Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 3717 (since 2011-08-30 20:10:31)

Talkback

I quit my Jewish membership. It was easy and without costs.

Showing comments 3717 - 3701
Page:

  • Denial of entry - the real targets are Palestinians
    • modonut: "They are Palestinians living in Palestine, right where they were born. Not refugees."

      Contrary to UNWRA and UNHCR mondonut claims that the refugee status cannot be passed unto descendants. He inherenty claims that a country following an ethnic cleansing policy can simply prolong the refugee problem of those it keeps expelled and either wait until the first generation of expellees dies or prevent them and their descendants to keep the family together.

      What a racist, inhumane and disgusting shmock you are, mondonut.

    • What mondonut wants to teach us is that if a country has legalized a racist immigration policy than this policy is legitimate and it is the problem of the families that they believe that there is a right to family life and reunification. Of course it is complitely different if they are Jews. That's what he learned from the Holocaust.

  • 100 days since protests began, Gazans reflect on what the Great March of Return has accomplished so far
    • Boris: "Well, some Arabs are starting to see who is being f*cked in the process."

      Yep. It's called the Zionist process and they know very well who has been raping them since the 1930s.

    • jon s: "... and have paid with blood ..."

      Nope. They were murdered by Jewish state terrorists.

  • 'Killing Gaza' gives faces to statistics of 2014 massacre, echoing Goldstone
    • Ask the Zionists terrorists who keep killing them. Obviously these terrorists can't stop and keep reigniting violence.

      Btw. How many Palestinians would be alive today in a world without Zionism and its terrorists who began their terror campagne in the late 30s?

  • Zionism ate my religion, and I am taking it back
    • jon s: "And yes, Israel is the Jewish historic homeland."

      How can something present be something historic? What do you actually mean with your nonsensical violation of temporal logic?

    • Jon S: "I think that anti-Zionists like PW stand little chance of winning over the community as long as they seem to be indifferent to the needs and survival of the community and offer no real alternative."

      Sure Jon S. Because there is no obvious real alternative to killing, disenfranchising and dispossessesing Nonjews when it comes to the needs and survival of the community, right?

  • Palestinians on high alert as Israel prepares to hand over East Jerusalem nature reserve and Muslim cemetery to settlers
    • There is no contemporary evidence that anything like an exile took place. It's a myth. Not created but fostered especially by Zionists.

  • Hasbara is dead
    • Nathan: "The various proposals for a one-state solution are about replacing Israel with another political entity. It would be a bit more interesting to discuss ideas that are somehow a reflection of political reality."

      You simply don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter if a state called Israel exists or not. It is about equal rights of Jews and Nonjews in historic Palestine, including those your beloved Junta keeps expelled to maintain ikts Apartheid regime.

    • Nathan: "The outlook of all the articles is meant for the hard-core anti-Israel audience that dreams of the demise of Israel."

      I think that the hard-core anti-Israel audience dreams about the end ot the Zionist Apartheid regime. But I can understand that you can't imagine Israel not being an Apartheid state.

  • Speaker at Israeli gov't conference promotes genocide against Arabs and non-Jews
    • Peacedoc: "These fabulations are red meat for the israel haters who come up with ridiculous fabrications to not see any good in the Israeli endeavor."

      I totally agree, Peacedoc. Cause building a house for Nonjews in hist. Palestine is like killing 100 Jews. So who wouldn't want to do that, right? It's a no-brainer.

  • Miriam Adelson urges young American Jews to 'have more Jewish babies' and 'lobby governments' for Israel
    • Peacedoc: "ask the PA and Hamas why Jews are excluded from the areas they control"

      Almost all of them are Israelis, especially illegal settlers in the Westbank and those who were moved from Gaza. No?

      Peacedoc: "And did you know there are 2,000,000 Arabs living in Israel?"

      And did you know that Israel keeps more than then three times as much expelled, denationalized and therefore without a right to vote only to maintain Jewish dominance? That's full bore Apartheid according to the Crime of Apartheid as defined in international law.

  • The Gaza blockade is illegal-- and so is the use of force to maintain it
    • Zionists. One seems to be even more stupid than the other.

      "We will crack down immediately on the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip. In a significant move, we will today shut down the Kerem Shalom (border) crossing. There will be additional steps. I am not detailing them," he told his parliamentary faction in broadcast remarks.
      https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5307045,00.html

    • So you don't understand Netanyahu's quote, Mayhem?

    • DaBakr: "Jewish state is simply a descriptor of the nation of Israel. Maybe you also have a problem with the Islamic Republic of Iran but probably not?"

      It's not the same. You can become Iranian by acquiring the citizenship of Iran, because Iranians are the nation of Iran. Whether they are Muslim or not.

      DaBajr: "I always wondered how much fantasy play is involved with maintaining the obsession with hating israel. a lot apparently."

      I always wondered how much brain you need to accuse others of hatred, because you fail to defend Israel. apperently not a lot.

      Unfortunately for you it takes more brain to answer my question:
      Do Israelis constitute the nation of any state and if so what are its borders?

    • That's not the reason why it was "closed" and the fishing zone was limited. Israel uses collective punishment which is a crime against humanity to "crack down immediately on the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip." - Netanyahu

      So much for the war criminals of your beloved Apartheid junta.

    • Say Naftush. Does anything that Palestinians haven been doing to Jews even comes close to what Jews have been doing to Palestinians in the last 100 years? I just what to know how deep your denial is.

    • Page: 37
    • mondonut: "Israel is not a country. Despite all evidence to the contrary."

      Do Israelis constitute the nation of any state and if so what are its borders, mondonut?

    • mondonut: "First of all, it is only a study. And more importantly it says nothing at all about the Right of Return as customary law. But you already knew that didn’t you?"

      First of all it's UN study which therefore has legal effect. Secondly you obviosly fail to comprehend how this right was derived from a person's right to protection and how this right developed over time and became customary law. You are obviously not willing to understand this and I highly doubt that you even read this lengthsome study.

      Nvertheless. The United Nations Mediator on Palestine allready wrote in September 1948 (months before the Declaration of Human rights) in his report:

      "I have affirmed elsewhere in this report that the right of the refugees to return to their homes if they so desire must be safeguarded."

      "... it was my firm view that the right of the refugees to return to their homes at the earliest practicable date should be affirmed."

