| ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-WA
The Hasbara – World’s worst propaganda – There was no occupation before 1967? The following is not an unfounded accusation. It’s not from a propaganda site. They’re the official words of the Provisional Israeli Government of May 1948, as recorded by the UNSC. You decide.
“international regulations” at the time say;
And again on 12 Aug 1948
None of these areas have never been legally annexed to Israel. Occupation can actually be dated from May 22nd 1948. |
 BIG detailed Google Earth overlay Includes the UNGA text. Load the kmz file into Google Earth then use the properties in the left hand column to vary the transparency HELP |
May 10, 2012
October 15, 2010
YouTube removes videos showing Israeli atrocities. Silwan Palestine “territories occupied” – ILLEGAL Israeli settler veers to wrong side of the road and drives into Palestinian children, allegedly to save himself AFTER his car had been stoned.
Logic. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel, it’s what remains of Palestine.
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-Du
The video has been removed from YouTube along with this notification
Search for gratuitous+violence+definition
There are hundreds of copies of the video available across the internet, at least thirty on YouTube.
It is odd that one analyzing the event without prejudice is removed, while those trying to justify a illegal settler, Elad head, David Be’eri , driving on the wrong side of the road, are not removed.
——-
Silwan is in occupied Palestine – An ILLEGAL Israeli settler veers to wrong side of the road and drives into Palestinian children,
allegedly to save himself AFTER his car had been stoned. Would you accept the word of an illegal settler who’s career is intentionally breaking International Law?
The GC’s are there to protect all civilians. The occupied have a right to armed resistance against the occupier’s military. Only an IDIOT would purposefully move his family into “territories occupied” in order to advance the notion of a Greater Israel knowingly breaking International Law.
Youths who have spent their entire lives under occupation, born to parents who have spent their entire lives under occupation, are very likely to pay scant regard for the Laws of War, not that the Laws of War actually cover them throwing rocks at illegal settlers.
It is quite un-believable anyone serving on any Committee on the Rights of the Child would advocate that children be shot. Yet Israeli MK Ben Ari of the Israeli Committee on the Rights of the Child said “Even a child, if he is endangering someone’s life, should be shot at,”
There is something seriously wrong when a person on a Committee on the Rights of the Child, advocates the shooting of children who have lived their entire lives under occupation. How can Israeli MK Ben Ari have a position on such a committee? His callousness is quite sickening.
Images from the removed video
December 26, 2009
Fostering ignorance, hatred and planting the seeds of fear in a festering war for more land. A Greater Israel at all costs, even the basic tenets of Judaism.
then it’s a territory of the non-state entity of Palestine…
Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-m1
Bearing goodwill isn’t a burden
A common argument we hear against the Palestinians and one recently reiterated by the Israeli Foreign Minister Snr Lieberman is like many others, excuse my French, bullshit!
From Haaretz // Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has ordered diplomats to use an old photograph of a former Palestinian religious leader meeting Adolf Hitler to counter world criticism of a Jewish building plan for East Jerusalem. Asked why Lieberman issued the order, a spokesman said: “because it’s important for the world to know the facts” and would not elaborate.//
What ‘facts’? Simple, unbiased, non-partisan, maths, tells us there are no facts associated with today’s Palestinians. First some history on Snr al-Husseini.
Haj Amin al-Husseini was sentenced to ten years in prison by the British for inciting riots in 1920, he was given amnesty by the high commissioner of Palestine, one Herbert Samuel, who then appointed him as Mufti of Jerusalem, 1921. Samuel was also responsible for creating the Supreme Muslim Council, which al-Husseini was appointed to lead in the following year. Ironically Herbert Samuel was Jewish.
The Palestinians of the time had no say in his appointment as Mufti of Jerusalem. His appointment was opposed by the Muslim High Council, regarding him as a thug. The Palestinians had no say in his appointment to the Supreme Muslim Council. They had no say in his appointment to the Arab Higher Committee. He murdered Jews and Arabs who would not comply.
The Mufti opposed increased Jewish immigration to Palestine and was responsible for the 1929 / 1936 riots against Jewish settlement. The British declared the Arab Higher Committee illegal, al-Husseini lost his Presidency of the Supreme Muslim Council and even his membership on the Waqf committee and went into exile in Syria. He never returned to Palestine.
In 1941, when he met Hitler he was no longer the Mufti of Jerusalem and no longer an official representative of the Palestinian people. The volunteer Muslim forces he controlled were not Palestinian. They didn’t operate in Palestine. // In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti (*?) as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974// (* he was not actually the Mufti at that time) …. by the time he returned to the M East Hitler was dead, any support tied to Hitler’s promises, was non-existent. He was refused entry into Jerusalem by King Abdullah, King Tallal and King Hussein of Jordan. He died in exile in 1974.
Now let’s look at some simple maths. The Palestinians of today have a life expectancy of 73 yrs. In 1941 it was likely lower. The date of Foreign Minister Lieberman’s order 22nd July 2009.
