First, find out what isn't true…

November 14, 2013

Israel agree to two states? Israel’s intentions were voiced to the Conciliation Commission on August 31st 1949. It’s actions since, show no change of plan.

15th May 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that 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. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”


Despite the fact that the League of Nations Covenant Article 20 tells us Palestine was a state with provisional recognition, referenced in the very first line of the League of Nation Mandate for Palestine and in Article 7, one of Israel’s main assertions has been that Palestine has never been a state.

Another of Israel’s arguments is that because the Arabs refused to recognize UNGA res 181, Israel somehow has some extra special right to territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”  and under Israeli military control.  I.e., “occupied”

The arguments are not only nonsense, they’re entirely irrelevant.  States cannot simply take what is not their own without the express permission of the legal inhabitants.  Since at least 1933 it has been illegal (inadmissible) to “acquire” territory by war, furthermore it is illegal for other states to recognize territories acquired by war.  A fact confirmed by Schwebel, Lauterpacht & Herzog, who tell us territory may only be “restored” by war.  No Israeli territories have ever been taken.  Israel has never had to ‘restore’ any of its territories, it has been “acquiring” territory by war.

Israel is no different from any other independent state. What lies outside of Israel’s legal sovereign extent, is simply not Israeli.  Since Israel’s territories were proclaimed by the Israeli Government in their plea for recognition, no further territories have ever been legally acquired by Israel by any agreement and no state has ever recognized any territories acquired by war as Israeli.

Israel’s official 31st of August 1949 claim (as a UN Member state) to alleged non-state territories of Palestine shows “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area”  except for the Palestinian territories.   Israel’s claim was refused BTW, citing the Armistice Agreements.

The Egypt Israel Peace Treaty ensured Israel withdrew from all territories sovereign to Egypt before peaceful relations were assumed. Again eventually showing respect for the territory belonging to state in the region.

Not so with the West Bank as it is now known, which was legally annexed by Jordan at the request of the Palestinians.  Jordan’s annexation of that territory was as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950). Unlike the UNSC condemnation of Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, there is no UNSC condemnation of the bilateral annexation by Jordan.  At the time of its capture by Israel in 1967, the west Bank was territory sovereign to Jordan, by then UN Member state and High Contracting Power. Which is why  the UNSC considers Geneva Convention IV to apply.

The vast majority of the International Community of Nations have already recognized Palestine as a state in accordance with the Palestinians 1988 declaration of statehood, where Palestine conceded 78% of their rightful territories for peace with Israel.  Israel’s reply was to ignore and create even more illegal facts on the ground.

Despite hundreds of UNSC resolutions affording Israel hundreds of opportunities to adhere to the binding Laws, UN Charter and relevant binding conventions those resolutions reaffirm and emphasize, why does Israel insist  maintaining its stance in respect to the territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” ?

Perhaps the answer lies in one line of  A) the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel “The state of Israel ….will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel and one line from; B) Deuteronomy 20:15 which describes how territories not belonging to neighbouring states should be treated.

…1948 …discussing the Declaration…

Ben-Gurion did not want to limit themselves from the outset: We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don’t accept?”

It should be noted that A) the resolution contained the proviso as envisaged in this plan, B) the Jewish Agency’s final acceptance of UNGA res 181 is enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and C) the Israeli Government asked to be and indeed was recognized per the frontiers outlined in the resolution. Furthermore, the resolution contained no clause requiring the Arab States to agree or co-sign, nor could it. It was an offer for “either” party to declare Sovereign Independence over a set of boundaries as envisaged in this plan, if they wished. It was not and could not be demanded or obligatory as it would go against the meaning of ‘independent’. The declaration of one could not be ‘dependent’ on the other. This was confirmed by the Jewish Agency itself prior to declaration 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.”


When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. (Article 4 Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations)

In order to be accepted into the UN through a recommendation by the UNSC, Israel had to declare its independence “as envisaged in” the UN plan enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and; the International Community of Nations granted recognition as asked by the Provisional Government of Israel.

Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel… ” I have the honor to notify you that 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. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

ShortLink to here In the following letter of the 31st August 1949 to Conciliation Commission Israel reveals : A) It’s intention to possess all the non-state (Palestinian) territories in the region. B) It’s admission, by stating it’s intention, that the non-state territories it had acquired by war by 1949 were not it’s own C) It’s admission, by stating it’s intention, that no part of Syria (the Golan) was Israeli. D) It’s admission, by stating it’s intention, that there would be no form of self determination by the Palestinians, relating only to the surrounding Arab states E) Via the final paragraph, if Israel didn’t get it’s way, it would not respect the recognized Sovereign integrity of the Arab states and their right to live in peace

31 August 1949 Addressed to the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission by Mr. Reuven. Shiloah Head of the Delegation of Israel and containing Replies to the Commission’s Questionnaire of 15 August 1949 I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of the Conciliation Commission’s memorandum of August 15 and to convey to you the answers of the Delegation of Israel to the questions submitted therein, 1. The Delegation of Israel is prepared to sign a declaration along the general lines suggested in Chapter I of the Commission’ s memorandum, subject to precision on the following specific points: (a) The Government of Israel considers that the solution of the refugee problem is to be sought primarily in the resettlement of the refugees in Arab territories, but it is prepared for its part, as already indicated to the Commission, to make it’s own contribution by agreeing to a measure of resettlement in Israel. (b) While the Government of Israel cannot bind itself in advance to the implementation of such solutions as the survey group may propose, it will undertake to facilitate the task of this group and to give full consideration to any proposals the group may put forward 2. The Delegation of Israel wishes to offer certain further comments on Chapter I of the Commission’s memorandum, in order to make its attitude perfectly clear: (a) The Delegation of Israel has taken note of the proviso that it is understood that the repatriated refugees will become ipso facto citizens of Israel and that no discrimination will be practised against them both with regard to the civil and political rights which they will exercise and to the obligation imposed upon them by the law of the land. The Delegation is astonished however,that there is no mention of any similar understanding with regard to the refugees to be resettled elsewhere. (b) The Delegation of Israel desires to stress it’s understanding that any repatriation in Israel as indicated by the Commission, would take place subject to financial assistance furnished by the International community and that such assistance would be extended to include the. resettlement of Jewish refugees from the Arab-controlled areas of Palestine (c The Delegation of Israel has already presented to the Commission a provisional estimate of the number of refugees which the Government of Israel would be ready to accept. It is desired, in this connection, to point out that the Government of Israel’s willingness to facilitate the task of the survey group rests within the framework of the contribution which it has declared itself ready to make to the solution of the refugee problem. (d) The Delegation of Israel desires to take this opportunity of reiterating its earlier statement to the Commission that the Government of Israel can agree to the repatriation of refugees to Israel only as part of an overall settlement of the refugee problem and of the Palestine conflict.

