Trending Topics:

Netanyahu announces ‘seminar on Jewish history’ in his office– for European diplomats

Activism
on 43 Comments

High Israeli officials have lectured Europeans in recent days over their supposedly false understanding of Jewish history, especially as that history applies to the Israeli claim to have annexed Jerusalem.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday announced a “seminar on Jewish history” in his office for French, Russian, Spanish and Swedish diplomats– among others– who described Jerusalem as “occupied.”

The Prime Minister issued four tweets yesterday:

PM Netanyahu: Two weeks ago I was shocked to hear @UNESCO adopted a decision denying Jewish connection to the Temple Mount, our holiest site
It is hard to believe anyone, let alone an organization tasked with preserving history, could deny this link which spans thousands of years
Therefore, I am announcing a seminar on Jewish history for all UN personnel in Israel. I will personally host the lecture at the PM’s Office
The seminar by a leading Jewish history scholar will be free to UN staff and diplomats, including of countries which voted for this decision

That UNESCO resolution is titled “Occupied Palestine.” Proposed by seven Arab countries, and then approved by UNESCO members, it focuses on Israeli government actions as the “occupying power” to deny Muslim access to their holy site, the Haram-al-Sharif, and Israeli archaeological efforts throughout the Old City that are damaging Muslim sites.

RT notes that the decision was obnoxious to the Israeli government for what it left out: “never calling [the site] the Temple Mount, as the Jews call it.” The Jerusalem Post also reflects that anger:

The decision refers to the plaza fronting the Western Wall only in quotation marks, except when using one of its Arabic names, Al-Buraq, a reference to the Prophet Mohammed’s ascent to heaven.

The decision cites earlier UNESCO resolutions on protecting the “cultural heritage” of occupied Jerusalem and singles out such Israel government actions as:

banning Muslims from burying their dead in some spaces and by planting Jewish fake graves in other spaces of the Muslim cemeteries, in addition to the dramatic change of the status and distinctive character of the Umayyad Palaces, in particular the violation of the continued conversion of many Islamic and Byzantine remains into the so-called Jewish ritual baths or into Jewish prayer places.

RT coverage emphasizes the highly-political character of the decision, as it denies the legitimacy of Israel’s claimed sovereignty over Jerusalem.

The resolution was approved by 33 nations, among them France, Russia, Spain and Sweden. Seventeen countries abstained, two were absent and six countries voted against the resolution, namely the US, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

In a recently issued protest letter to all the countries that supported the UNESCO decision, Israeli Foreign Ministry’s director Dore Gold lashed out at the document and stressed that Jerusalem is a 3,000-year-old capital of the Jewish people.

“While the UNESCO decision has no practical validity, we will not allow international sources to blur the connection of the Jewish nation to its eternal capital,” Gold said.

In response to the backlash from Israeli officials, UNESCO chief Irina Bokova later called for “respect and dialogue.”

Next, here is an even more flagrant use of Jewish history in the justification of Zionist claims. Dore Gold gave a speech at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp three days ago saying that “there is a new anti-Semitic wind blowing across Europe, reviving memories of what transpired on this continent decades ago.” Gold is surely referring to growing international efforts to criticize Israel and boycott and divest and sanction Israel (BDS).

And he says in so many words that Israel should be immune from such measures because Jews, including his own relatives, are “survivors of the greatest crime in human history” and have resolved never again to be helpless.

Some excerpts from Gold’s Holocaust remembrance day speech that justify Israeli actions:

Five days after the British army liberated Bergen-Belsen on April 15, 1945 a BBC reporter, Richard Dimbleby, entered the camp and made a tape recording of the former Jewish prisoners congregating on a Friday night, rising up with their frail bodies, and breaking into a Hebrew song, “Hatikvah”, which means “the Hope.” It was to become Israel’s national anthem.

That very moment in time forged a link between the horrors of the concentration camps and the restoration of Israel just a few years later. By choosing Hatikva, the Jews at Bergen-Belsen were also reminding the world that theirs was a 2,000 year old hope that dated back to when the Jews lived as a free people in their own land. They were also saying that it was time to go back home.

What has the modern state of Israel learned from the horrors of Bergen-Belsen, and the Holocaust, more generally? Chaim Herzog served as an officer in the British forces that entered Bergen-Belsen in 1945.  In April 1987 he came back, as Israel’s sixth president, and directed his words to the victims in their graves. He declared that they bequeathed a responsibility to later generations to ensure that the Jewish people would never again be helpless. That meant, first, that we will never allow anyone to do this to us again.

In present times, there is a new anti-Semitic wind blowing across Europe, reviving memories of what transpired on this continent decades ago. And even the physical threat to the Jewish people remains, emanating most recently from the Islamic Republic of Iran. It parades nearly every year a missile in Tehran, called the Shahab-3, and fastens to its launcher the words, “Israel must be wiped off the map.” Iran’s leaders do not leave a shred to doubt as to what their missiles are intended for. The reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since 2011 have added that Iran aspires to remove the conventional warhead from the very same Shahab-3 and replace it with a “spherical nuclear payload.”

Iranian intentions have not changed. The same slogan calling for wiping Israel out was also brazenly written in Farsi and in Hebrew on a more advanced Qadr-H missile, when it was test-fired this year on March 9, 2016.  This despite the agreement recently signed between Iran and the Western powers. It is therefore no wonder that Israel feels it must do everything in its power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. This is not an obsession but a sacred trust handed to us by the people buried here.

The Jerusalem Post tied Gold’s speech on Wednesday into his diplomatic activities in the country the same day: telling Germany not to even think of criticizing Israel’s settlement policy.

Foreign Ministry Director- General Dore Gold, who has spent the last two days in talks with his counterparts in Germany, told The Jerusalem Post there is no basis to reports that Germany wants to reassess the nature of its ties with Israel.

Gold met with Merkel’s chief foreign policy adviser, Christoph Heusgen, as well as with senior Foreign Ministry officials, and said he found no evidence to support a report in Der Spiegel Saturday that influential voices in the German foreign policy establishment were calling for a reassessment of that country’s traditional support for Israel because of the Jerusalem’s settlement policy and what is perceived as Netanyahu’s disinclination to move on the Palestinian issue….

Two months ago in South Africa, Gold linked BDS with anti-Semitism, saying that Zionism is the “liberation movement of the Jewish people,” and BDS is part of an international effort to delegitimize Israel. BDS’s leaders’ “goal is the elimination of Israel, which is why the delegitimization of Israel is so important to them…. they want a Jewish state to be removed.”

Thanks to Scott Roth

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

43 Responses

  1. Juan R.
    Juan R.
    May 7, 2016, 2:44 pm

    The “occupied territory of the West Bank” is not occupied. [….]

    • MHughes976
      MHughes976
      May 7, 2016, 3:02 pm

      This is really Nakba justification and utter rubbish to boot. Do we have to give it houseroom?

    • John O
      John O
      May 7, 2016, 3:02 pm

      So why has Israel not simply incorporated the West Bank, aka Judea and Samaria, into a single state of Eretz-Israel if it has always been entitled to do so?

    • Walker
      Walker
      May 7, 2016, 3:29 pm

      This is incoherent even for hasbara.

      The San Remo accords said nothing about the extent of the Jewish “homeland” inside Palestine. Britain never intended all of Palestine to be part of the Jewish homeland.

      In any case, Britain had no moral right to dispose of Palestine without consulting its inhabitants.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 7, 2016, 6:15 pm

        “In any case, Britain had no moral right to dispose of Palestine without consulting its inhabitants.”

        The Zionists violently kicked the British out of Palestine, didn’t they? Seems just maybe the slightest bit presumptuous to be going on about Balfour under the circumstances, or am I missing something?

      • Misterioso
        Misterioso
        May 9, 2016, 11:51 am

        To be brief:

        The 1922 League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine was a Class A Mandate, i. e, Palestine was to be administered by Britain AS A WHOLE until its citizens were able to assume democratic self-rule. By incorporating the Balfour Declaration the mandate did facilitate Jewish immigration to “secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home,” but it did not call for the creation of a Jewish state or homeland in Palestine or any form of partition. This was made very clear in the Churchill Memorandum (1 July 1922) regarding the British Mandate: “[T]he status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status.”

        Regarding the 1922 British Mandate, as approved by the Council of the League of Nations, the British government declared: “His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.” (Command Paper, 1922)

        Furthermore, In May 1939, after it rejected the utterly unjust and in violation of the terms of the Mandate 1937 Peel Report, the British government issued the MacDonald White Paper, which in accordance with its Mandate, declared Great Britain “could not have intended Palestine should be converted into a Jewish state against the will of the Arab population of the country.” The White Paper called for a Palestinian state in which Jews and Arabs would govern jointly based on a constitution to be drafted by their representatives and those of Britain. The constitution would safeguard the “Jewish National Home” in Palestine and if good relations developed between Jews and Arabs, the country would be granted independence in ten years. (Land sales to Jews were to be restricted and the annual level of Jewish immigration was to be limited to 15,000 for five years, following which, Palestinian Arab acquiescence would be required.)

        Hence, consistent with the terms of its Class A Mandate, Britain abstained on the UNGA vote regarding the recommendatory only Oct. 29/47 Partition Plan

    • talknic
      talknic
      May 7, 2016, 3:43 pm

      Head first into the pool of Ziopoop

      @ Juan R. May 7, 2016, 2:44 pm

      “The “occupied territory of the West Bank” is not occupied”

      The UNSC tells us you’re spouting wholly holey Hasbara crapolla https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0//6de6da8a650b4c3b852560df00663826

      ” In 1948 israel was confirmed as a national entity by the U.N. with Judea and Samaria as part of this sovereign state”

      The Israeli Government’s official plea for recognition tells us you’re full of bullsh*t! http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      “The government of Turkey as signatory to this binding treaty gave up all claim to its former territories and the Mandate for Palestine came into legal force. And thus ‘Jewish Palestine’ was established by the League of Nations on September 16th 1922”

      Article 7 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine says you’re delusional http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7

      Furthermore the Israeli Govt tells us the mandate terminated midnight May 14th 1948

      “Accordingly we, members of the People’s Council, representatives of the Jewish Community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist Movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British Mandate

      This subsequent partition plan of 1947 was merely a proposal and totally rejected by the Arabs.”

      Irrelevant. The Israeli Government proclaimed Israel as ” an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf No country has since recognized any further territories as Israeli

      Go whine to the Israeli Government

    • talknic
      talknic
      May 7, 2016, 5:05 pm

      Juan R

      Tell me, do you actually believe the crap you write?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 7, 2016, 5:45 pm

        “Thanks. You guys sharpen up my arguments. Hey this is a great site.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/juan-r/#sthash.csI5RUPI.dpuf

        Oh yeah, sharper and sharper. Hey Jaun R, don’t patschki around with these guys. Lay the big UN Article 80 on ’em!

        And then we’ll go flying down to Remo.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      May 8, 2016, 10:45 am

      @Juan R.

      Another 100% copypaste of your ideocies which have allready been debunked:
      http://mondoweiss.net/2016/02/in-canada-bds-loses-in-the-house-of-commons-but-wins-on-university-campuses/#comment-826942

      You should be banned for copypaste spamming.

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso
      May 9, 2016, 2:44 pm

      Juan R.

      I confess, when I first read your comment, I thought it was a joke.

      For your edification:

      Israel’s occupation of Palestinian and other Arab lands.

      (A) Security Council Resolution 446 (22 March 1979) “[Affirms] once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories OCCUPIED [my emphasis] by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

      “1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories OCCUPIED [my emphasis] since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;..”

      (B) Security Council Resolution 465 (1 March 1980) “determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories OCCUPIED [my emphasis] since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity…”

      (C) Israel’s 1980 annexation of East Jerusalem was rejected by the UN Security Council in Resolution 476 (June 30, 1980): “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the OCCUPYING [my emphasis] Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”. The resolution was adopted by 14 votes to none, with the United States abstaining.

      (D) On 17 December 1981, the UNSC unanimously passed Resolution 497, which declared Israel’s 14 December 1981 annexation of Syria’s Golan Height “null and void.”

      (E) In accordance with the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified by Israel, and further underscoring the illegality of the settlements, Part 2, Article 8, section B, paragraph viii of the Rome Statute of the International Court (1998) defines “the transfer directly or indirectly by the OCCUPYING [my emphasis] power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it OCCUPIES [my emphasis]” as a War Crime, indictable by the International Criminal Court.

      (F) On 24 February 2004, the U.S. State Department reaffirmed its earlier position in a report entitled Israel and the OCCUPIED [my emphasis] Territories, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: “Israel OCCUPIED [my emphasis] the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights after the 1967 War…. The international community does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over any part of the OCCUPIED [my emphasis] territories.”

      (G) In its 2004 ruling, the International Court of Justice unanimously ruled that “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” The World Court denoted this principle a “corollary” of the U.N. Charter and as such “customary international law” and a “customary rule” binding on all member States of the United Nations.

      (H) In the summer of 1967, “[t]he legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked [by Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol] whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked ‘Top Secret,’ Meron wrote unequivocally: ‘My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.’” (New York Times, 10 March 2006)

      (I) US Secretary of State, John Kerry: “The US views all of the settlements as illegitimate.” (13 August 2013, Reuters Video)
      (http://uk.reuters.com/video/2013/08/13/kerry-the-us-views-all-of-the-settlement?videoId=247087988&videoChannel=1)

      (J) British Foreign Secretary William Hague regarding Jewish settlements in the West Bank (5 April 2011): “This is not disputed territory. It is OCCUPIED [my emphasis] Palestinian territory and ongoing settlement expansion is illegal under international law…”

      (K) Even the Israeli Supreme Court has declared the West Bank (and Gaza Strip) to be under belligerent OCCUPATION [my emphasis]. In 1979, the court declared “[t]his is a situation of belligerency and the status of [Israel] with respect to the OCCUPIED [my emphasis] territory is that of an OCCUPYING [my emphasis] Power.” In 2002, the court again held that the West Bank and Gaza Strip “are subject to a belligerent OCCUPATION [my emphasis] by the State of Israel” and in June, 2004, it proclaimed “[s]ince 1967, Israel has been holding [the Palestinian Territories] in belligerent OCCUPATION [my emphasis].”

  2. Kay24
    Kay24
    May 7, 2016, 4:54 pm

    Retraining the European mind on feeling the guilt, so that Tel Aviv can continue taking advantage of it. There are strange associations with Devils from right wing parties from European nations, and the moment someone steps out of line and dares to question Israel’s crimes and talks of sanctions or boycotts, the vipers start stinging.

    Time the zionists were given seminars on the consequences of long drawn occupation, and violating international laws.

  3. Citizen
    Citizen
    May 7, 2016, 4:57 pm

    Bibi needs to be deprogrammed for the good of the entire world.

  4. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    May 7, 2016, 5:56 pm

    In a 2 state solution based on resolution 242, the starting point is the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories. The extent of this withdrawal was not strictly delineated: the text does not say withdrawal from all of the territories occupied, but its language was ambiguous enough to allow the Americans who negotiated the resolution to contend that the possibility of minor changes in the borders was allowed by the resolution. When the resolution spoke of boundaries it referred to secure and recognized boundaries (the phrase recognized alone would have inferred unchangeable boundaries, but the word secure inferred the possibility of change.) Israel’s claim on East Jerusalem indeed is unrelated to security, to the topography of a few acres, but rather to the Jewish significance of those acres, and would not seem to be included as a cause for altering the boundaries.
    Of course one cannot call resolution 242 a success. Although it led to withdrawal from sinai (attributable as well to the 73 war) and treaties with egypt and jordan, it led nowhere in regards to the west bank and jerusalem. The failure of 242 has led to unesco seeing its role as the authority figure: “the un refuses to exert its power vis a vis resolution 242, but we at unesco will assert that the situation is unfair to the occupied people.” Thus unesco does not see its role to determine the history of the spot in a global sense (which might have included some history from a nonmuslim perspective) but rather to assert on behalf of the occupied Palestinians and to accept in toto their historic viewpoint.
    Those who hold onto 242 as a hope for the future should recognize the limited possibilities of interpreting 242 as allowing minor changes. The right wing (and indeed the center) in israel, do not base their hopes on the text of 242, but wish for something outside of 242:as in the Clinton parameters or the Geneva framework. These documents recognized the Jewish narrative vis a vis the temple mount in a way that 242 does not. These rightists and centrists are rather adamant that they will not yield all Jewish rights vis a vis the temple mount. (Rightists will not yield any such rights, while centrists will yield some rights, but not all rights.)

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      May 7, 2016, 11:14 pm

      So, using your logic, the term “the Jews” does not mean all Jews? And thus is not anti-semitic?

    • talknic
      talknic
      May 8, 2016, 12:16 am

      yonah fredman

      “The failure of 242 “ = Weasel words.

      UNSC Res 242 works quite well when implemented. Where Israel has complied, it has Peace Agreements.

      It has been the failure of Israel to fully comply with UNSC res 242.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        May 8, 2016, 12:55 am

        Talknic- Yes, your language clarifies your attitude towards Israel and me. Helps a lot. Feel better now?

        In fact weeks after the 6 day war, Israel announced that it was willing to exchange land for peace on two fronts: Syria and Egypt, whereas regarding the west bank, its willingness was decidedly unclear {or clearly not). Aside from this, for withdrawal from the west bank to result in a peace accord would have/will require dealing with the issue of the Palestinian refugees, an issue that Israel has always seen as life threatening. Not nearly as easy an issue as territory. For whatever reason the LBJ administration did not mimic the Eisenhower administration’s post 1956 demand that Israel withdraw without negotiations.

      • talknic
        talknic
        May 8, 2016, 8:31 am

        @ yonah fredman May 8, 2016, 12:55 am

        “your language clarifies your attitude towards Israel and me. Helps a lot. Feel better now?”

        = typical Ziodrivel

        “In fact weeks after the 6 day war, Israel announced that it was willing to exchange land for peace on two fronts: Syria and Egypt, whereas regarding the west bank, its willingness was decidedly unclear {or clearly not). “

        A) More weasel words. Read the Peace Agreement with Egypt. Israel WITHDREW from Egyptian territory for peace. There was no ‘exchange of land for peace’. There was compliance with the law. B) Israel’s ‘willingness’ in regards to the West Bank has been a sick joke.

        “… for withdrawal from the west bank to result in a peace accord would have/will require dealing with the issue of the Palestinian refugees, an issue that Israel has always seen as life threatening”

        Nonsense. If they were seen as life threatening, why did the Israeli Declaration of statehood beg non-Jewish Israeli citizens to stay? “We appeal – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions”

        It’s amazing that anyone actually believes the people who drafted the Israeli Declaration of statehood were un-aware that under Plan Dalet non-Jews were being cleansed from what would become Israeli territories?

        BTW at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) they were no longer Palestinians. They were non-Jewish Israelis

        “Not nearly as easy an issue as territory”

        It is and has been an issue of territory from the moment Israel proclaimed its borders in its official plea for recognition and was subsequently Internationally recognized by those borders. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

    • talknic
      talknic
      May 8, 2016, 8:47 am

      @ yonah fredman

      “In a 2 state solution based on resolution 242, the starting point is the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories. The extent of this withdrawal was not strictly delineated: the text does not say withdrawal from all of the territories occupied, but its language was ambiguous enough to allow the Americans who negotiated the resolution to contend that the possibility of minor changes in the borders was allowed by the resolution”

      Subsequent resolutions i.e., the EIGHT reminders of UNSC res 252, contradict that Ziononsense theory. UNSC res 467 puts it quite clearly http://wp.me/pDB7k-W8

      “When the resolution spoke of boundaries it referred to secure and recognized boundaries (the phrase recognized alone would have inferred unchangeable boundaries, but the word secure inferred the possibility of change.)”

      More nonsense. Egypt didn’t change its boundaries. Israel withdrew from ALL territory sovereign to Egypt

      UNSC Resolution 242 called for respect for and acknowledgement of …” Nothing about negotiations or boundary changes

      respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force” Israel has invaded all its neighbours. None have invaded Israel.

    • eljay
      eljay
      May 8, 2016, 9:04 am

      || yonah fredman: In a 2 state solution based on resolution 242, the starting point is the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories. The extent of this withdrawal was not strictly delineated: the text does not say withdrawal from all of the territories occupied … ||

      The problem isn’t with the text but with how your Zio-supremacist mind interprets it.

      The text strictly delineates “(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict … ”

      It doesn’t say withdrawal from “some of” or “most of” or “a portion of” or “the better part of” territories occupied. Without a qualifier, “territories occupied” means all of them.

      Just as returning “items stolen during the recent home invasion” or “family members kidnapped during the recent terrorist attack” isn’t a legal or moral loophole granting criminals the right to keep some of the loot they’ve stolen or hostages they’ve taken.

      • pabelmont
        pabelmont
        May 8, 2016, 9:48 am

        The UN drafts its resolutions in English and also in French. Apparently, the French version makes it seem that “all” was intended, and pro-Israel wordsmiths changed the English version of 242 (to omit or suggest the absence of “all”) without also changing the French version.

        UNSC 242 has a preamble which declares clearly the impermissibility of acquiring territory by war: “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war ” a preamble which (to my mind) implies that the “all” was intended.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        May 8, 2016, 3:11 pm

        from lord carradon, author of the resolution, as quoted in wikipedia:

        Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line I was not prepared to use wording in the Resolution which would have made that line permanent. Nevertheless it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and that meant that there could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent “secure and recognized” boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the “inadmissibility” principle.[24]

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 8, 2016, 3:27 pm

        If foreign powers were to invade and occupy a large part of Israel and the U.N. were to call for the withdrawal of foreign forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict, you can bet your bottom dollar that Zio-supremacists:
        – wouldn’t buy the bullshit they’re currently selling; and
        – wouldn’t accept anything less than a full withdrawal.

        And they’d be in the right. But because they and their “Jewish State” are in the wrong, they prefer to play word games.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 8, 2016, 3:34 pm

        || yonah fredman: from lord carradon, author of the resolution, as quoted in wikipedia:

        Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line I was not prepared to use wording in the Resolution which would have made that line permanent. Nevertheless it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and that meant that there could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent “secure and recognized” boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the “inadmissibility” principle.[24] ||

        So…it’s inadmissible to acquire territory by war and Mr. Carradon knows it’s inadmissible to acquire territory by war, but rather than uphold the law and enforce a withdrawal from the acquired territory back to within pre-war borders, Mr. Carradon’s “sensible way” to proceed is to “set up a Boundary Commission” to “decide a new frontier line”.

        Dunno if he was a Zio-supremacist – although his comment certainly smacks of Zio-supremacism – but he certainly was a clown.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 8, 2016, 3:39 pm

        “from lord carradon, author of the resolution, as quoted in wikipedia:”

        “Yonah” if you like your pedal extremities, stay away from firearms.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      May 8, 2016, 11:12 am

      I suggest for those who are serious about a historical understanding of 242 to read the Wikipedia article on it. For those interested only in scoring points no such seriousness should be implied or understood. The lbj administration was responsible for the official english version of 242 and to pretend that the language was somehow accidental is historical nonsense. In the aftermath of 56 USSR AND US ensured withdrawal without negotiation, 242 was deliberately different.

      • talknic
        talknic
        May 8, 2016, 1:41 pm

        @ yonah fredman May 8, 2016, 11:12 am

        “I suggest for those who are serious about a historical understanding of 242 to read the Wikipedia article on it. “

        LOL. Under Wikipedia’s editorial policy editors are to write in their own words (i.e.,in their opinion) what they think someone else’s published opinion is. IOW it’s a ridiculous notion to call it an encyclopedia

        An editor cannot directly quote UNSC res 242 because it would be original research, which is frowned upon.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      May 8, 2016, 11:15 am

      Quotes from the author of 242, Lord Caradon:

      “It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt as a matter of fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. I was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.” (p. 9)

      It’s funny that Zionists never mention that resolution 242 also didn’t write about freedom of naviation through ALL waterways and therefore their deceiving interpretation would mean that Egypt can close the street of Tiran or the Suez channel for Israel vessels or those who want to reach Israel.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        May 8, 2016, 3:13 pm

        see above another quote from carradon.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        May 9, 2016, 11:34 am

        What’s your point, yonah?

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso
      May 9, 2016, 11:28 am

      For the record:

      To quote John McHugo, Visiting Fellow at the Scottish Centre for International Law at Edinburgh University and acknowledged expert on Resolution 242:

      “It used to be permissible for a state to acquire sovereignty over territory by right of conquest on the termination of a state of war. The right was abolished when the League of Nations was established in the aftermath of the First World War. The abolition of conquest extends to a prohibition of the acquisition of any territory by a state in actions of self-defence. The vexed question of who attacked whom in the various Arab–Israeli conflicts is therefore irrelevant to the analysis contained in this Article. What should be noted is the strength of the word ‘inadmissibility’ which was chosen by the drafters of the Resolution. It suggests that the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by war is a foundation on which the Resolution is predicated….” (John McHugo, “Resolution 242: A Legal Reappraisal of the Right-Wing Israeli Interpretation of the Withdrawal Phrase with Reference to the Conflict Between Israel and the Palestinians,” published in the International and Comparative Law Quarterly, October 2002, pp. 857-58.)

      McHugo, “…the wording of the Withdrawal Phrase implies that these territories are to be treated as a unity, and a partial withdrawal would only be a partial compliance with the principle.” (ibid)

      Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban revealed at the time that he understood full well that Resolution 242 calls for Israel’s complete withdrawal: “The words ‘in the recent conflict’ convert the principle of eliminating occupation into a mathematically precise formula for restoring the June 4 Map.” During negotiations to determine Resolution 242’s wording, Abba Eban failed in an attempt to delete the phrase “in the recent conflict.” (Comment by Foreign Minister of Israel and Telegram 3164, UK Mission in New York to Foreign Office, 12 Nov 1967. FO961/24)

      Moshe Dayan also realized that Resolution 242 calls for full withdrawal and urged the government to reject it. In June 1968, during a closed session of the Labor Party, he counseled against endorsing Resolution 242 as “it means withdrawal to the 4 June [1967] boundaries, and because we are in conflict with the SC [Security Council] on that resolution.” (Daniel Dishon (ed.), Middle East Record, v. 4, 1968 – Jerusalem: 1973)

      Furthermore, as Moshe Dayan revealed in July 1968, Israel’s leaders had no intention of complying with Resolution 242 and were in fact preparing for more territorial expansion: “During the last 100 years our people have been in a process of building up the country and the nation, of expansion, of getting additional Jews and additional settlements in order to expand the borders here. Let no Jew say that the process has ended. Let no Jew say that we are near the end of the road.” (Ma’ariv, 7 July 1968; quoted by Clifford A. Wright, Facts and Fables: The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Kegan Paul International London and New York, 1989, p. 108)

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        May 9, 2016, 2:12 pm

        Misterioso,

        It used to be permissible for a state to acquire sovereignty over territory by right of conquest on the termination of a state of war. The right was abolished when the League of Nations was established in the aftermath of the First World War. The abolition of conquest extends to a prohibition of the acquisition of any territory by a state in actions of self-defence.

        That is enough to indict all major players at the UN. Eban’s bitching about the “recent conflict” phrase seems to oppose his goal of keeping any legitimacy, as the “recent conflict” phrase is obviously there to legitimate the establishment of a Zionist state by right of conquest –as in 11/1947 while asking for a symbolic return of the 67 occupation. Far as I know, the war of conquest by the Zionist bandits occurred well after the constitution of the League of Nations.

  5. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    May 7, 2016, 7:30 pm

    Israel claims: BDS is antisemitic because it wants the removal of the Jewish state. Some Germans, it appears, desire the removal of the settlements. Germans are not, on this showing, moving according to what Israel says is the BDS program. In the Israeli view, the antisemitic BDS program. But Israel will be steadfast: if it would not agree to the removal of the Jewish state, why would it agree to the removal of the settlements? The settlements, are, certainly, part of Israel, an essential part, a sine qua non. Or so the Israelis make it seem. And thus Germany’s asking for removal of the settlements is antisemitic, for whatever other reason could Israel have for warning the Germans (the Germans!) to quit trash talking the settlements?

    What if Germany keeps it up? What if a wolf should come out of the forest, Peter, what then? Will demanding the end of the settlements still be antisemitic? Still be resisted? I hope we get a chance to find out.

    Don’t quit now, Germany!

    • just
      just
      May 7, 2016, 7:37 pm

      This just popped up on Haaretz:

      “Israel Lobbies U.S. to Soften Tone of Quartet Report on Settlements

      Israel is working to prevent the report, to be issued in the last week of May, from mentioning future possible steps by the UN Security Council on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.”

      read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.718464?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

      In other news, Israel is characterized as “Western” again:

      “Israel Has One of Highest Rates of Construction Accidents in West, Report Shows

      In 2015 alone, 50,000 people were injured and 54 killed in work accidents in Israel, the majority of them construction laborers.”

      read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.718460?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

      Are the dead and injured laborers Westerners??? Hardly.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        May 8, 2016, 7:07 am

        I saw this too, but apparently the US is taking a tougher stance on this report. The report is just symbolic, and at the end Israel will still build illegal settlements which committing crimes against those they have held under a brutal occupation. Sometimes the US and some other Western nations must play Bad Cop in their effort to pretend they are p.off with Israel. Meanwhile they are in the verge of raising the charity that goes over there. So who can take their “tough stance” seriously?

        http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7c1e8efb6f15450492b54c5c04e19657/us-take-tougher-tone-israeli-settlements-new-report

      • Marnie
        Marnie
        May 9, 2016, 5:43 am

        @Just –

        Israel has to be one of the least safe places in the ME for construction workers, the majority of which are not israeli Jews. I’m having a very hard time with the ‘western’ label too, unless they’re referring to the pre-OSHA West (when it was ‘wild’).

        Construction Workers in Israel Are Falling Hard Between the Cracks

        Many more workers at Israeli building sites getting killed, maimed in falls. Tel Aviv hospital ICU head: ‘The workers are treated almost like raw material, a disposable item.’

        Or Kashti | Haaretz
        Jan 11, 2016 12:05 PM

        “Prof. Kobi Peleg, the Center’s chief, feels the climb in the number and severity of the injuries is remarkable. “This trend has to stop,” Peleg says, adding that more and more people are being killed by the month.

        About 40 percent of the construction workers hospitalized in the last five years were Jews; 38 percent were Israeli Arabs; 11 percent Palestinians living in the territories; and 8 percent were foreign workers. About a quarter fell more than five meters.”

        Prof. Peleg refers to this as a ‘trend’ that has to stop. Like so many things here that must stop.

  6. Rodneywatts
    Rodneywatts
    May 8, 2016, 9:04 am

    Pink Floyd’s rock opera “The Wall” has a pertinent song ‘We don’t need no education, we don’t need no thought control’ Seems prophetic too about the separation wall.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez5pOboAfXc

    Hope you enjoy it!

  7. Ossinev
    Ossinev
    May 8, 2016, 10:17 am

    @JuanR
    Great piece Juan. I look forward to further information from you and in particular your projected time scale for the de facto one state between the Mediterranean and the Jordan including Judea and Samaria oh and including all those pesky Semitic Arabs who as per your wonderful Israeli “Magna Carta” will be entitled to full citizenship,voting rights,etc etc etc etc. Bring it on !

  8. Ossinev
    Ossinev
    May 8, 2016, 10:26 am

    @Just
    Speaking of things just popping up on Haaretz. The latest online front page has a wonderful piece of juxtaposition;
    http://www.haaretz.com/

    So we have at the top the Yahoo brushing away his usual tears when criticizing an IDF general for likening trends in Israeli society to Nazi Germany in the 1930`s and below the good old faithful US lapdog criticizing a Palestinian UN representative for likening IDF soldiers to the Nazis.

    It`s a funny old Zioworld innit ?

  9. xanadou
    xanadou
    May 8, 2016, 6:24 pm

    How is an arrogant offer of a free “seminar” on Jewish history by Israel’s First Blowhard for those who have exercised their right to vote their well-considered conscience and interests – supposed to help Israeli pols and command any amount of respect? (rhetorical)

    Perhaps it’s time that the Israeli pols hire a psychoanalyst who might suggest that such outbursts project the image of an insecure schoolyard bully, hardly a partner for high level international negotiations.

  10. Marnie
    Marnie
    May 9, 2016, 1:07 am

    The “survivors of the greatest crime in human history” are the descendants of the transatlantic slave trade (from the 16th to 19th CENTURIES). The fact that this criminal enterprise created the wealthiest nation on earth and made millionaires out of poor white trash is the reason this, the greatest crime in human history, is never spoken of in those terms. The survivors of the transatlantic slave trade, the greatest crime in human history, continue to be marginalized, humiliated, dehumanized, imprisoned and murdered, at rates that should only be spoken of in terms of genocide. Spare me the incessant idol worship of the holocaust, which had a beginning and an end. The continuing crimes against African Americans and all people of color is constantly ignored as the zionists apparently believe they have the market and patent on human suffering. Please see, if interested, Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade
    http://www.slavevoyages.org/

  11. Boo
    Boo
    May 9, 2016, 8:48 am

    It’d take something truly extraordinary to induce me to enter Bibi’s office. This “seminar” would far from suffice.

    However, having entered it for whatever reason, I most certainly would never allow its door to close behind me.

  12. Edward Q
    Edward Q
    May 9, 2016, 9:04 pm

    The Israelis should end their seminar with a reprise of Netanyahu’s glare of shame from his U.N. speech:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24WXNZ4c_kU

    I think the Europeans should accept Israel’s offer but then insist the Israelis participate in their own seminar on anti-Palestinian racism.

Leave a Reply