First, find out what isn't true…

December 30, 2009

The War Against Iran. Western ‘intelligence’ sources say Iran, smuggling, purified uranium & reporters who’re stupid? Or are they hoping YOU are?

Filed under: Iran, The lies they willingly tell — Tags: , , , , , , — talknic @ 12:29 am

ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-mo

They’re at it again. Trying to scare you. But who should you be afraid of?

Haaretz 29/12/2009 Report: Iran seeking to smuggle purified uranium

usatoday 2009-12-29 .. intelligence report that says Iran is trying to import 1,350 tons of purified uranium ore from Kazakhstan in violation of U.N. Security Council sanctions

Meanwhile….. MONTHS AGOApril 9 2009 The World Affairs Blog Net //The Iranian and Kazakh presidents met Monday in the Kazakh capital of Astana and signed a series of mutually beneficial deals that will also pay dividends to other countries. President Nazarbayev said he supports Iran’s right to have nuclear energy but believed it should be developed in a transparent way so as to not worry the rest of the world. He pushed for the creation of a nuclear fuel bank from which Iran could procure uranium and have safe nuclear power. President Ahmadinejad defended his country’s right to enrich uranium while praising his counterpart’s plan//

MONTHS AGO Apr 6, 2009 uk.reuters.com //”If such a nuclear fuel bank were to be created, Kazakhstan would be ready to consider hosting it on its territory as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation agreement and as a country that voluntarily renounced nuclear weapons,” he said.

The idea, supported by U.S. President Barack Obama, rests on the creation of a global repository that would allow countries to tap into its reserves to fuel their nuclear plants without having to develop their own nuclear enrichment capability.//

If an olde schmuck like me can find evidence to refute their idiotic claims in less than 5 minutes, how STUPID are these scaremongering propagandists? Are they complete cretins?

Of course the answer is no. They’re propagandists. They don’t care as long as they scare enough people into believing the sh*te they puke out day after day. They don’t care, as long as people who don’t bother to double check, believe them.

They want people to be scared. They want YOU to be scared. Will they retract their idiotic accusations? No. That would defeat their purpose.

What is the reason for their deceptive, fraudulent activity? Why would they be PAID, that’s right folks, reporters are paid, to spout complete bullsh*te in order to scare YOU? Why would they want to scare YOU?

Remember Iraq and the WarMongers who infested the Whitehouse for 8 years? More importantly the fools who believed them!!!

Furthermore how many of the so called ‘news’ sites and blogs will retract this storie? Do they care? Probably not. They’ll just move it off the front page.

As long as the stinking, diseased ridden corpse has been thrown over the wall is left, it will continue to contaminate as many un-suspecting people as possible. It’s fleas jumping from news service to news service, blog to blog, tawk bored to tawk bored.

‘purified’ uranium? It will be as ‘pure’ as Gaza’s water at the moment.

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.


…It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel,
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 24, 2009

J-Street an alternative to AIPAC? On UNGA/UNHRC/UNSC resolutions, people who should know are as ignorant as their counterparts.


Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-lU

With dismay I read that Hannah Rosenthal, head of the U.S. administration’s Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, a person who once served on J street’s board of directors, on the board of directors of left-wing group Americans for Peace Now. Who held senior positions in the Department of Health and Human Services during the Clinton administration, has no idea of how the UN operates.

Ha’aretz 24/12/2009 //“….having the UN single out Israel for 170 resolutions over the last five years – when everybody knows that Sudan is committing genocide and they have only five resolutions. When Israel is the only agenda item on the human rights council – I think it’s legitimate to look at this singling out, holding Israel to a different standard than the rest of the world. I think that crosses the line to anti-Semitism.” //

UN CHARTER Article 2
7) Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Sudan’s crimes, as horrific as they are, are committed upon Sudanese, in Sudan. The resolutions against Israel, UNGA/UNSC/UNHRC are for it’s actions outside of Israel’s Internationally recognized boundaries, actions that effect people who are NOT citizens of Israel in territory that is NOT Israeli.

The majority of UNGA/UNSC/UNHRC resolutions against Israel are reminders of previous resolutions, International Law, the Conventions, UNSC resolutions and the UN Charter. If you don’t pay the bill, you get a reminder.

For example, on Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem UNSC Resolutions 267 / 271 / 298 / 465 / 476 are reminders of UNSC Resolution 252 which is in itself a reminder of International Law. Had Israel upheld International Law, there’d be no UNSC resolutions against Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem.

So who is at fault? The UNSC, UNHRC or UNGA for reminding Israel of it’s UN obligations? Obligations Israel has FAILED to uphold.

It’s jaw dropping that a person of such position and experience can be ignorant of the UN Charter AND idiotic enough to repeat the “what about Sudan” propaganda mantra. Two wrongs never make a right and to be ignorant of the UN Charter is almost criminal neglect of her positions. That she tries to blame the UN, when it has been Israel ignoring it’s obligations, is even more of a jaw dropper!

If this is the level of understanding of how the UN operates in the alternative to AIPAC and in the U.S. administration’s Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, there is something terribly, terribly wrong!

//Rosenthal strongly believes that new and different voices need to be heard regarding Israel in the American Jewish community.

“We need to have as many people coming together to try and put an end to this crisis, the matzav [situation] can not continue – it’s unacceptable and that’s why I always paid my membership to AIPAC, but I have always paid my membership to Americans for Peace Now – because they all need to be supported and they all need to be at the table.” //

Ms Rosenthal seems to have forgotten one key element. They need to be EDUCATED!

December 15, 2009

The Fallacy Factory hard at work. Iran’s secret nuclear trigger. “..the only possible use … the trigger to the chain reaction for a nuclear explosion”

Filed under: Iran — Tags: , , , , , , , , — talknic @ 11:06 am

Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-lt (revisions 15th Dec / 22nd Dec 2009 – additional material)

22nd Dec 2009 Haaretz – Suddenly, after having been through the Ziofier, the document says ‘initiator‘….wonders will never cease …

“..the only possible use for UD3 is as a neutron source, the trigger to the chain reaction for a nuclear explosion” So says the TimesOnLine expert. None other than one David Albright. Oh ………. again! What a busy chap.

“Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,” David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, told The Times of London, adding that the document was “a very strong indicator of weapons work.”

Goodness me. Sounds ominous. Until of course one has a look around for applications for the technology, something the scare mongers seems loath to do. Check.

For example, to run D2 as a gas, D2O can first be reduced to D2 in a furnace then stored as UD3 and released by controlled heating. So UD3 can be used to store and produce D2 gas. UD3 can be used as a part of other processes.

Let’s try it again…There is no other UD3 application and add ‘yet’ based on Canadian experiments with UD3.

Canada is producing a bomb!!!! Run for your lives… Right? Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment; “The UD3 was formed by reaction of commercial Dz with uranium metal turnings” Well, no. Actually they’re just looking at enhancing the rates of exchange. Why?

National Research Council of Canada “The hydroxide ion-catalyzed reaction between D2 and H,O is too slow to be of commercial value in an industrial process for the production of heavy water from a hydrogen or water source…”

Let’s look at the translation of the ‘alleged’ incriminating document for some alleged incriminating evidence. I say ‘alleged’ document, remembering of course the Niger Yellow Cake fiasco in the lead up to the war on Iraq.

“1-2 Designing and performing experiments to detect pulsed neutrons obtained from pulse sources, for example, from NG (neutron generator) and PF (plasma focus) pulsed sources”

OK! So what is a Neutron Generator and what are Plasma Focus pulsed sources. Let’s try Neutron Generator. (skip Wiki) Go to the second result. Berkley Laboratory USA. Should be a non-biased, informative source.

“Recently Ka-Ngo Leung and his colleagues in Berkeley Lab’s Accelerator and Fusion Research Division (AFRD) have devised a series of neutron generators small enough to descend into a borehole, provide neutrons for brain-cancer therapy, peer inside airport luggage, or perch on a laboratory bench.”

“To get sufficient flux for BNCT, Leung says, “we needed D-T reactions, which are more efficient in neutron production than D-D. But the great majority of research programs and applications want much lower energies — so-called ‘thermal’ neutrons that are easily produced by D-D. One advantage is that deuterium is stable.”

Other applications and research programs require higher reactions. Perhaps at the levels UD3 gives. See Canadian experiments.

What else does the alleged ‘incriminating’ ‘document’ have to say.

” It is possible, by protecting our capability regarding PFs at Shaheed Beheshti University, to produce more samples by mutual co-operation, then present these samples to other research centres for marketing purposes.”

Plasma Focus for ‘marketing purposes’. For oil-well logging, radiography, brachytherapy, cargo and luggage screening? Or they’re gonna sell what must be a top secret nuclear trigger to various University research facilities. Right?

“2-2 Designing and building suitable mobile laboratories
2-3 Setting up the reactor again that produces the materials and placing it in the Glove Box
2-4 Installing and setting up the equipment required to produce source materials in the mobile laboratories”

Mobile laboratories, with a bench perhaps. Oil wells, border crossings, airports, hospitals, geological surveys? Or these mobile laboratories are all gonna have a nuclear trigger? Right?

Somehow I doubt it. The document, if real, seems to point to similar experiments by the National Research Council of Canada. If they are applying nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, they’ll be conducting experiments just as the National Research Council of Canada have.

Finally from another of the ‘incriminating’ TimesOnLine articles “They want to test the match without burning it,” a Western intelligence source said.

Ah, the infamous un-named, un-verifiable ‘a Western intelligence source’…. busy chap.

“Then they can take it to the Supreme Leader and say, ‘We know it all works now.’ Then he has everything he needs for the moment, if it comes, that he gives the order to build a bomb.”

Speculation, adulterated with ‘if’.

“That order, according to the source, does not appear to have been made, and there is no evidence that it will. But even without it Iran is edging closer to nuclear latency — the immediate potential to assemble a bomb — effectively giving it a nuclear deterrent.”

‘if’…’does not appear to have been made’…’no evidence that it will’.…amazing stuff.

“The last ingredient Iran requires is enough fissile material to arm a weapon. Estimates vary, but at present Iran’s known stockpile of low-enriched uranium is only just enough to arm one warhead — if that material were enriched further to weapons-grade. That stockpile of low-enriched uranium is under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision at Iran’s enrichment plant at Natanz.”

More ‘if’s..and ‘under IAEA supervision’.…and in the end, IF all the ifs and other vague non evidenced speculations come to pass, they’ll have a ‘nuclear deterrent’. One bomb. WOW!!!

The Ziofier does an amazing job

- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/your-brain-zionism

Your brain on Zionism – Katie Miranda is an illustrator, jewelry designer, and cartoonist living in Portland, OR.
– See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/your-brain-zionism

————–

December 13, 2009

Israel was attacked by five Arab States in 1948. What actual Sovereign Israeli territory did they attack?


…It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel,
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.

Link to this section

There was the story that Israel had no defined borders. Yet the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (entered into force on December 26, 1934), which required ” b ) a defined territory;” All those signatories would have required the same lest they breached the convention by recognizing a state without a defined territory.

The first item listed at the Yale Law repository, after Israel’s Declaration of 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. “

Russia 17 May 1948 Letter from Mr. Molotov stated: “Confirming receipt of your telegram of May 16, in which you inform the Government of the USSR of the proclamation, on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29,1!>47, of the creation in Palestine of the independent State of Israel and make re-quest for the recognition of the State of Israel and its provisional government by the USSR. I inform yon in this letter that the Govern-ment of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the Stale of Israel and its Provisional Government.”

Australia 28 January 1949 “… on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947…”

New Zealand 29 January 1949 “It is the understanding of the New Zealand Government that the settlement of boundaries and other outstanding questions will be effected in accordance with the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 11 December 1948.”

All 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.

Link to this section

Next step was 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 of 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!

December 2, 2009

The fear of Right of Return to Israeli Sovereign Territory. It’s another Fairy tale from the Fallacy Factory.


…It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel,
then it’s a territory of Palestine…

Shortlink to this article – http://wp.me/pDB7k-jS

DEFINITION OF A “REFUGEE” UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948 (UNGA res 194)

Report to the Provisional Government by Prime Minister and Minister of Defence – 17 Jun 1948
We cannot allow the Arabs to return to those places that they left.”

“The Arabs attacked us in Jaffa, Haifa, etc.; and
I do not want those who fled to return.
(ibid)

It is every civilian’s right to flee the violence of war. Even Jewish folk. It is also every civilians right to return after the war. Land ownership is not a criteria. Even a landless bum who lived under a bridge has RoR. The only criteria is that the region was their normal place of abode at the time they fled or were dispossessed.

All civilians have a right to flee violence and return, no matter who starts a war or for what reason or who tells them to flee or who wins or loses. Because they are A) Civilians, who… B) …might not have voted for or even have been able to vote for, the regime in power when hostilities began. C) Did the Palestinians vote for the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem? No, they didn’t. He was installed by a Jewish chap, one Herbert Samuel. D) Did they vote for the Governments of the Arab States? No, they didn’t. E) Were they responsible at the time for the Jewish folk who fled the Arab states? No they were not! F) Were the Palestinians of today responsible? No, they were ALL children in 1948.

—-

Let’s look at the Israeli demand of having a peace agreement before any RoR is granted.

A) RoR is an individual right. As such the Palestinian negotiators can only really negotiate to ensure that RoR be observed.

B) Let’s say Palestine signs a peace agreement. OK. Very good. However, the returnees would be ISRAELI citizens, not citizens of Palestine!

It is simply nonsense to demand RoR depend on a peace agreement with an entity who returnees are A) no longer belong to and who B) no longer represents them.

What happens should hostilities break out between Israel and Palestine? Would they suddenly lose their Israeli citizenship?

According to the Jewish Virtual Library – On May 14th 1948 Israel was guaranteed a minority of non-Jewish civilians within it’s Sovereign territory. 538,000 Jews / 397,000 Arabs. Of this minority, only some fled the violence of war. Simple mathematics tells us that even if all of them had fled, had they returned some weeks later, by August 1948, they could not possibly have been a demographic threat. Never the less, in August 1948 Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett is quoted as saying, “To repatriate those who had fled would be suicidal folly.“

He was quite wrong. RoR has inbuilt safe guards for the country of return. They have the right to refuse RoR to folk who do not satisfy the criteria.

That was 63 years ago. In 2009 the life expectancy of a Palestine refugee is 73yrs. In 1948 it would have been even lower. In 2011, every Palestine refugee still alive, who fled Israel’s Sovereign territory in 1947/48, are at the very minimum, 63 years of age. Past the age of rampant procreation and natural attrition has seen many who are older, pass away.

For the most part, were children at the time of their dispossession. They did not take part in any hostilities, did not vote for the Mufti of Jerusalem, did not vote for the leaders of the Arab States, had nothing to do with the Holocaust, did not kill or dispossess any Jews or Israelis and were not even born as far back as 1920.

Today, there are less ’48 Palestine refugees with a genuine RoR to Israel’s Sovereign territories, than ever before. Naturally their numbers grow ever smaller every day. The Demographic threat to Sovereign Israel, is BULL SHITE! A blatant lie.

There are three main areas to which Palestine refugees have RoR.

1) Those from what is Sovereign Israeli territory as per Israel’s Declaration of a Sovereign State, where there was an absolute maximum of 397,000 Arabs in 1948. Remember Israel has never had any territory legally annexed to it, not all it’s minority non- Jewish population fled the violence and those who did are now beyond the age of procreation.

2) Those who were dispossessed from territories slated for the Arab State, illegally acquired by war under Plan Dalet then Israel between 1948 & 1949, none of it annexed to Israel.

3) Those who were dispossessed in 1967 from ‘territories occupied in the recent conflict’. Some of whom were also dispossessed in ’48-’49. Again, territories never legally annexed to Israel.

Are there 3.5 to 4 million Palestine refugees ready to flood Israel? NO! That too is a fallacy. The Palestinians have only ever claimed RoR as per UN resolutions which are as a matter of course, based on UN Refugee Conventions which do not allow for all lineal descendants.

Under basic RoR, only innocent civilians, who actually lived in a region and who agree to live in peace, have legitimate RoR. It is their right to either return or opt for compensation. Even then the state of return has the right to veto those who do not fit the criterion. Although the state of return is obliged to recognize and grant only basic RoR, they can expand on this basic right through their own legislation and allow, as some countries have, for lineal descendants.

The 3.5 to 4 million figure often cited by the ‘demographic threat’ scare mongers, comes from the UNRWA figures for Palestine refugees. UNRWA was set up because of the unique set of conditions that apply to Palestine refugees
A) The protracted nature of the conflict B) Israel’s illegal refusal to recognize even basic RoR and Israel’s illegal claims to territory OUTSIDE it’s Sovereign borders C) All Palestinians and Palestine refugees are stateless.

However under the UNRWA Mandate the term ‘Palestine’ refugee is a need-based definition the clue is in the name, Relief and Works. The UNRWA definition is not for the purposes of repatriation or compensation as envisaged in UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 194 (III) of December 1948. UNRWA’s working definition, is only for expediency in ascertaining who may qualify for Relief and Works, while they are refugees.

It’s numbers are not those who qualify for RoR to Israel’s actual sovereign territories. UNRWA’s limited mandate

” UNRWA is a humanitarian agency and its mandate defines its role as one of providing services to the refugees.”

Yet Professor Ruth Lapidoth perpetuates the fallacy on the Israeli Government web site. “According to Palestinian sources, there are about 3.5 million Palestinian refugees nowadays registered with UNRWA. If Israel were to allow all of them to return to her territory, this would be an act of suicide on her part, and no state can be expected to destroy itself.”

Is she, a professor, really that ignorant? Of course she isn’t. The ambiguity of her assertion shows she is engaged in typical propaganda modus operandi. Planting the seeds of panic in order that there be no RoR at all. She does not say the Palestinians demand that all lineal descendants have RoR, she only says “there are about 3.5 million Palestinian refugees nowadays registered with UNRWA “….she then slyly adds…. If Israel were to allow all of them to return to her territory…etc”

This is a typical propagandista’s strawman argument, enough to make people think this is the Palestinian demand. It isn’t. The Palestinians have only asked for RoR per the UN Conventions, (res 194) which is as a matter of course, a resolution based on the UNHCR statute. No RoR for lineal descendants, one must have lived in the region. Added to which Israel is NOT REQUIRED to admit all those registered with UNRWA into Sovereign Israeli territory. The UNRWA mandate does not cover RoR or final status negotiations and only those who agree to live in peace need be granted RoR.

The propagandists also treat us to the false notion that, because Palestine refugees are served by UNRWA, they are not covered by the UNHCR. However, although the Palestine refugees are afforded ‘assistance’ whilst they are refugees under UNRWA and because of this they are not afforded ‘assistance’ under the UNHCR, they are never the less, still refugees and as such have RoR.

The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1950 states: ” D. This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.”

‘Protection’ or ‘assistance’. It does not say they are no longer refugees. It does not say they are not covered by the other aspects of the UNHCR statute. The document goes on to say: “When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention.”

What has been Israel’s true intentions all these years? Let’s look at the events from the launch of Plan Dalet in the weeks prior to May 14th 1948. We are told it was a defensive strategy. Fair enough. However, if folk have fled, what is the strategy of razing their villages and homes if they were not there? It does not add up.

Link to this section

What was Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett talking about when he said in August 1948 “To repatriate those who had fled would be suicidal folly.“? If he was talking about those who fled Sovereign Israeli territory being a demographic threat, simple maths tells us it just does not compute. If he was talking about them being a violent threat. Israel was not and is still not required to repatriate folk unless they agree to line in peace. Either he was ill informed, which I doubt, or lying or had crap maths skills or perhaps was creating an insidious propaganda mantra in order to promote fear in the Israeli psyche, thereby preventing any RoR at all. A propaganda mantra that lives on today.

Perhaps Moshe Sharett was talking about those unfortunates who fled from the territories outside of Israel’s Sovereignty? Territories slated for the new Arab State, already cleansed under Plan Dalet before the 14th May 1948 and after, by Israel during the war of Independence? Territories Israel has illegally acquired by war but never annexed? Territories Israel did not Declare Sovereignty over.

If these are the folk Moshe Sharett was talking about, why was he, a few weeks later, in August 1948, saying they’d be a demographic threat were they to return. Before the War of Independence was even over? Was it Israel’s intention in August 1948 to keep these territories? It was by August 1949 according to Israel.

Fact is, all of Israel’s actions have confirmed that intention. Israel HAS kept all the territories it has acquired by war. Yet none of the territories Israel has captured have ever been legally annexed. They are, quite simply, NOT legally Sovereign Israeli territory.

Unilateral annexation is invalid and Armistice lines are only borders where they were borders before the armistice. Only parts of the Green Line were ever actual borders. The majority of the ‘Green Line’ was never a border between Israel and Palestine. Parts of the armistice line were the border between Israel and the Arab States and other parts were a border between Palestine and the Arab States. For the most part, it was only an armistice line.

Is there a demographic threat to the territories Israel has illegally claimed as it’s own for 62 years?

Of course there’s a threat to Israel’s existence in these territories. They’re not Israeli. Legally, it’s up to the Palestinians to pass legislation as to who returns and illegal settlers who might stay.

Israel’s fallacious ‘facts on the ground’. It’s ignoring International Law, UNSC resolutions. Even dissing it’s own voluntarily Declared obligation to adhere to the UN Charter. All ignored. Added to which the USA’s complicity in using it’s power of veto in the UNSC, have caused a hugely complicated and seemingly intractable MESS for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Further reading:

DEFINITION OF A “REFUGEE” UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Adopted on 28 July 1951 by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons convened under General Assembly resolution 429 (V) of 14 December 1950

December 1, 2009

The Palestinians could have had a state next to Israel 62 years ago. Just another Fairy Tale from the Fallacy Factory.


…It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel,
then it’s a territory of Palestine…

Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-jA

We’re often treated to the completely false notion that the Palestinians could have had a state next to Israel “..if only they’d accepted UNGA Resolution 181..” or “if only they’d accepted some of the (so called) ‘concessions’ Israel has made”. (offering to return the spare wheel of a stolen car in order to keep the rest, is far from a valid ‘concession’). Or “The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”? A notion usually voiced on the understanding that the Palestinians are to blame for their current situation. Unfortunately it is just another fallacy, based in ignorance or deliberate ignoring the laws surrounding the formation of states and the I/P issue in general. And, if one looks closely at the notion of a Jewish homeland in all of Palestine today, the dunce’s cap just might be on the other head.

According to the JCPA it is a pre-requisite for declaring sovereignty that the entity declaring must control all their territories at the time of their declaration. It is the reason the Jewish Peoples Council had to wait until the British Mandate ended May 14th 1948. It is the same reason Indonesia had to leave East Timor in order that they could declare sovereignty. It is the reason the Palestinian’s previous declaration was not accepted by the UN.

All or part of Palestine has been under the control of a succession of other entities since at least the Roman era. It’s citizens included Jewish folk who lived in the region.

Under the Mandate for Palestine it was under British control. When Jordan declared Sovereignty in 1946, what remained of Palestine, was still under the control of the British. It’s citizens including Jewish folk, were all Palestinians.

In the weeks preceding May 14th 1948, Plan Dalet was launched. This saw the Jewish Agency in control of territories slated for the new Arab State at by the end of the British Mandate. Jewish forces were not withdrawn from the territory slated for the Arab state when Israel Declared Sovereignty. (Israel has never annexed any of these territories) Israel has been in control of territories slated for the new Arab State since 00:01 May 15th 1948, making sure the Palestinians could not declare independent sovereignty.
Shortlink to these two maps

northern territories southern territories

At the end of the ’67 war we saw Israel in control of and illegally claiming even more Palestinian ‘territories occupied’. Israel now controls over 50% of the territories it agreed were not it’s own when it declared it’s Sovereign Boundaries.

There is no obligation for any entity to declare sovereignty or statehood. Even if the Palestinian had wanted to declare sovereignty, they could not have done so. There has only been ONE MINUTE in the entire history of Palestine, where there has not been another legal entity in control of some part of the territories known as Palestine. That was the minute between the end of the Mandate and the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel coming into effect. However, at no time has it had full control of all it’s territories.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.