      Now why should he write that a right should be "safeguarded" or "affirmed" (which it was in UNGAR 194), if it doesn't allready exist (allready as part of customary law at that time)?

      mondonut: "And no once again, UN194 provides no rights at all. GA Resolutions are nothing more than recommendations, they are not (your words) legal opinions. And they cannot advance to either simply by wishing it so."

      And once again. Resolution 194 only affirmed this right to return. This resolution came one day after the Declaration of Human Rights. I can understand why you have to ignore an international treaty which has "Human Rights" in its title.

      mondonut: "Knowing of course that your hatred of Israel blinds you to facts and reason, I refer you to the UN Charter itself, where Chapter 4 specifically and repeatedly details that the GA makes recommendations only."

      Knowing of course that your hatred of Palestinians blinds you to facts and reason, I refer you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), article 13, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) article 12(4), the Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49 or the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, article 5d(ii) when it comes to the right of return.

      mondonut: "As to your idiotic final question, yes many people have a right to return. But the Right to Return the Palestinians claim does not exist."

      So you are not only a shmock, but a racist shmock. What a surprise. But the Declaration of Human rights simply states in article 13: "(2) EVERYONE has the right to ... return to his country."

      I assume that the Zionist Declaration of Jewish rights reads: "(2) Only a Jew has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."? Or does it read: "Noone except Jews have the right to expell Nonjews or keep them expelled."?

      Sooner or later Zionist inherently whitewash Nazi crimes against Jews, don't they? Did Germans have a right to expell Jews or do they have a right to keep them expelled?

    • UN resolutions cannot contradict international law and the UN charter. They are confirmation of codified or customary law.

    • Nathan: "An unresolved conflict means that there is no right of return."

      LOL. What does a right to anything have to do with the fact that a conflict is unresolved? Nothing. You just made this up. Like the many other stupid claims you just make up on the fly.

      People with refugees status have a right to return. Period. How this right is exercised is their individual choice. No party to an unresolved conflict has right to nullify this individual right. Not even Apartheid juntas like Israel.

    • Mondonut: You think that referencing a claim that Badil makes up out of whole cloth actually supports your ridiculous claim. That is too funny.

      I think that is is too funny that you fail to comprehend that Badil even referenced to an UN source, when it made this claim.

      Mondonut: "And sadly no, repeating the same non-binding words over and over does not make International Law."

      And sadly for you yes. If the vast majority of states has the same legal opinion (that means it has become opinio juris) over decades than this is exactly what creates and is defined as "customary" law. And again, it is funny that you fail to comprehend this.

      butr what about the Universal Declaration of Human rights, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1948 Fourth Geneva Convention, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, article 5d(ii). Are these conventions which reafirm a right to return not part of international law, because it's not good for your beloved Apartheid junta?

      Mondonut: "But just to humor you, lets presume that was true – exactly how many times does it need to be repeated and in exactly which year did UN194 magically turn into binding law?"

      Not 194, we were talking about the Palestinian's right to return. Their "inalienable right" was reaffirmed nearly every year since the establishment of your beloved Apartheid junta. Do you think that this is not enough, because it's not good for the Apartheid Junta which is exactly the reason why this fake democracy keeps them expelled and therefore without the right to citizenship and the right to vote?

      Let me ask you more important questions. Do you think that no refugees have a right to return, or do you claim that only Palestinian refugees don't have this right? We could decide if you are just a shmock or a racist shmock.

    • Jackdaw: "What do witnesses have to do with anything?
      Appellate Courts, are deciders of law, not finders of fact."

      From the Palmer Report:
      "5. It needs to be understood from the outset that this Panel is unique. Its methods of inquiry are similarly unique. The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability.

      6. In particular, the Panel’s means of obtaining information were through diplomatic channels. The Panel enjoyed no coercive powers to compel witnesses to provide evidence. It could not conduct criminal investigations. The Panel was required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States. The position is thoroughly understandable in the context of the Panel’s inquiry but the limitation is important. It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view.

    • Mayhem: "And BTW the United Nations’ Palmer Commission Report concluded the blockade is legal."

      Really? LOL. From the Palmer Report:

      "The Panel was to operate by consensus and the findings of the report and any recommendations it may contain were to be agreed by consensus."

      "The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability."

      "It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view."

      And this is its view:

      "Israel should continue with its efforts to ease its restrictions on movement of goods and persons to and from Gaza with a view to lifting its closure and to alleviate the unsustainable humanitarian and economic situation of the civilian population."

      "The imposition of a naval blockade as an action in self-defence should be reported to the Security Council under the procedures set out under Article 51 of the Charter"

      "States maintaining a naval blockade must abide by their obligations with respect to the provision of humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian missions must act in accordance with the principles of neutrality, impartiality and humanity and respect any security measures in place. Humanitarian vessels should allow inspection and stop or change course when requested"

      "Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel."

      But when it comes to legal issues the UN is very clear:

      "U.N. experts say Israel's blockade of Gaza illegal.

      Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip violates international law, a panel of human rights experts reporting to a U.N. body said on Tuesday, disputing a conclusion reached by a separate U.N. probe into Israel’s raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship.

      The so-called Palmer Report on the Israeli raid of May 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists said earlier this month that Israel had used unreasonable force in last year’s raid, but its naval blockade of the Hamas-ruled strip was legal.

      A panel of five independent U.N. rights experts reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council rejected that conclusion, saying the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in “flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law....

      An earlier fact-finding mission named by the same U.N. forum to investigate the flotilla incident also found in a report last September that the blockade violated international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says the blockade violates the Geneva Conventions."
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-gaza-rights-idUSTRE78C59R20110913

    • Just to demonstrate again what a racist and inhumane shmock you are, mondonut:

      The right of return had achieved customary status in international law by 1948:
      "Historically speaking, the right of return had achieved customary status in international law by 1948.[3] Customary norms are legally binding upon all states, and states are, therefore, legally obligated to follow the rules codified by these norms."
      http://www.badil.org/phocadownload/Badil_docs/Working_Papers/Brief-No-08.htm

      The constant reaffirmation of the Palestinian's right to return has also become customary law:
      "Customary international law consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States. The elements of customary law are as follows:

      - Customary international law can be discerned by a widespread repetition of similar international acts over time by States (states practice);
      - Acts must occur out of sense of obligation (opinio juris);
      - Acts must be taken by a significant number of States and not be rejected by a significant number of States.

