First, find out what isn't true…

October 13, 2009

Bearing false witness for Israel. Ignoring International Law and breaking the basic tenets of Judaism! Is it a sickness?

When it comes to Israel, the basic tenets of Judaism are thrown out. Everything is Ziofied.

- See more at:

Your brain on Zionism – Katie Miranda is an illustrator, jewelry designer, and cartoonist living in Portland, OR.
– See more at:

Comments in green

The internet and news services are flooded with Pro-Israeli propaganda. Blatant lies, transparent cherry picking, fallacies and mis-information are propagated by the unwitting, the ignorant, outright bigoted and sad to say, those from one would expect better than bullshite. From the top to the bottom, they all seem to be stricken with the same symptoms. Ziofictation

Netinyahu, whose speech at the UN was an insult human intelligence.

Moshe Arens a journalist, who it seems, has not actually read the Goldstone report.

Prof Geoffrey Alderman A professor no less, who should know better

Prof Gerald M Adler Another professor, who should also know better

Elliott A. Green who should also know better

Obadiah Shoher of Sampson Blinded, who openly advocates ethnic cleansing AND justifies the slaughter of non-Jews.

A license to kill…By Moshe Arens “While the Goldstone report is being eagerly read in Israel and in capitals around the world, it is also being intensively studied by terrorists bent on destroying the State of Israel – and they must be breathing a sigh of relief. This is not only because the Hamas terrorists in Gaza are in effect getting off scot-free in the report ….”
The report has nine pages condemning Hamas’ actions. Need one go on? Either Moshe Arens has not read the report or he is a liar.

Ironically, where “Facts are Sacred”, the fallacies are allowed to remain. Common sense posts, with links to the source documents dis-proving Prof Alderman’s fallacies, are completely purged.

geoffreyalderman 12 Oct 09, 1:00am “…It must be remembered that the Palestinians already have one state of their own – Jordan, the territory of which was part of the original Mandate given to the UK by the League of Nations.”
” Professor” Alderman? A professor should surely be able to think! But it seems not.
Common sense tells us that only the Palestinians from the area that became Jordan (TransJordan), had a right to citizenship in Jordan. Palestinians who did not come from that particular part of pre-1946 Palestine, did not. They were and still are citizens of what is left of Palestine. When one eats a part of an apple, what remains is still apple.
As Palestine has been whittled away, what has remained is still Palestine. Anyone born in Jordan since 1946 is Jordanian. In 2009, if they’re under 63, they’re ‘Jordanian’ Jordanians.

“Concerning the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, the right of Jews (as distinct from Israelis) to dwell therein was guaranteed by the League and endorsed by the UN at its foundation. “
A) But Professor Alderman you’re trying to justify illegal ISRAELI settlements in the West Bank. It is the ISRAELI Government issuing the construction contracts, yes?
B) The League and the UN of course were referring to a state called Palestine, in which Jewish folk could have a homeland under Palestinian Law and as citizens of Palestine. HERE is what Balfour says.

BALFOUR : “The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation‘ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American Commission is going through the form of asking what they are.”

It is interesting to note he says “the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine, which indicates the intention of the Balfour declaration was not to have a separate Jewish ‘state’, but a homeland for Jewish folk IN Palestine, the peoples to be Palestinian citizens, under Palestinian Law. Where of course, under those circumstances, as citizens of Palestine, Jewish folk would have had the right to live anywhere in Palestine. HERE is what the British Mandate says, in particular Article 7:

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

There is actually NOTHING about a separate Jewish State, or building illegal ISRAELI settlements in the West Bank, in any of the documents the good Professor cites.
“There is a full and definitive explanation of this right by Professor Gerald Adler in the September 2009 issue of Journal of the Law Society of Scotland…”
Alas Professor Gerald Adler, like Professor Alderman, completely ignores International Law SEE HERE

Furthermore, these ‘Professors’ seem to be oblivious to the fact that the British Mandate over Palestine ENDED on 14th May 1948!

So again, where “Facts are Sacred”, the fallacies are allowed to remain. Posts with links to the source documents dis-proving Prof Alderman’s fallacies, are completely purged.

geoffreyalderman 12 Oct 09, 2:24pm “..I am on record as supporting the right of Palestinians who claim they were forcibly expelled from Israel to have their claims investigated by a truly independent body, and compensation awarded. Of course a similar right must be extended to the 750,000 or so Jews who claim they were forcibly expelled from Arab and Muslim countries at the time of Israel’s re-establishment. That’s only fair, isn’t it?”
a) RoR is an inalienable right. I.e., it applies to ALL civilians who flee a conflict, regardless of why they fled, regardless of who told them to flee, regardless of who started, stopped, won or lost a war, because they are CIVILIANS. They are civilians who might not have voted for, or even been able to vote for, the regime that started the war or who told them to flee or why they should flee.
B) People who take up citizenship in a new country no longer have refugee status. They forgo all that refugee status grants them. Are there any Jewish refugees today?
C) The good ‘professor’ denies for Palestinians, who are still refugees, who have not forgone their refugee rights, what he claims for Jews, who are no longer refugees.

“… Khaled Meshaal, the Syria-based leader of Hamas [too frightened, apparently, to return to Gaza] has reiterated that his party demands “Palestine from the sea to the river, from the west to the occupied east, and it must be liberated.” The BBC report explains that he is referring to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea “and therefore the state of Israel.” Not much hope of peace with him and his ilk, then, is there?”
This ‘Prof’ Alderman is a ‘professor’ of what? Ignorance?
Hamas is only a political party. Political parties cannot form states because they can change, regimes can dis-appear completely. A large percentage of the population might not have voted for them or might not have even been able to vote at all.
Look to the Declaration of a Jewish state for a good example. A People’s Council is necessary to Declare on behalf of ALL the people, regardless of their politics. A People’s Council is non-political and only exists to Declare statehood and administer until a Government is formed.

Professor Gerald Adler Sept 2009 Journal of the Law Society of Scotland Mr Ritchie’s article omits to make even a single reference to the role and earlier judgments of the Israeli Supreme Court. Since 1967, it has opened its doors to receive petitions for redress submitted by Palestinians alleging personal injury and harm or damage to their property within the OPT..”
A) Why should Mr Ritchie reference a court that has no Jurisdiction in an Occupied Territory? B) Professor Gerald Adler admits it’s the OPTs. Yet he doesn’t know that the Occupying Power has NO RIGHT to institute Israeli Civil Law in the OPTs? That the Israeli Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in the OPT. The premise of his argument is based on IGNORING International Law. Israel’s claims are ALL based on ignoring International Law.

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


“International law has recognized Jewish rights to sovereignty over the Land of Israel and to settlement throughout the land. In April 1920…”
A typical Ziofied dialogue. No where does it mention ‘sovereignty’. It simply does not exist in the documents cited.

In support of their arguments, ALL of them cite their Ziofied versions of International Law, adding, changing, using words that simply do not exist in the actual documents. Yet ALL of them completely ignore International Law when it comes to Israel.

All of them ignore the FACT that Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory, ever! They ignore that the unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem was declared ILLEGAL by the UNSC.

How can this be? Ignorance? No, some are Professors of Law. How can they be ignorant of the Law? Naive? No, they all lay claim to having ‘studied’ the the issue. How can they have missed the points raised here? How can they just ignore International Law as though it doesn’t exist. If it isn’t a sickness, are they lying? And if they’re lying, which is against the basic tenets of Judaism, why?


Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: