Trending Topics:

‘There’s no occupation’

on 22 Comments

A few days ago, a video interview with Alan Baker, Israel’s former ambassador to Canada (as well as military prosecutor and senior legal adviser in the Israeli army’s international law division), was released, under the title: “International Law Expert: Israel Is Not an “Occupier.”

In the interview, released by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Baker makes the essential claim that Israel is not an occupier, because he says that international law defines occupation as “one power occupying the lands of a foreign sovereign”. But Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army,” and according to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. Baker calls the West Bank “disputed territory,” as does Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Alan Baker

Alan Baker

Baker uses the claim that “Jordan was never recognised as a sovereign in the area,” that is, that its annexation was not recognised. But Jordan was de facto controlling the West Bank. Take Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, which is deemed illegal by the UN. If any state would act in aggression against Israel and conquer East Jerusalem from it, would we be in doubt that it was Israel that was being attacked, just because its annexed territory was not recognised?

Then Baker goes quasi-religious, very early into the video. “Anyone who reads the bible can appreciate the fact that there are very solid historic and legal bases to the claim of Israel with respect to the territory.”

Not only is the bible not a history book – it is certainly not a legal deed of any relevant kind in the modern legal world.

It is interesting, indeed astonishing, how quickly Zionist pundits and leaders jump to the bible in their attempts to justify the claim to the land at the expense of its actual inhabitants; as I have noted, David Ben-Gurion referring to the bible as “our deed” (speaking to the Royal Peel Commission late 1930’s).

Baker refers to occupied land that is not private: “If the land is not private, the administering power can use the land and enjoy the fruits of the land, for as long as the area has been finally determined with respect to its sovereignty”. Here he extends on the claim that it is not “occupied”, merely “administered”. In so doing, he downplays the fact that Israel plunders the resources literally under the feet of the Palestinians it is obliged to provide for as an occupying power (even if it were only “administering”). One of the most extreme examples of this is water. Israel exploits roughly 85% of the West Bank aquifer. Whilst settlers consume about 300 liters each per day (about double the London average), Palestinians have to make do with about 70 liters, well under the WHO minimum. Amira Hass wrote recently: “Israel Incapable of Telling Truth About Water It Steals From Palestinians – Water is the only issue in which Israel (still) finds it difficult to defend its discriminatory, oppressive and destructive policy with pretexts of security and God.”

“Nobody can claim [the settlements] are illegitimate, and nobody can claim that they are illegal,” Baker says, after noting the American Secretary of State’s critique. But indeed, the whole world sees the settlements as illegal and illegitimate – with the US applying the softer term of “obstacle to peace.” They are not only violating the Fourth Geneva convention’s article 49 (which Baker suggests doesn’t apply here), they are creating facts on the ground. If settlements were such a “temporary issue,” merely some adventurous people building weekend huts to enjoy Palestine whilst it lasts and whilst negotiations take place – why do the settlements appear every time in these negotiations as matters which the Palestinian must offer “concessions” on? Why not just evacuate them all at once, if it was so easy?

Finally, Baker ends his tour de force with “There is no such thing as 1967 borders.” On this point he is completely right. He notes that these are ceasefire lines, and claims that the Jordanians wanted them to be so, requiring that the armistice demarcation lines not be regarded as final borders, awaiting peaceful negotiations. But the mirror image is worth looking into:

Israel has never declared its borders publicly. In 1948, just before the Declaration of Independence, Jewish Agency Eliahu Sasson communicated very clearly to President Truman that the borders of Israel would be those of the 1947 UN “Partition Plan.” Truman was clearly worried about the designs of the Zionists. Israel lightly referred to the UN Partition Plan in its Declaration, but not to its borders. By 1949 it took on an additional 22% of Palestine (the Partition Plan had appropriated 56% of the territory), reaching 78% of historical Palestine. No borders were delineated – also because Israel had not “finished the job”. The “whole of Eretz Israel” was the clear ambition of Ben-Gurion and the Zionists, and in 1967 they got a chance to “finish the job”.

And still, borders were not delineated – for Israel would not annex West Bank and Gaza, because of the “demographic issue.” East Jerusalem – yes. Golan – yes (in 1981, after an initial ethnic cleansing campaign of about 124,000 out of the 130,000 Syrians, and destruction of 200 villages). So Israel is not done expanding. This is really the whole issue. And Baker is right on the 1967 borders: Israel simply has no borders, it never marked them.

The whole world recognizes that Israel is an occupying power. This is completely uncontroversial. We could discuss this at length, but to blow out of the water once and for all Baker’s bizarre twist, we could just cut through to the following: Israel’s leading judicial authorities, such as former Supreme Court Justice Meir Shamgar (see the documentary The Law in These Parts), distinctly regard Israel’s occupation as a belligerent occupation. Without this definition under international law, Israel could not be applying the network of military rule that it applies, with all its inherent subjugation. As Shamgar notes, you cannot annex a territory without its people. In other words, were the occupied territories to be annexed (as Israel did unilaterally with East Jerusalem), Israel would have to take its people with the territory. In terms of civilian governance, that means, make them citizens of the state (in East Jerusalem this was also compromised with the special “residence permit” given to East Jerusalem Palestinians and not Jewish settlers).

But as is widely understood, and as reflected in Israel’s second prime minister Moshe Sharett’s words, the absorption of a “”substantial Arab [Palestinian] population” is unwanted by Zionists. As “centrist” Member of Knesset Yair Lapid bluntly puts it: “maximum Jews on maximum land with maximum security and with minimum Palestinians.” 

“Wenn ihr wollt, ist es kein Märchen” – “If you will it, it is no dream”, wrote Zionist founder Theodore Herzl in his 1902 novel Altneuland (Old, New Land).

This has become the most famous mantra for the Zionist adventurism. An adventurism which Sharett regarded with the following, candid statement: “I have learned that the state of Israel cannot be ruled in our generation without deceit and adventurism. These are historical facts that cannot be altered” (in Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel, Myths and Realities). In a meeting in 1950, when Moshe Dayan aired the desire to conquer the West Bank from Jordan, Sharett said that “The State of Israel will not get embroiled in military adventurism by deliberately taking the initiative to capture territories and expand. Israel would not do that, both because we cannot afford to be accused by the world of aggression and because we cannot, for security and social reasons, absorb in our midst a substantial Arab population…We cannot sacrifice Jewish fighters, nor can we harm other in arbitrary fashion merely in order to satisfy the appetite of expansion.”

Oh, but all that did happen. And the adventurism is not only about expansion – it is about spinning and twisting international law to serve this adventurism – with deceit.

In 1967 Israel took on the adventurism which even some of its own leaders first feared (after having ethnically cleansed most of the territory from most of the Palestinians in 1948) – the conquering of further territory with a large Palestinian population, one which now, with Israel’s Palestinian citizens combined, counts as many Jews as non-Jews, despite various and ongoing campaigns of ethnic cleansing since.

Israel tries to hide these occupations in various ways, with various spins.

In 2005, Israel, under PM Ariel Sharon, did the famous “disengagement” from Gaza, the “significance” of which was elucidated by Sharon’s security adviser Dov Weisglass as “the freezing of the peace process.” Yet even this “disengagement” proved to be mere spin.

Whilst the Israeli government claims that Gaza is no longer occupied, both the UN, and even the United States regard it as “occupied”. 

Israel also seeks to obscure its Golan occupation. After a promising oil test drill last year, Israel worked arduously to try to have the United States endorse its illegal annexation of the Syrian Golan, also conquered in 1967. In his meeting with Obama, Netanyahu reportedly claimed that Syria was no longer a functioning state, allowing “for different thinking.” In a bizarre, first-ever cabinet meeting atop the Golan heights earlier this year, Netanyahu simply vowed that “the Golan will always remain in Israel’s hands. Israel will never withdraw from the Golan Heights.”

There’s nothing to be in doubt of regarding the Golan – it’s Syrian territory. Not “disputed territory.” Not “disengaged from” territory as Israel would have it spun in other locations it occupies. And yet, we are told in no uncertain terms – that this Syrian territory, occupied in an uncontroversial way (and illegally annexed in 1981), is part and parcel of Israel.

It is with this overview that we must look at Baker’s video, spin, and claim. Baker was part of the three-person committee (“Levy Committee”) appointed by Netanyahu in 2012 to consider the nearly 100 “outposts” in the West Bank, which the (also Likud government appointed) Sasson report of 2005 described as “all illegal.” To make this very clear, Sasson’s report treated outposts that thus even by Israeli legal authority are considered illegal, without consideration of the more established settlements which the whole world considers illegal but Israel considers legal. As Yesh Din notes:

On February 13, 2012, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and then Minister of Justice Yaakov Neeman decided to appoint a committee, chaired by the late former Supreme Court Justice Edmund Levy, to look into the status of Israeli construction in the West Bank. The background for the committee’s appointment was the GOI’s desire to find ways to avoid executing demolition and demarcation orders and “legalize” the illegal construction in the outposts.”

Whilst the earlier Sasson report critique was rather scathing, it related only to the outposts. But those settlements, which Israel has quite systematically confirmed post-facto, are part of the motor of the settlement venture as a whole. These “hilltop settlers” are part of the very “pioneering” spirit of the settlement adventurism, and resemble in no uncertain ways the “tower and stockade” method by which many Zionist settlements (which became kibbutzim and moshavim etc.) were formed. The whole spirit of the 1967 settlement was about creating facts on the ground – first “temporary” (as even Baker regards the supposedly non-existent occupation), and then permanent. Sasson’s report noted that “the government spoke in two voices on the issue of the outposts”, and that “public authorities and state agencies are involved in building unauthorized outposts” (as Yesh Din noted). Whilst not regarding the settlement project’s legality as a whole, the outposts did put the government in an uncomfortable light. If it would not implement the suggested dismantling of all these illegal outposts, this would add to its illegitimacy, and perhaps to the international sense of illegitimacy concerning Israel’s already widely condemned settlement project.

Thus the 2012 Levy committee appointed by Netanyahu was appointed to consider the issue anew. The members were former Supreme Court justice Edmund Levy, former Foreign Ministry legal adviser Alan Baker and former deputy president of the Tel Aviv District Court Tchia Shapira. In order to produce an “overview” that would divert from the aspect of the illegality mentioned by Sasson, as well as provide a more comprehensive, justifying spin on the settlement project as a whole, the committee went to criticize the whole notion of “occupied”, as Baker does in the video, and concluded that “Israelis have the legal right to settle in Judea and Samaria and the establishment of settlements cannot, in and of itself, be considered illegal”. 

Whilst, as the Jerusalem Post noted, the committee acknowledged that “unauthorized Jewish building in Judea and Samaria was “carried out with the knowledge, encouragement and tacit agreement of the most senior political level – government ministers and the prime minister”, it stuck on a back door: “but, it added, the involvement of government offices and ministries in such activity means that ‘such conduct is to be seen as implied agreement.’” It concluded that this “implied agreement” opened the door for Netanyahu’s government to legalize this construction if it so chooses”.


Last week, Al Marsad human rights organization operating in the Golan, noted the demolishing of the home of Mr. Bassam Jamil Ibrahim in the occupied Syrian Druze village of Majdal Shams, noting that “the Israeli authorities have justified the destruction of Mr. Bassam Ibrahim’s home on the basis that it was built without the necessary permit. This is the first time that the Israeli authorities have demolished a home in Madjal Shams. The destruction of this home marks the adoption of a new systematic policy of home demolitions by the Israeli authorities in the remaining Syrian villages in the Occupied Syrian Golan. The Syrian owners of dozens of other homes have been threatened with similar action.” 

The occupied Syrian Golan does not feature often in international focus upon Israel’s occupation. It seems that quite few are aware of the ethnic cleansing that took place there, too, in 1967 and shortly after, where some 124,000 out of 130,000 residents were forcefully evicted and 200 villages destroyed.

This is yet another typical picture of layer upon layer of ethnic cleansing and destruction, which characterizes the Israeli state. The destruction is not only physical, it involves a concerted campaign to destroy memory, and to spin history into oblivion.   

Tell the Palestinians in the West Bank that there’s no occupation. Tell the Gazans. Tell the Syrians. Tell everyone. There’s no occupation. Repeat it again and again. There’s no occupation. It all becomes “Israel”, and Herzl’s ‘dream’ is turned into ‘reality’ by brute force and propaganda.

Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

22 Responses

  1. JLewisDickerson on September 14, 2016, 2:51 pm

    RE: Tell the Palestinians in the West Bank that there’s no occupation. Tell the Gazans. Tell the Syrians. Tell everyone. There’s no occupation. Repeat it again and again. There’s no occupation.” ~ Jonathan Ofir

    MY QUESTION: Should I click together three times the heels of my magical ruby slippers before repeating the phrase, “There’s no occupation”?

  2. Kay24 on September 14, 2016, 4:21 pm

    ““Israel Incapable of Telling Truth About Water It Steals From Palestinians ”

    Correction: Israel is incapable of telling the truth about the lands they steal, the water they steal, the murders they commit, and it seem incapable of being honest and admitting they are breaking all international laws by being a (detestable) occupier, and that they occupy and control the Palestinian people. These are the nazis of our time, and can be as vicious sometimes. They lie and the US pretends to believe them. What does that make us?

    • Citizen on September 14, 2016, 6:00 pm

      Willing Executioners?

    • pmb1414 on September 15, 2016, 11:27 am

      It makes us complicit in that we enable and finance an evil no different than the earlier South African apartheid. While certainly not comparable to the holocaust in WWII Germany, Americans in their willful ignorance are similar to the German citizens living in the towns near the extermination camps. We know something bad is happening, but we’d rather not know too much about it. Little different than Israeli citizens who’d rather not know what’s going on a few miles down the road. Our lives are comfortable, why rock the boat? Until we begin to give a damn about our fellow human beings and start electing leaders who are not mouthpieces for AIPAC, that apathy will remain (as we witnessed in the Democrat platform). Online media like Mondoweiss, JVP, If Americans Knew and WRMEA fill a much needed moral void in the American conscience. You are making a difference.

    • Doubtom on September 15, 2016, 11:34 am

      At the very least, cowards.

      • Kay24 on September 16, 2016, 6:51 am

        All of the above, true. It also makes us complicit in all that they do, in fact we make sure they are well fed and armed, to continue doing so. A very sorry state of affairs.

  3. talknic on September 14, 2016, 8:58 pm

    How many lies can Alan Baker tell in succession? You’ll meet his crappolla over an over. Facts come in handy

    “International law defines “occupation” as one power occupying the lands of a foreign sovereign”

    International Law actually says this:

    Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III
    “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

    “Israel entered the area known as the West Bank in 1967 and took over the authority to administer the land from Jordan, which was never considered to be a sovereign in the area”

    The West Bank as it is now officially named, was legally annexed at the request of representatives of the majority of the legitimate citizens of the territory. Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only by demand of the other Arab states (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950) in keeping with the UN Charter Chapt XI

    UNSC res 228 “Observing that this incident constituted a large-scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel“

    “In actual fact, Israel and the Jewish people have got claims to the area that go far back into history. “

    The State of Israel only goes back as far as 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

    “… the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

    “Anybody who reads the Bible can appreciate the fact that there is a very solid historic legal basis to the claim of Israel with respect to the territories …”

    The bible is not a legal document. The Israeli plea for recognition and subsequent “irrevocable recognitions” by other states were legal documents

    “… Israel is committed to conduct negotiations with the Palestinians in order to find a permanent settlement to the issue”

    Negotiations = Israel wants the Palestinians to forgo even more of their rightful territories after Israel was given completely gratis, more than half of Palestine for the Jewish State. Israel wants and has illegally acquired by war more than Israel proclaimed was Israeli and more than was recognized as Israeli

    “The Jordanians, who occupied the territory after the 1948 war, annexed it, but this annexation was never really recognized or acknowledged by the international community.”

    Legality of annexation is not thru recognition, it’s thru adherence to the Law in respect to self determination. The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was by request of the majority of that territory’s legitimate citizens. It was not condemned by the UNSC, unlike the condemnation of the unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel in UNSC Resolution 476one of at least EIGHT reminders of the 21st May 1968 UNSC Res 252

    ” At a later stage the king of Jordan voluntarily gave up any Jordanian sovereignty or claim to the territories to the Palestinian people …”

    Ooooops. So Jordan was sovereign over the West Bank in 1967 and in 1988 gave up it’s sovereignty to the Palestinian people. Those little loose ends in the Ziopuke narrative can be soooooooooooooo embarrassing

    “The international community’s constant referral to the “Palestinian territories” is a complete fallacy and has absolutely no legal or political basis”

    A) Oh what suddenly happened to “Jordan voluntarily gave up any Jordanian sovereignty or claim to the territories to the Palestinian people
    B) The majority of the International Comity of Nations have already recognized the State of Palestine.

    “There has never been a Palestinian state, as such, and therefore the territories never belonged to any Palestinian entity”

    Article 7 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and the adoption of the Palestine Nationality Law in 1925 tell us the poor man is delusional or a liar. Probably both

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

    “There’s no international agreement, there’s no contract, there’s no treaty, and there’s no binding international resolution that determines that the territories belong to the Palestinians”

    Recognition of states by the majority of the International Comity of Nations is irrevocable. The majority have recognized the State of Palestine

    ” … the Palestinians themselves, in the Oslo agreement that they signed with Israel, acknowledge the fact that the ultimate permanent status of the territory is to be determined by negotiations. Therefore, even the Palestinians accept the fact that this is not Palestinian territory, its disputed territory whose status is yet to be settled

    So it isn’t Israeli territory yet and it’s under Israeli military occupation after having been under the sovereignty of Jordan who by 1967 was, including the West Bank, a UN Member State and a High Contracting Power to GC IV under which citizens of the Occupying Power may not illegally settle in Occupied Territories.

    “If the local population owns land, then the administrative power isn’t allowed to take the land or use it. But if the land is not private, the administering power can use the land and enjoy the fruits of the land until sovereignty has been finally determined”

    A) Local land ownership is of ‘real estate’ B) Territory however, belongs to all the legitimate citizens of the territory, whether they own rent or lease ‘real estate’ or even if they’re homeless living under a bridge

    Laws of War Art. 55. “The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”

    Another ooooops moment

    “There’s no such thing as 1967 borders. A border is a line between two sovereign entities. In 1967, there was a ceasefire line that had existed since the 1948-1949 war between the Arab states and Israel and after Israel declared its independence. The Jordanians insisted on inserting in the Armistice Agreement of 1949 a provision which says that the armistice demarcation line is not the final border.”

    So Israel’s only borders are those it proclaimed effective 00:01 May 15th 1948(ME time). Any other territories are not yet Israeli

    “Final borders can only be determined in peace negotiations between the parties”

    Nonsense. They could be determined by Israel withdrawing from all non-Israeli territories held under Israeli military occupation. Never been tried. Israeli withdrawal from other folks territories under the Jordan/Israel and Egypt/Israel treaties resulted in peace

  4. Marnie on September 15, 2016, 1:08 am

    I find it hard to believe when someone would argue that israel’s apartheid state and all the fine accoutrements of an occupation (segregation, separate roads, hospitals, schools, LAWS, etc.) that go with such is not really an occupation. That somehow, because it is being done by zionists and has the full support of the united states, it’s sanctified, sanitized and wouldn’t hurt a fly. The united states is more guilty than the zionist state because it could have prevented this, but chose to acquiesce because of guilt and are now so deep in this quagmire of lies, deception and extortion, it would take something catastrophic to cut this noose around the neck of Palestinians and americans who have a different idea wrt democracy.

  5. heb on September 15, 2016, 5:00 am

    Great stuff, Talknic. Oh, and of course, even the IDF’s top legal person knows it’s a belligerent occupation.

    • talknic on September 15, 2016, 12:50 pm

      They all know they’re belligerent occupiers, they have to lie. The State of Israel cannot now suddenly adhere to the law. Under the Law, Israel would be sent bankrupt paying reparations and attempting to resettle hundreds of thousands of Israelis back into actual Israeli territories

      It is after all, a pyramid scheme that depends on more and more land sold on loan, at interest and developed and taxed

    • Talkback on September 15, 2016, 1:02 pm

      heb: “Great stuff, Talknic.”


      “Oh, and of course, even the IDF’s top legal person knows it’s a belligerent occupation.”

      Even the Supreme Kangaroo Court of Israel rules on the framework that Israel is a belligerent occupier. But Baker lives in the Kahane Continuum, a psychotic mental state where no state of Palestine has ever existed and the illegal annexation of territories is only legitimate when Jews ruled over it thousands of years ago. For how many years actually and compared to others, LOL?

      • MHughes976 on September 15, 2016, 5:41 pm

        It’s the imposition of sovereign power on people who are disfranchised. If it’s an occupation it should be ended with the sort of dispatch that applied to the British occupation of Germany, which was legitimate and brief. Occupations that don’t end quickly cease to be occupations and become takeovers or conquests. If it’s not an occupation it’s a land grab without local or international consent and should end immediately. One way of ending it would be to enfranchise all the people. Just to mention that there can be no right to acquire territory by defensive war and without more ado, since that would override the basic rights of the inhabitants and there cannot be any right to override basic rights. Treaties and general consents may change things, but general consent is the last thing we have in Palestine.

  6. silamcuz on September 15, 2016, 7:28 am

    Look, I honestly don’t see what’s the problem in Israel claiming there is no occupation, when other, much bigger countries do the same without much protests.

    Turtle Island has been occupied for over 500 years now, and I don’t see anyone disputing the legitimacy of the government that is occupying it, the government known as the USA.

    • Rashers2 on September 15, 2016, 11:46 am

      Turtle Island? Presumably, the old name for the land mass comprising Mexico, 49 of the 50 States of the Union and Canada? Whataboutery at its weakest and most pathetic – go back to Hasbara Central Academy 1st grade and donate a week’s trolling fee to BDS.

      • silamcuz on September 17, 2016, 12:31 am

        Yes, Turtle Island. Here is what the US-based human rights group, Palestinian Youth Movement say about settler-colonialism on Turtle Island :

        “As Native communities face an ongoing genocide and continue to resist the imperialist settler-colonial regime of the United States, Palestinians are too experiencing a genocide and ethnocide within our homelands from the settler-colonial state of Israel. Native communities have been displaced and relocated, just as Palestinians face mass internal displacement, home demolitions and life in exile from our homeland. Native communities continue to face the destruction and degradation of their land and water with restricted access to resources and delegitimization of sovereign authority and of treaties.” – See more at:

      • annie on September 17, 2016, 6:54 am

        I don’t see anyone disputing the legitimacy of the government that is occupying it, the government known as the USA.

        then you’re just not listening. lots of people dispute the legitimacy of the government especially right now during this particular election and the legitimacy of our 2 current presidential candidates for the 2 primary parties.

        Here is what the US-based human rights group, Palestinian Youth Movement say about settler-colonialism on Turtle Island :

        As Palestinians in the United States, we are exiled from our homeland while living as settlers upon Turtle Island. It is imperative that we demand recognition of the rights of Native nations and their people while building movements together with one another so that we can strengthen our collective call for justice. We call for an end of the Dakota Access Pipeline. We demand that the United States honor the treaties as the supreme law of the land and payment of governmental reparations.

        “much bigger countries do the same” is whataboutery. and “without much protests” is diversion and tells us you’re willfully ignorant, a run of the mill hasbrat, or both. go back to Hasbara Central Academy 1st grade and donate a week’s trolling fee to BDS.

    • talknic on September 15, 2016, 12:27 pm

      Classic stuff

      @ silamcuz September 15, 2016, 7:28 am

      Look, I honestly don’t see what’s the problem in Israel claiming there is no occupation, when other, much bigger countries do the same without much protests.

      Turtle Island has been occupied for over 500 years now”

      Of course you don’t

      Meanwhile International Law has evolved and it has been since at least 1945 that the acquisition of territory by war has been inadmissible. Something to do with self determination a la an internationally recognized convention.

      Israel obliged itself to adhere to the Law

      ” and I don’t see anyone disputing the legitimacy of the government that is occupying it, the government known as the USA”

      Oh my, where will all the American Jewish folk go? Nudge nudge wink wink Or more importantly, who the f*ck is gonna maintain the precious US veto in the UNSC

  7. Ossinev on September 15, 2016, 12:25 pm

    “Look, I honestly don’t see what’s the problem in Israel claiming there is no occupation”

    Great to see you openly avowing the one state reality viz the Palestinians are not an occupied people they are in fact citizens of a single state and entitled to all of the rights of all of the other citizens of this state. What`s the problem.

    That is what you are saying isnt it ? Silam ? Silam ? Why are you running away – was it something I said. Why are you shrieking and crying ?

  8. ET on September 15, 2016, 5:31 pm

    Self-evident that they do not teach State of Israel history nor International Law to Sionists
    From whence does State of Israel sovereignty originate?
    1 Proclamation of Establishment of Government of May 14th 1948 references at ph 9 & ph 14 November 29th 1947 [UNGA 181] UN Resolution as source for sovereignty
    1.1 Epstein MOU accompanying Request for USA recognition references UNGA 181 Frontiers
    1.2 UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries B Jewish State defines the sovereignty of territory
    2 Jordan’s occupation of West Bank Territory & Egypt’s occupation of Gaza were not recognized because UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries A, Arab State defines the sovereignty of territory of UNGA 181 State of Palestine
    2.1 Self-evident that 1949 Armistice aka Greenline is not the Israel_Palestine borders
    2.1.1 UNSC 242 addresses State of Israel breach of 1949 Armistice
    3 UNGA 181 State of Palestine sovereignty is not disputable
    3.1 UNGA 273 of May 11th 1948: Government of State of Israel Accession ot UN Charter “unreservedly agreed” to the stipulated international law context of UNGA 181 & UNGA 194
    3.1.1 The Sionist premise that there was no sovereign at West Bank is self-evident absurdity
    3.2 Reiterate: UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries B Jewish State defines the sovereignty of territory
    3.3 Israel_Palestine conflict is International Conflict & not Civil War
    4 Self-evident UNGA 181 is in effect:
    4.1 Charter Chapter XII Article 80 UN Trusteeship Agreement is UNGA 181
    4.2 UNSC 44 Receipt of UNGA 181 & request of UNGA for more detailed UN Trusteeship Agreement
    4.2.1 outcome: UNGA 194
    4.3 UN Charter Chapter XII, Article 85 UNGA Organ administrator’s Article 94 functions & powers transfer of limited sovereign powers with UNGA 3236 PLO Mandate & A/RES/43/177 Government
    4.4 UN Charter Chapter IV scope of powers UNGA 3237 PLO Mission & A/RES/67/19 Observer State of Palestine
    4.5 Israel_PLO 1993 Oslo_DOP which is UNSC 242 foundation

    UNGA 181
    International Law Documents
    UN Resolutions:

  9. K Renner on September 20, 2016, 11:27 am

    And the moon is made out of blue cheese.

    Gotta hand it to these cretins– the bubble they’ve built around themselves certainly can be impenetrable.

    Too bad for them that America and the rest of the world disagree with the spurious, idiotic assertion that the occupation “don’t real”. Whining “Jew hater” at anyone who simply states the facts of the occupation will never change anything, either.

  10. traintosiberia on September 21, 2016, 11:53 am

    “Bennett urged the international community “to demonstrate their ethics” by recognising Israeli sovereignty in the Golan.

    He added: “To this day, no state in the world has recognised the Golan as part of Israel, including our friend, the United States of America. It is time the world stand by the right side – Israel’s side.”

    Israel would try to quadruple the Golan’s settler population to 100,000 using financial incentives, he said.

    A month later Zvi Hauser, Netanyahu’s former cabinet secretary, wrote a commentary in Haaretz arguing that Israel should seize its first chance since 1967 “to conduct a constructive dialogue with the international community over a change in Middle Eastern borders”.

    Recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the Heights could, he said, be presented as serving a “global interest in stabilising the region”.

    Hauser added that Israel should demand the Golan as “compensation” for Obama’s recent nuclear agreement with Iran. Such a claim could be based, he said, on a 1975 “pledge” from US President Gerald Ford recognising Israel’s “need to remain on the Golan Heights, even in peacetime”.
    – See more at:

    1 Prove your ethics by doing unethical staff on a global level

    Since you have not stood by the side of Israel until now, stand up with Israel now and prove you can stand with someone who you have not stood up with until now . Dont think why you did not until now .That’s irrelevant What is relevant that you can stand up for a criminal guy and you could support a criminal enterprise on a massive scale because it is “now”. “Now” is very important .By putting the word “now” we cleanse the memory, we erase the history, we provide a new podium based on the word”now” and you should grab this chance of standing with Israel “now”
    3 The situation has changed We have changed the scenario WE passed Accountability Acts, we claimed WMD was being shipped from Iraq to Syria ( so that Saddam cant defend itself and add to the conspiracy of fooling the US and West ) We started getting ready for regime change day after March 19th 2003, we sent killers to kill Harriri, we forced Saudis and Gulf to toe Neoocns lines otherwise they would be targeted as well .Soon they were chanting our mantra that Iran and Hizbullah were the enemies So soon became Syria Now we have got ISIS gaining ground we decided to weaken Syria by attacking periodically Syria ( even America or Saudi wont do that directly , we are doing the only force who are raedy to help IS directly . International community should not remember this part .
    They should know we fought against Islamc fundamentalism we sponsor all activities against Islam in Europe and US They( muslims ) are all fanatic )
    Now Syria is weakened , we want International community make Israel stronger and allot Golan to Israel. Situation ahs changed ( we changed it ) This is the time not to miss an opportunity for International community Israel never has missed an opportunity particularly created by Israel at the expense of the world security and violation of international laws. International community should join Israel .

    4 We will provide a different logic to stupid bribed corrupted American guys – This deal of receiving Golan is very painful but we will take it as dowry for the wedding of Iran and US through the Nuclear deal . Other dowry will be allowing us to settle more in Jerusalem and kill people from Gaza- its an alimony – it would continue indefinitely until Israel finds another suitor -other than US Obama has forced some kind of mistrust and infidelity in our relationship by not allowing us to explore unfriendly ( against America) behaviors that are inimical to US interests but very good for us

  11. Arby on November 30, 2018, 8:29 pm

    “Not only is the bible not a history book”

    I strongly disagree. That was not an intelligent statement.

Leave a Reply