Link this bit 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. 4, In this connection the Delegation of Israel desires to offer a number of observations: (a) The territorial adjustments proposed above has the following effects: (i) No territory forming part of Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom or Syria is added to Israel by this adjustment (ii) No territory ever awarded to Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom or Syria by any international instrument or held by them under any agreement is added to Israel by this adjustment. (iii) No territory in which Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom or Syria exercises authority or jurisdiction under the armistice agreements concluded pursuant to the Security Councils resolution of November 16, 1948 and endorsed by the Security Council’s resolution of August 11, 1949 is added to Israel by this adjustment. If the territorial adjustment proposed were not effected, territory awarded to Israel under an international instrument or held by it under the terms of an agreement (viz: territory in which Israel exercises authority and jurisdiction under, the armistice agreements concluded pursuant to the Security Council’s resolution of November 16, I948 and endorsed by the Security Council’s resolution of August 11, 1949) would be added to one or more Arab States. The Delegation of Israel holds, therefore, that only the territorial adjustment proposed above falls equally in its effects on the rights and position of each negotiating party, makes no encroachment upon existing sovereignties, and preserves the juridical status and actual, stability achieved by the existing agreements. This method of achieving a territorial settlement is furthermore, in precise accord with the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on December 11, 1948 calling upon the Governments concerned to extend the scope of the negotiations provided for in the Security Council’s resolution of November 16, 1948 and to seek agreement by negotiations conducted either with the Conciliation Commission or directly, with a view to the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them. 5, I venture to point out that paragraph 3 above is to be read in the light of the observations offered in paragraph 4, and to request that in any use which the Commission may make of this statement of the Israeli Delegations position, shall not be cited without the addition of paragraph 3. I am Yours faithfully, Reuven Shiloah

THE REPLY: 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” NB: (a) The territorial adjustments proposed above has the following effects: …etc etc The territorial adjustments proposed were not accepted, to the opposite effect. Actions speak louder than words. The ‘effects’ have been Israel has: A) failed to have respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” B) illegally acquiring by war, Sovereign Syrian territory (Golan ’67). (Israel was requires, agreed and withdrew from Egyptian territory BEFORE peaceful relations were assumed) C) illegally claimed non-state territories belonging to the Palestinians, prior to the question of Palestine being resolved. D) illegally annexed “territories occupied” E) illegally instituted Israeli Civil Law in “territories occupied” F) illegally built Israeli civilian infrastructure and dwellings for illegal settlers in illegally acquired and illegally annexed “territories occupied” G) illegally sold illegally acquired and illegally annexed “territories occupied” to illegal settlers H) has yet to write a constitution i) shown that it cannot be trusted J) As a separate state, taken away the Jewish right to live in all of Palestine, limiting Israeli Jews to only Israeli Sovereign territory unless, they become ILLEGAL settlers or citizens o Palestine or Syria (in the Golan). Furthermore, under the 1948 Israeli military ordinance, still current, it is forbidden for Israeli citizens or residents to travel from Israel into the territories of a hostile entity. Contrary to the Hasbara, the Israeli emergency Law of 1948 prevented Israeli Jews and Israeli Muslims, Israeli Christians et al, from worshiping in Jerusalem from 1948 – 1967.

It is of course quite common for countries at war to either expel or inter foreign nationals and/or possible 5th columnists and to freeze their assets.  It’s also common to repatriate then and release their assets at the close of hostilities.


  1. Reblogged this on wgrovedotnet.

    Comment by mohandeer — May 13, 2015 @ 11:27 pm

  2. Hi Talknic,

    nice blog very informative. the links you supply are useful. it will take me ages to get throught your archives.

    Comment by Sycamores — May 8, 2014 @ 4:50 am

    • Hi Sycamores,

      it’s a pleasure. One day I’ll get to re-write this blog into some simplified explanatory chronological order :-)


      Comment by talknic — May 14, 2014 @ 10:09 am

  3. Hi talknic, i hope you remember me from Mondo. If i ask Shingo a (non-contrarian) question here, will he see the question to answer it? I can’t find him anywhere (i am banned from where he usually is) and i was wondering maybe i could leave my question here?

    Comment by Dionissis Mitropoulos — November 27, 2013 @ 11:29 am

  4. wow. I wonder if anyone do such work on any other territories. I don’t even knew that much, I was linked to here. Morocco occupies sahara desert, britain occupied falkland island, and what about spain.. we can go on..
    but let the dumb people fight on the tiny land

    Comment by baa — July 21, 2013 @ 8:48 pm

    • “Morocco occupies sahara desert”.
      WOW! Where did you read that?

      “britain occupied falkland island”
      The Falklands were legally annexed to Britain. The population voted overwhelmingly to remain British Citizens

      “what about spain”
      what about it?

      “we can go on”
      I’m sure you could, however would more nonsense change any of the following… Israel is occupying, non-Israeli territory. It has illegally acquired non-Israeli territory, illegally annexed non-Israeli territory, it illegally settles non-Israeli territory, the Israeli government illegally sells illegal Israeli settlers non-Israeli land.

      None of your vague and inaccurate whataboutery changes the fact that Israel is in breach of International Law. Two or more wrongs do not make a right.

      Comment by talknic — July 23, 2013 @ 7:06 am

      • Sadly, the Moroccan treatment of the Sahawaris (Morocco is a dictatorship beholden to the US!) in their homeland of the Spanish Sahara bears similarities to the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. There was a government sponsored mass-immigration (the “Green March” of 1976) their country is being plundered of its considerable phosphate deposits and fishing reserves and some 90,000 (UNHCR count) live as refugees in neighbouring Algeria, with more (perhaps 26,000) in Mauritania with no UN support. Those remaining are thought to be very much 2nd-class citizens.

        However, the rest of the claim is baloney. All other ethnic cleansings in the world (Bosnia, Rwanda, Burma) are condemned by the world community and the historic ones are truly irreversible (since there were no property rights to steal, no law to break, no claims made and little or no population determined to return). Those cases have generally been (partly) compensated for and apologies made. The situation of Israel in Palestine remains the elephant in the room.

        Comment by William Smart — July 23, 2013 @ 10:02 am

        • Hi William,

          Thx for the concise and factual reply. I no longer have the patience

          Comment by talknic — July 24, 2013 @ 1:03 am

  5. Hello Talknic,

    In the first link on your page, the quote from Ben-Gurion about not accepting the borders, the article goes on to say that he extensively rewrote the Declaration on the evening of May 13th, and “eliminated any reference to the UN partition plan”. That is clearly wrong, as the Declaration devotes two paragraphs to it. Is this article part of the hasbara ‘Israel has never declared its borders?’.

    On another point, I note you say that Israel acquired ‘sovereign territory of Syria’ in 1949. I am not sure this is correct. The 1944 map of Palestine on your site shows a strip of territory between the south-east shore of Lake Tiberias, and the Syrian border, this being part of the sovereign territory of Israel. From Google maps the 1949 armistice line runs along the lake shore at this point, so was Israeli territory that was occupied by Syria after the 1949 Armistice. This explains third point in Article 24 of the Palestinian Charter of 1964: “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.” The mysterious ‘Himmah Area’ can only be the part of Mandatory Palestine that was occupied by Syria, just as the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Syria. Rather confusingly, the ancient ruins of the famous hot springs of al-Himmah are actually in Syria, not former Palestine, but only a couple of kilometers over the border.

    Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — June 20, 2013 @ 5:15 pm

    • apologies for the typo: Gaza was of course occupied by Egypt.

      Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — June 20, 2013 @ 5:18 pm

    • Hi WTHL,

      On Point 1 a) The Israeli narrative is full of contradictions. 1 b) The article attempts to show how Israel voiced its intent to acquire non-Israeli territory which, in Israel’s opinion, did not belong to any nearby state in 1949 and that Israel has not since deviated from achieving that goal. It has ignored the UN Charter, International Law and has had no “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;” ( UNSC res 242 )

      On Point 2) It wasn’t 1949.. See what is now // B) illegally acquiring by war, Sovereign Syrian territory (Golan ’67)

      Comment by talknic — June 21, 2013 @ 10:02 am

      • Thanks for the clarification on the Syrian territory.

        Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — June 21, 2013 @ 4:11 pm

        • That’s OK. I appreciate people pointing out errors or bits that aren’t clear.

          Comment by talknic — June 26, 2013 @ 11:27 pm

  6. Hi talknic: there is an interesting sentence, relevant to your post, in a Knesset speech by the Israeli Foreign Minister in 1949 []

    “As for the frontier between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel, there, too, our aim is peace, and peace negotiations. We have always declared that we should prefer to see a separate Arab State in that area…

    Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — November 3, 2012 @ 10:09 am

    • Hi WTHL,

      Yes, I have this quote included here. There are several statements by Israeli Government officials acknowledging the limit to Israel’s extent (frontiers/borders)

      Comment by talknic — November 3, 2012 @ 1:47 pm

  7. Uri Averny supported the Kibbutz Metzner massacre
    Uri wrote an article called revenge of a child in Dec 2002.
    This was about the terrorist incident where Palestinian gunmen machine gunned
    an Israeli mother and her 2 sons at the Kibbutz last month. The Israeli mother
    tried to shield her sons, but it was to no avail, the Palestinian terrorists
    massacred all 3 of them. Uri Averny writes in this article, we should
    understand why Palestinians kill Israeli woman and children. He basically says,
    we should make excuses when Arab attrocities.
    Averny sounds like Adolf Eichmann.
    Averny also supported the Maxim restaurant suicide bombing on October 4, 2003.
    Averny like the Kibbutz Metzner massacre again makes excuses for Hanadi
    Jaradat, The Palestinian bomber who killed 21 innocent people and maimed dozens
    for life.

    Comment by Ed Frias — June 23, 2012 @ 2:37 pm

    • Ed Frias “He basically says, we should make excuses when Arab attrocities”

      Don’t come here with your smearing lies.

      This is what he says, verbatim “Nothing in the world can justify a Palestinian who shoots at a child in his mother’s embrace, just as nothing can justify an Israeli who drops a bomb on a house in which a child is sleeping in his bed. “

      The Avnery article describes quite clearly how Israel creates enemies.

      Comment by talknic — June 23, 2012 @ 3:44 pm

      • After the Fogel massacre last year, Uri Avnery went to to protect the Palestinian murderers of the Fogels.
        If this doesn’t show how sicko Averny is, nothing will.
        Israeli Left’s Solidarity with Itamar Killers

        Comment by Ed Frias — June 23, 2012 @ 6:49 pm

        • The killers of the Fogel family spent 3 hours in the home of the Fogels and left DNA and fingerprints all over it according to Israeli newspapers. The highly regarded Mondoweiss says that “Itamar is heavily guarded, surrounded by an electrified fence, and monitored 24/7 by a sophisticated system of video surveillance. Yet there is no video of the killer”

          But Israel needed to arrest and torture 100 people, including a 14 year old girl, to find out who did it? Israelis called the investigation a pogrom and so should we!

          Even Zionist bloggers think there’s a mystery! “Still there is one question to be answered. Why did a Jew hater who claims to be ready to be a shahid (martyr) surrender without a fight and even got rid of the two automatic rifles he removed from the community of Itamar?”

          It’s very obvious that the convictions are completely worthless, it took 4 weeks of beatings to assemble a case against 2 Palestinians, while rumours swirled that the killer was actually a Thai gardener (worker?) who’d been cheated of his wages.

          Still, that won’t stop your hate-fest of the victims of your land-theft, will it?

          Comment by William Smart — June 24, 2012 @ 8:52 am

          • PS – the Fogel confessions were obviously worthless, based on convictions obtained under prolonged torture. But there are two other intriguing matters – Israel claimed the boys had testified against each other and hence were tried separately. I don’t see the point of that – unless, in court together, they would quickly have discovered that neither had accused the other, rendering their own confessions obviously baseless.

            Secondly, although the whole world was told that this was dastardly terrorism and the trials took place in a military court, the 18 year old was only “convicted in a series of weapons-related and security offenses, as well as five cases of murder” and the 19 year old only convicted of “five murders”.

            Sounds to me as if the confessions were extracted partly with a promise that, convicted only as ordinary criminals, they’d be quietly released after a few years.

            Comment by William Smart — July 23, 2013 @ 10:54 am

        • Another lie Ed. Not even supported by your own link, which is BTW an ILLEGAL settler’s propaganda publication. They and you break the basic tenets of Judaism by lying. Not unusual when it comes to people who support Israel’s illegal expansionist policies

          Comment by talknic — June 26, 2012 @ 2:46 am

      • You mean the same Avnery that kept saying Arafat was a man of peace.
        Maslama Thabet, leader of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades admits all orders to kill Israeli civilians comes from Arafat.

        Karsh shows Avnery the real mass murdering Arafat.
        Arafat’s Grand Strategy
        Efraim Karsh
        Spring 2004,
        Arafat ordered Hamas attacks against Israel in 2000
        Arafat Paid Father of Dolphinarium Terrorist
        Israel National News ^ | Sep 13, ’04

        Comment by Ed Frias — June 23, 2012 @ 7:36 pm

        • Arafat was the man who persuaded (sometimes at risk of his life) almost every member of the PNC to accept the Israeli borders they were mysteriously granted by the UN Security Council with Resolution 242. That’s why Israel killed much better men in order to force this collaborator on the Palestinians.

          Arafat’s deal was signed at Oslo, giving Israel everything it said it wanted (up to that point) and giving the Palestinians nothing.

          So Arafat was the same kind of illegitimate leader as was forced on the Palestinians as play-boy. And same as they’ve forced collaborator and (later) military coup leader Abbass on the Palestinians.

          Comment by William Smart — June 24, 2012 @ 8:58 am

        • Ed. Propaganda sites have no place here. Sorry.

          Comment by talknic — June 26, 2012 @ 2:52 am

  8. As someone wrote about Uri, if Mr. Avinery wants to condem Israel for defending itself he should be relocated next to Bin Ladin, under Atlantic ocean, together with Haaretz editorial board.

