply to the Balfour Declaration said:

        I would welcome a declaration on the lines of the draft you send me, for I think it will to a great extent meet the objections raised by the anti-Zionists. Personally, I think that the proviso is rather, a slur on Zionism, as it presupposes the possibility of a danger to non-Zionists, which I deny.

        — Printed for the War Cabinet, October 1917, SECRET, G.-164, CAB/24/4

        Once again, the Zionist legislation I’m talking about violates the principles laid down in cases, like Widmar v. Vincent 454 U.S. 263 (1981) and Rosenberger v. University of Virginia 515 U.S. 819 (1995). The Supreme Court has ruled that the States may not discriminate against groups on campus or impose any financial burden on speech predicated on the basis of its viewpoint or content.

        Re the Holocaust: In fact, mental midgets, like yourself in the Zionist movement employed the very same immature philosophy, methods, and tactics after the 1939 White Paper had set the maximum limits and boundaries of the “Jewish national home” that their Nazi business partners employed to justify their colonization and crimes against humanity in Eastern Europe after the Treaty Of Versailles set the new national limits and boundaries of the German national home.

        Both the Nazi and Zionist movements enlisted lawyers, scholars, and propagandists to concoct a lacrimose version of ancient history, drew-up fanciful maps of Greater Germany or Israel that completely omitted other modern-day countries, based upon equally doubtful ancient legends or religious mythology. They falsely complained that they alone were denied the national right of self-determination, just as everyone one else in the world was given an unqualified right. Furthermore, they declared that their historical connections to territories inhabited by other peoples and ethnic groups provided them with a superior and exclusive legal claim to exercise sovereignty therein and to colonize other countries that they targeted for aggression and refused to “recognize”.

        If the Judiazation of Palestinian territory, accomplished through forced eviction or deportation of the other inhabitants during frequent lightning-style military strikes or prolonged invasions and occupation, followed by the imposition of policies and practices of racial segregation and persecution – including all of the constituent acts of apartheid listed in Article II of the UN Convention – doesn’t constitute a flagrant violation of international criminal law, then neither did anything mentioned in Count 3 of the Nuremberg Indictment regarding the Germanization of the occupied territories of Eastern Europe. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/count3.asp

        I don’t accept that proposition, or make exceptions for the Zionists or anyone else. When I say “Never again!” that’s just what I mean.

        As far as Hostage’s arguments on legislation: most of the proposed legislation is targeted at the boycott movement, and has a firm foundation in American laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of national origin. Boycotts certainly are a form of speech, and individuals are certainly welcome to advocate discriminatory boycotts against Israeli interests. But governments and state institutions are a different story. The Congressional legislation, for instance, arguing that government-sanctioned BDS violates the provisions of GATT. Other state legislation is based in law banning discrimination on the basis of national origin. None ban Hostage, or any other discriminator, from refusing to buy Israeli products or from promoting that position to others.

        Correction: Governments and state institutions cannot employ the “foreign commerce clause” to circumvent the Bill of Rights or a peremptory norm of customary or conventional international law. In Reid v Covert the Supreme Court noted that treaties have equal standing with statutes under the plan of the Constitution and that neither statutes nor treaties are listed among the methods enumerated in Article V that can be used to amend the Constitution. Among other things, that means that, if a statute has to comply with the Constitution, then so does a treaty, including the GATT (and that you are not a very good lawyer).

        When a provision in the GATT or any other treaty conflicts with the requirement for member states to accept and carry out the multitude of decisions of the UN Security Council regarding non-recognition or non-facilitation of the illegal demographic situations created by Israel that have been adopted in accordance with Article 25 of the UN Charter or a conflict exists with the requirement that members must respect the principle of equal rights and self-determination of the Palestinian people in accordance with Article 1 of the UN Charter, then the terms of the Charter prevail over the GATT or other treaty:

        In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

        See Article 103 http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter16.shtml

        Any conflict between any treaty, including the UN Charter itself, and a peremptory norm of customary international law renders the treaty null and void from the outset. That customary rule was codified in Article 53 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties. That quashes the idea that a valid final settlement in line with Zionist desiderata can ever be concluded with the Government of the State of Palestine, the latest contracting state party. All of the prohibitions against war crimes and crimes against humanity are black letter jus cogens law, including the prohibition of plunder of public and private property, forced population transfer or deportations, unwarranted delay in the repatriation of prisoners and refugees, and the acquisition of territory through the threat of use force. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf

      • Bornajoo
        Bornajoo
        June 10, 2015, 6:10 pm

        Kerpow!

        Many thanks for that Hostage. Terrific stuff.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 10, 2015, 8:02 pm

        Kerpow! Many thanks for that Hostage. Terrific stuff.

        Well, you can take my word for it, part of my secular Jewish upbringing was to study and master these subjects and to learn to apply the lessons from Jewish history and traditions. The hatred of Gentiles living in ancient Palestine and the attempts to use ordinances governing commerce as an excuse to persecute them and end all communications between them and their Jewish neighbors goes back thousands of years to the final bloody rift between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai. The 18 ordinances could only be adopted over the dead bodies of the disciples of Hillel, They literally had to be put to death by the sword to prevent them from voting down the measures. According to Jewish Talmudic tradition, the Halakha follows the teachings of the House of Hillel, and not the House of Shammai, because they always listened to the views of their opponents and repeated them before presenting their own views to others. So, the very idea of Zionists registering a trademark on the name “Hillel” and using the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause to prohibit or threaten legal action if Jews subscribing to a universalistic Anti-Zionist creed are present or God forbid actually discussing issues, like the State of Israel’s relations with indigenous Gentiles and its illegal modern-day policies of unilateral partition, separation (hafrada), and apartheid is simply ludicrous. The material I posted here is simply the legal corollary to the moral, ethical, and philosophical issues that I’ve discussed at length elsewhere under the heading of “The Jewish Theory of Everything”. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/swarthmore-resigns-restrictions#comment-760540

        I sincerely do think that there is a unified theory which can explain all of the hatred and attempts at censorship within the Jewish community that invariably get triggered by the Zionists among us, whenever anyone else talks about “The Three Oaths”, “the State of Israel’s right to exist”, or the State of Israel’s formal adoption of a dual system of laws and regulations that deny the most basic human rights to Gentiles. This situation of irrational animosity toward non-chauvinist Jews or indigenous Gentiles has always been described in Jewish literature as “hatred without a cause” – and the underlying reason the Jewish commonwealth destroyed itself from within and ultimately brought about the Exile.

        Here are the views of the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth on the inclusion of the safeguarding clauses in the Balfour Declaration that guaranteed the rights of the non-Jewish communities of Palestine:

        The draft declaration is in spirit and in substance everything that could be desired. I welcome the reference to the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.. It is but a translation of the basic principle of the Mosaic legislation: “And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex (oppress) him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.” (Lev., xix, 33, 34.)

        — — Printed for the War Cabinet, October 1917, SECRET, G.-164, CAB/24/4

        It doesn’t take the proverbial rocket scientist to see that the Zionists have completely lost the meaning of that “translation of the basic principle of the Mosaic legislation” somewhere along the way.

      • just
        just
        June 10, 2015, 4:55 pm

        Well, that was enormously satisfying and illuminating, Hostage.

        A veritable grand slam. Thanks!

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 10, 2015, 5:06 pm

        “I would NOT take too kindly to any attempt on your part to establish Jewish rule over Kansas and turn it into another West Bank, Gaza, or Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. ”

        That’s nice. I don’t think that’s very likely to happen.

        “So if you think the 1st and 14th Amendment don’t mean exactly what I claimed, you had better come armed with something more than just your feeble fucking intellect and some Zionist propaganda talking points, because you do not have the right to disagree with me on that subject, and I am not alone in saying that. Bottom line, if it isn’t immoral or illegal for Americans to adopt a constitutional plan that prohibits the establishment of a Jewish state here, then it was never immoral or illegal for the Palestinian majority to exercise the same right in their country.”

        Oh, are we cursing now? Am I supposed to be blown away by your intellect here? I’m not impressed by you, Hostage. I’ve caught you in too many lies and distortions for me to respect your intellect that much. Clearly, I’ve gotten under your skin by doing what no one else does here: challenging your perspective.

        You seem to be making the argument that Israel should reflect American Constitutional values, and that if the American Constitution prohibits the establishment of a religious state, it cannot be illegal for a Palestinian majority to exercise their majoritarian rights.

        The argument fails on several fronts. First, there is no rule that every country with which America has a bilateral relationship must reflect American Constitutional values. Second, there is no reason to believe that the a future Palestine, defined by its Constitution as an Arab and Islamic state that would have a legal system informed by sharia law, would in any way reflect American pluralistic values or American Constitutional values. That’s not even getting into the American civil liberties tradition that it wouldn’t reflect either, but that Israel certainly does.

        Having now had your hero, Elmer Berger, exposed as a Stalin-loving, full-assimilationist, historically discredited figure, you now cite a few others. It is no matter. The anti-Zionist position was always that of those who were afraid to stand up for themselves and their people, and it remains so today; overwhelmingly, anti-Zionist Jews are those who see Judaism as the problem.

        Your silly citation about suppressing the speech of groups on campus is inapposite. You’ve not provided the text of any of these bills, and it’s obvious why; you don’t want to acknowledge that, in fact, it’s completely against the law for states and state institutions to discriminate on the basis of national origin. That doesn’t stop any campus group from advocating any campus position that they want.

        “Re the Holocaust: In fact, mental midgets, like yourself in the Zionist movement employed the very same immature philosophy, methods, and tactics after the 1939 White Paper had set the maximum limits and boundaries of the “Jewish national home” that their Nazi business partners employed to justify their colonization and crimes against humanity in Eastern Europe after the Treaty Of Versailles set the new national limits and boundaries of the German national home.

        Both the Nazi and Zionist movements enlisted lawyers, scholars, and propagandists to concoct a lacrimose version of ancient history, drew-up fanciful maps of Greater Germany or Israel that completely omitted other modern-day countries, based upon equally doubtful ancient legends or religious mythology. They falsely complained that they alone were denied the national right of self-determination, just as everyone one else in the world was given an unqualified right. Furthermore, they declared that their historical connections to territories inhabited by other peoples and ethnic groups provided them with a superior and exclusive legal claim to exercise sovereignty therein and to colonize other countries that they targeted for aggression and refused to “recognize”.”

        Godwin’s Law. In any event, this is a lot of fancy rhetoric that is completely beside the point. Pre-war anti-Zionists tended to reject readings of history that Jews were unsafe in European lands as alarmist nonsense, or, in the case of religious anti-Zionists, they saw persecution as the natural lot of the Jews. They saw salvation in universalism. They could not have been more wrong, and the events in Europe today show that they continue to be wrong. You can’t see the difference between Nazis invading most of Europe and refugees fighting for their independence in 1948 and to defend themselves in 1967 on a tiny piece of land in Asia, that’s really your problem.

        It becomes mine when what’s advanced is the utopian, discredited position of idiots like Elmer Berger. That puts all of us at risk.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 10, 2015, 11:23 pm

        Oh, are we cursing now? Am I supposed to be blown away by your intellect here?

        No, but you’ve been blown away by the substance of what I just said and you’re just too stupid to stop digging yourself into a deeper hole with all your dissimulations.

        Clearly, I’ve gotten under your skin by doing what no one else does here: challenging your perspective.

        You’ve got way too high of an opinion of yourself then, because Zionist talkback artists, just like you, have always been a dime a dozen here and none of you have ever said or done a damn thing that strays from the shopworn reflexive point scoring system described in a publication sponsored by the Education Department of the Jewish Agency for Israel and published by the World Union of Jewish Students, the “Hasbara Handbook: Promoting Israel on Campus” or in one of the RSS feeds for the members of the Hasbara Fellowship International. Both of those have literally suggested that its perfectly fine to employ deliberate falsehoods as tools in your arsenal and you do it as often as not.
        * http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf
        * http://www.hasbarafellowships.org/

        You seem to be making the argument … [insert Hophmi’s artless attempt to say something that I didn’t right here] … The [straw man] argument fails on several fronts.

        Granted, but why didn’t you address what I actually said based upon the various doctrines of Constitutional, UN Charter, and jus cogens preemption? I suspect that you changed the subject, because you couldn’t find the proverbial clean end of the turd that you are so busy trying to polish.

        First, there is no rule that every country with which America has a bilateral relationship must reflect American Constitutional values.

        That isn’t what I said and wasn’t what I objected to. I said that the US Constitution does not permit our Congress to adopt any law (or treaty) respecting the establishment of a Jewish State here or anywhere else, much less appropriate or exempt a few hundred billion dollars from taxes and loan repayments to do exactly that, over the objections of the majority of the country’s inhabitants and provide an ethnic minority group of aggressors a steady supply of weapons and firepower to establish minority rule in the midst of flagrant war crimes and crimes against humanity. All of that has been done over the principled objections of the other members of the Security Council and Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly convened under the auspices of Uniting for Peace resolutions.

        For example, 22 U.S. Code § 8602 – Statement of policy “reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state … and to encourage Israel’s neighbors to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.” The Statute is patently absurd. Israel has steadfastly refused for more than 60 years to adopt a constitution granting its non-Jewish inhabitants equal rights under the law. This, even after it had supplied a treaty declaration for the official UN record during the hearings on its UN membership application guaranteeing that it had already done so. By way of comparison, the State of Palestine supplied a treaty declaration in line with resolution 181(II) in 1988 and adopted a constitution in the very same year that the UN Quartet requested the creation of an empowered “Prime Minister” position in its internal form of government that says:

        <Title Two – Public Rights and Liberties
        Article 9
        Palestinians shall be equal before the law and the judiciary, without distinction based upon race, sex, color, religion, political views or disability.
        Article 10
        Basic human rights and liberties shall be protected and respected.
        The Palestinian National Authority shall work without delay to become a party to regional and international declarations and covenants that protect human rights.

        http://www.palestinianbasiclaw.org/basic-law/2003-amended-basic-law

        It actually did become a party to all of the Hague and Geneva IHL and UN Human Rights Conventions without any significant delay after the General Assembly reaffirmed that its statehood was a matter of it own self-determination and upgraded it’s observer status. Oddly enough, the US and Israeli governments moved to impose sanctions on the Palestinians and punish them for doing that, despite the fact that both were obliged to support international recognition of the State of Palestine under the terms of the same subsection of the Road map in return for those constitutional reforms and security cooperation. You certainly can’t say the same thing about the US government’s reaction to the adoption of 50+ racist laws by the Zionist government of the State of Israel and its refusal to adopt any constitution at all.

        Having now had your hero, Elmer Berger, exposed as a Stalin-loving, full-assimilationist, historically discredited figure, you now cite a few others.

        I don’t have to cite any others, because the ones that I have succeeded in getting 2/3rds of the members of the UN to agree with them about the absolute necessity for the conclusion of a minority protection plan under UN guarantee with respect to both the non-Jewish and Jewish citizens and communities of the two new states in Palestine. It was an integral condition for terminating the mandate under the UN Plan for the Future Government of Palestine.

        Your silly citation about suppressing the speech of groups on campus is inapposite. You’ve not provided the text of any of these bills, and it’s obvious why …

        Nonsense, I didn’t cite any because I’ve got over 10,000 comments stored here and Mondoweiss has devoted entire feature-length articles to the subject of state and federal legislative initiatives.

        There was one about a New York bill to prohibit state funding from flowing to institutions or any student or academic groups on campuses that participate in voluntary boycott, divestment, and sanctions advocacy. The funding restrictions were based purely on the content of their speech and they were exactly the same sort of forum and viewpoint discrimination tactics that the Supreme Court said State governments were prohibited from employing in Widmar and Rosenberger. In any event I don’t give a damn if there is a Kahanist populist constituency in New York for that sort of thing, it’s still unconstitutional. I also pointed out at the time, that the Zionist groups pushing for the legislation were flaunting the prohibitions against a IRS 501(c)(3) organizations working directly with legislators on drafting the bill’s provisions and that they were receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsidies from the Consulate of the State of Israel to boot without registering as foreign agents.
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/influential-israel-boycott
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/influential-israel-boycott#comment-639929
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/influence-politics-government#comment-645467
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/zionists-traction-community#comment-654100

        I’ve also commented about the stupidity of US lawmakers trying to include an anti-boycott provision about illegal Israeli settlements in a “trade agreement with the EU that conflicts with jus cogens norms of international law and the futility of the bankrupt pension system of the State of Illinios trying to penalize companies for exercising normal due diligence and their fiduciary responsibility to stock holders in the face of UN and EU warnings about transnational corporate and other business exposure to civil and criminal liability for doing business in the illegal Israeli settlements.
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/congress-legislatures-against#comment-768777

        Godwins Law. In any event, this is a lot of fancy rhetoric that is completely beside the point. You can’t see the difference between Nazis invading most of Europe and refugees fighting for their independence in 1948 and to defend themselves in 1967 on a tiny piece of land in Asia, that’s really your problem.

        While all of the relevant State archives haven’t been declassified and published, its a very well settled historical fact that the Zionists militias were the aggressors in both 1948 and that the IDF initiated the 1967 War. The State of Israel recently promoted a 100 year old General who bragged about razing Arab villages in order to drive off a million of their inhabitants so that a Jewish State could be established in the first place. That is a very serious crime against humanity that was deliberately committed on a scale that wouldn’t have gone unnoticed, even in Eastern Europe:
        *100-Year-Old General: We Razed Arab Villages, So What?
        Brig. Gen. (res.) Yitzhak Pundak: If we hadn’t done it, there would be a million more Arabs and there would be no Israel. link to israelnationalnews.com
        * Historic Moment: Yitzhak Pundak Rises to Rank of Major General at Age 100
        link to idfblog.com

        FYI, Truman knew that the Jewish leadership had green-lighted those atrocities and that there were already hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees at the moment when he recognized Jewish minority rule over a portion of Palestine. Here’s what the United States had to say to the ICJ about recognizing declarations under those particular conditions:

        Section III. The Situation May Differ When Declarations Of Independence Are Conjoined With Actions That Themselves Violate International Law

        Although declarations of independence do not by themselves violate international
        law, they are at times conjoined with other events or acts in combination with which they
        might be characterized as serious international law violations. This is an important
        distinction. For example, where a declaration of independence is adopted in conjunction
        with an effort to establish an apartheid regime—which would amount to a serious
        violation of a peremptory norm of international law—declarations of independence
        have been characterized as unlawful. Thus, the United Nations Security Council adopted
        a resolution that condemned the “usurpation of power” by the white supremacist leader of
        the Southern Rhodesian government, Ian Smith, and stated the Security Council’s view
        that his government’s declaration of independence had “no legal validity.”

        See Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15640.pdf

        FYI, Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply to discussions about entities, such as the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the WZO, which were members of a formal business partnership with the Nazi regime to obtain capital and represent them in trade deals for the sale of German manufactured goods in Palestine and other countries during the worldwide General Jewish Boycott of Germany. Even the Zionist Organization of America, and Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, together with the Jewish State Party of the WZO, publicly condemned the Transfer Agreement in 1935 as “a form of collaboration with the enemy” and accused their Zionist brethren in the Jewish Agency of acting out of simple mercantile self-interest. — See
        *Aaron Berman, Nazism, the Jews and American Zionism, 1933-1948, Wayne State University Press, 1990, pages 39 and 40, link to books.google.com
        *Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “Favor Transfer Agreement Continuance”, September 4, 1945, link to archive.jta.org

        The WZO was granted special rights and immunities for itself and the officers of its subsidiaries under the deal, that did indeed amount to outright collaboration in some cases. Hannah Arendt got blacklisted in Israel for writing about some of those situations in her book about the Eichmann Trial. Ben Gurion found out the hard way in the Rudolf Kastner libel trial that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, even with the best hasbara.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 10, 2015, 11:38 pm

        Sure you can fool people, Hostage. You do it all the to e here by taking advantage of any discussion to throw in a trove of arguments that either have zero to do with the topic, consist of dubious legalisms, or amount of polemical rhetoric. Every time I dig, I find you lying your behind off.

        It’s easy when your audience is uncritical. Congrats; you’ve managed to work in a reference to the so-called Transfer Agreement, an historical event that you and other here are forever distorting for your narrow political purposes, even after the author of that book came here to straighten you out.

        You don’t impress me, chief, and I can see that drives you crazy.

      • annie
        annie
        June 11, 2015, 12:25 am

        Every time I dig, I find you lying your behind off.

        oh yada yada yada

        chief, I can see that drives you crazy.

        oh yeah, quivering in his boots no doubt. could you be any more self congratulatory. i don’t think you’re delusional, i think your upping the hasbara ante with these silly statements.

        you’re no match for hostage, you should give it a rest.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 11, 2015, 1:25 am

        Congrats; you’ve managed to work in a reference to the so-called Transfer Agreement, an historical event that you and other here are forever distorting for your narrow political purposes, even after the author of that book came here to straighten you out.

        Correction: You have a habit of falsely claiming that Rabbi Silver, et al were distorting the facts when they called the Transfer Agreement a collaboration with the enemy. I’m just agreeing with what he said and quoting the JTA report on the fireworks and dirty details that came out during the Zionist Congress. The author of the book that I just cited in the comment above is Aaron Berman. He has never come here to Mondoweiss and “straightened me out”. FYI, I’ve quoted a number of historians and press reports on the subject of the Transfer Agreement “verbatim” including Francis R. Nicosia, Simha Flapan, Mordecai Paldiel, The Encyclopedia Judica, The Jewish Telegaphic Agency, and Edwin Black’s essay “Adolf Hitler: Could We Have Stopped Hitler?”at the Jewish Virtual Library. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, since I only repeated what Black himself admitted in the conclusion of his own essay -and the fact that he contradicts something (in your estimation) that you think he said in an earlier work is something that he and I have never discussed. See the exchanges here and pull your head out:
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2012/10/if-only-it-was-just-one-tweet-one-activists-experience-in-the-our-land-facebook-group
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2013/06/hannah-arendt-hungarian#comment-568013
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2013/06/hannah-arendt-hungarian#comment-568015
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2013/06/european-championship-tournament#comment-569742
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/kristol-says-obama-appeases-the-new-hitler-rouhani-making-israel-the-leader-of-the-west#comment-596517

        I certainly do recall going to a hasbara website mentioned in an article here and straightening Black out on a number of totally different subjects, like the Versailles Peace Conference and its Allied Commission, the San Remo resolution and etc. He was engaging in outrageous and deliberate prevarications that could be debunked by anyone. I simply provided readers links to the original texts of the minutes of the meetings, conferences, resolutions, and reports in the FRUS.

      • just
        just
        June 10, 2015, 8:18 pm

        “It doesn’t take the proverbial rocket scientist to see that the Zionists have completely lost the meaning of that “translation of the basic principle of the Mosaic legislation” somewhere along the way.”

        No, it doesn’t. You explain things so very well, Hostage. I really value your input here.

        Thank you.

        As for hophmi’s “I’m not impressed by you, Hostage. I’ve caught you in too many lies and distortions for me to respect your intellect that much. Clearly, I’ve gotten under your skin by doing what no one else does here: challenging your perspective.”

        Stay lost in the wilderness, then. Too bad for you. Care to cite your list of “too many lies”? I’ll tell you why I ask, hophmi. It’s because I don’t believe a word that you wrote in that bit I quoted from you.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 11, 2015, 12:34 am

        As for hophmi’s “I’m not impressed by you, Hostage. …

        I don’t really care if he is impressed or not, since I’m usually just citing the contents of third-party verifiable official texts of the State Department, UK Cabinet Papers, Permanent Court of International Justice, International Court of Justice, US Supreme Court, Israeli High Court of Justice, the mandates, resolutions, the US Code of Statutes, and the treaty texts verbatim. Hophmi is just pissed-off because no one could make-up or fabricate this much damning evidence against the Zionists and their cause.

        For example, Green Hackworth served as the longest running Legal Adviser to the US Department of State (1925 -1946) in history. He edited the official Digest of International Law, and helped draft every important treaty from the Montevideo Convention, to the OAS Charter, and both the UN Charter and the ICJ Statute – before going-on to serve as the first US Justice on the bench of the ICJ. Here is a link to a declaration he helped author at the request of the Secretary of State “concerning the harmful effects of Zionist agitation on the war effort”. It admitted that the US Government’s policy and attitudes toward the Near Eastern peoples generally, and the peoples of Palestine in particular violated fundamental Atlantic Charter principles that were regarded as customary law when they were included shortly thereafter in the Charter of the UN, i.e. “The war objectives of this Government as stated in the Atlantic Charter include the “desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned”, and respect for “the right of all peoples to choose the form of Government under which they will live”.

        Here is an extract of the letter of transmittal he enclosed for the Secretary of State to use to forward the declaration to President Roosevelt:
        [Enclosure 2]
        Draft Letter to President Roosevelt
        MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The agitation for the formation of a Jewish army in Palestine is having such alarming effects in the Near and Middle East that I am impelled to draw your attention to the matter. From the reports of our military and political observers, it is clear that the British and ourselves cannot use these territories as bases of operations against Germany, Italy and Japan and as routes of access to the combat areas in Libya, Russia and China, if, in addition to combatting the Axis forces, we have to; defend ourselves against the local populations. The essential fact which has to be faced is that the Near and Middle East is overwhelmingly Moslem. In India the only worthwhile fighting material of significance is drawn from the large minority group of 80,000,000 Moslems.

        These peoples are becoming more and more hostile to the United Nations’ cause due to the fear that their fellow Moslems in Palestine will be overridden. As the result of continuous agitation by the Zionists of their ambitions in Palestine, the Axis propagandists have been broadcasting, with good effect from their viewpoint, that the United States intends to turn Palestine over to the Jews despite the opposition of the Moslem majority in that country. Of course, this agitation, which has recently taken the form of full-page advertisements in the metropolitan press advocating the formation of a Jewish army to defend Palestine, and a widely publicized dinner here in Washington, gives the Axis powers additional oil to pour on the fire, which is already dangerously high. We have just learned that the Axis powers have promised the Arabs their independence and the elimination of the Jewish national home in Palestine. Doubtless, the Axis will in the near future make public announcement of this promise as further evidence of their friendship for the Moslems.

        Much has been written and a great deal of blood has been spilled over the Palestine problem, which admittedly is difficult. It is evident, however, that no satisfactory and lasting political solution can be reached except on the basis of common agreement between the Arabs and the Jews in that country. So long as the Zionists feel that they can obtain outside support which will enable them to impose their own solution, they will not be disposed to treat with the Arabs on equal terms. A settlement in Palestine resulting from the use or threat of force, would, of course, be completely opposed to the principles for which we fought the last war -and are fighting the present war.

        For a year our representatives in Egypt and elsewhere in the Near East have been calling attention to the progressive undermining of the military and political position in the Middle Eastern area as a result of Zionist agitation, and the fact that the authorities here, through silence, appear to support the objectives of political Zionism. I believe that the time has come when the position of this Government, based squarely on the Atlantic Charter, should be made known. To that end, I enclose a draft of a declaration or statement which might now be issued to clarify the situation.

        Faithfully yours — See Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1942. The Near East and Africa (1942) http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1942v04&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=539

        That is part of the official documentary record of major US Foreign Policy decisions. That record proves beyond any doubt, that we supported and assisted the illegal Zionist objectives with a whole lot more than our government’s silence.

      • annie
        annie
        June 11, 2015, 12:31 am

        Care to cite your list of “too many lies”?

        in your dream just. he’s all bluster. a hasbluster! i have a new word! or how bout hasbaluster!

        (but hostage’s “mental midget” sums it up quite well.)

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        June 11, 2015, 2:01 am

        Oh, Lord! Hostage is at it again.

        Historical facts, comprehensive knowledge of documents, tight legal reasoning – how is a simple Zionist supposed to peddle his propaganda in the face of that lot?

        Just not fair to the poor dears, is it?

      • annie
        annie
        June 11, 2015, 2:25 am

        he’s rockin the thread for sure RoHa.

      • just
        just
        June 11, 2015, 9:12 am

        Hackworth: …”It is evident, however, that no satisfactory and lasting political solution can be reached except on the basis of common agreement between the Arabs and the Jews in that country. So long as the Zionists feel that they can obtain outside support which will enable them to impose their own solution, they will not be disposed to treat with the Arabs on equal terms. A settlement in Palestine resulting from the use or threat of force, would, of course, be completely opposed to the principles for which we fought the last war -and are fighting the present war.”

        So the US was more than complicit from the git- go and still is. “Principles” be damned! I guess it’s up to regular folks to set the Western government(s) straight wrt crimes against Palestine and Palestinian humanity.

        I very much appreciated your post at 11:23 last night, Hostage.

        Annie~ love your new word! I’m going to deploy ‘hasbluster’ the next time I encounter a verbose version!

        Wait… there’s no other variety.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 11, 2015, 12:45 pm

        So the US was more than complicit from the git- go and still is. “Principles” be damned!

        Hell yes. There were several Latin American member states of the UN which had been subjected to US military invasions, occupations, and the imposition of supposedly “perpetual” international servitudes for the Panama canal and our military bases there, Gitmo, and elsewhere. They certainly knew the score and proposed a resolution requesting an ICJ Advisory Opinion on the legality of the territorial settlement contained in the UNSCOP recommendation over the objections of the inhabitants and the neighboring Arab states, which were most directly concerned with issues like Arab emigration or refugees from the low level conflict in Palestine. They did that once again after the Ad Hoc Committee of the General Assembly had sweetened the deal by adding the entire Negev to the proposed Jewish State. They also backed a similar Syrian proposal in the Security Council after the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.

        Future Secretary of State Dean Rusk was serving in an Under Secretary-level assignment as Director of the US United Nations section of the State Department. He authored a memo recommending that the US back those requests for an Advisory Opinion and several others which noted that the Jewish militias were actually the aggressors, despite the protests of the provisional government of Israel that it was the victim. But one of the State Department’s new Legal Advisors, Ernest Gross, who worked for Rusk wrote two memos on the subject of the Palestine Partition Plan and recognition of the new states for the Secretary and Clark Clifford, the President’s Legal Counsel, explicitly warning against US support for any Advisory Opinion on the subject of whether or not the UN had the authority to partition the country against the wishes of the inhabitants. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, page 543 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=543

        I think its pretty obvious after reading Hackworth’s declaration and letter of transmittal why the Truman administration followed the advice given by Gross. Green Hackworth was sitting on the bench of the ICJ and had already written a declaration saying that adoption of a territorial settlement against the wishes of the inhabitants was a violation of the United Nations Atlantic Charter, before he went on to help draft the new UN Charter and the Statute of the Court. He had literally written the Government’s own official guide book on the subject of the development and codifications of international law under five US Presidents and he knew all about the Zionist skeletons in the closet at the State Department and the White House.

      • Kris
        Kris
        June 11, 2015, 11:26 am

        @hophmi: ” Every time I dig, I find you (Hostage) lying your behind off. ”

        Hophmi, why don’t you provide citations and links to the information you find while digging? While Hostage provides useful and interesting information, all you do is make off-the-cuff accusations and claims.

        Hostage educates, and patiently answers questions at length and with respect. But all you add to the discussion on mondoweiss is snark and baseless attacks.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 11, 2015, 1:51 pm

        “Once again, the Zionist legislation I’m talking about violates the principles laid down in cases, like Widmar v. Vincent 454 U.S. 263 (1981) and Rosenberger v. University of Virginia 515 U.S. 819 (1995). The Supreme Court has ruled that the States may not discriminate against groups on campus or impose any financial burden on speech predicated on the basis of its viewpoint or content.”

        And neither one is relevant here. Both are cases in which universities sought to apply content specific restrictions against religious organizations (in the case of Widmar, prohibiting religious organizations from using space, and in the case of Rosenberger, prohibiting funding for student religious publications). Legislation like South Carolina’s, which bans state entities from doing business with companies that boycott on the basis of, among other things, national origin, do not violate the Constitution. Congressional legislation that supports discouraging trade partners from boycotting as a trade goal certainly do not offend the Constitution.

        The NAACP cases Hostage cited are also completely irrelevant. Nobody is proposing legislation to ban boycotts, or to create a tort for businesses affected by a boycott.

        As far as your interesting novel position on Reid v. Covert: Reid held that the Constitutional supercedes treaties (“No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution”) and held that US military personnal abroad enjoyed Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

        Hostage makes two claims about Reid:

        1. “the Supreme Court adopted the proposition that the President and the Congress are merely creatures of the Constitution and that they have no authority whatsoever to commit any acts outside of our territorial jurisdiction if they are prohibited by that document.”

        2. “the Supreme Court noted that treaties have equal standing with statutes under the plan of the Constitution and that neither statutes nor treaties are listed among the methods enumerated in Article V that can be used to amend the Constitution. Among other things, that means that, if a statute has to comply with the Constitution, then so does a treaty, including the GATT”

        Both are correct, although Hostage apparently forgets that “when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1957).

        The rest is rhetoric, not a legal argument. Hostage, by purposely ignoring the actual content of these proposed state bills, never actually sets out how they violate the 1st Amendment. South Carolina’s doesn’t; it’s content neutral. Illinois’s bill keeps the state pension system (let us pause and say a prayer for pensioners in Illinois) from investing in companies boycotting Israel because states would be violating their human rights laws by doing business with companies that openly discriminate on the basis of national origin. But it certainly doesn’t criminalize advocacy of a boycott, and it does not expose those who favor boycotts to lawsuits, which would violate the NAACP cases.

        Since he hasn’t made out his First Amendment case, he can’t make much else out either; he suggests that GATT may violate the Constitution; he doesn’t say how, he suggests that the trade bill might; he still doesn’t say how, and then he moves on to a jumbled, unrelated argument about how GATT is null and void because it conflicts with the UN Charter. No one accepts this idea (least of all the 162 members of the international community that are parties to the WTO), just as no one accepts the idea that anti-boycott legislation that discourages trading partners from boycotting Israel is unconstitutional.

        Hostage also conveniently forgets that this issue with boycotts is really nothing new. The Arab League executed a formal boycott on Israel for years, and in 1976-77, Congress amended the Export Administration Act and passed the Ribicoff Amendment, along with other legislation, prohibiting American companies from participating in unsanctioned boycotts, but aimed at addressing the Arab League boycott of Israel. This legislation levied huge fines on American companies that participated in the Arab League boycott. It went much further than what’s on the table now. Like the current legislation, it certainly did not prohibit people from engaging in divestment campaigns. None of this legislation was ruled unconstitutional.

      • annie
        annie
        June 11, 2015, 3:47 pm

        The rest is rhetoric, not a legal argument. Hostage, by purposely ignoring the actual content of these proposed state bills, never actually sets out how they violate the 1st Amendment. South Carolina’s doesn’t; it’s content neutral. Illinois’s bill keeps the state pension system.. from investing in companies boycotting Israel because states would be violating their human rights laws by doing business with companies that openly discriminate on the basis of national origin.

        that’s just rhetoric because you never actually set out how bds discriminates on the basis of national origin, although you’ve repeatedly made that claim. are you also planning on claiming our iran sanctions “discriminate on the basis of national origin” because those effected are of iranian national origin? please. bds is not targeting israel on ‘the basis of national origin’ of israelis (national ‘origin’ of the majority being jewish [vs israeli] as per israel’s high court).

        the people discriminating based on national origin is israel, which is why it’s an apartheid state and worthy of being sanctioned and divested from. you can’t hold up that privilege and claim if you are being targeted because others are discriminating against your ‘national origin’ when what they are protesting is your privilege. that’s farcical.

        and without examining the thread i recall you’ve made that claim at least 4 times in this thread not once actually set out how bds discriminates on the basis of national origin. so off with your head! (joke, not a threat)

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 11, 2015, 4:18 pm

        BDS targets Israeli institutions and companies. The whole idea is to discriminate against Israelis for being Israeli.

      • annie
        annie
        June 11, 2015, 7:56 pm

        The whole idea is to discriminate against Israelis for being Israeli.

        no, The whole idea is to discriminate against Israel because it’s running a brutal occupation discriminating against palestinians. palestinians want freedom and equal rights. bds was not created “against Israelis for being Israeli.”

        you can’t just make up allegations out of thin air. they need to be grounded in reality. therefor it is isolated in order to change it’s behavior. besides, haven’t you been paying attention? there is no “Israeli” national origin, according to israel high court.

        try blockquoting something on the bds website to support your argument. but you can’t define the movement with unsupportable allegations.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 11, 2015, 5:42 pm

        The Supreme Court has ruled that the States may not discriminate against groups on campus or impose any financial burden on speech predicated on the basis of its viewpoint or content.”

        And neither one is relevant here. Both are cases in which universities sought to apply content specific restrictions against religious organizations

        Pardon me, but you’ve taken leave of your senses if you plan on using that argument in Court:

        The State Education Department does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, religion, creed, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its educational programs, services and activities.

        — example extract from Statement on the Role of a Trustee or Board Member http://www.suny.edu/media/suny/content-assets/documents/boardoftrustees/BOT-AGB-role-of-a-trustee.pdf

        The existing New York State human rights statute does not apply to human rights boycotts and it prohibits the University Regents, Trustees, and Board Members from discriminating against any Anti-Zionist Jews on the basis of their “religion” or “creed”, like the one contained in the Pittsburgh Platform that I cited and quoted verbatim and the comment about equal rights for non-Jews in Palestine in accordance with “the Mosaic legislation” made by the Chief Rabbi of the UK Commonwealth (and Rabbi Elmer Berger for that matter).

        The New York legislation was definitely targeting campus chapters of an entity called “Jewish Voice for Peace” and we definitely have a “Jewish creed” embodied in our platform and position paper on BDS published by our national organization and our “Rabbinical Advisory Council”.

        Since he hasn’t made out his First Amendment case, he can’t make much else out either;

        I think you need to go back to the drawing board and think about that again.

        Legislation like South Carolina’s, which bans state entities from doing business with companies that boycott on the basis of, among other things, national origin, do not violate the Constitution.

        Of course not. But I never said it was. The statute and all the Zionist buzz surrounding it was merely symbolic. It contains the required constitutional exceptions that permit targeted boycotts against states, companies, and individuals, based upon economic factors, like the UN and EU warnings about civil liability, and sanctions for criminal behavior:

        Section 11-35-5300. (A) of the South Carolina Statute says:
        ‘Boycott’ does not include:
        (a) a decision based on business or economic reasons, or the specific conduct of a targeted person or firm;
        (b) a boycott against a public entity of a foreign state when the boycott is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner;

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/05/south-carolina-passes-historic-anti-boycott-law/

        Both are correct, although Hostage apparently forgets that “when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1957). The rest is rhetoric, not a legal argument.

        What’s your point. I haven’t forgotten anything. You still haven’t cited any statute “later in time” or otherwise that rendered any of the examples of treaty preemption that I mentioned “null and void”. In any event, that’s not even possible in the case of the customary norms (jus cogens) reflected in the UN Charter, the Hague, or the Geneva Conventions. The Nuremberg, ICTY, and ICTR tribunals statutes established that those jus cogen norms rendered any conflicting municipal statutes null and void and were even binding on non-signatories. The USA, and Secretary of State Warren Christopher, were instrumental in introducing the Chapter VII resolutions that required all UN member states to accept that decision as a legally one and the Congress has cited them in every annual budget authorizing surrenders to one or more of those UN tribunals ever since.

        The last time I checked, the UN Charter, like the Hague and Geneva Conventions is still listed among the Treaties In Force (TIF) by the US State Department. http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/tif/index.htm

        he moves on to a jumbled, unrelated argument about how GATT is null and void because it conflicts with the UN Charter.

        No, you made a jumbled argument that said states and governments were different from individuals because they are prohibited from boycotting on the basis of nationality under the GATT. I suggest you tell that to the Iraqis and Iranians and the Secretary General of the UN. I simply explained that governments cannot use the commerce clause or a trade agreement to excuse war crimes or crimes against humanity, because those are subject to a blanket prohibition of “compelling” customary international law (jus cogens) as well as a preemption clause in the UN Charter and the Convention on the Law of Treaties. You’re still talking in circles.

        Hostage also conveniently forgets .. The Arab League … Congress amended the Export Administration Act and passed the Ribicoff Amendment, along with other legislation, prohibiting American companies from participating in unsanctioned boycotts

        Nope, I’ve commented about that subject at length here in the past – and the fact that there are exceptions that allow companies doing business in Arab League States to comply with local import prohibitions against Israeli sourced items. So that boycott has been very successful in 22 countries. I’ve also commented about the fact that Eric Fingerhut led an unsuccessful effort to restore parts of the bill that were subject to a sunset provision that expired. The potential for enormous fines still exists, but the bill really hasn’t garnered the Treasury any enormous sums lately, since transnational businesses figured out how to game the system a long time ago.

      • MRW
        MRW
        June 11, 2015, 2:14 pm

        @hophmi

        Anti-Zionist Jews who prevented the words “Jewish state” from being utilized in the Balfour Declaration were by and large either frightened and persecuted people who felt that any acknowledgement of a collective Jewish identity would disturb their place in Western society, or simply, clueless people whose views would be repudiated by the Holocaust.

        and

        The anti-Zionist position was always that of those who were afraid to stand up for themselves and their people, and it remains so today; overwhelmingly, anti-Zionist Jews are those who see Judaism as the problem.

        I’ve quoted the following several times, but you don’t read. Leading US Jews petitioned President Wilson in March 1919 against a Zionist state. Thirty-one signed the NYT copy. More than 300 signed the copy to Wilson.

        The Petition
        Transcript of archival scan of a 1919 petition to Protest to ‘Wilson against Zionist State
        http://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/statement.html

        Link to NYT original here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E02E7DF1E39E13ABC4D53DFB5668382609EDE

        The full text of the document was published 5 March 1919 in The NY Times under the headline, “Protest to ‘Wilson against Zionist State: Representative Jews Ask Him to Present it to the Peace Conferences.” It was divided into three sections:

        1. Reject “National Home” Idea

        2. Against “Political Segregation”

        3. Contrary to Democratic Ideals.

        These are 31 of the clueless, scared people that you denigrate:

        1. Congressman Julius Kahn, R-Ca.
        2. U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, Henry Morgenthau
        3. Simon Rosendale, Attny. General , State of NY, founder of the Jewish Publication Society.
        4. Simon Wolf, U.S. Consul in Egypt
        5. Max Senior, 1st Pres. National Conference of Jewish Charities
        6. Lee M. Friedman, attny, Boston Ma.
        7. Judge Seligman J. Strauss, Wilkes-Barre Pa.
        8. Dr. Morris Jastrow Jr., Professor of Semitic Languages, U.of Penn. & Librarian of the University.
        9. Rabbi Henry Berkowitz, 1st Sec. of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR – Reform Mvmt.)
        10. Rabbi David Philipson, founder and past pres. CCAR
        11. Edward Max Baker, Pres. Cleveland Stock Exchange
        12. Mayor L.H. Kempner, Galveston, Tx
        13. Jesse Isidor Strauss, Pres. Macy’s, Ambassador to France
        14. E. Robert A. Seligman, Prof. Political Economy and Finance, Columbia U.
        15. Jacob H. Hollander, Prof. Economics Johns Hopkins U., Special Commissioner to com.Rep.(TR Roos.)
        16. Adolph Simon Ochs, publisher The New York Times
        17. Lessing Rosenthal, esq. trustee – Brookings Inst., Johns Hopkins U.
        18. Abraham Kochland, Boston Ma.
        19. Jacob R. Morse, esq. Boston Ma.
        20. Daniel Peixotto Hays esq., head of the NYC Municipal Civil Service Commission, member exec. committee UAHC, President of YMHA
        21. Louis Stern, Pres. Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, Pres. National Jewish Welfare Board
        22. Rabbi William Rosenau, Pres. CCAR, member board of governors HUC
        23. Rabbi Willaim Landsberg, Rochester, NY
        24. Judge M.C. Shloss, SF, Ca.
        25. Dr. Julius Rosenstein, Mt.Zion Hspt. SF. Ca
        26. Isiah Wolf Hellman, founder Union Trust Co., LA, Ca.
        27. Judge Josiah Cohen, Pittsburgh Pa.
        28. Judge Horace Stern, Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Pennsylvania.
        29. Julius Walter Freiberg, Past President UAHC
        30. Rabbi Abraham Simon, organizer of Nat.Conf. of Christians and Jews, past pres CCAR, founder Synagogue Council of America.
        31. Isaac Wolfe Bernheim, Distillery Owner, Louisville Kentucky and noted philanthropist

        The rest of the 300+ signers were mainly rabbis.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 11, 2015, 3:22 pm

        “I’ve quoted the following several times, but you don’t read. Leading US Jews petitioned President Wilson in March 1919 against a Zionist state. Thirty-one signed the NYT copy. More than 300 signed the copy to Wilson.”

        LOL. Anyone acting with a smidgen of integrity would acknowledge that the letter was written IN SUPPORT of a Jewish homeland, even if, at that time, the signatories did not favor a state.

        “At the outset, we wish to indicate our entire sympathy with the efforts of Zionists which aim to secure for Jews at present living in lands of oppression a refuge in Palestine or elsewhere, where they may freely develop their capabilities and carry on their activities as free citizens.”

        Why were they against a state?

        “This demand not only misinterprets the trend in the history of the Jews, who ceased to be a nation 2000 years ago, but involves the limitation and possible annulment of the larger claims of Jews for full citizenship and human rights in all lands in which these rights are not yet secure.”

        It is exactly as I said. They were worried about their status in the Diaspora; they were worried that exercising their national rights would prejudice their rights in the countries in which they lived. In worrying about this, they basically adopted the views of today’s antisemites – if the Jews have a state, all Jews will be held responsible for it.

        Additionally, the world in 1919 was different from the one that existed by 1947. In 1919, these esteemed, mostly German, Jews interpreted Zionism as a program to deal with the persecution of Russian and Romanian Jews. Emancipation was still seen as the best hope for European Jews in particular. The Holocaust changed all of this. By 1947, Zionism was obviously seen as a solution not only to those Jews, but to European Jews, six million of whom were murdered during the Holocaust, those Jews for whom Emancipation was stopped by the ultimate reactionary force, with the complicity of Christians throughout Europe. Those who signed this letter (and it’s heavy on established rich German Jews like Henry Morgenthau, Sr. and Louis Stern, a founder of AJC, both of whom had a lot to lose), would have endorsed the state concept in 1947. Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Sr’s son, was a strong early supporter of Israel.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 11, 2015, 6:15 pm

        LOL. Anyone acting with a smidgen of integrity would acknowledge that the letter was written IN SUPPORT of a Jewish homeland, even if, at that time, the signatories did not favor a state.

        Well, Rabbi Judah Magnes still didn’t favor a Jewish state 25 years later and he testified to that effect during the UNSCOP hearings. If he was frightened or concerned with his place in society, it sure didn’t show-up in his public condemnations of the Jewish underground terror squads and his NY Times Op-Ed excoriating First Lady Elenore Roosevelt for helping the Bergsen group raise money for the Irgun.

        Like Rabbi Berger, he also insisted on the inclusion of a minority protection plan for Jews and non-Jews and their communities in each of the new states in Palestine and wanted them placed under UN guarantee. If you think that he beat his wife or was friends with Stalin, please keep it to yourself, since you hit your daily bag limit on ad hominem fallacies.

        Your comments in that regard are really ironic, since Stalin was the first head of state to extend de jure recognition to Israel’s shitty little provisional government and historian Tom Segev wrote an article that appeared in Haaertz about a decade ago describing how in many cases the socialist and communist members of the Palmach brigades would scream “For Comrade Stalin” when they were leading a charge against an Arab village out of force of habit.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 11, 2015, 7:24 pm

        Hostage writes:

        “Pardon me, but you’ve taken leave of your senses if you plan on using that argument in Court”

        I have no idea what you’re talking about. You suggested that two cases which establish that State school cannot discriminate against religious groups that wish to use campus space may be applied to anti-boycott legislation. In New York, as in Illinois, proposed legislation would ban state pension funds from doing business with companies that boycott Israel. That’s simply not a legally cognizable argument. This anti-boycott legislation does not single out anti-Zionist Jews or anti-Zionists.

        Dov Hikind’s bill, passed by the NY State Senate and tossed out by the Rules Committee in the NY Assembly last year, was different; it proposed to suspend funding to colleges that funded groups that advocated boycotting Israel; that is obviously a First Amendment problem because it acts a speech restriction. But Hikind is the exception. The current proposal in NY is like the one in Illinois; it is not targeting any campus; it is a perfectly legal attempt to ban state pension funds from investing in companies that boycott. So if this is what you had in mind, you’re behind the times, or you’re purposely highlighting the one bill that makes your case (and that was not passed), and ignoring the legislation that did pass, and that presents no First Amendment problem.

        Hostage writes:

        “You [] said states and governments were different from individuals because they are prohibited from boycotting on the basis of nationality under the GATT. I suggest you tell that to the Iraqis and Iranians and the Secretary General of the UN. I simply explained that governments cannot use the commerce clause or a trade agreement to excuse war crimes or crimes against humanity, because those are subject to a blanket prohibition of “compelling” customary international law (jus cogens) as well as a preemption clause in the UN Charter and the Convention on the Law of Treaties. You’re still talking in circles.”

        Your point is irrelevant. No one is using the Commerce Clause or a trade agreement to excuse any war crimes. The Congressional legislation simply makes it a goal of trade policy to encourage trading partners not to boycott. It does not force them to “excuse” anything, any more than giving China MFN status forces people to excuse Chinese human rights violations or relieving Iranian sanctions causes people to excuse Iranian war crimes.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 11, 2015, 10:03 pm

        I have no idea what you’re talking about. You suggested that two cases which establish that State school cannot discriminate against religious groups that wish to use campus space may be applied to anti-boycott legislation. In New York, as in Illinois, proposed legislation would ban state pension funds from doing business with companies that boycott Israel. That’s simply not a legally cognizable argument.

        No, your playing stupid. The New York, Federal, and Maryland statutes explicitly targeted funding of state universities and academic groups, not pension funds and Dov’s bill was revived after the rules committee tossed it out and simply didn’t garner enough support. He was not debarred from submitting a similar bill again.

        The Supreme Court decision in Rosenberger was about the administration’s denial of funding for a student group publication on the basis of discrimination against its religious viewpoint. That’s exactly the same legally cognizable argument in these examples:

        *Bill Targeting Israel Boycott Bounces Back in New York State — and Nationally
        The New York bill, which passed the State Senate January 28, prohibits universities from using state funds to support academic groups boycotting Israel, among other countries; universities that violated the ban would lose all state funding. Under mounting pressure from opponents, who criticized the measure as an assault on free speech, a companion bill was withdrawn from the State Assembly, New York’s lower house. But on Thursday, the bill was reintroduced in the State Assembly with softer financial penalties. Instead of losing all state funding, as specified in the State Senate bill, such universities would lose only the money they used to participate in the banned groups’ activities. Membership costs or travel to banned groups’ conferences would “be deducted from any future payments of state aid” to such colleges,” according to the revised Assembly bill’s language

        * A version of the bill was also introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives February 6, sponsored by House Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill). The congressional bill would deny federal funding to any U.S. academic institution participating in a boycott of Israeli universities. The university would also lose funding if “any organization significantly funded by the institution” endorses an Israeli academic boycott.
        http://forward.com/news/israel/192424/bill-targeting-israel-boycott-bounces-back-in-new/

        * Maryland Legislature: Senate Bill 647/House Bill 998-Public Higher Education-Use of Funds–Prohibition, introduced by Senator Joan Carter Conway and Delegate Ben Kramer:
        This legislation, which was in response to the recent passage of an American Studies Association (ASA) resolution boycotting Israeli universities as a part of a larger Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, would have imposed financial penalties on state universities/colleges that allowed state dollars to be used for faculty/staff membership fees or participation in meetings/conferences in an organization that has issued a public resolution or statement or taken an official action boycotting a country that has ratified a declaration of cooperation with the State or the country’s institutions of higher education.
        http://www.jcouncil.org/site/DocServer/2014_Legislative_Review.pdf?docID=9141

        * On Wednesday evening, the Senate Finance Committee unanimously voted in favor of an amendment to discourage European participation in the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. … The amendment, which was tacked onto a larger piece of trade legislation that establishes Congressional trade objectives, is intended to apply specifically to an emerging free trade agreement between the U.S. and Europe.

        If you notice, there is an attempt to immunize Israel and Israeli institutions through instruments tantamount to a treaty agreement between Maryland and Israel or through trade legislation. That’s why I’ve addressed the fact that those are preempted by jus cogens and the UN Charter. Likewise, the Supreme Court has ruled time and again, that the power delegated to Congress under the Commerce Clauses do not trump the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment.

        ignoring the legislation that did pass, and that presents no First Amendment problem.

        LOL! Unless you’ve read the NAACP and Citizens United cases regarding the rights of private membership corporations as legal persons and all of the Supreme Court decisions which prohibit the the State from unduly burdening their 1st and 14th Amendment rights to put their money where their mouth is as a form of protected speech and the freedom of association to promote unpopular beliefs and to engage in political boycotts without State sponsored tax reprisals or demands for disclosure of information regarding affiliation with other advocacy groups, like BDS, as a tactic to curtail the right of association.

        The Court has specifically ruled in several cases that States can’t compel corporations to disclose information for the purpose of curtailing boycotts or the freedom to associate:

        Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 299 U. S. 364; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 323 U. S. 530. It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the “liberty” assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 268 U. S. 666; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 302 U. S. 324; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 303; Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 355 U. S. 321. Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny. …The governmental action challenged may appear to be totally unrelated to protected liberties. Statutes imposing taxes upon, rather than prohibiting particular activity have been struck down when perceived to have the consequence of unduly curtailing the liberty of freedom of press assured under the Fourteenth Amendment. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233; Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105.

        It is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as the forms of governmental action in the cases above were thought likely to produce upon the particular constitutional rights there involved. This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations. When referring to the varied forms of governmental action which might interfere with freedom of assembly.

        — NAACP v. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)

        I short, if a state pension fund manager demands that a private business or corporation disclose association or involvement in the BDS movement, the right answer may be that its none of the States business.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 11, 2015, 10:35 pm

        I’ve spent enough time on this today. You’re again changing the subject, now by going off on a tangent about compelling companies to disclose their trade ties.

        This is enough for me. You’ve not proven your First Amendment case. Bills levying financial penalties against academic institutions that boycott Israel or fund student groups that do so have little momentum, and as the Forward article makes clear, are not supported by most of the Jewish community. The only major org lobbying for this kind of bill is JCRC. ADL, AJC, and AIPAC aren’t in favor.

        Your argument that domestic legislation banning state institution from doing business with companies that engage in discrimination against Israel amounts to a treaty between individual states and Israel is more nonsense.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 12:14 am

        You’ve not proven your First Amendment case.

        I did that a long time ago with respect to statutes that target funding of campus academic groups who support BDS on the basis of their Anti-Zionist Jewish religious creeds. You are right, you’ve spent enough time on it.

        I’ve never changed the subject to mere disclosures. The NAACP ruling that I cited and quoted mentioned decisions in other strict scrutiny cases that had stuck down statutory “prohibitions”, “imposing taxes upon, rather than prohibiting particular activity,” and “demands for disclosures” – all aimed at unduly curtailing the liberty of freedom of speech or the press assured under the 1st and 14th Amendment or the right of corporations and associations to affiliate with groups engaged in political boycotts. The Illinois statute most definitely fails the strict scrutiny test as either a “prohibition” or a required “disclosure” aimed at curtailing the right to associate for the advancement of political and economic beliefs and ideas and engage with others in a political boycott.

        I think it’s obvious that you are feigning ignorance and talking in circles.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 11, 2015, 8:01 pm

        Yeah Annie, as you said, the point is to discriminate against Israel. Legally, it really doesn’t matter what your reason is. Discrimination on the basis of national origin is illegal.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 11, 2015, 10:29 pm

        Yeah Annie, as you said, the point is to discriminate against Israel. Legally, it really doesn’t matter what your reason is. Discrimination on the basis of national origin is illegal.

        That’s rather bizarre coming from a guy who justifies the State of Israel’s commission of all of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid on the basis of its motives and the Palestinian nationality of the victims. The UN Convention literally says in Article II that its apartheid when you do any of the things mentioned in subparagraph a, b, c, d, e, and f; and in Article III it says that you do any of those acts then are guilty of the crime of apartheid regardless of the motive involved.
        http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/apartheid-supp.html

        I’ve already noted that the Maryland statute correctly permits boycotts of states and state institutions on the grounds of behavior.

        FYI, § 201, § 202, and § 203 of The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States stipulates that States are under an obligation NOT to recognize a State or Government, or establish and maintain diplomatic relations with one that has acquired any of the necessary attributes of statehood in violation of the UN Charter, i.e. ethnic cleansing, acquisition of territory by war, the establishment of ethnic minority rule.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 11, 2015, 10:38 pm

        None of which has anything to do with State and Federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of national origin.

      • annie
        annie
        June 11, 2015, 10:45 pm

        and State/Federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of national origin has nothing to do w/bds either (other than the fact the target of the campaign, israel, routinely practices discrimination against palestinians on the basis of national origin).

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 1:04 am

        and State/Federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of national origin has nothing to do w/bds either.

        Well Hophmi has failed to state a claim all day on that account. It simply isn’t true that there is a statute that makes it “illegal” to discriminate on the basis of nationality or national origin. For example, even though those are federally protected characteristics, it is not a violation of the federal employment statutes to discriminate on that basis in certain situations. It wasn’t all that long ago that the US Supreme Court held that:

        A New York statute forbidding permanent certification as a public school teacher of any person who is not a United States citizen unless that person has manifested an intention to apply for citizenship, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
        (a) As a general principle some state functions are so bound up with the operation of the State as a governmental entity as to permit exclusion from those functions of all persons who have not become part of the process of self-government.

        — See AMBACH v. NORWICK, 441 U.S. 68 (1979) link to caselaw.lp.findlaw.com

        If New York can impose a ban on Israeli school teachers, then it can certainly permit a human rights boycott on Israeli officials, agencies, and the transnational corporations doing business with it as part of a joint criminal enterprise. FYI, the newest mode of liability recently adopted by the International Criminal Court is “indirect perpetration through an
        organisation.” https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/review/2012/irrc-887-kyriakakis.pdf

        There’s a group in France making headlines over the fact that Chaim Saban’s Partner Co is employing nearly 200 sites in Palestine for its cellphone facilities that were plundered by the IDF or settlers. http://translate.google.com/translate?ie=UTF8&prev=_t&tl=en&u=http://www.petitions24.net/palestine_france_telecom_doit_rompre_son_accord_avec_partner&sandbox=0&usg=ALkJrhhU_7jM9qIIuuUWuzmmuD626iL3wQ

        The International Criminal Court is planning to send a delegation to examine complaints against Israel by the end of June. Russia and China have promised to veto any U.S. proposal in the Security Council to delay that investigation. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.660633

        Obama and the Presidential candidates ought to think twice about their relationships with Saban and he ought to be worried about the chances of being indicted for corporate pillage.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 11, 2015, 11:47 pm

        None of which has anything to do with State and Federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of national origin.

        Hophmi you’ve been asked to provide an example of a claim against the BDS movement in which it has been engaged in an act of discrimination on the basis of nationality for which judicial relief can be granted. You’ve been totally non-responsive so far.

        The 1951 Refugee Convention provides an example of a law that permits discrimination against individuals on the basis of their nationality when their country is guilty of widespread war crimes or crimes against humanity. Germans displaced during WII were not eligible for treatment as refugees. That provision was included at the insistence of the State of Israel who did not want Nazi collaborators expelled by the British administration during to war returning when the fighting was over. The government of the Netherlands has refused to grant refugee status to defendants and witnesses in ICC cases on the basis of their suspected involvement in non-international armed conflicts in which atrocities occurred. http://www.ejiltalk.org/former-icc-defendant-ngudjolo-applies-for-asylum-in-the-netherlands/

        On the other hand, we’ve provided you with public statements by an Israeli commanding general officer who admits to having razed Arab villages in order to drive 1 million inhabitants into exile beyond the boundaries of the Hebrew State. He claims that was an indispensable step that was required in order to establish the State of Israel. That is a crime against humanity for which no statutory limitations apply and for which the customary obligation of non-recognition and non-facilitation by other states is engaged. The refugees have an inalienable right to return and compensation under the terms of customary international law governing family rights and honor and the prohibition of the plunder of public and private property. Moreover, the government of Israel remains bound by the terms of own acceptance of the UN minority protection plan in resolution 181(II) and resolution 194(III).

        There are both federal and state legal protections for human rights political boycotts targeting states; their institutions, and their populations in order to secure the rights of others. That is not considered illegal discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 11, 2015, 11:55 pm

        It’s nice to see you taking responsibility for the bigotry you promote. BDS hasn’t been able to execute a discriminatory boycott in the United States, but it’s certainly not for lack of trying.

        Since it is your position that boycotts of people from countries that you say commit war crimes are justified, you’ll of course be boycotting the United States, which most likely committed war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki too. You should leave now. In fact, since you’re a vet, maybe you should turn yourself into the Hague.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 1:23 am

        Since it is your position that boycotts of people from countries that you say commit war crimes are justified, you’ll of course be boycotting the United States, which most likely committed war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki too. You should leave now. In fact, since you’re a vet, maybe you should turn yourself into the Hague.

        What a dumb shit thing to suggest. Like Barghouti, I can hardly boycott my own country. But I have no problem with anyone else who does. FYI, our Supreme Court claims that former foreign officials can’t claim sovereign immunity as a defense against extradition or prosecution for crimes against humanity, since those aren’t a part of an official’s legal duties in the first place. So I’m in favor of other countries using the same techniques in the cases of our former officials that were employed against the government of Serbia to obtain the surrender of Milosovic et al. That certainly included economic sanctions and a boycott, and ultimately criminal sanctions.

        I’ve got comments in the archives here about the criminality of the Iraq war, the drone programs, the forced disappearances, continuing torture and imprisonment of innocent people, the illegal occupation of Gitmo, you name it. I think the US has a duty to bring those responsible to justice by either prosecuting them or extraditing them.

      • MRW
        MRW
        June 11, 2015, 9:12 pm

        @hophmi,

        LOL. Anyone acting with a smidgen of integrity would acknowledge that the letter was written IN SUPPORT of a Jewish homeland

        No, they didn’t.

        You cite this:

        “At the outset, we wish to indicate our entire sympathy with the efforts of Zionists which aim to secure for Jews at present living in lands of oppression a REFUGE in Palestine or elsewhere, where they may freely develop their capabilities and carry on their activities as free citizens.” [emphasis mine]

        Refuge means “a condition of being safe or sheltered from pursuit, danger, or trouble.” Not a homeland…nor a state. It means some place where they would be safe from harm. That ain’t a “homeland.”

        Because the very next line is a section subhead:

        Reject “National Home” Idea

        I.e.: Homeland.

        And they explain it in the first line as “But we raise our voices in warning and protest against the demand of the Zionists for the reorganisation of the Jews as a national unit to whom, now or in the future, territorial sovereignty IN Palestine shall be committed.”

        EDIT: to read what hophmi is BSing you about, read this: http://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/statement.html

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 9:06 am

        MRW:

        Even these German Jews understood that Jews needed a refuge from persecution, even if, in 1919, it wasn’t clear yet that a state was necessary.

        But in all honesty, I’m not really sure why you see a big difference here. Whether Jews established a refuge or a state, the Arabs in the region would still have opposed any major influx of Jews.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        June 12, 2015, 9:26 am

        But in all honesty, I’m not really sure why you see a big difference here. Whether Jews established a refuge or a state, the Arabs in the region would still have opposed any major influx of Jews.

        Just as Israelis would be opposed to an influx of foreigners into Israel, let alone those determined the take their land from them.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 11:14 am

        But in all honesty, I’m not really sure why you see a big difference here. Whether Jews established a refuge or a state, the Arabs in the region would still have opposed any major influx of Jews.

        Contrary to your hasbara talking points, the Jews were expected to pick-up the pieces of their shattered lives like everyone else under the Marshall Plan, and rebuild their former communities after WWII.

        The plight of the Jews of Eastern Europe was viewed no differently than the refugees trying to flee Libya today or the persons displaced during our own bloody civil war in the USA. Nobody claimed the right to go re-establish their ancestor’s ancient homeland in the middle of another country.

        The international community of states voted down a proposal that they open their doors to immigration to resolve the problem of Jews in the displaced persons camps minutes before adopting the UN Partition Plan, because they were no longer in any grave danger. The UNSCOP majority report concluded that Palestine could NOT be used to solve the Jewish Question without seriously violating the fundamental human rights of the existing Arab population. That prediction proved to be all too true. Foreign Minister Shertok, who had claimed that there would be no problem accommodating several million Jewish immigrants in the Negev, suddenly started singing a different tune. When UN and US officials advised that the Palestinians had no shelter or sources of food and water and that many would die from exposure in the coming winter months, unless they were allowed to return to their homes, they reported that he got a “swelled head” and told the UN Mediator that Israel would never be willing to allow the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, because “their space” was needed to accommodate Jews from Arab countries who had expressed an interest in coming to Palestine. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1295

        That is sufficient evidence of a genocidal mens rea to establish that it was not merely ethnic cleansing, Sixty years on, the JNF is still selling pipe dreams about the “Judaization” of the Negev. The only difference is that this time they are stealing the Bedouin’s “space” there. Frankly there is no difference between the methods and propaganda employed by Israel in 1948, 1967, and today and the ones described in the Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1, Indictment : Count Three, including “Plunder of public and private property” and “Germanization Of Occupied Territories”. Using the Holocaust to justify that is just sickening. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/count3.asp

      • MRW
        MRW
        June 11, 2015, 9:18 pm

        @hophmi,

        Discrimination on the basis of national origin is illegal.

        Discrimination against what or whom?

        What laws are you talking about?

        You mean there’s a law somewhere that makes it illegal to discriminate against Americans?

        This I gotta’ hear.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        June 12, 2015, 2:21 am

        @Hostage
        “What a dumb shit thing to suggest. ”

        You could have just said that as it said all that was needed.

        Though come to think of it, considering the source, even that sentence was superfluous.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 10:18 am

        You could have just said that as it said all that was needed.

        Hophmi is overlooking the fact that we already are boycotting companies right here in the USA that are complicit in the occupation of Palestine and we are naming and shaming politicians and the corrupt billionaires who are supporting Israeli apartheid.

        The Illinois pension funds are some of the worst in the country in terms of unfunded liabilities. They do not need to be investing in companies that the UN and EU have already warned about possible civil and criminal liability for their activities in the illegal settlements. When they go broke, the retirees there will be told the same thing that the ones in Detroit were told: We can’t afford to bail out your system. In Detroit that would have only taken a one time expenditure of 3 billion dollars. That’s an amount that we give away to Israel every year. I belong to several organizations that demand a stop to all military funding for Israel and the imposition of sanctions until it signs the Non-Proliferation Treaty and allows the IAEA the same access that we are demanding in the case of Iran’s nuclear program.

        If we need corporate welfare in this country, then it should be spent on things that benefit the people who are paying taxes here. That doesn’t include the $26 billion per year Jewish public charity scam that is sending most of the tax free money raised straight to Israel to help offset its costs in the colonization and oppression of Palestinians. See 26 Billion Bucks: The Jewish Charity Industry Uncovered See: http://forward.com/news/israel/194978/26-billion-bucks-the-jewish-charity-industry-unco/

        It didn’t used to be that way. The declassified minutes of the People’s Council meeting convened to impose Jewish rule and declare the establishment of a Jewish state revealed that Secretary of State George Marshall and Under-Secretary Lovett were alarmed over the hundreds of thousands of refugees that were being driven across the borders into neighboring Arab states. They told Jewish Agency Political Department Chief and “Foreign Minister” Moshe Shertok that “We shall not allow the Jews to conduct a war that we do not want with our dollars.” The US threatened to shutdown the United Jewish Appeal and publish the incriminating evidence the US government had obtained on the organization. Shertok acknowledged that they could back-up their threats. The record also revealed that Ben Gurion refused a suggestion from Shertok that they address urgent concerns from New York and announce that the first order of business on the new government’s agenda would be “The return of the Arab population of the Jewish State to their homes”.

        There was no doubt from the very outset that the Jewish Agency was responsible for keeping the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the camps nearby from returning to their homes in safety – and our government was poised to go after their wallets. See the verbatim minutes of the People’s Council Meeting in “The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1987-1988”, Pineschi (editor), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997, pages 270 and 293.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 11:29 am

        A number of other issues with Hostage’s claims:

        1. “I also pointed out at the time, that the Zionist groups pushing for the legislation were flaunting the prohibitions against a IRS 501(c)(3) organizations working directly with legislators on drafting the bill’s provisions and that they were receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsidies from the Consulate of the State of Israel to boot without registering as foreign agent”

        Hostage is referring to JCRC of NY’s involvement. He makes two claims: first, that JCRC was violating its 501(c)(3) status by lobbying NY state legislators, and second, that JCRC should have registered as a foreign agent because it received donations from the Israeli consulate in NY.

        Both claims are nonsense. 501(c)(3)’s are permitted to lobby, as long as lobbying is not “a substantial part of its activities.” http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Lobbying Moreover: “Organizations may [] involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.”

        The JCRC rarely lobbies. http://www.jcrcny.org/about-us/faqs/

        Of course, 501(c)(3)’s often work with legislators on issues of interest as part of a broad array of activities, and Hostage knows this well. It’s perfectly legal, as long as that’s not the main thing that they do. The National Iranian-American Council is one example. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/731/626/2013-731626026-0abbf2fb-9.pdf

        As far as the Israeli consulate goes: Hostage does the usual two-step and claims that because JCRC receives grants from the Israeli Consulate in NY, they must be acting on their behalf when they advocate anti-boycott legislation, and thus, they should be registered as foreign agents. This is the usual FARA demagoguery. Just to take an example, in 2012, the grant was about $300,000, out of about $4 million in donations. JCRC’s principal mission is to represent the Jews of New York to government officials. The vast majority of the Jews in New York oppose BDS. So it’s doing no more than acting on behalf of their American constituency, and regardless, advocating against a boycott, or even advocating for pro-Israel policy, is not the same thing as representing Israel as a client, which is what FARA is generally for. If we extended FARA to organizations that receive grants from foreign countries as a small percentage of their donation base, lots of organizations, like, for instance, the United Palestinian Appeal, to which the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia is a major donor, http://helpupa.org/about-upa/donors/, or the Clinton Foundation, which has taken money from several governments, would have to so register.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 12:14 pm

        It’s perfectly legal, as long as that’s not the main thing that they do. … . JCRC’s principal mission is to represent the Jews of New York to government officials.

        Lol! No, it is illegal for a 501(c)3 to be organized in order to do that. It is illegal so long as it is more than an insubstantial part of the organizations activities, not just the “main thing” that it does. Hell some of them have full-time personnel with duty titles like “Director of Legislative Affairs”. See Measuring Lobbying: Substantial Part Test http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Measuring-Lobbying:-Substantial-Part-Test

        Let’s get real, conducting grass roots political propaganda in support of its efforts to obtain subsidies, community block grants, and pro-Israel legislation is one of the primary functions of the Jewish Federation’s and their JCRCs. If the date on the calender is a number and something above it has a name that ends in “day”, then they are lobbying for legislation.

        As usual, Hophmi is engaging in flim flammery. There is no loophole in the Foreign Agents Registration Act that permits a law firm or other organization to avoid registration because it derives the bulk of its income from other clients or sources or agrees to do the work pro bono. The statute requires anyone taking instructions or directions from a foreign entity to register, even if they are working for free. The Federations and their JCRCs work openly with the government of Israel and they are fixtures at one another’s annual conferences where they develop their joint strategies to combat BDS.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 12:45 pm

        If we extended FARA to organizations that receive grants from foreign countries as a small percentage of their donation base, lots of organizations, like, for instance, the United Palestinian Appeal, to which the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia is a major donor, http://helpupa.org/about-upa/donors/, or the Clinton Foundation, which has taken money from several governments, would have to so register.

        If those organizations are taking instructions or directions from a foreign entity, then they should be registered as agents too. There’s no stigma attached to it, although the Justice Department used to ask that any published material be clearly labeled as “political propaganda,” which is the Clinton Foundation’s raison d’etre. FYI, the Supreme Court has long since upheld the definition of “political propaganda” contained in the Foreign Agents Registration Act, as “any communication intended to influence the United States’ foreign policies”. See Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987)

        I think your whole problem is that you don’t think its illegal to boycott or sanction Anti-Zionist Jews over their religion, creed, or national origin, but you insist that it is illegal for them or anyone else to boycott or sanction Zionist over theirs, even when the Zionist concerned have committed flagrant crimes. The statutes that Zionists employ just can’t be applied in that way.

        For example, the Department of Homeland Security FAQ says that when “Only part of my organization receives DHS assistance. How broad is the reach of Title VI?”:

        Since 1987, the Title VI definition of “program or activity” has included all the operations of any entity, any part of which is extended financial assistance. Therefore, Title VI and its prohibition against discrimination are not limited to the aspect of the recipient’s operations that specifically received the federal financial assistance, but rather apply to all operations of the recipient.

        — Title VI Overview for Recipients of DHS Financial Assistance link to dhs.gov
        You can only apply for DHS assistance under programs, like the Urban Areas Security Initiative Nonprofit Security Grant Program through a State government Homeland Administering Authority. link to fema.gov
        Those state governments in-turn require applicants to comply with both state and federal human rights or civil rights statutes. In many, if not the majority of cases, those state codes add religion and creed to the list of legally protected characteristics.
        In several instances, when we talk about violations of the Hillel guidelines, we may actually be discussing federally funded seminars on interfaith social issues held in federally-subsidized Hillel facilities, where it would be improper or illegal for government agencies, such as the University Regents, Department of Homeland Security, and the Homeland Security State Administering Authorities to provide Hillel with grants to supply a public forum and secure public accommodations and then permit it to censor substantive content of speech on the basis of its own private religious creed. They try to ignore the fact that so-called Anti-Zionism is a perfectly acceptable and honorable Jewish religious creed that’s reflected in the Talmudic literature regarding the “Three Oaths” and in historical doctrinal statements, like the Pittsburgh Platform. In addition the Balfour Declaration/Palestine Mandate safeguarding clause regarding the rights and political status of Non-Zionist and Anti-Zionist Jews in this country was an integral part of the quid pro quo agreement by which you Zionist sycophants obtained government acquiescence for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. See the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention (1924), 44 Stat.2184; Treaty Series 728.
        FYI, it was only after B’nai B’rith, the Jewish Federations, and the local Hillel’s, including the Philly area and Boston area Hillels, started applying for millions of dollars in Community Block Grants and Department of Homeland Security Grants to upgrade the security of their so-called non-denominational “community centers” and other “public accommodations” at taxpayer expense under the Urban NGO Security Program, or DHS programs to conduct multi-year, multi-campus Hillel-sponsored seminars to “Build Interfaith Bridges” that the Jewish Taliban in the community started shreying about the Anti-Zionist views of some of the participants involved. See for example: Grant Helps Campuses Build Interfaith Bridges, Hillel News |Mar 11, 2008 http://www.hillel.org/about/news-views/news-views—blog/news-and-views/2008/03/11/grant-helps-campuses-build-interfaith-bridges and pages of Lori Lowenthal Marcus’ “Hillel Explains When ‘Open Hillel’ Will Result in Disaffiliation” link to jewishpress.com

        They demanded the immediate adoption of post hoc Israel guidelines that could be used to magically exclude non-Zionist or Anti-Zionist Jews and Palestinian Muslims or Christians who support BDS from participating in these stage-managed Pro-Israel taxpayer funded events on the basis of their creeds. But that is a violation of the Department of Homeland Security and the individual State Administering Authority’s legal guidelines.
        There have always been Arab Christian and Muslim groups that have Anti-Zionist (and even Supersessioinist) religious creeds too. Let me clue you in, there were a pair of Supreme Court rulings which allowed both Jews and Arabs to file civil rights complaints as racial groups that also happen to have some religious characteristics:
        * St. Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, link to supreme.justia.com
        * Shaare-Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, link to supreme.justia.com
        The whole Campus Anti-Zionism=Anti-Semitism crusade falls apart once you understand that the same law prohibits you guys from harassing Jewish and Arab Anti-Zionists and explicitly excludes their religious creeds from the DOE’s legal definition of Anti-Semitism:

        In late 2004, OCR [the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights] finally determined that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits anti-Semitic harassment at federally funded public and private universities, except to the extent that the harassment is exclusively based on tenets of the student’s religious faith. In other words, OCR policy now treats anti-Semitic harassment as prohibited racial or ethnic harassment except when it is clearly limited to religious belief rather than ancestral heritage. — page 3 — In 2004, OCR issued a series of policy statements announcing that it would assert, for the first time, jurisdiction to pursue claims alleging harassment of Jewish students. These statements were issued as part of broader guidance concerning “complaints of race or national origin harassment commingled with aspects of religious discrimination against Arab Muslim, Sikh, and Jewish students.”‘ They were issued, interestingly, in the course of determining an appropriate disposition for a case alleging harassment against a Sikh student. At the same time, they were issued in the belief that a uniform policy should apply to members of all groups exhibiting both religious and ethnic or racial characteristics — page 23

        — Kenneth L. Marcus, Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 15 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 837 (2007), link to scholarship.law.wm.edu

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 11:43 am

        Hostage writes:

        “It simply isn’t true that there is a statute that makes it “illegal” to discriminate on the basis of nationality or national origin.”

        You’re right. There isn’t such a statute. There are dozens of such statutes, most importantly, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

        (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin[.]”

        http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

        Similar legislation exists in other countries, such as the UK. It is one reason why, here in the US, law firms have advised university to distance themselves from academic organizations that endorse boycotting Israeli academia in order to avoid employment discrimination lawsuits:

        http://www.seyfarth.com/publications/MA011514LE

        “For example, even though those are federally protected characteristics, it is not a violation of the federal employment statutes to discriminate on that basis in certain situations. It wasn’t all that long ago that the US Supreme Court held that:

        A New York statute forbidding permanent certification as a public school teacher of any person who is not a United States citizen unless that person has manifested an intention to apply for citizenship, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
        (a) As a general principle some state functions are so bound up with the operation of the State as a governmental entity as to permit exclusion from those functions of all persons who have not become part of the process of self-government.

        — See AMBACH v. NORWICK, 441 U.S. 68 (1979) link to caselaw.lp.findlaw.com”

        You must be kidding. A law that requires teachers to be either citizens or to have the intent to acquire citizenship is not remotely the same thing as a law or policy that singles out those from a specific country.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 1:21 pm

        You must be kidding. A law that requires teachers to be either citizens or to have the intent to acquire citizenship is not remotely the same thing as a law or policy that singles out those from a specific country.

        No, its just perfectly legal to refuse to hire an Israeli national by explaining that we don’t want to expose the kiddies to their alien culture and outlook.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 1:30 pm

        You’re right. There isn’t such a statute. There are dozens of such statutes, most importantly, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

        24 hours and counting. You still haven’t cited a single violation of any statute by the BDS movement, including that one. So why did you ever bring the subject up in the first place?

        “There is no loophole in the Foreign Agents Registration Act that permits a law firm or other organization to avoid registration … Not the point; JCRC isn’t a law firm representing the government of Israel as a client.

        But it’s an organization and the statute applies to those, as well as corporations, partnerships, or any other combination, not just clients.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 12:18 pm

        “Contrary to your hasbara talking points, the Jews were expected to pick-up the pieces of their shattered lives like everyone else under the Marshall Plan, and rebuild their former communities after WWII.”

        Comments like this are really beneath contempt. The Polish Jewish community went from three million to three hundred thousand.

        After the war, when Jews did try to return to their communities, things like this happened:

        http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007941

        So I don’t give a good goddamn what Jews were expected to do under the Marshall Plan, and I thank G-d that today, Jews don’t have to worry about the expectations of people like George Marshall.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 1:17 pm

        Comments like this are really beneath contempt. The Polish Jewish community went from three million to three hundred thousand.

        No comments like that one are. The Nazis committed genocide against the Poles and Soviet POWs too. They lost more than 20 million people and no one was offering to setup a safe haven or state for them in another part of the world.

        For that matter Netanyahu has been building fences to keep refugees from coming to Israel and doesn’t seem to be convinced that everyone has the right to setup a new state somewhere else whenever a genocidal war breaks out in their country. If that’s not beneath contempt, then suggesting that Jewish war survivors should have gotten on with their lives in their countries of origin, like everyone else, is not beneath contempt either. You’re just upset that I don’t accept your narrative of Jewish exceptionalism in the aftermath of a war that killed-off 40 million people.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 12:51 pm

        Lol! No, it is illegal for a 501(c)3 to be organized in order to do that. It is illegal so long as it is more than an insubstantial part of the organizations activities, not just the “main thing” that it does. Hell some of them have full-time personnel with duty titles like “Director of Legislative Affairs”. See Measuring Lobbying: Substantial Part Test link to irs.gov”

        It is not, and as I’ve pointed out, 501(c)(3)’s do it all the time. If, of course, you wish to complain to the IRS about this issue, the avenue is there for you to do so. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/divulge_all_suspected_tax_exempt_status_abuses_to_the_irs.pdf

        Register a complaint if you think JCRC is violation of the policy, and let me know what the IRS says. That would be a good way to settle this question, although I think you know the answer since you seem reasonably intelligent. Since JCRC-NY has been around for quite a long time, and since they have lawyers who, among many other things, deal with issues like this, my guess is they know exactly what the law is, and that they haven’t violated it. Major Jewish organizations like JCRC know and understand FARA quite well.

        You’ve provided a link on the “Substantial Part Test,” apparently, again, assuming that people here won’t read it. The Test makes clear that it is applied on a case by case basis: “Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.”

        It’s unlikely you could meet your burden with regard to JCRC.

        “As usual, Hophmi is engaging in flim flammery.”

        No Hostage, you’re the one engaging in flim flammery, because you can’t tell the difference between a truthy demagogic political argument and a legal one.

        “There is no loophole in the Foreign Agents Registration Act that permits a law firm or other organization to avoid registration because it derives the bulk of its income from other clients or sources or agrees to do the work pro bono.”

        Not the point; JCRC isn’t a law firm representing the government of Israel as a client. They are the recipient of a grant. Law firms have to register with FARA when they take on foreign governments as clients; no one suggested that it had anything to do with what percentage of their income foreign government represented.

        “The statute requires anyone taking instructions or directions from a foreign entity to register, even if they are working for free. The Federations and their JCRCs work openly with the government of Israel and they are fixtures at one another’s annual conferences where they develop their joint strategies to combat BDS.”

        That is not the same thing as representing Israel as client. As I’ve pointed out, many, many organizations receive donations from foreign governments. They may even coordinate campaigns with them from time to time; JCRC certainly does this, principally as the organizer of the Celebrate Israel Parade. But they do it in their capacity as the representative of the Jewish community in New York, and not because they have a fiduciary responsibility to the State of Israel or because they work for the Israeli government; for the same reason, NIAC, which fosters better relations between the Iranians and the United States, and often promotes what can be characterized as Iranian interests, does not have to register because they do not work for the Iranian government. Neither do much larger 501(c)(3)’s, like, for instance, the NYU Abu Dhabi campus, which is a joint project with the Emirate, or the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, which takes money from many Islamic and Arab governments.

        I get it Hostage. People are forever using FARA as a sort of cudgel to attack protagonists of a foreign policy position they don’t like; this sort of demagoguery is not limited to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It’s a really easy game to play on unsuspecting people in your base. I really do encourage you to get off of your backside in Kansas (you clearly have the time) to petition for your desired outcome, because you know, and I know, that you have a losing position here.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 1:28 pm

        “If those organizations are taking instructions or directions from a foreign entity, then they should be registered as agents too.”

        I give you points for consistency.

        “There’s no stigma attached to it”

        I take away points for this. There’s obviously a stigma attached to labeling an organization as a foreign agent, rather than as an American organization working on behalf of an American constituency. If there weren’t a stigma, you wouldn’t be pushing the argument so hard.

        “I think your whole problem is that you don’t think its illegal to boycott or sanction Anti-Zionist Jews”

        Let’s drop this whole premise that anti-boycott legislation is aimed at anti-Zionist Jews. You know that’s not the case, not in word or deed; the boycott movement is not “Jewish.” I can understand the First Amendment free speech argument you’re making, at least to a point. The religious discrimination argument is silly, but maybe you’re previewing something here for me; maybe BDS will begin pushing itself as a Jewish religious creed. That should be fun to watch. Too bad denominational Judaism is approaching a nadir.

        Neither anti-Zionism nor Zionism count as religious creeds, sorry to say; while tenets of both might find support in Jewish religious texts, political ideologies are not elevated to religious creeds by virtue of their tenets finding support in religious texts. If that were true, just about every political ideology would be a religious creed, because just about all of them find support in religious texts.

        I know you like to refer to the people BDS is targeting as “the Zionists,” but you and I both know that in practice, BDS is targeting a state, and it’s not making special exceptions for those inside of the state who don’t identify as Zionist, not that it would likely matter a whole lot from an antidiscrimination law POV, since the outcome would still probably amount to discrimination. BDS targets people of a certain nationality because they hold that nationality. Academic institutions cannot base employment decisions on national origin. It’s simply a violation of federal and state law.

        As far as your novel argument that Hillels that abide by the partnership guidelines prohibiting local Hillels from sponsoring BDS proponents are violating DHS regulations: it is really interesting to see you use Title VI in a way that you’ve rejected many times in the past to support your other novel argument, which is that targeting anti-Zionist organizations is a form of religious discrimination under Title VI. Once again, I urge you to test this theory by filing a complaint. Generally, as far as I know, Title VI claims based on challenges to Zionist organizations on campus really haven’t succeeded. Jewish students on campus are generally worried about anti-Jewish acts on campus, whether they’re bigoted statements, or swastikas, or, in more difficult cases, instances where the rhetoric of the anti-Zionist movement strays into antisemitism by suggesting that Jews are dually loyal, or that a Jewish cabal is hurting America, etc.

        While someone like me suggests that anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism, there are two reasons, and neither is an assertion that anti-Zionists are per se antisemitic by virtue of being anti-Zionists. The first is that anti-Zionists often say antisemitic things, such as suggesting that Jews are dually loyal, that Jews have too much financial and political power in society, and they blame Jews for the Iraq War because some of the President’s advisors were Jewish; all this is consider antisemitism by most people outside of the anti-Zionist community because it hold Jews collectively responsible for what individual Jews do. The second is a structural argument; the notion that with all of the problems in the world, particularly in Islamic countries and communities, that Israel will be the center of attention for the human rights community and that we will, seventy years after the Holocaust, now launch a boycott of the state that was formed by Jewish refugees, and that we will do this mostly at the behest of European activists who hail from countries that were directly responsible for the Holocaust, and who delight in comparing Jews to their former oppressors, strikes me as a form of antisemitism.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 1:51 pm

        Let’s drop this whole premise that anti-boycott legislation is aimed at anti-Zionist Jews. You know that’s not the case, not in word or deed; the boycott movement is not “Jewish.”

        I don’t have to take your word for that. The organizations involved even admit that they are targeting Jewish Voice for Peace campus chapters and the Jewishpress reports named Jewish members of the Students for Justice in Palestine as examples of groups and individuals that should be targeted by anti-boycott legislation.

      • Bornajoo
        Bornajoo
        June 12, 2015, 1:58 pm

        “…… the notion that with all of the problems in the world, particularly in Islamic countries and communities, that Israel will be the center of attention for the human rights community and that we will, seventy years after the Holocaust, now launch a boycott of the state that was formed by Jewish refugees, and that we will do this mostly at the behest of European activists who hail from countries that were directly responsible for the Holocaust, and who delight in comparing Jews to their former oppressors, strikes me as a form of antisemitism.”

        Hey everyone. The Jews suffered the Holocaust so therefore Zionist Jews are allowed to do WHATEVER THEY LIKE, TO WHOM THEY LIKE, WHENEVER THEY LIKE. Has everyone here fully understood that?

        So we need to let them continue to murder, torture, brutally occupy, steal land, water, demolish homes, kidnap and detain anyone including young children and any other crime against humanity that takes their fancy. Because if you Boycott Israel for these crimes you are anti semitic because some horrible Muslim people somewhere else do even worse things, apparently and we should really turn a blind eye because holocaust, holocaust, holocaust, holocaust, anti semitism, anti semitism, anti semitism, holocaust, anti semitism,

        Oh okay Hophmi. I fully understand. Thanks for making that even clearer than you normally do

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 1:58 pm

        Neither anti-Zionism nor Zionism count as religious creeds, sorry to say; while tenets of both might find support in Jewish religious texts, political ideologies are not elevated to religious creeds by virtue of their tenets finding support in religious texts.

        What a dumb thing to say. The Pittsburgh Platform is by definition a published religious creed and I wish you luck convincing the Satmar Rebbe that the “Three Oaths” and the Talmud are just elements of his “political ideology”.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 1:44 pm

        “No comments like that one are. The Nazis committed genocide against the Poles and Soviet POWs too. They lost more than 20 million people and no one was offering to setup a safe haven or state for them in another part of the world.”

        The Poles lost 17% of their population during the war. There was no campaign to annihilate them. 91% of Polish Jews were murdered in an annihilationist campaign. Sometimes they were persecuted by their fellow Poles. At the end of the war, the Poles went back to Poland, and many of them took over Jewish homes and property. In places like Kielce, they massacred the Jews that tried to come back. Similar facts are true about Ukraine, where in many towns, most, if not all, Jews were murdered, symbolized by Babi Yar, where more than 30,000 Jews were killed over a weekend.

        “For that matter Netanyahu has been building fences to keep refugees from coming to Israel and doesn’t seem to be convinced that everyone has the right to setup a new state somewhere else whenever a genocidal war breaks out in their country.”

        Yeah, only Israel builds fences, right? In any case, my feeling is that we’d have a lot less genocide in Africa if there were more states.

        ” If that’s not beneath contempt, then suggesting that Jewish war survivors should have gotten on with their lives in their countries of origin, like everyone else, is not beneath contempt either.”

        I’m sorry, but yes it is. Jews were not like everyone else in Europe. They had no homes to go back to, and they were decimated in a way that no one else was. As I’ve said before, if you want to see what an annihilated people looks like when they have no place to go, look at the Roma. They’re still in dire poverty and still widely persecuted in so-called enlightened Europe.

        “You’re just upset that I don’t accept your narrative of Jewish exceptionalism in the aftermath of a war that killed-off 40 million people.”

        It matters not what you accept; I’ve dealt many times with this argument that others were killed, so the Jewish Holocaust somehow matters less. The argument is bad for many reasons; No ethnic group lost 6 out of every 11 members, and more than 9 out of 10 members of their largest national community, the Holocaust was the culmination of hundred and hundreds of years of religious-based persecution, etc. etc., we’ve been over this territory many times. What’s significant is your statement that Jews just should have picked up the pieces in Europe. In light of Jewish history in Europe, I find it callous.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 2:16 pm

        The Poles lost 17% of their population during the war. There was no campaign to annihilate them.

        OMG! Read Count 3 of the Nuremburg Indictment again. They were exterminated precisely because they were Poles and their “space” was needed for Germanization. So, please don’t try to tell me there was no plan to exterminate them. Before we have a contest over dick size, I’ll concede up front that you are the biggest prick I’ve ever encountered at MW.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 1:46 pm

        “No, its just perfectly legal to refuse to hire an Israeli national by explaining that we don’t want to expose the kiddies to their alien culture and outlook.”

        It’s perfectly legal if your policy is not to hire non-citizens. If your policy is not to hire Israelis only, then it’s quite illegal. Get the difference now? Or are we going to continue to be silly?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 2:09 pm

        It’s perfectly legal if your policy is not to hire non-citizens. If your policy is not to hire Israelis only, then it’s quite illegal. Get the difference now? Or are we going to continue to be silly?

        Who is being silly? I was pointing out that there are exceptions to the statutory prohibitions on employment-based discrimination on the basis of alien national origin that allow us to discriminate against any and all non-US nationals. I have only been pointing that out, by way of these and analogies, that any constitutional anti-boycott statute will similarly permit behavior or nationality based discrimination against states, their agencies, and their citizens. I already pointed out an example of that in the South Carolina statute.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 1:58 pm

        “24 hours and counting. You still haven’t cited a single violation of any statute by the BDS movement, including that one. So why did you ever bring the subject up in the first place?”

        Are we back to straw men?

        No one suggested that the BDS movement had actually violated antidiscrimination law. The question is about academic institutions that may adopt BDS. If an academic institution adopts BDS as a policy and refuses to hire Israeli academic personnel on that basis, then it would be violating antidiscrimination law.

        “But [JCRC is] an organization and the statute applies to those, as well as corporations, partnerships, or any other combination, not just clients.”

        No, FARA is not implicated simply because you have a relationship or even a working partnership with representatives of a foreign country. I explained in detail why that’s not true; if it were, very many 501(c)(3)’s would be in violation, like NYU’s Abu Dhabi project, Arab charities, etc. You have to actually working on their behalf (law firm-client, ad -agency-client, etc.). You have to REPRESENT the foreign government. It’s not enough to say simply that JCRC supports Israeli goals or even interests; you can support Israeli interests in your function as an American organization acting on behalf of your American members, just as Mondoweiss can support Iranian interests in its capacity as a organization against sanctions policy, without the need to register as a foreign agent on behalf of Iran. Neither of these is true in the case of JCRC-NY. Again, if you disagree with this perspective, I urge you to complain to the IRS; I’ve provided you a link to the relevant form.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 2:07 pm

        “I don’t have to take your word for that. The organizations involved even admit that they are targeting Jewish Voice for Peace campus chapters and the Jewishpress reports named Jewish members of the Students for Justice in Palestine as examples of groups and individuals that should be targeted by anti-boycott legislation.”

        So what? They’re targeting organizations that support BDS, not organizations that are Jewish. You’re going to respond that if that’s true, how come we can’t go in the other direction and say that BDSers aren’t targeting Jews; they’re targeting Zionists. My answer is that, unfortunately, sometimes that leads to an antisemitic atmosphere on campus, and one reason anti-Zionist activity is more likely to do that than BDS activity is is that most of the Jewish community is not in favor of BDS, and thus, it’s more likely that anti-Zionist activity will stray into antisemitic activity. With regard to Title VI, you’re not going to have a successful case if all you can make out is that SJP and JVP held a few events on campus. There is more to it than that.

        As far your very silly argument that anti-Zionism is a religious creed because of the Pittsburgh Platform and the “Three Oaths” you love so much, please respond to my counterargument, which is that most political ideologies can claim some basis in religious texts, and another, which is that the vast majority of BDSers have no clue what the Pittsburgh Platform or the Three Oaths are, and to my knowledge, neither the Palestinian civil society organizations that adopted BDS as a strategy or JVP, which regards itself as supporting that call, has ever suggested that the reason was because of either one of these documents.

        Again, if you disagree, please feel free to press this claim under Title VI with the relevant agency.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 2:34 pm

        So what? They’re targeting organizations that support BDS, not organizations that are Jewish.

        Correction: Read the NAACP decisions again. They are targeting organizations and individual members who are specifically associating with the BDS movement in most instances as part of a formal platform for the advancement of their Jewish values, creed, and beliefs. That’s the same thing other Jewish groups do when they promote their “Jewish Traditions”.

        I would also like to point out that the original draft of the Balfour Declaration used the term “Jews” and that it was deliberately rejected by the predominately atheist Zionist leadership who were merely “Jew-ish” like myself. A lot of ink was spilled over a dispute between the members of the Jewish Board of Deputies and the Jewish Board of Governors over the subsequent, undesirable use of the pretentious or offensive terms “Jewish race” and “Jewish nationality”.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 2:50 pm

        Again, if you disagree, please feel free to press this claim under Title VI with the relevant agency.

        Don’t tell me, tell the Litigation department of Louis D. Brandies Center to read their own pamphlet that I quoted above (Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism
        and the Civil Rights Act of 1964). They are soliciting pointless reports from Students and Professors regarding “anti-Israeli incidents on your college or university campus” without bothering to explain that neither DOE nor the Courts will be interested if its JVP or a Muslim Student association complaining about Israeli policies on the grounds of their religious beliefs. It makes for great propaganda that gets used to drum up support for symbolic anti-boycott legislation. http://www.brandeiscenter.com/

      • lysias
        lysias
        June 12, 2015, 2:09 pm

        No ethnic group lost 6 out of every 11 members, and more than 9 out of 10 members of their largest national community,

        Funny how the Gypsies so often seem to be forgotten. The high estimates for the numbers of Gypsies killed in both Lithuania and Estonia are 1,000 in each (low estimate for each 500), in each case out of a total of 1,000 Gypsies.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 2:12 pm

        “Who is being silly? I was pointing out that there are exceptions to the statutory prohibitions on employment-based discrimination on the basis of alien national origin that allow us to discriminate against any and all non-US nationals. I have only been pointing that out, by way of these and analogies, that any constitutional anti-boycott statute will similarly permit behavior or nationality based discrimination against states, their agencies, and their citizens. I already pointed out an example of that in the South Carolina statute.”

        Your exception allows discrimination on the basis of citizenship, and yes, there are many examples of that, such as voting rights. But a law preventing non-citizens from voting would not support another law preventing only people of Israeli extraction from voting.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 2:18 pm

        Even the Roma did not lose as high a percentage of their population during the Porajmos as the Jews did (the high estimate is that about 1 in 4 Roma died), but since I mentioned them prominently in making the point that they have been quite unable to just “pick up the pieces” and go on with their lives, and that they continue to suffer from endemic poverty and persecution in Europe today, I can hardly be accused of forgetting them.

      • lysias
        lysias
        June 12, 2015, 2:24 pm

        The world Jewish population in 1939 is estimated as having been 16,728,000. If the Holocaust killed 6 million Jews, that is 35.9% of the world total. If it killed 5 million, that is 29.9%

      • just
        just
        June 12, 2015, 2:29 pm

        Whew, that’s the longest scroll ever!

        All totally worth it for the privilege of congratulating you on your seemingly infinite wisdom, patience, generosity and the TKO!

        …”Before we have a contest over dick size, I’ll concede up front that you are the biggest prick I’ve ever encountered at MW.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/supreme-israel-jerusalem/comment-page-1#comment-774170

        Amen.

        (of course you have the advantage, but your ‘opponent’ kept flailing anyway. go figure!)

      • eljay
        eljay
        June 12, 2015, 2:37 pm

        || hophmi: … anti-Zionists often say antisemitic things [that] hold Jews collectively responsible for what individual Jews do. ||

        By conflating all Jews with Israel and Israel with all Jews; by insisting that loyalty to the “Jewish State” is an essential part of being Jewish; and by asserting* that all Jews are responsible for the actions of some Jews, Zio-supremacists do a top-notch job of being anti-Semitic. Give yourselves a pat on the back.

        (* Zio-supremacist JeffB did that right here on MW and only you and y.f. managed half-hearted repudiations of his assertion, and only after considerable prodding. Interesting, that.)

        || … Israel will be the center of attention for the human rights community and that we will, seventy years after the Holocaust, now launch a boycott of the state that was formed by Jewish refugees … ||

        I love how you make Jewish terrorism, the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population from their homes and lands and nearly 7 decades of past and on-going (war) crimes sound so benign.

        Fact is, the Holocaust didn’t and doesn’t:
        – change the fact that Israel had and has no right to exist as a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”;
        – absolve the “Jewish State” of its past and on-going (war) crimes or of its obligations under international law.

        || … strikes me as a form of antisemitism. ||

        There seems to be very little in this world that does not strike you as anti-Semitism.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 2:41 pm

        “OMG! Read Count 3 of the Nuremburg Indictment again. They were exterminated precisely because they were Poles and their “space” was needed for Germanization. So, please don’t try to tell me there was no plan to exterminate them. Before we have a contest over dick size, I’ll concede up front that you are the biggest prick I’ve ever encountered at MW.”

        The numbers speak for themselves. I can agree with you that the many non-Jewish Poles were killed, and even that Poles experienced a form of a genocide. They were not, however, murdered at anything near the rate or intensity at which the Jewish community was disposed of, and in some cases, such as Jedwabne, they did the work for the Nazis. And at the end of the war, the survivors went back to their homes and country, and in some cases, denied that ability to the few Polish Jews who survived.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 3:03 pm

        And at the end of the war, the survivors went back to their homes and country, and in some cases, denied that ability to the few Polish Jews who survived.

        And how is this different from the plight of the refugees of African forms of genocide that resulted in Netanyahu’s fence on the Egyptian border and deportations and refoulments? There have already been press reports about people put to death that Israel had expelled. Hell, for that matter you haven’t explained why the Jewish DPs didn’t just stay in the Allied DP centers until they could be resettled in some other “European country” in the same fashion that Zionist insist the Palestinian refugees must be accommodated by “the Arabs”.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 2:43 pm

        “Correction: Read the NAACP decisions again. They are targeting organizations and individual members who are specifically associating with the BDS movement in most instances as part of a formal platform for the advancement of their Jewish values, creed, and beliefs. That’s the same thing other Jewish groups do when they promote their “Jewish Traditions”.”

        I’m again urging you to advance this argument with the relevant authorities. You can persist in this silliness. You won’t convince anyone outside of the cult.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 3:43 pm

        I’m again urging you to advance this argument with the relevant authorities. You can persist in this silliness. You won’t convince anyone outside of the cult.

        I already do contribute to the Center for Constitutional Rights and it already has done work with Palestine Solidarity Legal Support. They and hundreds of Jewish academics have delivered a letter to the U.S. State Department demanding that it “revise its definition of anti-Semitism to reflect its commitment to opposing hate and discrimination without curtailing constitutionally protected freedom of speech.” We’ve had articles about that right here at MW.

        FYI, the former Deputy Legal Counsel for the Israeli Delegation to the UN published a series of articles on lawfare and complained bitterly about the fact that Palestinians seemed to be following legal and political advice derived from comments made on the Opinio Juris and other blogs. So if I were you, I wouldn’t assume that these posts are just a waste of space.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 2:45 pm

        “All totally worth it for the privilege of congratulating you on your seemingly infinite wisdom, patience, generosity and the TKO!”

        Too bad judges have to be impartial. That disqualifies you, Just.

        “congratulating you on your seemingly infinite wisdom, patience, generosity… I’ll concede up front that you are the biggest prick I’ve ever encountered at MW.” –

        Yeah, that’s patience and generosity, calling the people who don’t agree with you “big pricks” in a room full of your fellow travelers. As I said, there is no shortage of people who will shine sun up Hostage’s behind, no matter how silly his arguments.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 3:28 pm

        Yeah, that’s patience and generosity, calling the people who don’t agree with you “big pricks” in a room full of your fellow travelers.

        Look Hophmi, the fact is that when human beings are getting exterminated to make room for colonization by members of a fanatical blood and soil cult, it’s just as big of a tragedy for one of the victims to have been an innocent Pole as it is for one of them to have been an innocent Jewish – and you would still be just as big of a prick for suggesting otherwise, even if we were alone in the proverbial room.

        In Palestine Jews took matters into their own hands so people like Arlosoroff and Kastner couldn’t use any clever legal defenses. When Israel adopted its own symbolic Nazi Collaborators Law. But it became perfectly clear that Zionist officials, like Kastner, were never in any more danger due to adoption of “The Final Solution,” than the Poles who managed to survive.

      • lysias
        lysias
        June 12, 2015, 2:47 pm

        Estimates of the number of Gypsies killed in the Holocaust range up to 1,500,000.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 2:55 pm

        “They are soliciting pointless reports from Students and Professors regarding “anti-Israeli incidents on your college or university campus” without bothering to explain that neither DOE nor the Courts will be interested if its JVP or a Muslim Student association complaining about Israeli policies on the grounds of their religious beliefs. It makes for great propaganda that gets used to drum up support for symbolic anti-boycott legislation.”

        It is likewise great propaganda to refer to BDS as a religious movement. You should keep doing it. Make sure to remind the kids that if boycotting governments that are accused of human rights violations is now a religious requirement, they have a lot of boycotting to do.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 4:01 pm

        It is likewise great propaganda to refer to BDS as a religious movement.

        No it’s propaganda for the kippah-wearing Taliban to show-up at Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, or other Church conventions and shreying that any expression of concern for Palestinian human rights is a form of antisemitism and bigotry.

        BTW, entire volumes have been written about the fact that Israel was founded and continues to be governed by non-religious Jews who simply adapted Jewish traditions to the propaganda needs of the state, e.g. Civil Religion in Israel, by Lieberman and Don-Yehiya.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        Maximus Decimus Meridius
        June 12, 2015, 2:58 pm

        @lysias

        I have read that the Roma lost proportionatly more people than any other group targetted in the Holocaust, including the Jews. However, because, far from being Special Snowflakes, the Roma are Europe’s most despised minority, they don’t count in the victimhood stakes.

      • just
        just
        June 12, 2015, 4:12 pm

        “FYI, the former Deputy Legal Counsel for the Israeli Delegation to the UN published a series of articles on lawfare and complained bitterly about the fact that Palestinians seemed to be following legal and political advice derived from comments made on the Opinio Juris and other blogs. So if I were you, I wouldn’t assume that these posts are just a waste of space.”

        Far from it! ;-)

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 4:30 pm

        I wouldn’t assume that these posts are just a waste of space.”

        Far from it! ;-)

        It really doesn’t matter, it’s just a blog. I get amused though by Hophmi’s overly broad assumption that we don’t contact the proper authorities over this stuff. We’ve had articles here about petitions to the Treasury Department and IRS over charities that fund the illegal settlements from organizations like J-Street and Avaaz. After I commented here about the fact that the US already had a Treasury Department Directive on labeling products from the West bank and Gaza that the Israelis were violating, a group in the Pacific Northwest contacted customs officials who seized some mislabeled products. Likewise the Center for Constitutional Rights has been in contact with California and federal officials almost since day one of the AntiZionism=AntiSemitism lawfare campaign.

      • just
        just
        June 12, 2015, 4:18 pm

        “As I said, there is no shortage of people who will shine sun up Hostage’s behind, no matter how silly his arguments.”

        Pathetic and craven, hophmi.

        There is nothing “silly” about the genocide of the Polish people.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 5:07 pm

        “There is nothing “silly” about the genocide of the Polish people.”

        Don’t play that game with me. I never said that there was anything silly about the Polish experience during WWII. The argument that the experience was comparable to what Polish Jews experienced, sometimes at the hands of their Christian Polish brethren, is belied by history.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 5:58 pm

        The argument that the experience was comparable to what Polish Jews experienced, sometimes at the hands of their Christian Polish brethren, is belied by history.

        Once again, this construction of the exceptional and tearful history is used to excuse the establishment of a state that dehumanizes Palestinians in exactly the same fashion that the Nazis blamed their Jewish and Polish victims. Volumes have been written about the subject, i.e. Guntram Herb’s, “Under the Map of Germany: Nationalism and Propaganda 1918 – 1945” and “Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question.” By Edward W. Said, Christopher Hitchens. The notion that Jews “had it worse” and needed a special remedy, different from the millions of other victims who died at the same time, and quite frequently in the same death camps, makes no sense.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        June 13, 2015, 3:34 am

        @Hostage

        ” In Palestine Jews took matters into their own hands so people like Arlosoroff and Kastner couldn’t use any clever legal defenses”

        Zero. I emphasize, zero proof that Jews had a hand in the killing of Arlosoroff.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 13, 2015, 10:05 am

        Zero. I emphasize, zero proof that Jews had a hand in the killing of Arlosoroff.

        No, that’s never the case, when the murder is positively identified by an eyewitness and his conviction is upheld by the Court of Appeals and only overturned on a technicality by the High Court of Justice.

        Professor of Law at Tel-Aviv University, Asher Maoz explains:

        Two members of the Revisionist camp, Abraham Stavsky and Zvi Rosenblatt, were tried for the murder in the Serious Crimes Court in Jerusalem. Abba Achimeir was charged with advising and inciting the commission of the murder. (Achimeir was founder of Berit ha’Biryonim, an underground group formed to fight British policy in Palestine and bearing the name of a group that fought the Romans and their Jewish collaborators.) All three were acquitted; however, only the acquittal of Abba Achimeir was unequivocal, to the extent that it was held that he could enjoy the defense of “no case to answer,” after the court found that insufficient incriminatory evidence had been presented against him.

        Rosenblatt and Stavsky were also acquitted, the former at first instance and the latter by the Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Criminal Appeal. Their acquittal was primarily technical, as the lower court had fully accepted the testimony of Mrs. Arlosoroff, who identified the accused as those who had committed the murder, and the Appeal Court saw no reason to interfere in this finding. The accused were acquitted because Mrs. Arlosoroff’s testimony was not corroborated, as required by the prevailing Palestinian law. Nonetheless, the Appeal Court left no doubt as to the events of the murder. In regard to Stavsky’s acquittal, the Appeal Court even went so far as to state that had the case been heard in England itself, or in most of the territories of the British Empire, the conviction would rightly have been upheld, as under those legal systems there was no requirement of corroboration of an individual’s testimony.

        Historical Adjudication: Courts of Law, Commissions of Inquiry, and “Historical Truth” http://web.archive.org/web/20030325022827/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/18.3/maoz.html

        Years later, Shabtai Teveth wrote about the incident and angered Prime Minister Begin, who setup a Commission to whitewash the affair in exactly the same way Ben Gurion had Kastner’s accuser sued for libel. The notion that there was never sufficient evidence in either case is viewed by many as state-sponsored propaganda.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        June 13, 2015, 3:49 am

        Hophmi, this string is so long that I am not sure whether this comment will arrive in the right place, and, what is worse, I have lost the thread of your argument.

        It seems to me that you are saying that, because European Jews were killed in greater proportion than other “ethnic groups”, Jews in general have rights which other people do not have, or that their wishes must be granted even at the expense of other people.

        I do not see how even the actual victims of the Holocaust (let alone Jews safe in America, or safeish in Palestine) acquire extra rights or privileges. Can you provide an argument to support that idea?

        If not, how does the suffering of the Holocaust give Jews in general a right to take over Palestine and drive out the Palestinians?

        And I should point out that calling Israel “the state that was formed by Jewish refugees” is inaccurate. It was planned long before the Holocaust, and the plan was executed largely by people who were already resident in Palestine.

        In regard to those refugees who did take part in the setting up of Israel, I can only say they were a most contemptible bunch. Instead of fulfilling their duty of gratitude to the people of the country, they allied themselves with the people who were trying to take over the country.

        By this act, they made themselves invaders.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        June 13, 2015, 12:09 pm

        @Hostage

        Four people testified that they saw Stavsky in the Sharon Restaurant in Jerusalem that night, and that he was still there by 8:45 pm. This would not have given him enough time to get to Tel Aviv by the time of the murder. The Arlosoroffs only decided to go to the beach at 9:30 – there is no way that Stavsky could have known that in time to commit the crime.–Bechor, David; Berkowitz, Eliezer; Keneth, Max. (1985). “State Investigative Committee of the Murder of Dr. Haim Arlosoroff” (“ועדת החקירה לחקירת רצח ד”ר חיים ארלוזורוב הי”ד”). Jerusalem: State of Israel. pp.188-186. 43-45.

        Photo Identification: the police procedure was irregular. It was done after a warrant was put out for Stavsky’s arrest, but before he was apprehended. Stavsky’s profile looked distinct from the rest of the nine, in both his physical appearance and his clothing, thereby drawing more attention to him. Bechor, David; Berkowitz, Eliezer; Keneth, Max. (1985). pp. 43-45.

        Suspect Line-up: it was done a day after Sima had identified Stavsky in the photo – his image was still in her memory. According to a police officer on duty, his arm was around her back – he could have unconsciously stopped her when they reached Stavsky. Also, as opposed to the rest of the men in the line-up, Stavsky was unshaven, hatless and hefty, thus making him stand out more–Bechor, David; Berkowitz, Eliezer; Keneth, Max. (1985). 180-181.

        Hostage. The only person in the entire world who had a compelling motive to assassinate Arlosorov, was Reich’s Propaganda Minister Josef Goebells.

        http://www.jewishmag.com/149mag/arlosoroff/arlosoroff.htm

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 13, 2015, 12:50 pm

        Hostage. The only person in the entire world who had a compelling motive to assassinate Arlosorov, was Reich’s Propaganda Minister Josef Goebells.

        Oh please, drop the stupid hyperbole and exaggerations. During the trial Policemen testified that Stavsky had engraved two stones with death threats against Arlosoroff. http://www.jta.org/1934/06/10/archive/trial-ends-almost-year-to-day-of-death-of-zionist-leader

        He received death threats from Jews all over Palestine. Arlosoroff had negotiated and signed-on to a business partnership with the Third Reich under which the Zionist organization’s subsidiaries became the purchasing agents and distributors of German manufactured goods. The minute the news about the deal became public in Palestine there were “riots, antiphonal screaming, protest marches, rancor, and threats.” In other words the same Revisionist behavior that preceded Rabin’s assassination:

        On June 1 6 , 1933, the Revisionist newspaper Hazit Ha-am printed the following: “ There will be no forgiveness for those who for greed have sold out the honor of their people to madmen and
        anti-Semites. . . . The Jewish people have always known how to size up betrayers,. . . and it will know how to react to this crime” (“Chaim Arlosoroff”, Encyclopedia Judaica). To some in the Labor Party, this statement cer­tainly sounded like a death threat.

        Carole S. Kessner, Marie Syrkin: Values Beyond the Self, UPNE, 2008, page 244

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      June 8, 2015, 9:28 pm

      This decision would seem to indicate that the U.S. Congress does not have the power to mandate that the embassy in Israel be moved to Jerusalem.

      Probably not, since they’d still have to convince the Executive to acknowledge that Jerusalem is a city located in the state of Israel as a preliminary step. There are countries, like Iran, with no US Embassy. So, if push ever came to shove, the President could always recall the entire embassy staff and simply let the Zionists do without one, until the Congress agreed to mind its own business;-)

      • just
        just
        June 8, 2015, 9:39 pm

        ;-0

        +1, Hostage!

      • Bornajoo
        Bornajoo
        June 12, 2015, 12:28 pm

        I have no idea how you do this Hostage. You seem to be able to write faster than I can read! What incredible knowledge as well as the incredible energy (and inclination) to keep replying to the likes of Hophmi.

        Thank you

  6. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    June 8, 2015, 8:32 pm

    On NPR, Nina Totenberg noted that the majority included the Supreme Court’s three Jews.

    Always, always, NPR sees I/P as a private matter for Jews. But this is good, if interpreted (wrongly) as showing three S/C Jews opposing AIPAC et al. It seems that 6 justices, including 3 Jews, saw the law with the president. Did AIPAC submit a brief?

  7. just
    just
    June 8, 2015, 8:52 pm

    Chemi Shalev:

    “U.S. Supreme Court decision: Small step for presidency, big blow for Jerusalem

    The massive effort to use Zivotofsky’s passport petition for recognition of Israel’s capital only made things worse.

    The U.S. Constitution gave the president the authority “to receive ambassadors and other public ministers.” Ever since the Founding Fathers first thrashed it out in 1793 over George Washington’s wish to muzzle an irksome envoy of revolutionary France, the so-called “reception clause” has been interpreted as giving the President wide powers in making foreign policy. Monday’s Supreme Court decision further cemented his (or her) exclusive authority over recognition of foreign countries and their sovereignty over geographical areas, or, in this case, lack thereof. …

    …Legalities and technicalities aside, however, the decision was nonetheless a considerable public relations blow for Israel and for perceptions of its status in Jerusalem. Together with myriad Jewish organizations fighting for the cause, Israel had sought to exploit Zivotofsky’s understandable request to have his country of birth registered in his passport, conducting a legal battle that lasted over a decade, consumed millions of dollars, raised hopes sky high and ended in a thundering crash. The world’s media are bound to dwell less on the debates between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton over the conduct of America’s foreign policy and more on the ruling’s bottom line. If you hadn’t known until now that Israel’s greatest ally refuses to recognize its sovereignty over its capital in either East or West Jerusalem, you’re certainly aware of it now.

    Israel and the Jewish groups who turned the Zivotofsky case into a cause celebre turned out to be too clever by half. They thought that by combining strong Congressional support, persuasive amicus briefs submitted by well-respected Jewish groups and a personal story bound to spark sympathy they might circumvent long standing U.S. policy and get in through the back door. A clear majority of the judges – including all the liberal ones, whose positions may have been colored, for all we know, by their attitude towards current Israeli policies – decided to slam the door on their toes.

    Most observers believe that Israel has already lost the battle over a nuclear agreement with Iran as well, if and when one is signed – it just doesn’t know it yet, or at least is unwilling to concede. It’s been a recurring theme in recent years, especially in the government’s ties with America: Why try to cut your losses when you can emerge from the fight not only bloodied and beaten, but tarred and feathered as well?”

    http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/.premium-1.660323

    I think it’s most definitely not “a big blow for Jerusalem”, Chemi.

  8. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    June 8, 2015, 9:32 pm

    Phil “Well, the Supreme Court slam dunked the lobby” Who would have thought?

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      June 8, 2015, 10:13 pm

      “Well, the Supreme Court slam dunked the lobby” Who would have thought?

      Certainly not me. The opinion of the lower Court after the case was reheard on remand cited a few dozen other well-known Supreme Court decisions on the same subject (the exclusive nature of the power of the President in matters of recognition). All of those cases said the same damned thing as this opinion that was delivered today.

      I worried that the only reason the Supremes would have wasted their time and issued another writ of certiorari to rehear the same warmed-over Zivotofsky v Clinton arguments again in Zivotofsky v Kerry was because someone with enough swing votes wanted to overturn 230 years of existing legal precedents and the D. C. Circuit ruling, which already held the statute unconstitutional.

      So, I’m pleasantly surprised and celebrating US Independence Day early this year.

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        June 8, 2015, 10:47 pm

        Given all that precedent, Hostage, 6 to THREE.

        Even so, Happy Independence Day!

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 8, 2015, 11:37 pm

        Given all that precedent, Hostage, 6 to THREE.

        Yep, I’m pretty certain that the ceremonies in Israel have already begun among “the faithful” to invoke the intervention of the angels of destruction in order that all of the curses of the scriptures can rain down on their heads and trigger a round of fresh nominations and fellate-a-donkey for Israel-style litmus tests .

  9. Kay24
    Kay24
    June 8, 2015, 10:02 pm

    I may have missed it, but it seems the MSM has still not reported this. This has been a very cunning move by those in Israel, to try and go over the President’s head, and dictate to us how our policies should be regarding Jerusalem, in their desire to get control over it. No President has recognized Jerusalem as belonging to Israel, and I can imagine they have tried using their minions, lobbies, and loyal servants in the US to persuade every President to grant it to them.

    For once SCOTUS did the right thing. Jerusalem does not belong entirely to Israel, and hopefully will continue to be so. Those greedy zionists can never be trusted to do the right thing.

    • oldgeezer
      oldgeezer
      June 8, 2015, 11:45 pm

      Neither part of Jersusalem is recognized as a legitimate part of Israel. Just more typical land theft surrounded by propaganda

    • bintbiba
      bintbiba
      June 9, 2015, 6:59 am

      @ Hostage ,

      “Yep, I’m pretty certain that the ceremonies in Israel have already begun among “the faithful” to invoke the intervention of the angels of destruction in order that all of the curses of the scriptures can rain down on their heads and trigger a round of fresh nominations and fellate-a-donkey for Israel-style litmus tests “.

      . – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/supreme-israel-jerusalem#comments

      PRICELESS !!!

      • just
        just
        June 9, 2015, 9:14 am

        ditto, bintbiba!

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      Atlantaiconoclast
      June 9, 2015, 9:58 am

      Do we really think that the next president WON’T recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s? I wish it wasn’t true, but I think we better prepare for even more ass kissing in the next administration.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        June 9, 2015, 11:29 am

        It by some bad luck it happens to be an evangelical zionist Christian like say Huckerbee, then there is a very big chance that will happen. Otherwise the ass kissing will go one by every single President from either party.

  10. Hostage
    Hostage
    June 8, 2015, 10:58 pm

    Marco Rubio hopped right on it and indicated that if/when he’s president, this won’t happen

    LoL! Not to be outdone, Hillary announced that, just as the official US recognition of the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan had only been declassified and published by the US State Department nearly two decades after the fact, she could produce a (missing) email which would establish that Bill had already recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (in exchange for Tony Blair’s old job and donations made payable to the Clinton Foundation). See the full Memorandum of Conversation, between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Mr. Abdel Monem Rifai, Counselor, Jordan Legation in Washington, June 5, 1950, Subject: “Status of Jerusalem” and the comments regarding recognition of the union with Arab Palestine on page 921 of the “Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), US Government Printing Office 1978, Page 921

    If Rubio really wants to sing for his supper and make his Zionist paymasters feel good about the “special relationship” again, he ought to just assume the position and allow them to shake him down for a proposed Constitutional Amendment on the subject. That would undoubtedly attract more votes than his run for the White House and would take the question out of the hands of the other two branches for good.

  11. oldgeezer
    oldgeezer
    June 8, 2015, 11:36 pm

    The Israeli press is pretty upset with this decision. They haven’t called the supreme court antisemitic but they skirt pretty close to that by suggesting the ruling is only because it involves Jews and that no other country would face such a situation.

    One of the more interesting aspects of the entire case was that the ADL filed a friend of the court brief and has made statements since the ruling.

    foxman has been recorded making racists remarks with respect to Arabs. There isn’t even a possible ruling of international law which would make Jerusalem a part of Israel/

    The racist twat has totally destroyed both his, and the adl’s, credibility in one fell swoop by siding with the perpetrators of violations of international law. He should hang his head in shame and any future word from either party will earn two fingers up before I turn my back and get on with supporting what is moral and right.

    • just
      just
      June 8, 2015, 11:40 pm

      They won’t do it, but those upset with the SCOTUS ruling might want to consider what their reaction would be if the parents of a US child born in Jerusalem wanted to have Palestine listed as their birth country…

      As far as I am concerned, Foxman and the ADL lost credibility a long time ago. I get your point, though.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        June 9, 2015, 12:04 am

        Oh they lost credibility a long time ago for me too. I probably should have worded it a bit differently.

        Now, on a purely objective basis they have no credibility as they have attempted to defend war crimes. And, further, they are upset war crimes weren’t recognized as legitimate.

        No one can accept any statements from them without recognizing that they have aligned themselves with war criminals.

      • just
        just
        June 9, 2015, 12:04 am

        wrt ADL:

        “US Jewish groups slam administration’s ‘hypocritical’ view on Jerusalem
        ADL, AJC, Conference of Presidents express disappointment, concern over ruling barring Jerusalem-born US citizens from citing Jewish state on passport

        WASHINGTON – A long list of major American Jewish organizations, many of which had filed amicus briefs supporting the inclusion of the word “Israel” on passports for US citizens born in Jerusalem, expressed dismay at Monday’s Supreme Court ruling that American citizens born in Jerusalem may only list their birthplace as Jerusalem, rather than as Jerusalem, Israel. …

        …The ADL had spearheaded an amicus brief signed by 12 Jewish organizations which argued that Americans born in Jerusalem should be able to identify their country of birth on their passport in the same way other American citizens born abroad may do.

        “The question for the Supreme Court in this case involved a simple and ministerial act – whether or not US citizens born in Jerusalem should be allowed to list their birth place as Israel,” Foxman wrote in a statement after the ruling. “The answer to that should have been an easy yes. And the court did not have to issue a sweeping decision about executive power to reach that conclusion.”

        Foxman called on the administration to “step up,” asking “how long will the US government continue to have this hypocritical and myopic approach?

        “It is sad and unfortunate that Israel – as a sovereign nation – is the only country in the world whose capital comes under such scrutiny and has to defend its right to determine where its capital city exists,” Foxman continued. “It’s time for the Executive Branch to face the reality: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel,” he concluded, echoing statements made Monday by Israeli leaders.”…

        http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-jewish-groups-slam-administrations-hypocritical-view-on-jerusalem/

        They can’t even recognize the fact that this is the antithesis of hypocrisy…

        losers.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        June 9, 2015, 1:06 am

        those upset with the SCOTUS ruling might want to consider what their reaction would be if the parents of a US child born in Jerusalem wanted to have Palestine listed as their birth country…

        Very good, Just! If the Zionists restart with that beat, it should be done right away. In fact, I would say a US child born in Nazareth should be asking to have Palestine listed as country of birth!

