Trending Topics:

Naked justice

Israel/Palestine
on 56 Comments

A childish trick I remember practicing on my fellow first graders in my home village in Palestine (yes, the Galilee was still part of Palestine at the time) was to place a stick in the ground and claim that it marked the center of the universe. “Start measuring and prove me wrong if you can!” I would challenge my playmates. That was what struck me as the logic of the ruling by a military court judge, Maj. Haim Balilti, in his attempt to justify his decision to keep 16-year old Ahed Tamimi and her mother in military jail until the end of their trial.

Why, you ask? Because the girl slapped a soldier invading her home and the mother documented the daughter’s actions. To the judge’s mind both deeds constituted “a clear danger, one it’s very doubtful can be nullified by alternatives.” “Hysterical,” the commentator pronounces the judgement.

A decades-long tradition of 99.8% rate of conviction for those apprehended for security offenses in the Palestinian Occupied Territories mocks Balilti’s and other military judges’ attempts to explain the logic of their rulings. In the current Israeli tumultuous milieu, what needs explaining are the bungled 2 in a thousand cases. What further muddies the waters of the Israeli public discourse is the agility and casualness of liberal Israeli commentators in condemning the majority’s actions. One, for example, calling this ruling “hysterical” and the other equating it to “Nazism.”

But then little else happens: Israeli leftist crowds do not spill out into the streets; outraged feminists do not flood the military courts and Ahed’s high school age-mates do not mount sit-in demonstrations at their schools. Israeli settler ministers continue to vilify and oppress Palestinians, demanding harsher punishments for real and imagined infractions of military rules that infringe their liberty and restrict their free breathing. Zionism and fundamentalism continue to stalk the public’s fervor to the point that one is at a loss what to expect next: public lynching or capital punishment for stone throwers.

As the clown procession continues, the rub of ugly counter-accusations of hysteria and Nazism wears our sensitivities thin. Like when reusing a threadbare old pair of jeans, our initial disdainful faint smiles at such ugly epitaphs wax into gleeful pride in joining the new fashion. The objections and wheezes of discomfort, the downcast eyes ignoring tears at the knees, turn into the whimsical admission of joining the in-crowd before they finally explode out as proud agitated chuckles leading the fashion parade. When will we in Israel start parading naked, I wonder?

Yehonatan Geffen is an Israeli poet and singer I appreciate: What you hear is what you get. He has the credential of having not served in Israel’s armed forces to back up his peace activism and not coming out only as an afterthought at the end of his service. Now he is in the news for idolizing Ahed Tamimi, a Palestinian child heroic enough to warrant the wrath of everyone at Israel’s military and civilian circles. He sang her praises as follows:

A pretty girl 17 years old did a terrible thing

And when a proud Israeli soldier

Again invaded her home

She gave him a slap.

She was born into it and in that slap

Were fifty years of occupation and humiliation.

And on the day that the story of the struggle will be told

You, Ahed Tamimi,

The redhead,

Like David who slapped Goliath,

You will be in the same ranks as 

Joan of Arc, Chana Senesh and Anne Frank.

With that, a media storm is brewing: The Minister of Defense is upset by it and commands the head of the Army Radio to stop interviewing Geffen and playing his song. The Attorney General disagrees and negates the minister’s authority to impose such a ban. The MOD argues back and the debate on Israel’s social media quickly reaches the usual mudslinging proportions. Geffen and his Palestinian heroine are maligned and derided.

The Israeli public hardly blinks at all of this. Another mini media storm that affirms Israel’s democratic nature while Ahed and her mother are held in jail. It is a true and tried tactic that Israel is adept at practicing in its Hasbara wars with the world: It is a given that the whole world is against us. That makes it logical and moral to ignore the world and stand our ground. Falling back on the memory of the Holocaust sustains our certainty that we are above all of their standards. Not only are we right, but more importantly, the whole world is wrong. Here, let us show you how to do it the right way, our way. With such shaming of the rest of humanity for its bigotry against the Jews, Israel manages to hoodwink its adversaries while it continues unapologetically committing war crimes against the Palestinians and supplying weapons to genocidal militants across the globe.

If tolerance is your game, then the essence of that tolerance we preach is to build our edifice for it on your cemetery. If it is ethics you trumpet about, we have leading ethics contortionists who will justify burning Ahed Tamimi at the stake for being born Palestinian. And if that reminds you of Joan of Arc or Anne Frank, then you are an ignoramus brute who doesn’t know that no Palestinian life is worthy of celebrating. And since you malign us, our allies will stop funding the garbage dump operation you call the UN.

And before we close, you are an anti-Semitic swine for saying all that you have just said. Try and beat that logic if you can!

Hatim Kanaaneh
About Hatim Kanaaneh

Dr. Hatim Kanaaneh is a Palestinian doctor who has worked for over 35 years to bring medical care to Palestinians in Galilee, against a culture of anti-Arab discrimination. He is the author of the book A Doctor in Galilee: The Life and Struggle of a Palestinian in Israel. His collection of short stories entitled Chief Complaint was released by Just World Books in the spring of 2015.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

56 Responses

  1. January 27, 2018, 9:03 pm

    The blatant hypocrisy of Zionists asking that we remember the horrors of the holocaust while perpetrating atrocities on innocents is startling and deplorable.

    With every accounting or insight read I am still amazed that world leaders and governments haven’t taken the next step and sanctioned Israel or downgraded their embassies or cut off all diplomatic ties. How much more suffering and murder must take place before Israel is treated like the rogue state it is?

    Thank you for penning your insights Dr. Kanaaneh and for all your hard work.

    • eljay
      eljay
      January 27, 2018, 10:13 pm

      || LHunter: The blatant hypocrisy of Zionists asking that we remember the horrors of the holocaust while perpetrating atrocities on innocents is startling and deplorable. … ||

      It would be startling if it weren’t for the three basic tenets of Zionism:
      – The religion-based identity of Jewish comprises a right to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.
      – Acts of injustice and immorality committed against Jews justify acts of injustice and immorality committed by Jews.
      – Jews are entitled to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them.

      • January 28, 2018, 11:48 am

        The Zio-Creed summed up concisely. Thank you.

    • Jackdaw
      Jackdaw
      January 29, 2018, 1:03 am

      “Innocents?”

      • John O
        John O
        January 29, 2018, 8:13 am

        Little boys playing football, babies, that sort of people.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        January 29, 2018, 10:37 am

        Still trying to blame Palestinians for Jewish settler colonialism and the crimes against humanity that comes with it?

      • Misterioso
        Misterioso
        January 29, 2018, 4:37 pm

        @jackdaw

        Yes, the illegally, brutally Zionist/”Israeli” occupied innocents.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        January 29, 2018, 4:49 pm

        @Haddock

        Who drew first blood in the I/P conflict?
        Who bloodied who, and when?

        Innocents. Please. Was the rabbi murdered while driving his car last week, ‘innocent’, or was he guilty of being a Jew?

        Answer, please. Haddock.

      • annie
        annie
        January 29, 2018, 5:30 pm

        he was guilty of being an illegal colonist raising his family on stolen land.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        January 30, 2018, 12:24 am

        @Annie

        “he was guilty of being an illegal colonist raising his family on stolen land.”

        Is his wife equally guilty of raising her family on stolen land?

      • annie
        annie
        January 30, 2018, 1:59 am

        in my opinion, yes of course.

      • amigo
        amigo
        January 30, 2018, 7:10 am

        Is she an adult.in which case she is a co conspirator in a war crime.

        These people are irresponsible parents who have chosen to place their children in jepardy . not to mention teaching them that theft is acceptable.

        Zionist values . Eh.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        January 30, 2018, 9:14 am

        @Annie

        Time to put on your ‘thinking cap’.
        What law prohibits individual Jewish Israelis from buying land and settling in Judea and Samaria?

      • annie
        annie
        January 30, 2018, 1:48 pm

        thinking cap? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

        The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, because the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 prohibits countries from moving population into territories occupied in a war.[1][2][3][4][5] Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law[6] because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War.[7] The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.[8][9]

        …. Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute defines “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” as a war crime.[34] Israel did initially sign the statute, but later declared its intention not to ratify it.[35][36]

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye
        January 30, 2018, 10:35 am

        Corvid.
        If they buy property in not-israel from an israeli realtor then there’s an 80% chance the land it’s built on is stolen goods. They don’t/won’t have legitimate title. Even if the government and armed forces of their criminal enterprise – oops, ‘country’ – support them by force, as they do.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        January 30, 2018, 2:24 pm

        @Annie

        I asked you to put on your thinking cap, not the Mondoweiss standard issue dunce cap.

        I said, ‘individual Jews’. What law prevents individual Jews from moving to Judea and Samaria?

        No show us how you can shine.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        January 30, 2018, 2:40 pm

        @Ami goo

        “Is she an adult.in which case she is a co conspirator in a war crime.”

        With regard to whether the crime of “conspiracy” is a recognized violation of the laws of war, Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer, held:
        [N]one of the major treaties governing the law of war identifies conspiracy as a violation thereof. And the only “conspiracy” crimes that have been recognized by international war crimes tribunals (whose jurisdiction often extends beyond war crimes proper to crimes against humanity and crimes against the peace) are conspiracy to commit genocide and common plan to wage aggressive war, which is a crime against the peace and requires for its commission actual participation in a “concrete plan to wage war.”

        So with no further ado, Ami goo is going to pull his foot out of his mouth.

        ‘Maestro. Strike up the band’!

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        January 30, 2018, 3:01 pm

        Jackdaw: “I asked you to put on your thinking cap, not the Mondoweiss standard issue dunce cap.

        What law prevents individual Jews from moving to Judea and Samaria?”

        Why don’t you put on a thinking cap? It doesn’t matter if Israel allows one or half a million Israeli citizens to settle in occupied territories. It’s prohibited. The only legal way is to acquire a permit from the Palestinians. Same goes for everyone else who wants to move to another state.

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye
        January 30, 2018, 3:13 pm

        Featherbrain

        I’m sure there must be some law on the Palestinian statute books about illegal immigrants and theft of land and resources that would cover this, if they were only able to enforce their own laws…..blah blah impediments…blah

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        January 30, 2018, 6:39 pm

        “With regard to whether the crime of “conspiracy” is a recognized violation of the laws of war”

        “Jackdaw” which declared, legal “war” are you talking about? Has Israel declared war on the Palestinians?

        And, if I am not mistaken, it is ostensibly against Israeli law to settle in the “occupied” territories.

      • January 31, 2018, 1:00 pm

        Jackdaw – people unlike yourself

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        January 31, 2018, 1:27 pm

        @talking out your hat

        “f Israel allows one or half a million Israeli citizens to settle in occupied territories. It’s prohibited.”

        Okay. None of you savants can show that there is a law prohibiting individual Jews from moving to Judea and Samaria. Where’s Hostage when you need him, and you folk desperately do need him.

        Lets kick it up to the next level. Does a State have a international law based ‘affirmative duty’ to prevent it’s individual citizens from moving into a disputed or occupied territory?

        Who ever answers first gets a gold star.

      • annie
        annie
        January 31, 2018, 2:23 pm

        Does a State have a international law based ‘affirmative duty’ to prevent it’s individual citizens from moving into … occupied territory?

        by “individual citizens” do you mean individuals protected by the zionist regime army, voting in the regime elections, driving on regime roads, supported by regime infrastructure/housing/loans, hooked up to water and other utilities provided by the regime’s state, and represented in the regime parliament by these same “individual” citizens. just wanted more clarification before answering. and what other kinds of citizens might you mean as an alternative to individual citizens? families or groups?

        don’t you mean ‘Does a State have a international law based ‘affirmative duty’ to prevent supporting its individual citizens from moving into … occupied territory?’ because i don’t think many of those “individual citizens” would even be there if they were not massively supported by the state.

        for the most part, they are not out there living in huts w/no electricity or running water. peace now tracked the approval of the government for supporting the expansion, that was a long time ago — way over a decade. so is your question merely rhetorical? we are not talking about a few rogue outposts here. who, pray tell, are these “individuals”?

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        January 31, 2018, 2:58 pm

        @Annie

        May questions are simple, and you answer should be simple too. Yes/no, simple.

        And when I say individual citizens, I mean any individual citizen.

        My question did not use the word ‘supporting’. When you answer my question, than we can address your question. Not before.

        If the collective wisdom and knowledge of Mondoweiss can’t answer my very simple questions, then you guys may have a problem.

      • annie
        annie
        January 31, 2018, 5:10 pm

        What law prevents individual Jews from moving to Judea and Samaria?….May questions are simple, and you answer should be simple too. Yes/no, simple.

        yeah, so simple, just like ‘when are you going to stop beating your wife?’ simple. i already gave you a yes or no answer. yes, the wife is equally guilty.

        If his wife equally guilty of raising her family on stolen land?

        “in my opinion, yes of course.”

        when I say individual citizens, I mean any individual citizen.

        and my point, if you can get it through your zioncaine addled brain (pardon my french, i’m just upping the ante after your “standard issue dunce cap” remark, there’s no snidopoly here last i heard) is there are no “individual citizens” in the settlement not massively supported by the apartheid government. (whether you use the word supported is irrelevant) in fact, last i heard the grotesquely huge military apparatus set up to maintain the occupation has been justified to protect these so called individuals. there are no civilian colonizers there operating as individuals. there are rules of war in the rome statued about protected people living under occupation (yes, it’s recognized as occupied) and they do not include civilians of the occupiers. iow, they have no rights there and are there illegally. we’ve had this conversation before and i’m not in the mood to rehash it.

        4 A (2)); they are entitled to the rights granted in the Convention. All other people held in occupied territory are protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV), apart from very few exceptions, such as the nationals of the occupying power or its allies.

        https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm

        get it? they are not protected people, these so called “civilian individuals” nationals of the occupying regime. they are there illegally, as are their colonies.

        btw, i’m done playing 20 questions w/you. do your own research.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        January 31, 2018, 3:06 pm

        “Raawk! Affirmative duty! Affirmative duty! Raaawk!

        Conrad Lorenz would be proud. His “Jackdaw” learned a new phrase.

        Now he will tell us that “affimative duty” requires Israel to protect those “individual citizens” who move into occupied territory, because they are Jews.

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye
        January 31, 2018, 4:30 pm

        Corvid, your Q to Annie is a pile of dishonest guano. There *are* israelis who live among the Palestinians, with their consent. Perhaps Amira Haass is the most prominent?

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        January 31, 2018, 6:03 pm

        Jackdaw: “@talking out your hat”

        Yes, Zionist imbecile?

        Zionist imbecile: “Okay. None of you savants can show that there is a law prohibiting individual Jews from moving to Judea and Samaria.”

        As much as there isn’t a law prohibiting Zionists to be imbeciles.

        Again, the Geneva Conventions prohibits citizens of the occupying state to move to the occupied territory whether they are Jewish or not.

        Zionist imbecile: “Does a State have a international law based ‘affirmative duty’ to prevent it’s individual citizens from moving into a disputed or occupied territory?”

        If the state is the occupying state, yes. It has to protect the occupied people from colonialization. Same article 49(6) of the Geneva Conventions.

        “This clause … is intended to PREVENT a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories.”
        https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=523BA38706C71588C12563CD0042C407

        The clause protects the occupied people.

        Israel violates even 49(1) by deporting Palestinians into Israel’s prisons.

        Zionist imbecile: “Who ever answers first gets a gold star.”

        Nope. Your turn! Prove that Jews have a right to move into every country, especially if this country is under Israel’s occupation. (Not counting the US).

      • annie
        annie
        January 31, 2018, 7:05 pm

        i wonder how long it’s going to take mr know-it-all to claim a state providing infrastructure, utilities, loans (and other financial incentives), private guards, an army, roads, schools, checkpoints, bulldozers to remove homes of the occupied people in order to create jewish only colonies, etc etc etc to the tune of billions of dollars, are not defacto transferring their own population into the occupied territory that the state clearly wants to annex?

        any takers? 5 minutes? 12 minutes? 30 minutes? a day?

        ‘our colonialistas wanted to move anyway as private citizens and were only leeching off the generous regime because the state offered it! so like, it doesn’t count!!’

        ‘some of those individual colonialistas are actually in the regime parliament so that should really prove they independently moved.. don’t you think?!’

        ‘because if they really want to move then everything is a-ok and they qualify as protected people under occupation. no?’

        oh yeah, i can see where this is going. the colonialistas are the true victims threatened with ethnic cleansing by the big bad geneva laws and bds activist out to persecute the eternalvictims™®.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        February 1, 2018, 2:17 am

        @Annie
        @ talked out

        I am not referring to a State’s duty not to transfer it’s citizens, I’m asking whether international law prohibits an individual citizen from moving to an occupied territory and whether that individual’s State of origin must, by law, act to prevent the individual from entering the occupied territory.

        Answer(s). No and no.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        February 1, 2018, 12:30 pm

        The argument that there is nothing illegal about the settlements because they exist because of voluntary moves by individuals was one of the products of the famous Levy Commission. See Orma Ben-Nafthali and Rafi Reznick ‘The Astro-Nomos’ Washington University 2015. They claim that Article 49(6) of the 4th Geneva Convention implies in context that a state does transfer its citizens into occupied territory by encouraging and supporting them. Their title refers to their belief that the Levy Commission’s work is of the same intellectual value as an argument for geocentrism
        I’m in a rush, I may have got the reference slightly wrong!

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        February 1, 2018, 1:14 pm

        @musmus

        ” Now he will tell us that “affimative duty” requires Israel to protect those “individual citizens” who move into occupied territory, because they are Jews.

        Bright lad.
        No, we’re not at the protection level yet, but consider this, doesn’t the Occupying Power have a duty to build roads, hospitals and infrastructure for the people living in the Occupied Territory?
        So if individual Jews have moved into an apartment building in Hebron, shouldn’t that building be attached to the electrical grid, the water system, etc.?

        Remember that Jews had been living in Hebron during the British Mandate, and for several hundred of years before that.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        February 1, 2018, 1:26 pm

        @Hughes

        “The argument that there is nothing illegal about the settlements because they exist because of voluntary moves by individuals was one of the products of the famous Levy Commission”

        Hold your horses, Hughie. That’s not what I’ve said. That’s not what I asked.

        If you can’t answer my two questions, than don’t presume what I think, and don’t distract by conflating questions of individual rights, or the lack thereof, with the legality of the settlements. One thing at a time. Fair?

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        February 1, 2018, 6:21 pm

        It is indeed fair to say that the question of the legality of the settlements is not identical with the question of whether the individual settlers are within their rights or are wrongdoers. But there is a strong logical link between the answers one gives to these questions. I think that there is no irrelevance or discourtesy in noting that Levy is reported as arguing, inter alia, from the rightfulness of the relevant individual actions to the rightfulness, at least under international law, of the settlement project.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        February 1, 2018, 7:43 pm

        Zionist imbecile: “… I’m asking whether international law prohibits an individual citizen from moving to an occupied territory and whether that individual’s State of origin must, by law, act to prevent the individual from entering the occupied territory.

        Answer(s). No and no.”

        Answer, yes. If this citizen is citizen of the occuyping state. And yes if that individual’s state of origin is the occuyping state. Contrary to the opinion of Zionist imbeciles that’s also customary international law and opinio juris as reflected in countless Security Council resolutions.

        Zionist imbecile: “No, we’re not at the protection level yet, but consider this, doesn’t the Occupying Power have a duty to build roads, hospitals and infrastructure for the people living in the Occupied Territory?
        So if individual Jews have moved into an apartment building in Hebron, shouldn’t that building be attached to the electrical grid, the water system, etc.?”

        The occuping power has to deport the “individual Jew” if s/he is a citizen of the occupying state or a foreigner who illegaly entered the territory under occupation. If this individiual Jew is not part of the people under occupation s/he isn’t a protected person.

        Zionist imbecile: “Remember that Jews had been living in Hebron during the British Mandate, and for several hundred of years before that.”

        So what? Are they Jewish Paletinians or Jewish Israelis? If they are not Jewish Palestinians they nust be deported and their settlement dismantled.

        To complicated for you? Or are you interpreting international law in bad faith as Israel always does?

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        February 2, 2018, 8:51 am

        @MHughes

        I accept all you’ve said.

        My points, succinctly, are these, and they reference international law.
        Many aspects of the State of Israel’s involvement in the settlements, are illegal. Many aspects of the State of Israel’s involvement in the settlements are legal.

        Many individual settlers are living legally in Judea and Samaria. Many are living there illegally.

        There are 50 shade of grey. The issues are not simply black and white, as Mondoweiss would like us all to believe.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        February 2, 2018, 10:50 am

        Jackdaw: “Many aspects of the State of Israel’s involvement in the settlements are legal.”

        Nope.

        “5. 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 since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

        6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;”
        https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/5AA254A1C8F8B1CB852560E50075D7D5

        Jackdaw: “Many individual settlers are living legally in Judea and Samaria.”

        Not if they entered Palestine without the consent of the occupied, their representatives or their goverment, etc.

        Jackdaw: “There are 50 shade of grey. The issues are not simply black and white, as Mondoweiss would like us all to believe.”

        They are simply black and white if you don’t interpret international law and the Geneva Conventions in bad faith as Israel does.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        February 2, 2018, 12:46 pm

        “There are 50 shade of grey. The issues are not simply black and white, as Mondoweiss would like us all to believe.

        And that’s why you’re here, “Jackdaw”, to show us those “fifty shades of grey”

        And BTW, dodo, it never occurred to you that white isn’t a shade of grey?

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        February 2, 2018, 12:51 pm

        @jackdaw

        The second answer is definitely yes. I don’t know the answer to the first question as I’m not aware of Palestinian laws prior to Israeli invasion and occupation but if one doesn’t exist then Israel is negligent in not passing Israeli laws making it illegal.

        Why?

        GC IV

        The occupying power is responisble for the health, welfare, education and economic opportunity of the occupied people.
        Israel has been grossly criminal and negligent in all these areas requiring the world to step in and attempt to provide those things. Additionally criminal as it frequently tries to stop/block/reduce the aid flowing in. No surprise in that.

        It doesn’t stop there. It also has the responsibility to protect the territory itself for the benefit of the protected persons in the territory. Allowing foreign nationals (their own) to steal water and prime land resources is a clear violation of that responsibility.

        I disagree with those who say no Israelis are there legally. As a craven zionist you should be agreeing with them.

        I do think that any individual that was driven out of their community at the time of the conflict does have a right of return. Obviously where there are heirs they too should be able to return to that property. The fact that Jews used to live in any particular place is irrelevant. That doesn’t entitle other Jews to it merely because of shared identity. Only the residents or heirs driven out.
        That of course would require the application of the right of return which Israel and criminal zionists deny exists. A non criminal zionist would recognize such. In any event Israel can’t argue right of return as they officially deny it. And since they don’t have that out to justify it they are required to remove individuals who are their to the detriment of the protected peoples.

        Israels army can requisition territory but only for military necessity. You can’t justify settlements on that basis unless you also want to willingly argue the settlement inhabitants are militarily necessary combatants and therefore valid targets. Go for it.

        Oh off topic but you can’t deport a protect person from the territory either. Another in a long list of Israeli crimes that started before I was born.

        It’s been too long. Way too long. Israel must pay it’s price for it’s massive and ongoing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        February 2, 2018, 2:05 pm

        Uh-oh, I know what happens next.
        “Jackdaw” is writing…no, more likely “Nathan” is writing a long comment which will brilliantly point out all the reason’s Zionism benefits everybody else, just as much as it benefits the mystery group “the Jews”.
        No, better still, “Nathan” will demonstrate (I don’t know, this might take a “Jeffb”) that Zionism benefits the world and is actually a great sacrifice “the Jews” undertook on the world’s behalf.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        February 3, 2018, 10:20 am

        oldgeezer: “I disagree with those who say no Israelis are there legally. ”

        They aren’t, if they are there without the consent of the Palestinians. Neither civilians nor soldiers.
        oldgeezer: “The fact that Jews used to live in any particular place is irrelevant.”

        Not only irrelevant, but utterly racist.

        oldgeezer: “Israels army can requisition territory but only for military necessity.”

        Nope. Israel has to withdraw since resolution 242.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        February 3, 2018, 2:14 pm

        @Talkback

        UN Resolution 465?
        The one the US Secretary of State disavowed three days later?
        ROFL!!

        Still ROFL.
        God, you guy’s really do need Hostage back. This Talkback joker can’t hold a candle.

        http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook4/Pages/73%20Statement%20to%20the%20Senate%20Foreign%20Relations%20Commi.aspx

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        February 3, 2018, 2:30 pm

        @Oldgeezer

        “The second answer is definitely yes. I don’t know the answer to the first question as I’m not aware of Palestinian laws prior to Israeli invasion and occupation but if one doesn’t exist then Israel is negligent in not passing Israeli laws making it illegal.”

        There were no Palestinian laws prior to Israeli invasion and occupation, because Israel occupied territory illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948. Prior to the Jordanian invasion the law was the Mandate of Palestine, 1920, who Articles including, but not limited to:

        ART. 2.

        The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

        ART. 4.

        An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

        The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

        ART. 6.

        The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        February 3, 2018, 2:58 pm

        @jackdaw

        Yeah, yawn, too bad the criminal zionists in general and the rogue state of Israel acted in contravention of what was intended.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        February 3, 2018, 5:00 pm

        Jackdaw: “UN Resolution 465?”

        The one the US Secretary of State disavowed three days later?”

        Who cares if you think what he allegedly “disawoved”? The US didn’t veto the resolution. His words from your source regarding settlements:
        “U.S. policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process.”

        Jackdaw: “Still ROFL.
        God, you guy’s really do need Hostage back. This Talkback joker can’t hold a candle.”

        Who’s the joker now, Jackdonkey? Just read your source, again. This is the second time you mention Hostage and miserably fail.

        Jackdaw: “There were no Palestinian laws prior to Israeli invasion and occupation, because Israel occupied territory illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948.”

        You haven’t got a clue, don’t you. Local law remains under occupation. And contrary to Israel Jordan did not “illegaly occupy” this territory, because it was occupied with the consent of the occupied to stop the Zionist terror hordes.

        Jackdaw: “Prior to the Jordanian invasion the law was the Mandate of Palestine, 1920, who Articles including, but not limited to …”

        ROFL. What do you actually know, Jackdaw? The mandate was not from 1920, but drafted in 1922 and came into effect in 1923 and it ended ended 15 May 1948. And before that the mandatory stopped Jewish immigration and restricted settlements and land purchase. (See White Paper 1939 and Land Transfers Regulations 1940).

        You just shot yourself in your knee, again. Guys, where is Hostage, eeh aaw.
        http://fourwinds10.com/resources/uploads/images/donkey1.jpg

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        February 4, 2018, 2:03 am

        @Hackhack

        ” The US didn’t veto the resolution.”

        Correct. The US vote in favour, was in President Carter’s words, ‘an error’, and Ambassador McHenry stated in the Security Council immediately following the vote, the U.S. considers Resolution 465 as recommendatory rather than binding.

        That means non-binding. Non-binding.
        Hackie. You’re a laughing stock.

  2. gamal
    gamal
    January 28, 2018, 2:25 pm

    Two women write:

    “Nuzha the “prostitute” watches incredulous as the young men climb the walls to their death. The Israelis are not going to run out of bullets. Another way must be found to penetrate into their stronghold. She offers to lead the combatants into the compound through a secret underground passage that can be accessed through her kitchen”

    Sahar Khalifa “Bab al Safa”, Palestine

    “In a paroxysm of pain a women tries to prevent her child from being born, while at the front a man tries to survive mortal wounds. They both struggle to fulfill the promise that he should be the first to see the newborn. The dead infant is placed on the dead man’s chest”

    Aliya Talib “Greening”, Iraq

  3. JosephA
    JosephA
    January 29, 2018, 12:58 am

    Dr. Kanaaneh,

    Thank you for your eloquence.

  4. Citizen
    Citizen
    January 29, 2018, 10:58 am

    Absolutely nothing has crossed my TV news screen on Ahed Tamimi. US main media demands its constitutional protection for free SPEECH in the name of its corresponding duty of informing consent of the US public to their government’s policies & deeds. This use to be called “The Fourth Estate” of US governing institutions. Time to make the US news media elite recognize their Constitutional protection of their right, has a corresponding duty to actually inform the US public. Otherwise, as has seemed reality, the mainstream press is just a propaganda arm of the US government, a Pravda as in old USSR in disguise.

    How to change this when there’s only 6 mainstream news agencies , and all are constantly engaged in hasbara commission, and serious omission of facts regarding Israel-Palestine problem?

  5. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson
    January 29, 2018, 12:59 pm

    RE: “If it is ethics you trumpet about, we have leading ethics contortionists who will justify burning Ahed Tamimi at the stake for being born Palestinian. And if that reminds you of Joan of Arc or Anne Frank, then you are an ignoramus brute who doesn’t know that no Palestinian life is worthy of celebrating. “ ~ Hatim Kanaaneh

    ■ ANIMATION: Ahed Tamimi shorn of her hair

    ■ ANIMATION: Carl Theodor Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)

  6. Hatim Kanaaneh
    Hatim Kanaaneh
    January 29, 2018, 4:43 pm

    Thank you ILewisDickerson for this horrific reminder of humanity”s capacity for violence.

  7. Jackdaw
    Jackdaw
    January 30, 2018, 12:27 pm

    And BTW.
    Geffen has totally apologised for his comparing Shirley Temper to Hannah Senash and Anne Frank.

    As for Joan D’Arc, she claimed that three Christian saints spoke to her and told her to kill the English occupiers. Joan is either a liar, or a religious loonie tune.

    • eljay
      eljay
      January 30, 2018, 2:52 pm

      || Jackdaw: And BTW.
      Geffen has totally apologised for his comparing Shirley Temper to Hannah Senash and Anne Frank. … ||

      Yeah, it’s a shame he apologized for comparing Ms. Tamimi to Hannah Montana and Anne Francis.

    • oldgeezer
      oldgeezer
      January 31, 2018, 8:07 am

      @jackdaw

      Joan was an individual. Perhaps she was a liar. Perhaps a loonie tune. But still just an individual and long gone.

      You always brag about how you have your finger on the pulse of Israel.
      What percent do you consider to be liars and what percent are loonie tunes amongst those who claim god gave them the land?

  8. catalan
    catalan
    January 30, 2018, 2:09 pm

    My huge worry is that the next war with Gaza will bring unbelievable, unprecedented destruction to its civilians. It’s just terrifying thinking about it.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      January 30, 2018, 6:46 pm

      ” next war with Gaza” “Catalan the equalizer!”

      Don’t you mean: “next Israeli attack on Gaza”? Gaza has no capacity to go to war with Israel.

      ” It’s just terrifying thinking about it.”

      And every Jew in the world a hostage for Israel, too. Something like a devastating attack on Gaza could cause a social re-appraisal of Jews in Western countries.

Leave a Reply