      A marker of customary international law is consensus among states exhibited both by widespread conduct and a discernible sense of obligation."
      https://internationallaw.uslegal.com/sources-of-international-law/customary-international-law/

      The right to return in general:
      "The right is formulated in several modern treaties and conventions, most notably in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1948 Fourth Geneva Convention. ... Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, article 5d(ii):"
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return

    • Today we can learn from mondonut that Nazi Germany had the right to defend the borders of the Warsaw ghetto.

      You are a moral beacon, Mondonut.

    • mondonut: "The Palestinian Right of Return is an extralegal demand made by the enemies of Israel, against the wishes of and in defiance of Israel."

      Is that your shtick? Repeating the same old lies over and over again?

      I proved that it was no extralegal demand but that is is based not only on custumary international law but also on the declaration of human rights.

      I proved that the mere fact that the right of return was reaffirmed so many times in the General Assembly made it customary law, too.

      You dropped out of the discussion, because there was nothing else to say for you, but now you are spammingthe same lie here.

      Shame on you, mondonut!

  • Jewish allies must understand that solidarity entails a loss of privilege
    • Boris: "Bzzzz! Your guess is wrong, talking backside.

      First, it is historical evidence. Second, it is DNA."

      ROFL. Ok, so prove that "historical evidence and DNA" can prove that YOU are a descendant of ancient Hebrews and any Palestinian is not.

      And BTW. What rights does someone acquire being a descendant of ancient Hebrews and what rights do those lose who are not?

    • Yes, Mooser, including the change of skin color.

    • Yes, yes. But we are still waiting from rasseforscher Boris to prove that he is a descendant from ancient Hebrews and on the other hand any Nonjew, especially a Palestinian like Ali Abunimah is not. Until then, Boris, embrace your herrenrasse delusion

    • Yes, yes. We are still waiting from rasseforscher Boris to prove that he is a descendant from ancient Hebrews and a Nonjew, especially a Palestinian like Ali Abunimah is not. Until then, Boris, embrace your herrenrasse delusion.

    • Boris: "1. Common ancestry to the Hebrews of ancient Judea"

      Finally you are able to prove which Jew is a descendent of ancient Hebrews and which Nonjew isn't!

      Let's see your evidence, rassenforscher Boris. Let me guess, skull and nose measurements?

    • Stephen Shenfield: "On the contrary, he often uses the expression ‘the Jewish people’ and argues only that Jews are not a NATION in the sense given this word by 19th and 20th century nationalist movements."

      That is in the sense that is relevant in international law. In short: "Jewish" is not a citizenship/nationality. Jews are not a constitutive people. Nobody can become Jewish by acquiring any citizenship. In every other state than Israel a person who acquires citizenship becomes ipso facto national of the state. There is no differentiation between the nationals of a state and its citizens. Except in Israel and back then in Nazi Germany to privilege the nationals (Jews, respectively Volkish Germans) and to discriminate the others (Nonjews, respectively Jews).

    • Fair points!

    • Mondonut: "Please tell me this is some sort of snarky trolling. And not something you actually believe."

      Why don't you try to find a way back to reality, Mondonut?

      "Israel continues to control the Palestinian population registry which is common to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Any change made in these records requires Israel’s approval, including the registration of births, marriages, divorces, deaths or address changes. The Palestinian Authority may amend or issue an ID card only after Israeli approval is granted. Israel updates all the changes in its copy of the population registry, which determines who is recognized as a Palestinian resident for the purpose of travel permits. Palestinian passports are issued by the Palestinian Authority only to residents who are listed in the Israeli-administered population registry. Physically, coordination on issues pertaining to the population registry for Gaza is done through meetings between representatives from Israel and the Palestinian Authority in Gaza which are held at Erez Crossing.

      Through its control of the population registry, Israel continues to control Palestinian travel, since any Palestinian wishing to cross via Rafah or Erez is required to present an Israeli-approved ID card or passport. Israel also controls where Palestinian residents may live, as the address listed in the Israeli-approved ID card determines where its holder may reside: a Palestinian who resides in the West Bank or is temporarily present there may be forcibly removed to the Gaza Strip if the address listed in his or her ID card is in the Gaza Strip1. It should be noted that since 2000, Israel has refused to allow residents of the Gaza Strip to change the address in their ID cards to an address in the West Bank, even if they have been living in the West Bank for many years."
      http://gisha.org/en-blog/2011/11/14/the-population-registry/

      That's the Apartheid state you support, Mondonut. Shame on you!

    • And I was refering to your bogus opposition to boycotting Israel.

    • You can't talk with someone who has keepen you occupied for more than half a century, because he wants your land and resources and get rid of you.

  • Isaac Herzog won't apologize for saying intermarriage is a 'plague'
    • Genesto, the case is not hopeless. Let's pray that you will have a lot of female descendants who can pass on the kosher genes.

  • Despite international condemnations, Israel prepares to demolish Khan al-Ahmar
  • UNRWA does not perpetuate the conflict, the conflict perpetuates UNRWA
    • Nathan: "Resolution 194 does not state that “the Palestinians have the right of return”."

      Yes, yes. As resolution 181 does not state that the Jews have a right to a state.

      But who cares what resolution 194 says if anybody has a right to return to her or his country, because it is a human right from the Universal Declaration of Human rights which was released one day before 194? You do, with your red herrings.

    • jon s: "Jews are not “invaders” in the Jewish historic homeland. We are quite at home here."

      Zionists even bend the laws of temporal logic, when they need to legitimize their invasion and colonial endeavours. They claim that they had been living in the land since for ever, allthough they invaded the land of Canaan back then and most of them again since the 1920s.

    • Mondonut: "Of course withholding aid is not genocide, what a ridiculous idea."

      Yes, yes, Mondonut. If deliberately withholding aid from Jews leads to the destruction of their lives or livehood it isn't genocide. You are a moral beacon, Mondonut!

    • RoHa: "I class the Right of Return as a moral right, rather than a legal right ..."

      Again, it was allready customary law in 1948.

      RoHa: "... and that Zionists don’t do morality."

      But they do. Ok, only or propaganda purposes and if possible only for Jews.

    • The moral lessons Mondonut wants to teach us is that it is absolutely ok, to withhold humanitarian help from Jews, too. And if that means the destruction of their lives or livehood it's not genocide.

    • Jackdaw: "Free, cradle to grave, food and medical care perpetuates a culture of dependence and fosters overpopulation."

      So you actually do condemn that Jews were helped during and after the Holocaust.

    • Mondonut: "And there is a reason that that Palestinians never base their claims on the dubious claim that it was customary law in 1948, and that is because it is both unprovable and untrue"

      "Historically speaking, the right of return had achieved customary status in international law by 1948.[3] Customary norms are legally binding upon all states, and states are, therefore, legally obligated to follow the rules codified by these norms."
      http://www.badil.org/phocadownload/Badil_docs/Working_Papers/Brief-No-08.htm

      Mondonut: "And no, repeating something over and over does not make something law."

      We are not talking about your daily "Zionism is legitimate and the IDF is the most moral army in the world" affirmations. We are talking about the general practice of states as a base for customary international law.

      "Customary international law consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States. The elements of customary law are as follows:
      OPINIO JURIS);
      Acts must be taken by a significant number of States and not be rejected by a significant number of States."
      https://internationallaw.uslegal.com/sources-of-international-law/customary-international-law/

    • mondonut: "As a General Assembly Resolution, 194 is non-binding, it is not international law and it does not confer rights. Full Stop."

      ROFL. The usual Zionist twisting of international law.

      194 did not create international law. It was based on international law. By 1948, the right of refugees and displaced persons to return to their places of origin had already assumed customary status in international law. On the other hand arbitrary denationalization and mass expulsion were prohibited under international law.

      Secondly. WIth the mere fact that the Palestinian's right to return has been reaffirmed nearly every year since then it also assumed customary status.

      Btw your pseudo arguments are the same pseudo arguments that Nazi Germans used to defend themselves at the Nuremberg trials.

      Everybody who is not a racist and inhumane low life has no problems with acknowleding basic human principles. You and Nathan just demonstrate how low someone must sink to support the institutionalized racism of an Apartheid state.

    • Nathan: "It’s not too clear to me why anyone who speaks English as a native tongue would come to the conclusion that the above quote defines a right of return."

      It is absolutely clear to me why every Zionist "should" deny that such a right exists at all, when it comes to Nonjews returning to their homeland.

      "We learn in the article that “the right of return is enshrined in the United Nations Resolution 194”, ..."

      This right is based on the Universal declaration of human rights which was proclaimed just one day before this resolution. It recommends how this right should be applied for those who wish to return and for those who don't.

      Nathan: "This would mean that those refugees who do not wish to live in peace with their neighbors have no right of return."

      Nope. It means that for those who wish not to exercise their right to return "compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;"

      Nathan: "There seems to be a condition here (the return is apparently based on an end of hostilities)."

      This is apperently based on your denial, because NOTHING in 194 stipulates that this return is based on an end of hostilities.

      Nathan: I would have thought that the right of return means that the refugees MUST be permitted to do so."

      In a legal document, "shall" means that is required by a rule, statute, regulation, law, etc.

      Nathan: "And how do we define the terminology “at the earliest practicable date”?"

      The armitisce agreement certainly provided the neseccerary conditions. But by then Jews were allready shooting at Nonjews who wished to return.

      Nathan: "“At the earliest practicable date” sounds like another condition – not an unconditional right of return."

      LOL. It's just a question of when this right should be put into action not if this right exists or only on conditions.

      Nathan: "Interestingly, the UNSC Resolution 242 from Nov 1967 doesn’t remind us that there is a right of return based on UNGA 194."

      Really? You find this interesting, allthough the US abuses its veto right to help Israel violate international and human rights law?

      Any other human right you need to deny Nonjews?

  • Riveting Thai cave story was missing one element -- Israel to the rescue!
    • Mooser, its "handhold", not "outpost". Please abide to Ziospeek.

    • Especially the IWI TAVOR Bullpup assault rifle which it now sells to Ukraine's antisemitic neo Nazis known for torture, sexual violence and targeting of civilian homes and have their own advanced laws forbidding “race mixing” (does that sound familiar to Zionists and their dungeon masters?). You see, Israel has no problem with Nazis as long as they don't target Jews.

    • HannahHan: "I read about the Israeli technology used so the kids could get in touch with their parents. "

      I read about the Israeli technology that is tested also on Palestinians kids so that they can't get it touch with their parents any longer, because they were killed.

      What's not to love about Israel?!

  • Birthright dissident calls on 1000s of Jews doing trip to 'make Birthright uncomfortable'
  • What happens when you say 'Nakba' in Hebrew – an interview with Eitan Bronstein Aparicio
    • Again, please consider that AP is living in the Kahane continuum. Things are different there. In his universe the Palestinians have settled in Venezuela and claimed that they would return to their homeland in which they have lived for the last 3000 years. They expelled and killed the indigenous population and put some Venezuelans even under a "diet" in an area called New Gaza. They are even counting their calories intake. All of that in order to liberate Eretz Palestine.

      Meanwhile in this universe: "President Nicolás Maduro said that the government "vigorously condemns the unfair and disproportionate military response by the illegal state of Israel against the heroic Palestinian people.""
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine%E2%80%93Venezuela_relations

  • US Jewish leader expresses compassion for refugees at US border-- and contempt for Palestinian refugees
    • jon s: "I doubt that increasing the misery among the long-suffering people of Gaza ..."

      But collective punishment (which is not only a warcrime, but also a crime against humanity) is Israel's second nature.

    • A soldier who murders children ist not a "coward" but a state sanctioned child murderer.

    • RoHa: "Loonier and loonier. Can AP top this one?"

      Please understand that AP is living in the Kahane continuum. Things are very different there. That's also the reason why he can't prove any of his claims which seem to be complety mental for us. Absolutely mental.

    • American Perspective: "There is no such thing as an “indigenous inhabitant” in Palestine."

      Sure they are. The people who have been living their since generations. That excludes Jewish settlers who came in the last 100 years.

      But of course you can go further back and exclude the descendants of Abraham, the settler from Mesopotamia.

    • @ American Perspective

      It's obvious that "race-purity" seems to be very important for you and that you need to distract from it. You should change your nick to "Kahane's perspective".

    • jon s: "The kites and baloons are not harmless toys and the people responsible for them are full-fledged terrorists, not some pranksters."

      Not at all. Occupied people have a right to resist occupation and alien domination by all means. The only ones that are terrorists are those who keep them from returning.

      jon s: "... while the IDF has shown remarkable restraint so far."

      It must be pretty hard for them to not kill or cripple even more Nonjews. Woult it still be a Jewish democracy, if they don't use ammo at Nonjewish protesters at all?