    • Boo
      Boo
      June 9, 2015, 9:58 am

      “The Israeli press … haven’t called the supreme court antisemitic but they skirt pretty close to that by suggesting the ruling is only because it involves Jews”

      Including the three (obviously) self-hating Jewish Justices who concurred with the ruling.

  12. ritzl
    ritzl
    June 9, 2015, 12:09 am

    Because Rubio so joyfully seeks to eviscerate international law, he should remember that as President he will have to explain, on camera, to all the grieving mothers of dead US soldiers of all our “little wars” who were captured in uniform but executed anyway…

    …that it’s all perfectly acceptable because international law doesn’t matter.

  13. talknic
    talknic
    June 9, 2015, 1:53 am

    Any bets that this will result in mass arrests of Palestinians based on alleged terrorist plots and a series of false flag incidents either in the West Bank or alleged to have been instigated by Palestinians of the West Bank …. starting …. tonight Jun 9th 2015 AEST

    I hope I lose BTW, but my guts is churning because this is to the Zionist Colonial enterprise like holy water to Nosferatu, they’re gonna go red eyed spittle fleckin’ vein poppin’ ballistic

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      June 9, 2015, 6:03 pm

      Any bets that this will result in mass arrests of Palestinians based on alleged terrorist plots and a series of false flag incidents either in the West Bank or alleged to have been instigated by Palestinians of the West Bank …. starting …. tonight Jun 9th 2015 AEST

      Yes, Israel is like the cowardly wife beater who gets reprimanded at work for drinking on the job, then goes home and takes it out on his wife.

    • talknic
      talknic
      June 10, 2015, 7:18 am

      https://www.google.com.au/search?q=israeli%20border%20police%20jenin%20raid%20not%20coordinated%20shot%20in%20the%20back%2010th%20June%202015

      Shot in the back …. The Israeli border police spokesman said the Jenin raid was not coordinated in advance with the security forces of U.S.-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas

      • eljay
        eljay
        June 10, 2015, 7:51 am

        || talknic: link to google.com.au Shot in the back …. ||

        I look forward to Zio-supremacists either:
        – condemning this latest murder committed by Israeli militants outside of Israel’s / Partition borders; or
        – acknowledging the right of Palestinian militants to commit murder outside of their state’s / Partition borders.

        Surely Zio-supremacists aren’t hypocritically going to suggest that it’s acceptable for Israel to engage in such actions against others, but not for others to engage in such actions against Israel…

      • just
        just
        June 10, 2015, 9:20 am

        Murder.

        A they say eljay, don’t hold your breath.

      • eljay
        eljay
        June 10, 2015, 9:26 am

        || just: A they say eljay, don’t hold your breath. ||

        Believe me, I wasn’t planning to. ;-)

  14. Bornajoo
    Bornajoo
    June 9, 2015, 6:03 am

    Many thanks Annie and Phil. A great result!

    Now watch them try and change the judges in SCOTUS. They will do anything to get their way. If a couple of the *good* judges are at retirement age during the next presidential period (and I think a couple will be looking at their ages), then the next POTUS (unfortunately going to be either Hillary or Republican and therefore more pro Israel) will nominate *bad* replacements. Imagine if Rubio was doing the nominating? Gawd help us

    What worries me is that 3 of the judges did actually vote yes. You only need to change 2 of the judges (or make sure that 2 pro Zionist judges are somehow elected) and then they can do whatever they want.

    Is that how it works?

    • ritzl
      ritzl
      June 9, 2015, 12:29 pm

      Or the simpler, more immediate/direct version, Bornajoo… You really have to wonder if the three Jewish SCOTUS justices are now going to get “Goldstoned.”

      I hope and pray that if even a whiff of an attempt to exert family influence on those three justices occurs, they expose it immediately and publicly. They have a responsibility, though Scalia never took his outside-the-court interactions with Cheney very seriously, so I’m not all that hopeful. But it could happen.

      Given past coercive practice in these situations, this is very, very dangerous territory for Zionists wrt their impact on Jews in general. Heck, dangerous for all of us.

      Will they/Zionists be able to restrain themselves from attempting to subvert the US Supreme Court? History suggests they will not be able to restrain themselves.

      • Bornajoo
        Bornajoo
        June 9, 2015, 12:37 pm

        “Will they/Zionists be able to restrain themselves from attempting to subvert the US Supreme Court? History suggests they will not be able to restrain themselves.”

        Unfortunately, I have to agree with you Ritzl

        Look at what Shaked is trying to do to the power of the Supreme Court in Israel. They see these Supreme Courts as an unnecessary nuisance that always gets in the way of their greater plans. Control the Supreme Court and you have it all and you can do WHATEVER you want to do.

      • just
        just
        June 9, 2015, 12:56 pm

        I sincerely hope that never comes to pass, ritzl and Bornajoo.

        It’ll be time to shutter the US. (Meanwhile, folks must vote)

  15. eusebio
    eusebio
    June 9, 2015, 9:06 am

    I support Jerusalem as a city state independent city and must be protected by international law means a lot to many cultures

  16. RobertHenryEller
    RobertHenryEller
    June 9, 2015, 9:44 am

    The Zionist response to this case says everything one needs to know about how Zionists regard the United States. For Zionists the sole purpose of the United States is to rubber stamp Zionist dictatorship.

    Likewise the Zionist campaign to snuff the BDS movement and any criticism of Israel.

    Israel is sure some democracy. It’s existentially threatened by free speech. (Unless it’s the “free speech” of Pamela Geller.)

    • just
      just
      June 9, 2015, 10:07 am

      Check this out, RHE:

      “Hard-line MK plans bill to bar pro-boycott foreigners from Israel
      Legislation submitted by MK Yinon Magal would also forbid Jews who support the boycott from using the ‘Law of Return’ to obtain citizenship.

      Hard-line lawmaker Yinon Magal is planning to propose a Knesset bill that would forbid foreign citizens who advocate boycotting Israel from entering the country. The bill would also bar Jews who call for boycotts from exercising the “Law of Return” and immigrating to the country.

      Magal, a member of the right-wing Habayit Hayehudi party, announced Monday that he had submitted the bill for considerations and that “a considerable number” of MKs have already signed on to his proposed legislation.

      Tweeting that “enough is enough” Magal said that pro-boycott activists must be barred from the country in order to prevent them from undermining Israel from within its borders. …

      …Magal explained his intentions in a Facebook post Monday: “In the coming days I will be submitting this bill: Any foreign citizen who calls for a boycott on Israel will be barred from entering the country, except with a special exception granted by the Interior Minister.”

      “Those who are fighting against us won’t be allowed to come here. Generally, we are talking about extreme left-wing activists in the BDS movement who come here to connect to local activists who are no less extreme and continue to work to undermine the country,” Magal’s post continued.

      In the same post he wrote that “Regarding Jews who are permitted to immigrate under the ‘Law of Return,’ in their case the Interior Minister can also make an exception, but in principle, they must first prove that they are not working towards the destruction of the state of Israel.””…

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/.premium-1.660383?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

      The twilight ziozone…another dollop of fascism added to the toddy.

      • a blah chick
        a blah chick
        June 9, 2015, 10:29 am

        “Regarding Jews who are permitted to immigrate under the ‘Law of Return,’ in their case the Interior Minister can also make an exception, but in principle, they must first prove that they are not working towards the destruction of the state of Israel.””

        That sound of dripping flop sweat is coming from the Ashkenazi elite who are having their Divine Right to Rule Them All (aka Jewish supremacy) called into question. Loving every minute of it.

      • amigo
        amigo
        June 9, 2015, 11:17 am

        n the same post he wrote that “Regarding Jews who are permitted to immigrate under the ‘Law of Return,’ in their case the Interior Minister can also make an exception, but in principle, they must first prove that they are not working towards the destruction of the state of Israel.”” Just

        Easy to point out to him that he is working towards the destruction of Israel and he is still there.

  17. Atlantaiconoclast
    Atlantaiconoclast
    June 9, 2015, 9:51 am

    It is hard for me to imagine that whoever is our next president, he or she will not declare Jerusalem as an Israeli territory.

  18. iResistDe4iAm
    iResistDe4iAm
    June 9, 2015, 9:57 am

    There are currently 193 member states in the United Nations.
    Of those 193 states, only one (or 0.5%) recognises Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. That lonely Rogue state is Israel which occupies East Jerusalem in violation of UN resolutions* and international law.

    [*] United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 (1980) declared Israel’s attempted annexation of East Jerusalem (Jerusalem Law) as “null and void”.

  19. hophmi
    hophmi
    June 9, 2015, 11:11 am

    Lol. You’re, as usual, making a mountain out of a molehill. The decision is really not important in the overall scheme of things, except to remind right wingers what the US’s actual policy is. There are enough right wingers who are simply ignorant about things like this. Bush and Obama had the same policy in the law.

    • amigo
      amigo
      June 9, 2015, 11:34 am

      Lol. You’re, as usual, making a mountain out of a molehill. The decision is really not important in the overall scheme of things, except to remind right wingers what the US’s actual policy is.” hopknee

      Sure hoppy -dee- hop.No big deal as there are very few right wingers in Israel , eh hoppy.

      Your little private dream of “greater israel” is slowly going down the drain.I must plan on a trip to see it before it becomes free .Or , should I wait until there is no chance of being spat on by right wingers.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 9, 2015, 12:51 pm

        You don’t read, Amigo. I’ve never supported a “Greater Israel.” Not here or anywhere else. But it’s illuminating that you apparently think all Zionists are the same.

        Since I spend a great deal of time in the Jewish community and most of you do not, I know what importance was attached to this case and what level of ignorance there is about State Department policy on these things. The answers are not much, and a lot. Right wingers need to reminded from time to time that President Bush had exactly the same policy on these things as President Obama.

        And by the way, had Zhivitovsky won, it wouldn’t have meant a whole lot either.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 9, 2015, 2:57 pm

        And by the way, had Zhivitovsky won, it wouldn’t have meant a whole lot either.

        You’re even more gullible or dishonest than I had supposed. The scheming Zionist cabal behind all of the pro-Zhivitovsky amicus briefs and their Stand With Us, et al minions would have been citing the case as the controlling authority on recognition of Israeli sovereignty and they would have launched another round of lawsuits in the federal courts and at least 47 of our state courts the very next day over foreign judgments from Israeli courts on every imaginable subject relating to East Jerusalem, including property claims, libel, and boycott decisions.

      • amigo
        amigo
        June 9, 2015, 3:35 pm

        You don’t read, Amigo. I’ve never supported a “Greater Israel.” Not here or anywhere else. But it’s illuminating that you apparently think all Zionists are the same. ” Hopknee

        Well , that is good to know.So lets offer you a chance to copper fasten your claim by sharing with us your idea of a Palestinian “Sovereign state”. Give us a general outline of borders of said sovereign state and while your at it , show the borders of your proposed state of Israel .That is to say , how much of the land Israel has stolen are you willing to return to those it was stolen from.

        Remember, like most if not all other sovereign nations , Palestine has no need to recognise Israel as a “Jewish state”.

      • eljay
        eljay
        June 10, 2015, 9:35 am

        || hophmi: You don’t read, Amigo. I’ve never supported a “Greater Israel.” Not here or anywhere else. ||

        Your archive appears to show that you support an Israel based on ’67-borders, which is “greater” (in size, anyway) than the legitimate, ’48-borders Israel.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 9:16 am

        “The scheming Zionist cabal behind all of the pro-Zhivitovsky amicus briefs and their Stand With Us, et al minions would have been citing the case as the controlling authority on recognition of Israeli sovereignty and they would have launched another round of lawsuits in the federal courts and at least 47 of our state courts the very next day over foreign judgments from Israeli courts on every imaginable subject relating to East Jerusalem, including property claims, libel, and boycott decisions”

        The scheming Zionist cabal? You mean the people who supported Zhivitovsky’s claim by filing amicus briefs? I guess the people opposing Zhivitovsky through Amici were the Arabist cabal. Actually, that’s not fair. David Boyle is clearly a whackadoodle.

        I highly doubt the veracity of your argument. The claim, especially in light of the precedent, that putting Jerusalem, Israel on passports would amount to official recognition of Israeli claims over Jerusalem is silly. As you’ve pointed out, the jostling over what the passports say has gone on for a long time, and no one is under the impression that winning a case like Zhivitovsky’s would mean anything substantive in terms of US recognition of Israeli claims. Some Jews on the right might think that way, but none of them are lawyers of any real importance.

        As I’ve said, ultimately the decision serves to remind people, especially on the right, of what the US policy is. Now, we need to remind those on the left that ultimatle, the status of Jerusalem is subject to final status negotiations.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 11:34 am

        The scheming Zionist cabal? You mean the people who supported Zhivitovsky’s claim by filing amicus briefs?

        Oh hell no, I’m not limiting in scope to anything that small or few in number. I mean the “Jewish”, “Zionist”, and “Israel” member associations who have a number of confederations with interlocking boards of directors that are self-styled and publicized as “major organizations” working with the government of the State of Israel itself. They don’t just write those foreign libel and anti-boycott lawsuit judgments that I mentioned. They would most certainly be using existing agreements to have those enforced here in the USA.

        FYI, I wasn’t born yesterday, like you seem to have been. I grew-up in a house with a country lawyer who worked in the Political Department of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, and he was a past expert in the art of Zionist “Lawfare”, long before anyone coined the term.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 12, 2015, 12:21 pm

        ” I mean the “Jewish”, “Zionist”, and “Israel” member associations who have a number of confederations with interlocking boards of directors that are self-styled and publicized as “major organizations” working with the government of the State of Israel itself. They don’t just write those foreign libel and anti-boycott lawsuit judgments that I mentioned. They would most certainly be using existing agreements to have those enforced here in the USA.

        FYI, I wasn’t born yesterday, like you seem to have been. I grew-up in a house with a country lawyer who worked in the Political Department of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, and he was a past expert in the art of Zionist “Lawfare”, long before anyone coined the term.”

        Ah, so you’re like an ex-smoker.

        You’re simply incorrect on this point, perhaps because you inevitably lapse into politics when you’re making legal arguments. I’m not aware of how Jewish organization write “judgments” in these cases.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 1:01 pm

        I’m not aware of how Jewish organization write “judgments” in these cases.

        LoL! If you read Mondoweiss, the NY Times, or Haaretz, then you’d know how. The Israeli government has adopted an anti-boycott statute that has passed muster in the HCJ. It allows any party to claim statutory monetary damages from individuals or organizations who advocate BDS without the need to prove any lost income. The Israeli government has also established “a War Cabinet” to organize and fund BDS Lawfare efforts undertaken by its own parastatal organizations and officials and its foreign partners/agents here in the USA.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 12, 2015, 1:05 pm

        I grew-up in a house with a country lawyer who worked in the Political Department of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, and he was a past expert in the art of Zionist “Lawfare”, long before anyone coined the term.”

        Ah, so you’re like an ex-smoker.

        No, he was. Unlike his brother, my grandfather was always an Anti-Zionist. We simply took him in when he became old and disillusioned with the situation in Israel and retired to the USA.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      June 9, 2015, 12:20 pm

      Lol. You’re, as usual, making a mountain out of a molehill

      As a lawyer, you must know better than that. Some very powerful interests were willing to devote millions of dollars worth of legal resources to this issue. This “molehill” jumped to the head of a long line of other cases and made it all the way to the “mountain” top at the US Supreme Court on, not one, but two occasions. I’d agree that much more urgent appeals were left untouched and unresolved, but it was the petitioners and their friends who exaggerated their need for judicial relief, not Phil or Annie.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 11, 2015, 12:39 pm

        “Some very powerful interests were willing to devote millions of dollars worth of legal resources to this issue.”

        Millions of dollars of legal resources? OK. I don’t think it ran into the millions, but yes, a number of organizations were amici. You have an interesting (and apparently deficient) knowledge of how cases reach the Court if you think that the case “jumped to the head of a long line of other cases”; like every other case, it went through the appellate process, and reached the Court both times on the merits. Zhivotovsky v. Clinton was about whether the case was a political question and could proceed at all, and the Court vacated the DC Circuit’s ruling. The DC Circuit then ruled the statute unconstitutional, and the case returned. Nothing unusual about that. There were also significant resources spent fighting the case; the Anti-Arab Discrimination Committee and Torah True Jews (basically Neturei Karta) were amici.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 11, 2015, 3:08 pm

        You have an interesting (and apparently deficient) knowledge of how cases reach the Court if you think that the case “jumped to the head of a long line of other cases”

        I don’t mean to be droll, but I’ve discussed this case with post-doctoral fellows who have degrees in law and political science and they are also mystified about the reasons the Supreme Court didn’t simply let the lower court decisions stand and dispose of the case at the certiorari stage.

        Zhivotovsky v. Clinton was about whether the case was a political question and could proceed at all

        Even the US State Department Digest of International Law cites a Supreme Court decision which said that recognition of sovereignty is “a political question” and that the decision has attained customary status in international law:

        ‘Who is the sovereign, de jure or de facto, of a territory is not a judicial, but is a political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens and subjects of that government. This principle has always been upheld by this court, and has been affirmed under a great variety of circumstances.’ Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202, 212 , 11 S. Sup. Ct. 80, 83 (34 L. Ed. 691). — OETJEN v. CENTRAL LEATHER CO. , 246 U.S. 297 (1918) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=246&invol=297

        The Supremes certainly didn’t add anything to the lower Court’s finding that the statute was unconstitutional and they didn’t clarify things one bit by inventing a new fourth, imaginary leg of the Youngstown Steel three prong test that actually gives the Executive branch a new “preclusive power” that the President supposedly not only holds under the Constitution, but holds even if Congress enacts a law otherwise. Judge Jackson never hinted that he envisioned such a thing in his Youngstown opinion and would probably not have agreed with Kennedy’s assessment in the dicta that the Supremes were somehow dialing-back or reigning in the President’s powers under Curtis-Wright, when they explicitly admitted this particular case didn’t require them to rule on all the relevant issues involved, and so they would not do so.

        If you sit down and count the nearly two dozen Supreme Court cases involving disputes over the recognition power in the D.C. Court of Appeals decision, then you should already know that the Court regularly revisits its precedents and that it left the door open to more cases on this subject with all of their comments about the “limits” on this new sole executive authority and their mysterious new test. Chief Justice Robert’s old boss William Rehnquist wrote: “Stare decisis is not an inexorable command,” in a 1991 opinion that included, in a page and a half of small type, a list of 33 precedents that the court had overturned in the previous 20 years and nothing prevents this one from meeting the same fate.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 11, 2015, 4:16 pm

        Neither do I, but you can always find lawyers who are mystified by things that the Supreme Court does. In any event, it certainly does not mean that the case was fast tracked.

    • annie
      annie
      June 9, 2015, 12:40 pm

      The decision is really not important in the overall scheme of things, except to remind right wingers what the US’s actual policy is. There are enough right wingers who are simply ignorant

      hops, regarding the links in the last blockquote of the article, could you please open them (especially the “stalwarts of the Israel lobby”) and explain to us how all the “rightwingers” listed are “simply ignorant”. do you think they too were just making a “mountain out of a molehill”. this whole one jerusalem thing, judaising jerusalem, is that part and parcel of the mountain or the molehill.

      how important is formal US recognition over the sovereignty of jerusalem? or international recognition of the lack of sovereignty. or however one cares to phrase it. not much according to you?

      because this alleged “created to give individuals the right to self-identify” is a monumental sham and a lie. and everyone knows perfectly well why this case was brought before SCOTUS. so let’s not pretend for one minute this had anything to do some child’s “self identity”. this was about jerusalem’s identity, which is not a molehill. you’re trying to make a molehill out of a mountain is what you’re trying to do.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 11, 2015, 12:45 pm

        “how important is formal US recognition over the sovereignty of jerusalem? or international recognition of the lack of sovereignty. or however one cares to phrase it. not much according to you?”

        Not very, and everybody who is minimally educated on the topic understands that the US is not going to recognize Israeli claims over Jerusalem until there’s a final status agreement, no matter what Congress does (whether that’s passing legislation to move the Embassy or to put Israel on the passports).

        “because this alleged ‘created to give individuals the right to self-identify’ is a monumental sham and a lie. and everyone knows perfectly well why this case was brought before SCOTUS. ”

        Yes, but my point is that outside of the right-wing echo chamber in which the Zhivitovskys may live, everybody understands that passports are not policies, and that the outcome, win or lose, was never going to change anything substantial, including and especially the moderate amici, like AJC and ADL.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      June 9, 2015, 6:05 pm

      Lol. You’re, as usual, making a mountain out of a molehill

      The pro Israeli groups seem to think it’s a mountain Hop.

  20. aloeste
    aloeste
    June 9, 2015, 11:36 am

    as Queen Hillary would say, ‘what difference does it make?’ . on the ground , absolutely no difference whatsoever . it wouldnt have hurt to have the nation’s capital recognized, but life will go on absolutely unchanged. it would have been at most a finger in palestine’s eye. so, big deal, what did they win? a pyrrhic victory?

    • annie
      annie
      June 9, 2015, 12:23 pm

      what did they win? a pyrrhic victory?

      they won nothing, they lost their case.

      • italian ex-pat
        italian ex-pat
        June 9, 2015, 8:05 pm

        Annie:

        I think you misunderstood aloeste’s comment. When he/she said THEY won at most a pyrrhic victory, I believe that referred to the Palestinians. Sour grapes, of course. If the Court had ruled in favor of the Zivotofskys’ claim (which was outside of their authority and should never have come before them in the first place – but that’s another story), you can bet it would had been hailed as a ‘great’ victory by Israel. Instead, the finger is in its eye – witness the outrage in the Zionist media.
        Aloeste is just putting a face on it.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      June 9, 2015, 12:35 pm

      as Queen Hillary would say, ‘what difference does it make?’

      Lest we forget, Hillary was the original respondent in the “Zivotofsky v Clinton Secretary of State” case that John Kerry inherited. So she was actually the one who refused to permit “Jerusalem, Israel” to be entered on a US passport and defended that action all the way to the Supreme Court. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_10_699

  21. Kay24
    Kay24
    June 9, 2015, 11:56 am

    It gets better, here is something those zionists will not like either. Charles Schumer must be getting angry calls from the lobbies here. I still say let’s wait and see what happens.

    “Charles Schumer sounds like he’s getting ready to support deal with the ayatollahs
    In speech to Orthodox Union, one of the most pro-Israel Democrats seems to be gearing up to back Obama in abandoning the military option on Iran.

    Call it Charles Schumer talks tachlis. The senior senator from New York, who may be the most important Democrat in the Senate, appears to be preparing to get behind the agreement U.S. President Barack Obama is seeking with Iran. That is my interpretation of his…”

    Haaretz

    Aw Bibi must feel the world is against him.

  22. irmep
    irmep
    June 9, 2015, 12:36 pm

    “And in his dissent, Justice Roberts noted that the 2012 Democratic platform contradicted the executive’s position, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital”

    Brilliant inclusion, especially as the video clearly reveals what a fraud the voice vote was.

    • just
      just
      June 9, 2015, 12:45 pm

      aaargh!

      gee whiz, irmep. It’s so awful to revisit that sham.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      June 9, 2015, 11:09 pm

      “And in his dissent, Justice Roberts noted that the 2012 Democratic platform contradicted the executive’s position, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital”

      Brilliant inclusion

      Only if you operate under the assumption that an IRS Code 527 organization is capable of making a truthful declaration, disclosure, or assurance about its conduct before, during, or after an election in the text its platform or other agreement constituting or defending its existence. There’s really very little evidence to support that proposition.

      It’s so awful to revisit that sham.

      You really have to make allowances for people with disabilities when dealing with one of our political parties. For starters, there are sociopaths in charge of conducting the vote. You might run afoul of the ADA if you demand that these individuals “do the right thing”, when they are clinically incapable of making such a decision. You can’t even suggest a recorded vote or mention a hanging chad around some Democrats without triggering a case of Bush-Gore PTSD.

      Then there are people with obvious hearing disabilities, like DNC Chair Antonio Villaraigosa, who should never have been conducting a voice vote in the first place, let alone a second or third such failed performance. But what are ya gonna do? Asking for a show of hands would discriminate against those with handicaps; those bearing concealed weapons or “twisting a few arms” on behalf of the President, who are simply too busy to drop what they are doing and vote for themselves on this key question. Asking the participants to rise and be counted would likewise discriminate against those who are physically handicapped or morally “spineless”.

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      June 11, 2015, 12:25 pm

      This great pictures shows the truth – there just weren’t very many people there when that vote was taken; later on, when speaker after speaker reminded a packed hall of their support for Israel, there was no booing.

  23. just
    just
    June 9, 2015, 1:40 pm

    O/T but having to do with international law, anyway. I couldn’t believe I was reading this:

    “Avoiding West Bank settlement goods isn’t boycott – it’s the law
    According to int’l law – by which the State of Israel was established and recognized – the settlements are stolen lands, which is a war crime, and abetting war criminals, such as by financing them, is a crime, too.

    The boycott issue is once again in the headlines, and I wish to make a confession: I don’t buy products made in the settlements. This isn’t, heaven forbid, a boycott, and it obviously isn’t a call to others to boycott. It’s forbidden to boycott. There’s a law. And I’m a law-abiding citizen. Always. Even when I don’t like the laws.

    And that’s precisely why I don’t buy products made over the Green Line: the law. Because in my view, international law is also law. And it, too, deserves to be obeyed, even if only because international law is the law by dint of which Israel was established and recognized as a state.

    And according to international law – how very unfortunate – all settlements, from the first to the last, are a war crime. This is so according to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and also according to Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

    Admittedly, the State of Israel has displayed an impressive ability to create legal nuances out of nothing to prove that international law doesn’t apply to the occupied territories, or that the territories aren’t occupied at all, or that the world is flat. But there’s not a single country in the entire world, or a single organization of all those responsible for upholding international law, that buys Israel’s legalistic sophistries.

    Take, for instance, Israel’s claim that this isn’t “occupied territory.” Why? Because the territories “had no sovereign” when we conquered them. But Israel only invites ridicule with this hollow claim. The authorized agencies have declared again and again that this is an occupation in every respect, and that the question of who was previously sovereign in the occupied territory, or whether it had a sovereign at all, is completely irrelevant. “Occupied territory” is defined by law as follows: territory that was seized by military force and is held under military rule. Period.

    And not only is transferring an occupying population into occupied territory (“the settlements”) a war crime, but expropriating occupied lands without an acceptable justification – for instance, expropriation for settlement purposes – is also defined as a war crime. Such lands, which were taken from their owners in violation of the law, are simply stolen property.

    Consequently, it’s self-evident that anything produced on them by the thieves, whether industrial or agricultural produce, is presumed to be stolen goods. And a law-abiding person doesn’t buy stolen goods. It’s forbidden. A well-known aphorism admittedly holds that “one who steals from a thief isn’t liable,” but there’s no doubt that “one who buys from a thief is liable.”

    Moreover, the money paid for stolen goods encourages and finances the criminals. And this, too, is forbidden. Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute assigns criminal liability to anyone who abets war criminals in any way, including by encouraging or financing them.

    What can you do? I don’t want to run afoul of international law. Don’t I have enough troubles? So I don’t buy.

    All of the above, it’s important to stress once again, has nothing to do with boycotting! Only with obeying the law. And in order to help people obey this law, it’s also necessary to demand that all products of the settlements sold in Israel be immediately labeled, very clearly, so as not to put a stumbling block before the blind and not to embroil them, heaven forbid, in abetting war crimes.”…

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.660424?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    (OK~ which one of the distinguished contributors here helped write / inspire this?)

  24. Hostage
    Hostage
    June 9, 2015, 3:58 pm

    (OK~ which one of the distinguished contributors here helped write / inspire this?)

    Not me, although I think it is almost “pitch-perfect”. I’d only suggest one minor addition. In most cases the principle of sovereignty is abstract and its only tangible manifestation is the exercise of jurisdiction. But that’s really not the case when you are dealing with a pair of Kings. So I’d change it to read:

    Take, for instance, Israel’s claim that this isn’t “occupied territory.” Why? Because the territories “had no sovereign” when we conquered them. Never mind that: we signed agreements with Farouq and Abdullah putting the territories under their day-to-day jurisdiction; their respective official duty titles were “the King”; and that we claimed no “final status agreement” could ever be concluded without their (royal) consent.. But Israel only invites ridicule with this hollow claim.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      June 9, 2015, 4:43 pm

      P.S. if you don’t think that I was being too serious about the role of the “King” under the armistice agreements and international law, just remember that Jordan is a charter member of the International Criminal Court and that:

      a) the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan stipulated that the part of the agreement on the international boundary is “without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.” – and “Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.”

      b) In the 2003 Wall case, the written statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan said that the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, were an integral part of, and subject to its jurisdiction as a signatory of the armistice agreement; a UN member state; and a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions’. The 200 page dossier also pointed out that the 4th Geneva Convention contains a non-renunciation clause (with continuing legal effects on the 1988 Jordanian disengagement from the West Bank) and that Israel’s actions in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem constitute violations of Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the ICC;

      c) The most recent treaty between Palestine and Jordan reaffirmed an on-going confederation between the two states and the qualified nature of the 1988 Jordanian disengagement from the West Bank. The agreement recognizes Jordanian territorial jurisdiction over 144 dunums of mosques, buildings, walls, courtyards, attached areas over and beneath the ground and the Waqf properties tied-up to “Al Haram Al Sharif” – based upon continuity of custodianship that dates back to a declaration made by the people of Jerusalem and Palestine in 1924. It notes that the custodianship also encompasses the “Rum” (Greek) Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem that is governed by the Jordanian Law No. 27 of the year 1958.

      d) The Rome Statute applies to any territory subject to the control or jurisdiction of a member state and Article 120 stipulates that no reservations may be made to the contrary.

      • just
        just
        June 9, 2015, 5:05 pm

        I happened to have you in mind when I asked that question, Hostage! However did you guess? ;-)

        I so appreciate your input, and did think of the Hashemite Kingdom.

        I don’t think I’ve ever read a piece like B. Michael’s in any Israeli or US/Western ‘newspaper’.

      • talknic
        talknic
        June 10, 2015, 10:13 am

        UNSC Res 1860
        Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state,

        While we’re here. The stupid Hasbara arguments over UNSC res 242 and the non-inclusion of the words “all” and “the” are shown to be drivel by subsequent UNSC resolutions

        UNSC 252 (1968)
        UNSC 267 (1969)
        UNSC 271 (1969)
        UNSC 298 (1971)
        UNSC 338 (1973)
        UNSC 446 (1979)
        UNSC 452 (1979)
        UNSC 465 (1980)
        UNSC 476 (1980)
        UNSC 497 (1980)
        UNSC 478 (1980)
        UNSC 1397 (2002)
        UNSC 1515 (2003)
        UNSC 1850 (2008)
        UNSC 1860 (2009)

  25. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    June 9, 2015, 5:58 pm

    UN GA declared that the area would be partitioned in two states. How could one recognize one part without not the other part? It is evident in the process that there would be a state along with Israel. The deal doesn’t become invalid to the rest of the world for t one party didn’t like immidiaetly the idea and other party grabbed it by fighting .

  26. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    June 9, 2015, 6:01 pm

    Apparently the mayor of Jerusalem has an answer to rising antisemitism. NYT reports that he was particularly hurt that this opportunity of stemming the tide against antisemitism by recognizing Jerusalem as part of Israel has been intentionally scuttled by Obama administration and the court .

    What’s next?

  27. just
    just
    June 10, 2015, 11:47 am

    waaaah!

    “Jerusalemite-American? How the U.S. Supreme Court passport decision insulted my son

    Like many Israelis, my son is adding this week’s ruling to his mental list of reasons why the United States is giving Israel the cold shoulder – and he’s not alone.

    It’s not every day that the US Supreme Court has the power to upset an Israeli teenager.

    But my 18-year-old dual-citizen son took it personally when a majority of justices on the highest court in the United States determined on Monday that his U.S. passport will continue to declare that his birthplace is in the city of Jerusalem in an unspecified land.

    And why not take it personally? It’s his passport. He insists that he came into this world in a hospital located firmly on the undisputed side of the Green Line in the sovereign state of Israel and thinks that his U.S. documents should reflect that. It makes no sense to him that his sister, born in a Tel Aviv hospital, should have her birthplace listed as “Israel” while he does not.

    There would have been no cause for the sibling rivalry if the Bush and Obama administrations had acceded to the law that Congress passed in 2002, which would give him the right to insist that his birthplace be listed as “Jerusalem, Israel.”

    But instead, they refused to implement it on the grounds that it would call into question American neutrality on the status of Jerusalem. After years of legal wrangling including not one, but two trips to the Supreme Court, the verdict came in on “Zivotofsky vs. Kerry.” It was not in my son’s favor, as it was not in favor of the plaintiff, 12-year-old Menachem Zivotofsky, whose parents spearheaded the battle on his behalf. The congressional law that would allow them to change their passports has now officially been overturned by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote. A clear majority of justices supported the right of the U.S. president to make decisions regarding recognition of foreign powers.

    Like many Israelis, my kid is adding it to his mental list of reasons why the United States is giving Israel the cold shoulder – part of the Israeli public’s overall perception of the world “ganging up” on Israel – and he’s not alone.

    Dissatisfied American-Jerusalemites, or Jerusalemite-Americans (because we can’t call them American Israelis, right?), like my son had some powerful sympathizers. President Reuven Rivlin pointedly noted to Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a Thursday meeting that “I was born in Jerusalem and I am Israeli.” Former ambassador-turned-MK Michael Oren posted on his Facebook page that “the decision is an affront to Israel’s sovereignty and to the honor of America’s crucial ally. During my service as Israel’s ambassador to Washington, I met the principled Zivotofsky family and others who brought the case before the court, I unconditionally supported them. But the frustration of their effort changes nothing for Israel and the Jewish people. Jerusalem will remain our undivided and eternal capital. Irrespective of what’s written or not written in her U.S. passport, our daughter, Lia, was born in Jerusalem, Israel.”

    In an ambassadorial Facebook counterpunch, U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro tried to calm the backlash by sending a message to my son, Oren and their fellow disgruntled Israelis regarding the Court’s decision.

    “I know many people in Israel are unhappy about today’s ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding how to list the place of birth in the passports of American citizens born in Jerusalem … The decision was not about whether Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. It was solely about the separation of powers between the Executive Branch (the president) and the Legislative Branch (the Congress) of our government, and which branch has the right to recognize foreign governments and their capitals … U.S. policy on Jerusalem was not decided by today’s ruling. That policy has been the same under every administration since 1948 – namely, that the status of Jerusalem has not been decided and must be determined by negotiations.”

    Shapiro is essentially correct: One look at the long Supreme Court decision and one sees that it is almost completely about internal U.S. power dynamics and very little about foreign policy, or, as my friend Dahlia Lithwick, uber-Supreme Court correspondent at Slate puts it: “The most closely watched Supreme Court case of the decade in the Middle East opens and closes with the pronouncement that this is not about you. It’s about us.”

    The decision was essentially “a power smackdown between Congress and the Executive Branch about who gets to set foreign policy,” Lithwick told me after I called her in order to get the take of a seasoned Court-watcher who was present for the oral arguments in Zivotofsky, and has read the entire 93-page U.S. Supreme Court decision.

    She described the decision as “a very abstract, scholarly legalistic discussion of the history of the constitutional, recognition powers, and it is just not a deep dive on anything having to do with Jerusalem – it’s very very clearly just a lengthy fight between the majority and the dissent on the president’s power.” …

    … Ultimately, of course, the decision was handed down in June – with no sign of Kennedy’s intriguing out-of-the-box proposition – instead, only an unequivocal message for my son and his fellow Jerusalemite-Americans. When it comes to their passports, nothing is going to change until there’s a clear-cut long-term internationally recognized Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic solution to the status of the Jerusalem.

    In other words, they shouldn’t hold their breath.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/routine-emergencies/.premium-1.660504

    Sommer’s kid ought to be grateful for his dual citizenship… some other people don’t have the luxury of freedom or the rights of citizenship.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      June 11, 2015, 2:27 am

      waaaah!

      “Jerusalemite-American? How the U.S. Supreme Court passport decision insulted my son

      Zionists suffer from a lot of irrational rage issues. These teenagers need to take the issue up with Herzl, Weizmann, and Balfour. In the text of Der Judenstaat, the Basel Platform of the Zionist Congress, and the Balfour Declaration it was agreed that the Jewish national home would be established in “Palestine” or “Argentina”, not in “Israel”.

      In a famous mandate era lawsuit over precise translations into the three official languages, that went all the way to the High Court of Justice on appeal, the Zionists swore under oath that the abbreviation for “Eretz Yisrael” used on some stamps was only the Hebrew cognate of the English term “Palestine”. See Jamal Effendi Husseini v. Government of Palestine (1 P.L.R. 5O), The case is discussed briefly on page 218 of 398 in the Yearbook Of The International Law Commission 1950 Volume II, link to legal.un.org The Court never reached the question, since it ruled that Article 22 of the Mandate was not enforceable, because there was no enabling legislation and the issue wasn’t addressed in the 1922 Order-in-Council.

      It was only decades later that the government of Israel claimed that Palestine was all a legal and historical fiction. 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.” — 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. –

      Nonetheless, the government of Israel refused to accept the official “English” passport entry “Jerusalem, Palestine” or the credentials of our US Consular staff. See the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1964–1968, Volume XVIII, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1964–67, Document 30, footnote 2. It reveals that:.

      Telegram 774 to Tel Aviv, March 5, summarized an informal conversation between Davies and Israeli Minister Gazit concerning Israel’s efforts to obtain U.S. agreement to drop the use of “Jerusalem, Palestine” in passports issued or renewed in Jerusalem and issued to officers stationed in Jerusalem. Davies strongly protested Israel’s refusal to honor Consul Robert H. Munn’s passport, which contained this usage. (Ibid.) A chronology of discussions on this subject, dating back to February 1963, is attached to A–104 from Jerusalem, March 30. (Ibid.).

      http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v18/d30

      The same document revealed that:

      2. We will cease using “Palestine” in passports as place of assignment and cease issuing, renewing, or amending passports with seal bearing word “Palestine”.

  28. hophmi
    hophmi
    June 11, 2015, 12:22 pm

    “It was only decades later that the government of Israel claimed that Palestine was all a legal and historical fiction.”

    It certainly was a legal creation. The Palestine Mandate was a “a legal and administrative instrument, not a geographical territory.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_%28legal_instrument%29#cite_ref-27

    It’s certainly odd that, even after the Mandate’s expiration, and after resolution 181 declared Jerusalem to be a corpus separatum, that US consular officials would continue to refer to the outdated Mandate terminology.

    “Nonetheless, the government of Israel refused to accept the official “English” passport entry “Jerusalem, Palestine” or the credentials of our US Consular staff. See the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1964–1968, Volume XVIII, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1964–67, Document 30, footnote 2. ”

    As well they should have, since the terminology was outdated.

    Simply listing Jerusalem much better reflected the US policy, which was: “The U.S. believes that whatever arrangement is made should have the concurrence of Israel and Jordan, and the necessary majority of the Members of the United Nations.”

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      June 11, 2015, 4:02 pm

      It certainly was a legal creation. The Palestine Mandate was a “a legal and administrative instrument, not a geographical territory.” — link to en.wikipedia.org

      LoL! You are quoting an unsourced statement from an anonymous Zionist edit warrior. That’s the sort of crap that the Wikimedia Foundation is famous for hosting on its servers. Even Jimbo Wales warns readers that it is NOT a reliable source of information.

      Anyone who has read my comments here at Mondoweiss knows better, e.g. http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/slaughter-settler-spokesman#comment-642341

      The article talk page at Wikipedia indicates that it has been the repeated target of edit warriors and malicious sockpuppets who have created the current version by deleting all of the citations and quotes from the relevant historians, sociologists, the FRUS, the DBFP, the State Department Digest of International Law, The British Yearbook of International Law, the Annual Digest and International Law Reports which say quite the opposite. It suffices to say that even if we accept your argument, that doesn’t alter the fact that the Palestine Mandate was a state with borders defined by international treaties and that the Zionist Executive’s Propaganda Minister publicly admitted in an article first published in November of 1923 that the inhabitants of Palestine were “a living nation” and that Palestine was their “homeland”. See Jabotinsky’s “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)” at Daniel Pipes blog: http://www.danielpipes.org/3510/the-iron-wall-we-and-the-arabs

      In any event, Zionists invariably employ your argument to falsely suggest that “stateless” indigenous populations do not enjoy the same protections against violations of their family rights and honor, including the prohibitions of pillage and forced transfer found in Article 46 of the Hague Convention. The Nuremberg Charter established that those are crimes when they target any civilian population, including stateless Jews living in an unrecognized “territory”. The theft of lands, property, resources, and cultural artifacts can obviously devastate both families and their communities:

      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

      In essence, whenever they are questioned about this subject, Israel State officials invariably say that the rules of international law that apply to humans do not apply to Palestinians, i.e. so long as Israel chooses to wage its war of choice, International Humanitarian Law and UN Human Rights Conventions do not apply to them, because “Palestine is not a State.” I suppose that’s the best argument they’ve got, but I don’t see why you are still trying to parrot it here. You really aren’t fooling anyone.

Leave a Reply