68 years has passed between 1941 and 2009. Subtract 68 from life expectancy (today) 73 = 5yrs old in 1941. In 1948, 12 yrs old. In 1936, 0-1yrs old. In 1929 / 1920 not even born. Simple maths tells us that today’s Palestinians had NOTHING to do with the riots of 1920, the Mufti of Jerusalem, the riots of 1929 1936, the Holocaust or Hitler or WW2 or for that matter, the 1948/9 war. They were only children!
Yet the Foreign Minister of Israel, Snr Leiberman, encourages people to make an association between the Palestinians of today and events that occurred while they were only small children. Events they could not have possibly had any influence on what so ever.
No Palestinians AT ALL voted for the appointment of the Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921. The Palestinians did not vote him into any position of power. No Palestinians of today were involved in the riots of the 1920′s – 1929 – 1936. No Palestinians of today supported al-Husseini or Hitler in 1941. No Palestinians of today, or 1941 for that matter, fought in Croatia or Hungary. It is doubtful that many, if any, Palestinians of today fought in the war of 1948. The majority of Palestine refugees were and still are innocent civilians.
So what ‘facts’ was Lieberman’s spokesman talking about? Answer – none! None of it is relevant to today’s Palestinians.
Simple maths is not biased, not Arab propaganda. The Foreign Minister of Israel is either completely shite at maths, which I doubt, or a liar. Those who repeat the propaganda are either blindly ignorant, incapable of simple maths or liars themselves. Bearing false witness is against the basic tenets of Judaism.
December 13, 2009
Israel was attacked by five Arab States in 1948. What actual Sovereign Israeli territory did they attack?
it’s a territory of Palestine…
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-ki ( Revision 27th Dec 2009 – additional material )
Since childhood I was told that five Arab States invaded Israel immediately after Israel Declared Independence. That was good enough for me. How dare they. Then someone posed the question: “Which Sovereign Israeli territories were attacked and which UNSC resolution condemned the alleged Arab League invasion of Israel?”
What? That’s a ridiculous question. Of course they did. Israel was fighting for it’s life. We’ll have none of this nonsense. So in order to substantiate my beliefs, I began looking through UNSC resolutions for something condemning the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine. In those days, it was books and the public library. A tedious business. Today the information is at our fingertips.
Here I’ve used the United Nations, Yale Law repository OnLine at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/scres049.asp, the Truman Library, Jstor, the Jewish Virtual Library and the Israeli Government website, Hansard. There is only primary source information, no citations from the likes of Ilan Pappé, Benni Morris. In fact I’ve never read anything they’ve written.
Rather than find what I was looking for, a UNSC condemnation of the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine or confirmation that the Arab League had attacked Sovereign Israeli territory, I began to notice the UNSC resolutions seemed rather at odds with what I’d been told. The more I looked the more apparent it became that something was amiss in the rhetoric I’d been led to believe. Even the Arab League Declaration contradicted what I’d been told.
The first item listed at the Yale Law repository, after Israel’s Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel , is the letter from the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15th 1948, informing him of the Declaration and on which the US based it’s recognition of Israel as an Independent Sovereign State.
In particular, it says “..the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. “ Quite at odds with the notion that Israel had never defined it’s boundaries with Palestine in 1948 and the notion that UNGA resolution was irrelevant because the Arabs had rejected it. The first of the fallacies had fallen.
Irrefutable. Next step is recognition. Was Israel given de jure recognition or de facto recognition? Here I went through a maze only to discover the British record shows recognition of Sovereignty (state) is different from the recognition of Government (the authority in power).
Hansard 27 April 1950 His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.
In announcing these two acts of recognition, His Majesty’s Government wish to reaffirm their conviction that the problem of Palestine is capable of solution by peaceful means, given good will and understanding on the part of all the parties concerned. It is their earnest hope that the steps they have now taken will help to create stability in the areas concerned, and will, therefore, make a contribution towards the peace of the Middle East as a whole. “
The British recognized Israel’s sovereignty over territories is bound by it’s Declaration of Sovereignty, not ‘facts on the ground’.
Sovereignty is in law, of the state. The state in law is de jure, regardless of whether the Government in authority is provisional, de facto, or elected, de jure.
The Provisional Government was given de facto recognition by the USA. The Elected Government was subsequently given de jure recognition.
The USSR gave de jure recognition of the authority of the Provisional Government. Israel’s provisional Government was de facto, with authority to elect a Government to the state, which would, in law become de jure when a Government was elected. The USSR gave de jure recognition to this provisional authority.
Israel was a Sovereignty, (the State) recognized de jure, the provisional Government recognized de facto, the elected Government eventually recognized de jure and the British made it clear that Israel did not have Sovereignty over the territories it had captured by war by 1949. They were “occupied”.
Furthermore rather than Jordan’s control over the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) being illegal as I’d been led to believe, A) Jordan and Israel signed an Armistice Agreement, whereby Israel AGREED to Jordanian occupation. B) There is no UNSC resolution condemning 1) Jordan’s occupation, as a regional power, protecting the territories of Palestine OR 2) It’s temporary annexation as a trustee was requested by the Palestinians and was demanded by the Arab League, in accordance with the UN Charter covering regional powers and the notion of being a trustee. The Arab League was in accordance with legal procedure.
The refutation of the first fallacy confirmed and three more shredded, in one fell swoop. My interest was well kindled and ablaze by now, fueled in part by a hard to reconcile, indoctrinated partisan dis-belief and in part by an equally non-partisan and unbridled inquisitiveness.
Link to this section
If the Arab League had launched a war of aggression on Israel’s newly Declared Sovereign Boundaries, there would be the customary UNSC resolution condemning it. Right? See UNSC Resolution 660 on the invasion of Kuwait for an example.
The first UNSC resolution after the 14th May 1948, UNSC Resolution 49; May 22, 1948, asks all parties for a ceasefire. In UNSC resolution after resolution none bears a condemnation of the Arab States Declaration. What was going on? Was it a war of aggression or not? Were the Arab League actions legitimate? Legal?
What makes a war ‘legal’? Bouvier’s Law Dictionary tells us 6. To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the constitution with this power. The Governments of the Arab League States did so. Informing the UNSC on 15th May 1948 . This of course does not tell us if it was a war of aggression. For that, we must look to a UNSC resolution, because all wars of aggression, even if declared, are illegal and customarily condemned by the UNSC.
The first thing that struck me, was all the UNSC resolutions on the War of Independence, say “in Palestine”. Surely the UNSC knew that as of the 15th May 1948 Israel, as an Independent Sovereign State, was no longer a part of the of Palestine. They’d also be aware that the boundaries of what remained of the Palestine after Israel declared, were defined by default by Israel’s declared boundaries and those of the neighbouring Arab states. Did the UN simply forget it was Israel who was invaded? Or is Israel the Sovereign state, in the non-state entity of Palestine?
The fact is, the UNSC was aware, as was the Israeli Government, who confirmed with the UNSC the extent of Israeli Sovereignty on May 22nd 1948 and on June 15th 1949
Link to this section http://wp.me/pDB7k-ki#armistice-agreements
So what actual sovereign Israeli territories were attacked? The armistice agreements should tell us.
The first article in the Egypt/Israel General Armistice Agreement also says ‘in Palestine’. Article 1 – “With a view to promoting the return to permanent peace in Palestine“
Withdrawal is first mentioned where it tells us Egyptian forces are required to withdraw from Al Faluja (Al Fallujah), which was NOT a part of the Declared Israeli Sovereign territories. (load the Google Earth overlay, then type ‘ Al Faluja Israel ‘ into the search box) It was, according to the Israeli Government, outside of Israel, occupied.
The agreement goes on in Article V to say:
1. The line described in Article VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Line and is delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolutions of the Security Council of 4 and 16 November 1948.
2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.
3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.
4. Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Line defined in Article VI.
The Lebanon/Israel General Armistice Agreement Tells a similar story. “in Palestine”. Same “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”. Same “…prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement..” It also tells us in Article V – 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.
It does NOT say ‘shall follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Israel’!!!
The Jordan/Israeli General Armistice Agreement Similar again “in Palestine”. Same “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”. Same “…prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement..”
Being an agreement, Israel agrees to Jordan occupying the West Bank! Another piece of information at odds with the rhetoric claiming Jordan’s occupation was illegal AND showing it was by AGREEMENT that Israelis, Jewish or non-Jewish, not enter the area.
It also says in Article VI – 6. “Wherever villages may be affected by the establishment of the Armistice Demarcation Line provided for in paragraph 2 of this article, the inhabitants of such villages shall be entitled to maintain, and shall be protected in, their full rights of residence, property and freedom. In the event any of the inhabitants should decide to leave their villages, they shall be entitled to take with them their livestock and other movable property, and to receive without delay full compensation for the land which they have left. It shall be prohibited for Israeli forces to enter or to be stationed in such villages, in which locally recruited Arab police shall be organized and stationed for internal security purposes.”
Israel AGREED that if people left voluntarily, they should be compensated.
Syrian/Israeli General Armistice Agreement Same, “in Palestine”. Same “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”. Same “…prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement..” It also adds, in Article V: “1. It is emphasized that the following arrangements for the Armistice Demarcation Line between the Israeli and Syrian armed forces and for the Demilitarized Zone are not to be interpreted as having any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements affecting the two Parties to this Agreement.”
The two parties being Syria and Israel. Not Israel and Palestine. It also tells us the Armistice line is between ‘forces’, not ‘countries’.
Further to Article V: “5. (a) Where the Armistice Demarcation Line does not correspond to the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the area between the Armistice Demarcation Line and the boundary, pending final territorial settlement between the Parties, shall be established as a Demilitarized Zone from which the armed forces of both Parties shall be totally excluded, and in which no activities by military or para-military forces shall be permitted.”
As with Lebanon, it is telling us that in places, Syria borders Palestine. At the time of the armistice, Israel was a Sovereign Country, no longer a part of what was left of Palestine.
In all the UNSC resolutions and all the Armistice Agreements, nowhere is there anything about any Sovereign Israeli territory being attacked. No where are any Sovereign territories of Israel required to be withdrawn from. They all tell us Israeli forces were “in Palestine”. None mention the Palestine as being a part of the ‘final territorial settlement’. The UNSC Resolutions are between existing sovereign ‘states’.
You won’t find UNSC condemnation on the Arab League invasion of Palestine, simply because there is none. The Arab League States were UN Members and High Contracting Regional Powers and the British Mandate over Palestine had ended. Under the UN Charter Article 52 it was their right and as representatives of Palestine at the time, their duty to protect it from the aggression the Sovereign state of Israel had inherited from Plan Dalet, from the moment Israel declared. What had been a civil war, became a war waged by a state on Palestine.
So where did the armistice agreements leave the territories of Palestine that Israel controlled? Were they Israel’s to do as it wished? Were they automatically Israeli? Or occupied? What was their status?
Based on the Israeli Government’s statements of the 22nd May 1948 and 15th June 1949, the Laws of War tell us they were occupied. The British considered them occupied. Although Israel didn’t ratify the Geneva Conventions until July 1951, after it became a UN Member State May 11, 1949. At the time of the armistice agreements, Israel was not obliged to the Geneva Conventions. It was however through it’s Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel obliged to the UN Charter and subsequent notification, obliged to discharge “.. the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law”
International Law tells us that in order for a Sovereignty to acquire territories, it must legally annex them under an agreement or treaty. Now If I could just find the annexation document………… Perhaps there was something in regard to their status in the correspondence to the Conciliation Commission, prior to Israel’s acceptance into the UN.
Link to this section
A letter of the 31 August 1949, addressed to the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission by Mr. Reuven Shiloah, Head of the Delegation of Israel.
“3. With regard to the territorial adjustments of which the Commission treats in Chapter II of it’s memorandum, the Delegation of Israel considers that in addition to the territory indicated on the working document annexed to the Protocol of May 12, all other areas falling within the control and jurisdiction of Israel under the terms of the armistice agreements concluded by Israel with Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Syria should be formally recognized as Israeli territory. The adjustment of the frontiers so created will be subject to negotiation and agreement between Israel and the Arab Government in each case concerned”
There we have Israel’s intention is to acquire all of Palestine and an admission that at that point in time the territories of Palestine were not yet actual Israeli territory. There goes the argument that Israel has never wanted all of Palestine and the twaddle that they were Israel’s because it won the war.
The reply dated 3 September 1949 addressed to Mr. Reuven Shiloah, Head of the Delegation of Israel, by the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission, Emphatically dismisses the notion. referring Israel back to the armistice agreements. “2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question”
Now If I could just find the annexation document…………
What began as a search for something to substantiate my long held and firmly entrenched beliefs, had only shown their deep flaws.
All the UNSC resolutions tell us peace is sought “in Palestine“. They also tell us that the “question of Palestine” needs to be resolved. Not peace ‘in Israel’. Not the ‘Israel/Palestine question’. Not peace ‘in Israel and Palestine’. Why?
The ‘Israel question’ was resolved on the 14th May 1948, when the Jewish People’s Council Declared a Sovereign Jewish State within the frontiers of UNGA res 181 and Israel was recognized as such by the International Community of states. There is no question over it’s Sovereignty, it’s boundaries or it’s existence as a state.
The wars have been in Palestine, not Israel. The “territories occupied” have been in Palestine, not Israel.
The harder I look, the more the fallacies fall.
Link to this section
The Arab Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, contradicts the notion that the Arab League was bent on a genocidal attack, threatening to drive all Jews into the sea. To be sure they were against Israel’s existence, based on legal grounds, but their Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine says: “The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.
Democracy!! Equal rights!! How dare they! Nowhere did the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine threaten Israel or threaten to actually institute the legal basis of their argument. It merely stated the legal case as a basis for protecting their ward as regional powers per the UN Charter. Israel was no longer a part of Palestine on the 15th May 1949. The Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was given to the UNSC, making the war a legally declared defensive war. Which is why there is no UNSC resolution condemning it.
Meanwhile Israel continues to this day to take more and more territory. Ignore more and more UNSC resolutions. The “Palestine question” is when will they stop and what can be done about it!