    Comment by Ed Frias — June 23, 2012 @ 2:32 pm

    • Ed Frias “As someone wrote about Uri, if Mr. Avinery wants to condem Israel for defending itself “

      Quote Uri condemning Israel for ‘defending’ itself please. I’ll wait …

      Uri condemns, as I do, Israel’s policies of illegally dispossessing people and illegally acquiring territory slated for an Arab State and in doing so creating enemies. Which is entirely expected. If you steal from and dispossess your neighbour, they’re likely to get angry.

      Quite simple really. Israel obliged itself to the UN Charter incl Chapt XI. Numerous UNSC Resolutions tell us Israel has not adhered to its obligations

      Comment by talknic — June 23, 2012 @ 3:57 pm

      • What are you talking about? The 48 war was the result of the Palestinians together with their Arab allies to perform ethnic cleansing on the Jews and their failure to complete it.
        Every single Jew in the parts of the Mandate seized by the Arabs was expelled from their homes. No exceptions. They even dynamited the entire ancient Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem in an attempt to wipe out the history of Jewish residence there. They also made it illegal for a Jew to live in the areas of the former Mandate that they controlled, including the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan.
        850,000 Jews were also forced from the Arab countries.
        After the 5 Arab armies attacked Israel in 48, Haj Amin Al Husseini, the deeply racist Nazi collaborator, stated:
        I declare a holy war, my muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!
        The Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha declared “a holy war. He said, “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.

        Ed Frias was asked for a quote. Ed failed to deliver. Ed has been banned

        Comment by Ed Frias — June 23, 2012 @ 6:52 pm

        • You’re spouting us the hasbara version again.

          The Zionists were always absolutely clear about their intentions – they were going to attack the Palestinians and ethnically cleanse Palestine.

          All they needed to do was to terrorise and murder 100s of the British soldiers who were fighting Hitler. Which is what they did, many of the Palestinian Zionists (including two future Prime Ministers of Israel) effectively fought on the side of the Nazis.

          Fortunately, I don’t have to prove this to you, Rabbi Chaim Simmons, a settler in Hebron, boasts of how universal was their intention in his 1988 book “International Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine, 1895-1947, A Historical Survey” (updated and expanded 1991)

          Still, bit embarrassing to be made to look like either an ignoramus or a fraud, is it not?

          Comment by William Smart — June 24, 2012 @ 9:43 am

      • There are 57 Islamic countries in the world out of 193 countries, so ofcourse the world sides with the Arabs and Muslims.
        You know when Israel arrested Eichmann from Argentina in 1960, The U.N had an emergency meeting and demanded that Israel return Eichmann back to Argentina
        The U.N and all the Arab countries said it was against International law to kidnap Eichmann from Argentina.
        The U.N also condemned Israel for the Entebee rescue and the bombing of Iraq’s nuclear facility in 1981.

        When you have Palestinian leaders teaching their people, If their are 10 Jews and you kill 6 of them, how many Jews are Left?
        When you have these same wicked leaders telling their people that Jews are the sons of Pigs and Apes.
        When you have Palestinian Mufti’s teaching in Mosques that all Jews must be exterminated, are we shocked when Palestinians celebrate butchering Jews.

        Opposing Arab colonialism and Muslim theocracy, oppression of women and non-Muslims, and supporting the free and democratic state of Israel are progressive positions.
        Arabs CANNOT make peace with Israel. Without Israel to blame for all the death, poverty, destruction, misery and oppression across Islam, who will the Islamic people blame?
        Wait, they’ll blame the Mossad Shark, Mossad Vulture, the 4000 Jews who didn’t show up at the World Trade Center, and the new crazy Arab theory that Bugs Bunny doesn’t like Muslims.
        If only the Arab could put himself in the 21st century.
        Even the 19th century would be an improvement.

        Comment by Ed Frias — June 23, 2012 @ 6:55 pm

        • Barak and Olmert offered the Palestinians a state, something no Arab or Islamic country ever did.
          Israel offered the Palestinians a state, even though there was never in history any state called Palestine governed by Palestinians.
          I have 2 words for you. Palestinian Rejectionism.
          The Palestinians refused to end the conflict as long as it meant that they would have to accept the legitimacy of Israel as a sovereign, permanent country and neighbor. Only when the Palestinians extremist/rejectionist/supremacist attitude changes will peace really be possible.

          Why dont you go on Palmediawatch see how the Palestinians glorify terrorists who massacre Israeli civilians, names streets after these terrorists and talk how Israel will be eliminated.

          Comment by Ed Frias — June 23, 2012 @ 6:56 pm

          • Ed,

            Barak and Olmert offered the Palestinians territory that already belonged to the Palestinians under International Law. (see UNSC Res 476) Their so called ‘offer’ included Israel keeping Palestinian territory that Israel had acquired by war since 1948.

            I very much doubt that you’d be happy if a thief offered you the spare tyre from your own car so that they could keep the rest.

            ‘Palmediawatch’?? PMW is a propaganda site which refuses to corroborate its translations.

            We don’t do propaganda here.


            Comment by talknic — June 26, 2012 @ 3:00 am

        • All of that is hasbara.

          As you can tell from examining the UN resolutions on Israel, which demand that Israel abide by International Law and the Charter of the UN (as it willingly signed up to do).

          Why is it that Israel has never gone to the UN (where it has the unwavering support from many Western nations, including the US) and condemn Palestinians for breaches of Internatioinal Law?

          Answer, there are very few of those breaches, and where there are (such as the Gaza rockets), Law requires that the culprits face a court.

          But Israel doesn’t want rocket-firers facing justice – otherwise, they’d be forced to hand over the people who targeted the Al-Maqadmah mosque when it was full of worshippers.

          But then, you know all of this, don’t you?

          Comment by William Smart — June 24, 2012 @ 9:49 am

        • Ed,

          It’s irrelevant how many Islamic or Arab states there are in the UN. It does not change Israel’s status as a Sovereign State, recognized ONLY by the borders the Jewish People’s Council accepted. No more, no less.

          The UNSC is not dominated by Arab and Islamic states. Read UNSC Resolution 252 and its SIX reminders condemning the illegal annexation of “territories occupied” by Israel. When you steal, expect repercussions.

          One of the reasons you are banned is because you don’t supply verifiable documentation for your hate rants.

          “If only the Arab could put himself in the 21st century.”

          Bigotry isn’t tolerated here Ed

          Comment by talknic — June 26, 2012 @ 3:29 am

      • Israel is not occupying “Pals” territory because an Arab Palestinian state has never existed.
        The IDF is the legitimate army of a legitimate country and they defend their people from the Islamofascists who want to wipe them off and destroy their country.

        The Arabs continually initiate the violence. The Israelis have not fired the first shots.
        Do the Palestinians expect not to be fired back on? Its ok for them to blow up school children and civilians intentionally? Someone please explain to me how the Israelis could possibly live next to such a violent people. I personally don’t see how it can be done at this point. All I see is the Palestinians provoking war and using any method they can to get all of Israel.

