Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 3718 (since 2011-08-30 20:10:31)


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

Showing comments 3300 - 3201

  • Israeli prosecutors try to make Ahed Tamimi a terrorist
    • Jon66: "Attacks like these were terrorism."

      That's how Israel was founded.

    • Jon66: "Yes. I want to see an end to the occupation. We disagree on the causes of the continued occupation. There was no occupation before June 1967 and there wasn’t peace."

      There wasn't peace, because Zionist took over Palestine through war and expulsion. You always seem to forget the originial sin which is called Zionist settler colonialism.

      Jon66: "I have not seen evidence of the peace wish."

      Of course not. You think that they will act like Zionists.

      Jon66: "In addition, I think we define refugee differently."

      Of course you do. You just have to think the same way like the author Jennifer Rubin who "has supported the Likud government and other conservative factions in Israel" (Wikipedia) and opens her article with the same psychopathic attitude towards the UN:
      "There are many reasons to detest the United Nations. ... It is among the most anti-Semitic institutions on the planet."

      I understand why such a nutcase has to redifine the definition of a Palestinian refugee.

      But she is wrong. Even under UNHCR the same principle is applied:
      "UNHCR‘s Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status provides in paragraph 184: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity.""

      But feel free to apply your immoral standards unto Jews, too. Especially unto those who claimed that they "returned" and showed to Palestine how peaceful their goal of overtaking Palestine has been since then.

    • Nathan: "You claim that the Jews had “illegally stashed weapons” before the war in 1947-8."

      British claims, not mine.

      Nathan: "Are you trying to say that they should have stashed weapons legally?"

      No. I was saying that their stashing was illegal. The Haganah was illegal, too. But the first High Commissioner of Palestine Herbert Samuel - the first Jewish Zionist ruler of occupied Palestine - closed both eyes.

      Nathan: "The Palestinians had weapons, and they also had forces in the field of battle. It’s true that the Palestinians rebelled against the British (1936-9), and they suffered very heavy losses – but you would have to be quite naive to believe that in 1947 they were unarmed."

      I said that the didn't have the means to counter-attack the Jewish onslaught on Palestine. I didn't say that none of them had weapons. How many 3000?

      Nathan: "Moreover, the neighboring Arab states were committed to intervene in the war on their behalf, so obviously that should be a reasonable definition of “the means to counter-attack the Zionist onslaught”."

      Even the small armies that were assembled had not the means. And Jordan was taken out of the equation by collaborating with the Jewish Agency.

      Nathan: "Why did the Arab side insist on going to war?"

      They wanted to save Palestinians from the Jewish onslaught and expulsion. Can you imagine what the Jewish terrorists would have done to the rest of the Palestinians if Egypt (Gaz) and Jordan (West Bank) hadn't intervened?

      Nathan: "You would imagine that the clear expectation of utter defeat would have convinced the Arab side to strike some kind of deal with the Jews."

      What clear expectations? And again, Jordan stroke a deal.

      Nathan: "Either the Palestinians are making a very serious strategic/political blunder in their refusal to negotiate the final-status agreement with Israel (thus ending the conflict) or they feel very confident that in the absence of a political compromise Israel will eventually be soundly defeated."

      ROFL. What is their left to negotiate with someone who wants an exclusive claim to Jerusalem, does accept a "right to return" exclusively for Jews and wants to keep control over the West Bank? The Palestinians have decladed their state within 67 lines and recognized your beloved Aparheid Junta. When did it recognize Palestine and fixated its borders?

      And btw:
      Report: PM seeks US okay to annex settlements, cede Arab cities to Palestinians

      So much for Israeli style negotiations. It's not interested in peace, but only in the "peace process".

    • Mooser: "Who else was there besides Arab civilians?"

      They were demilitarized by the British after their revolt in the 1930s.The Palestinians didn't even have the means to counter attack the Zionist onslaught on Palestine in 1947/48 who illegaly stashed weapons to prepare themselves to conquer Palestine thtough war and expulsion.

    • Jon66: "One ... has decided to intentionally target and take the life of another. The victim is unarmed and defenseless."

      The history of Palestine under Zionist target in a nutshell.

      Jon66: "I have no idea if it was a firefight between two armed forces or a terrorist attack. I don’t know how you could know either. But if they are attacks on civilians then they should be condemned."

      Oh, so every attack by an Israeli soldier against a Palestinian civialian should be condemned, too. And every attack by Palestinians against Israeli citizens could be explained away by claiming that one has no idea if it was a firefight between to armed forces. Btw. are settlers armed?

    • Jon 66: "They are a violation of the laws of war. I believe that these apply not only to the Palestinians but the Israelis as well."

      Really, you actually DO BELIEVE that laws of war not only apply to Palestinians? What a remarkable believe. But don't overplay it and claim that it is a legal fact for both sides. That would sound to egalitarian, wouldn't it?

      Jon66: "Can we agree that bombing a civilian bus is terrorism and wrong?"

      Let's expand this. Can we agree that any violence against civilians, whether deliberate or taken into account is wrong? Can we also agree that long term occupation is wrong? That expulsion and keeping rrefugees expelled is wrong? That confiscating land of occupied people and settling in occupied territories is wrong? That settler colonialism is wrong? If yes then I "believe" that this doesn't apply only to Jews but to Nonjews as well.

  • 'We have taken Jerusalem off the table' -- Trump bullies Palestinians
  • Ahed Tamimi has polarized western opinion -- but stirred some liberals to solidarity
    • Kay24: "So why has this girl being treated like a criminal, while the illegal settlers get away with it?"

      Cause she's not Jewish and the illegal settlers are. That's why the call their Aparheid Junta a "Jewish deomcracy". I wonder if this self description is somehow antisemitic.

  • Why Ahed Tamimi's slap is so thrilling to Palestinians
    • I thought the same. That can't be a coincidence. They shot him in the neck. That was an execution. A message to Ahed that they can punish her and her family in many ways and without impunity.

      What a criminal Zionist Apartheid Junta. Scumbags.

    • JSIL's great ambitions in 2018. Kill another member of the Tamimi family:

      Palestinian teen first to be killed by Israel in 2018

      So much for the Apartheid Junta's daily terrorism:
      "The occupation army has been raiding both Deir Nitham and Nabi Saleh day in and day out. They come in, irritate the residents, raid our homes at night and throw sound bombs in the street. This has been our reality every day," said Firas.

      We cannot just keep quiet and keep watching. No one is listening to us - no one feels the pain that we're going through. The world is just silently watching."

      I think that Israel shouldn't be singled out longer and therefore either invaded or put under embargo.

    • The US Israel/Palestine "peacy" policy during the Trump era: From fake "honest" brokering to blunt financial extortion. Next thing that Dumbo Trump is going to claim is that Russia has hijacked his twitter account.

      The US seems to be on its best way to loose it's "influence" which has been nothing else than bribe.

    • Boris: "Every progressive knows that Paleostinians where the original dinosaurs, and were created by Allah before humans.

      They had also invented the paleo diet…"

      Can't be true, because no Jew wrote it down and claimed it was written by god.

    • A police man's presence is legal and there to protect the people of the country. The presence of your Apartheid Junta's thugs is terrorism and they are only there to protect its illegal colonialization of land. It's a moral right to slap them every day.

    • Trump: "We have taken Jerusalem, the toughest part of the negotiation, off the table, but Israel, for that, would have had to pay more. But with the Palestinians no longer willing to talk peace ..."

      ROFL. So a major issue which should have been negotiated through peace talks was taken off the table by the US,and Israel, but it is the Palestinians who are not longer willing to talk peace.

      The usual Zionist perversion of reality.

    • Jack Green: "to teach everyone to hurt your fellow human beings"

      Like teaching Jews to shot nonjewish children in the head?

  • I'm proud to stand with Cindy Corrie in this fight
    • DaBakr: "You conveniently overlook, misrepresent or intentionally leave out the millions of Arabs who live with us as neighbors, friends, equal citizens with suffrage, rights to any job from trash collector, teacher, police, celebrity, doctor, supreme court justice , general in the IDF, etc."

      You conveniently overlook, misrepresent or intentionally leave out the millions of Arabs you keep expelled and denationalized to fake a democracy that has instititutionalized racism.

      DaBakr: "Our children (meaning Arab, Asian, African, Muslim, Christian Ba’hai, etc)are not only taught to respect ALL human rights ..."

      "Most Jewish first-graders attend ultra-Orthodox and religious schools. The majority of them are educated along the lines of "The King's Torah." A Jew is human. A non-Jew is non-human. "Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to non-Jews. And this is not delivered in the form of incitement, but as a simple statement of a fact. As simple as calling a chair a chair."

      DaBakr: "Or, the daily updates on Bedouins(roaming people) who contribute to defy the law and rebuild illegal homes and villages knowing full well their,’friendly’ reporters are"

      Illegal according to your racist entity which razed more than 400 Nonjewish villages in 1948, build more than 600 settlements for Jews since then, but simply doesn't recognized Bedouin "settlements". You would make a case for N, too, and against those who opposed it. And btw. outside the borders that were declared when your Apartheid Junta declared statehood. So much for defying the law and illegal.

      DaBakr: "Other then the lands conquered in wars started buy their arch Arab enemies, Jerusalem is united and free, the Golan is peaceful, and Gaza has been returned with full internationally accrued disengagement."

      ROFL. There is not a single inch of Israel's territory that was not "conquered" through a war that Zionist Jews started with their terror campagne in the late 30s. Their war in 1956 and 1969 were more wars that they started to conquer more land. Jerusalem's annexation was illegal and it is cetainly only free for Jews. The Golan Heights, also illegaly annexed are peaceful, because Israel threatens to kill its rightful owner. And no. The UN still considers Gaza to be occupied by Israel. And Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

      DaBakr: "100s of tonnes of supplies are trucked in by Israel every week. Concrete, medicine, food, etc."

      How many tons before Israrel's illegal blockade that collectively punishes the whole Gazan population? A war crime since the Nuremberg trials.

    • Emily: "Why? What’s to hide?"

      In these times one has to be protected from Zionist Jews who persecute anyone who questions their Apartheid Junta.

  • Jewish activist who counseled Lorde on BDS gets the full 'kapo' treatment in the Israeli press
    • DaBakr: "Author simple hates the zionist nation of israel and won’t stop hating it until zionism which absolutely means israel is destroyed as a nation where jews have sovereignty over their own affairs .."

      Author must have hated the afrikaaners's nation of south Africa for the same reasons.

    • Jack Green: "Evidence that Israel is apartheid?"

      The Jewish Apartheid Junta in Palestine has and keeps Nonjews expelled to achieve and maintain a regime dominated by Jews.

    • aloeste: "seems like a nice place. maybe all those ‘palestine’ arabs could settle there…"

      Yes, but without the consent of the countries population it would be just the same crime as the Zionist settler colonialism of Palestine commmited by 'non palestine' jews.

      We wouldn't want that, would we?

    • Jack Green: "Is all nationalism a cancer?"

      Settler colonialism after WW I is.

    • Jack Green: "The idea of Zionism was that Jews would return to their homeland & have a majority-Jewish country because majority-gentile countries had failed to provide safety for the Jews."

      Ooh, Jack Green is trying to make a moral case for Zionism and inherently tries to argue that the fundamental violation of rights of Jews allows them to fundamentally violate the rights of Nonjews.

      Cause the idea of Zionism means failing to provide safety for Nonjews in a majority-gentile country and denying them to return to their real experienced homeland.

      1.) Jewish mass immigration could only be enforced upon the country's natives whose right to self determination had to be denied on behalf of the Jews.
      2.) The Zionist Jewish citizens of Palestine never hold a referendum and never wanted to be ruled by majority ruling unless they achieved a majority by any means that violated the fundamental rights of Nonjews.
      3.) They created a state only through terroism, war and massacres and the destruction of more than 400 villages allthough these crimes were condemned after the Nazi horrors, including the Holocaust.
      4.) They achieved and still maintain a majority only through ethnic cleansing and the denial of the rights of Nonjews to return to their real homeland, allthough these crime were condemned after the Nazi horrors, including the Holocaust.
      5.) After expelling about 750,000 in 1948, 300,000 in 1967 they revoked residential rights for another 250,000 Nonjews.
      6.) They are not a constitutive people and one cannot become Jewish through acqusition of citizenship.
      7.) They chose to differentiate between "nationals" (only Jews) and pseudo "citizens" (with lesser rights than "nationals") in a similar way like Nazis to privilidge "nationals" ("Reichsbuerger").

      Are you are really trying to make a moral case for Zionism? ROFL.

  • Lorde didn't bow to pressure, she rose to the occasion
    • Lorde should be informed that the Golan Heights are not part of JSIL, but were illegaly annexed by it and settled and that it violates the Geneva Conventions by allowing, encouraging and supporting its citizens to move and live there.

      Then she should be informed that JSIL is aiding terrorists in Syria.

  • Why liberal Zionists have nothing to say about Ahed Tamimi's slap and arrest
    • Jack Green: "Palestinians have been oppressing Jews for centuries."

      Your sense of history is remarkable. Back then the Ottoman Empire ruled this territory, not the Palestinians. The Palesinians legally exist since the nationality act of 1925 which includes Jewish citizens.

      Jack Green: "Running over Israelis is oppression.
      Stabbing Israelis is oppression.
      Shooting Israelis is oppression.
      Firing rockets at Israelis is oppression.
      Blowing up Israelis is oppression.
      Throwing rocks at Israelis is oppression."

      Even the term "oppression" can be perveted by deluded Zionists. It's not longer an occupation and its denial of self determination and the terror, abuse and collective punishment that comes with it and living under martial law that is oppression, but the reactions of the occupied to this oppression. Goebbels would have been proud of your pervert perpetrator–victim reversal, Jack Green. Holocaust deniers and antisemites, too.

      It tells me anything I need to know about your ultra sick "moral" values.

      Human Rights Wach: Israel: 50 Years of Occupation Abuses

    • Jack Green: "Evidence of apartheid?"

      Keeping Nonjews expelled to maintain a regime dominated by Jews. Look it up: Crime of Apartheid.

      Jack Green: "The US has bases in Germany & Japan. Does that mean that we still occupy Germany & Japan?"

      If the bases are there without the concent of Germany or Japan: Yes.

      Jack Green: "Evidence that settlements are illegal under international law?"

      Security Council Resolutions, Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, Commentary of the Red Cross which co-wrote the Geneva Conventions, Customary International Law, Opinio Juris ... You name it. Do you live in a forest?

      Jack Green: "Israel does NOT have to withdraw from all territories it occupied in 1967."

      1.) Lord Caradon, author of resolution 242: "It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt as a matter of fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. I was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted."

      2.) According to the Zionist bad faith interpretation of resolution 242, the Straits of Tiran can be closed, because 242 only says: "guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;" and not "through all" waterways in the area".

      3.) Security Council Resolution 476:
      "1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem"

      Jack Green: "According to UN Resolution 181 (partition), after 10 years, there was to be a referendum in Jerusalem."

      Exactly. Was to be. Never happened. Instead: "On 2 August, the Government of Israel rejected the suggestion and decided to declare the Jerusalem area under its control as Israel-occupied territory."

      What was the suggestion? That Jerusalem should be demilitarized as recommended by the partition plan. Also never happened:

      "The City of Jerusalem shall be demilitarized; neutrality shall be declared and preserved, and no para-military formations, exercises or activities shall be permitted within its borders."

      What else didn't happen according to the partition plan? That all Nonjewish citizens residing in the future state of Israel were to be Israelis:

      Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.".

      What else didn't happen according to the partion plan?
      "Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948."

      The last British troups evacuated on June 30, so the date of declaration should have been not before 1 October 1948.
      "The final British evacuation was completed at Haifa on 30th June"

      But wait a second! Security Council Resolution 46 from April 1948 even prohibited declarations of states: "Refrain, pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly, from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;"

      Why? Because they realized that the partition plan could only implemented through violence. And guess how the Jews implemented the partition plan and acquired territories beyonds its borders? Even the Jewish Agency's declarartion of statehood violated a Security Council resolution. Isn't it telling?

      Jack Green: "Because the majority were Jews, Jerusalem would have become part of Israel."


      1: "[The international regime] shall remain in force in the first instance for a period of ten years, unless the Trusteeship Council finds it necessary to undertake a re-examination of these provisions at an earlier date. After the expiration of this period the whole scheme shall be subject to examination by the Trusteeship Council in the light of experience acquired with its functioning."

      Only after such an examination "The residents the City shall be then free to express by means of a referendum their wishes as to possible modifications of regime of the City."

      But "possible modifications" of the international regime doesn't mean its dissolution.

      Secondly. The international "City of Jerusalem" was bigger than Jerusalem:

      Do you still want to claim that Jews would have been a majority?

      3.) Israel declared West Jerusalem as occupied in

      Jack Green: "Therefore, it makes no sense to consider any part of Jerusalem as occupied territory."

      ROFL. Does your reasoning make any sense?
      Because you claim that there SHOULD have been a referendum after 10 years and you claim that Jews WOULD have been a majority in the "City of Jerusalem" (not Jerusalem) and you claim that the referendum COULD have decided to abolish the international regime and merge with Israel, Jerusalem has not been occupied? Neither the West in 1948 nor the East in 1967?

      Jack Green: "All people have the right to life. The return of the refugees would put Israeli lives in danger."

      This is nothing else but blood lible. No state has a right to expell its citizens and then claim that it has a right to prevent their return, because they claim that it would put its citizens lives in danger. You know very well that you are lying and that Israel prevents their return for the same reason it expelled them. Jewish demographic domination. In other words: Apartheid.

    • Threats don't justify a full scale invasion.

    • Yes Jack Green, that's very informative. But your claim was:

      "Israel accepted the armistice for the 1956 war because it was promised that the Straits would remain open. By closing the Straits, Egypt broke the cease fire"

      So it wasn't Egypt that promised that the Straits of Tiran would remain open, but the US promised that they maintain the freedom of navigation in the waterway. Again, Egypt had not ratified that maritime, yet. I'm still waiting for a source that Egypt broke a "cease fire" by closing the straits which it never actually did in fact:

      "Later in life, General Rikhye [said that] Israel's accusation in 1967 of a blockade was "questionable" given that an Israeli-flagged ship had not passed through the straits in two years, and that "The U.A.R. [Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation"

      And again, it wouldn't justify a full scale invasion. Israel never tried to deescalate the situation and never allowed UNEF troops on its side of the borders with Egypt.

    • Jack Green: "What do you mean by

      “all of its offers are only a modification of the occupation?”"

      That Israel has never offered the Palestinians a souvereign state, but always wants to maintain some control. Whether its borders, air space, the Jordan valley, you name it ..."

      Jack Green: "Please explain “Israel can’t offer anything to the Palestinians which isn’t allready their right under international and human rights.”"

      Settlements are illegal under international law and have to be dismantled according to the Security Council.
      Israel has to withdraw from all territories it occupied in 1967.
      Jerusalem (and the Golan Heights) is illegaly annexed and East Jerusalem is regarded as occupied since 1967.
      All refugees have a right to return according to the Universal Declaration of Human rights.

      So what does Israel has to offer which actually declared statehood withint he borders recommended in the partition plan? It allready took 80% through war and the acquisition of territory through war is inadmissable since 1945.

    • Jon66: "Talkback,
      I said none of those things. As you say, “Source please.”.
      Your hatred appears to be blinding you.
      Have a nice day."

      It was obviosuly a mistake. But your pathetic projection of hate is quite revealing, as always.

    • DaBakr: "At least it shows the BDS, JVP, and other supposedly compassionate groups like MW for what they really are devoted to."

      Yes, yes. How dare they support the fundamental human rights of Nonjews? Don't they know that the Jews have a right to disenfranchise, denationalize and expell Nonjews?

      They don't understand you and Nathan, because they don't know the advantages of being supremacist. Should have learnt something different from the Holocaust, right?

    • Jon66: "Israel accepted the armistice for the 1956 war because it was promised that the Straits would remain open. By closing the Straits, Egypt broke the cease fire"

      Source please. Anyway, not an excuse for a full scale invasion.

      Jon66: So the Six Day War was not a new war. It was just a continuation of the 1956 war."

      So the war was started by Israel.

      Jon66: "Also, most Israelis thought that Egypt was going to attack ..."

      What Israelis think is not an excuse for a full scale invasion. Israel even admitted that it knew that Egypt wasn't going to attack. Miko Peled proved that Israel saw a chance to destroy Egypt's army.

      Jon66: "Notice that Nasser is saying that the war will be a continuation of the 1948 war."

      Well, who started a war in 1948 to acquire territory? And who came to defend this illegal acquistion through force?

      …, U.S. officials there faced the Jewish Agency’s rejection of a truce as well as a trusteeship arrangement to replace what the State Department and the White House conceded to be the failure of the partition plan. In evaluating the situation, Robert McClintock, a special assistant to Dean Rusk, then director of the Office of UN Affairs, deliberated over the implications of these developments. It may well be, he speculated, that Washington would soon be confronted with a situation created by Jewish military forces, including the Haganah, the Stern Gang and Irgun, in which it would have to determine whether a “Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council.”15 Washington would face what McClintock called an “anomalous situation,” in which “the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership.””

      Jon66: "The right to life is more important than the right of return."

      That's of course different, if Jews claim to "return", right?

      Jon6: "Allowing the return of the people who were oppressing Jews & murdering Jews would put Israelis in jeopardy."

      That's blatant incitement. Nobody was oppressing Jews. And the Nonjews which were expelled didn't even had arms to murder Jews. That's the reason why there were not murdered by Jews, but expelled, according to Plan Daleth. They were expelled simply for the reason to create a Jewish majority. Your Apartheid Junta wouldn't even allow them to return if they were angels kissing Jewish tuches. And you know it.

    • I forgot to add that it is illegal to deport a protected person out of the occupatied territory to this person in a military court that is not inside the occupied territory. And it is also illegal that Jewish settlers can't be tried in Palestinian courts and they have to be regarded as illegal immigrants.

    • Jack Green: "Egypt started the war by closing the Straits of Tiran."

      That's not an act of war and not a legal reason for Israel to go to war. Egypt had not even ratified the Maritime law in question and while it was on its way to Washington to settle the issue Israel attacked.

      Jack Green: "It was only after Jordan bombed Israeli residential areas (a war crime) that Israel responded."

      What? Israel bombed Samu in 13 November 1966. Was that a war crime by Israel and did it start the war with Jordan?

      Jack Green: "The occupation is temporary. "

      Nope. It has allready been "prolonged" in the 1980's according to the Security Council and and you know very well that Israel just buys time to continue with another aspect of its illegal occupation with its illegal settlements.

      To call half a century "temporary" must be Zionist humor.

      Jack Green: "Evidence that the settlements are illegal?"

      Which source do you prefer? The Security Council, the International Court of Justice or the International Red Cross which co-wrote the Geneva Conventions?

      Or do you want me to quote from the Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis regarding the charge of "Germanization of occupied territories"?

      It is forbidden for the occupier to allow the colonialization of occupied territories by its own citizens. Do you also need evicence that the earth is not flat?

    • jon66: "That’s not true."

      I stand corrected.

    • Nathan: "For example, the return of “x” refugees does not mean that the rest of the refugees have given up the right of return. Quite the contrary. The right of return is an “individual right”, and the Palestinian leadership has “no authority” to negotiate the rights of the individual."

      Of course not. Nobody can give up someone else's human rights. But this is exactly what your and your Apartheid Junta's understanding of "ending the conflict" or "peace" is. That Nonjews give up their human rights and Jews are allowed to violate them forever to maintain their Apartheid Junta regime.

      Thank you for making it so obvious what criminals we are dealing with.

    • Jack Green: "The occupation is legal because Israel was attacked."

      First of all. Israel attacked Egypt who was allied with Jordan and Jordan came to help.
      Secondly the occupation is illegal, because it is not temporary and the illegal settlements and other basic rights which are violated.

    • hophmi : "In the dark meaning out of views of the cameras, which are a willing participant in this conflict."

      In the dark means commiting a crime in your Apartheid Junta's dungeons without witnesses. And no "cameras" ar note "willing participants". They are necessary participants, because the armed sociopaths of your sick society have no problem with shooting childrens in the head.

    • hophmi: "And she also has terrorists in her family and her family is supportive of them and Hamas."

      That sounds like supporting any Jewish group in Palestine that helped to create a state through war and expulsion. Are you sure you want to condemn this?

    • Nathan: "Do you read Palestinian newspapers?"

      ROFLMAO. Annie was talking about the "Palestine Papers". Obviously you didn't read them.

      Nathan: "The Palestinians insist on the right of return as a personal right ..."

      WRONG. The right of return IS an individual right under human rights law, even if 'the Jews" insist that it isn't.

      Nathan: "– so, no, they do not accept a symbolic number of returnees."

      WRONG. 1.) It's up to the returnees to decide whether they want to return or get compensated.
      2.) The Paleinians did accept a symbolic numbers of returnees.

      Palestine Papers:
      "... Israelis and Palestinians eventually agreed that Israel would accept 10,000 refugees"

      Nathan: "They do not accept the right of a Jewish state to exist."

      This "Jewish" state does not accept a Nonjewish right to return to exist. It does not accept these Nonjews right to citizenship within the state. What kind of state is this that has to keep five millions Nonjews expelled to maintain a regime dominated by Jews? According to the international definition of the Crime of Apartheid Israel has been an Apartheid state from the get go:

      "... the term 'the crime of apartheid', ... shall apply to the following inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:
      Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including ... the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, ..."

      Why should anyone accept the State of Israel as a "Jewish" state? The term "Jewish" doesn't even refer to a state nation/constitutive people.

      Nathan: "They claim all of Jerusalem, so they will not accept that West Jerusalem be the capital city of Israel."

      WRONG. Jerusalem to them doesn't mean Westjerusalem which is your Apartheid Junta's settler expansion of "Al-Quds". Jerusalem to them means the old, historic Jerusalem.

      Palestine Papers (Wikipedia):
      "According to one of the documents, the Palestinian Authority was prepared to concede most Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, as well as the Armenian Quarter, with the exception of Har Homa. The Temple Mount would be temporarily administrated by a joint body consisting of the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States until a permanent solution was reached.[23]

      At the meeting in Jerusalem in November 2007, Tzipi Livni became visibly angry when asked about the demographic composition of the future Israeli state. She was quoted as saying "Israel the state of the Jewish people—and I would like to emphasize the meaning of "its people" is the Jewish people—with Jerusalem the united and undivided capital of Israel and of the Jewish people for 3,007 years". The Palestinians team then protested her position on Jerusalem. She responded by saying "Now I have to say, before we continue, in order to continue we have to put out Jerusalem from your statement and from our place. We have enough differences, without putting another one out there". Making the discussion of the borders of Jerusalem a non-starter on the subject of borders."

      So who is really claiming ALL of Jerusalem, Nathan?

    • Jon66: "She is a civilian who may be prosecuted."

      Sure, but read also:
      "The civilian who is not a member of a group authorized to participate in combat activities and who fired at and wounded a soldier can be tried and sentenced for that act, either by a civilian court or, if there is none, by a military court."

      There are Palestinian local courts in the Westbank. So it's a violation of the Geneva Conventions to:
      1.) try her at a military court of the Jewish Apartheid Junta.
      2.) deport her out of the Westbank

      Another violation from the Junta's military court:
      "• the accused must be informed in writing, in a language they understand, of the charges preferred against them;"

      Soon to follow violations of the Apartheid Junta:
      "• the penalty must be proportionate to the offence;
      • the period spent awaiting trial must be deducted from any sentence;"

      And most importantly from the same document regarding the Apartheid Junta's settler colonialism:
      "The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
      "Iraq encouraged its citizens to move to Kuwait and settle there. Although this did not occur on a large scale, it violated the Conventions, one of whose provisions states that the occupying power shall not transfer its civilian population into occupied territory"

    • "First of all, at 16, she’s drop dead gorgeous, exhibiting a confounding likeness to an idealized portrait of an Israeli “Sabra”, those post -1947 first generation Israelis .."

      ROFL. I was thinking exactly the same. Compare her to the rest:$p$a$q$w=e3c1d56

    • Jack Green: "Every time Israel offers to end the occupation, the Palestinians say “No!”"

      Zionist spam-bot-routine #101

      Israel has NEVER offered to end the occupation. All of its offers are only a modification of the occupation. And Israel is not interested in ending the occupation, because it wants control over all of Palestine and Palestinian bantustan autonomy at most.

      Israel can't offer anything to the Palestinians which isn't allready their right under international and human rights. All that Israel demands from Palestinians is to give up their rights or to eternally accept Israel's violations of these rights.

    • If you think that it isn't racist than please justify the creation of your beloved Apartheid Junta without using the word "Jews" or "Jewish".

    • Jack Green: "Of course she should have been arrested. She hit someone."

      Of course Jack Green doesn't ask for the arrestment of the occupation soldier that shot her relative in the head. Robert Freisler would be proud of you.

    • The soldiers were allready there before anyone was firing rockets. Rockets are a reaction to occupation, blockade and the illegal annexation and colonialization of occupied territory.

    • Jack Green: "The Palestinian Authority is taking foreign aid & paying people to murder Jews. The more Jews they murder, the more money they get. This is racism. This is genocide.

      Shame on the Palestinian Authority!"

      Jack Green trying to claim that Jews are murdered, because they are Jews. Another pathetic attempt to ommit what they have been doing to Nonjews since 1948 which is solely based on racism and includes expulsion and genocide.

      Of course being a racist himself he doesn't feel ashamed at all.

    • Keeping voters denationalized and expelled is certainly NOT a sign of a real democracy. The index is misleading.

    • Jack Green: "Violence is wrong except in self-defense."

      Resisting an occupation is self-defense. Occupation is an act of aggression.

      Jack Green: "Please provide quotes from the Geneva Convention & the UN charter saying that the girl had the right to murder the soldier."

      See what Zionist settler colonialism does to your brain? It makes you question the right to resist against occupation and alien domination by any means, including armed struggle, if its victims are not Jewish.

      Meanwhile, the civilized, anti racist and anti colonial part of humanity:

    • Jack Green: "Israelis are the 11th happiest people on earth.
      There are ZERO Jewish refugees thanks to Israel."

      There are about FIVE million Nonjewish refugees thanks to your beloved Apartheid Junta.
      But that doesn't make its racist society unhappy.

    • "Miri Regev told media this week that there is no occupation."

      Yes, she forgot to add that is a cumpulsive liar. Even her Supreme Apartheid Court rules on the legal framework that the Westbank is under belligerent occupation. And the army operates under the same assumptions as she should know.

      It just shows how Zionism corrupts anyone.

    • hophmi: "The Tamimis are very good at working the cameras, and they know that Israeli soldiers are unlikely to shoot back at a child making a big show."

      That's the only reason why her mother films her. In hope that this may protect her from your sadist terrorist thugs and child abusers who like to handle matters "in the dark".

  • Writing about what should be done to girls in the dark is incitement to sexual assault -- Shany Littman to Ben Caspit
    • What Annie says.

    • Jon s: "Rape is a war crime and should never be condoned and should always be prosecuted. But how do these stats compare to other modern armies? Is this higher than the US occupation or Germany?"

      Jon s is not into condoning rape. He is into racist relativization. He desperately hopes that other occupiers have raped more females.

    • In the US if a tresspasser represents a threat to life and there is no other plausible way of protecting yourself or other innocent individuals then you may even shoot him, no?

  • How Ahed Tamimi was slapped first, and why no one is talking about it
    • CigarGod: "My conclusions:
      1. A soldier ..."

      ... is a belligerent occupant over the (at least green) line who deseves to be more than slapped. If my relative was shot just hours ago by those racist bastards I would have at least taken a knive with me.

    • It's even more ridiculous, because the Arab states accepted a US brokered truce at the end of April 1948, while the Jewish Agency rejected it and an US proposed UN trusteeship for Palestine:

      “..., U.S. officials there faced the Jewish Agency’s rejection of a truce as well as a trusteeship arrangement to replace what the State Department and the White House conceded to be the failure of the partition plan. In evaluating the situation, Robert McClintock, a special assistant to Dean Rusk, then director of the Office of UN Affairs, deliberated over the implications of these developments. It may well be, he speculated, that Washington would soon be confronted with a situation created by Jewish military forces, including the Haganah, the Stern Gang and Irgun, in which it would have to determine whether a “Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council.”15 Washington would face what McClintock called an “anomalous situation,” in which “the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership.””

  • New Israeli train line with station named after Trump was built on stolen Palestinian land
    • miriam6: "And – most of America was built on land stolen from native ppl."

      Yep. But that was in times when the colonialization of land and dispossessing its native people was not considered to be a crime. That was also the time when genocide was not considered to be a crime against humanity.

      So what is your real position? That settler colonialism and dispossesion of the native population (and even genocide) are ok in the post Nazi era if commited by Jews?

      Are Zionists this racist and backwarded? (Amongst) the lowest of modern civilization?

      I see a pattern. Jon S condones raping but asks if other occupiers raped more. miriam6 doesn't speak out against settler colonialism and dispossesion, but looks for others who commited more of the same. This is the usual relativization of Zionism and its crimes.

    • Given the fact that the Zionist Apartheid Junta's state terroritory and beyond was only acquired through war and expulsion: 0%.

      Different picture when it comes to Jewish PRIVATE property. That was up to 6% including about 3% purchased by the Jewish National Fund.

  • Israeli court sentences 68-year-old Bedouin citizen to 10 months in prison – for trespassing his own land
    • DaBakr: "Hezbollah with advance missiles, anti aircraft and other weapons that most likely can reach anywhere within Israel including Judea and Samaria and Gaza."

      What is "Judea and Samaria"? Israel's "Bohemia and Moravia" in the post Nazi era?

  • Zionism didn't have to turn out so badly for Palestinians, says Roger Cohen
    • Mikhael: "... and in the case of Armenia today there is some evidence of this towards Azeris, most of whom fled Armenia after Armenian independence in the early 1990s) the definition of Armenia as an Armenian state for Armenians doesn’t in and of itself make it a “supremacist” state or an Apartheid state; neither does the definition of Israel as a Jewish state render it a supremacist state or an Apartheid state."

      Oh, Armenia would be an Apartheid state if it needed to keep anyone expelled to maintain an certain Armenian majority based on "national identity"/ethnicity or religion. But just have a look at its nationality law and how it treats those who fled or were expelled:

      "The following persons are recognised as the citizens of the Republic of Armenia:
      1) Citizens of the former Arm. SSR permanently residing on the territory of the Republic of Armenia, who until the enactment of the Constitution has not acquired the citizenship of the another State or has rejected that citizenship within one year from the day of the enactment of this Law;"
      2) Stateless persons or former citizens of other USSR republics who are not foreign citizens permanently residing in the RA and before 31 December 2003 have applied for the acquisition of the RA citizenship (amended on 20 March 2002);
      3) The former citizens of the Armenian SSR, who live out side the Republic of Armenia and have not acquire the citizenship of another country (amended on 12 April 2001)."

      Just replace "Arm. SSR" with (mandated) Palestine and "Republic of Armenia" or "RA" with "Israel" to see how Israel perverted the concept of a nationality law to exclude those it expelled and strip them of their right to return and citizenship.

      And wait, it becomes even more Non-Apartheid than the Jewish Apartheid Junta and its racist "Entry law":
      "A person with no citizenship of the Republic of Armenia can be accepted into the citizenship of the Republic of Armenia without the condition of the term of residence, if he/she:
      1) marries a citizen of the Republic of Armenia or has a child, father or mother who are citizens of the Republic of Armenia; ..."

      And oh, wait for more. Armenia has even explicitely enshrined the right to equality in the same document and contrary to the Jewish Apartheid Junta :
      "The citizens of the Republic of Armenia are equal before the Law, irrespective of the basis of the acquisition of the citizenship, nationality, race, sex, language, religion, political and other opinions, social origin, estate or other position, have all rights, freedom and obligations qualified by the Constitution and laws."

      Now find the same in any documents of your beloved Apartheid Junta. I won't wait for obvious reasons.

    • Adding to my response to Mikhael (January 11, 2018, 5:43 pm)

      Mikhael: "It’s a national identity, ..."

      Call Jews whatever you like. But Jews are NOT a civic nation. Their identity is NOT a political identity built around shared citizenship in a democratic state. You are just supporting a racist concept of "nationality within citizenship" while claiming that only one of its nationalities is THE nationality of the state. The Jewish Apartheid Junta is a self declared ethnocracy based on ethnic and not on civic nationalism. Now compare this to Germany before 1945.

    • Mikhael: " I have the feeling he’s got far less than 40 years. In any case, he’ll most likely be dead soon."

      I have the feeling that you will fail to become a human being in this life. And let's sincerely hope for you that there's no such thing as reincarnation.

    • Mikhael: "Ummm, no. Not at all like “Christian”. When we speak of a “Christian” we can only mean someone who believes in or follows one of the various varieties of the Jesus-cult."

      Who are you to define that Christians are not a people, if Jews are? That's just the difference between a patrilineal and a matrilineal 'descent systems'. And Jews just follow their cult.

      Mikhael: "When we speak of a Jew, we mean someone who traces his/her descent to Eres Yisra’el of antiquity and who has a distinct national heritage, kinship with other Jews and a national language (Hebrew)."

      Yep. Without any offical prove that she or he actually is. LOL.

      Mikhael: "“Jewish” is the national identity of the State of Israel. Israel is a Jewish nation-state. The state recognizes the distinct national identities of citizens ..."

      Exactöy Jewish is not a citizenship. It's only a 'nationality WITHIN citizenship'. Nobody can become Jewish by acquiring citizenship in Israel. So Jews are not a state nation as much as you need to twist these concepts and distract from this fact. A Jewish national identity of a state in which "Jewish" is not a citizenship is as racist as an Aryan national identity of a state in which "Aryan" is not a citizenship. No wonder why Israel and Nazi Germany differentiate(d) between nationals and citizens to privilige the former.

      Mikhael: "That’s why there are non-Jewish Israeli citizens who have every right that Jewish Israeli citizens have who are officially classified in the Population Registry as having Arab nationality."

      Again, that's Israel perverse trick. While Jews and Nonjews have the same rights (at least on paper) AS CITIZENS, Jews enjoy more rights AS NATIONALS. What Israel calls "citizens" is NOT what other contries call citizens.

      Mikhael: "Sure. But it’s relatively rare."

      So being Jewish is a religious concept.

      Mikhael: "There was never an independent, sovereign state known as Palestine. "

      That's what I said. It was a dependent state under mandate. And it was a failed and occupied state under Jordan's protectorate and it is an occupied state under Israel today. No wonder it wasn't independet and souvereign.

      Mikhael: "Now, I happen to be a proponent of the establishment of the first-ever Palestinian Arab state in history, but there are going to be many border adjustments. There’s just no way that Israel is going to accept the Armistice Lines that existed between Jordan and Israel in 1949 as the future border between an as-yet non-existent “State of Palestine” and Israel."

      First of all. The State of Palestine was recognized within the UN in 2012 and is a non-member observer state with access to the International Criminal Court. Secondly, of course there is no way that the Jewish Apartheid Junta is going to abide to international law, withdraw to the borders in which it declared statehood and give up territory it illegaly annexed. You don't have to remind us that the only way it acquired territory is through war and expulsion.

      Mikhael: "I wrote (it’s right up there, but I’m repeating again, with bold for emphasis):
      “Excluding very recent converts to the Jewish religion, who are very few, nearly every Jew alive today traces his or her ancestral lineage to people who once lived in the ancient Jewish polities that formerly existed in the Land of Israel. Now, since I clearly wrote excluding very recent converts” and nearly every Jew I don’t understand how you can possibly think that I stated “Every Jew can prove that she or he is a descendant”. “Nearly” does not mean “every”."

      O sorry, that changes EVERYTHING, well NEARLY everything. So Judaism doesn't have a history of prolelytism, but only knows "very few" and "very recent" converts. And any other Jew can prove that she or he is a descendant. Is this a more precise description of your delusion?

      Mikhael: "Who said otherwise? And who cares?"

      Yes, yes. That's what I'm thinking about Jewish traces, too. Who cares? That doesn't give them any rights, does it? The question is: Who was a legitimite citizen of Palestine in 1948 and especially not a Jewish refugee or a Jew who illegaly immigrated after the White Book policy in 1938. Only legitimate citizens had the right to determine Palestine's future and by majority ruling, right?

      Mikhael: "The Arabic-speaking non-Jews who have developed a Palestinian national identity in recent decades have the right to national self-determination and to create a Palestinian Arab state in the part of the country where they constitute a majority. "

      First of all a Palestinian national "identy" doesn't exist. Since 1925 the Palestinians are a constitutive people - a nation in the relevant sense of the word and not some irrelevant racist "national identity" nonsense which differentiates between Jews and Nonjews. Secondly. It's rich from you to say that they could create this state after Zionist commited an ethic cleansing and became a majority through expulsion. Thirdly. Nonjews are today a majority in historic Palestine even without those the Jewish Apartheid Junta keeps expelled. So be the honest racist that you are and claim that real majorities don't count if Jews are a minority.

      Mikhael: "They don’t have the right ..."

      Well it may be different in the Kahane continuum, but in this universe not only Jewish refugees have an inaliable right to return. And not only Jews don't have a right to expell others and keep them expelled only to achieve and maintain a racist national character. Ask the Germans, if you have doubts.

      Mikhael: "The Arabs who fled the territory that would become part of the State of Israel during Israel’s independence war were not “denationalized” — they never had Israeli citizenship to begin with."

      First of all. Only 5% fled. And 100% of the refugees were expelled, because the Jewish Apartheid Junta prevented them to return. Secondly there was no "independence" war. Israel didn't became "independent" from a colonial power. Israel was not the result of an anticolonial struggle. Israel is the result of settler colonialism. Thirdly. Allthough according to customary international law (as reflected in the partition plan) they should have become Israelis, the Jewish Apartheid Junta created a perversion of a nationality law and only considered those to be citizens which it didn't kept expelled. That's institutionalized racism based on a crime against humanity. Compare Israel's racist nationality law to Palestine's from 1925 regarding the correct transfer of nationality by a successor state:

      "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August 1924 shall become Palestine citizens."

      Mikhael: " The ones who stayed ..."

      That is the ones who either weren't expelled or managed to return despite the Apartheid Junta's trying to murder them at its "borders".

      Mikhael: "Non-Jewish citizens of Israel are guaranteed the same rights to Human Dignity and Liberty that are enumerated in Israel’s Basic Law as Jewish citizens of Israel. Nowhere in Israel’s Basic Law is it stated that these rights are reserved “only for Jewish citizens of the state”. You’ve failed again"

      ROFL. Let me use your own words: You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Let’s review again. I wrote (it’s right up there, but I’m repeating again):
      "Yep, except those Nonjews it keeps expelled and denationalized to fake being a “liberal democracy” and the fact that equal rights are not “guaranteed” at all. To the contrary. This right was explicitely removed from one of Israel’s “Basic Law’s”. "

      And again using your words: "Because you are a dullard and have poor reading comprehension, I feel it necessary to stress" again that there is no such thing as a guaranteed equal right in any Basic Law of this Apartheid Junta. It was explicitely removed from the Basic Law "Human Dignity and Liberty" and you did not only fail to understand what I wrote, but will also fail to prove me wrong. Just quote from any Basic Law anything that comes close to an acknoledgment that all Israelis have equal rights. Secondly, there is not any fundamental right in Israel that is guaranteed and explicitely enshrined. Israel can - and according to its own Basic Law - declare any law "constitutional" even if it violates a fundamental "righ". Just read the relevant clause in it's Basic Law "Human Dignity and Liberty":

      "8. There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required. "

      There was a case regarding Israel's entry law in which even a majority of Judges ruled that it was violating fundamental rights, but since one of the majority Judges also ruled that it would be more practical to have a racist law than no law tat all he law was kept alive and later insignificantly modified.
      This Basic Law can even be voted off by a simple majority and is not constitutionally "enshrined" at all.

      Mikhael: "Wrong again. It’s not only Jews that are “nationals” of Israel. There are several different recognized “nationalities” in Israel that have citizenship. "

      Are you deliberately confusing two different concepts? These several "nationalities" (which is a racist concept in itself) don't have anything to do with the fact that only Jews are considered to be THE nation of Israel. Only they are considered to be "nationals" . An Israeli nation doesn't exist according to the Supreme Apartheid Court. Again the fundamental egaliterian concept of citizenship=nationality is totally perverted in this racist colonial entity.

      You said it yourself: "Israel is a Jewish nation-state".

      Mikhael: "You cannot name one single right that I, as a Jewish citizen of Israel, have under Israeli law that a non-Jewish citizen of Israel does not have and cannot have under Israeli law because he or she is a non-Jew. Name just one."

      Oh, it begins before a Jew has even become a citizen of Israel ("Law of Return"). Nonjews who actually had lived in the area of Palestine that was conquered by the Apartheid Junta have nor right to return. Continue with the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law and the rights of Nonjewish Israelis to family. Btw. do Nonjewish Israelis have a right to move to one of Israel's illegal settlements in the Westbank? Or do they have a right to create a settlement in Israel?

      Mikhael: "Newsflash. There are almost 2 million non-Jewish citizens of Israel who live, work, and love in Israel, who serve not only in Knesset, but in the Supreme Court, in Cabinet Ministries, in the diplomatic corps, and as brigadier generals in the IDF. None of this would be possible under an Apartheid system. But you’re an idiot and your mind is made up. Facts confuse you."

      Brainflash. Who is the real idiot again? I didn't talk about the Nonjewish citizens of Israel, but about the Nonjews whose expulsion and denationalization you need to deny and ignore. The Apartheid Junta can only maintain a regime dominated by Jews by keeping those Nonjews expelled. That amounts to the Crime of Apartheid. as defined in international law. Just look it up even if you are not allowed to.

    • Mikhael: "“Jewish” is primarily an ethnic-based, national identity that can exist independently of “religion”."

      ROFL. Like "Christian", right? Another primarily an ethnic-based, national identity that can exist independently of “religion”.

      But you are right about one thing. "Jewish" is not a nation state identity, not a citizenship. That's at the core of Israel's Apartheid.

      MikhaeL: “Excommunication” is a religious concept."

      So is conversion. Can someone convert to Judaism and can become am member ot this "primarily an ethnic-based, national identity that can exist independently of “religion”."?

      Mikhael: "The last time that a geopolitical entity known as “Palestine” existed was on May 15, 1948."

      Oh no. It never stopped existing despite the Zionist effort to destroy this "geopolitical entity" which was nothing else than a (dependant) state under mandate. It was redeclared in 1988 within 1967 lines.

      Mikhael: "Excluding very recent converts to the Jewish religion, who are very few, nearly every Jew alive today traces his or her ancestral lineage to people who once lived in the ancient Jewish polities that formerly existed in the Land of Israel. "

      ROFL. Of course. Every Jew can prove that she or he is a descendant and that any Nonjew - especially Palestian Nonjews - isn't, right?

      Mikhael: "na very real sense ,the Land of Israel is the national and ancestral homeland ..."

      Yep. The keyword is "ancestral". So what rights to Palestinians Nonjews have to return to their proven homenland in this loony Zionist narrative?

      Mikhael: "The modern State of Israel has never existed as religion-supremacist “Jewish State” but since 1948 it has been a Jewish parliamentary liberal democracy with guaranteed equal rights to all citizens whether they are of Jewish national origins or not. "

      Yep, except those Nonjews it keeps expelled and denationalized to fake being a "liberal democracy" and the fact that equal rights are not "guaranteed" at all. To the contrary. This right was explicitely removed from one of Israel's "Basic Law's". And don't forget that all citizens of Israel are equal. But Israel's "nationals" (aka Jews) are more equal then equal and have more rights. In fact only Jews have the rights that every citizen would have in a true liberal democracy. Israel has even perverted the term "citizen". Guess which Germany regime also differentiated between nationals and citizens to privilige the former.

      Mikhael: "But considering that modern Israel as a religion-supremacist state has never existed, ..."

      Well, that's Eljay's focus on "religion-supremacist". I disagree with this focus. To me Israel is simply an Apartheid state, because it has to keep Nonjews expelled to maintain a regime that is dominated by Jews. That amounts to the Crime of Apartheid as defined in international law.

    • Mikhael: "I think he might have meant that there was the Zionist aspiration to create a Jewish nation-state in Eres Yisra’el, or at least a very small part of it, coexisting next to an additional Palestinian Arab nation-state (the second) per the Jewish Agency’s acceptance of Resolution 181 ..."

      What? The Jewish Agency accepted Resolution 181? When? Ben Guriojn's proposal to the UN was to put all of Palestine under Jewish control and delay its independence until a Jewish majority was achieved. And he also said that if the UN would approve his plan he would have the right to implement it through force against the Nonjews.

      Mikhael "... and the Arab nationalist aspiration to have an exclusively Arab state (not a “Palestinian” state at that time though) in all of the former British Mandate of Palestine west of the Jordan River (excluding the parts of Mandate Palestine that became Transjordan) and ethnically cleanse the country of all of its Jewish inhabitants.

      Well, that's a lie. The party that represented the majority citizens of Paletine propsed a unitariy democratic state inluding minority rights and just asked for tPalestine to be released into independence as any other Class-A-state under mandate.

      "We can’t forget that all the Jews who lived in the areas of the former British Mandate that fell to Arab forces between 1948-1949 were expelled by the Arab Legion, including those whose families had lived there continuously for many centuries (mostly in Jerusalem’s Old City, including my father’s aunt and cousins), ..."

      How many? 10,000? After the Jewish Agency ignored its collaboration with Jordan and started to conquer Jerusalem?

      Mikhael: :".. whereas tens of thousands of Arabs went on “to simply live” in the areas of the erstwhile British Mandate of Palestine ..."

      We can’t forget that all the 750,000 Nonjews who lived in the areas of the former British Mandate that fell to Jewish forces between 1948-1949 were expelled and denationalized by them, including those whose families had lived there continuously for many centuries. We can't also forget another 300,000 Nonjews who lived in the Westbank that fell to Jewish forces in 1967 and were expelled by them, including those whose families had lived there continuously for many centuries and including those who were expelled from the areas of the former British Mandate that fell to Jewish forces between 1948-1949, including those whose families had lived there continuously for many centuries. And we can't forget another quarter of a million Nonjews who lived lived in the areas of the former British Mandate that fell to Jewish forces since 1948 and whose residential status was revoked, including those whose families had lived there continuously for many centuries. And who konws how many Nonjews the Jewish Apartheid Junta has expelled since then.

      Mikhael: "... that came to be part of the State of Israel after the signing of the Armistice Agreement as Israeli citizens."

      There's no such thing as a part of mandated Palestine that became part of Israel after signing of any treatment. Every single inch of Israel was conquered through war and terrorism, allthough the acquisition of territory through war is inadmissible after the Nuremberg Trials. It would be invalid of any third country to transfer territory of Palestine to Israel.

    • Donald: "Thanks for mentioning the Gideon Levy piece. Here is a link.

      I don’t subscribe to Haaretz, but for some reason I was able to read it."

      See the difference in the url? ;)

    • Yonah: "I’ve been following the Israel versus Palestine story since 67 and in a daily way since 73, so you experts who speak neither of the languages and have never lived there for more than 2 months at a time, I’m supposed to prefer your analysis, you who’ve been following the story only since 2001?"

      There seems to be a positive correlation between your level of expertise and your lack of arguments and relevant sources.

    • Palestinians are insecure in the whole of Palestine and therefore Palestinian sovereignty is a just and necessary answer.

    • Eljay: "I think the classy Zionist phrase Mr. Cohen is searching for here is “necessary evil”.

      Or "military necessity".

    • Yonah: "From the moment of the UN partition plan to the nakba, I have read nothing to indicate that anything could have been done to avoid the head to head clash that led to the nakba."

      Really? From 1947 in the UN? How about 1922 in Great Britain?

      LORD ISLINGTON: "The first point I desire to make in relation to my Motion is that those provisions embodied in the Palestine Mandate are in direct conflict with the fundamental principles of the mandatory system. In order to make good that point I must ask your Lordships to listen to me while I read two governing Articles in the Covenant of the League of Nations which represent what I call the fundamental principles of the mandatory system. They are in Article 22, which states that— "To those colonies and territories which, as a consequence of the late war, have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them … there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation

      Paragraph 4 of Article 22 goes on to say— "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations earl be provisionally recognised, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory." The establishment of a Zionist Home under the Palestine Mandate, as applied to the Articles that I have explained, is directly inconsistent with the undertakings embodied in those two Articles. ...

      [...] the moment it was decided to convert the Palestine Mandate, and to introduce into it the principle of the Zionist Home, the whole of that great ideal of leading the people on in their own way and by their own means to a system of self-government in their own country was at once and for ever abandoned. The Zionist Home must, and does, mean the predominance of political power on the part of the Jewish community in a country where the population is preponderantly non-Jewish. And that is what the Palestine Mandate, if it is ratified at Geneva, sets forth permanently to establish. If ratified, it imposes on this country the responsibility of trusteeship for a Zionist political predominance where 90 per cent. of the population are non-Zionist and non-Jewish. ...

      In fact, very many orthodox Jews, not only in Palestine but all over the world, view with the deepest misapprehension, not to say dislike, this principle of a Zionist Home in Palestine. The scheme of a Zionist Home must, and does, entail direct Jewish bias as against the people of the country, who are mainly Arabs and Mahomedans. And it not merely introduces this influence by utilising the Jewish forces within the territory of Palestine, but it brings about this influence by importing into the country extraneous and alien Jews from other parts of the world, in order to make that predominance effective. ...

      [...] one does hear from many sources that this Zionist Commission, this advisory body to the [British] Administration, is the real power behind the throne, and really very largely controls the whole political machinery of Palestine. If that be the case, and I think it will be difficult to disprove it, I venture to say that Zionism, as it is now in practice in Palestine, is really the antithesis of the true principles embodied in the mandatory system.

      On more than one occasion [Churchill, the Secretary of State for the Colonies] has been asked by Arab Delegations and Palestinian organisations to remove the Zionist bias and to substitute in its place a national system. His reply has been [...] "The difficulty about the promises of a National Home for Jews in Palestine was that it conflicted with our regular policy of consulting the wishes of the people in mandated territories and giving them a representative institution as soon as the people were fitted for it." Then he went on to say: "The only cause for unrest in Palestine arose from the Zionist Government [in Palestine] and our promises in regard to it .[...]"

      It seems to me that the Palestine Mandate as it stands to-day is a real distortion of the mandatory system—where a small portion of the population is to be given preferential treatment and where British authority is to enforce that system. ...

      Now I wish to give your Lordships one or two instances of how this Zionist influence is brought to bear upon the social and economic life of the country. One of the Articles in the Palestine Mandate deals definitely with immigration. I am given to understand, by an official document, I think, that since the occupation 25,000 Jews have been introduced into Palestine, that one-fourth of that number have found their way on to the land and have been absorbed in the agricultural districts and that three-fourths are littered about in the towns. That large invasion into this small country, depressed as it has been, like every other country, as the aftermath of the war, has caused very considerable embarrassment, and the result of their introduction has been that in order to find them subsistence the Administration has had to create artificial employment in Palestine at a high rate of wages; and of course the wages and all the expenses attached to the project have come out of the pockets of the taxpayers, who are, let me remind your Lordships again, non-Jewish to the extent of 90 per cent., and have no voice whatever in the control of that immigration.

      ow, Palestinian organisations have put forward what would appear to be a quite reasonable demand for a share of the control of the immigration of the people that are to come into their own country. That has been refused. I believe that a special Consultative Committee has been formed of members of the Legislative Council, but so long as the Palestine Zionist Executive—the Jewish organisation which is the real influence in the Administration—is in existence, so long is any committee that is formed neutralised in its influence and effect; because so long as the principle of a Zionist Home is prosecuted in Palestine as long must the Administration turn down any proposals from any other bodies which are likely to clash with that principle.

      The Palestinians have asked for an early recognition of self-government in their country and they have been told that it must be very gradual, although, as your Lordships are aware, in Iraq where you have just the same kind of people, self-government has been established, and although you have self-government established in Egypt, where it will be found that many of the officials are similar to those who in Palestine would be forming part of the Administration in Palestine. Why is this delay? One can draw only one conclusion, and that is that before self-government is given to Palestine time must be allowed for that amount of immigration of the Jewish community to take place which will enable the system of self-government to be based upon a Jewish Constitution. When one sees in Article 22, which I read just now, that the well-being and development of such peoples should form a sacred trust of civilisation, and when one takes that as the note of the mandatory system, I think your Lordships will see that we are straying down a very far path when we are postponing self-government in Palestine until such time as the population is flooded with an alien race.

      The Jewish people in Palestine have lived in the past in harmony with the Arab community. They have enjoyed in largo measure the same privileges as their Ottoman fellow subjects and, I venture to say also as a fact, they never agitated for Zionism. I do not think—I speak subject to correction—that there has ever been a demand from the Jewish Community in Palestine for the introduction of a Zionist Home in that country. The whole agitation has conic from outside, from Jews in other parts of the world. I go further, and say—I think I have said it before; if so, I repeat—that a very large number of the Jewish community in Palestine to-day look with considerable aversion not only upon the Zionist Home but upon the Jews who are being introduced into the country from Eastern Europe. ...

      I again say that one is driven to believe in the truth of the allegation made by many impartial witnesses who have recently visited the country, that the Zionist Commission, or as it is now called the Zionist Palestine Executive, has gone a long way towards usurping the position of Government in Palestine. ...

      It is impossible, I think, for any one to contend that this partial, and I might almost call it unnatural, condition of affairs is going to be developed in Zionism without meeting bitter hostility from the Arab community. I say with all possible deliberation, regarding all the facts that have been brought before me, that unless this policy is checked, and unless it, is very materially modified, it will lead to very serious consequences. It is literally inviting subsequent catastrophe. The modification of this policy will be no injustice to the Jews in Palestine, because they have never asked for it, while the continuance of it will be a growing injustice to the Arab community who will bitterly resent it.

      The people of Palestine ask, and I think most reasonably, for a national form of Government representative of the people in their own country. They will welcome every kind of British assistance to enable them to make effective that form of government, and under such a Constitution both the Jewish community and the Arab community can live in perfect harmony. ...

      This scheme of importing an alien race into the midst of a native local race is flying in the very face of the whole of the tendencies of the age. It is an unnatural, partial and altruistic experiment, and that kind of experiment is a very grave mistake to-day, wherever it is tried, and particularly in the East and among Eastern peoples.

      Finally, it is not the proper function of His Majesty's Government to spend the money of the British taxpayer for purposes of this kind."

      Just read the whole article.

  • Gandhi said a woman who slaps an attacker is not committing violence
  • Israeli lawmaker calls Palestinians visiting relatives in Israeli prison 'beasts' and 'human scum'
    • jon66: "I don’t."

      So you think that it is reasonable from the Jewish Apartheid Junta to expect everyone to respect the Geneva Conventions, except themselves?

      jon66: "Israel has allowed the ICRC to coordinate visits between Palestinian prisoners and families for decades."

      There should be no need for the ICRC to coordinate anything. Israel is violating the IV. Geneva Conventions:
      "ARTICLE 116

      Every internee shall be allowed to receive visitors, especially near relatives, at regular intervals and as frequently as possible."

      Again: “Israel’s ruthless policy of holding Palestinian prisoners arrested in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in prisons inside Israel is a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is unlawful and cruel and the consequences for the imprisoned person and their loved ones, who are often deprived from seeing them for months, and at times for years on end, can be devastating,” said Magdalena Mughrabi, Deputy Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International.

      “Instead of unlawfully transferring prisoners outside the occupied territories, Israel must ensure all Palestinians arrested there are held in prisons and detention centres in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

      Until then, the Israeli authorities must stop imposing excessive restrictions on visitation rights as a means of punishing prisoners and their families, and ensure that conditions fully meet international standards.”

      jon66: "There are now civilian Israelis apparently being held by Hamas who have no visitation rights or family communication. Hamas is also holding the body of two Israelis and two live civilians. As I have said before, I think the practice by both Israel and Hamas to hold bodies is despicable."

      These are relative minor crimes compared to the overall crime of Jewish settler colonialism and what Jews have been doing to Nonjews since the late 30s. The word "descpicable" is not enough.

      jon66: “The enemy will not get information about the four without paying a clear price before and after the negotiations,” he added.”

      Child, Who Was Assaulted And Abducted By 23 Israeli Soldiers, Released
      The Israeli Authorities released, on Wednesday at dawn, a Palestinian child, who was abducted and assaulted by 23 Israeli soldiers, earlier this month, and was instantly moved to a hospital for treatment.

      ... his release came after his family paid 10.000 Israeli Shekels fine to the Israeli Authorities."

      The status of POW only applies in international armed conflict. Israel claims that there is not INTERNATIONAL conflict between them and the Palestinians and it is not willing to ratify the second additional protocol which deals with non international conflicts.

    • Jon66: “Do you have a reference for this category? I can’t seem to find it defined as a category?

      Yes, I refer to Zionist settler colonialism and its institutionalized terrorists who created an Apartheid Junta in Palestine. Do you need to deny this reality?

      Jon66: "I’m not trying to be annoying, .but if I assume that Talk means that Shalit is not a POW that is different than if he does."

      According to humanitarian law Shalit was a POW and should have been treated under the Geneva Conventions. But the Jewish Apartheid Junta holds that the Geneva Conventions are not applicable and has not even ratified the second amended protocol relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts.

      In bad faith the Junta distorts the Geneva Conventions which states:
      "[1] ... the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

      [2] The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."

      The Junta ignores the first pargraph (a war between the two High Contracting Parties Israel and Jordan arose) to claim that according to [2] it is not applicable, because Palestine is (it wasn't back then) not a high contracting party.

      It was schooled by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion in 2004 that treaties should be interpreted in good faith and was refered to the first paragraph.

      Don't you think that it is quite silly to expect an Israeli soldier to be treated according to a convention which the Junta does not even accept to be applicable and which it violates on a daily basis especially when it comes to the abduction and treatment of imprisoned Palestinians, illegal settlements, an illegal blockade and the illegal collective punishment that comes with it?

    • Jon66: "Talkback,

      Do have an opinion as to the status of IDF soldiers adjacent to the Gaza border?"

      Institutionalized settler terrorists.

    • Isn't if cute if Zionists talk about international law in general and the Geneva Conventions in particular? Aren't you cute, Jon s, aren't you? Soon, you will be a grown-up condemning Zionism.

    • jon s: The bus was part of an ICRC program for families to visit prisoners. Israel allows these visits."

      It allows them only if these visits are part of an ICRC program?

      "Israel’s ruthless policy of holding Palestinian prisoners arrested in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in prisons inside Israel is a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is unlawful and cruel and the consequences for the imprisoned person and their loved ones, who are often deprived from seeing them for months, and at times for years on end, can be devastating,” said Magdalena Mughrabi, Deputy Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International.

      “Instead of unlawfully transferring prisoners outside the occupied territories, Israel must ensure all Palestinians arrested there are held in prisons and detention centres in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Until then, the Israeli authorities must stop imposing excessive restrictions on visitation rights as a means of punishing prisoners and their families, and ensure that conditions fully meet international standards.”

    • Well, Jon66. I am glad that we agree that the Jewish Apartheid Junta in Palestine had been a terrorist seperatist organisation since the late 1930s. And that Hamas is only a national liberation organisation which commits war crimes when it attacks densely populated areas without being able to differentiate between civilians and combattants as much as your beloved terror organisation does. But that's only the tip of the icebergs of JAJP's systematic and widespread crimes against humanity.

  • Israeli journalist who called for unspeakable acts against Ahed Tamimi tries, and fails, to backpedal
    • Mayhem: "Hate speech."

      Which part? Defending her home? Terrorist wing? Or Zionist Apartheid Junta?

      Everybody should know by now that the establishment of "Israel" was a Jewish terrorist coup d'etat and that Nonjews were expelled and denationalized to achieve and maintain Jewish domination which amounts to full bore Apartheid.

      And I'm not expecting a rational counter argument from a Zionist walnut.

    • Mayhem: "Ahed Tamimi has crossed a line."

      Mayhem, you disgust me. You really do. The terrorist thugs of your Apartheid Junta which keep the Palestinians under more than half a century under brutal occupation have not crossed the line. But she did. For slapping a terrorist thug after another one shot her relative into the face.

      Expect more hatred. You utterly deserve nothing less.

    • Defending her home against the terrorist wing of the Zionist Apartheid Junta.

  • Christmas in Ofer military court
  • Pop star 'Lorde' honors BDS call, cancels Tel Aviv concert
    • Jon s: "I see from her website that Lorde will be performing in Russia. Does that mean that she supports Russian government policy and actions? Why not demand that she cancel there?"

      Jon s with another pathetic attempt to relativize or belittle Israel's crimes against humanity.

    • Say catalan. Do you support that Israel should face the same sanctions as Russia, North Korea, etc.? If not more because of half a century of annexation and illegal annexation of land that never belonged to its declared state territory including illegal settling in occupied territories? Do you support an embargo against Israel or even a military invention? If not, why not?

    • Jon s. "Why not demand that she cancel there?"

      Why should she cancel there? Please elaborate.

    • @ Naftush

      What argument, Naftush? Please elaborate. It's quite rare that a Zionist has an argument. And if she or he is it even more rare that it is rational and not judeocentric racist.

    • Mayhem found an article written by the Executive Director of Christians United For Israel. ROFL.

      It's basically about the Palestinian's unwilligness to subjugate to Zionist illegitimate demands including giving up their rights under international and human rights law.

    • Annie: "just thought i’d mention, because i think “pressure” is zionist framing."

      Of course it is. That's the only kind of influence they know.

    • Yep. Being primarily "liberal" when its good for the Jews. And being primarily Jewish when its not good to be liberal.

    • West failed miserably.

  • In Photos: a subdued Christmas in Gaza following Trump's Jerusalem announcement
  • New Yorkers rally in solidarity with Ahed Tamimi
  • A Christmas letter to Nikki Haley
    • Dabakr: "If you were pro-zionist you would have been called a sexist animal and racial supremacist."

      And if he isn't, he can't be called racial supremacist, right?

  • Israel has transferred Ahed Tamimi to three different detention facilities in the last five days even though she has not yet been charged with a crime

Showing comments 3300 - 3201