First, find out what isn't true…

December 22, 2016

Palestine Israel United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 December 2016

Filed under: Israel & the Palestinians, LEGALITIES — talknic @ 1:37 pm 23rd Feb 2017

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 is a Chapter VI resolution.

It’s one of many reminders to Israel of that state’s obligations to the law. In fact the majority of resolutions against Israel are only reminders. Had Israel adhered to the law there’d be no reminders. The Israeli reaction against the US on this matter is simply nonsense.

Permanent UNSC Members cannot and do not veto the binding International Laws, UN Charter cited in a Chapter VI resolution. Despite a resolution being vetoed, the Law and UN Charter reaffirmed and emphasized in the resolution remain in force and an obligation on the parties.

The US usually abstains from voting in the hope that a majority will also abstain.

So what is the big deal about the US abstaining on this resolution? NOTHING! The US abstained as it has done numerous times before on numerous Chapter VI resolutions. What is Israel yapping about?

The resolution was unanimously adopted by those who chose to vote. That’s how the UN works.

2334 is quite simply a concise round up of all the prior UNSC resolutions reminding Israel of its binding legal obligations. If Israel adhered to the law, there’d be no resolutions against it.

Wiping the Palestinians off the map Territory illegally acquired by war and illegally annexed by Israel December 2016

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines,

Recalling the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including “natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001,

Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,

Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,

Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground,

Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;

Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;

Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;

Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;

Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;

Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;

Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous agreements and obligations, to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric, with the aim, inter alia, of de-escalating the situation on the ground, rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and actions a genuine commitment to the two-State solution, and creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace;

Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the promotion of peace and security, to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process and within the time frame specified by the Quartet in its statement of 21 September 2010;

Urges in this regard the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this regard the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation;

Confirms its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations and in the implementation of an agreement;

Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every three months on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution;

Decides to remain seized of the matter.

August 15, 2015

Israeli propaganda depends on you not checking!

How many times have you read the Jordanian occupation and annexation of the West Bank was illegal
Or perhaps the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was illegal, only two countries recognized it
Or perhaps Geneva Convention IV is not applicable to the West Bank/Israeli settlements

Have you ever checked or thought about these notions?

1) Illegal occupation. Israel signed an Armistice Agreement with Jordan. If the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank was illegal, where does that leave Israel’s May 22nd 1948 self admitted occupation of territories “outside the State of Israel”?

2) Illegal annexation. Unlike the unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel, not recognized by anyone, condemned by the UNSC with at least eight reminders affording Israel the opportunity to abide by the binding Law, the UN Charter and relevant conventions re-affirmed and emphasized in those resolutions, Jordan’s bilateral annexation of what became known as the West Bank was by agreement with the occupied.

Although at the time Jordan was not a UN Member state, this was in keeping with the UN Charter on self determination. Furthermore and contrary to the Israeli notion that it was condemned by the Arab states, they in fact demanded of Jordan that the annexation be as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950), again in keeping with the UN Charter Chapt XI as a “sacred trust”

3) Recognition of annexed territories. A) The legality of annexation is not dependent on recognition. It is dependent on self determination per the UN Charter (ibid). B) if we take the Israeli propaganda claiming illegality because only two or three countries recognized the Jordanian annexation, where does it leave the legality of Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, recognized by no one?

The Jordanian annexation was recognized by the US BTW

“…it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Iiifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn that the US did in fact recognize the union” United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (1950) Page 921

4) GC IV. Israeli propaganda claims it is not applicable to the West Bank/Israeli settlements because the West Bank was not a High Contracting Power. However, in 1967 the West Bank was under the sovereignty of Jordan, who at the time was a UN Member State and a High Contracting Power.

One only needs to scratch the surface. The Israeli narrative is bullsh*t!

May 30, 2014

Palestinians continue to die in their own country at the hands of the Occupying Power

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.” Israel has never legally acquired any further territory!


An analysis of some of the information available relating to the deaths of Nadim Nuwara and Mohammad Abu Thaher in Beitunia on May 15th 2014 in the occupied State of Palestine

“He fell forward. A bullet would have knocked him away from the fire, he should have fallen back…” Bullsh*t! A rabbit isn’t even knocked away from the fire of a .22 bullet

The Palestinians ask for their legal rights under the Laws and UN Charter Israel agreed to uphold.

Meanwhile, “Israel, the Occupying Power” makes demands that have no legal basis what so ever. Read UNSC res 476, one of EIGHT reminders to Israel of its legal obligations and giving Israel the OPPORTUNITY to adhere to the law. Unfortunately the Jewish state has failed to live up to the promises it made when it was proclaimed and when it became a UN Member state.

April 8, 2014

Hasbara the world’s worst propaganda. Israel actually refuses Israelis RoR. Think about it

Civilians who have RoR and wish to return to what was “proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” had at the very least a right to have become full Israeli citizens under the notions of Self Determination Israel had embraced by becoming a UN Member state!

If they fled before Israel proclaimed its borders, they were Palestine refugees. Refugees from Palestine. Under UNGA resolution 181 accepted “as binding” by the Jewish Agency, they had an equal right to be citizens of the Jewish state (Israeli) or; citizens of what remained of Palestine (Palestinians) or; take citizenship in a country other than the country of return, thereby forgoing refugee status.

Refugees who have RoR to become Israeli citizens to Israel as proclaimed and recognized (ibid), are not Palestinian refugees!

Palestinian refugees, citizens of the territory “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” do not have a right of return to Israel. They do however have RoR to Palestinian territories Israel has illegally acquired by war and never legally annexed since proclaiming its sovereign extent and obligations to International Law to the world on May 15th 1948 (ibid).

February 8, 2011

Palestine. A country, a state? Mandate period treaty documents between Palestine and Great Britain, Ireland, Iraq, Syria, TransJordan, Turkey, Egypt seem to confirm that it was.

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


League of Nations Mandate for Palestine:
The Council of the League of Nations “Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; “

League of Nations Convenant: Article 22. Part I. (4th paragraph)
“Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.”

League of Nations 30 November 1937 C.495.M.336.1937.VI. Geneva, November 30th, 1937

Chapter X. – Conclusion
” It means that the Arabs must acquiesce in the exclusion from their sovereignty of a piece of territory, long occupied and once ruled by them.”


Additional research from Michael

Prior to the Mandate – Great Britain, Ireland and Palestine:
“Article 2. The Money Order Service between the contracting countries shall be performed exclusively by the agency of Offices of Exchange.
Article 7. Duplicate Orders shall be issued only by the Postal Administration of the country of payment and in conformity with the regulations established or to be established in that country.
Article 8. When it is desired that an error in the name of the payee shall be corrected, or that the amount of a Money Order shall be repaid to the remitter, application must be made by the remitter to the Chief Office of the country in which the Order was issued.
Article 9. Repayment of an Order shall not, in any case, be made until it has been ascertained, through the Chief Office of the country where such Order is payable, that the Order has not been paid and that the said Office authorizes the repayment.
Article 10. Orders shall remain payable in each country for twelve months after the expiration of the month of issue ; and the amounts of all Money Orders not paid within that period shall revert to and remain the property of the Administration of the country of issue.”

Click to access 144.pdf

Iraq, Syria, TransJordan, Turkey and Palestine:
“Article I. The High Contracting Parties undertake to créât and maintain an ” International Office
for Information regarding Locusts “. Its seat shall be at Damascus, and its expenses shall be defrayed by the Contracting Parties in equal shares.
Article II. The Office shall operate under the authority and control of a Committee composed of delegates of the Contracting States.
Article III. The expenses of setting up the office and the annual expenses of running it shall be supported by the Contracting States according to the conditions laid down by the Organic Statute mentioned in Article II.
Article IV. The contributions of each of the Contracting States shall be paid in through the intermediary of the High Commissariat of the French Republic in the States of Syria to the Bank of Syria and Lebanon at Damascus, whence the money shall be withdrawn, as need arises, on the order of the Director of the Office. Each of the Contracting States shall make its first annual payment within three months from the date when this Agreement is approved by their respective Governments.”

International Commerce Agreement with Egypt and Palestine:
“The Egyptian Government therefore agrees, on the basis of complete reciprocity, to grant most-favoured-nation treatment to products of the soil and of industry originating in Palestine and imported into Egyptian territory for consumption, re-exportation or transit.”

November 3, 2010

Israel vs Palestine. Contrary to the Hasbara, Palestine has existed far longer than any Jewish kingdom or Jewish State. By denying the existence of Palestine and the Palestinian people, the longer history of Jewish existence in the region, as Palestinian Jews, is being denied.

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

Apart from being irrelevant to the legal status of non-self governing territories and recognized extent of Israeli Sovereignty, by denying the existence of Palestine and the Palestinian people, the Jewish population who lived in Palestine throughout the diaspora
are being denied the longer history of Jewish existence in the region. As Palestinian Jews.

How many times have you heard “there were no such people as the Palestinians” or “No such country as Palestine”? To be correct, there was and still is no Independent Sovereign State of Palestine, nor for that matter was there an Independent Sovereign State, country or even a region called Israel until 1948. There was once a kingdom for a short period of time.

There was however Palestine.

The maps on linked on the sides of this page aren’t maps drawn in the era of the Hasbara. They’re of the region, drawn in 1480 & 1655 of the region at the time. From the Jewish National and University Library no less.

Basic maths: Since the Roman era, i.e., about 2,000 of the 3,200 year history of the Jewish people, the region in all it’s forms and under a number rules, has been known as Palestine. During this 2,000 year period, longer than there ever was a Jewish Kingdom or a Jewish State, Jewish folk living in Palestine were, like Palestine’s other folk, Palestinians. After having areas declared independent of it, TransJordan 1946, Israel 1948, what remains is still Palestine. The name has not changed for over two thousand years

In denying the existence of Palestine, the Jewish population who lived in Palestine throughout the diaspora are being denied their Jewish Palestinian history.

Herzl, who during his life time could have bought land and lived anywhere in Palestine as a Palestinian Jew, didn’t. Those who stayed in Palestine did. Tens of thousands who migrated in the late 1800’s did. That right was taken away by the formation of a separate state, independent of Palestine. Now Israeli Jews (and Israel’s other citizens) are prohibited from settling any where in Palestine by the laws Israel swore to uphold. Even under it’s own Law of Entry 1948 and still current, Israeli citizens are prohibited from entering a hostile entity. Not to mention the GC’s, Laws of War, UN Charter and numerous UNSC resolutions.

There is no logical reason for the notion that Palestine and the Palestinians did not exist except to justify the notion of a Greater Israel, at any cost. Even the history of the non-diaspora Palestinian Jews.

Contrary to the Hasbara twaddle

Have you actually read Twain’s “Innocents Abroad”? Or Bayard Taylor who wrote of the Jezreel Valley in 1852 “one of the richest districts in the world”

Some very nice pics
Photos of early Palestine
Show thriving, well ordered rural communities.

(thanks The Angry Arabs)

From Michael: Chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission in 1937:
For the Mandates Commission, Palestine had never ceased to constitute a separate entity. It was one of those territories which, under the terms of the Covenant, might be regarded as “provisionally independent”. The country was administered under an A mandate by the United Kingdom, subject to certain conditions and particularly to the condition appearing in Article 5: “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be . . . in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power”. […] Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.” DocumentLink

BTW read
Peres’ ‘making deserts bloom’ at the UN 2010

MORE – Palestine. A country, a state? Mandate period treaty documents between Palestine and Great Britain, Ireland, Iraq, Syria, TransJordan, Turkey, Egypt seem to confirm that it was.

November 2, 2010

Israel vs Palestine. Occupation is a position of TRUST. There is an OBLIGATION and a DUTY to PROTECT the occupied, their property and their territory.

…It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel,
then it’s the territory of what remains of Palestine since Jordan and Israel declared their Sovereign Independence from Palestine in 1946 & 1948.


Jerusalem Declared Israel Occupied City by Israeli Government Proclamation12 Aug 1948

Israel has never legally annexed any of this territories or any other territory it captured in the 1948/49 war.

The Occupying Power cannot legally annex without agreement with the civilian population of the territory being annexed, sans the citizens of the Occupying Power.

And Israel’s illegal annexation of east Jerusalem and the Golan, captured in the ’67 war were condemned by the UNSC.

Today Israel still occupies Palestinian territories, according to UNSC Res 1860 Jan 2009

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 “

First, read the UN Charter, care fully. It is actually a fine document with noble aspirations. Perfect? No. Nothing is perfect. However nothing, by it’s very nature, simply doesn’t exist.

What does exist is a set of rules for when parties cannot, do not or refuse to resolve their conflicts. Many of the rules exist because of the fate of the millions who suffered the horrors brought on by the Nazis. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees exists in large part because of the dispossession and deaths of European Jews and countless millions of other innocent people.

The rules have been accepted by all UN Members, without reservation. A UN Member State cannot opt out of ANY of the UN Charter which BTW reminds UN Members of their obligations to International Law and conventions already ratified by the majority (passing into Customary International Law) before Israel became a member.

Under the UN Charter there is an obligation and a duty for the UN/UNSC and/or Regional Powers after having stated their intentions to the UNSC, to intervene when a UN Member state acts illegally outside the extent of it’s sovereignty. They’re the rules Israel unconditionally accepted in order to become a United Nations Member.

Under the UN Charter (Chapt XI) non-selfigoverned territories are to be afforded protection by UN Member States. Occupation is a position of TRUST. There is an obligation and a duty to protect the occupied, their property and their territory. There is an obligation to assist the occupied in achieving statehood with all their rights, in all of their rightfull territories.

Israel is doing exactly the opposite while the world stands by, terrified of being called Antisemitic if they dare criticize, even though justifiable criticism is founded in the very laws Israel swore to uphold. Influenced by the Hasbara provided by the squeakiest door in the building. Fearfull of what the little Red Heifer in the Middle East might do to the china shop if held to account.

Israel’s founders at the time of declaration were well aware of the legal implications of declaring sovereignty. Well aware of the UN Charter, Laws of War & Geneva Conventions, before committing to them. Israel’s legal advisers were not naive. They were aware of every word, every punctuation mark, every exacting detail. They know full well that as long as a resolution or the writing of a resolution is being disputed, no action can be taken. None more obvious than the delaying tactic of arguing over the word ‘the’ in UNSC Res 242.

Unless the Zionist Federation were idiots, and we know they weren’t, when Plan Dalet was launched they must have known Israel could not be held to account by the UN until it joined the UN. The UN cannot censure non-members. However, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, says “it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. “

A search of the UNSC resolutions on the conflict from 14th May 1948 till admission to the UN reveals no direct demand or censure on Israel. After admittance May 11, 1949, we see the UN directly censuring Israel.

Israel’s narrative now is “The UN is biased against Israel, why doesn’t the UN censure the Palestinians, Hamas?”. Well, unless idiots are running the country, it’s BLOODY OBVIOUS!!

September 18, 2010

If Israel legally annexes territories after this round of negotiations, it will tell us two major realities.

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


Perhaps the most ironic outcome would be were Israel to legally annex ANY territories in a negotiated outcome.

It would

A) Quite clearly show that all along those territories were NEVER actually sovereign to Israel, thereby dispelling the twaddle peddled by those who say it is already Israeli territory.

B) Quite clearly show the generosity of the Palestinian people by forgoing the right to all their territory in order to have peace and perhaps, if they wish, declare a state or independent sovereignty.

Meanwhile., no one can force a people to accept a deal that is less than their rights. Nor can they be forced to declare statehood with anything less that their rightful territories. It’s up to the OCCUPYING Power, as a TRUSTee, to recognize those rights.

In the end the only way the Palestinians can have a state, is when occupation ends.

The declaration of the State of Israel ONLY came into effect AFTER the British Mandate (occupation as a TRUSTee) ENDED . INDEPENDENCE. Look it up. …

December 26, 2009

Fostering ignorance, hatred and planting the seeds of fear in a festering war for more land. A Greater Israel at all costs, even the basic tenets of Judaism.

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


Bearing goodwill isn’t a burden

A common argument we hear against the Palestinians and one recently reiterated by the Israeli Foreign Minister Snr Lieberman is like many others, excuse my French, bullshit!

From Haaretz // Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has ordered diplomats to use an old photograph of a former Palestinian religious leader meeting Adolf Hitler to counter world criticism of a Jewish building plan for East Jerusalem. Asked why Lieberman issued the order, a spokesman said: “because it’s important for the world to know the facts” and would not elaborate.//

What ‘facts’? Simple, unbiased, non-partisan, maths, tells us there are no facts associated with today’s Palestinians. First some history on Snr al-Husseini.

Haj Amin al-Husseini was sentenced to ten years in prison by the British for inciting riots in 1920, he was given amnesty by the high commissioner of Palestine, one Herbert Samuel, who then appointed him as Mufti of Jerusalem, 1921. Samuel was also responsible for creating the Supreme Muslim Council, which al-Husseini was appointed to lead in the following year. Ironically Herbert Samuel was Jewish.

The Palestinians of the time had no say in his appointment as Mufti of Jerusalem. His appointment was opposed by the Muslim High Council, regarding him as a thug. The Palestinians had no say in his appointment to the Supreme Muslim Council. They had no say in his appointment to the Arab Higher Committee. He murdered Jews and Arabs who would not comply.

The Mufti opposed increased Jewish immigration to Palestine and was responsible for the 1929 / 1936 riots against Jewish settlement. The British declared the Arab Higher Committee illegal, al-Husseini lost his Presidency of the Supreme Muslim Council and even his membership on the Waqf committee and went into exile in Syria. He never returned to Palestine.

In 1941, when he met Hitler he was no longer the Mufti of Jerusalem and no longer an official representative of the Palestinian people. The volunteer Muslim forces he controlled were not Palestinian. They didn’t operate in Palestine. // In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti (*?) as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974// (* he was not actually the Mufti at that time) …. by the time he returned to the M East Hitler was dead, any support tied to Hitler’s promises, was non-existent. He was refused entry into Jerusalem by King Abdullah, King Tallal and King Hussein of Jordan. He died in exile in 1974.

Now let’s look at some simple maths. The Palestinians of today have a life expectancy of 73 yrs. In 1941 it was likely lower. The date of Foreign Minister Lieberman’s order 22nd July 2009.

68 years has passed between 1941 and 2009. Subtract 68 from life expectancy (today) 73 = 5yrs old in 1941. In 1948, 12 yrs old. In 1936, 0-1yrs old. In 1929 / 1920 not even born. Simple maths tells us that today’s Palestinians had NOTHING to do with the riots of 1920, the Mufti of Jerusalem, the riots of 1929 1936, the Holocaust or Hitler or WW2 or for that matter, the 1948/9 war. They were only children!

Yet the Foreign Minister of Israel, Snr Leiberman, encourages people to make an association between the Palestinians of today and events that occurred while they were only small children. Events they could not have possibly had any influence on what so ever.

No Palestinians AT ALL voted for the appointment of the Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921. The Palestinians did not vote him into any position of power. No Palestinians of today were involved in the riots of the 1920’s – 1929 – 1936. No Palestinians of today supported al-Husseini or Hitler in 1941. No Palestinians of today, or 1941 for that matter, fought in Croatia or Hungary. It is doubtful that many, if any, Palestinians of today fought in the war of 1948. The majority of Palestine refugees were and still are innocent civilians.

So what ‘facts’ was Lieberman’s spokesman talking about? Answer – none! None of it is relevant to today’s Palestinians.

Simple maths is not biased, not Arab propaganda. The Foreign Minister of Israel is either completely shite at maths, which I doubt, or a liar. Those who repeat the propaganda are either blindly ignorant, incapable of simple maths or liars themselves. Bearing false witness is against the basic tenets of Judaism.

December 24, 2009

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 2, 2009

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

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

Shortlink to this article –


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to this section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading:


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

November 27, 2009

Fairy Tales from the Fallacy Factory. UNSC Resolution 242 calls for negotiating borders. But that’s not what it says.


Comments are closed.
This article has been Incorporated
Please ClickHere

October 19, 2009

Lying for Israel since 1948. The BIGGEST LIE!


UNGA res 181 is irrelevant, Israel’s borders have never been defined

Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948
“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.”

Also bear this in mind. Israel has never legally annexed any territory outside it’s Declared Sovereign borders. Ever!

How many people on the planet believe the fallacy?
Prime Ministers, Senators, Presidents, politicians, civilians
and worst of all ISRAELI CITIZENS!!

Israeli citizens who have been led to believe they are living in Israel.
Israeli citizens in Ashkelon, Beer Sheeba.
Israeli citizens in a big chunk of territory bordering Lebanon.
Israeli citizens whose lives have been sacrificed for the Zionist dream of a Greater Israel.

How much longer can the world allow this fallacy to pollute the issue?
How much longer can the International Community turn a blind eye to this deceit?
How much longer will honest Israeli citizens allow themselves to be used by a corrupt, cabal of people who are willing break the very basic tenets of Judaism?

Enough is enough already!
Jewish folk were given, completely gratis**, a big chunk of land for a Sovereign homeland. Enough territory for every Jewish person on the planet today.
The extent of Israel’s Sovereignty had been declared & confirmed by the Israeli Government with the UNSC on May 22nd 1948 admitting to having territories “outside of Israel” It was further confirmed with the UNSC by the Israeli Government on June the 15th 1949
Instead of being grateful, Israel has taken more and more and more.
Illegally ‘acquired’ by war, illegally acquired through illegal annexation.
Illegally acquired through illegal settlements in “territories occupied” NOT belonging to Israel!
ILLEGALLY sold to those who are either complicit, or ignorant of what has and is still being done in the name of all the world’s Jewish population.

** ‘real estate’ is not territory.
The US paid Mexico for their territories.
How much did Israel pay?

October 17, 2009

Watching AKUS make a fool of himself on CiFWatch. Another idiot for Israel


This is a guest post by AKUS

“This is not a critique of the fatally flawed Goldstone report itself, which has been ably carried out by many more competent experts than me and which could be continued pointlessly ad infinitum. Even the announcement advertising the discussion of the report this week and the terms of reference for the “fact-finding mission” reveal the bizarre world which the UNHRC inhabits which makes such discussions essentially meaningless and certainly fruitless:

The holding of the Special Session comes at the request of Palestine.

There is no such country as “Palestine”. In the Draft Resolution the word “Palestine” is given an asterisk, and a footnote explains that it is a “Non-Member State of the Human Rights Council”. In fact, it is a non-state, non-member of the Human Rights Council.

A) AKUS is an expert now? WOW!!!
B) United Nations Charter Article 35

l. Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.

2. A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.

C) The LoN Mandate for Palestine refers to the LoN Charter article 22, under which Palestine held the status of a Provisional State. This status has never legally altered. A Provisional State that has been hacked away by the formation of Jordan and Israel. What remains of the Provisional State of Palestine is still Palestine. It has not been renamed since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. When you eat half an apple what’s left? Apple or does it magically change into something else, perhaps AKUS’s ziocaine induced Hasbara bullsh*te?

Some expert AKUS turns out to be.

There is, in fact, no need to read the report in order to anticipate its methods and conclusions. It is more interesting to look at how it has been received, and what actions will be taken as a result.

Uh huh. ‘in fact’? ‘In fact’, IT’S JUST YOUR OPINION! (I guess he just ‘listens’ to the moaning of the losing team in order to ‘watch’ a football match)

D) Furthermore, under the UN Charter Chapt XI, Israel, as the Occupying Power, has a duty towards the Palestinians. To protect them, their property and their territory and to assist them in achieving effective independent statehood.

October 6, 2009

Liars for Israel, again. Obadiah Shoher breaks the basic tenets of Judaism!


From Obadiah Shoher – Samson Blinded Org. A rebuttal of the Goldstone report – The actual Goldstone Report

The lies begin in the 1st sentence…Comments in green
Goldstone report: the rebuttal
The Goldstone report’s title, Human rights in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, reveals its leanings. Since Gaza is also a part of Palestine, “other occupied Arab territories” can only refer to Israel proper.
“Israel ‘proper'”? Israel has never legally annexed any territory, Arab or otherwise. Israel proper is Sovereign Israel, as defined by the borders Israel Declared Sovereignty over May 14th 1948.

The UN commission was composed of professional human rights advocates, none of whom were experienced in military or anti-terrorism realities. To cover that glaring gap, the commission included one Colonel Travers, a human rights activist with no meaningful wartime experience.
Desmond Travers is a recently retired Colonel of the Army of the Irish Defence Forces. His last appointment was as Commandant of its Military College. In a career spanning over forty years, he served in various command and instructional appointments in the Infantry Corps. He was a founder of two of the Forces’ teaching and training institutions. He also served in command of troops and in key operational appointments with various UN and EU peace support missions. These were in the Middle-East (Cyprus, Lebanon) and in the Former Yugoslavia (Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina).

The fact that the Goldstone commission received the “full support” of the Hamas government (page 6) despite its nominal mandate to investigate Hamas’ crimes suggests that the terrorist group was assured of slap-on-the-wrist treatment.
The author attributes his own suggestion to the report.

The official Palestinian participant in the hearings, Muhammad Srour, was arrested in Israel immediately thereafter on security grounds.
Muhammad Srour was not charged with anything. He was released on 23 July 2009.

“The Goldstone commission heavily relied on the testimony of terrorists from both the Hamas and PA sides.”
An assumption by the author, with nothing to back it up.

The conclusions were predetermined by limiting the inquiry to the events following the July 2008 ceasefire (page 7). During the ceasefire, naturally, relatively few rockets were fired at Israel until the December escalation. As a result, Palestinian war crimes—indiscriminately launching 8,000 rockets at Israeli population centers over the last nine years—are only sketched in the report.
103. Palestinian armed groups have launched about 8000 rockets and mortars into southern Israel since 2001 (Chapter XIII). While communities such as Sderot and Kibbutz Nir-Am have been within the range of rocket and mortar fire since the beginning, the range of rocket fire increased to nearly 40 kilometres from the Gaza border, encompassing towns as far north as Ashdod, during the Israeli military operations in Gaza.
104. Since 18 June 2008, rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups in Gaza have killed 3 civilians inside Israel and 2 civilians in Gaza when a rocket landed short of the border on 26 December 2008. Reportedly, over 1000 civilians inside Israel were physically injured as a result of rocket and mortar attacks, 918 of which were injured during the time of the Israeli military operations in Gaza.
105. The Mission has taken particular note of the high level of psychological trauma suffered by the civilian population inside Israel. Data gathered by an Israeli organization in October 2007 found that 28.4% of adults and 72-94% of children in Sderot suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. 1596 people were reportedly treated for stress-related injuries during the military operations in Gaza while over 500 people were treated following the end of the operations.
106. Rocket and mortars have damaged houses, schools and cars in southern Israel. On 5 March 2009, a rocket struck a synagogue in Netivot. The rocket and mortar fire has adversely impacted on the right to education of children and adults living in southern Israel. This is a result of school closures and interruptions to classes by alerts and moving to shelters and also the diminished ability to learn that is witnessed in individual experiencing symptoms of psychological trauma.
107. The rocket and mortar fire has also adversely impacted on the economic and social life of the affected communities. For communities such as Ashdod, Yavne, Beer Sheba, which experienced rocket strikes for the first time during the Israeli military operations in Gaza, there was a brief interruption to their economy and cultural brought about by the temporary displacement of some of their residents. For towns closer to the Gaza border that have been under rocket and mortar fire since 2001, the recent escalation has added to the exodus of residents from these areas.
108. The Mission has determined that the rockets and, to a lesser extent, mortars, fired by the Palestinian armed groups are incapable of being directed towards specific military objectives and were fired into areas where civilian populations are based. The Mission has further determined that these attacks constitute indiscriminate attacks upon the civilian population of southern Israel and that where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into a civilian population, they constitute a deliberate attack against a civilian population. These acts would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity. Given the seeming inability of the Palestinian armed groups to direct the rockets and mortars towards specific targets and given the fact that the attacks have caused very little damage to Israeli military assets, the Mission finds that there is significant evidence to suggest that one of the primary purposes of the rocket and mortar attacks is to spread terror amongst the Israeli civilian population, a violation of international law.

The UN commission set an incredibly high standard of criminal behavior: “restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms relating to Israel’s strategies and actions in the context of Israeli military operations (page 7).“ Certainly, all military operations involve certain restrictions on rights and freedoms, and any army could be condemned with such a sweeping inquiry. Conspicuously, the commission chose not to investigate numerous violations of Israeli human rights by Palestinians, including a prohibition on visits to Palestinian-controlled areas by Jewish Israeli citizens.
A) Israel, under the 2005 agreement had ALL crossings into Gaza closed. It didn’t even allow journalists into Gaza. B) The report was a Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict

While accusing Israel of war crimes, the Goldstone report states explicitly that it does not “pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials (page 9).” In the same paragraph, the commission explicitly abrogates presumption of innocence for institutional bodies such as IDF or Israel, reserving the principle to individuals. The result of this approach is that Israel is blamed by default for all injuries to human rights in Gaza, whether she is culpable or not.
25. On this basis, the Mission has, to the best of its ability, determined what facts have been established. In many cases it has found that acts entailing individual criminal responsibility have been committed. In all of these cases the Mission has found that there is sufficient information to establish the objective elements of the crimes in question. In almost all of the cases the Mission has also been able to determine whether or not it appears that the acts in question were done deliberately or recklessly or in the knowledge that the consequence that resulted would result in the ordinary course of events. The Mission has thus referred in many cases to the relevant fault element (mens rea). The Mission fully appreciates the importance of the presumption of innocence: the findings in the report do not subvert the operation of that principle. The findings do not attempt to identify the individuals responsible for the commission of offences nor do they pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials.
26. In order to provide the parties concerned with an opportunity to submit additional relevant information and express their position and respond to allegations, the Mission also submitted comprehensive lists of questions to the Government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities in advance of completing its analysis and findings. The Mission received replies from the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities but not from Israel.

Need one go on? Why do so many who defend Israel’s illegal activities break the basic tenets of Judaism?

About : Google banned our site from the AdSense advertising program for “unacceptable content,” “advocating against a group,” and “sensitive content.” Yahoo/ Overture restricted our ads to a few odd keywords. Adbrite closed our account. Amazon deleted all reviews to stop the discussion. Russian ad provider Begun rejected our ads as “extremist.” Many other sites and conventional media outlets refused our ads. China blocked our site

Is it any wonder?

October 4, 2009

Watching CifWatch lower themselves, resorting to toilet humour….

Unable to actually quote anything I’ve ever said said that fits their criteria, the folk who are unable to honestly address difficult questions on CiF or here. The same people who declare on their web site : “The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard”, proudly announce …..
Time for Some Toilet Humor…Ever wondered why certain Guardianistas are able to spend so much time online talknicing out of their backsides…”

The irony of the ‘humor’ they’ve chosen to exhibit, their childish vindictiveness and choice of words, seems to escape them. It serves Israel how exactly? Who’d want to be associated with such people, let alone believe anything they have to say? If they’re representative of Israel, Israelis or Jewish folk, do they realize what kind of an ugly, spitefull, picture they’re presenting?

AKUS (re-appeared recently on CiF as Akusia ?), who is unable to produce a map of Israel’s Sovereign territory, because no doubt it’s too embarrassing, bravely leads the comments

October 4, 2009 at 12:32 am
Typical outback humor!! And then, when the mods get into action – all those long, long, nitpicking comments just flushed down the toilet….
Free Eora! The Cadigals will rise again!!

October 4, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Chas N-B
Superb! Shows they are going through the motions and that it’s good that CifWatch is flushing them out. I love how you guys cut the crap.
CifWatch: wiping clean the marble and smashing the cistern!
(Enough already.)

Indeed. Enough already to show folk who it is running off to the mods in what appears now as a self confessed and concerted effort to have folk banned, rather than addressing the points those folk might raise. Which makes their credo “The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard” seem rather incongruous and more than a tad shallow.

Enough already to show how un-aware AKUS is of his own transparency, blabbering on in ignorance about people with whom I have a close relationship and who he claimed were wiped out.

Enough already to show Chas N-B’s ‘toilet’ vocabulary has him in appropriate company.

How sad. In a world where real Antisemitism actually exists and should by all means be revealed, CiFWatch is busy revealing it’s adherents to be nothing more than hypocrites and sad little gutter snipes.

October 1, 2009

CiF on ‘alleged’ War Crimes. Israel vs the UN. Should Ehud Barak have immunity?

The Guardian CiF Afua Hirsch, Wednesday 30 September 2009The attempt to arrest the Israeli minister in Britain has rekindled a lively debate on diplomatic immunity from international law

First we should look at what International Law actually says. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Preamble: The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of establishing a Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, have agreed as follows:

Part I. General Provisions
Art 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

The UK, as a signatory to the Conventions, is a High Contracting party.

Art. 146.The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.

In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949.

Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Art. 148. No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.

Art. 149. At the request of a Party to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted, in a manner to be decided between the interested Parties, concerning any alleged violation of the Convention.

If agreement has not been reached concerning the procedure for the enquiry, the Parties should agree on the choice of an umpire who will decide upon the procedure to be followed.

Once the violation has been established, the Parties to the conflict shall put an end to it and shall repress it with the least possible delay.

The answer seems to be NO! The operative words are ‘alleged to have’.

Furthermore, it is an indisputable fact that Israel confined the entire population of Gaza, preventing them from fleeing a war zone, by having all crossings closed under the 2005 agreement, including those between Gaza & Egypt. Escape was not possible, ironically, not even into the sea.

Netanyahu: UN Gaza report spells death for peace. What exactly is he talking about though?

Why is Netanyahu lying again? Netanyahu’s speech to UNGA on 24th September 2009 was a litany of lies. Can we believe anything this man utters? Common sense should tell us, no!

Haaretz Netanyahu: UN Gaza report spells death for peace
Earlier Wednesday, Netanyahu said that allowing the International Criminal Court in the Hague try the war crimes alleged in the report would deal a death blow to peace. Speaking during a meeting with ambassadors from Asia and the Pacific islands, Netanyahu said that the Goldstone report and its conclusions could impede peace and make it difficult for democratic nations around the globe to fight terror.

Netanyahu explained to the ambassadors that the principle that a democratic nation has a legitimate right to respond to terror has been “crushed by a body belonging to the United Nations.” “This is a serious blow to the UN,” he went on to say. “It [the UN] could revert back to the days when it compared Zionism to racism. It’s starting in Israel, but it will reach other nations and it will hurt the UN.”

“Anyone who supports the Goldstone report and its conclusions is in effect against peace,” the prime minister continued, “since no country, and no people, would be willing to take risks for the sake of peace if their right to self defense was taken away.” “If the report reaches the international court in Hague, it will bring the peace process to a halt because Israel won’t take the risks necessary to achieve peace if it is not assured the right to defend itself. Anyone who desires peace must stop this report right now,” the prime minister concluded, asking the ambassadors to pass the message along to their respective governments.

No one is suggesting taking away Israel’s right to self defense. They do propose though, as a matter of course, that defense be in accordance with the UN Charter & Laws of War (both mandatory for all UN Members), and the Geneva Conventions Israel has ratified. This is no more or less than is asked of all UN Member States. Why should Israel be exempt?

So why does the Prime Minister of the Jewish State of Israel, stand before the world and continually break one of the basic tenets of the faith for Jewish people, time and time again? Has lying become the norm? Could Netanyahu be worried that at last 62 years of deceit is un-ravelling and the world is at last seeing the little emperor without it’s clothes?

When a country believes it’s own propaganda, it’s in deep shite! The Gulf of Tonkin Affair led to the US being bogged down in Vietnam for years and countless deaths. The ‘WMDs in Iraq’ conspiracy theory, led to death and destruction in Iraq, which continues today. Israel has been at it for 62 years. ‘Rockets target Israeli cities in Southern Israel’ blare the headlines. Yet Israel has never annexed ANY of the territories it illegally acquired by war by 1949, North or South. Netinyahu must surely know which territories the state of Israel has annexed!

Netinyahu must surely know that a Sovereign State has a right to defend itself from within it’s Sovereign borders. So what exactly is he talking about? Like the demographic threat fallacy, Netinyahu is talking about what Israel has illegally taken, that which is not it’s own.

Illegally acquired territory in the north, never annexed
illegally acquired territory in the north, never annexed
Illegally acquired territory in the south, never annexed
illegally acquired territory in the south, never annexed

And of course East Jerusalem, also not legally annexed.

Israeli propaganda and lies over the last 62 years has spelled death for the peace process, for 62 years. It has spelled death for tens of thousands of innocent people, Israeli and Palestinian. There are no doubt billions of dollars tied up in the construction contracts for the illegal settlements, another bullet against peace. It has now become a convoluted and complex web, ensnaring innocent Jewish people who’ve been fed the notion that Israel somehow has a legal right to these territories. They now blindly walk down a path that guarantees there will be no peace, oblivious to the consequences of breaking the basic tenets of Judaism.

September 28, 2009

The Guardian’s “Comments are Free” says “Facts are Sacred”. Lies remain. Facts are purged.

I recently came across this post by Keo2008 on CiF. It is rife with blatant lies. My reply to it, giving the facts of the matter was purged in the process of silencing Talknic (aka inreferenceto). Now, only the lies remain, spreading like filth from an overflowing sewer.

Keo2008 28 Sep 09, 9:54am

” what the Palestinians/Arabs were asking for in 1947-8.

1) They refused to talk to UNSCOP, so they actually refused to make their case to the UN body they knew would be making recommendations to the UN. If their proposals were reasonable, as you imply, whyb did they throw away the chance to influence the UN vote?.”

Interested to see if they did try to influence the vote, I went first where the facts should surely be truly represented. On the Israeli Government website.

There we find what the Israeli Government puts up as the Recording of UN vote on Resolution 181 – 29 November 1947. The only Arab state included on their version of the recording is Yemen (against).

It seemed a little short for an UNGA vote. So I then cross referenced this information with another reliable source of documents, Avalon Law at Yale University UNGA Resolution 181. Which clearly states, at the bottom of the document:

Adopted at the 128th plenary meeting: In favour: 33 – Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: 13 – Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

Abstained: 10 Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

The Israeli Government web site have edited out the majority of the votes from their ‘record’ing. Is it any wonder people like our friend Keo2008 spread mis-information, when this is what they’re fed.

Snr Keo2008’s post went on:

Keo2008 28 Sep 09, 9:54am

2) Because of course their proposals were not reasonable at all. They demanded a Single-state solution in which all Palestinians would have the vote, but only those Jews who could prove they (orn their ancestors) were living in Palestine before 1918. That was of course a tiny minority of the Jews in Palestine. The other Jews would be deemed as stateless and liable to be expelled

3) By contrast all Arabs living in Palestine in 1947 would get the vote- even though many of them had only moved into Palestine a few years before.

That is the reality of the Palestinian position in 1947. No wonder the Zionists rejected it. No wonder the UN rejected it. And no wonder the Palestinians didnt even dare put their case to the UN.

Smelling rat by now, I looked up their demands, again from Avalon Law at Yale University. The Pact of the League of Arab States, March 22, 1945. In particular what they had to say about Palestine

At the end of the last Great War, Palestine, together with the other Arab States, was separated from the Ottoman Empire. She became independent, not belonging to any other State.

The Treaty of Lausanne (4) proclaimed that her fate should be decided by the parties concerned in Palestine.

Even though Palestine was not able to control her own destiny, it was on the basis of the recognition of her independence that the Covenant of the League of Nations determined a system of government for her.(5)

Her existence and her independence among the nations can, therefore, no more be questioned de jure than the independence of any of the other Arab States.

Even though the outward signs of this independence have remained veiled as a result of force majeure, it is not fitting that this should be an obstacle to the participation of Palestine in the work of the League.

Therefore, the States signatory to the Pact of the Arab League consider that in view of Palestine’s special circumstances, the Council of the League should designate an Arab delegate from Palestine to participate in its work until this country enjoys actual independence.

(4) Here, we need to see The Treaty of Lausanne For which I use the Brigham Young University Library, where we find

The Treaty of Lausanne. SECTION II . NATIONALITY. ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

We also find a map a map Which shows us very clearly an area marked PALESTINE. A territory not TRANSFERRED to any state.

So again, the Arab States have only expressed what is in the actual treaty. (the British Mandate over Palestine was an administrative role (occupation). Palestine was not ‘transferred’ to Britain)

Onwards to note (5) and art. 22 of the League of Nations Covenant

(5) See art. 22 of the Covenant and accompanying notes printed in Foreign Relations of the United States: The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, vol. XIII, pp.

The Covenant of the League of Nations
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Thus far, the Arab States have only re-iterated the League of Nations Covenant, which by any standard of decency, are honorable and noble aspirations and also The Treaty of Lausanne, which does indeed show that a clearly defined Palestine, was never transferred to any State.

In order to cross reference this with their intentions in 1948, we need to read the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine May 15, 1948, for which I used the Jewish Virtual Library.

Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine May 15, 1948

The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.

Snr Keo2008, you’re full of shite! Not only did the Arab States reflect the worthy aspirations of the League of Nations Covenant, they also guarantee to uphold it. Not only were they correct in asserting that Palestine was never transfered to any State, but they guaranteed to protect it and all it’s inhabitants, offering them democracy and freedom of religion.
The complete opposite of the lies allowed to remain, where Facts are Sacred!

September 27, 2009

Propaganda, deception and blatant lies, from Israel, UK to the olde USA. ‘Journalism’ at it’s worst

First some background:

On Monday 21st September 2009, almost a year before required under the NPT agreement, Iran declares another small nuclear enrichment facility

General provisions Article 42 Pursuant to Article 8
design information in respect of existing facilities shall be provided to the Agency during the discussion of the Subsidiary Arrangements. The time limits for the provision of design information in respect of the new facilities shall be specified in the Subsidiary Arrangements and such information shall be provided as early as possible before nuclear material is introduced into a new facility.

This is precisely what Iran has just done.

IAEA’s Spokesman Marc Vidricaire:
said Friday, “I can confirm that on 21 September, Iran informed the IAEA in a letter that a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country.” In line with its guarantee to the IAEA for clarity on its nuclear activities, Iran informed the UN nuclear watchdog on 21 September that it is constructing a second plant for uranium enrichment.

Iran is willing to have its nuclear experts meet with scientists from the United States and other world powers as a confidence-building measure aimed at resolving concerns about Tehran’s nuclear program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday.

Mohamed ElBaradei:
“They are not Fanatics” The director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency on what it’s like to negotiate with the Iranians. “They are not like the stereotyped fanatics bent on destroying everybody around them. They are not.”
Q) You focus on actual nuclear material. But the Americans have supplied the IAEA with the documents in question. The Iranians insist they are fake and refuse to talk about them. A) “A lot is in documents which we cannot share with the Iranians because of the need to protect sources and methods. Iran says, how can I tell you if it is fake or authentic if I am not getting a copy? So in many ways it’s like a merry-go-round.”

Any one with an internet connection CAN SEE IT on Google Earth
This is where we’re told it is Under a small hill.
But maybe it’s HERE Near an airstrip and maybe preparations for workers quarters
Or over HERE Also near the airstrip and possible preparations for workers quarters.

The first looks like a quarry. Nothing nearby. Under a small hill. Powell puke?

See how they deceive
A paragraph precedes the “quoted text” to give an impression, using words that are not actually in the “quoted text”
‘revealed’ ‘declared’ magically becomes ‘secret’ ‘clandestine’ ‘hidden’.

Deceptions bolded Comments green

TimesOnline Deception : West demands access to Iran’s secret underground nuclear site ‘declared’ as per the NPT agreement, becomes ‘secret’

President Obama, flanked by Gordon Brown and President Sarkozy of France at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, called the hidden facility a direct challenge to international nuclear non-proliferation rules and demanded that Iran act immediately by agreeing to full international inspections of its nuclear facilities. ‘declared’ as per the NPT agreement, becomes ‘hidden’

Guardian Deception :Ian Black (Journalist)
Q&A: Iran’s secret nuclear plant Preempts ‘declared’ as per the NPT agreement, becomes ‘secret’ Ian Black has created a first impression before giving the answers

Q) What does the news of Iran’s secret nuclear plant mean?
A) It shows Iran has not been telling the truth about its nuclear activities. Under the NPT agreement, Iran is not required to declare facility until just prior to the introduction of nuclear materials. It has just COMPLIED!

Q) Why has it emerged now?
A) On the part of the US and its allies the revelation is exquisitely timed to coincide with today’s G20 summit..It was declared as per the NTP agreement on the 21st September It seems unlikely that a revelation of such importance would have been made without rigorous checking of sources. Like the IAEA 21st September US officials have been quoted as saying the plant is not completed but is designed to hold about 3,000 centrifuges, enough to manufacture about one bomb’s worth of material a year. The assertion, by the author, is NOT “quoted”

Q) How will this information have been obtained?
A) Intelligence on Iran is a top priority for the US, Britain and other western governments, and for Israel, which calls Iran’s nuclear ambitions an existential threat. Israeli claims have in the past been treated with scepticism, so any information it acquired would have to be corroborated. It is known that two years ago the US managed to penetrate Iranian computer systems. There is a broad consensus that Iran does intend to acquire at least the “breakout” capability to build a weapon. The existence of Natanz was a secret until it was revealed by an exiled Iranian opposition group in 2002. A) It was obtained from the IAEA after it was DECLARED to the IAEA on Monday 21st September. B) Natanz was also declared according to the requirements of the IAEA NPT agreement

Haaretz Deception : Barak Ravid (Journalist)
The prime minister’s message, which he made in telephone conversations, came a day after evidence of a clandestine Iranian nuclear facility was presented by U.S. President Barack Obama and the leaders of Britain and France at the G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh. …… Evidence of the clandestine facility was unveiled Friday by Obama and the leaders of Britain and France at the G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh, where it overshadowed developments on regulating financial markets and reducing fossil fuel subsidies. ‘declared’ becomes ‘clandestine’. It was declared on the Monday before Obama made the announcement

Haaretz Deception : Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman
said on Saturday that the newly exposed nuclear facility in Iran was built for military purposes and was proof that the Islamic Republic is seeking atomic weapons. “I spoke this weekend with experts from the East and West,” Lieberman told Israel Radio. “No one has any doubt, according to the technical data that was published, it’s a military core. The disagreement has been done away with.” ‘declared’ becomes ‘clandestine’ ‘according to the technical data ‘that was published’, refinement is within the guidelines of the NPT agreement’

Haaretz Deception : Natasha Mozgovaya (Journalist)
Medvedev said revelations that Iran has secretly been building a uranium-enrichment plant raised serious concerns, and demanded Tehran come to the table at an international meeting next week with a cooperative attitude and evidence of peaceful intentions. preempts what is said with un-quoted misdirection ‘revealed’ becomes ‘un-declared’ even though it has just been ‘revealed’ as required, (aka ‘declared’). “We are counting on Iran – particularly in light of the newly revealed information about the construction of a new enrichment plant – to provide convincing evidence of its intention to seek to develop nuclear energy with purely peaceful aims,” Medvedev said in the statement.

Medvedev said the undeclared construction of an enrichment facility flies in the face of UN Security Council demands for Iran to stop uranium enrichment at its only declared enrichment facility. He suggested the UN nuclear agency should take steps immediately to investigate the second site and called for Iran’s full cooperation with the probe. preempts what is said with un-quoted misdirection “The revelation about the construction of a second facility only strengthens our determination to achieve concrete and verifiable results in the years-long international efforts for clarity on Iran’s nuclear program and its goals,” Medvedev said.

China responded to news of the secret neactor(sic) by saying that they hope Iran “will cooperate with the IAEA on this matter.” ‘declared’ becomes ‘secret’

J Post Deception : The American Jewish Committee executive director David Harris
said in a statement. “The discovery of this second facility fits perfectly into the web of deceit which Iran has woven around its nuclear program. Let’s recall that the regime also tried to conceal the Natanz facility from the outside world. We are compelled to ask: What else are they hiding?” Natanz was declared BEFORE nuclear materials were introduced, in accordance with the NPT guidelines

And so it goes, over and over and over. They’re either oblivious, naive, ignorant, stupid or just incredibly bad writers. However, if they’re professional journalists, I every much doubt it, because they’re the very things journalists are taught to AVOID!

Which leaves very few options as to why they’d willing propagate such transparent bullshite. Coerced? Compromised? Getting kickbacks? Or perhaps they’re just blatant liars?

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at