October 17, 2009
Watching AKUS make a fool of himself on CiFWatch. Another idiot for Israel
Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-fS
“This is not a critique of the fatally flawed Goldstone report itself, which has been ably carried out by many more competent experts than me and which could be continued pointlessly ad infinitum. Even the announcement advertising the discussion of the report this week and the terms of reference for the “fact-finding mission” reveal the bizarre world which the UNHRC inhabits which makes such discussions essentially meaningless and certainly fruitless:The holding of the Special Session comes at the request of Palestine.
There is no such country as “Palestine”. In the Draft Resolution the word “Palestine” is given an asterisk, and a footnote explains that it is a “Non-Member State of the Human Rights Council”. In fact, it is a non-state, non-member of the Human Rights Council.
A) AKUS is an expert now? WOW!!!
B) United Nations Charter Article 35
l. Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.2. A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.
C) The LoN Mandate for Palestine refers to the LoN Charter article 22, under which Palestine held the status of a Provisional State. This status has never legally altered. A Provisional State that has been hacked away by the formation of Jordan and Israel. What remains of the Provisional State of Palestine is still Palestine. It has not been renamed since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. When you eat half an apple what’s left? Apple or does it magically change into something else, perhaps AKUS’s ziocaine induced Hasbara bullsh*te?
Some expert AKUS turns out to be.
There is, in fact, no need to read the report in order to anticipate its methods and conclusions. It is more interesting to look at how it has been received, and what actions will be taken as a result.
Uh huh. ‘in fact’? ‘In fact’, IT’S JUST YOUR OPINION! (I guess he just ‘listens’ to the moaning of the losing team in order to ‘watch’ a football match)
D) Furthermore, under the UN Charter Chapt XI, Israel, as the Occupying Power, has a duty towards the Palestinians. To protect them, their property and their territory and to assist them in achieving effective independent statehood.
October 6, 2009
Liars for Israel, again. Obadiah Shoher breaks the basic tenets of Judaism!
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-dn
From Obadiah Shoher – Samson Blinded Org. A rebuttal of the Goldstone report – The actual Goldstone Report
The lies begin in the 1st sentence…Comments in green
Goldstone report: the rebuttal
The Goldstone report’s title, Human rights in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, reveals its leanings. Since Gaza is also a part of Palestine, “other occupied Arab territories” can only refer to Israel proper.
“Israel ‘proper’”? Israel has never legally annexed any territory, Arab or otherwise. Israel proper is Sovereign Israel, as defined by the borders Israel Declared Sovereignty over May 14th 1948.
The UN commission was composed of professional human rights advocates, none of whom were experienced in military or anti-terrorism realities. To cover that glaring gap, the commission included one Colonel Travers, a human rights activist with no meaningful wartime experience.
Desmond Travers is a recently retired Colonel of the Army of the Irish Defence Forces. His last appointment was as Commandant of its Military College. In a career spanning over forty years, he served in various command and instructional appointments in the Infantry Corps. He was a founder of two of the Forces’ teaching and training institutions. He also served in command of troops and in key operational appointments with various UN and EU peace support missions. These were in the Middle-East (Cyprus, Lebanon) and in the Former Yugoslavia (Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina).
The fact that the Goldstone commission received the “full support” of the Hamas government (page 6) despite its nominal mandate to investigate Hamas’ crimes suggests that the terrorist group was assured of slap-on-the-wrist treatment.
The author attributes his own suggestion to the report.
The official Palestinian participant in the hearings, Muhammad Srour, was arrested in Israel immediately thereafter on security grounds.
Muhammad Srour was not charged with anything. He was released on 23 July 2009.
“The Goldstone commission heavily relied on the testimony of terrorists from both the Hamas and PA sides.”
An assumption by the author, with nothing to back it up.
The conclusions were predetermined by limiting the inquiry to the events following the July 2008 ceasefire (page 7). During the ceasefire, naturally, relatively few rockets were fired at Israel until the December escalation. As a result, Palestinian war crimes—indiscriminately launching 8,000 rockets at Israeli population centers over the last nine years—are only sketched in the report.
103. Palestinian armed groups have launched about 8000 rockets and mortars into southern Israel since 2001 (Chapter XIII). While communities such as Sderot and Kibbutz Nir-Am have been within the range of rocket and mortar fire since the beginning, the range of rocket fire increased to nearly 40 kilometres from the Gaza border, encompassing towns as far north as Ashdod, during the Israeli military operations in Gaza.
104. Since 18 June 2008, rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups in Gaza have killed 3 civilians inside Israel and 2 civilians in Gaza when a rocket landed short of the border on 26 December 2008. Reportedly, over 1000 civilians inside Israel were physically injured as a result of rocket and mortar attacks, 918 of which were injured during the time of the Israeli military operations in Gaza.
105. The Mission has taken particular note of the high level of psychological trauma suffered by the civilian population inside Israel. Data gathered by an Israeli organization in October 2007 found that 28.4% of adults and 72-94% of children in Sderot suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. 1596 people were reportedly treated for stress-related injuries during the military operations in Gaza while over 500 people were treated following the end of the operations.
106. Rocket and mortars have damaged houses, schools and cars in southern Israel. On 5 March 2009, a rocket struck a synagogue in Netivot. The rocket and mortar fire has adversely impacted on the right to education of children and adults living in southern Israel. This is a result of school closures and interruptions to classes by alerts and moving to shelters and also the diminished ability to learn that is witnessed in individual experiencing symptoms of psychological trauma.
107. The rocket and mortar fire has also adversely impacted on the economic and social life of the affected communities. For communities such as Ashdod, Yavne, Beer Sheba, which experienced rocket strikes for the first time during the Israeli military operations in Gaza, there was a brief interruption to their economy and cultural brought about by the temporary displacement of some of their residents. For towns closer to the Gaza border that have been under rocket and mortar fire since 2001, the recent escalation has added to the exodus of residents from these areas.
108. The Mission has determined that the rockets and, to a lesser extent, mortars, fired by the Palestinian armed groups are incapable of being directed towards specific military objectives and were fired into areas where civilian populations are based. The Mission has further determined that these attacks constitute indiscriminate attacks upon the civilian population of southern Israel and that where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into a civilian population, they constitute a deliberate attack against a civilian population. These acts would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity. Given the seeming inability of the Palestinian armed groups to direct the rockets and mortars towards specific targets and given the fact that the attacks have caused very little damage to Israeli military assets, the Mission finds that there is significant evidence to suggest that one of the primary purposes of the rocket and mortar attacks is to spread terror amongst the Israeli civilian population, a violation of international law.
The UN commission set an incredibly high standard of criminal behavior: “restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms relating to Israel’s strategies and actions in the context of Israeli military operations (page 7).“ Certainly, all military operations involve certain restrictions on rights and freedoms, and any army could be condemned with such a sweeping inquiry. Conspicuously, the commission chose not to investigate numerous violations of Israeli human rights by Palestinians, including a prohibition on visits to Palestinian-controlled areas by Jewish Israeli citizens.
A) Israel, under the 2005 agreement had ALL crossings into Gaza closed. It didn’t even allow journalists into Gaza. B) The report was a Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict
While accusing Israel of war crimes, the Goldstone report states explicitly that it does not “pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials (page 9).” In the same paragraph, the commission explicitly abrogates presumption of innocence for institutional bodies such as IDF or Israel, reserving the principle to individuals. The result of this approach is that Israel is blamed by default for all injuries to human rights in Gaza, whether she is culpable or not.
25. On this basis, the Mission has, to the best of its ability, determined what facts have been established. In many cases it has found that acts entailing individual criminal responsibility have been committed. In all of these cases the Mission has found that there is sufficient information to establish the objective elements of the crimes in question. In almost all of the cases the Mission has also been able to determine whether or not it appears that the acts in question were done deliberately or recklessly or in the knowledge that the consequence that resulted would result in the ordinary course of events. The Mission has thus referred in many cases to the relevant fault element (mens rea). The Mission fully appreciates the importance of the presumption of innocence: the findings in the report do not subvert the operation of that principle. The findings do not attempt to identify the individuals responsible for the commission of offences nor do they pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials.
26. In order to provide the parties concerned with an opportunity to submit additional relevant information and express their position and respond to allegations, the Mission also submitted comprehensive lists of questions to the Government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities in advance of completing its analysis and findings. The Mission received replies from the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities but not from Israel.
Need one go on? Why do so many who defend Israel’s illegal activities break the basic tenets of Judaism?
About : Google banned our site from the AdSense advertising program for “unacceptable content,” “advocating against a group,” and “sensitive content.” Yahoo/ Overture restricted our ads to a few odd keywords. Adbrite closed our account. Amazon deleted all reviews to stop the discussion. Russian ad provider Begun rejected our ads as “extremist.” Many other sites and conventional media outlets refused our ads. China blocked our site
Is it any wonder?
October 4, 2009
Watching CifWatch lower themselves, resorting to toilet humour….
Unable to actually quote anything I’ve ever said said that fits their criteria, the folk who are unable to honestly address difficult questions on CiF or here. The same people who declare on their web site : “The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard”, proudly announce …..
“Time for Some Toilet Humor…Ever wondered why certain Guardianistas are able to spend so much time online talknicing out of their backsides…”
The irony of the ‘humor’ they’ve chosen to exhibit, their childish vindictiveness and choice of words, seems to escape them. It serves Israel how exactly? Who’d want to be associated with such people, let alone believe anything they have to say? If they’re representative of Israel, Israelis or Jewish folk, do they realize what kind of an ugly, spitefull, picture they’re presenting?
AKUS (re-appeared recently on CiF as Akusia ?), who is unable to produce a map of Israel’s Sovereign territory, because no doubt it’s too embarrassing, bravely leads the comments
October 4, 2009 at 12:32 am
AKUS
Indeed!
Typical outback humor!! And then, when the mods get into action – all those long, long, nitpicking comments just flushed down the toilet….
Free Eora! The Cadigals will rise again!!
October 4, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Chas N-B
Superb! Shows they are going through the motions and that it’s good that CifWatch is flushing them out. I love how you guys cut the crap.
CifWatch: wiping clean the marble and smashing the cistern!
(Enough already.)
Indeed. Enough already to show folk who it is running off to the mods in what appears now as a self confessed and concerted effort to have folk banned, rather than addressing the points those folk might raise. Which makes their credo “The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard” seem rather incongruous and more than a tad shallow.
Enough already to show how un-aware AKUS is of his own transparency, blabbering on in ignorance about people with whom I have a close relationship and who he claimed were wiped out.
Enough already to show Chas N-B’s ‘toilet’ vocabulary has him in appropriate company.
How sad. In a world where real Antisemitism actually exists and should by all means be revealed, CiFWatch is busy revealing it’s adherents to be nothing more than hypocrites and sad little gutter snipes.
October 1, 2009
CiF on ‘alleged’ War Crimes. Israel vs the UN. Should Ehud Barak have immunity?
The Guardian CiF Afua Hirsch guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 September 2009 – The attempt to arrest the Israeli minister in Britain has rekindled a lively debate on diplomatic immunity from international law
First we should look at what International Law actually says. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Preamble: The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of establishing a Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, have agreed as follows:Part I. General Provisions
Art 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, 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.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.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
The UK, as a signatory to the Conventions, is a High Contracting party.
Art. 146.The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.
Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.
In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949.
Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Art. 148. No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.
Art. 149. At the request of a Party to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted, in a manner to be decided between the interested Parties, concerning any alleged violation of the Convention.
If agreement has not been reached concerning the procedure for the enquiry, the Parties should agree on the choice of an umpire who will decide upon the procedure to be followed.
Once the violation has been established, the Parties to the conflict shall put an end to it and shall repress it with the least possible delay.
The answer seems to be NO! The operative words are ‘alleged to have’.
Furthermore, it is an indisputable fact that Israel confined the entire population of Gaza, preventing them from fleeing a war zone, by having all crossings closed under the 2005 agreement, including those between Gaza & Egypt. Escape was not possible, ironically, not even into the sea.
Netanyahu: UN Gaza report spells death for peace. What exactly is he talking about though?
Why is Netanyahu lying again? Netanyahu’s speech to UNGA on 24th September 2009 was a litany of lies. Can we believe anything this man utters? Common sense should tell us, no!
Haaretz Netanyahu: UN Gaza report spells death for peace
Earlier Wednesday, Netanyahu said that allowing the International Criminal Court in the Hague try the war crimes alleged in the report would deal a death blow to peace. Speaking during a meeting with ambassadors from Asia and the Pacific islands, Netanyahu said that the Goldstone report and its conclusions could impede peace and make it difficult for democratic nations around the globe to fight terror.Netanyahu explained to the ambassadors that the principle that a democratic nation has a legitimate right to respond to terror has been “crushed by a body belonging to the United Nations.” “This is a serious blow to the UN,” he went on to say. “It [the UN] could revert back to the days when it compared Zionism to racism. It’s starting in Israel, but it will reach other nations and it will hurt the UN.”
“Anyone who supports the Goldstone report and its conclusions is in effect against peace,” the prime minister continued, “since no country, and no people, would be willing to take risks for the sake of peace if their right to self defense was taken away.” “If the report reaches the international court in Hague, it will bring the peace process to a halt because Israel won’t take the risks necessary to achieve peace if it is not assured the right to defend itself. Anyone who desires peace must stop this report right now,” the prime minister concluded, asking the ambassadors to pass the message along to their respective governments.
No one is suggesting taking away Israel’s right to self defense. They do propose though, as a matter of course, that defense be in accordance with the UN Charter & Laws of War (both mandatory for all UN Members), and the Geneva Conventions Israel has ratified. This is no more or less than is asked of all UN Member States. Why should Israel be exempt?
So why does the Prime Minister of the Jewish State of Israel, stand before the world and continually break one of the basic tenets of the faith for Jewish people, time and time again? Has lying become the norm? Could Netanyahu be worried that at last 62 years of deceit is un-ravelling and the world is at last seeing the little emperor without it’s clothes?
When a country believes it’s own propaganda, it’s in deep shite! The Gulf of Tonkin Affair led to the US being bogged down in Vietnam for years and countless deaths. The ‘WMDs in Iraq’ conspiracy theory, led to death and destruction in Iraq, which continues today. Israel has been at it for 62 years. ‘Rockets target Israeli cities in Southern Israel’ blare the headlines. Yet Israel has never annexed ANY of the territories it illegally acquired by war by 1949, North or South. Netinyahu must surely know which territories the state of Israel has annexed!
Netinyahu must surely know that a Sovereign State has a right to defend itself from within it’s Sovereign borders. So what exactly is he talking about? Like the demographic threat fallacy, Netinyahu is talking about what Israel has illegally taken, that which is not it’s own.
Illegally acquired territory in the south, never annexed
And of course East Jerusalem, also not legally annexed.
Israeli propaganda and lies over the last 62 years has spelled death for the peace process, for 62 years. It has spelled death for tens of thousands of innocent people, Israeli and Palestinian. There are no doubt billions of dollars tied up in the construction contracts for the illegal settlements, another bullet against peace. It has now become a convoluted and complex web, ensnaring innocent Jewish people who’ve been fed the notion that Israel somehow has a legal right to these territories. They now blindly walk down a path that guarantees there will be no peace, oblivious to the consequences of breaking the basic tenets of Judaism.
September 24, 2009
No to illegal settlements AND the UN Security Council calls for nuclear weapons states to disarm
The United Nations Security Council, at a historic summit meeting chaired by U.S. President Barack Obama, unanimously approved a U.S.-drafted resolution on Thursday calling on nuclear weapons states to scrap their deadly arsenals. Seems other folk share the same sentiments as Global Zero.
This and an end to Israel’s illegal settlements and the establishment of a Palestinian state. Knowing President Obama has that precious power of veto he could withdraw, I wonder just how “dramatic” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech at the United Nations’ General Assembly on Thursday will be now? After all they were two of the mainstays of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech. No wonder some folk walked out. I can only guess they didn’t want to be seen on camera, sitting there, with their hands over their ears.
Now Obama, the UNSC and the US, after having not taken any action against Israel for 61 years, will no doubt be slandered and slurred along with Ahmadinejad. One can only hope the little heifer won’t break too much china if it has to be put, kicking and screaming, back in it’s place and dragged to the negotiation table.
September 16, 2009
The sacrificial altar – Israel vs Goldstone
It’s incredible the lengths some people will go to…The ‘two wrongs’ principal is alive and well and living in Israel. The associations they’re willing to make, the lies they’re willing to tell and the friends they’re now suddenly willing to throw to the wolves. “UN Gaza report / Will U.S. now let Goldstone into Afghanistan?“ asks Amir Oren in Haaretz In an article which not only puts Israel alongside My Lai, but goes on to throw up a hypothetical situation in which he tries to implicate the NY Times in the slaughter of innocents during the rescue of a reporter.
Also from Haaretz “The Goldstone report is a dangerous attempt to harm the principle of self-defense by democratic states and provides legitimacy to terrorism,” Danny Ayalon told the heads of the American Jewish Committee during a meeting in New York. “The Goldstone Report should be treated like the UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism, thus we must mobilize and act with all force against the report in order to remove it”. A blatant lie of course. The actual report condemns Hamas actions, calling them a war crime. The fear is it seems the UNSC, with perhaps for the first time, a US President who might not use the power of the precious veto vote in order to protect Israel being prosecuted for it’s illegal actions.
Not to mention, though I will..THE FLAMING WARS..
A JPost titbit, between Ken Roth & Irwin Cotler.
“Ken Roth’s article “Don’t smear the messenger” (August 26) – responding to my critique of the Goldstone mission under the authority of the UN Human Rights Council – reminds me of what is termed the “false accusation in the mirror,” where you accuse the “other” of what you yourself are doing.” Wherein Irwin does exactly that, by accusing the investigation as being flawed & one-sided. “My critique was of the tainted [this is an understatement] authority of the UN Human Rights Council under which the mission was established; the flawed, one-sided mandate – also an understatement; the prejudicial presence of one of the members of the commission, who had already pronounced herself on the merits of the issue thereby giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in the work of the commission; and the damage done to the integrity of the UN and the authority of international law, the whole of which underpins the Goldstone mission.”
I suggest these Israeli Government representatives actually read the mandate. It IS in the report. It IS available. They could have had a say in how the investigation was conducted, but refused.
Moving on to the more rabid, settlers publication Arutz Sheva, we have one Fundamentally Freund “Disregard for facts, context and history. The news today was simply breathtaking. A United Nations war-crimes investigation into Israel’s counter-terror campaign in Gaza late last year concluded that “Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity.” Within six months, the matter may be referred to the International Court of Justice at the Hague.
And so, with due disregard for the facts on the ground, the context, or the history of the Middle East conflict, a UN lynch mob has grabbed the Jewish state by the throat and laid the groundwork for tossing her into the very special dock reserved for the likes of Adolf Hitler, Slobodan Milosevic and various other modern-day vampires…” Gee Snr Freund, it’s reserved for UN Member states and their representatives only, who commit a war crime. Your diatribe is fundamentally flawed. However it’s interesting to see where Snr Freund aligns the accusations leveled at Israel. Also interesting to see he ignores the scope and mandate covering the investigation. At a guess he also ignores the FACT that Israel has been wiping the Palestinians off the map for 62 years