  • 'A Jew who tried to abuse this fact' -- Israel deports activist for supporting BDS
    • De-Arabization is AP's final solution for Nonjews in Palestine. He's obsessed with nationalism and racial purity.

    • @ echi

      "Jews, to the extent they choose to stay and live in the state of Palestine, will enjoy those rights and certainly will not enjoy any less rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel," Fayyad said in response to a question from former CIA director James Woolsey at the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival.
      https://www.haaretz.com/1.5073429

    • American Perspective: "So as an American, I would likely nothing more than quietism in Palestine, which can only be achieved by surrender and de-Arabization."

      Yep. The Nazis thought the same about Jews. How far does your plan of de-Arabization go? Does it involve gas, too?

      American Perspective: "The State of Palestine, which Code Pink celebrates as the only source of moral authority in the world, advocates that Ashkenazi Jews should live in Birobidzhan and that only Arab nationalists should attend school in Palestine."

      Yep. We allready established that you are a compulsive liar. Jews can stay in the State of Palestine, but not as Israelis.

  • Birthright walkout is met with vitriolic rage in Israel -- 'Radicals' 'You will get raped'
    • Steve Grover: "Both are bottled at the same brewery of obsessive hatred directed against Israel, Israelis and the vast majority of Jews who are pro-Israel."

      Your accusation of "obssesive hatred" is not only a good example of your opinion fascism, but probebably your own expression of hatred against anyone who isn't in line with your racist national ideology.

  • "A Watershed Moment in Palestinian History": Interview with Jamal Juma’
    • Jack Green: "Palestinians were coming into Israel & murdering innocent Israelis."

      Quite the contrary. Jewish settlers came into Palestine and murdering and expelling innocent Nonjews.

      Jack Green: "The wall was built to save the lives of innocent Israelis."

      Israeli civilians settling in occupied territories are not innocent, but criminals.

    • DaBakr: "... which were rejected for whatever reason ..."

      Zionist negotiation: Give up your land and your rights or otherwise we call you rejectionists.

  • Israeli activists respond to Palestinian call, hang photos of fallen protesters along Gaza fence
  • LGBTQ Palestinians: Israel uses Pride celebrations to 'normalize and justify occupation'
    • Say mondonut, does Israel differentiate between homosexual and hetersexual Palestinians when it comes to commiting its daily crimes against Palestinians?

  • The defiance that launched Gaza’s flaming kites cannot be extinguished
    • DaBakr: "all of them want to reserve the right to defend their borders if attacked"

      All of them have their borders well defined and allowed those who fled from war and expulsion to return. Please do not compare the Zionist Apartheid Dreck to these other countries. They don't deserve this.

  • One Democratic State: an ongoing debate
    • Nathan: "The conflict is permanent (all the conflicts in the Arab world last forever)."

      Well, just replace "Arab" with "Jewish" to recognize how racist your comment is.

      Nathan: "You answer that you “do not accept” my observation that the Palestinians will not accept the existence of the yishuv (the Hebrew-speaking community)."

      Which is of course another racist statement. They used to baby sit for each others children until the Zionist invasion of Palestine. Can you imagine that? A Jew given his most precious to a Nonjewish Arab in Paletsine? You can't imagine that. You are blinded by your racism and because of your denial that Zionism has NOTHING to do with co existence, but only with conquer an Jewish dominance.

      Nathan: "The PLO recognized Israel, but it does not recognize Israel (notice the past tense and present tense forms of the verb)."

      ROFL. So which was the last time Israel recognized another state present tense? Do they still recognize the United States of America?

      Much more relevant. When did the Zionist Apartheid Junta ever recognize the State of Palestine? Present or past tense?

      Nathan: "The “long-term truce” that Hamas is offering is a ten-year offer. Why you would feel that this is a “sort of recognition of Israel” is beyond me."

      Hamas is not PLO. Hamas does not officially represent the Palestinians. Hamas goal is to liberate all of historic Palestine. Like the Likud goverment of Israel wants to keep all of historic Palestine. In fact there has never been a single Israeli goverment that endorsed the idea of two fully souvereign states in historic Palestine. It was only lip service in 1948 to establish a Zionist state as a bridghead to reestablish immigration. And it is still lip service and means only Palestinian bantustans since the Oslo accords.

    • The first General Attorney of Palestine Norman Bentwich defined "national home":

      "A national home, as distinguished from a state, is a country where a people are acknowledged as having a recognized legal position and the opportunity of developing their cultural, social and intellectual ideals without receiving political rights."

      "It signifies a territory in which a people, without receiving rights of political sovereignty, has nevertheless a recognized legal position and the opportunity of developing its moral, social, and intellectual ideas."

    • Finchham: "I say that Jewish Israelis constitute a nation, as do Palestinian Arabs."

      And that's wrong. Palestinians have been a constitutive people since 1925. It has nothing to do with being Jewish or Nonjewish/Arab. Jews are not a constitutive people. You can't become an Jewish Israeli or a Palestinian Arab by acquiring any citizenship. So Israelis constitute a nation, as do Palestinians.

    • Nathan: "The Palestinian Arabs do not regard the Israel Jews to be legitimate residents of the country. Accepting the Israel Jews as equal citizens in the imagined single Palestinian state would be regarded by the Palestinians as acceptance of the legitimacy of the Jewish immigration during the Mandate and since the founding of Israel. That’s not too likely."

      Blatant lies, Nathan. The one state solution, a secular democratic state with minority rights was the Palestinian proposal in 1947. But the Zionist Jews tried to prevent any kind of majority ruling as long as they were a minority. We know the crimes they did to become a majority and what the crims they still commit to maintain being one. That's how democratic they have been from the get go. That's why they have to call their democracy a "Jewish democracy". It just means a Zionist perversion of democracy.

    • Tal: "Democracy above all so lets vote. Majority wants the name “Israel”."

      Majority? The fake Jewish majority that only exist, because it keeps Nonjews expelled including their right to vote?

      So much for "Jewish democracy".

  • A Call to Action from Gaza: Cover your city with posters of the Great March of Return heroes
    • So what does that fact that some Iranians don't want to support Palestinians because of economic reasons have to do with Palestinians being innocent or not? Do you really think that they chant "Death to Palestine" for the same reasons other Iranians chant "Death to Israel" or "Death to America"?

  • Hitchhiking to Treblinka
    • Abe Bird: "It has become a land that has absorbed Arabs from the region since the beginning of the 20th century, only because of Jewish entrepreneurship and originality."

      Really? What numbers are we talking about? And how do this numbers compare to the Arabs that Israel keeps expelled it because it needs to maintain its Apartheid regime?

      Abe Bird: "Today Little Israel is a world leading in many fields of science and culture, and no nation in the world can give up the inventions, inovations, developments, applications and products produced in Israel or by Israeli knowlegde."

      Yes, yes. For example:

      IDF uses Gaza as a lab and showroom for new weapons and tech it plans to sell – report
      https://www.rt.com/news/431836-idf-gaza-test-weapons/

      Imagine Germany would use Jews as test subjects to test its inventions, inovations, developments, applications and products produced in Germany or by German knowlegde and then brag about it.

      Abe Bird: "I do not know how Poland is “your homeland too” and if the Poles don’t agree with you. Poland is their land not yours."

      A truly antisemitic statement. Nazis said the same about Jews in Germany.

      Abe Bird: "This anti-Semitism is a reaction to Jewish culture, not Poles culture. This is a basic model of anti-Semitism that we see in recent decades also aimed against Israel."

      Nope. This anti-sentism is an expression of nationalism based on ethnicity. For example Zionism.

      Abe Bird: "The more successful Israel is, the more new anti-Semites are born, ..."

      I agree, if your definition of "succesful" is how Jews oppress and disenfranchise Nonjews. Half a century of making Nonjews suffer under martial law is not something other people can and want to be proud off in modern times.

      Abe Bird: "Hey, I’m not the Jew who did this to you. I’m a good one”. That self-hate."

      Sure. Remember all the Germans who helped Jews during the Holocaust? That was pure self hate, too, right?

      So being a "good" human being is self hatred according to your pathological version of Jewishness. Don't be surprised if people hate this version for all the right reasons.

    • Abe Bird: "A Jewish state is the basis for the continued existence of the Jewish people, ..."

      Yes, sure. So, how about a place where they don't destroy the existence of another people?

    • Abe Bird "...and Jews had been never Poles."

      Yes, yes. As they never haven been Germans, like the Nazis claimed. Any other view you share with antisemites?

      Abe Bird: "...where the Jews are presenting continuously for the last 4000 years, ..."

      Sure. Like Nonkews, too. But how many years did Jews live there as a majority?

      Abe Bird: "Even the fact that the land of the Jews, the land of Israel [or Palestine in the language of its occupiers] had been eroded and destroyed by some 25 different foreign conquering kings, ..."

      ROFL. Don't you think that it is quite pathetic to claim this land exclusively, because Jews ruled over it a couple of decades thousands of years ago? Whose land was it before the Jews? And how did Jews acquire this land? Let me guess, destroying and eroding it like they since 1948, again?

      Abe Bird: "But a Jew never forgot his authentic Israeli origins, and if he was forgotten, he was no longer a Jew."

      Finally. You are someone who can prove that any Jew really has "Israeli origin" and any Nonjew hasn't. Show it, please.

      So much for fake nostalgia.

    • @ Jackdaw:

      "Unofficial estimates range from 10,000 to as high as 100,000. This is not counting most of the 20,000 or more Israelis who have taken Polish citizenship – and hence have full access to the whole EU – but generally don’t live in Poland."
      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/01/polish-jewish-relations-warsaw-museum-history-polish-jews

      Still doesn't justify a "Jewish" state instead of an Israeli state.

    • Jackdaw: "There are no Jews in Poland, because they were exterminated."

      Use your brain, Jackdaw, if you have one. That fact that Jews were exterminated in Poland doesn't mean that there are no Jews in Poland. There are about 200.000 Jews living there according to Jewish organizations.

      Jackdaw: "Jews need to escape from people like you."

      From me? Why? Is there anything that I do Jews that "people like you" have been doing to Palestinians?

    • jon s: "The Nazis and other Anti-Semites regarded assimilated Jews as especially dangerous. In their view those were the Jews who were weaseling their way into German society, and through ties with German women, poisoning the Aryan race, with “Jewish blood”."

      Why does that remind me of the self delusional "only democracy in the Middle East" in which intermarriage is not possible for the same reasons?

    • Jackdaw: "It may happen again, but when it does, the Jews in Israel will be standing on their feet."

      So where could it happen? First. In Israel itself. The most dangerous place for Jews in the age of weapons of mass destruction, dirty bombs and biochemical warfare. Secondly, outside of Israel where Jews won't be standing on their feet.

      Let's face it. Jews need Nonjews for their protection. But Zionist Jews seem to prefer to p*** the off large scale.

    • Jackdaw: "So just so we’re clear. Poland has lots of anti-Semites, but no Jews.

      This fact alone, explains the need for a Jewish State."

      First of all. Why is there a need for a "Jewish" state, if there are no Jews in Poland? Where's the logic? About half of world's Jews if not more than half live in the United states.

      Secondly. There seem to be about 200,000 Jews living in Poland.
      "Working together, the Friends of Jewish Renewal in Poland along with the World Union for Progressive Judaism and the European Union for Progressive Judaism are opening the doors of Judaism to many of Poland's estimated 200,000 potential Jews and building the framework for renewed religious life."
      http://www.jewishrenewalinpoland.org/

      Some or even many of them may not actively practice Judaism or do not list "Jewish" as their "nationality".

      So asccording to your "logic" there is no need for a "Jewish" state. In any case. A "Jewish" state which is not the state of all of its citizens and which differentiates between nationals (only Jews) and citizens to privilige the former is a full bore Apartheid state. There's no need for an Apartheid state. Except for supremacists.

  • Gaza protests are where we say 'NO' to Trump's decision to move embassy -- demonstrator explains
    • Yet it is not he Hamas who has been either preventing or destroying everything you list. And it is not them commiting rounds of bloodsheds. You know who the real aggressor has been from the get go.

    • jon s: "It’s not “a few flames”, we’re talking about hundreds of fires, twenty or so every day, with extensive damage to crops, pasture, livestock, nature preserves and wildlife."

      When was the last time you asked this question, when Jews burned Palestinian property?

      jon s: "So I’m asking: what can be done to stop it? What would be considered a legitimate response by Israel to prevent any more fires?Any ideas?"

      There can only one answer in for your Apartheid Junta. Treat Palestinians as if they were Jews.

    • Jon S: "This may change very soon as the destruction continues. When will it end? Are we expected to just sit back and watch our country burn?"

      If only the Palestinians had asked themselves this question since the 1930s reacted like the Israelis, right?

    • Nathan: "Generally, in anti-Israel circles, we hear that the two-state arrangement is “dead” and the reality of one single state is now a fact of life."

      Generally in reality the single state is a fact of life and there has NEVER been an Israeli interest in a SOUVEREIGN Palestinian state.

  • 'Ali is on the grill!' Israeli settlers celebrate burning of Palestinian baby
    • Mondonut: "But if you do not like that qualifier go ahead and name any of your unrecognized states that are invalid."

      It has nothing to do with what I like, but with what you claimed. Your claim was that because a Israel exists it is a "valid" state. Do you still want to make this claim? Or the claim that a state is valid as soon as it comes into existence? And when would that be? After the mere declaration of statehood?

    • Mondonut: "Enlighten us. Name the currently existing recognized states that are not considered legal entities."

      Recognized? When it comes to the Jewish state your claim is that it's "validity is in the fact that it exists.”

    • DaBakr: "A: if it’s the result of unreasonable gerrymandering then it should be fixed."

      That's why you support right to return of refugees. Because keeping them expelled dand denationalized is nothing else than ultra racist gerrymandering.

    • DaBakr: "TI always wondered the same thing here… That one or two Israel haters may be neurotic zionists in disguise. Its unlikely though"

      Yep. It is more likely that every Zionist accuser of antisemitism is a patholocogical narcissist who wants to disguise his own deep rooted hatred and racism towards Nonjews in general and Palestinians in particular.

    • DaBakr: "there are many nations passing laws at this tie equating certain forms of anti Israeli, anti Zionism with anti-jewishness. "

      Yes, but such laws don't matter as soon as the judge realizes that the accused is not targeting Jews as such.

      You see, judges are rational. Contrary to Zionist morons and their fascist conflation of state/national ideology with humans.

    • Mondonut: "... and bizarre interpretations of the Mandate."

      Yes. For example that Palestine was not allready a state under mandate. Or that the mandate included the creation of a Jewish state. Or that Jewish settlers had a "right" to settle. Especially a right to settle anywhere in Palestine.

      Mondonut: "And for the record, Israel’s validity is in the fact that it exists."

      Is this "validity" only reserved for Jewish-only states? Because the records show that there were and are states which were or are not considered "valid" simply because they exist(ed).

    • mondonut: "That said, nobody with half a brain believes it ever historically existed as a sovereign state."

      And nobody with half a brain believes that it didn't historically exist as a dependant state under Britsh mandate. And that it didn't became independent back then and still isn't indepedent today is just because it has been under de facto and de jure occupation for more than a century. Either by Zionsts or on their behalf. That's the Zionist understanding of democracy and self determination.

    • American Perspective: "the Arab nationalist fought hard to have their Southern Syrian identity recognized. They sued the government claiming that Filistin (the Arabic translation of the English word Palestine) was the Jewish term for the land. They identified as Southern Syrian in the 20s and early 30s."

      ROFL. The term "filastin" was allready used in 630 by Arab muslims: "Jund filastin" meant "military district of Palestine". Allready in 1911 an arabic newspaper called "Falastin" was created which was Palestine's fiercest and most consistent critic of the Zionist movement. And the "[British] CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION ..." before the mandate showed that the Palestinian delegation was always refering to Palestine in its letters and asking for its independence.
      https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE

      "It wasn’t until 1935 that the Arab nationalists living in Palestine started identifying their race as Ehrenarier (Honorary Aryan)."

      ROFL. Nobody "identified" with being an "Honorary Aryan". This was a status granted by the Nazis. And you will find more Jews than Arabs who were granted this status. More Palestinians were fighting against the Nazis than supporting them or the Mufti Amin al-Husseini.

      It's no suprise that you fail to provide any source for your continous pathological lies and your blatant Zionist brainwashing.

    • Not everyone who was "living" there. Only those who were citizens of Palestine.

    • American perspective: "Palestine is the English name for Eretz Yisrael."

      ROFL. Palestine was the official and internationally recognized name of the state under British mandate before 1948. And Palestine is the official and international recognized name of the state under Zionist occupation.

  • Palestinian official links US withdrawal from UN human rights body with US taking 'crying babies from their parents’
    • Jon66: "What I don’t understand is why so many here do not believe that Syria or Lebanon should offer the same to the Palestinians."

      Well, Jon66. Why don't you ask, what refugees want? It's their right to choose after all. And if they prefer repatriation rather than integration who the hell are you to deny them their rights?

      Oh well, we do understand your racist motives. We do understand that you support anything except the RIGHT to return for refugees, if they are Nonjewish and simply want to return to their homeland. It's so see through that we don't understand why you believe that you can hide your bigotry.

      But please answer this question. Do Germans have a right to kill Jews at Germany's borders who want to return to Germany? Or would this be a sign that Germans are (still) Nazis?

  • Roger Waters plays Munich despite mayor's effort to stop concert over his support for BDS
    • Steve Grover: "And everyone knows Roger Waters was looking in the mirror when he wrote this verse of “Pigs (Three Different Ones)” on the Animals Album:"

      What an infantile statement.

    • Who Latuff or Waters? Makes no difference, right?

  • Killings shouldn't be necessary for world to hear Gaza voices
    • Nathan: "The issue is one of success or failure."

      No, it's not. The issue is one of territorial integrity and majority ruling.

      Nathan: "If someone succeeds in creating a state by a force of arms, then that state comes into being. That’s that."

      No it isn't. See Rhodesia.

      Nathan: "It’s really quite simple – and quite legitimate."

      To the contrary. It is actually quite illegitimate to secede without a referendum.

      Nathan: "It’s happened so many times in history, so really I can’t imagine that you need to ask."

      It's obvious that your understanding of international law is stuck in pre 1945. Or to be more precise: In colonial times and fist law.

      That's undestandable. You gotta make a case for Zionist settler colonialism, it's beligerent take over of Palestine and its expulsion of its nonjewish majority. It has been totally corrupting you.

    • Nathan: "(“ending the occupation” is quite often a code for “ending the existence of Israel”)."

      Nope. It's not "code". Some consider not only the territory beyond the 67 lines as occupied, but all of historic Palestine, because Zionists acquired the territory for Israel only through war and expulsion and not by any referendum.

      Would the Nonjewish minoriy of Israel have a right to go for war to create a state within Israel?

  • Organizer of the Great March of Return says protests in Gaza 'must go on'
    • Boris: "It will take some time – maybe a hundred years or more – but Palestinians will learn how to peacefully co-exist with Israel."

      They allready peacefully co-existed with Jews until the Zionist settlers came who were not interested in co-existence, but in the takeover of Palestine and getting rid of Nonjewish Palestinians.

      You are still the aggressor, Boris, the colonizer, the occupier, the expellant. (I'm using nice words now.)

    • When Jew's houses were demolished under the same British "Emergency regulations" in mandated Palestine they claimed that not even the Nazis had such punishing regulations. Go figure.

  • If I had to live in Israel again, 'it would actually drive me insane' -- Shaul Magid
    • Bumblebye: "Who the heck is pushing far-right arab nationalism on this site? Who is pushing arab racial purity?"

      American Perspetive is in full attack mode to distract from him pushin far-right Jewish nationalism and his own racial purity fantasies. Just ask him, if Nonjews have a right to return, too.

    • American Perspective: "If you guys want to have a racially pure State of Palestine and want to promote an “authentic” Arab identity – you’d be better off understanding your enemy well."

      The Palestinian nation has been a constitutive people since 1925. It is neither defined by faith nor ethnicity. Unlike the so called "Jewish nation" which is a fake nation, because it isn't a citizenship. So much for racial purity and the fact that there's no legal possibilty in Israel to intermarriage.

  • 'Let them eat candy' – Israel’s ideological war against incendiary kites from Gaza
    • Jon66: "I didn’t use the word “terrorist”."

      I never said you did.

      Jon66: "To clarify, if a person who is dressed indistinguishable from a civilian who is not carrying arms openly then engages in an attack on an enemy soldier- that person has performed a criminal act, not ‘resistance’?"

      It depends. For example if they intentionally dress up as civilians. Like the Israeli Mista’arvim who dress up as Palestinan demonstrators.

    • American Perspective: "I thought we were reaching clarity about some of the differences between the far-right Arab nationalist position and the mainstream International Law position."

      Not at all. You were just repeating far right Jewish nationalist position and selling them as International law without being able to provide any quote to back up your claim. And you will continue to fail.

      American Perspective: "Look – if you want to participate in a legal/political discussion, you should be aware of the unofficial rule that once you scream “Nazi” or “Racist” or “Antisemite” , you already lost the argument."

      I don't care about your unoffical rules. Especially not when we are dealing with an Apartheid Junta that doesn't care about any rule at all and cries antisemitism.

      And regarding Nazism: You are inherently claiming that Jews didn't have a right to resist Nazi occupation, because they were not wearing a uniform and didn't anounce their military tactics in German. I must say that not even the Nazis made such a ridiculous claim ever.

      American Perspective: "But even if you believe an analogy is the only way to make your argument, using 1940s Nazis v. Jews analogies is such a beaten horse that it’s counterproductive."

      Your delusions are even more interesting than your failure to prove your claims by quoting from international law or the Rome Statute and your failure to list Israel's violations of the same.

      But here's is an analogy. Germany commited the crime of illegaly annexing of and settling in occupied territories. Israel commits the same crime. Whether you like it or not.

    • American Perspective: "I think the way that Professor Norman Finkelstein described it, the only lawful way for folks in Gaza to “Resist” is to gather en masse in an open field in Gaza wearing uniforms and openly carrying their weapons."

      And I think you are just making things up which is the reason why you don't provide any source.

      "They need to announce in Hebrew to folks near Gaza exactly what military tactics they will be using and when. That’s just about the only way to lawfully “Resist” under International Law."

      ROFL. They need do announce their military tactics [sic!] in Hebrew [sic!]! Oh boy. Resistance fighters not only have to learn the language of the occupied, but also tell them their military tactics according to "American Perspective.

      "You may call that ludicrous."

      Idiocy is the right word. Or maybe compulsive lying. Or both. And of course the complete failure to provide any source.

      "Israelis aren’t American Ashkenazim who swoon when you say the words “International Law”."

      Of course not. They are more like German Nazis who give a sh** about international law, settling in occupied territories and illegaly annexing them.

    • American Perspective: "Just saying someone has the “right to resist occupation” doesn’t tell you very much about what they are allowed to do."

      First of all it is not just "someone" who is saying that there is a right to resist occupation, but it is enshrined in international law. Secondly you are correct regarding the means of resistance. It is regulated by humanitarian law. Neither the occupier nor the occupied have the right to attack civilians. I sincerly hope that you don't expect the occupied to be more restrained than the occupier since the physical and structural violence of the latter affects EVERY occupied civilian.

      But I understand from your moral high point of view that you condemn terrorism in general. Even the one that led to the emergence of Israel. Correct? And I also understand from your high moral point of view that you condem if civilians are kept expelled just to create a fake majority of expellants. Right?

      American Perspective: " If you’ve ever read the relevant law and U.N. reports, you’ll know that anyone who engages in “resistance” is required to wear a uniform, required to carry her weapon openly, and required to provide sufficient notice and preparation for any potential civilian victim of her “resistance”. "

      Nope. You are just making this it up and fail to provide any quote that someone who engages in what you only dare to quote (because you are living in denial) HAS to wear a uniform in any case of resistance. These kind of questions only regulate the degree of protection a combatant can or should have and under what cirumstances he looses combatant status.

      Based on your ludicrous interpretation of humanitarian law an occupied people which doesn't find a way to create uniforms has no right to resist occupation.

      American Perspective: "And under the Rome Statute (which the State of Palestine adopted), the restrictions are even greater. As applied, every single act of “Resistance” needs to be conducted pursuant to written rules of engagement and subject to prior and subsequent review by the Resistance’s advocates general."

      Prove it or change your nick to "Nazi German perspective". Cause you are still inherently claiming that Jewish civilians had no right to resist Nazis and their occupation.

      American Perspective: "I don’t know what possible relevance the Warsaw Intifada may have in informing the Law of Armed Conflict in the State of Palestine. "

      Sure. Palestians don't have the same right to resist as Jews, right? They don't even have a right to create a state through terrorism, civil war and/or expulsion. Only Jews have, correct?

      American Perspective: "I also worry that reference to the Warsaw Intifada comes close to making a Nazi analogy, which means you already lost your argument."

      Don't worry. The analogy is that Palestinians have the same right to resist occupation as Jews. And without uniform, too. Which means you allready lost your argument.

      P.S. Why do you fail to list every violation of Israel against international law, humanitarian law, Rome Statute and human right law?

Showing comments 3717 - 3701
Page: