Ehud Gives Barack the Finger

The Israeli human rights group, Bimkom, has revealed that Defense Minister Ehud Barak has authorized the drawing up of plans for 300 new apartment units in the West Bank.

Such new building would be a slap in the face to the Obama administration under any circumstances. But the fact that the units are planned not for an authorized settlement (i.e., one which is legal under Israeli law, but, like all

Obama may not be feeling quite so chummy with Barak these days

Obama may not be feeling quite so chummy with Barak these days

settlements, remains illegal under international law), but for an “illegal outpost” doubles the insult.

The 300 units are planned for the outpost of Givat Habrecha, near the settlement of Talmon. Talmon itself was set up only in 1994, so it’s pretty hard to see where this can possibly be covered under the guise of “natural growth,” which even the Netanyahu government has conceded would limit settlement building.

At this writing, there has been a conspicuous silence from the Obama administration on this matter. It’s possible it’s being dealt with behind the scenes, but even if so, the credibility of Obama’s anti-settlement stance is being tested here. He needs to do something, not merely object, publicly.

It’s true that these units are only in the planning stage, and ground-breaking for them is still a ways off. But for Obama, the time is now. This is a matter of pure defiance, a US ally simply thumbing its nose, with no good reason behind it, at American policy. By itself, this won’t destroy Obama’s credibility, but if Israel is seen to be free to ignore American wishes, it bodes very ill on many levels.

In a further blow to Israel’s ability to claim it is a “country of law,” the area planned for the units is adjacent to structures already built on privately owned Palestinian land, and, Bimkom suggests, the declaration of the area for the new construction as state lands is a bid to “whitewash” the construction that has already taken place there. And sadly, it is merely symptomatic of the widespread construction in the West Bank which has been done illegally, both by the state and by private individuals and companies which the “country of law” turns a blind eye to.

13 thoughts on “Ehud Gives Barack the Finger

  1. Firstly, the oft used concept of “legality” under “international law” needs perspective. There is only one tribunal body in the entire world which is authorized to legislate “international law” and that is the United Nations Security Counsel. But even this tribunal is NOT authorized to recast international boundaries. Plus, the Security Counsel concept is somewhat inane because it is controlled by a small group of nations, some of whom lack basic human rights such as China and Russia. France is a permanent member with veto power and India, the world’s largest democracy is not.
    So its time to cut the bull-sh*t.
    The areas of the West Bank being referred to are of DISPUTED ownership. The World Court can’t settle it anymore then it could order the USA to vacate Texas. The Security Counsel can’t settle it because Israel’s land claim is that it legally owns the turf and rightly liberated it (long overdue). This was NOT acquired by Israel as the result of Israel invading another country, which is the only time the United Nations has jurisdiction to intercede. So the “international law” you reference is arbitrary and selectively applied (at best) and is completely imaginary (at worst).
    The Arab nations have made their bed and are whining because they are unable to sleep in them.

  2. Trollstein is givng the line of all apologists for this disgraceful land grab. At the present time Israel is redoubling its efforts to grab as much land as it can because it knows that the good days are over. The USA has a president who no longer gives unconditional support. Internationally it has become increasingly difficult for Israel to claim victimhood as at the same time it steals as much land as it can. Its behaviour towards the Palestinians is a total disgrace and designed to facilitate the land grab. Ehud’s mask has slipped and all can now see the situation exactly for what it is: theft accomplished through the destruction of the Palestinian people.

  3. Julius:
    I am apologizing for NO ONE and for NOTHING, as if that had not be made abundantly clear. I am ASSERTING, not apologizing. You on the other hand are “sound-biting”.
    Please understand, when I became involved in this political topic many years ago, I had little actual working knowledge of the subject and yet, I had formulated my own set of beliefs. These initial beliefs were the result of normal societal pressures and “tribal” affinities. As I began to read, I realized that the situation was opposite what I had expected. I was bracing to read some unappealing things about my own ethnic “tribe”. Quite the contrary, the body of scholarly historical material abundantly supports the pro-Israeli position. Then I got pissed off because I realized that the world is essentially a popularity contest and the Jews will never, ever be popular.
    I do not agree with every decision made be the government of Israel.
    Nor do they necessarily agree with the head Troll in charge.
    But supporters of the Palestinian-Arab cause generally disregard the settled international law which occurred following WW1 and before WW2 and instead, they pretend that the controversy started after the Holocaust, which it DID NOT.
    Please have a read at this link:
    http://english.katif.net/index.php?sub=2&id=1824
    For the record, I do NOT agree with the conclusion reached by the article’s author that ALL of historical “Palestine” (24,000 sq-miles including all of Jordan) was exclusively reserved for the future Jewish homeland/nation. Such would be ridiculous in the light of the Arab populations residing therein. The pertinent wording says: “in Palestine”. The Supreme Allied powers (US, UK, France and Japan) had the sole authority (and legal responsibility) to draw these borders. They did not do so and England arbitrarily gave the lion’s share of “Palestine” to become Jordan. This transaction was legally illegitimate. The present leaders of Israel have every legal and moral right to dispute these borders. But assuming that Israel abrogates its rights in that dispute, the borders which remain AFTER the illegitimate transaction yhield two nations (not three). Jordan and Israel. NOT Jordan, Israel AND Palestine. Thus, the Israelis ARE WITHIN THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS to dispute borders within West Bank and Gaza. They have entirely withdrawn from Gaza but have not abrogated their claims in the West Bank.
    You (and Mitchell) may not agree (which is of course your right) but ‘bumper-stickers’ and ‘fortune-cookies’ are WHOLLY INSUFFICIENT to debate this argument.

  4. Thank you, Trollstein! As an Israeli, it really upsets me when so called moral activists make ignorant judgments based on a string of associations, ‘societal pressures and “tribal” affinities’ (as you call it). I wish people would be more active in reading between the lines instead of soaking everything in at face value.

  5. trollstein…perfect name…! so…Isreal…a 20th century construct created by western imperial powers to appease their guilt post WW2 and holocaust..RETAINS the “right’ to dispute ‘their borders”? that’s hardly reassuring to anyone in the neighborhood…they covet and take, covet and take…and since 1919 the southern portion of Lebanon has been desired….after all they said…’why should we allow all that good water to be wasted on shepherders and farmers ? we are far more enterprising (read imperious/racist)….who needs to comply wiht international laws —many of which came about as a result of WW2 and post Nazi regime abominations…but the zionists abrogate and expropriate at will according to some mephistophlian plan? take take take and when there is resistence call it anti semitic? and bomb the bejeezus out of anyone…but especially those without rights, protections or an army to fight for them…How long will the world allow this delusional aggressive arrogant racist nonsense to continue?
    oh.. reject agreements on behalf of making PEACE? more settlements? half million illegal settlers aint enuff? fine..CANCEL ALL US TAX DOLLARS NOW!..no extra nuthin. done, finished… Isreal is just one big fat ugly SHONDA..and deserves to be only a bad memory…just like the old USSR..wiped off the map as USSR is…gone..vamoosed..ended..VIVA PALESTINE!

  6. Miriam:
    Now you have gotten nasty and not really even said very much else. “Israel” is the name ultimately chosen for the “Jewish National Homeland”, as clearly referenced in the charter language of the League of Nations. http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/1/9/1922_Text:_League_of_Nations_Palestine_Mandate.html
    This portion of international law was the outcropping of the various agreements and treaties enacted at the close of WW1. In specific, the San Remo Convention and treaty.
    http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/San_Remo_Convention
    These represent the legal basis for the independence of the Jewish people, as reconstituted in a specific homeland–to be created in Palestine. WW2 and the Holocaust would not occur for another 20 years and frankly, had the international laws been timely followed when mandated, there might well have not been any “holocaust” or at least, a greatly diminished one.
    As for the moral basis, this is even simpler. One of the other effects of the end of WW1 was to establish widespread Arab independence from Turkey. Jews lives in most of these Arab countries and with regard to Iraq, for example, Jewish populations had lived there continuously for 2,600 years. In all examples, Jews were second class citizens. While controlled by Turkey, the Jews of the region were bad enough off. But Turkey was a somewhat secular nation, with parts of its constitution providing for separation of “church and state”. The Arabs, et al, had no such civil rights and so, to make for a fair and even transition and to prevent Jews from falling to third class status (behind the Arab’s livestock), all parties agrees to the establishment of the Jewish National Homeland. The subsequent denial of this right became one of the most significant thefts of modern history.
    While most of the world was understandably sorrowful after WW2, many of the Arabs were not. All of the Arab countries had sided with Hitler, except Jordan. The (other) various Arab leaders made it clear that they were wishing Hitler had finished the job.
    I won’t waste much more time with you. Based on your earlier comments I think you are probably a lost soul and would probably never face reality.
    PS> I like my name. I like Trolls.

  7. Zionists are great at “reading between the lines,” particularly when it serves their purposes, despite there being nothing there but white space.

    Neither Balfour nor the San Remo Resolution supported the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. A home, national or otherwise, is not a state. The pertinent clauses, which Trollstein’s linked article glosses over in the shallowest fashion, (“. . . it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine . . . AND “To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine) becomes meaningless in the event of a Jewish state, as became abundantly clear with the establishment of the Jewish state when all those rights were abrogated. The best that could be said for either agreement was that they advocated the creation of bi-national state, the one-state solution, without benefit of the right of self-determination afforded the inhabitants of Palestine, i.e., a goddamn say in the matter.

    Moreover: “The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, together with the Italian and French governments rejected early drafts of the mandate because it had contained a passage which read: “Recognizing, moreover, the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the claim which this gives them to reconstitute it their national home…”

    The Palestine Committee set up by the Foreign Office recommended that the reference to ‘the claim’ be omitted. The Allies had already noted the historical connection in the Treaty of Sèvres, but they had recognized no legal claim. They felt that whatever might be done for the Jewish people was based entirely on sentimental grounds. Further, they felt that all that was necessary was to make room for Zionists in Palestine, not that they should turn ‘it’, that is the whole country, into their home.

    Lord Balfour suggested an alternative which was accepted.

    Whereas recognition has thereby [i.e. by the Treaty of Sèvres] been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the [sentimental] grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country . . .”

    Finally the 1939 White Paper passed by the House of Commons 268 to 179, and fully legal under Britain’s mandate powers stated:

    “His Majesty’s Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. […] His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.”

    ‘The objective of His Majesty’s Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. [..] The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.’

    In addition, while Trollstein rejects international law in the matter of the West Bank, all the international laws and treaties that make the WB occupied territory and not disputed territory (a figment of Israeli imagination) were all laws Israel ratified or agreed to abide by as a condition of its joining the UN. The notion that somehow the theft of Mexican land that became Texas in the mid-19th century gives Israel the right repeat a similar theft in the mid-20th is specious in the extreme for it ignores 100 years of international law designed toward peaceful international relations. It also, ironically, ignores the international laws emerging out of WW2 answering the crimes of the Third Reich against humanity, including 6 million Jews. Is Trollstein arguing with his Texas reference that no international laws govern Israel’s behavior, even those ratified and agreed to by Israel? And if so, then what of other nations? Would it be legal for the United States to annex Canada? After all, we did it to parts of Mexico and all of Hawaii. I think not, and it is clear that rationalizing Israel’s behavior by past behavior of other nations that would clearly be illegal today is absurd. Arguing for a return to the laws of the jungle is not an argument likely to gain Israel any leverage.

    I would agree that the UN Security Council does not have the right to arbitrarily draw international borders, for the first principle of the UN charter calls for the right of self-determination (as did the League of Nations), which would have precluded any effort to create the state of Israel without a referendum amongst all the inhabitants of Palestine. Ironically, Israel itself hails the 1947 UN GA partition resolution as international legal recognition, despite the fact that GA resolutions have no standing in international law, only the SC resolutions do, and it was never passed by the SC. But the UN clearly recognizes the State of Israel and is presently not dealing with the birth of Israel, but with its illegal occupation of Gaza and the WB.

  8. I am for anyone or anything that can stop the killing, the ethnic cleansing- be it blantent or latent and theft of land and water from Palestinians. Everyone in that troubled region needs peace, deserves full human rights and a full opportunity for prosperity.

    IT AMAZES ME THAT ISRALIS DO NOT SEE THAT JIMMY CARTER IS THEIR BEST FRIEND. Even if some think he has resorted to name calling with his pointing out that what is happening in the West Bank is apartheid. From my historian training I see that apartheid was actually a better offer to the South African majority than the continued occupation, but we can leave off of that obvious observation.

    How can we stop the blame game and conflicting for the better victim hat? Ending settlement expansion and begin the difficult negotiatins towards a resolution? How even within the confines of a one state solution could be something everyone can live with- as opposed to something that does not resolve the lack of justice for Palestinians or a non-starter “two state solution” with a feckless cantonization?

    It matters not what they call the entity- branding is just a marketing problem. Neither aggressive expansionism towards Ersatz Israel or crying for an immediate return to 67 borders will achieve sweet peace. That international law firmly denounces the incursions into the West Bank should be considered, horse traded in negotiations and the old Green Line should be a point of departure for these discussions and hopefully a peaceful resolution.

    Right of return for Jews and Palestinians could be conducted on an equivalent, peaceful merit basis. Financial reparations for the dispossessed could thereafter be addressed.

    The third way- finding the means for three or more blessed peoples to live together in harmony regardless of borders or names.

    Where Israel has dropped the ball is in not making the case for why a truly democratic, one state solution could be preferable to an Islamist, land locked client state of Arab kingdoms and dictarorships who have not by any measure maturely addressed the problem other than pawning and otherwise using the Palestinians to keep the conflict boiling for selfish or God knows what reasons. That is to say, other than the absence of justice for Paletinians which Israelis need to address they could signal they want to truly end this thing.

    Finding a way to preserve Palestinian identity, culture and religious tolerance as followed under Ottoman rule should be no hill for an Israeli stepper.

    Sadly, wounds are deep and current vicious forces in both communities have the recent conflict front and center.

    In my own history, from South Texas where conflict between the Mexican and Texican elements has slowly dissipated, there may be an answer. When I was young the border was a joke and people could move and survive and prosper despite racial tensions. This should be a model.

    I was saddened when Soviet Jewery was heavy handidly routed from Russia to Israel. We in Texas could have used immigrants from the Soviet Union’s crumbling empire to enhance our economy where historically the Jewish peddlar was revered and a vital part of our economy. Even as the Jews thus relocated themselves could have thrived, contributed and found a far better life than being pawns of the expanionist minded Likudzis of Israel.

    There is a dimographic fear that higher birth rates amongst Palestinians is an eventual threat to the character of Israel. But giving the Palestininas an economic incentive to engage in family planning, as opposed to getting checks from the Saudis et al to encorage large families would sor this out. Large families are a sociological thing of the pre-industrial past.

    I read Shimon Peres’ “The New Middle East” which barely fell short of the mark as a prescription for a lasting peace in the region. Now him and Ehmud Barak seem to have gone over to the dark side of the force that promises perpetual violence. I pray they come back over to the side of the Lord. GOD WANTS PEACE. By any true religious text.

    To be clear, I am a citizen of the Planet Earth.

    Earth needs peace.

    I am prepared to cross olive branches with the merchants of death who fuel the current crisis in the US and Israel, They are what Bod Zimmerman termed “The Masters of War.” I am opposed to the ethnic cleansers (sic) on each side of the Green Lne.

    If they want a piece of me I am not hard to find. If they want a peace of me and our planet, I am very easy to find.

    THE WHOLE WORLD IS A HOLY LAND.

  9. Grif:
    Finally, someone who is at least pretending to have an informed position. It gets a bit tedious debating with people who have many opinions and few facts. You have many opinions and a few near facts.
    You are correct that the word “Nation” is not used singly in the San Remo Treaties. What it DOES say is: “a national home”. That’s clear enough for me. A “home” which is also a “nation”. I may be reading ‘between the line’s’ but you are reading OTHER lines. Moreover, whether the mandated Jewish home was to be a nation or a “special administrative district” (like Hong Kong) is not the core issue, much as you might like it to be so. It’s a diversion. The core issue was who was legally entitled to migrate there and who was not. Once that question is settled, the secondary question of what sort of national status the Jewish National Home was to attain would become nearly irrevelant and over time, absolutely irrevelant. (Back to that in a moment.)
    The San Remo treaties also state: “ . . . . it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of EXISTING non-Jewish communities in Palestine. . . “ [emphasis added with caps]. Thus, only non-Jews ALREADY LIVING in the Jewish mandated homeland were afforded this protection. Arabs Muslims and Christians who arrived thereafter had no civil rights guaranteed, including no right to establish citizenship. This amounts to a VERY large number of people, especially considering their offspring.
    You:
    “ . . as became abundantly clear with the establishment of the Jewish state when all those rights were abrogated.”
    But the above statement is totally false. Arabs who stayed put in 1948 were given full citizenship and 100% equal civil rights with the Hebrews. Again, the question of who’s government spoke for this “national home” lacks practial effect. The Arab Israelis vote, unlike Arabs in the Arab countries. Moreover, the numerous Jews who had been living in Palestine before it became Jordan were denied citizenship, as codeified by the Jordanian Citizenship Laws of 1968. So your above statement is not only falacious, it is fully opposite from reality.
    You:
    “The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, together with the Italian and French governments rejected early drafts of the mandate because it had contained a passage which read: “Recognizing, moreover, the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the claim which this gives them to reconstitute it their national home…”
    The regional land was legally transferred by mutual concent of the parties, namely, the previous title-holder (Turkey) and the Supreme Allied Powers, as a condition of the end of WW1. The above referenced recitals, rejected or not, are without moment. It does not change the fact that all the Arab COUNTRIES we know of today, except (a smaller) Iraq and Egypt, came into being at the same time, and for the same exact reasons. Namely, Turkey lost the war. The Allies called the shots and they spread the “wealth” among their comrades in arms, the Arabs, the Jews, the Armenians (who also got a NATION, not a ‘home’) and the Kurds, who, like the Jews were screwed out of achieving their promised NATION. But here’s where your reasoning truly unravels: In the 20th Century, literally dozens of populations unilatterally declared their NATIONAL independence and did so wiithout any mandate from any world tribunal. About a year ago, Kosovo declared independence from Serbia. In 1947, Pakistan succeeded from India around its own ethnic boundries. Literally millions of Hindus were displaced out of Pakistan and a roughly equal number of Muslims crossed the new NATIONAL border into Pakistan. Now, how rediculous would it sound if today, all these millions of Hindus, plus tens of millions of their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren were living in “refugee camps” inside India, lacking citizenship and awaiting the day when they all can reclaim their homes in Islamabad? Who would blame Pakistan and who (on the outside) would devote their lives towards freeing “Pakistani Occupied India”? You?
    You wrote:
    “Finally the 1939 White Paper passed by the House of Commons 268 to 179, and fully legal under Britain’s mandate powers stated:
    “His Majesty’s Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. […]
    Again, your quotes and citations are misplaced. The British had changed their minds but it was never their land to trade. They were merely the caretaker or trustee. They legally lacked standing to enforce their changed position. What happended in reality is that the industrial powers realized the strategic value of oil. If necessary, as WW2 loomed, the British would have revoked their own ownership of Oxford–if it would have bought them an Arab ally in the reigon. In point of hsitorical fact, that slight-of-hand did buy the British the aliegance of the young NATION of Jordan.
    To conclude, you jump around about Israel joining the UN and its abrogation of its rights to dispute the UN Partitian Plan. Since this is the first time I have heard that one, I have to say that it probably lacks legs. For the Partitian Plan to have gained legally settled status, it would have to have been adpoted by mutual concent of the parties. That did not occur.

  10. Will Ware:
    Now you.
    Your comments reveal that you too have bought and paid for the standard line of misinformation which has become oh, so sheik among the dedicated far-left and far-right (ironically).
    You wrote:
    “I am for anyone or anything that can stop the killing, the ethnic cleansing- be it blantent or latent and theft of land and water from Palestinians. . . ”
    That being your position, your champion exists only in a fantacy. Because your accusations only have merrit within the same fantacy. As we speak, at least 8 to 10 (minimally) conflicts ongoing in the world have FAR greater severity then the one which occupies your daily concentration-span. North Korea has threatened to engage the USA in a nuclear war. This subject hardly makes it on to the broadcast news.
    “Washington, 22 June—In remarks broadcast on Sunday, a top al-Qaida leader said that the terrorist group would use Pakistan’s nuclear weapons against the United States, if it were in a position to do so.” http://televisionwashington.com/floater_article1.aspx?lang=en&t=2&id=11501
    73 civilians (mostly Arab women and children) were blown to bits in a terror attack inside an open-air market in Iraq yesterday. These such events are of less concern to you, and if they are distressing, typically the distress level comes exclusively from the fact that the USA is being held to blame for the actions of Muslim religious fanatics–who will not settle for anything less then the “Judgment Day” guaranteed them by the Qur’an.
    You:
    “Everyone in that troubled region needs peace, deserves full human rights and a full opportunity for prosperity.”
    Agreed. Amen. But you have apparantly completely ovelooked the real net cause of the suffering of Arabs by blaming the Hebrews. As we again speak, some 5.5-million+ Arab so called “refugees” are living without civil rights, nationless as animals, lacking citizenship in the countries where they were born. These populations are being denied their human rights as guaranteed them by international law. Not a problem for you?
    I refer to people in your channel of thought as “Princess Diana” deciples. Three weeks after her death the media was still so obsessed that the passing of a REAL HERO, Mother Theresa went almost unnoticed.
    “Jimmy Carter” His biggest mistake was pressuring Israel into accepting a fast draft of the Camp David accords while Egypt refused to take control of the Gaza Strip. He is thus no friend to Israel. He was also stupid enough to accept, without question, the false reports provided him by the CIA (under the directorship of guess who? George H.W. Bush), claiming that the oil in the Mid East was running out in the late 1970s. (See : “The Secret War Against the Jews” by Luftis and Aarons).
    Carter, like yourself has completely mischaracterized the nature of this conflict, the equities involved and therefore, can not possibly propose any worthwhile solution(s).
    “West Bank is apartheid.”
    That could only be possible if the West Bank was part of the Nation of Israel. It is not. It may be a very sad disparity between the prosperity inside Israel versus the desperate conditions in the West Bank and Gaza. But it is certainly FAR less dramatic a difference then the disparity in living conditions between Kuwaiti citizens versus their Arab neighbors in Iraq. Is that also to be characterized as “apartheid”? After all, the Kuwaitis are Sunni Muslims and the Iraqis who border them are Shiites. I say report um to the UN Security counsel. They are Arab “Zionists”.
    I will not continue quoting you because it becomes repetitive. Had Jews not been involved, to rephrase, if not for persavive global anti-Semitism including indemic Islamic anti-Semitism, the Palestinian-Arab cause would have been a minor foot-note in history and long ago completely forgotten. This conflict only perpetuates because of the Hebrew factor. Therefore, none of your suggestions are meritorious because they fully miss the cause of the conflict. Now, according to you, the two most famous Israeli leftists, Shimon Perez and Ehud Barak have both gone “to the dark side”. Bahhhh. You are still playing re-runs of the Princess Diana funeral procession in your head. Now, if I may suggest, it might be time for you to go and watch looping news coverage of the Michael Jackson demisement.

  11. Ah Trollstein, what a web we weave. In the four or five thousand words you have written so far there is no sense of compassion only of being right. If Israel wanted peace they could have it immediately. You can’t even call it a war, the boy David against Samson with his Caterpillar Buldozers the size of a city block. Israeli military action is terrorism at its worst. Given Jewish history they should be ashamed of themselves but that is never the way when there is land to be grabbed. No, the victim is called the agressor, the transgresor, the malady for which the cure is excision. Shame on you. Your words express no heart, no compassion, no brotherly feeling. Why is that? Shame on Israel for its actions. Shame on you for supporting them.

  12. Trollstein – you fail to convince with your typical propagandist ramblings and mythology that have emanated from the Israeli PR handbook right from pre-1948 days. There has been massive documentation of the real history of Zionist aims and activities from the last century till the present day, and of Israeli war crimes, by Israeli historians from Zionist archives and Israeli war documents, eye witnesses from both sides, and subsequent action of the Israeli government and the IDF that underline the illegality of Israeli occupation. If you wish to use the ‘disputed’ territory argument, this can apply to all the post 1947 partition acquisitions, if not the whole of Israel. Just know that all the UN resolutions since have underlined the illegality of acquisition of territory by war, the right of return for the Palestinian refugees, and the need for Israel to withdraw from all the territories occupied in 1967 in a war that Israel started, and as with every war since (except 1973). Israel’s intentions were to land grab the whole of Palestine.
    Now the whole world agrees that Israeli war crimes and the imprisonment of the Palestinian people must end – so stop trying to excuse the inexcusable! We cannot say that we do not know as there is daily documentation of Israel’s aggression and criminality which puts Israel into the distinct category of pariah and rogue state. In the end Israel’s actions will destroy itself, and peace and justice will prevail.

  13. Julius Guzy:
    Justice can be compassionate but not at the direct expense of justice. As you know, there are generally two types of courts. The law courts and the “equity” courts. Equity courts can apply a bit more fairness to offset any grey areas. They can not apply ‘equity’ [read: compassion] in place of the facts or the law, only to supplement those. Frankly, if I did not feel my position was right, I would not bother to post.
    You wrote:
    “If Israel wanted peace they could have it immediately.”
    The above is a simple reversal of the longstanding accusation made against Arabs in the same conflict. You are incorrect. Unless by your statement you mean that Israel could surrender in return for peace. Even then it is unclear how much peace that would accomplish. Jews have better things to do then fight. Sadly, too often, Arabs do not and this point is verified in many places over many different points in time.
    Jews are a minority population in about 70 countries. In each and every example, without exception, the crime rate attributed to Jews (double especially violent crime) is a small fraction of the mean average for the general population. In fact, in some specific categories such as child abuse, of the very few incarcerated Jews the majority of those are wrongly accused and may well be persecuted as Jews.
    Now, you stand here with a strait face and say that the same ethnic population–make them a majority group, all of a sudden they loose their perspective completely and become heartless monsters? Ridiculous.
    The Hebrews have been pushed to the breaking point and well beyond by 90 years of attacks against them as Jews and them as a Jewish nation.
    The most recent official offer refused by the Arabs was:
    97% of all the land Israel acquired following the 1967 war.
    $ 30-billion in pledges to settle any remaining disputes over “refugee” status.
    To this, Chairman Arafat became enraged. He abruptly ended the peace negotiations and started this “intifata” [read: Jihad]. The new Palestinian-Arab leadership is in no position to make any deal because no single head-of-state has either the authority or the practical ability to speak for the entire population. In the WB war-lords have more power then Abbas, In Gaza, the fundamentalist Hamas illegally seized control and promptly abrogated ts inherited commitments under the Oslo treaties.
    Then there are the 5.5 million OTHER Palestinian-Arabs living as animals in a variety of Arab countries. They are each spoken for by local national leadership, either be it Syrian, Lebanese, etc..
    I feel no shame because my position is well reasoned and well supported by the historical record. Now, you got anything else except whining?

Comments are closed.