First, find out what isn't true…

May 30, 2012

Hasbara. The world’s worst propaganda. Jewish settlers and the JNF purchased “territory” in Palestine


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

How many times have you heard “Jewish settlers and the JNF purchased “territory” in Palestine “

In the spring of 1903 JNF-KKL purchased its first parcel of land: 50 acres in Hadera with funds given as a gift by the well-known philanthropist Isaac (Yitzhak Leib) Goldberg”

“By 1905, JNF-KKL’s land holdings had expanded to include land near the Sea of Galilee, and at Ben Shemen in the center of the country”

By 1921, JNF-KKL purchases of land had quadrupled its land holdings, bringing them up to 25,000 acres”

Again, from the Israeli Land Fund:

The State of Israel today was built on land which was legally purchased by Jewish organizations such as the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and other private individuals.”

As always, the Hasbara has a gaping big hole. The Jewish National Fund trips up on its own lies. The JNF also says:

“These are not State lands

ShortLink to here

The 7% of ‘real estate/land/property’ purchased by Jewish institutions, Jewish individuals was minuscule compared to the whole amount of ‘territory’ allotted by UNGA res 181 and accepted as binding by the Jewish Agency for the Jewish State. Some 56% of Palestine in 1947/48.
‘land’ is ‘real estate’ or ‘property’ owned by civilians, companies, trusts, corporations, banks, even Government Departments & institutions. In some countries, foreign companies and Government institutions can own ‘real estate’. It is their ‘property’, however it does not give them any sovereignty over the ‘real estate / land / property’, nor does it give them any ‘territorial’ rights. (Note how the UN does not say ‘land’)

‘territory’ belongs to the legitimate citizens of the ‘territory’, whether they own ‘real estate/property’, lease or rent ‘real estate/property’ or are propertyless, homelss bums living under a bridge. It is their right to determine which state their ‘territory’ will belong. The Jewish National Fund was not a citizen of Palestine, nor did it represent legitimate citizens of Palestine 1947/48.

Israel paid NOTHING for its ‘territory’. Not one shekel, nada. Israel now sells land to Jews who are allegedly ‘returning’.

Before the US conducted a referendum amongst US representatives to annex Texas, a referendum was held amongst the legitimate citizens of Texas, whether they owned real estate, rented or leased real estate. Texas was annexed to the US on behalf of the legitimate citizens of Texas. The US annexation of Texas, Hawaii and Alaska by the legal custom of having an agreement, was eventually instrumental in that legal custom eventually passing into Customary International Law and furthermore forming some of the basis of the notion of self determination.

No such referendum has been ever been conducted on behalf of the people whose ‘territory’ was assigned to the Jewish state and the ‘territories’ Israel has occupied for 67 years. Israel has never legally annexed any territory.

Territory may be ‘restored’ to a sovereign, however it is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by war. Any war!

All Members shall refrain; in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

One of the ‘Purposes of the United Nations’ is contained in the UN Charter

CHAPTER XI: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES – Article 73 Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:.. etc etc

By occupying Palestinian territory “outside the State of Israel”, Israel has assumed responsibility for its administration.

May 28, 2012

The Hasbara. World’s worst propaganda – United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 was not binding and is irrelevant because the Arabs rejected it


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

How many times have you heard “the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 was not binding and is irrelevant because the Arabs rejected it”

Friday, 5 March 1948 Rabbi Silver stated to the UNSC

“Nevertheless, reluctantly but loyally, we accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations”

“We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. “

Friday, 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver replacing Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine stated

“We are under the obligation at this time to repeat what we stated at a [262nd meeting] meeting of the Security Council last week: The decision of the General Assembly remains valid for the Jewish people. We have accepted it and we are prepared to abide by it. If the United Nations Palestine Commission is unable to carry out the mandates which were assigned to it by the General Assembly, the Jewish people of Palestine will move forward in the spirit of that resolution and will do everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival and by considerations of justice and historic rights.”

“The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.”

And again:
Security Council S/PV.271 19 March 1948 The representative of the Jewish Agency, Rabbi Silver:

The statement that the plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out, is incorrect. This conception was never part of the plan. Indeed, it is contrary to the statement made by the representative of the United States during the second session of the General Assembly. The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State. Mr. Herschel Johnson, representing the United States delegation, speaking in a sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question on 28 October 1947, stated, in discussing this very matter in connexion with economic union: “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.”

UNGA res 181 is enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel

Someone is lying … You decide

May 16, 2012

The Hasbara – Israel vs Palestine – Is the UN really biased against Israel?


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

How many times have you heard “The UN is biased against Israel” ?

Rather odd if you consider the fact that the UNSC has offered Israel hundreds of opportunities to abide by binding Law, the UN Charter and relative conventions reaffirmed and emphasized in those resolutions. It has been Israel who has refused, preferring instead to increase its illegal fact on the ground!

Is the gas company biased for sending you a reminder when you haven’t paid your original bill? Of course it isn’t. It’s what you agreed to for being hooked up to the grid. Israel agreed to uphold International Law and the UN Charter in order to become a UN Member State.

Just one example of this so called “UN bias” is UNSC Resolution 252 which has EIGHT reminders, which only exist because Israel ignored the first. Are these reminders bias?

252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980 …. Oh, and Israel’s annexation of the Golan was also condemned by the UNSC Res 497

The next step in the holey olde Hasbara is of course “Ah, but these are Chapter VI resolutions. Chapter VI resolutions are not binding”. Correct. However, the Laws (all law is binding), UN Charter (binding on all members in its entirety) and relevant conventions re-affirmed and emphasized in ANY UN/UNSC resolution, are by their very nature binding!

CHAPTER VI: PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Does “shall” mean: “may”? “might”? “could”? “would”? “do you want to”? “would you like to”?

The Charter isn’t posing a question like; “Shall we dance?”. Nor are the Chapter VI resolutions, which more often than not “reaffirm” and “emphasize” binding laws and conventions. All law, by it’s very nature, is obligatory and;
All UN Member States are obliged to adhere to the Charter in its entirety.

Far from being biased against Israel, the UN/UNSC has given the Jewish state HUNDREDS of opportunities to meet its legal obligations. Far more than any other country on the planet! Israel’s claims of bias are propaganda nonsense.

May 15, 2012

The elephant in the room cannot see itself – Israel vs Palestine – The elephant acknowledges International Law


The elephant in the room cannot see itself. Israel vs Palestine
ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-XM

The elephant acknowledges International Law ?

Haaretz – By Barak Ravid | 00:59 15.05.12 Israeli Foreign Ministry: International law allows deportation of South Sudan asylum seekers
International law poses no barrier to deporting all 700 South Sudanese who live in Israel, but the government should examine the situation of every South Sudanese asylum seeker to ascertain whether their lives would be at risk if they were sent back, the Foreign Ministry announced in an official brief this week.

Should apply to all equally. Let’s try …

Israeli Foreign Ministry: International law allows deportation of Palestine refugees.
International law poses no barrier to deporting all Palestinians who live in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, but the government should examine the situation of every Palestine refugee to ascertain whether their lives would be at risk if they were sent back, the Foreign Ministry announced in an official brief this week.

Would it result in 4 million or so refugees changing the demographics within Israel’s legally recognized Sovereign territory? The law and simple maths tells us it is only a threat to a Greater Israel.

The official Palestinian claim to RoR is under UNGA res 194, using this definition, written before UNRWA was formed and before Israel officially claimed territory “outside the State of Israel”.

May 8, 2012

The Hasbara – World’s worst propaganda – photoshopping the evidence from Mavi Marmara


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

The Hasbara – World’s worst propaganda – photoshopping the evidence from Mavi Marmara?

Ships are a part of the territory of the state under whose flag they sail.

Basically, if there is a Master at Arms, the Captain must decide if the integrity of territory of the state is under threat, at which point armed resistance is warranted. If there is no Master at Arms on a ship, arms are expressly forbidden. Tools of trade such as knives, blades and equipment for ships maintenance and normal running of a galley are not arms.

You decide

Original from Haaretz

Enlargement of the dagger. Notice the mashed thumb, the gap between the blade and handle and the perspective of the blade, which is not correct for the position of his hand or the handle.

Note the shape of the blade

This pic is gamma corrected (lightened). Notice the shadows

A Jambiya does not have a gap between blade and handle

Here is the guy in question, with his ceremonial dagger

Here is his ceremonial dagger in the pile of ‘weapons’ found by the IDF

The only ‘weapon’ one would not normally find on a ship the size of the Mavi Mamara, is the ceremonial dagger. There are spare handles (shaped) for sledge hammers or fire axes, an assortment of cooking knives and a few pocket knives that every sailor carries. A screw driver? Other pics of weapons show iron bars etc. In fact, nothing unusual for an engineers’ workshop on a ship the size of the Mavi Mamara.


Notice the shape of the blade. Note especially – THERE IS NO GAP between blade and handle

He’s sitting. Why would and how could anyone attack the IDF while sitting? And why wasn’t he shot if he was attacking the IDF? And why are people standing in the background smiling, clapping?

The raid took place in the early morning at 4:30 IST.
this photo was taken during the day
This photo was taken during the day

Thanks to Denis O’Brien at _logo_phere

MORE

Also see an analysis of the alleged Mavi Marmara broadcasts

May 4, 2012

UNSC Resolution 476 is in agreement with Iran. ” the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased”

Filed under: Iran, Israel & the Palestinians — Tags: , , , , — talknic @ 12:20 pm

ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-W8

UNSC Resolution 476 is one of at least EIGHT reminders of the 21st May 1968 UNSC Res 252
267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980. None of which have anything to do with race or religion. They’re based on the UN Charter, International Law and the GC’s, all of which Israel obliged itself to uphold. Alas it hasn’t.

Is there any difference in the essence of the following two statements?

1) “Israel must end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”

2) “The occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the pages of time

Resolution 476 (1980) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2242nd meeting on 30 June 1980

The Security Council,
Having considered the letter of 28 May 1980 from the representative of Pakistan, the current Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, as contained in document S/13966 of 28 May 1980,

Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,

Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city,

Reaffirming its resolutions relevant to the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,

Recalling the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,

Deploring the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

Gravely concerned over the legislative steps initiated in the Israeli Knesset with the aim of changing the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;

3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

4. Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;

5. Urgently calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy city of Jerusalem;

6. Reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel with this resolution, to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations to secure the full implementation of this resolution.

Not only does the UNSC agree with Iran that the Zionist/Israeli regime/Government illegally in Jerusalem must end, it also threatens action via Chapt VII. Iran merely predicted the Zionist regime in Jerusalem would be wiped from the pages of history. It didn’t threaten as the UNSC has, with “practical ways and means”.

Furthermore, UNSC Res 476 tells us Israeli actions “constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East”.

Meanwhile, Israel’s illegally acquired eggs are all in one basket. The precious US veto vote preventing a UNSC Chapt VII resolution giving the law its full effect through “practical ways and means”.

Israel has breached its position of trust as the Occupying Power

Make up your own mind who has the law on th

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.