        Comment by Ed Frias — June 23, 2012 @ 7:42 pm

        • Ed Frias

          “Israel is not occupying “Pals” territory because an Arab Palestinian state has never existed.”

          The UNSC says you’re full of Red Heifer sh*te!

          “The Arabs continually initiate the violence. The Israelis have not fired the first shots.”

          So show me a UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States for attacking Israel. I’ll wait ..
          BTW How is it that in Israel’s preemptive, ‘defensive’ wars, Israel didn’t fire the first shots? (BTW ‘defensive war’ doesn’t appear anywhere in the UN Charter or Customary Laws of War)

          “All I see is the Palestinians provoking war and using any method they can to get all of Israel.”

          Of course. You don’t see what Israel has done in contravention of International Law, the UN Charter (Chapt XI). Perhaps if you opened your other eye and stopped swallowing Israeli propaganda, you might see how Israel has been slowly wiping the Palestinians off the map. No Arabs have ever taken anything of Israel’s, nor have they attempted

          Who is being wiped off the map?

          The Palestinians have taken NO THING of Israel’s. NIL. ZIP. NADA. They demand only their rights according to the Laws Israel obliged itself to uphold. Israel ILLEGALLY demands more and more Palestinian territory, protected ONLY by the US veto vote in the USNC. As long as Israel is the “Occupying Power”, it can expect violent resistance from the Occupied and the subsequent collateral to Israeli citizens ILLEGALLY in “territories occupied”, PURPOSEFULLY placed in danger by successive Israeli Governments.

          The GC’s are there to protect all civilians. Israel has for 64 years placed Israeli citizens in danger by encouraging them to settle in territories Israel has occupied since 1948

          The Hasbara you spout is full of gaping holes and nonsense.

          Comment by talknic — June 24, 2012 @ 9:59 am

        • All of which can be tested in court.

          In fact, it was tested in the court that Israel asked (in fact, it practically begged) to join. An almost unheard of majority of 14-1 said that the apartheid wall was built on stolen land and must be pulled down.

          Still – we know what you’re like about International Law, don’t we?

          Comment by William Smart — June 24, 2012 @ 10:01 am

      • Hamas and the PLO derive their legitimacy by killing Israeli secretaries and high schoolers.

        The Palestinians have raised an entire generation to believe that the highest aspiration in life is to kill Jews. The Palestinians are engaged in an unremitting campaign of targetted murder of women and children. When the Palestinians massacre Israeli school children on buses, and babies in baby carriages, they celebrate. They have raised an entire generation to believe that the the highest cultural and religious value is the massacre of Jews. Through the Arabs hate, an entire generation has lost the capacity for humanity.

        Comment by Ed Frias — June 23, 2012 @ 7:43 pm

        • Off topic and unsupported propaganda doesn’t make the grade here Ed.


          Comment by talknic — June 24, 2012 @ 9:30 am

        • Bad luck on you that the Israelis told us they target civilians, and they had done so, and would do it again to “disproportionate” effect.

          Comment by William Smart — June 24, 2012 @ 10:02 am

      • Let’s play ‘what if’

        How difficult is it, if it is even possible, for parents who live in the Palestinian Authority today to educate toward nonviolence, tolerance, recognition of the State of Israel and peace?
        Karni Eldad
        Feb.04, 2010

        Assume for a moment that you are a Palestinian parent. Assume (really, let your imagination run free) that you are a Palestinian parent who wants peace. You would presumably want to educate your children in the same spirit. So how difficult is it, if it is even possible, for parents who live in the Palestinian Authority today to educate toward nonviolence, tolerance, recognition of the State of Israel and peace?

        Sports are generally considered a good thing – a challenging, healthy activity. And that is certainly true of sports tournaments for children. A PA soccer tournament could be both fun and educational – if it were not named for the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi. She is the one who perpetrated the bloody attack on Israel’s coastal highway in 1978, which killed 37 Jews.

        According to Palestinian Media Watch, a celebration was held on Palestinian television to mark this terrorist’s 50th birthday, sponsored by PA President Mahmoud Abbas himself. The event included a party at which a youth orchestra played in Mughrabi’s honor. For the last two years, the PA has also run a summer camp named after this “martyr” (no, not Hamas, the PA – the good guys). Abbas funded a computer center named after her, and recently, a square in Ramallah was named for her as well, with Abbas’ full backing. How heartwarming.

        The PA and its leader, Abbas, are for some reason considered partners in the dream of peace between us and them. But peace, if it is to be true and lasting, must be based on the desire and trust of both sides.

        For some time now, the PA, and even this newspaper, have been claiming that the Palestinian Authority does not incite against Israel. That is partly true. What you find on television, in textbooks, on posters and in public statements is not incitement; incitement is something superficial, something easily pushed aside by the next bit of incitement to come along. What is happening in the PA is systematic education, brainwashing that poisons the minds of its children – or rather “your children,” as the U.S. secretary of state once said in commenting on the issue.

        If two PA schools are named after the arch-murderer Mughrabi, what will be implanted down the road in the subconscious of the children who attend them? That murdering Jews is a good thing, which brings you honor. If Palestinian television describes Palestine as extending “from Gaza and Ashkelon in the south to Haifa and, further north, Acre,” if children are told that Tiberias is an important Palestinian city and Lake Kinneret a Palestinian water source, if Jaffa is called “Palestine’s gateway to the world,” what will your children understand from this? That there is no Israel. It doesn’t exist.

        In quiz shows on PA television and crossword puzzles in PA newspapers, children know the right answers to questions such as “Which is Palestine’s most important port – Acre, Jaffa or Haifa?” Other questions include: “Name three states that border Palestine” (the correct answer is Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan) and “What is the area of the state of Palestine?” The correct answer to that one is 27,000 square kilometers – a territory that encompasses the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, including the entire State of Israel. It is clear from the questions, of course, that the state of Palestine already exists. And so on and so forth.

        Your efforts to educate your children toward tolerance and acceptance of the neighboring Jewish entity are doomed to failure from the start.

        It is your word against the brainwashing inculcated by the schools, the television programs, the crosswords, the teachers, the textbooks, the songs. So what can you do? And how?

        Comment by Ed Frias — June 23, 2012 @ 7:46 pm

        • Ed Frias

          Er no Ed ….. instead of the opinions of singular persons, which do not change the Law, the UN Charter, the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, or statements of the Provisional Israeli Government to the UNSC and on which UNSC resolutions were made…. let’s play ON TOPIC, with verifiable information from documents with provenance.

          Comment by talknic — June 24, 2012 @ 9:28 am

        • You can hardly blame Palestinians for celebrating terrorism when your friends are doing it so much more enthusiastically.

          They’re still doing it over a terrorist attack twice the size of anything that Palestinians have carried out.

          And are still celebrating the individual terrorists, Jabotinsky has 57 streets, parks and squares bearing his name, Herzl has 52, David Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weizmann have 48 public sites. “Father of terrorism”, Menachem Begin, asked that his death not to be commemorated but has 43 streets and parks named after him.

          Comment by William Smart — June 24, 2012 @ 4:22 pm

          • William..

            Neither Herzl or Chaim Weizmann were terrorists. Weizmann may have helped fund terrorist elements, but he was not actively militant himself.

            Menachem Begin/Irgun was another matter.

            Although Ben-Gurion is reported to have deplored terrorism, Menachem Begin was never punished as were other members of Irgun during ‘the Saison’ (‘the Hunting Season’ 1944 – 1945) and; despite Ben-Gurion’s alleged loathing of terrorism and ‘the Saison’, Irgun was incorporated with Haganah and Lehi to form the Jewish Resistance Movement in 1945. Which seems somewhat hypocritical.


            “celebrates terrorism”? Or pays homage to someone who has sacrificed their own life in the cause of one’s people OR their life’s work has been in the cause of one’s people?

            Neither Herzl, Chain Weizmann,Ben-Gurion or Menachem Begin actually sacrificed their lives in battle. That they devoted their lives for the Jewish State is indisputable. It is understandable that they be honored by the state, whether one disagrees with the existence of that state or not or its crimes under International Law or even their terrorist crimes. It is the stuff of statehood and nationality.

            No less for the Palestinians. Celebrating “terrorism” no. Acknowledging the sacrifice people made, even though by terrorism.

            Terrorism isn’t new or peculiar to Muslims, Palestinians or any other people. So what motivations are there for terrorism A B C D E

            A – The insane, religious maniacs and at times disaffected unfortunates who have been brainwashed. A tiny minority in any society.

            B – A purposeful political weapon used to keep an issue in the limelight because despite the law, justice has not been seen to be served and in most cases has not been served. The perpetrators more often than not have become leaders once justice has been served.

            C – Born of the frustration of having been occupied an entire lifetime, seeing occupiers illegally settling on Palestinian land a stone’s throw away, having been illegally dispossessed (some Palestinians were dispossessed twice, once in 1948 and again in 1967), having homes, orchards and farms bulldozed, while International Law and the UN Charter which indisputably support your rights, do nothing what so ever to help. In this instance rendered in-effective by only one thing. The US veto vote in the UNSC.

            B & C fits terrorist groups who have fought for their rights or secession or for freedom from oppression and/or occupation. The Palestinians suffered under the British in the Mandate period AND continue to suffer under the yoke of Israeli occupation. They have only sought their rights under the law. They only claim RoR under the law and want their property and their rightful territory under the law. Under the same law, Israel has no rights to any territory outside its recognized sovereign extent. Aka the borders of UNGA res 181.

            Yet no peaceful means or legal avenues on behalf of the people of Palestine from the early 1920’s brought them their rights. This was despite the fact that the Lon Charter, the LoN Mandate for Palestine, the two British White Papers, the UN Charter, International Law, Customary International Law are all in support of the Palestinian right to self determination.

            Where does Israeli terrorism fit in?

            Pre-May 15th 1948 Jewish terrorism was not because Jewish Palestinians were any more occupied by the British than other Palestinians. The Jewish people had already been granted a homeland in Palestine under the LoN Mandate for Palestine in 1922, as Palestinian citizens. Justice had in fact been served.

            Israeli terrorism today via armed illegal settlers who are not even in Israeli territory, is not because justice has not been seen to be served. Jewish folk of the world already HAVE a Jewish homeland, the State of Israel, whose ‘territory’ was given it. Completely gratis. Territory enough to house every Jewish person on the planet today.

            In both instances, a Jewish Homeland per the Balfour Declaration and; a Jewish State under UNGA res 181, justice had been seen to have been served. Jewish terrorism does not fit B or C. It fits A quite well

            D – State sponsored terrorism: The State of Israel has engaged in illegal acquisition of territory by war, illegal annexation, encouraged and supported illegal settlement and illegal settlers and has allowed them to be armed in “territories occupied”. The GC’s are there to protect civilians of both sides of a conflict. By ignoring the GC’s, UN Charter Chapt XI, International Law and numerous UNSC resolutions, successive Israeli Governments have aided and abetted Jewish terrorism. However, justice has already been served. They have a state, a homeland. Their facts on the ground are illegal.

            E – State terrorism: Israeli MK’s have openly stated policies which are akin to collective punishment in order to weaken Hamas. Terrorism by blockade. Financial terrorism by with holding Palestinian taxes and preventing goods from being exported. Terrorizing the whole civilian population of Gaza during Cast Lead by blocking all means of civilians escaping from the war zone. Why? As above, justice has already been served for the Jewish people.

            Read the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel “THE STATE OF will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel;” and read Deuteronomy 20:15.

            If Palestine becomes an Independent State, Deuteronomy can be erased. Game over, no Greater Israel.

            D & E = A

            Comment by talknic — June 25, 2012 @ 3:27 pm

            • Thank you for such through answer.

              Comment by Nedim Sarajevo — November 11, 2017 @ 12:35 pm

    • Ed said:

      As someone wrote about Uri, if Mr. Avinery wants to condem Israel for defending itself he should be relocated next to Bin Ladin, under Atlantic ocean, together with Haaretz editorial board.

      What i have noticed with pro-Israel commenters (and i used to be one such until extremely recently when i had an experience that really opened my eyes) is that they are very quick to express open or covert wishes for the killing of those who disagree with them – like commenter Ed did right now by (indirectly) hoping that someone kills the Haaretz editorial board. What is amazing is that the administrators of right-wing pro-Israel sites feel very comfortable with such welcoming of violence, and that they will defend their violent/supremacist commenters no matter what – i am unfortunately speaking from experience.

      Comment by Dionissis Mitropoulos — November 27, 2013 @ 11:46 am

      • May we ask what experience it was that “opened your eyes”? Can/has your experience been published, and is it OK to put your name to it?

        Comment by Wiliam Smart — January 23, 2014 @ 11:59 am

        • @William

          “May we ask what experience it was that “opened your eyes”? Can/has your experience been published, and is it OK to put your name to it?”

          I have no problem with my name being used (it’s my real name, anyway) and i will tell you what this experience was, but i won’t post publicly the links that depict it unless talknic explicitly permits it (i can email them to you if you wish, but i need to know that, if anything is posted on a site, it won’t be an anti-Semitic site).

          I come from Greece, where anti-Semitism (a/s) is widespread. In all my life i have heard again and again the usual a/s tropes coming from my fellow Greeks. Naturally, i psychologically revolted against the phenomenon, and i felt a sympathy for both Jews in general and the Israelis in particular. When i decided in 2011 to research the facts of the Israel-Palestine (i/p) conflict i started getting informed by the most popular pro-Israel blogs on the internet (they are mostly right-wing, unfortunately). Their propaganda was very convincing, especially in light of the fact that i find the targeting of civilians abhorrent (so i was already negatively pre-disposed against Hamas). It did not occur to me that the Israelis are themselves, too, showing a disregard for Palestinian civilians, i was thinking that they were like me with regards to respecting the lives of innocent civilians. Anyway, i got hooked into reading about the conflict and i started joining discussions on the internet, thinking that i am helping the party in the conflict that deserves support, namely the Israelis – i must have made something like 1 thousand-plus pro-Israel comments in various blogs until approximately 2 months ago.

          One blog where i was rarely commenting was the Elder of Ziyon. Everyone there knew how much pro-Israel i was. One day, a regular commenter from there (one that i saw that has verbally abused talknic too) thought of attacking me on an issue unrelated to i/p (it was an issue about vegetarianism, which apparently to his mind is a grave sin). The day after this discussion i engaged this commenter (peacefully) in a discussion in the same blog. During this discussion he tried to cast me as anti-Israel (apparently trying to garner the audience’s support) whereas it was known to him that i was very pro-Israel. In the end, he started calling me “his dog” and himself “the master”. He also said that i was “a faithful Muslim” and that he was my “leader”. He went on for some time along those lines , calling me his “farty dog” numerous times. The next day, i engaged him again (once again, peacefully) in another discussion, where he tried to implement what i can only call “Gentile-baiting”, i.e. he brought up irrelevantly the issue of Jewish circumcision in a barely concealed attempt to make me say something that could be construed as a/s.

          Keep in mind that up until this time i was a 100% pro-Israel. I obviously got annoyed by his stance, in retrospect i felt like Yossef Ovadia had been reincarnated in the body of this particular commenter, and was demanding that i serve the Jews like the Gentile-slave God has made me into :)

          But it wasn’t the behavior of this commenter that opened my eyes. After all, a supremacist commenter is not something to generalize upon. Even the revealing silence of the other commenters, who knew how pro-Israel i was, didn’t figure that much into the opening of my eyes to right-wing Jewish supremacism (i stress the “right-wing”, the Israeli Left is not like this, as i increasingly realize now that i read their side of the story) What was really tale telling was the reaction of the blog owner, the Elder of Ziyon: he sees a Jewish commenter of his viciously attacking a Gentile pro-Israel commenter, on an issue unrelated to i/p, and he sees that all sorts of supremacist memes are used against me, AND YET HE DIDN’T BAT AN EYELID.

          The realization finally hit me:supremacism against Gentiles is indeed entrenched in the right-wing hasbara machine. The most famous pro-Israel blogger did not feel the slightest need to distance himself from such outright racism that his Jewish commenter was evincing. This led me to more thoughts (imagine this supremacist commenter in an IDF uniform in a checkpoint or during armed conflict with the Palestinians:how is he going to treat the the Palestinian civilians? And imagine the Elder of Ziyon being his superior officer: would he officially accuse the murderous or abusive soldier for misconduct towards the Palestinians?). My point is that it is not something personal that made me turn, it is the realization of the truth about the deep psychological substrata that motivate some Israelis, whose thinking is unfortunately dominating the political scene.

          More reading and more thinking led me to my current position on the i/p, which is still critical of the Palestinian stance, but i now realize that the number one culprit in the stalemate in the peace process is Israel, not Palestine.

          PS: there is a little more to how i finally realized the supremacism that is prevalent in the Israeli Right (and it is relevant to this specific incident i had), but i’d rather not share it – not now, at least. I hope i’ve given you the big picture: i now find myself incapable of defending Israel, i have seen the supremacist attitude that animates the Israeli intransigence on offering East Jersusalem to the Palestinians (and without this offer there will never be peace), and it is a repulsive attitude. The Israelis are lying, their utmost concern is not security as the hasbara has it, but sticking to East Jerusalem. They wouldn’t be willing to give it up even if they were certain that this offer would bring sustainable peace. But they can’t very well promote this view, because it exposes them as religiously (and honor-shame mindedly) intransigent, which is the very accusation that the Israeli Right brings upon the Palestinians. Well, it turns out they are as uncompromising in their religious and pride demands as the Palestinians that they accuse.

          I have made lots of comments in a discussion in the Guardian about the issue of East Jerusalem. My comments are spread throughout the discussion. In case you want to see numerous commenters stumbling unable to counter this particular argument concerning Israeli intransigence, here is the link to it:

          They had to call a regular hasbarat of the Guardian, who of course chose to post an indefensible reply a little before the comments closed, so that i wouldn’t have the time to take his arguments down too (not that they were worth anything, anyway, most were irrelevant, but the choice of timing is instructive , he wanted to have the last word unchallenged. And he succeeded, the comments closed while i was issuing my second reply to him).

          Comment by Dionissis Mitropoulos — January 23, 2014 @ 2:46 pm

          • Strollinby is there to spread propaganda and to derail any rational debate. You will not convince him/her of anything. It’s not in their brief. Don’t get sucked in, they’ll do everything in their power to frustrate you and get you angry. Similar tactics to serial abusers. And they’ll try to get you banned.

            It’s best to answer their nonsense in a manner that informs OTHER readers.

            Comment by talknic — January 27, 2014 @ 11:21 pm

            • Talknic thanks for both the info on the commenters and the advice. I don’t get angered when i am debating but i do allow myself to get “sucked in”, i am usually trying to empathize, to get into the other’s head to see what motivates her – it’s a habit of mine. At least in the Guardian they can’t be as abusive as they are in their home-ground, the rightwing blogs :)

              I do keep the audience in mind, as you suggested, it would be a pity to devote time to just debating with people who have their ears shut, without any chance of altering/informing someone else’s point of view, someone else who might be more open to competing views.

              I noticed what you say, i.e. that they act en mass against commenters they don’t like. I posted some info from Hostage (about the Constitution of Israel and Ruth Gavison) and they had the comment deleted in no time – and the links were from mainstream Israeli newspapers.

              Comment by Dionissis Mitropoulos — January 30, 2014 @ 11:28 am

          • Wiliam Smart attempted to post this. For some reason he couldn’t. I have on his behalf

            @ Dionissis

            That was an excellent description of how you came to understand the unpleasantness of the Zionists. Needless to say, Elder of Zyon bans people very quickly if their memes are challenged.

            I don’t know who “Strollinby” as Talknic has warned you against – its not me!

            Comment by Wiliam Smart 17/05/2014

            Comment by talknic — May 17, 2014 @ 5:25 am

            • @Talknic

              Thanks for posting it


              “I don’t know who “Strollinby” as Talknic has warned you against – its not me!”

              Don’t worry, i know it’s not you. Talknic was informing me about a commenter in the Guardian link i posted.

              “Needless to say, Elder of Zyon bans people very quickly if their memes are challenged.”

              I haven’t been banned, i can still comment there, the discussion that opened my eyes was irrelevant to Israel or Jews. What’s really preposterous with the Elder of Ziyon (EoZ) blog comment section is not the banning, it is the moral unworthiness and the viciousness of many commenters (needless to say, there are many racists there, but i’ve even seen one proudly declaring it. He wasn’t banned of course). EoZ can’t ban them, they form his fan base and in all probability he shares their attitudes. By the way, i might have created some ripples there: do you remember the particular commenter who i told you he attacked me with consistently supremacist memes? Well, EoZ had to ban him after some time. I am saying had to because EoZ himself said that he was banning him reluctantly – he was one of the most regular commenters there, and apparently respected by other commenters. But, i am guessing, i exposed this commenter’s supremacism so much that they couldn’t very well allow him to stay any more, especially after he had attacked a pro-Israel Gentile – and i was making a fuss about his supremacism in another influential pro-Israel blog.

              The funny thing is that EoZ’s admission that he is banning him reluctantly only served to prove that EoZ has no problem whatsoever with supremacists.

              Comment by Dionissis Mitropoulos — May 17, 2014 @ 4:49 pm

  9. Talknic – I don’t have a problem if you concentrate on the legalities of Israel’s borders or other exchanges with the UN, particularly around 1948. Does the name “Harlan Wilkerson” mean anything to you? He appears to be a serious examiner of these topics, eg uploading this picture

    However, the business about pogroms is important as well, since the whole Holocaust religion being pumped at us presumes that robbing and killing people for their religious community is fundamentally wrong. Israel has got to be almost the most extreme abuser of that principal in the world today. William – maybe not the same person you’re thinking of.

    Comment by William Smart — December 29, 2010 @ 5:17 pm

    • Hi william.

      Harlan Wlkerson…

      I used to edit there at times. Very time consuming and subject to instant re-Ziofication and the same tired old irrelevant arguments, over and over wherever they go.

      zionutters don’t accept Wiki as a reputable source unless they cite it, so I don’t quote it here. Although sometimes it can be a good starting point for an incredible number of subjects.

      So much of the tosh spouted is simply not applicable to the legal status of the issue. For example, ‘we made the desert bloom’ ‘there’s no mention of Jerusalem in the Koran’ ‘what about Jewish refugees form the Arab states’ etc etc simply have no bearing on the legal status or rights to territories.

      I think in order to save a lot of irrelevant discussion and confusion, it’s best to simply to show what is NOT Israeli.

      Comment by talknic — December 29, 2010 @ 11:22 pm

  10. Talknic – You don’t seem to use the word “pogrom” very much – is there some reason for that?

    Comment by William Smart — December 25, 2010 @ 6:24 pm

    • Indeed there is a reason.

      The Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel was made in order to provide a safe haven for all Jewish folk from such events. That there were pogroms in no way gives Israel the right to dispossess anyone in 1948 or today. We were granted, completely gratis, enough territory for very Jewish person on the planet today.

      There are too many irrelevant shadows cast over the current situation effecting the Palestinians, who demand only their legitimate rights and Israel, who agreed to adhere to the laws guaranteeing those rights, but continues to live outside the law, the UN Charter and outside of it’s legitimate boundaries.

      The Holocaust and expulsions of Jewish folk from the Arab States, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the pogroms, have nothing to do with Palestinians who were only children 62 years ago. In fact, their parents didn’t vote for any of the perpetrators of crimes, alleged or real, against Jewish folk at the time.

      Comment by talknic — December 25, 2010 @ 8:31 pm

      • This is Uri Avnery in 2008: … acts are committed openly, in order to terrorize and deter. Settlers riot in the Palestinian villages whose lands they covet, or for revenge. These are “pogroms” in the classical sense of the term: riots by an armed mob intoxicated with hatred against helpless people, while the police and the army look on. The Pogromchiks destroy, injure and kill. These days it is happening more and more frequently.

        Obviously, just because you are concerned about particular illegalities doesn’t mean you have to join the campaigns of people like Avnery over injustice they’re incensed about – especially since they may be ignoring your concerns. I was just interested to find out whether this was terra nullis as far as you were concerned.

        There is also a wider educational point – you may not have examined the conduct of the early Zionists, much of which was pretty horrifying. Many seem to have openly advocated robbery from the moment they set foot in Palestine in 1881/2.

        Comment by William Smart — December 26, 2010 @ 9:59 am

        • Hi William,

          ‘pogrom’ incidents can be rife with disputed accounts. True or false, those events can’t be undone. All violence is abhorrent. Comparing various conflicting reports, discussing who is at fault etc doesn’t clarify who now has legitimate rights.

          Legitimate rights are based on the word of law. The exact word of law can be verified, cross checked, indisputably shown to exist. Likewise with UN documents, Knesset, Hansard, Truman Library etc. It is not hearsay or even arguably hearsay.

          It is a fact that: On May 14th 1948, the Jewish People’s Council drew a line in the sand…..The extent of sovereignty recommended by UNGA Res 181 was declared as the Jewish Homeland State, independent of all other territories and all other control. No longer a part of Palestine and quite short of the ‘historical’ homeland in Palestine.

          UNGA Res 181 is enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel. We can see the document, read the words of the Declaration and the proclamation of that Declaration to the wider world. Verbatim.

          As of “ minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time,” two separate entities existed where there had previously been one, separated by default of Israel’s declaration. The Jewish Homeland State of Israel an Independent Sovereignty and what remained of the entity of Palestine. Palestine (it’s name had not been changed), had rights still current, under Chapter XI of the UN Charter Israel obliged itself to uphold when it declared.


          “…the conduct of the early Zionists”

          Ditto. Various conflicting reports and counter reports. Evidence of their long term intentions however, is in their statements as recorded in verifiable LoN era, Israeli Government & UN documents.

          Evidence that those intentions have been carried out AGAINST the law and UN Charter can be seen in the UNSC resolutions against Israel for carrying out those intentions.

          Comment by talknic — December 26, 2010 @ 2:21 pm

        • Nine times more Jewish civilians have been murdered by Palestinians in the West Bank than Palestinians murdered by Jews in the West Bank.
          During the past 11 years, out of 50 Arabs killed by Jewish civilians, 27 were self-evident cases of self-defense against armed Palestinian assailants

          By contrast, the 215 Jews murdered in the West Bank (254 if Gaza is included) involved almost without exception clear-cut circumstances in which Palestinian assailants targeted their victims, often in home invasions involving the slaughter of entire families like the Fogel Massacre, Shefi family massacre, gang assaults on hikers or attacks on civilian vehicles. Other sources, like the Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the United Nations (OCHA) confirm the relatively few murders committed by Jews and the much higher number of lethal assaults by Palestinian Arabs.

          No verifiable stats… sorry BYE!!
          Ed Frias has been banned for being off topic, false accusations, attempted smearing and failing to provide verifiable documentation for his claims, linking to propaganda sites, cherry picking the Hamas Charter

          Comment by Ed Frias — June 23, 2012 @ 7:31 pm

          • Sad but unavoidable. Does the software not allow you to put all but the thread-starters into a separate thread, where every argument from the likes of Frias can be (rather easily) demolished?

            Comment by William Smart — June 24, 2012 @ 10:05 am

            • Hi William,

              I can’t be bothered wasting any more time on their disruptive rubbish.

              Comment by talknic — June 24, 2012 @ 3:28 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: