+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Time for international community to hold Israel accountable — here's how

Resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not impossible, but success requires bold measures and the courage to see them through. Following more than two decades of peace talks, the international community should give the law a chance.

By Hiba Husseini and Omar M. Dajani

The international community must not stand idly by as Israelis and Palestinians move ever faster along a trajectory that will end in tragedy for both peoples. Averting that outcome will require a bold new approach based on international law.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (centre) addresses the Council. He is flanked by Héctor Marcos Timerman (left), Minister for Foreign Affairs of Argentina; and Julie Bishop, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia and President of the Council for November. (photo: UN Photo/Devra Berkowitz)

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (centre) addresses the Council. He is flanked by Héctor Marcos Timerman (left), Minister for Foreign Affairs of Argentina; and Julie Bishop, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia and President of the Council for November. (photo: UN Photo/Devra Berkowitz)

Following the hideous violence last summer – the brutal tit-for-tat murders in the West Bank and the thousands killed during “Operation Protective Edge” in Gaza – the conflict seems poised to escalate in dangerous new ways. Rather than defusing the situation, Israel’s government is fanning the flames: stepping up land confiscation in the West Bank; threatening to disrupt longstanding arrangements for the sharing of holy sites; and pursuing discriminatory legislation that would further subordinate and estrange Israel’s Palestinian citizens.

Indeed, as Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territory approaches half a century – more than twice as long as Israel lived within the Green Line – it grows more firmly entrenched every day. At the same time, Palestinians in the West Bank are further squeezed into an archipelago of enclaves, most aspects of their lives controlled by a military administration that is unaccountable – and hostile – to them. And Israel’s so-called disengagement from the Gaza Strip has yielded not an end to occupation, but a virulent new form of it characterized by seven devastating ground operations in nine years and paralyzing restrictions on movement and trade.

As a result, Palestinian economic and political life remains fragmented and stagnant, undermining two decades of investment in state-building and security cooperation.

The international community is not powerless to alter these dynamics. But change will not come from blithe support for further rounds of aimless negotiations, occasional statements of solidarity or censure, or infusions of budgetary support to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Indeed, the international community’s longstanding approach to conflict management compensates for Israel’s breaches of obligations as an occupying power, creating a problem of moral hazard in which Israelis lack incentives to alter dangerous policies because their costs are borne by others.

Palestinian Authority police (right) together with Israeli border police (left) control Palestinian access to Jerusalem, at the Bethlehem checkpoint on the last Friday of Ramadan, August 17, 2012.  This Ramadan, Israeli authorities only allowed males under 12 or over 40 access without a special permit;  females of all ages were allowed to pass freely.

Palestinian Authority police (right) together with Israeli border police (left) control Palestinian access to Jerusalem, at the Bethlehem checkpoint on the last Friday of Ramadan, August 17, 2012. This Ramadan, Israeli authorities only allowed males under 12 or over 40 access without a special permit; females of all ages were allowed to pass freely.

What is needed is a coherent and sustained effort by the international community to enable Palestinians to secure their fundamental rights as individuals and as a people. International recognition of Palestine – and, by extension, of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination in their homeland – is an important part of that effort. But it must be complemented by unequivocal non-recognition of the legitimacy of Israel’s continuing presence in the Palestinian territory, as well as further steps to define the framework for an eventual negotiated settlement.

As a first step, the international community should act to clarify the legal obligations, not only of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, but also of third states. All states, after all, have the duty to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and to cooperate to bring an end to serious breaches of fundamental norms, such as the right to self-determination and the prohibitions of racial discrimination and apartheid. To this end, the UN General Assembly should request a new International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion assessing the lawfulness of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territory in view of its duration and colonial aspects.

Similarly, donors active in Palestine/Israel should undertake legal impact assessments to ascertain whether their respective policies and programs are consistent with their obligations under international law. And the Government of Israel should be pressed to repudiate the Levy Report, which rejects the applicability of international humanitarian law in the occupied territory, and to recognize explicitly the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination, just as successive Palestinian governments have been called upon to recognize Israel.

Second, the international community should revisit policies that help perpetuate the occupation, establishing tangible incentives for bringing it to an end. Some leading donors have threatened to sever assistance to the PA in order to pressure Israel. Instead of this indirect approach, which poses considerable risks, the international donor community should demand a financial contribution from Israel to the expense of running the PA commensurate with its obligations as an occupying power.
Coordinated mechanisms should also be developed for tracking – and holding Israel accountable for – the wrongful destruction and confiscation of donor-financed assets, particularly in the wake of the Gaza war last summer.

Palestinians salvage materials at night from destroyed homes in the village of Khuza'a, eastern Gaza Strip, November 6, 2014.  Anne Paq/Activestills.org

Palestinians salvage materials at night from destroyed homes in the village of Khuza’a, eastern Gaza Strip, November 6, 2014. Anne Paq/Activestills.org

In addition, the international community should progressively implement positive incentives for ending the occupation: first ensuring that Israeli entities in the Palestinian territory cannot benefit from privileges extended to Israel in international agreements, then prohibiting material support to such entities, and promoting individual accountability through criminal prosecutions, the freezing of assets, and travel restrictions of the kind recently imposed in response to the Ukraine crisis.

Third, international assistance should be focused on reversing the fragmentation and stagnation in Palestinian political and economic life, by expanding Palestinian institutions’ capacity to serve and represent Palestinians across the occupied territory (especially Area C and Jerusalem), as well as in the diaspora. The time has also come for the international community to evaluate how existing coordination mechanisms and institutions, such as the Quartet, OQR, AHLC, and USSC, can be reconfigured to increase their ability to influence Israeli policy.

Fourth, the international community should act multilaterally to elaborate on and endorse the desired contours of a Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement. The United States should be pressed to support a Security Council resolution calling upon Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territory and defining parameters for a negotiated peace settlement, in accordance with the consensus articulated by the UN General Assembly and the Arab Peace Initiative. At the same time, support should be given to efforts to re-imagine the two-state solution in ways that make it more responsive to both sides’ historical and religious attachment to all of the Holy Land and more durable in the face of developments on the ground.

Resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not impossible, but success requires bold measures and the courage to see them through. Following more than two decades of unmoored peace talks, the international community should give law a chance.

Hiba Husseini and Omar M. Dajani are authors of the report Past the point of no return? A rights-based framework for international engagement in Israel/Palestine, written for the Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre (NOREF).

Hiba Husseini, Juris Doctor, is a managing partner of Husseini & Husseini Attorneys and Counsellors-at-law in Ramallah, Palestine; the firm serves a large domestic and international client base on a wide range of business law matters. She chairs the Legal Committee to Final Status Negotiations and has served as a legal adviser to peace negotiations since 1994.

Omar M. Dajani is a professor of law at the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law. Previously he served as legal adviser to the Palestinian team in peace talks with Israel and as policy adviser to the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process.

Related:
100 ex-generals to Bibi: Reach a Palestinian, regional accord now
Israel’s UN ambassador puts another nail in the two-state coffin

Newsletter banner 6 -540

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. “The United States should be pressed to support a Security Council resolution calling upon Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territory and defining parameters for a negotiated peace settlement, in accordance with the consensus articulated by the UN General Assembly and the Arab Peace Initiative.”

      That’s a hoot. The United States is the GoI’s partner in crime and has provided cash and green lights for decades. They have no honor. How can they be anything but a stumblingblock?

      Reply to Comment
      • Danny

        Yup. The U.S. is as guilty as Israel (in legal parlance, I believe the charge is aiding and abetting a known felon). As long as money is part of American politics, it will be easy for Israel and its lobby to bribe American politicians to do their bidding. The international community should move forward without the U.S. and set up its own sanctions regime against Israel that can’t be vetoed down by crooked American governments.

        Reply to Comment
      • Lo

        You’re absolutely correct.

        Were it not for the consistent and sustained intervention of the United States, the Middle East would be a very different (and probably more peaceful) place.

        UNSC sanctions against the occupation and to investigate war crimes: vetoed.

        Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone talks: filibustered and blocked.

        Restriction of arms sales to consistent human rights violators: vehemently opposed; now comprises major export to the region.

        Allowing the natural political process to occur in nominally sovereign countries: hahahaha!

        Reply to Comment
      • Richard Barnes

        The fall of the Ottoman Empire and the competition largely between France and Britain for the areas of the middle east set up some odd nation building plans. The Arabs living in the middle east received freedom from the Ottoman empire and were given land in which to form their nations. Today’s Syria(under French mandate), Iraq, Lebanon as well were formed. Jordan was formed along with a land for Jews, though the Jewish people were denied the right in the early 1920‘s to form a nation. The early plans had the Jewish homeland much as we see it today but it was quite a bit larger. The most striking difference to me was that it included land that crossed easterly over the dead sea. The San Remo Conference confirmed a plan by the league of nations on July 24,1922. It went into full operation in September of 1923. Article 2 states “The mandatory shall be responsible for the placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. The land that people say that Israel is occupying is nothing of the sort. In 70 A.D, Titus and 10th Roman legion conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple just as it is written about in the Bible. Proof of that stands in the city of Rome today. It is the arch of Titus and shows clearly Roman soldiers carrying implements of the old Jewish temple from Jerusalem. Rome built it to commemorate their victory. Here is a link to it if you wish to take a look: http://www.scholarscorner.com/museums/titus.htm
        Israel was forcefully removed in large part from that land and dispersed throughout the nations of the world. The reason I’m pointing this out is that today people around the world are under-informed about why the Jews are living in Israel today. I understand that this is a VERY abbreviated explanation but my point is that Israel is not occupying Arab land at all. By a strictly worldly view they have just as much right to that land as the Arabs living there. But by God’s view it belongs to his people Israel who he has now brought back again as a nation. I wrote a book that discusses some of the prophecies written about in the Bible. It’s a short read of 6 or 7 pages and it’s totally free. I hope you will have a look: http://www.booksie.com/religion_and_spirituality/book/richard_b_barnes/after-the-rapture-whats-next

        Reply to Comment
      • Sluggo

        Over the past several months, in one web forum after another, Marnie / Annie has repeatedly and eagerly offered herself as an authority on Jews, Zionists, Muslims, Americans, the US, India, Israel and the Palestinian territories. Her arguments have been filled with distortions, half-truths, inaccuracies and general hostility.

        Reply to Comment
        • Stalking Sluggo – so none of your posts made it past the moderators at Mondoweiss? They’re doing their job. You’re getting a free pass here and this is what you choose to do? What a silly little man you are. Or silly little woman? Hard to tell, y’all sound so much a like. Must be the small gene pool.

          Reply to Comment
    2. Bruce Gould

      British MP calls for concrete action to sanction Israel:

      “In Westminster last Monday, Dec 1, MPs called for the government to take concrete action to sanction Israel, with several calling for a complete arms trade embargo. The backbench debate highlighted increasing frustration within Parliament around the government’s failure to respond to the Oct 13 call for recognition of the Palestinian statehood, and on its wider failure to act to hold Israel accountable to its obligations under international law.”

      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/british-concrete-sanction

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        ……hihi hihi, Israel is shaking in her boots! …..hehe hehe hihi

        Reply to Comment
      • “What should we do? Members, and hopefully the Minister, may wish to consider my proposal that we put an end to trade with and investment in illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

        “Personally, I do not think that we should have to boycott settlement goods; we should not be allowed to buy them in the first place. The UK Government should work at EU level to ensure that such products of suffering and exploitation are banned.

        “There is overwhelming evidence that we should also end the arms trade with Israel, based on United Nations evidence that serious breaches of international law occurred before, during and after the most recent assault on Gaza. The UK should have no part in them or in supplying arms and components that allow such things to happen.”

        Morris’s sentiments were echoed by many other members stating only sanctions and an arms embargo would work. Labour party MP Sir Gerald Kaufman referenced George Bush Sr. withholding £10 billion of loan guarantees to Israel and MP Hywel Williams suggested following the “example of the Spanish Government” who froze arms sales to Israel last summer during the slaughter in Gaza.”
        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/british-concrete-sanction#sthash.wbZIsa18.dpuf

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          You see, manic marnie (and I have been informed that you also assume the name “annie” on the other sites where you engage in daily orgy of Jew-hate!), you may stomp your feet and foam at the mouth as much as you want; you may wallow in your deranged jealousy of the Jewish State, confused and directionless, copy the opinions of others and paste (apparently incapable of forming your own original thoughts in your own confused mind), but The Jewish State ‘IS’ and will ever ‘BE’! There is- and will be no power in the entire history of mankind that can change that fact. And the day your ugly head rears itself up against Zion, it will be crushed! Got it, imbecile?!

          Reply to Comment
          • The world is waking up. You and your dream boat “Bucky” Bennett and Bugsy Netanyahu are what horrifies the civilized world. Do you for one second think your protestations of antisemitism, hatred of Israel (no sweets, it’s zionism that is hated) and “lo fair” are going to erase the images of the death and destruction the IDF inflicted upon Gaza, the deaths of 2200+, over 70% civilians and of that number over 500 children? You change the subject – screeching, screeching, screeching about every other horrible situation in the world – look there – look over there – stop looking at Israel, stop it, STOP IT!!!!

            You and your buddies are the wrecking ball that will tear down the walls of oppression and apartheid. I hope you think about that every time you look into your magic mirror. Your golden calf is going to face a reckoning and it will be all your own doing.

            The antisemitism card has been played so often sweetie, being called an antisemite sounds like a compliment and a self-hating Jew – the pièce de résistance.

            “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”. Josef Goebbels

            “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”. Adolph Hitler

            You are an apt pupil.

            Zionism is going the way of other regimes and nationalistic movements and I pray that it doesn’t end with bang but a whimper. BTW, I use a lot of references and provide quotes and sources for them. I find it a lot easier and more helpful than to just rant and rave and lie. I saw this at Mondoweiss and tried to find the source. It is attributed to Scott D. Weitzenhoffer’s description of discussing evolution with Christian creationists. It’s a gem – it has been revised just a “scintilla” pour vous –

            “Talking with _____(your name here) is like playing chess with a pigeon (pigeon = you). The pigeon (you) knocks over all the pieces, shits on the board and then struts around like it won the game.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            1. Tell us, manic marnie, what is YOUR pen-name at Mondoweiss and other sites you spend your time 24/7 obsessing with- and ranting about Jews (you just confirmed that you also rant at Mondoweiss)?
            2. As you juggle from (a) Mondoweiss to (b) +972mag to (c) other anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist and neo-Nazi sites ranting, do you still have time left to (d) find a job (we know that you are unskilled, unemployed and depend on government handouts to feed yourself and your children), (e) take care of your juvenile/teenage girls (we know you are a single mother)? As I told you before, manic marnie, juvenile/teenage girls require lots of attention and emotional support from their parents. If you are not there for your children, someone else will and they will end up like yourself: single mothers, without job, psychotic and manic!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis
            Friday
            December 5, 2014

            “Not just manic, but also incurably psychotic. You see, manic marnie, I have beaten you up several times exactly as I wanted and not interested in over-kill. As such you worth not a second of my time anymore (and I am sure such has been obvious to you for a while now). You need to seek the emotional comfort and validation you crave elsewhere. I am not remotely interested. Now, Be Gone, Imbecile!”

            What is your obsession with my private life? I have no job? I have multiple children? I’ve not had a husband? I’m on welfare? Sorry girlfriend, but you’re just being a bitch, nothing else. And not even 24 hours go by and here your ass is, like clockwork, the plague, an untreatable case of gingivitis or other oral maladies. So it’s time for another episode of the “As Told by Ginger”, nothing but lies, slander and more lies. And you’re stealing material from “Sluggo”? Slumming it, aren’t ya? Manic/Psychotic – thy name is Ginger. You will forever remain in my heart, the dog returning to its eat its vomit. Bad doggie!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Oy vey, here manic marnie going erratically ballistic – yet again? And denying stuff she herself has admitted before – apparently confused and dazed? Priceless. Anyways, manic marnie, tell us, what is YOUR pen-name at Mondoweiss and other sites you spend your time 24/7 obsessing with- and ranting about Jews? Let’s start with that, shall we? You have confirmed that you also rant at Mondoweiss, so answer the question. After that we will deal with the rest – one by one, beginning with you having no job (next time if you make a promise to Baladi Akka, you must keep it!).

            Reply to Comment
          • LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • Lo

            I just found out it’s xxxXHebrewHammerXxxx on Tuesdays, and xxx420noscopeshumanrights420xxx on all other days.

            Reply to Comment
    3. Average American

      What a joke. Israel doesn’t care about international law. Israel follows Jewish law, halacha, and is intent on making you and me follow it too.

      Reply to Comment
      • gambino

        If you live in denial that’s your choice.
        But, its your choice, to ignore evidence, history, facts on the ground, proven words of the prophets.
        Israel has returned.
        Its simply how the Creator wrote the code.
        There is no re writing it.
        HE coded the end BEFORE he coded the beginning. And its unfolding before your human eyes, everyday.
        GD blesses Israel and you only become blessed by blessing Israel. With all the billions of oil, the surrounding nations still live in terror and turmoil, jealousy and envy, suspicion and fear.
        TAKE A BRAVE STEP…
        give up the old mentality.
        Welcome Israel, help move the ‘Palestinians’ back to Trans-Jordan.
        Commit to peace and then see what happens to your world.

        Reply to Comment
      • GilGamesh

        Eventually “anti-Zionists” reveal their true colors, don’t they. too funny. Meanwhile the rest of the hate crowd remains silent over this remark.

        Reply to Comment
      • Sluggo

        I typically ignore this a$$. What sort if backward thinking person has these opinions. There are plenty of ignorant Americans, but there is no way this person was born in America. No way.

        Reply to Comment
        • Average American

          Of course I am anti-Zionist. Alot of people are. Zionism wants to control all of Eretz Israel. Tell me what is Eretz Israel? What does it look like on a map? Just how much territory does Zionism claim to own? Let’s see your full intentions.

          Reply to Comment
          • GilGamesh

            huh ? Are you really that dumb? I wasn’t doubting you are anti-Zionist I was pointing out that you clearly are using that as a cover for your anti-Semitism. Now please back up your claim that Israel is intent on making Americans follow Jewish law.

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            House Joint Resolution 104 1991. Now you answer my question.

            Reply to Comment
          • GilGamesh

            Point out the part that makes American follow Jewish law? You really are dumb.

            Reply to Comment
    4. As I read it, UNSC 465/1980 already demands the removal of all settlers adn the dismantlement of all settlement buildings.

      However, 465 had no teeth and Israel ignored it. OTOH, both the settlements and the settlers are present in OPTs illegally (at international law) and the nations will never be wrong to take steps to pressure Israel to remove the settlers and the settlements (to say nothing of the wall and the siege of Gaza).

      What will make the nations act (instead of doing nothing or merely talking)?

      But this article is correct that nothing other than international pressure will end Israel’s sense of immunity and impunity in all things.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Richard

      Actually its time for the world to realize that Palestinians are too hostile and violent toward Israeli Jews to be given a state for at least another generation. Its time to stop pretending Palestinians want peace and that Israeli can be led to the slaughter by a few witless European diplomatics and bigoted Arab studies professors.

      Reply to Comment
      • Bruce Gould

        The evidence shows precisely the opposite: Israel is too violent and hostile towards the Palestinians to believe that ‘negotiations’ are meaningful. The charter of the Likud states that there will be no Palestinian state west of the Jordan – they state their colonial/expansionist plans for everyone to see.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          “Evidence”, Bruce, what “evidence”? Anyway, it’s a bit refreshing to see that you are a little bit capable of having YOUR own mind and saying something formed in said mind (regardless of how small minded you are), instead of constantly copying the opinions of others and pasting here (as some other imbeciles on this site do – ad nauseam). Bravo, Bruce!

          Reply to Comment
          • Yvette

            I finally figured it out Ginger dearie. The moronic latter-days Joan Rivers didn’t really die in her 740th plastic surgery procedure, she secretly survived–in a ‘brilliant’ Mossad disinformation operation–and posts as Ginger Eis. You sound just like a drunk Joan Rivers at the airport.

            Reply to Comment
    6. Ginger Eis

      You can’t fix stupid!

      “As a first step, (…). All states, after all, have the duty to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and to cooperate to bring an end to serious breaches of fundamental norms, such as the right to self-determination and the prohibitions of racial discrimination and apartheid.”

      1. “Self-determination” of Peoples is NEITHER “international humanitarian law” NOR belong to the body of “fundamental norms” of International law!
      2. There is NEITHER “apartheid” NOR “racial discrimination” within the meaning of International law going on in Israel.

      Indeed, when the blind leads the blind, the consequences are catastrophic and the “Grand University of +972mag” is doing a good job of that, while it’s the retardation of its students worsens.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        ‘…..while the retardation of its students worsens (was meant).

        Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        This is Ginger’s world-view: the Palestinian People don’t exist, but even if they did exist they would exist without having any rights whatsoever.

        If they existed, which Ginger insists they do not.

        Or, in a word: Untermensch

        Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        Man, that’s some kinda’ stoopid.

        Ginger: “1. “Self-determination” of Peoples is EITHER “international humanitarian law” NOR belong to the body of “fundamental norms” of International law!” ”

        Read it again: the author wasn’t claiming that the right of self-determination is found in International Humanitarian Law.

        He said “respect for international humanitarian law” AND HE SAID “bring an end to serious breaches of fundamental norms, such as the right to self-determination”

        So it is clear that the authors regard “self-determination” to be a “fundamental norm”.

        The authors are correct, the right to self-determination IS a fundamental norm, and it recognized as such by the UN, the USA, the EU, and pretty much everyone except Ginger and Israel.

        Ginger: “2. There is NEITHER “apartheid” NOR “racial discrimination” within the meaning of International law going on in Israel.”

        Ahem. Does everyone spot the sleight-of-hand?

        Yep, it is right here: “in Israel”.

        The West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem is not “in Israel”, they are “occupied Palestinian territory”.

        Sooooo, does Israel practice apartheid and racial discrimination “in the occupied Palestinian territories”?

        Oh, yeah, and big time.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          The math is very simple:

          1. (a) “Peremptory norms”, (b) “fundamental norms” and (c) “Jus cogens norms”, are one and the same in International law – i.e. they are synonyms. Thus ‘a’ = ’b’ = ‘c’; ‘b’ = ‘a’ = ‘c’ and ‘c’ = ‘a’ = ‘b’!
          2. (d) “Self-determination of peoples” is not a “jus cogens norm”. Thus ‘d’ ≠ ‘a’ ≠ ‘b’ ≠ ‘c’ and ‘d’ ≠ ‘a’ + b’ + ‘c’!
          3. If you have any iota of understanding of the stuff you yada yada about, you should have kept your much shut. But if you want to expose your ignorance even more, then pls. do the following: 1) define “jus cogens norms” and cite your source, (2) provide a legal source/provision that supports your claim that “self-determination of people” is a “jus cogens norm” (you don’t become a jurist by attending “Hezbollah and Pallywood “law” conferences” and confusing the views of the PLO/Nasrallah and your underbelly feelings with the science of the law!).
          4. You MUST make your arguments in just ONE post and I will rebut in just ONE post and that’s possible if you understand the stuff (In uni. debates you get only 10minutes to make your points and I am not ready to engage in endless twisting and arguing on settled law nor run around circles with you). I won’t debate you if you don’t adhere to the above rule – just to be clear.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            “Ginger: “1. “Self-determination” of Peoples is EITHER “international humanitarian law” NOR belong to the body of “fundamental norms” of International law!”

            I did NOT say that. You lie and you know it. There is an ocean of difference between “either or” and “neither nor”. The word “either” does NOT appear in my post – not even for once!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “1. (a) “Peremptory norms”, (b) “fundamental norms” and (c) “Jus cogens norms”, are one and the same in International law.”

            Physician, heal thyself.

            I will note that Ginger has thrown in a phrase – “jus cogens” – without defining it.

            Now, Ginger, that’s a phrase that YOU just threw in the pot, so you need to define it, not me.

            With citations, if you please.

            And while we are at it I would like you to cite your references demonstrating that “fundamental norms” means the same thing as a “Peremptory norms”.

            Because I don’t agree.

            I am certain that the author’s used “Fundamental Norm” to mean something that requires no treaty i.e. it is a “customary law”.

            But “customary law” is a much wider concept than “jus cogens” (aka “Peremptory norm”).

            So, please, prove to me that a “Fundamental norm” = “Peremptory norm”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Anyone with any critical faculties can see that Ginger has erected a straw man argument.

            Her foundation is:
            “Fundamental Norms” = “just cogens”
            and her man of straw is:
            “self-determination” is “just cogens”.

            Which is all done so that she can then argue that is it “my” claim that “self-determination of people is a jus cogens norm”

            Which is odd indeed, because *I* never made that claim, that’s a claim made by Ginger’s own Straw Man.

            All I ever claimed is that the authors are correct in arguing that “self-determination” is a “fundamental norm”

            So, is it a “fundamental norm”?
            Yeah, apparently it is……..

            Atlantic Charter, 1941: “Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live;”

            Declaration by United Nations, 1942: “Having subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Great Britain dated August 14,1941, known as the Atlantic Charter,”

            Charter of the United Nations, 1945: “2.To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,”

            UNGAR 1514, 1960: “Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples,”

            So, yep, it does appear to be a “fundamental norm”, precisely because everyone (but Ginger) expresses their support for that norm.

            Yeah, OK, but is a “fundamental norm” a “jus cogens”?

            Straw man alert!
            Straw man alert!
            Straw man alert!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            “Anyone with any critical faculties can see that Ginger has erected a straw man argument. Her foundation is:

            “Fundamental Norms” = “just cogens”
            and her man of straw is:
            “self-determination” is “just cogens”.

            PRICELESS!

            1. “just cogens” does NOT exist! (I am certain you never heard about “jus cogens” before)
            2. I never said: “self-determination” is “just cogens”.
            3. I also never said that self-determination is a ‘jus cogens norm’. I said the direct opposite.

            “So, yep, it DOSE APPEAR TO BE a “fundamental norm”, precisely because everyone (but Ginger) expresses their support for that norm”. [emphasis mine].

            1. Really?! How do you go from “it does appear to be” to ‘it is’?!
            2. Do you even have any idea of the legal criteria for what is constitutive of a “fundamental norm of International law”?

            The above, among others, is – once again – demonstrative of a confused individual, who, lacking formal (legal) education and having no (coherent) idea of the systems and the operational logic of the law, pompously assumes and pretends that he is a legal expert, consequently wallows into delicate legal arguments and ends-up making a public mess of himself. Just what kind of a fool are you, YeahRight? Just how do I debate you if you never heard of the legal concepts being discussed, can’t write said concepts and can’t even pronounce them?! Gee! I think you need to head back to the Pallywood/Hezbollah organized “law” conferences and rumble with your mates there – at your own level. I am done here. You get the final word as you always crave to (and all narcissists do that btw). Here is a little gift from Israel: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/J/JusCogens.aspx Knock yourself out with it and make sure it does not confuse you even further!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, RIght

            Ginger, you appear not to know the definition of a “straw man argument”, though you have no problem erecting one.

            A straw man argument is when you argue against a claim that you, yourself, have made up.

            Here is Ginger erecting a straw man….
            Ginger: “(a) “Peremptory norms”, (b) “fundamental norms” and (c) “Jus cogens norms”, are one and the same in International law”

            And here is Ginger are arguing against her own straw man argument….
            Ginger: “2. (d) “Self-determination of peoples” is not a “jus cogens norm”.”

            Here, I’ll spell it out for Ginger, who otherwise won’t know what I am talking about.

            The straw man is this:
            “self-determination” = “fundamental norm”
            BUT
            “Fundamental norm” = “jus cogens”
            ERGO
            “self-determination” = “jus cogens”

            That is the claim that you spent your post arguing with, yet the only person who made that claim is… you i.e. you spent your entire post arguing with yourself.

            And that is the dictionary-definition of “a straw man argument”.

            Here, look, I’ll even show you where you are completely wrong…..

            Fact: All “jus cogens norms” are “fundamental norms” of international law.
            Fact: But not all “fundamental norms” of intenational law are “jus cogens norms”.

            I know that for a fact, because all “jus cogen norms” are prohibitions e.g. you are:
            Prohibited from piracy
            Prohibited from torturing.
            Prohibited from rendering a victim back to his persecutor.
            Prohibited from keeping or trading slaves.

            All are PROHIBITIONS, none are RIGHTS.

            Now, with that in mind, let’s look at what the authors of this article said:
            ..”serious breaches of fundamental norms, such as the right to self-determination **AND** the prohibitions of racial discrimination and apartheid.”..

            They are very, very clearly arguing that the :
            a) RIGHT to self-determination
            b) PROHIBITION on racial discrimination
            c) PROHIBITION on apartheid
            are all “fundamental norms”, but they are also very, very clearly differentiating between a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT and those PROHIBITIONS “from which no derogation is permitted”.

            You are w.r.o.n.g., Ginger, and the reason why you are w.r.o.n.g. is because you are not even half as smart as you think you are.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “1. Really?! How do you go from “it does appear to be” to ‘it is’?!”

            Well, gosh, that’s an easy one.

            We go from “appears to be” a fundamental norm all the way up to “is” a fundamental norm when everyone says that it “is”, Ginger.

            And the UK and USA agreed that it “is” when they wrote the Atlantic Charter in 1941.

            That’s two.

            And all the allied powers agree that it “is” when they wrote the Declaration by United Nations in 1942.

            That’s 47, and counting…..

            And every member state of the United Nations agrees that it “is” when it signs the UN Charter of 1945.

            That’s 193, and that’s EVERYBODY.

            Well, everyone but you, of course….

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “2. Do you even have any idea of the legal criteria for what is constitutive of a “fundamental norm of International law”?”

            Yes, I certainly do.

            You, no, not so much.

            You are insisting that “a fundamental norm of international law” must be a “peremptory norm” i.e. a norm “from which no derogation is permitted.”

            That is your ENTIRE argument in a nutshell, and You. Are. Wrong.

            A norm that is “jus cogens” is invariably a prohibition e.g.
            you MUST NOT keep slaves.
            You MUST NOT indulge in piracy.
            You MUST NOT hand the persecuted back to their persecutor.
            You MUST NOT wage wars of conquest.

            But self-determination is a RIGHT, it is not a prohibition.

            It is therefore NOT jus cogens (because it is not a prohibition), and on that both you and I and your straw man all agree.

            But that point only matters **if** your argument that:
            “fundamental norms” = “jus cogen norms”
            is true.

            But it isn’t true.

            It is, indeed, a “fundamental norm” that everyone has a right to govern themselves.

            All states agree with that proposition, precisely because that proposition is written into the UN Charter.

            Honestly, Ginger, just listen to yourself, because you are arguing *against* the notion of “no taxation without representation”.

            But that argument isn’t going to play well anywhere outside your dinky little racial-supremacist state.

            Ginger, here’s a suggestion: go tell a room full of Americans that they don’t have the RIGHT to govern themselves.

            Let me know how they respond.

            Reply to Comment
    7. Brian

      Here we have New Yorkers, soldiers in tow, rudely invading the homes of indigenous people in a foreign land, arrogantly drawing up plans for where they want to put the furniture and the espresso-maker, without even the slightest courtesy, without even the slightest modesty, without even the slightest humanity, without even the slightest embarrassment, without even the slightest shame. All based on their genetic inheritance, being sons of a particular mother, on race, on ethnicity. As a source of entitlement. And enlisting God as their real estate agent and armed soldiers as their source of courage. This is appalling beyond belief. And this is not an isolated incident. It is a wearying pattern. This is a shameless, heartless, soulless enterprise.

      http://www.juancole.com/2014/12/palestinian-settler-invasions.html

      “…Although for years she had to put up with a few raids a month by soldiers who wanted to inspect the property — and intimidate the family into leaving, she suspects — since January, the raids have started occurring on a twice-daily basis.

      While a Ma’an reporter was sitting in her home, two Jewish settlers with New York accents carrying automatic assault rifles accompanied by armed Israeli soldiers walked across the roof and climbed into the family courtyard. They entered the room where the interview was taking place and gesticulated at different parts of the home, discussing how to re-arrange the dwelling after they forced the al-Atrash family out.

      None of the four intruders seemed at all perturbed by the presence of the family matriarch, her three children, or even the Ma’an journalists on the scene….”

      Reply to Comment
    8. Sluggo

      indigenous? That’s a myth. Why romanticize the Palestinians? Native Americans, Aboriginals, Zulus, those are indigenous peoples.

      Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        I anticipated someone like you would jump on “indigenous” and try to make hay out of it (you are nothing if not predictable). OK. EVEN if we take out the word “indigenous,” — which I think illegitimate to do — but merely for argument’s sake, let’s do so — that (in the mind of any civilized person) changes absolutely nothing substantial about the cowardliness, shamelessness, heartlessness, soullessness. Theirs and yours. Thank you for confirming that.

        Reply to Comment
        • Sluggo

          Thanks for playing!
          The next ridiculous, false, cliche that you need to address is “New Yorkers”.

          Yalla! Get it done. Now.

          By the way, I helped you. The phrase “indigenous people in a foreign land” is mind numbingly absurd.

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Reading comprehension problems?

            Let me help:

            “indigenous people in their own land, a land foreign to the New Yorkers*”

            Or, for the sake of argument (only):

            “people in their own land, a land foreign to the New Yorkers*”

            *Americans who grew up in New York and decided at some point that their chromosomes and an ancient religious book entitled them to invade another people’s home in a distant land foreign to them

            Reply to Comment
          • Sluggo

            “americans who grew up in New York and decided at some point that their chromosomes and an ancient religious book entitled them to invade another people’s home in a distant land foreign to them”

            So, you are hating on New Yorkers and you are a mind reader. Perhaps we can try a different narrative, one that is a bit more empathetic. And one that does not expose you as a fool. Try this: Israel became a country in 1948 and allows immigration. People from all over the world move there for a wide range of reasons. Much like immigrants move to other countries with advanced economies and infrastructure and institutions. And living in Israel is not a zero sum game. Why do you insist that it is? Isn’t that easier to believe than that story you constructed? Why do you assume that everyone who moves to Israel is from New York? Some are fleeing violence in Turkey and France. Why do you assume that everyone who moves there is motivated by the Bible? Hint…. Most are not. And why do you assume that people who move to Israel are geneticists? I won’t touch that one. You’re welcome.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Anything to distract, eh? They didn’t move from New York to Israel they moved from New York to the illegally occupied territories and drop in uninvited into–i.e. invade–local womens’ living rooms with Israeli soldiers in tow to protect themselves. They are the epitome of assh$&%s.

            Reply to Comment
    9. Yeah, Right

      If you are going long then you might as well try for the touch-line.

      Forget an ICJ Advisory Opinion, which Israel will simply ignore anyway.

      If the USA really wants to end this conflict (and, sure, I know that it doesn’t, but bear with me) then all that it need do is sit on its hands in the Security Council.

      The state of Palestine would then be admitted to the United Nations by a vote of 14-0-1 (Security Council), and 190-1-1 (General Assembly).

      The writing is then on the wall for Israel, after which it either:
      a) saves face by agreeing with Palestine to take this to the ICJ as a “contentious issue” (which are legally-binding), or
      b) Dig in and dare the world to impose crippling sanctions.

      The end-result will be the same.

      The only difference is whether the damage is to Israel’s pride (option a) or to its economy (option b).

      But either way Palestine comes out the winner.

      Israel too, in its own way, though they won’t admit that until much later.

      But that’s how you solve this conflict.

      Reply to Comment
      • Sluggo

        So, why does Palestine need to become a state before the world will impose crippling sanctions? If they wanted to, they would. They don’t.

        And the ICJ would be a terrible move,for the Palestinians. Because they have much to fear themselves.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          S: “So, why does Palestine need to become a state before the world will impose crippling sanctions?”

          No, I’m pointing out that Palestine needs to be a state before this can be brought before the ICJ as a “contentious issue”.

          S: “If they wanted to, they would. They don’t.”

          *sigh*

          I’m talking to a child.

          If the world community wanted to impose sanctions then they would, at all times, give Israel an “out” i.e. an alternative path that Israel can take to *avoid* those sanctions.

          Insisting that Israel join Palestine in a case before the ICJ is one of those “outs” i.e. if Israel agrees then g.r.e.a.t., and if it refuses (and, let’s face it, Israel will refuse) then the world community will have its excuse for imposing sanctions.

          Honestly, this isn’t rocket science.

          S: “And the ICJ would be a terrible move,for the Palestinians. Because they have much to fear themselves.”

          Let me guess: Sluggo is another of those know-it-all know-nothings who do not know their “International Court of Justice” from their “International Criminal Court”.

          An ignorance that is so profound that they mistake their ignorance for “knowledge”.

          Sad, really….

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            YeahRigt, Sluggo have you cornered and encircled and you are looking for an escape route by calling him names and making incoherent arguments. To be clear here:

            1. YeahRight said this:
            “Forget an ICJ Advisory Opinion, which Israel will simply ignore anyway. If the USA really wants to end this conflict (and, sure, I know that it doesn’t, but bear with me) then all that it need do is sit on its hands in the Security Council.”

            2. Sluggo responded:
            “So, why does Palestine need to become a state before the world will impose crippling sanctions? If they wanted to, they would. They don’t. And the ICJ would be a terrible move, for the Palestinians. Because they have much to fear themselves.”

            3. YeahRight responded:
            “No, I’m pointing out that Palestine needs to be a state before this can be brought before the ICJ as a “contentious issue. Let me guess: Sluggo is another of those know-it-all know-nothings who do not know their “International Court of Justice” from their “International Criminal Court”. An ignorance that is so profound that they mistake their ignorance for “knowledge”. Sad, really…”

            The Ruling
            a. Palestine does NOT need to become a state before Palestinian statehood, “crippling sanctions”, against Israel, etc. can be brought before the ICJ. Issues re Palestinians have been brought before the ICJ in the past!
            b. The ICC does NOT issue ‘Advisory Opinions’ (on the issue discussed here) and has no legal basis to do so, ONLY the ICJ does! The ICC is NOT even an organ of the United Nations and NOT accountable to the UN!

            Thus, Sluggo is very much correct on points of law. YeahRight is demonstrably wrong.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “a. Palestine does NOT need to become a state before Palestinian statehood, “crippling sanctions”, against Israel, etc. can be brought before the ICJ. Issues re Palestinians have been brought before the ICJ in the past!”

            Ginger, an Advisory Opinion is not binding, since it is a ruling on What The Law Is, it is not a ruling that “you have done him an injury, so make it right”.

            A Contentious Issue is binding, precisely because it is a ruling on just such an adversarial issue.

            But the latter is, indeed, ADVERSARIAL i.e. it requires both Israel and Palestine to agree to take the case before the court.

            I am quite correct: to get a BINDING ruling from the ICJ requires a “Contentious Issue”, and the first step towards that is …. that Palestine’s status as “a state” be indisputable.

            It is pointless you bringing up the AO on the legal consequences of the wall. That was an Advisory Opinion, and I am quite correct to point out that the UN could keep requesting such AO’s indefinitely, and Israel would simply ignore them all.

            Ginger: “b. The ICC does NOT issue ‘Advisory Opinions’ (on the issue discussed here) and has no legal basis to do so, ONLY the ICJ does!”

            OK, you really have no idea what has been said, have you?

            Sluggo said this: “And the ICJ would be a terrible move,for the Palestinians. Because they have much to fear themselves.”

            Nobody – but nobody – need “fear” the ICJ, precisely because that is not a criminal court.

            That Sluggo used the word “fear” tells us that he means a criminal court.

            You don’t get it, do you?

            This sentence “Because they have much to fear themselves” is a reference to a war crimes trial, and Sluggo put that sentence in because he does not know that it is the ICC that is the criminal court, not the ICJ.

            You do, apparently, but then you spoil it all by your complete lack of English comprehension skills.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            You are clearly re-inventing, and I mean RE-INVENTING, your exchanges with Sluggo. But even IF we assume that what you claim now to be the content of said exchanges, here are the fatal flaws contained in what you posit and why your arguments fail:

            Pursuant to Chapter II Of the Statute of the ICJ
            1. The ICJ requires Israel’s consent to hear a disputed case, because the ICJ has jurisdiction to entertain a dispute only if the States (plural) concerned have accepted its jurisdiction in one or more of the following ways:
            a. by entering into a special agreement to submit the dispute to the Court;
            b. by virtue of a jurisdictional clause, i.e., typically, when they are parties to a treaty containing a provision whereby, in the event of a dispute of a given type or disagreement over the interpretation or application of the treaty, one of them may refer the dispute to the Court;
            c. through the reciprocal effect of declarations made by them under the Statute whereby each has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory in the event of a dispute with another State having made a similar declaration. A number of these declarations, which must be deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General, contain reservations excluding certain categories of dispute.

            Thus, it is not like “Palestine” can drag Israel to court regardless of whether or not Israel likes it. You have simply no idea of the legal stuff you are too eager to discuss and make a public fool of yourself. Palestinians are better off with an Advisory Opinion than a binding decision of the ICJ because a decision will NEVER come to be – based on the above. Israel has not and will NEVER recognize(d) the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory.

            2. Your claim that ICJ decisions in “disputed cases” are binding because said cases are “adversarial’ is manifestly false (see above). The binding nature of the decisions derives from the consent of the parties that such shall be the case! Again, you discuss matters you have no understand of.

            3. The binding decisions of the ICJ bind only the specific States Parties to the specific dispute, NOT the UNSC or any other organ of the UN and NOT other State Members of the UN. The effectiveness of said decisions depends on the willingness of the parties to implement them (if the UNSC decides not to get involved or disagrees with the court!).

            4. “Sluggo said this: “And the ICJ would be a terrible move,for the Palestinians. Because they have much to fear themselves.” Nobody – but nobody – need “fear” the ICJ, precisely because that is not a criminal court. That Sluggo used the word “fear” tells us that he means a criminal court. You don’t get it, do you? This sentence “Because they have much to fear themselves” is a reference to a war crimes trial, and Sluggo put that sentence in because he does not know that it is the ICC that is the criminal court, not the ICJ”.

            You are not making sense, YeahRight. Sluggo clearly and explicitly said “ICJ”. Any objective person have to take him at HIS OWN words (i.e. ICJ) and not ASSUME something else (i.e. ICC) other than what he actually said (ICJ). If you are confused as to whether or not Sluggo meant ICC when he clearly said ICJ, you could have easily asked for clarification (and there are several ways to do that). But instead, you ASSUMED what was NOT said (i.e. ICC) and claim that you are the one being misunderstood?! Talk “I am talking to a child here”! And how exactly could Sluggo’s use of the word “fear” lead any rational person to believe that he was talking about the ICC and not the ICJ as he explicitly stated? Are you actually saying that IF “Palestine” takes Israel to the ICJ and for example demands the removal of Jews from Judea & Samaria and Israel argues that such is impracticable/in-implementable, disproportionate, etc. and offers monetary/material compensation, that “Palestinians” would not “fear” that they MIGHT lose and – from their own point of view – lend legitimacy to the “settlements”? You decide! Those Pallywood/Hezbollah “law” conferences you attend are not doing you any good. Time to quit going to said conferences, no?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “Thus, it is not like “Palestine” can drag Israel to court regardless of whether or not Israel likes it. ”

            Oh, fer’ crying out loud!

            READ THE EXCHANGE.

            I clearly said that the only way for anyone to get a legally binding ruling from the ICJ is for both Palestine AND Israel to **agree** to take this to the ICJ as a “contentious issue”.

            To **agree** to take this to court, Ginger.

            If Israel AGREES then, great, the issue will be decided without anyone getting hurt.

            If Israel REFUSES TO AGREE then, no problems, let’s DBS the sucker.

            But the pre-requisite for all of that is that “Palestine is a state”, because a “contentious issue” requires TWO STATES who are in dispute (i.e. “Israel” and “Palestine”).

            Honestly, Ginger, you are not even half as smart as you think you are.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            1. Oy! I guess you have a lot of stuff in your mind but which you apparently can’t express in a coherent manner in writing and when I explain them to you, you claim “oh, I said it already/that’s what I meant to say”, etc.? Good! Going back to your original point then, one must conclude that somehow you managed to figured out that the world’ (that exists only in your fantasy) can cannot force an Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on Israel and that there is nothing said world can do about it. BUT, at the same time you also figured out that said world can pressure Israel to consent to litigious case before the ICJ with the “Palestinians” and would be able to impose “crippling sanctions” on Israel, if Israel refuses to comply? Wao, how very illuminating, brainiac!

            2. You also claimed that the binding effect of ICJ decisions derive from the “adversarial” nature thereof. That claim lacks legal merit and is manifestly false as I demonstrated to you.

            3. You also confused the ICJ with the ICC. When it was pointed out to you, you claimed that it was Sluggo who did that. When it was pointed out to you that Sluggo could not have done that, you have no answer.
            There are numerous bad errors contained in your thought-process and the claims you make which are inherent in yourself (you just don’t know any better). The few I have pointed out will do. I am done here. The last word is yours.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “You also claimed that the binding effect of ICJ decisions derive from the “adversarial” nature thereof. That claim lacks legal merit and is manifestly false as I demonstrated to you.”

            A “contentious issue” is adversarial, Ginger. They are, without question, issue of a “he said/she said, I’m right/You’re wrong” nature.

            Adversarial.

            They legally-binding nature of such cases derives from that nature i.e. since it is adversarial then the court won’t hear such cases UNLESS the two states agree to be bound by the court’s ruling.

            Otherwise – du’oh! – there is no point involving the court in this dispute.

            Honestly, Ginger, do you know anything?

            Sluggo (earlier): “And the ICJ would be a terrible move,for the Palestinians. Because they have much to fear themselves.”

            Me (earlier): “Let me guess: Sluggo is another of those know-it-all know-nothings who do not know their “International Court of Justice” from their “International Criminal Court”.”

            Ginger (now): “You also confused the ICJ with the ICC.”

            Luvey, you aren’t even half as smart as you think you are.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Gustav”

            ??????????

            LOL. Poor Bubbleboy is besotted with me. He is suffering from Gustavmania.

            Oh and “Strawmen” complex. Ever noticed how often he invokes the “straw man” argument? Well he is guilty of it here by bringing me into his argument.

            Gee …gosh …. golly gosh and … pish posh.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Ever noticed how often he invokes the “straw man” argument?”

            And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a cry for help from Gustav, who can not fathom what a straw man argument is.

            Which is kinda’ funny, because he certainly isn’t shy about erecting Straw Men.

            Gustav: “Well he is guilty of it here by bringing me into his argument.”

            And there is proof positive that Gustav doesn’t know what a straw man argument is.

            Anyone else want to enlighten the unenlightened?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.”

            I never made any argument yet you attributed an argument to me. In other words, you falsely attributed views to me which I did not espouse. That isn’t a misrepresentation?

            Ok then, can I do the same to you, [Yeah, Right]? I bet you would squeal like a stuffed pig if I did that to you!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “I never made any argument yet you attributed an argument to me.”

            Priceless.

            I will now point to this:
            Gustav: “Ever noticed how often he invokes the “straw man” argument?”
            and to this:
            Gustav: “Well he is guilty of it here by bringing me into his argument.”

            Get it?

            You accused **me** of erecting a straw man argument, and by doing that you demonstrated that you don’t know what a “straw man argument” actually is.

            Dude, I didn’t say that **YOU** were erecting a straw man argument with those two sentences.

            No. I was saying that **YOUR** accusation to me was a display of such breathtaking ignorance it proves – absolutely, categorically – that you wouldn’t know a straw man even if it jumped in front of you and shouted “Hello! I’m a straw man!”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            [Yeah , Right]

            Athis best. OBFUSCATING!

            He is a seasoned propagandist.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You know what, [Yeah Right]?

            It does not matter what you call it. The fact is that you attributed something to me which I did NOT say. In fact you put it in quotation marks as if you were quoting me directly.

            You don’t like me calling that your straw man? Ok then I will call it your LIE!

            Is that better?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “In fact you put it in quotation marks as if you were quoting me directly.”

            sigh

            If Gustav actually read the thread he’d see that I simply typed “Gustav” instead of “Ginger”.

            An error, made in haste.

            I even address “Ginger” several times in that post, so Gustav should have known that I was replying to her, and that the quote was from her.

            Gustav: “Ok then I will call it your LIE!”

            No, it wasn’t a lie, it was a typo.

            My mistake, but an easy enough mistake to make – after all, you *do* argue like a girlie….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “If Gustav actually read the thread he’d see that I simply typed “Gustav” instead of “Ginger”.

            An error, made in haste.”

            There. That is what I was looking for. Wasn’t that hard was it? To admit making a mistake. It is human to make mistakes.

            That should have been your first reply to me after my first post to you about it. But what did you do? You obfuscated.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            So after all these weeks of your abusive posts THAT is your moment of triumph? A typo?

            Pathetic, and getting more and more pathetic with each post.

            You know, when you started out shouting that I had used you as a straw man.

            Which then became the shout of LIE!

            Only for it now to become “To admit making a mistake. It is human to make mistakes.”

            Man, if you weren’t so irredeemably awful I’d almost feel sorry for you.

            But, heck, since you are then I don’t.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Abuse? You poor dear. I do feel sorry for you. Not!

            The hide of this guy! He makes a typo. To me it appeared as either a typo or him being stupid (like stupid Marnie, who also invoked my name on this thread out of the blue).

            So I called him on it. A normal human being would have admitted his mistake and we would have moved on. Not this narcissist though. He did not have it in him. He tried every trick in the book to try and get out of admitting his mistake, till he had no other option!

            It just shows the kind of person he is. An idiot mixed with narcissism. Not a nice combination!

            Even now he could not walk away in good grace after I acknowledged that his mistake was only human. I guess he does not like to be described as someone with human weaknesses …

            Reply to Comment
    10. Richard Witty

      Consider “as if” efforts.

      Either towards a single state, IE simulated bi-national elections at the date of the next Israeli election.

      Set up polling stations for all residents from river to sea to vote in the Israeli elections. Campaign for candidates of your choice, Zionist if appealing or non-Zionist if appealing.

      Let the world and Israeli populace know what the will of the collective people are, even if not binding in any jurisdiction. The process will speak a thousand words (especially if conducted to best practice election standards). The results will speak a thousand words.

      On in the two-state format. Draw a green line on the green line (or a green thread is my choice). Require a simulated visa to cross the green line. Set up paper border stations at the green line to process visas, or other permission to enter Palestine.

      ENTIRELY non-violently, perhaps even coordinated with Israeli authorities, telling them that they are entirely non-violent efforts in conformity with the law of peaceable assembly.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        There are tens/hundreds of racial/ethnic groups around the world seeking their own States (including in Europe!) and whose (armed) struggles are older than that of the Palestinians. Go solve the problems there (and in YOUR own country) FIRST with you brilliant ideas BEFORE you come here to rant about Jews and Israel. That’s a basic demand of fairness to all those others who have a far better case than Palestinians – unless of course Jews are special (in your obsessive mind), no?

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          Eis, you should go and heartlessly and mindlessly defend heartless oppression of other peoples all over the world and only then busy yourself with obsessing about Jews. Really why are you so obsessed with Jews Jews Jews and defending their oppression of others? It’s very suspicious. You must be a self-worshiping Jewish Supremacist. Of all these great opportunities all over the world for defending heartless oppression you have to choose the Jews. As I said, very suspicious.

          Reply to Comment
          • Sluggo

            You are not clever at all. This is how a two year old reacts when exposed.
            You apply a double standard to Israel. Supporting Israel in this case does not imply a double standard at any extent.
            And no, I did not call you an anti Semite (as you suggested below) and you certainly don’t make me angry. Confused and ill informed people only,arouse my pity and compassion.
            Yalah!

            Reply to Comment
    11. Jews aren’t special at all, at least no more special than any other group. Some just believe they are special and entitled. Hence the balagan.

      Reply to Comment
      • Sluggo

        If you believe that Jews are not different from any other peoples,,why do,you single,out the Jews as the only people not deserving of their own state?

        Reply to Comment
    12. Seriously? WHere’s the “Marnie is really Annie at Mondoweiss?” Oooh, Mondoweiss bad. Okay “Sluggo” or Gustav or who/whatever you are. First off, my post was in regards to Eis’s remark to Brian “unless of course Jews are special” bit. Hence my remark that Jews aren’t special, at least not any more than any other group. Jews all over the world manage to live in harmony with their neighbors. Don’t believe it? Get out more. The israeli government has never demanded of itself or its citizens to respect the people in this land, which, small historical footnote, had been inhabited by the very people so many at this site choose to deny the existence of. They, the merry band of murdering thieves, stole and have continued to steal Palestine bit by bit. Please save the moronic tropes about antisemitism – hate israel – hate Jews – no such thing as Palestinians – antisemites – bombs – terrorists! – Khamas!!! – Abbas is Khamas – Khamas is ISIS – lions, tigers and bears, oh my! Blah, blah, blah. You don’t want a discussion here. That’s what you and your band of brothers are trying to prevent. That’s the same mentality of the neanderthals who burned the joint Palestinian/Israeli school – the same exact mentality of the KKK that bombed churches and buses during the civil rights movement. That is the behavior of someone who is scared shitless. They know if the people they are trying to separate ever really, really get the opportunity to know each other, live with each other, fight with each other, love each other, struggle with each other against the injustices put upon each other by whatever government they are under, they know that they’re through. Why would you want to be used like that an entity that doesn’t give a shit about you or people like you – you’re just cannon fodder, you’ll do the dirty work, oh yeah, you’ll do the arson, murder, kidnapping, etc., so they don’t have to. It’s not that they couldn’t of course, most of them started out the same as you, but now they mostly wear suits and ties and have burned their hoods, turned in their army uniforms and are now the system. Its the system, here, the US, in South Africa, North Korea – anywhere there are people suffering, the system is the enemy. As long as the system keeps people separated, continues the propaganda agsinst one another, and lives in a state of perpetual conflict, there’ll never be peace. But obviously, peace is the last thing this government wants.

      You’re presence is strictly to throw out slogans, propaganda, lie, spread rumors, innuendo, anything to distract, distract, distract. The zionists’ agenda, laid out by Ben Gurion and his band of boy scout murderers, was to steal Palestine, kill Palestinians, rename all the cities and towns in an attempt to erase the history they did not participate in and claim it the “land without a people for a people without a land”. The biggest ponzi scheme in the 20th century.

      Now, you’ve managed to post me without first accusing me of being someone else, which was just to get a response from me, to play a game, and you think you’re protecting something that is in danger. If Jews are in danger (no), they can thank their leaders for continuing to put them in harm’s way.

      You’ve gotten a response, so now you can go back to your ridiculous gradeschool gossip. It is an amusement you engage in because it’s proof to your masters that you’re a good soldier. You don’t want answers. You are only here to distract, distort and deny. I’m through with you “Sluggo”, in whatever form you choose to be in.

      Reply to Comment
      • Barbara

        I will repeat the same question again everyone is asking. Pls. feel free not to answer if you don’t want to answer.

        Question
        If Jews are not special, why are you and other foreigners focusing on Jews and Israel, while disregarding other groups in the Middle East and Asia, Africa, South America, Europe, etc. ‘that have older and by far stronger claims than Palestinians’? If the reason is not because Jews are special, then what is it?

        I read Ginger’s post and she was responding to Richard Witty – not Brian. Did you also miss that one?

        Reply to Comment
        • “I read Ginger’s post and she was responding to Richard Witty – not Brian. Did you also miss that one?”

          Yep.

          Reply to Comment
          • Sluggo

            Marnie is a mere cartoon character.

            Without Mondoweis, her life would spin is confused lonely circles.

            And her pottery is fugly.

            Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          You just want “the foreigner’s” American dollars and nothing else from them, I understand. Barbara of all the great opportunities around the world for defending oppression by employing distraction, you had to choose the Jews. Why is that? Please feel free not to answer if you don’t want to answer.

          Reply to Comment
          • Sluggo

            Brian, you should be ashamed for such an illogical comment. Nobody here is lobbying for foreign aid. Stop projecting. It is reasonable here to to support the only Jewish state in front of those who wish to libel it, give comfort to its mortal detractors, and promote falsehoods. Nothing more, nothing less.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Nope. Not ashamed one damn bit. Just applying to you the same obnoxiously self-righteous, innuendo-laced reasoning Eis and you apply to others where everybody is an ‘anti-Semite’ until proven otherwise. And you don’t like it. Tough. You all have gotten used to a level of obnoxiousness on your part–Eis the pioneer and you the tag-along–that has settled into a norm around here. Screw that.

            Reply to Comment
          • Barbara

            I am new here and have been reading the comments on other threads. I think Ginger is very articulate and brilliant. She makes a compelling case and I understand the question she is now asking clearly. But I do not see any logic in the comparison you are making / the question you ask back in an effort to respond to Ginger. In my humble opinion, which is not important of course, you should give an articulate answer because otherwise you continue to play directly well inside the domain and strike zone of, shall I say, skilful sharks like Ginger and others and end up confirming that they are right as you are doing currently.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Simply not a credible reply. Anyone not new here and not untruthful will have to stifle giggles. If you want to expose yourself right off the bat like this that’s your choice and it’s fine with me.

            Reply to Comment
          • Sluggo

            Brian, how rude! Barbara told you her truth. And you denied it on what basis? How can one ever take you seriously? You are a cliche.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Hi Barbara!

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            There’s a lot of temptations here. Barbie the cross dressing Sluggo? Sluggo the cross dressing Barbie?

            Reply to Comment
          • Exactly. The first response from Barbara sounded like it could be a medicated version of Eis, the 2nd one definitely to me sounded like Eis – or her lap dog Merav – what a distorted, over-inflated sense of he/she/its own self-worth and importance. So incredibly egotistical. The only thing I can console myself with is the fact that, although they act as though they are the “voice” of israelis, and sure the voice of the most virulent, racist israelis, they don’t mirror any of the israelis I know. I hope there’s enough of us “others” to make a difference.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Barabara: “I think Ginger is very articulate and brilliant. She makes a compelling case and I understand the question she is now asking clearly.”

            Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like you all to meet Ginger’s Mom.

            Reply to Comment
          • You really think Eis has a mom? Seems more like a lab experiment that went terribly wrong, kinda jekyl and hyde or if you like cartoon characters – Heckle and Jeckle.

            Reply to Comment
          • Barbara

            I will repeat the question that was asked before. My hope is that someone will address it. Maybe I should not have said anything about Ginger, but your focus on her confirms what I said about her. She clearly keeps all of you very busy and, shall I say, furious and acting childish, in my humble opinion. I am saddened that instead of answering my question there is that much focus on Ginger.

            Question
            If Jews are not special, why are you and other foreigners focusing on Jews and Israel, while disregarding other groups in the Middle East and Asia, Africa, South America, Europe, etc. ‘that have older and by far stronger claims than Palestinians’? If the reason is not because Jews are special, then what is it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Barbara: “Question If Jews are not special, why are you and other foreigners focusing on Jews and Israel,” [blah] [blah] [blah]

            Here are two reasons which do not have even the slightest thing to do with anti-Semitism.

            1) Israel is doing this on our dime, which makes me complicit in acts that I do not agree with in a way that ISN’T true with respect to the suppression of the self-determination of “other groups”.

            I don’t LIKE “other groups” being oppressed, but I LOATH Israel’s chutzpah in making me pay for its oppression of the Palestinians.

            2) Those “other groups” may – or may not – be oppressed, but they aren’t being oppressed in the name of colonial-expansionism.

            Israel is The World’s Last Colonial Power, and that’s reason enough for it to be placed under singular scrutiny.

            And while I’m at it I’ll mention a THIRD reason, though it isn’t one that I share….

            3) There are Jews who don’t like that Israel is claiming to be doing this IN THEIR NAME.

            There are Jews who have a conscience (not you, obviously), and they feel compelled to complain that this is being done IN THEIR NAME even though THEY DO NOT AGREE.

            Barabara: “If the reason is not because Jews are special, then what is it?”

            It is because ISRAEL claims that it is special. That ISRAEL claims that the normal rules do not apply to it.

            So in terms of criticism Israel is just begging for it, so there’s not much point complaining when its critics dish it out.

            There are, indeed, lot’s and lot’s and lot’s of reprehensible regimes in this world, Barbara. But none are as sanctimonious as Israel, nor does any of those cause as much damage to the international order as does Israel.

            Reason enough, I’d suggest, for singling Israel out.

            Reply to Comment
          • Sluggo

            This list is pathetic, hypocritical, and disingenuous.

            1). Then your fight is with the US, not, Israel. Period. And do you honestly mean to portray that your opposition to Israel would go away,if the transfer of funds were to stop?

            2). I don’t agree that Israel is a colonial power or that it oppresses under the conditions you state. However, if it is I’m fact the last colonial power, why is that oppression worse than any other kind? Who are you to state some oppressions are more moral than others? More nonsense.

            3) who cares what Israel says it is? That has no bearing on how you managed oppressed people. And if Israel did not make these claims,,would your opposition disappear?

            Your list is old, uncreative, and meaningless. You do not have the moral authority to claim that Israel receives funds transfer or calls itself democratic to support your case.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Sluggo: “1). Then your fight is with the US, not, Israel. Period.”

            Ahem. DBS directs its arguments to those countries who provide aid and support *to* Israel. Period.

            Funny that, heh?

            Sluggo: “And do you honestly mean to portray that your opposition to Israel would go away,if the transfer of funds were to stop?”

            Did anyone other than Sluggo’s Straw Man(tm) ever say that?

            Because I certainly didn’t.

            Sluggo: “I don’t agree that Israel is a colonial power or that it oppresses under the conditions you state.”

            And the fact that you are a wilfully-blind dissembler should matter to me…. why, exactly?

            Sluggo: “However, if it is I’m fact the last colonial power, why is that oppression worse than any other kind?”

            You may as well ask the same thing regarding slavery, sunshine.

            Sluggo: “Who are you to state some oppressions are more moral than others?”

            And who are you to say otherwise?

            Barabara posed a question that implied that “anti-Israeli” protest is invariably driven by “anti-Semitism”.

            I’m TELLING Barbara that my “anti-Israelism” is not driven by “anti-Semitism”, it is driven by “anti-colonialism”.

            That YOU don’t appear to have a problem with colonial expansionism is, frankly, something that I don’t give a s**t about.

            I do have a problem with colonialism, and I am quite entitled to hold that opinion.

            And – let’s not mince words here – I do not take kindly to a little s**t like you telling me what I should and shouldn’t think.

            Sluggo: “who cares what Israel says it is? That has no bearing on how you managed oppressed people. And if Israel did not make these claims,,would your opposition disappear?”

            I am not Jewish, Sluggo, so I do not claim to speak on behalf of Jews.

            But Israel does.

            And that does appear to be a very serious issue for be More Than A Few Jews.

            That *you* say Pish-Posh, Who-Cares is irrelevant.

            There are Jews who do have a very serious problem regarding the way that Israel takes their name in vain. They are entitled to hold that opinion, just as you are entitled to hug Israel just as tightly as it embraces you.

            But one thing that a little s**t like you has no right to do is to tell the former that they shouldn’t hold their own opinions, they need to adopt yours.

            Your arrogance is palpable, Sluggo.

            Reply to Comment
          • Sluggo

            Ok. Since your opposition to Israel would continue if US aid stopped, then your first argument goes away. In other words, that the US supports israel on your dime is not a reason to single Israel out. Knock off the fake revulsion. And I doubt you pay very much in taxes.

            Secondly, you do not have the moral authority to prioritize differences in the root causes of oppression. Even if you think you do. Does it help the Tibetans that their cause is less just because you say it is?

            Just be honest. You decided to single out Israel first, then you looked for the differences later. Your reasons are similar to saying that countries that begin with an “I” are worse than all the others.

            Let go of the falsehood that Israel is a colonial state. It is a ridiculous claim.

            And for your care of your Jewish acquaintances is pretty sallow as you single out the only Jewish state for special treatment.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            YR: Nice list. Sluggo-Barbara here complained that your list is “old” as if this detracts from rather than, obviously, strengthens it. 47 years old and counting. The only thing to add is corollaries 2(a) and 3(a): Reasons 2 and 3 are compounded by the shameful hypocrisy illuminated by Ze’ev Sternhell here:

            “Another aspect of this early failure is the fact that the founders made laws for themselves, not for human beings as such. They never imagined that the Feiglins and Elkins would have ruling power in the most persecuted nation in modern history. Their great foe was Jabotinsky, whom Ben-Gurion and Katznelson knew, and against whom they fought for power and for the means to achieve their common goal, but not for the goal itself.

            Even in the second generation, that of Menachem Begin and his comrades in the underground, the type of politicians such as Naftali Bennett, Uri Ariel, Miri Regev and Ayelet Shaked would not have existed because the occupation and the settlements that created them did not exist at the time.

            No one ever envisioned the actual possibility that power would fall one day into the hands of people with the demeanor of masters, for whom the oppression of another nation was second nature. Who ever imagined that the Jewish community might one day turn into a colonialist entity and lay the foundations of an apartheid regime as a permanent condition, and would want to engrave that shame in its law books on top of that?”

            Reply to Comment
          • Sluggo

            None of this supports singling out Israel for special treatment. Nope

            Reply to Comment
          • It was a thorough and spot on list, which is obvious to any reader and given the zionist stamp of disapproval, by the snark that followed.

            Reply to Comment
          • Sluggo

            YR: please don’t conflate my pointing out that your views are morally and ethically indefensible with telling you what to think. I respect the ability of every thinking person to draw their own conclusions. Happy Monday!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Sluggo: “please don’t conflate my pointing out that your views are morally and ethically indefensible with telling you what to think. I respect the ability of every thinking person to draw their own conclusions.”

            Sure, you’d never say anything like, oh, say….

            Sluggo: “you do not have the moral authority to prioritize differences in the root causes of oppression”

            You, sir, are a dissembling, dishonest idiot.

            Reply to Comment
          • Sluggo

            The two statements do not contradict one another.

            You are allowed to have different standards for Jews and non-Jews and I will not try to change your mind. But I will point how how your views are neither ethically or morally appropriate.

            And being anti-Zionist as you are is without any doubt _____. You know the word.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Sluggo: “You are allowed to have different standards for Jews and non-Jews and I will not try to change your mind.”

            Sorry, but I don’t have “different standards for Jews”.

            I have a strict standard for colonialism, which is this: it is reprehensible that any state should claim that is has a “right” to indulge in 19th century colonialism into the second decade of the 21st century.

            I would hold that view regarding ANY state that is indulging in colonial expansionism.

            But, Sluggo, there is only ONE state that is indulging in good old fashioned colonialism.

            This one.
            Israel.

            No others.
            Just…. Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “I have a strict standard for colonialism, which is this: it is reprehensible that any state should claim that is has a “right” to indulge in 19th century colonialism into the second decade of the 21st century.”

            Yet he told me that he lives in Australia. What a hypocrite. Go back to the old country old chap!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Yet he told me that he lives in Australia. What a hypocrite. Go back to the old country old chap!”

            Nobody is arguing that the European countries were aggressive colonial powers in the 19th century, Gustav.

            They were.

            But they aren’t any more. They have gone all post-colonial on us.

            But not Israel.

            Israel insists that it missed out on the 19th century so it is entitled to play catch-up.

            No, dude, that was then and this is now.

            We live in a post-colonial world.

            Except for that puissant little throwback to a world that was racist, colonialist, and expansionist.

            Get with the times, Gustav, you’ll feel better for it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yeah, Right …

            Thanks for the lecture. That’s just like another way of saying …

            Whew we did it … we got away with it … now we will get on our soap box and accuse others of crimes which we WERE guilty of. And our EXCUSE is? … Sorry old chap … these are different times!

            Well, I have news for you hypocrite. It is never too late to repent. You should not live a country which has been built on the the blood of the Aboriginal people and where many Aborigines are still suffering the trauma which your ancestors inflicted them.

            Get out and go back to your old country. But if you don’t then stop lecturing us for much less than what YOUR ancestors did.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Hey … Yeah, Right old chap, yea … you with the odd name which you gave yourself …

            If I were you, I would go back to my old Momma and ask her to teach you about the man who lived in a glass house and threw stones at others…

            A very instructive story, you might even learn something. Humility maybe ….???!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Hey … Yeah, Right old chap, yea … you with the odd name which you gave yourself …”

            sigh.

            Once more with the ad-homs….

            Gustav: “If I were you, I would go back to my old Momma and ask her to teach you about the man who lived in a glass house and threw stones at others…”

            sigh.

            Ad-homs awaaaaaaaay!!!!!!

            Gustav: “A very instructive story, you might even learn something. Humility maybe ….???!!!”

            sigh.

            It’s not as if I’m ever going to learn anything from reading Gustav’s Troll-Man nonsense…..

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Thanks for the lecture. That’s just like another way of saying …”

            … does anyone else want to have a go at explaining the “straw man argument” to Gustav?

            He is very clearly well-practiced in the art of erecting his Men of Straw.

            No question about that.

            But, apparently, he does so with the industry of a bull ant or a worker bee i.e. he tools away, but he doesn’t know why he tools away or what it is that he is actually doing.

            Gustav: “Whew we did it … we got away with it … now we will get on our soap box and accuse others of crimes which we WERE guilty of. And our EXCUSE is? … Sorry old chap … these are different times!”

            There it is, and it is magnificent.
            At least six foot tall, if not taller.

            Well done, sunshine.

            Now, does anyone else want to point out to Gustav that Most Magnificent Construction is 100% stuffed with straw and carries the label Made By Gustav?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            LOL, good old [Yeah, Right]. He works to a formula …

            When all else fails, when he gets cornered … He drags out his trusty, wait for it …

            “… nah ya can’t do dat … dat’s a straw-man argument …”

            Then with a smug look on his face, he feels vindicated.

            But the fact remains. He claims to detest colonialism yet he lives in a country which was colonised by white Europeans and where the aborigines are still greatly disadvantaged. So if he would really practice what he preaches, he would either …

            1. Devote his time to improving the lot of the aborigines …

            2. Or would get on his soap box and preach to his fellow beneficiaries of colonialism (which he allegedly hates) that they should all return to the old country and hand the country back to the rightful owners and maybe he should lead by example.

            But what does he do instead? He says …

            Oh well … we did what we did … that was wrong but now I will just enjoy our ill gotten gains and I will repent by standing on top of my soap box and point the finger at others who he pretends are colonialists. It seems to be a full time job for him too.

            Then when one calls him on it, he mutters dark thoughts about straw men. What a bloody hypocrite he is!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “He claims to detest colonialism yet he lives in a country which was colonised by white Europeans and where the aborigines are still greatly disadvantaged.”

            What a laughable argument.

            This is true: countries in the 19th century acted as you would expect 19th century countries to act.

            That was The Age of Empire, and so all the European countries set about establishing…. Empires.

            They did so by conquest, subjugation, and colonial-expansionism.

            That did that *then*, because it was not only legal *then*, it was something that any self-respecting power did – and if you didn’t then you were nobody.

            But the point remains: that was *then*, and this is *now*.

            Not one of those 19th century colonial powers would dream of carrying out those actions *now*, precisely because that have all agreed that *now* is an age of post-colonialism.

            They all accept that, some with less grace than others, sure, but that view is now universal – colonialism is now as much a non-starter as slavery or racial-supremacy.

            Well, everywhere but one little flea-speck of a country.

            There is, indeed, one little puissant country that stomps its teeny-tiny feet and cries “Not Fair! Not Fair! I missed out on the 19th century, so I should be allowed to play catch-up”.

            And, so sorry, Gustav, but the answer is still the same: the 19th century was *then*, and this is *now*.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “But the point remains: that was *then*, and this is *now*.”

            Yea and now hypocrites like you are enjoying the fruits of your pas colonial exploitations while many of the Aborigines still live substandard lives.

            That is NOW! Hypocrite!!!

            What are you doing about it NOW???!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Yea and now hypocrites like you are enjoying the fruits of your pas colonial exploitations while many of the Aborigines still live substandard lives.”

            *my* past colonial exploitations?

            *mine*??

            Gustav: “That is NOW! Hypocrite!!!”

            Indeed it is “now”. And in the here and now my country does not colonize anything, nor does it subjugate anyone.

            Compare. And. Contrast.

            Gustav: “What are you doing about it NOW???!!!”

            Well, let’s see…..

            We have a “Commonwealth”.

            Everyone who lives in that
            Commonwealth is a “citizen”.

            That Commonwealth is a country By The People, and most definitely For The People, and – all of us, every last one, regardless of race, colour or creed – refuse to accept any notion that this country exists so that one group can lord it over all the other groups.

            Again: Compare. And. Contrast.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            In your classic style, Gustav, you confirm that your strongest regiment is “Wah! They got to do it 200 years ago why can’t we?! It’s not fair!” And this despite the fact that Herzl would have been appalled at the entitlement you express.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Actually I meant “argument” but “regiment” is even better. Thank you, Auto-Correct.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Really? Why can’t we do it too? You mean we have done what was done to the Aborigines of Australia? That is a new low even for you Brian. In fact, we are more like the Aborigines of Australia. We are the natives who were expelled by white European colonizers who returned to claim our homeland and we don’t even demand that the Arab colonizers who took over from the European colonizers should leave. We are willing to share.

            By the way, Brian, you too are a hypocrite. You live in America. You say that Americans are idiotic. But you have no problems with benefiting from the colonization of America by Europeans. You too preach water to us but drink wine yourself. You too are a hypocrite!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “GUSTAV: “Yea and now hypocrites like you are enjoying the fruits of your pas colonial exploitations while many of the Aborigines still live substandard lives.”

            [Yeah, Right]*my* past colonial exploitations?

            *mine*??

            You said you hate colonialism. Australia was colonised by the White man. The Aborigines lost an entire continent to the White man. You didn’t do it yourself? But you benefit from it every single day of your life. Just like a receiver of stolen goods benefits from stolen goods.

            So yeah, you too are an exploiter. Much more so than we who returned to our ancestral home lands.

            GUSTAV: “That is NOW! Hypocrite!!!”

            [Yeah, Right]:”Indeed it is “now”. And in the here and now my country does not colonize anything, nor does it subjugate anyone.”

            You mean the White Europeans left Australia? No? Then if you call US colonists then you are much bigger colonists than us. Hypocrite!

            [Yeah Right]:”Compare. And. Contrast.”

            What a cheek! Indeed I will! You stole an entire continent while we returned to OUR ancestral homeland. Yea, compare and contrast indeed!

            GUSTAV: “What are you doing about it NOW???!!!”

            [Yeah Right]Well, let’s see…..

            We have a “Commonwealth”.

            Everyone who lives in that
            Commonwealth is a “citizen”.

            That Commonwealth is a country By The People, and most definitely For The People, and – all of us, every last one, regardless of race, colour or creed – refuse to accept any notion that this country exists so that one group can lord it over all the other groups.”

            Really? You also have Jails which are full of dysfunctional Aboriginal youth. Entire dysfunctional Aboriginal communities who are desperately unhappy and who are consequently alcohol filled and wh have much lower life expectancies than whites. As well as unhappy adult Aboriginals who were snatched away from their parents. What do they call them? The stolen generation or something? And you are still proud and smug? You sure have a nerve!

            [Yeah Right]:”Again: Compare. And. Contrast.”

            I am game if you are game. But remember, one never read about Aboriginal suicide bombers yet you still treated them abysmally and their lot today is only marginally better than it was. What is your excuse for it? At least we have the likes of Hamas and Islamic Jihad as well as other similar groups to blame.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav, every single person ruled over by the Commonwealth of Australia is a citizen of that Commonwealth.

            Every last one of them, regardless of race, colour, creed, ethnicity, or religion.

            Every. Last. One.

            The same is not true of the puissant little colonial-expansionist and racial-supremacist country that you owe your primary allegiance to.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            [Yeah Right]:”every single person ruled over by the Commonwealth of Australia is a citizen of that Commonwealth.”

            Every last one of them, regardless of race, colour, creed, ethnicity, or religion.

            Every. Last. One.”

            Really? You also have Jails which are full of dysfunctional Aboriginal youth. Entire dysfunctional Aboriginal communities who are desperately unhappy and who are consequently alcohol filled and wh have much lower life expectancies than whites. As well as unhappy adult Aboriginals who were snatched away from their parents. What do they call them? The stolen generation or something? And you are still proud and smug? You sure have a nerve!

            [Yeah Right]:”The same is not true of the puissant little colonial-expansionist and racial-supremacist country that you owe your primary allegiance to.”

            Spoken like a smug little hypocrite who lives in a glass house but who casts stones at others whose sins are much less than their own sins. Hypocrisy and dflection stemming from a guilty conscience. Then again, I doubt he has a conscience. Judging by the tone of his posts, he is a narcissist.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Sluggo: “The two statements do not contradict one another.”

            Pig’s arse, Sluggo.

            This statement: “you do not have the moral authority to prioritize differences in the root causes of oppression”
            is quite incompatible with this statement: “please don’t conflate my pointing out that your views are morally and ethically indefensible with telling you what to think.”

            Your arrogance is as breathtaking as it is predictable, and is equalled only by your predilection for straw man arguments.

            You know, like this nonsense: “You are allowed to have different standards for Jews and non-Jews” or this canard: “Does it help the Tibetans that their cause is less just because you say it is?”

            just. because. you. say. it. is.

            DON’T presume to put words in my mouth, Sluggo.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “You really think Eis has a mom?”

            Ginger says she has.

            Heck, Ginger even “proved” that I was wrong by claiming that she showed my post to her mom, who immediately agreed with Ginger.

            Go figure, heh?

            Reply to Comment
          • Sluggo

            Well, you should be. Must be a self-awareness issue.
            Regardless, you asked about the reason for defending Israel and it was provided. The difference is, you rely on an indefensible double standard.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Sluggo…Barbara. So campy! So vampy! Clearly you are very talented at double standards.

            Reply to Comment
          • Sluggo

            Brian,
            The comment “So Campy! So Vampy” is nothing that a straight man ever said. If you ever find yourself in the Palestinian Territories, Egypt, or Iran, please scream this phrase at the top of your lungs. And repeat

            Reply to Comment
      • Sluggo

        “Jews all over the world manage to live in harmony with their neighbors. Don’t believe it? Get out more. ”

        I wish this list did not exist, but in 2014, have you read about events involving Jews in Turkey, France, Ukraine, Venezuela, Belgium? Your libels and willful ignorance are shameful. Thankfully,,your willingness to have Jews live in danger will not come to pass.

        Reply to Comment
    13. There isn’t any other country behaving the way the GoI is, which, if you want to get technical, makes the GoI special, if you like your brand of special to smell, taste and feel like apartheid South Africa special.

      Reply to Comment
      • Sluggo

        Now let’s reveal the true colors behind Momdoweis and those who make it tick. Your issue wth GOI predates 1948 with the Jewish Agency. You are against Jews having their own state. Period. To support your case, you take a very narrow part of history and custom fit it to match your narrative. In other words, you shoot the arrow first and paint the target around it. Even if GOI is as horrible as you portray, it is still no cause to end the only Jewish state.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          Sluggo: “Now let’s reveal the true colors behind Momdoweis and those who make it tick.”

          Why do I have a sinking feeling that we are about to see some real world-class verballing about to take place?

          Sluggo: “Your issue wth GOI predates 1948 with the Jewish Agency.”

          No, that’s YOU talking.
          Nobody else, just YOU.

          Sluggo: “You are against Jews having their own state.”

          No, that’s YOU talking.
          Nobody else, just YOU.

          Sluggo: “To support your case, you take a very narrow part of history and custom fit it to match your narrative.”

          No, that’s YOU verballing Marnie.

          No more, and nothing less.

          Sluggo: “In other words,”

          No, in YOUR words.

          Sluggo: “you shoot the arrow first and paint the target around it.”

          Actually, no, it appears to be YOU erecting a straw man and then claiming to be clever when you tear it down.

          Sluggo: “Even if GOI is as horrible as you portray, it is still no cause to end the only Jewish state.”

          Oh, really? Says who, exactly?
          Oh, yeah, right, that’d be YOU.

          Reply to Comment
    14. Brian

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.630423

      Oz, Grossman sign petition calling on European parliaments to recognize Palestine

      Renowned Israeli authors Amos Oz, David Grossman and A.B. Yehoshua have signed a letter calling on European parliaments to recognize a Palestinian state.

      According to the Gush Shalom organization, Oz, Grossman and Yehoshua join some 800 Israeli signatories, including Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman, former Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg and former Minister Yossi Sarid….

      Reply to Comment
      • Sluggo

        This posting serves to shatter the ridiculous claims that Israel is not a democracy or that it is fascist

        Good job Brian!

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          Quite obviously Israel is part solid democracy (democratic for Jews and way less so for Arabs) part ethnotheocracy, with nascent and growing fascist strains in its leadership and among its populace, with its part-democracy increasingly weakened. That’s too much nuance for you isn’t it? Holding more than one complex idea in your head at the same time seems to overwhelm you. You give the impression of a silly goose waddling around squawking and honking. We just can’t tell if it’s goose or gander.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Quite obviously Israel is part solid democracy (democratic for Jews and way less so for Arabs) part ethnotheocracy,”

            Considering that there has been 100 years of a war going on between the Jews of Palestine and the Arabs of Palestine, Israel is much more democratic than even the most democratic states of the west were during their great war against their enemies.

            What did America, Britain, Australia and New Zealand do to their citizens from Germany, Italy and Japan during WW2? They werd interned in camps. Compared to that, Arab Israelis enjoy virtual equality and freedom. Is there prejudice against them? Of course but prejudice exists everywhere even during peace time. And no it isn’t nice but Arabs are prejudiced against us too.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Nice try but the remotely closest analogy (and you always present shaggy analogies as if they were exactly apt when they are mainly your device for introducing distortions and evasions) would be Allies occupying Germany AFTER WWII and refusing to leave and sending Americans into Schleswig-Holstein to set up nifty American settlements and burning the German farmers’ fields and crops and raiding their houses at night and disappearing them into indefinite detention while calling all Germans terrorists and calling Konrad Adenauer “the biggest terrorist of them all.” No, Americans were not locking up and exacting prejudice against Germans endlessly and engaging in endless Non-German Supremacy and Mayflower-Descendant Supremacy and demanding to be recognized by Germans as the Nation State of the Non-German People and differentiating their own based on who was the offspring of a Mayflower-Descendant mother. Nor was an American Non-German-non-Italian-non-Japanese Agency locking up “state land” and saying it was off forever off limits to German-Americans. I anticipate your telling me that Germany was soundly defeated whereas Palestine is not yet soundly defeated and if you say this you will make my case for me all the more.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Actually, you are wrong.

            Russia and Poland actually took over part of the old Germany. And more than that. Millions of ethnic Germans were kicked out from their homes and became refugees. Just like Jews from Arab countries who did nothing wrong.

            But back to the draconian measures during war times. We are nowhere near as draconian as the Western allies were. You are just shutting your eyes, blocking your ears and you don’t want to see or hear.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            You mean like hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were kicked out of what is now Israel? Look at a map. They’re down to less than 22% and you, Overlords, feel entitled to cut even that in half or more. The closest equivalent would be Russia permanently annexing all of East Germany, except that introduces its own severe distortions. These analogies are best left alone.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Look at a map.”

            Actually I do all the time. And I see Israel as a speck compared to the lands owned by the Arab people. I am told that Israel represents about 0.5% of the total land mass owned by Arabs, who by the way, are the greatest colonizers ever seen on this planet. Just look at their history and remember what their humble beginning was. They swept out of the Arab peninsula and conquered half the known world.

            You might also want to remember what historic Palestine was prior to 1929. It seems that the area on which Jordan is now was known as Eastern Palestine. And yes, it represented 80% of the total area of historic Palestine. So before you get carried away with your figure of 22% you might wanna look at it this way …

            Imagine that a cake was promised to be divied up between two children, let’s call them Ishmael and Israel.

            On Monday, their uncle cuts off 80% of the cake and gives it only to little Ishmael.

            On Tuesday, the benevolent uncle divies up the remaining 20% of the cake between little Ishmael and little Israel. Little Ishmael then starts whining. He jumps up and down and tries to take the whole of the 20% from little Israel who fights back and gains control of the entire remaining 20% of the cake. He then offers to return part of the cake provided that little Ishmael promises not to fight anymore.

            Unfortunately little Ishmael does not agree and he and his friends promise that they will teach little Israel a lesson he will never forget unless little Israel promises to return more than 22% of the remaining 20% of the cake.

            See Brian? That is a better analogy than your simplistic analogy about the map and the map about which you are babbling.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            First use of child abuse as a defense in the recorded literature.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            The answer you give to someone when you have no answer.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            No it’s the answer you give when you don’t follow someone’s convoluted obscurantist purposefully complicated lesson in fractions. 78 + 22 = 100. 22/100 = .22 = 22%. The test is tomorrow. Bonus question: what does “with swaps” mean? Extra extra points: You get the 2015 Nobel Prize in Geography if you can specify where the 67 lines are because to date no right wing Israeli has been able to do it. It stumps the chumps!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            People don’t follow what they don’t want to follow because they already picked the team for which they are barracking.

            Land swaps? What an easy test. It is what Israeli doves offered for the sake of peace. A peace which your team, the Saint Palestinians, don’t seem to want because it would mean the existence of the Jewish state.

            67 lines you ask? That is even easier. It is the 1949 armistice lines where the war which your Saint Palestinians started temporarily stopped.

            But why am I bothering. You already knew all that, didn’t you Brian?

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            Brian’s analogy is very good and accurate.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Brian’s analogy is very good and accurate.”

            You think so, “Average American”? Well then do you agree with Brian about what he said here too?

            BRIAN”Ah, yes, we are the chosen people! We can do no wrong! And the rapture is nigh upon us! You MUST be an American. No one else could sound so credulous and so idiotic.”

            He said it here on his first post on this thread …

            http://972mag.com/bibi-those-who-call-to-destroy-israel-should-have-citizenship-revoked/98537/

            … to Lisa who is an American non Jewish lady. Your Brian seems to be an equal opportunity hater. He seems to have disdain for us and for Americans too. What have you to say about that, “Average American”?

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            It doesn’t matter that Brian wrote it or whoever wrote it. It’s still an accurate analogy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            But if it does not worry you that shows what you are not …

            You are certainly not an Average American….

            You may not even be an American….

            And you are certainly not Average…

            Could it just be that you are an Average Arab instead?

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            You’re off-topic now. You hate Arabs, don’t you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I feel the same way about them as they feel about us. Howzat?

            Reply to Comment
    15. phil

      Why are you wasting your time with Gustav folks?

      He lies, then when found out he says he means something else, then he accuses other people without foundation and cannot provide evidence, but mainly he’s abusive and resorts to namecalling..

      And of course he totally outed himself on another thread over the weekend where he was trying to operate a sockpuppet but he can’t even do that right..

      You can have a debate with some people here, but not Gustav

      He has nothing to contribute under any of his names

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        LOL poor old Phil …

        He suffers from a bad dose of sour grapes.

        No, you are right though you don’t have to debate with me. I’ll still say what I want to say and then you will just gnash your teeth in silence. It is all the same to me Philip dear.

        Reply to Comment
    16. Sluggo

      YR: it seems the more words I use the. more confused and jammed up you get. So I will use fewer words in an attempt to reveal your immoral stance.

      1). That Israel gets US tax money does not impact any moral or ethical calculus

      2). Israel is not an 19th colonial power even if you say it is

      3). Even if you think it is, that in itself is no reason to single it out.

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        Sluggo: “1). That Israel gets US tax money does not impact any moral or ethical calculus”

        That statement is wrong.

        This statement is true: He who pays the piper gets to call the tune.

        But this is equally true: If you don’t throw any money in the hat then you share no responsibility for the raucous noise.

        Sluggo: “2). Israel is not an 19th colonial power even if you say it is”

        Every “Jewish settlement” is also an “Israeli colony”, Sluggo.

        Every last one.

        Sluggo: “3). Even if you think it is, that in itself is no reason to single it out.”

        Oh, that sentence is supposed to mean something, is it?

        Coulda’ fooled me.

        Reply to Comment
    17. Sluggo

      YR:There are people and organizations out there who are genuine in their efforts to rehabilitate those who suffer from the impacts of colonialism. They build, they educate, and they call for reparations. They are active especially in Africa.

      Your only remedy to colonialism is to call for the end of Israel as we know it.

      What a weak, amoral person you are to cynically hide behind a just cause to single out the only Jewish state.

      I cant cure you of your maladies, but perhaps give you opportunity to reflect upon your lack of self-awareness. Perhaps you can feel humility for once in your bigoted life.

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        Sluggo: “There are people and organizations out there who are genuine in their efforts to rehabilitate those who suffer from the impacts of colonialism. ”

        How wonderfully post-colonial of you, Sluggo.

        And I agree: “rehabilitation” is the order of the day when shaping a post-colonial world.

        But, of course, that isn’t true wherever the Colonial Rulers are still… ruling.

        “Rehabilitation” isn’t possible under those circumstances, precisely because the place is still being despoiled by its Colonial Overlords.

        In those places we are talking about watching Sluggo smear lipstick all over a pig, and are expected to applaud his limitless humanity.

        Dude, we are everywhere living in a post-colonial world…. everywhere except one little throwback of a country.

        You know the one….

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          “Dude, we are everywhere living in a post-colonial world…. everywhere except one little throwback of a country.”

          The smugness and the hypocrisy of this shitty little man is breath taking.

          Essentially what this little used car salesman is trying to peddle is that the past is the past. They got what they wanted by being ruthless and now all that is in the past and there is no reason to talk about their sordid past because they are post colonialists now and they are incredibly decent.

          Yeah Right. Now ask the Aborigines how they feel about their lot today?

          What a smug hypocrite [Yeah, Right] is!!!

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Essentially what this little used car salesman is trying to peddle is that the past is the past.”

            The past is the past? Yeah, it is. Funny that.

            Slavery used to be legal, which is why 12% of the US citizenry is African American.

            And slavery isn’t legal any more, yet those African Americans are still there.

            I’d be curious to know what Gustav would suggest regarding that.

            Gustav: “They got what they wanted by being ruthless and now all that is in the past and there is no reason to talk about their sordid past because they are post colonialists now and they are incredibly decent.”

            Gustav is very quick with the “they” and “us” and “them”, without being entirely clear who he is talking about.

            Did “I” get all “ruthless” and “sordid” in the past?

            No, “I” didn’t.

            Yet – apparently – acts carried out in the “sordid past” by “they” (i.e. not “me”) disqualifies “me” from criticizing the acts that are being carried out by “Israel” in the “here and now”.

            I can’t see why, and I doubt very much that Gustav really knows why either.

            He’s shouting merely for the sake of shouting someone down, with a lot of furious arm-waving thrown in for good measure.

            And is that a hint of spittle, Gustav?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Essentially what this little used car salesman is trying to peddle is that the past is the past.”

            [Yeah Right]The past is the past? Yeah, it is. Funny that.

            Spoken like a person who is used to inflicting pain on others not one who receives pain from others. Forgive and forget, right? Then act holier than thou …

            [Yeah Right]”:Slavery used to be legal, which is why 12% of the US citizenry is African American.

            And slavery isn’t legal any more, yet those African Americans are still there.

            I’d be curious to know what Gustav would suggest regarding that.”

            I would suggest that the people who were guilty of practicing slavery should be very careful before they criticize others for much less. And that if they do criticize, they should look at context and offer level headed criticizm if they still want to criticize. Not blood libels and emotianal clap trap emanating from their own prejudices and hatreds. Get the message [Yeah Right]?

            GUSTAV: “They got what they wanted by being ruthless and now all that is in the past and there is no reason to talk about their sordid past because they are post colonialists now and they are incredibly decent.”

            [Yeah Right]Gustav is very quick with the “they” and “us” and “them”, without being entirely clear who he is talking about.”

            You know who you are. You are a descendant of white European settlers. And don’t pretend that this is the first time that I said that (obfuscator).

            [Yeah Right]Did “I” get all “ruthless” and “sordid” in the past?

            No, “I” didn’t.”

            Don’t be so fast to declare yourself not guilty.

            You are a receiver of stolen goods. You benefit from those goods and the original owners still suffer.

            But what do you do instead of working tirelessly to correct past wrongs? You get on your soap box and you push your nose into foreign conflicts but you don’t even do that properly. You level wild accusations against us. And those accusations are not based on facts. They are based on old fashioned prejudices.

            [Yeah Right]Yet – apparently – acts carried out in the “sordid past” by “they” (i.e. not “me”) disqualifies “me” from criticizing the acts that are being carried out by “Israel” in the “here and now”.

            Yes, if your criticizm is based on your prejudices and emotional clap trap, then you are disqualified from levelling criticism against others (us). And no, we are not beyond criticizm. But we are beyond baseless criticizm especialky by those (like you) who are part of a group who have a lot of work to do to correct past wrongs perpetrated by your people. You should be much busier doing that than indulging in your hatefest and libelous accusations against us, day in day out. It seems to be a hobby of yours!

            [Yeah Right]”I can’t see why, and I doubt very much that Gustav really knows why either.”

            I just told you why.

            [Yeah Right]”He’s shouting merely for the sake of shouting someone down, with a lot of furious arm-waving thrown in for good measure.”

            Was I shouting? If you say so. But if I was, I said “if” then I have reason to shout at hypocrites who spread one sided malicious libels. What’s your reason for being here and pretending to be a man of conscience which self evidently you are NOT. If in doubt, read what I said above, AGAIN!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “They got what they wanted by being ruthless and now all that is in the past and there is no reason to talk about their sordid past because they are post colonialists now and they are incredibly decent.”

            Even if we take Gustav’s argument for argument’s sake, I’m still struggling to see how that excuses Israel’s “sordid present”, nor how it invalidates any criticism that I might make regarding Israel’s “current ruthlessness” and its demonstrable “lack of decency”.

            After all, this is a given: I am not responsible for the policies carried out by the British Colonial Office two centuries ago.

            And this is also a given: Israel most definitely is responsible for the ongoing colonial=expansionist policies of the laughably-named “Civil Administration” of the “Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories”.

            But, apparently, in Gustav-world the activities of long-deal British Colonial Governors is infinitely more interesting that the current – and relentless – colonization of territory that Doesn’t Actually Belong To Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “They got what they wanted by being ruthless and now all that is in the past and there is no reason to talk about their sordid past because they are post colonialists now and they are incredibly decent.”

            [Yeah Right]Even if we take Gustav’s argument for argument’s sake, I’m still struggling to see how that excuses Israel’s “sordid present”,

            Any sordid present it would not excuse. There is however no sordid present. We are on the record of expressing a yearning for peace and making territorial concessions for the sake of peace. But we are faced with an implaccable enemy who wants everything their way and their way only.

            [Yeah Right]:”nor how it invalidates any criticism that I might make regarding Israel’s “current ruthlessness” and its demonstrable “lack of decency”.

            Constructive criticism is welcome. Emotional clap trap based on old prejudices is not welcome. Particularly from hypocrites.

            [Yeah Right]:”After all, this is a given: I am not responsible for the policies carried out by the British Colonial Office two centuries ago.”

            Yea, all too easy huh? To absolve yourself from all responsibility. But it isn’t that easy!

            FACT: You are a beneficiary of stolen goods.

            FACT: The aborigines still suffer because of how they were treated.

            FACT: If you really would be a man of conscience, you would be helping the Aborigines to get on their feet.

            FACT: You are not helping them because you are too busy indulging in your hobby of preaching to others (us).

            [Yeah Right]:”And this is also a given: Israel most definitely is responsible for the ongoing colonial=expansionist policies of the laughably-named “Civil Administration” of the “Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories”.

            Your accusation is laughably simplistic.

            [Yeah Right]:”But, apparently, in Gustav-world the activities of long-deal British Colonial Governors is infinitely more interesting that the current – and relentless – colonization of territory that Doesn’t Actually Belong To Israel.”

            And apparently in [Yeah Right]-world it is all too easy to make emotive accusations against others (us) while making excuses for not working your butt off wrongs perpetrated by your grandparent’s generations against the natives of your land.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ah, good, we are back to discussing events now, and not events of two centuries ago.

            Very good, Gustav.

            You appear to believe that Israel’s occupation and colonization of territory that does not belong to it is “not sordid”.

            And why isn’t it sordid?
            Well, apparently, because “We are on the record of expressing a yearning for peace and making territorial concessions for the sake of peace.”

            Apparently – and I’m struggling to work out why – we are supposed to put far more store on what Israel SAYS, and not pay any attention to what Israel is DOING.

            Sorry, Gustav, but I am a very firm believer in looking at what people DO, because that is a far better indicator than simply taking what they SAY at face value.

            Sooo, what is Israel doing?

            Well, it is placing its Jackboot on the neck of the Palestinians, and pointing its guns at their heads.

            And it is doing that to keep those Palestinians down so that Israeli colonies can sprout up like mushrooms all over this occupied territory.

            That’s what Israel is DOING, and no mistaking it.

            But you much prefer to listen to what Israel is SAYING, because that is so much more soothing to your ears.

            Self-delusion, in other words.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “You appear to believe that Israel’s occupation and colonization of territory that does not belong to it is “not sordid”.

            And why isn’t it sordid?
            Well, apparently, because “We are on the record of expressing a yearning for peace and making territorial concessions for the sake of peace.”

            No, because in the past 14 years alone we actually offered them three concrete peace deals which would have resulted in them getting their own state but all of which they rejected.

            “Apparently – and I’m struggling to work out why – we are supposed to put far more store on what Israel SAYS, and not pay any attention to what Israel is DOING.”

            We were doing what you advocate but when we do it and the Arabs ignore what we do, you pretend that we are not doing what is necessary for peace.

            “Sorry, Gustav, but I am a very firm believer in looking at what people DO, because that is a far better indicator than simply taking what they SAY at face value.”

            No you are not!!! You are a narcissistic liar who is here to perform amateur theatrics and to enjoy yourself at our expense.

            “Sooo, what is Israel doing?”

            So what are YOU doing for your Aborigines, hypocrite?!

            “Well, it is placing its Jackboot on the neck of the Palestinians, and pointing its guns at their heads.”

            Yep, when they decide that terrorism is their tool of the trade.

            “And it is doing that to keep those Palestinians down so that Israeli colonies can sprout up like mushrooms all over this occupied territory.

            That’s what Israel is DOING, and no mistaking it.”

            We are doing whatever is necessary to defend ourselves from terrorism.

            “But you much prefer to listen to what Israel is SAYING, because that is so much more soothing to your ears.

            Self-delusion, in other words.”

            I wouldn’t talk too much about self delusion, you hypocrite. Go and improve the lives of your Aborigines whom your ancestors so badly mistreated! Why do you think the Palestinian Arabs need your help more than your Aborigines who still live in squalor?!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “No, because in the past 14 years alone we actually offered them three concrete peace deals which would have resulted in them getting their own state but all of which they rejected.”

            It really is well worth looking at the “logic” of that sentence.

            Here, let’s be generous and set aside the fact (and it is a fact) that Israel didn’t ACTUALLY table “three concrete peace deals”.

            Let’s leave that aside and just take Gustav’s claims for the sake of argument.

            Because it does appear that Gustav is claiming that Israel is entitled to keep colonizing this occupied territory BECAUSE
            a) it keeps “offering” to cease that practice if only the Palestinians acceded to its demands, and
            b) The Palestinians refuse to accede to those demands.

            Think about that,
            Think about that,
            Think about that.

            Israel is mugging the Palestinians and Gustav is claiming that Israel can keep that up because it keeps “offering” to stop that mugging – for a price – and the Palestinians keep refusing to pay up.

            Err, no, there is no logic to that argument. None whatsoever.

            The colonization of this territory is “a wrong in its own right”.

            It is illegal from the get-go, and it REMAINS illegal regardless of how many times Israel puts forward disingenuous “offers” to stop – for a price.

            And it certainly isn’t “legal” for Israel to keep colonizing that territory under the Gustav-excuse that The Palestinians Refuse To Pay That Price, So They Deserve To Be Mugged.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “No, because in the past 14 years alone we actually offered them three concrete peace deals which would have resulted in them getting their own state but all of which they rejected.”

            [Yeah Right]:”It really is well worth looking at the “logic” of that sentence.”

            Indeed it is.

            [Yeah Right]:”Here, let’s be generous and set aside the fact (and it is a fact) that Israel didn’t ACTUALLY table “three concrete peace deals”.”

            Actually Israel DID table three concrete peace deals in the last 14 years.

            1) in 2000 by Ehud Barak

            2) in 2001 by Ehud Barak

            3) in 2008 by Ehud Olmert

            [Yeah Right]:”Let’s leave that aside and just take Gustav’s claims for the sake of argument.”

            Of course he would want to leave those peace offers aside because each of those would have resulted in the creation of a Palestinian Arab state and would have eliminated their endless whining about the “occupation”.

            [Yeah Right]:”Because it does appear that Gustav is claiming that Israel is entitled to keep colonizing this occupied territory”

            Whoa there boy! Notice the giant leap of faith [Yeah Right] took here. He assumes that everyone agrees with his claim about “colonisation”.

            [Yeah Right]:”BECAUSE

            a) it keeps “offering” to cease that practice if only the Palestinians acceded to its demands, and
            b) The Palestinians refuse to accede to those demands.”

            Demands???? They were genuine peace offers which were described by President Bill Clinton at the time as an opportunity of a life time. And Condi Rice expressed astonishment in her memoirs that Abbas did not jump at the offer which would have given thePalestinian Arabs the equivalent area of 100% of the West Bank with some land swaps and shared custodianship of East Jerusalem.

            [Yeah Right]:”Think about that,
            Think about that,
            Think about that.”

            Indeed, think about that!!!! Those offers were NOT demands, they were serious peace offers which from our point of view contained painful concessions!

            [Yeah Right]:”Israel is mugging the Palestinians and Gustav is claiming that Israel can keep that up because it keeps “offering” to stop that mugging – for a price – and the Palestinians keep refusing to pay up.”

            Yeah, according to the [Yeah Rights] of this world, any offer by Israel, short of our total capitulation to all Palestinian demands, is “mugging the Saint Palestinians”

            [Yeah Right]:”Err, no, there is no logic to that argument. None whatsoever.”

            Err you are absolutely right. But you are right only about the phrase. Not at whom you direct the phrase. There is no logic to YOUR argument. None whatsoever.

            [Yeah Right]:”The colonization of this territory is “a wrong in its own right”.

            Notice the repetitive propaganda a la Goebbels. Oh well, I’ll do it back to him. Yea, the repetition. But the difference is that I repeat facts. Historical facts. He repeats lies!

            [Yeah Right]:”It is illegal from the get-go, and it REMAINS illegal regardless of how many times Israel puts forward disingenuous “offers” to stop – for a price.”

            The thing that should be illegal should be the lies and the misinformation that you people spread.

            [Yeah Right]:”And it certainly isn’t “legal” for Israel to keep colonizing that territory under the Gustav-excuse that The Palestinians Refuse To Pay That Price, So They Deserve To Be Mugged.”

            Awwww de pooooor poooooor Palestinians. They haven’t got a state because they want the state of Israel too for themselves. But they can’t have Israel! And since they never had a state, it is impossible to colonize a state which they never had. Want logic? That is logic!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Actually Israel DID table three concrete peace deals in the last 14 years.
            1) in 2000 by Ehud Barak
            2) in 2001 by Ehud Barak
            3) in 2008 by Ehud Olmert”

            Ehud Barak did not table *any* deal at Camp David in 2000, much less one that was “concrete”.

            You really do need to read up on those “negotiations”, Gustav, because if you did you’d know that The Littlest Ehud refused to propose anything to Arafat, insisting instead that he’d whisper his “offers” in Clinton’s ear, and then Big Bill would take them to Arafat as an AMERICAN proposal.

            Oh, you didn’t know that?

            And if “in 2001 by Ehud Barak” is a reference to Taba (I can’t see what else it could be) then, again, you really do need to read up some more. Because if you did then you’d know that it was Little Ehud who stormed out of those negotiations when they started making headway, not the PLO.

            And as for Big Ehud in 2008, please, get real. The ol’ real estate crook didn’t table anything, because if he did then Abbas would have a copy of that “concrete” offer.

            Which he doesn’t, precisely because what Olmert was “offering” was neither “concrete” nor “tabled.

            Honestly, Gustav, do you know anything?
            Anything at all?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Me: “Because it does appear that Gustav is claiming that Israel is entitled to keep colonizing this occupied territory”

            Gustav: “Whoa there boy! Notice the giant leap of faith [Yeah Right] took here. He assumes that everyone agrees with his claim about “colonisation”.”

            I’m sorry, Gustav, are you actually denying that Israel is building Israeli colonies inside the occupied territories?

            Really? You are denying that Israel has transferred 350,000 Israelis into the West Bank?

            Really?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Demands???? They were genuine peace offers which were described by President Bill Clinton at the time as an opportunity of a life time. And Condi Rice expressed astonishment in her memoirs that Abbas did not jump at the offer which would have given the Palestinian Arabs the equivalent area of 100% of the West Bank with some land swaps and shared custodianship of East Jerusalem.”

            I’ll point out in passing the humour that is involved in quoting Slick Willie as an infallible source of undeniable truth.

            Regardless, that Big Bill and The Warrior Princess (who, of course, was not at Camp David) both thought that the PLO should take the deal on offer is not in any way, shape or form “proof” that the deal on offer did not involve “Israeli demands”.

            It most definitely did, and the demands were quite extreme.

            After all, it is undeniable that Israel has always demanded that the PLO cede the territory that contains the “settlement blocks” to Israel, and that the Palestinians must concede the issue of Right of Return, and the Palestinians must accept their demilitarization.

            Not only that, but Israel has always insisted that the Palestinians must agree to IDF control of airspace, and must agree not to enter into any alliances with foreign countries.

            All are “demands”, Gustav.

            And they remain “demands” no matter how many venal American politicians you can point to who voice their sage agreement with those demands.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Indeed, think about that!!!! Those offers were NOT demands, they were serious peace offers which from our point of view contained painful concessions!”

            sigh

            I see the point escapes Gustav i.e. even if those “offers” were made – and rejected – that does not grant Israel any “right” to continue carrying out an illegal policy.

            We have had this conversation before, Gustav: it is a bedrock principal of law that you can not “legalize” something that is “illegal” simply by pointing to the refusal of the victim to accept his victimhood.

            Gustav: “Yeah, according to the [Yeah Rights] of this world, any offer by Israel, short of our total capitulation to all Palestinian demands, is “mugging the Saint Palestinians” ”

            sigh

            One more time: the colonization of an occupied territory is illegal. Israel can not “legalize” it by pointing to the refusal of the Palestinians to agree to the terms that are being “offered” by Israel.

            There is no principle of law – none whatsoever – that allows a lawbreaker to “legalize” an illegal act by pointing to the refusal of the victim to accept an “offer” to end their victimization.

            That is, indeed, the “logic” of an East End Standover Merchant who is attempting extortion.

            Reply to Comment
    18. Yeah, Right

      Sluggo: “Your only remedy to colonialism is to call for the end of Israel as we know it.”

      *sigh*

      The “Israel that you know” is a colonial-expansionist state.

      The “Israel that you know” insists that it is uniquely entitled to pretend that it is still the 19th century.

      The “Israel that you know” is ruled by a regime that is predicated upon the notion of racial superiority, which it justifies using its own version of “the White Man’s Burden”.

      You, apparently, are in love with that ideal.

      My view, so sorry, is that this idea is unacceptable.

      Sluggo: “What a weak, amoral person you are to cynically hide behind a just cause to single out the only Jewish state”

      Yet you appear to have no problem accepting Netanyahu’s notion that Israel Is Special.

      Well, yeah, it is – in a last-colonial-power-on-Earth sorta’ way.

      Sure, it is special – in that how-many-other-Apartheid-states-are-there kinda’ way.

      Sluggo, dude, Israel is being “singled out” because Israel is the ***ONLY*** colonial power left on Planet Earth. It is the ***ONLY*** Apartheid state left standing.

      Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        I suggest every reader here take the time to follow how YR deconstructs one piece of deceitful nonsense after another. A-B-C. It’s a pleasure to watch a genuine debunking.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          LOL

          BS brian and you know it.

          I love idiots congratulating their own team. Self delusion pure self delusion.

          Poor bastards.

          Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “The “Israel that you know” is a colonial-expansionist state.”

        Spoken by a man who lives on a continent which was stolen by European white men. The entire continent mind you!

        “The “Israel that you know” insists that it is uniquely entitled to pretend that it is still the 19th century.”

        Because in the 19th century, colonialism was acceptable but in the 21st century it is not acceptable for a small country to strive for slightly more secure borders in order to make it harder for it’s sworn enemies to carry out their plan to strangle it.

        “The “Israel that you know” is ruled by a regime that is predicated upon the notion of racial superiority, which it justifies using its own version of “the White Man’s Burden”.”

        An obscene and unfounded accusation levelled at a people who endured 2000 years of racial abuse from people like [Yeah, Right] and therefore decided to return to our ancestral homeland around 150 years ago (not much later than the date at which his continent started being settled by Europeans) and to reestablish our old state so that such haters would find it harder to keep on abusing us.

        “You, apparently, are in love with that ideal.”

        Not just sluggo but the rest of us too because indeed, since we regained our independence, our oppressors are reeling everytime they try to oppress us again. And poor old [Yeah, Right] and his kind consequently sulk, fume, lie and heap abuse, they are so pissed about it…

        “My view, so sorry, is that this idea is unacceptable.”

        Yeah Right, we know his views and we don’t care about his views. He can go make up for their past sins and help Aborigines to really integrate into white society instead of being over represented in Jails and the alcohol addicted.

        Sluggo: “What a weak, amoral person you are to cynically hide behind a just cause to single out the only Jewish state”

        Sluggo’s accusation against [Yeah, Right] is spot on.

        “Yet you appear to have no problem accepting Netanyahu’s notion that Israel Is Special.”

        Yes it is special to most of us as America is special to most Americans.

        “Well, yeah, it is – in a last-colonial-power-on-Earth sorta’ way.”

        Well, yeah, coming from the likes of [Yeah, Right] such a comment has as much substance as a sales pitch from somebody who wears a shirt full of labels which says ..

        “Let the buyer beware … I am a snake oil merchant …”

        “Sure, it is special – in that how-many-other-Apartheid-states-are-there kinda’ way.”

        So says the person who singles out the Jewish people as the only people who have no right to control our own destiny after people like him forced us to live in Ghettos and as aecond class citizens. And who now can’t stand the idea of not being able to continue that practice so he disguises his old hatred of us by spreading malicious propaganda against our state.

        Now watch him rush and claim that I am raising a “straw man” (LOL) and he just loves Jews to death but he only hates us Zionists. What a transparent sea urchin he is.

        “Sluggo, dude, Israel is being “singled out” because Israel is the ***ONLY*** colonial power left on Planet Earth. It is the ***ONLY*** Apartheid state left standing.”

        No,Israel is singled out because people like [Yeah, Right] still exist and are now emboldened by the Arabs and their oil wealth who buy western universities and keep some leftist professors live a life style to which they could only aspire if their palms would be greased by oil money from the Gulf states.

        But much to the sorrow of such a motley group of unlikely allies, we have lots of friends. And our circle of friends is growing while theirs is shrinking because the Arabs have always been good at pooing in their own nest. They are much too smug and full of hate for anyone not like themselves and people eventually work them out!

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          Gustav: “Because in the 19th century, colonialism was acceptable but in the 21st century it is not acceptable for a small country to strive for slightly more secure borders in order to make it harder for it’s sworn enemies to carry out their plan to strangle it.”

          Notice the pea ‘n’ thimble trick that Gustav just played?

          Because he acknowledges that in the 19th century the establishment of “colonies” makes that the practice “colonialism”.

          Roll forward to the 21st century and, yep, sure enough, there are “Israeli colonies” springing up like mushrooms.

          One should therefore be consistent and call it what it undoubtedly is: 21st century colonialism by the world’s last colonial power.

          But Gustav is not consistent: he much prefers to play pea’n’thimble and replace the word “colonialism” with “to strive for slightly more secure borders”

          Q: And what is “striving for slightly more secure borders”?
          A: Well, when you “strive” to achieve it by means of “colonies” then it is “colonialism”.

          But Gustav appears to think that if he doesn’t utter that word in the same sentence as “Israel” then, err, it isn’t “colonialism”.

          It’s… err… something else entirely.

          You know, it’s a pig with lipstick all over its face….

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Because in the 19th century, colonialism was acceptable but in the 21st century it is not acceptable for a small country to strive for slightly more secure borders in order to make it harder for it’s sworn enemies to carry out their plan to strangle it.”

            [Yeah Right]:”Notice the pea ‘n’ thimble trick that Gustav just played?”

            …. blah blah blah …

            But Gustav is not consistent: he much prefers to play pea’n’thimble and replace the word “colonialism” with “to strive for slightly more secure borders”

            Notice the logical fallacy which [Yeah Right] tries to use to prove his lies. He pretends that the so called “settlements” are Palestinian Arab lands beyond any dispute.

            Why? Because he says so …

            Why? Because they just are … Because [Yeah Right] says so …

            The fact is that those lands on which the so called “settlements” are built, were never sovereign Palestinian Arab lands. Why? Because there never was a sovereign Arab Palestine. There was only a Palestine in which both Jews and Arabs lived. And as [Yeah Right] so ably explained on another thread, a people cannot be occupiers of their own lands.

            Q: And what is “striving for slightly more secure borders”?
            [Yeah Right’s Answer]: BS, BS and more BS …

            REAL ANSWER: striving for more defensible borders near Israel’s major population centres.

            [YeahRight]:”You know, it’s a pig with lipstick all over its face….”

            Yeah Right knows about pigs with lipsticks. He is one of those. He disguises himself as a man of conscience who fights colonialism day in day out in remote lands far away from the continent on which he lives and enjoys life like a pig in mud while the natives whom his ancestors colonized still have not recovered from their trauma. But [Yeah Right] wouldn’t lift a finger to help them out because being an Internet warrior appeals to his narcissistic nature much more than righting past wrongs in his own country.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav, baby, merely because you “dispute” who should own that territory can not magically turn Israeli colonies into… something else.

            They remain what they are – colonies – and their existence remains what it is – colonial expansionism – and that must remain true for as long as Israel admits that this is a “dispute”.

            Because if there is a “dispute” then, axiomatically, Israel can not act *as* *if* that territory already belongs to it.

            Obviously so, because even Gustav argues that this is “disputed territory”, not “Israel’s territory”.

            Honestly, Gustav, you don’t even understand the implication of your OWN arguments..

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Well [Yeah Right] baby get this. If you can stay on an entire continent which you colonized and you are not even willing to put the hard yards into bettering the lot of the Aborigines whom your great grand pappy’s generation stole the lands then we can certainly establish “settlements” on our ancestral homeland particularly in places like the Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem where we ALWAYS lived but were temporarily expelled from by your Saint Palestinians in 1948. But other places too where our security requirements dictate it. Because we will not be sitting like good little puppies on the side line for years till your saint Palestinians try every trick in the book to get out of signing a peace deal with us in which they formally underake to stop trying to eradicate the only Jewish state in the world.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            A quick, easy question for you, Gustav.

            Q: Is this territory “disputed”?

            Yes? Or No?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “A quick, easy question for you, Gustav.

            Q: Is this territory “disputed”?”

            Which territory are you talking about? Are you talking about the continent which your great grand pappy’s generation colonized?

            Yes? Or No?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Which territory are you talking about?”

            Oh, that’s an easy one: I am talking about the territory which Israel insists on colonizing.

            That territory.

            Gustav: “Are you talking about the continent which your great grand pappy’s generation colonized?”

            No, I am talking about the territory which Israel insists on colonizing.

            That territory.

            So, there, I’ve answered your question.

            Now, back to my question to you:
            Q: Is this territory [I.e. the territory that Israel is colonizing] “disputed”?

            Yes? Or No?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            [Yeah Right]:”So, there, I’ve answered your question.

            Now, back to my question to you:
            Q: Is this territory [I.e. the territory that Israel is colonizing] “disputed”?

            Yes? Or No?”

            Yeah Right (sarcasm) we who are returning to reclaim our ancestral homeland, are colonists. But he lives on a continent which is the very epitome of a colonialist enterprise which [Yeah Right] takes as his natural right calls US colonists. Oh the irony of it all …

            But to answer his question, yes. The whole of the old British Mandate, which had both a Jewish and an Arab population and was named Palestine is still disputed territory since 1948.

            Even today, Hamas which is now a coalition Partner of the PLO openly claims ALL of Israel too for the Arabs. The PLO are a bit less open about it but they do too! And we therefore claim more defendable borders than the 1949 armistice lines (which are better known as the 1967 boundaries).

            So yea, there is a dispute about the land that was known as the British Mandate of Palestine.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Which territory are you talking about?”

            [Yeah Right]:”Oh, that’s an easy one: I am talking about the territory which Israel insists on colonizing.”

            GUSTAV: “Are you talking about the continent which your great grand pappy’s generation colonized?”

            [Yeah Right]No, I am talking about the territory which Israel insists on colonizing.

            Witness how [Yeah Right] the “anti-colonialist” avoids talking about him living in a place which his great grand pappy’s generation colonized. Witness his smug acceptance of the fact that he has the right to live off the fruits of that colonialization and how he does not even feel obliged to help right past wrongs committed against the natives who were colonized. Witness his righteous indignation about a foreign war between a people who returned to reclaim their ancestral homeland (us) and contrast his vehemence against that idea to his nonchallance about what is happening at his own back yard. Hypocrisy in slow motion. And it ain’t pretty!!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “But to answer his question, yes. The whole of the old British Mandate,”……

            I can stop Gustav right there and point out that there is no “dispute” regarding the territory that lies within the Green Line.

            No. Dispute. Whatsoever.

            Israel claims that territory as “Israel”.

            The Palestinians acknowledge that territorial claim i.e. they acknowledge that territory as “Israel”.

            Sooooo, let’s continue.

            Gustav: ….”which had both a Jewish and an Arab population and was named Palestine is still disputed territory since 1948.”

            That is, to put it mildly, a lie.

            Israel insists that it is “a state”, and that it exists in the territory that is encompassed within the Armistice Lines of 1948.

            The Palestinians concur: they recognize “Israel”, and they accept that its territory exists everywhere within the Green Line.

            There. Is. No. Dispute. On. That. Point. precisely because both parties accept that as a given.

            Sooooo, is Gustav simply ignorant? Or is he being duplicitous?

            The latter, I would suggest.

            Reply to Comment
    19. Yeah, Right

      Gustav: “Because in the 19th century, colonialism was acceptable but in the 21st century it is not acceptable”… followed by some unintelligible gibberish.

      You are just like Sluggo, who insists that Israeli colonies in the West Bank isn’t colonialism.

      Q: Why?
      A: Because.

      Q: Because what?
      A: Because.

      Dude, here is a territory, and Israel is occupying it.

      And these are all Israeli colonies, and they have been established in that occupied territory.

      All. Of. Them.

      But that’s not colonialism because… err… because you two clowns say it isn’t.

      Honestly, guys, you are caricatures.

      The “settlement enterprise” is good ol’ fashioned colonialism.

      Nothing more.
      No less.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “You are just like Sluggo, who insists that Israeli colonies in the West Bank isn’t colonialism.”

        I am just like sluggo. I insist that we have no colonies. Unlike you, who lives on a continent which was stolen from your aborigines, we live on our ancestral home land which we were willing to share with the descendants of Arab invaders but since they refused to accept our return, they have been losing ground. And they better be careful lest they lose it all if they continue with their hatred and intransigence.

        “Q: Why?
        A: Because.”

        You just described how YOU argue your own argument,[Yeah Right].

        Q: Because what?
        A: Because.

        You just described how YOU argue your own argument,[Yeah Right].

        “Dude, here is a territory, and Israel is occupying it.”

        Yea, for instance East Jerusalem right? We occupy the Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem right? Because we have no right to live where we lived for thousands of years? Why? Because people like you say so?

        I’ll tell you what then. You have much less right to live where you live because your people stole the entire continent on which you live from it’s rightful owners.

        “But that’s not colonialism because… err… because you two clowns say it isn’t.”

        Much less of a colonialism than the one you practice. Go back to your old country colonialist!

        “Honestly, guys, you are caricatures.”

        And what are you? A hypocrite who stands on his soap box and levels false charges against a people who you hate (US) while at the least, you are guilty of the accusations which you level against us. Only worse …

        “The “settlement enterprise” is good ol’ fashioned colonialism.”

        If it is, then you better look in the mirror and you will see a colonialist. But not just a colonialist but a hypocrite who is in denial about his own guilt.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          Oh, sure, Gustav, in a web site devoted to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory the REAL story is all about me, and my share of the collective guilt that I have acquired via events that occurred two centuries in a place that is – literally – a world away from the Middle East.

          Sure, Gustav, sure it is….

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Sure it is about you [Yeah Right].

            Firstly because your accusations are way over the top and they ignore context. In your world, we are pur evil and your Palestinians are helpless innocent victims who have no responsibility for this mess.

            Secondly because you have plenty of things to do in your own home. Are you doing it? You cold not possibly be doing anything for your Aborigines because you are spending way too much time here spinning your lies and venom against us.

            Go help your Aborigines instead of living on your ill gotten gains and trying to fuck up the Middle East too even more than it is already fucked up! You are like an arsonist who is pouring oil on an out of control fire then you stand back and enjoy the “spectacle”!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Sure it is about you [Yeah Right].”

            *chortle*

            For those who don’t know, the above is simply Step Three of the four-step Hasbarah Handbook.

            “The case for Israel is made of four propositions that should always be presented in the correct escalating order.
            1.We rock
            2.They suck
            3.You suck
            4.Everything sucks”

            That pretty much sums up Gustav’s “contributions” to any talkback thread, anywhere, at any time.

            As I said: Gustav has become a caricature of himself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “For those who don’t know, the above is simply Step Three of the four-step Hasbarah Handbook.”

            Spoken from the little red book which all posters of [Yeah Right’s] ilk adhere to….

            When all else fails resort to muttering dark thoughts about “Hasbarah” a word which they corrupted and adapted for their own use and abuse.

            Now here is something personal to you [Yeah Right] from my “Hasbarah Book”….

            You say you hate colonialism? Go do something for your Aborigines instead of spending your entire life heaping abuse at a small country trying to survive in a very tough region of the world.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Spoken like a true hasbarah troll.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            So now I am a troll huh? Running out of propaganda huh?

            Ok, I am happy that I am doing a good job on you, [Yeah Right] or cooooool maaaaan … LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “So now I am a troll huh?”

            The word “now” is redundant, Gustav

            Gustav: “Running out of propaganda huh?”

            No, actually, the word is “patience”, not “propaganda”.

            Gustav: “Ok, I am happy that I am doing a good job on you, [Yeah Right] or cooooool maaaaan … LOL.”

            *chortle* indeed.

            You do flatter yourself, Gustav.

            Which would be funny if is was well-earnt, but is downright pathetic when it is naught but the result of self-delusion.

            Still, dream on, Troll-Man.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “So now I am a troll huh?”

            [Yeah Right]:”The word “now” is redundant, Gustav”

            You suffer from short term memory loss. I’ll leave it at that.

            GUSTAV: “Running out of propaganda huh?”

            [Yeah Right]:”No, actually, the word is “patience”, not “propaganda”.

            That’s what happens when you try to push your nose into other people’s wars. Your commitment runs out as soon as someone who is involved in the war really takes you on. Try fighting your own war on colonializm instead. Help your Aborigines! Why do you find that sooooo hard? Not as much fun as standing on your soap box and preaching water to others while drinking wine? Yea, enjoying the fruits of the stolen goods which your great grand pappy’s generation acquired for you?!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            I would like everyone to read that post of Gustav’s, because it – like every other thread that Gustav chooses to pollute – has degenerated into a troll-defining invective.

            Gustav, sunshine, keep it up – you are outing yourself as a troll, and no mistaking.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Just for once in your life, get real [Yeah Right]. I took you on at your own game and I lasted the distance (at the least). You just can’t take it can you?

            And if you don’t understand the above, then this is a simple translation ….

            If I am a troll, then YOU are a troll, [Yeah Right]. Because if I polluted the threads then so did you. Mull on that …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Troll on, Gustav, because the only reputation you are damaging is your own.

            So, please, continue to lurch around the talkback with this knuckle-dragging display of trollish behaviour.

            It’s ever so attractive and so very revealing.

            So, please, do carry on doing my work for me…..

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You are a funny man [Yeah Right]. Like I said, if I am a troll then you are a troll too. And you are in denial if you don’t see that.

            As for my reputation on a site like this? Are you kidding me? I don’t give a toss. You are all haters or lunatics. What do I care what you think of me? I am here to hold up a mirror to ya’ll so you can all see what you look like!!

            Reply to Comment
    20. Brian

      So unfair of your YR. Be a good sport ol’ chap and lend Gustie a few hundred years to thoroughly beat down his middle eastern aborigines. It’s only gentlemanly. Level playing field you know. Ahem. White man’s burden and all. There’s a good chap. Tally ho.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Wow two soul mates licking each other’s behinds.

        Brian and [Yeah Right] bosom buddies United by their hatred of the idea of Jewish people wanting our own state and fighting back against the poor Arab people who are soooooopoo short of land…

        Oh and they are also United by their hypocrisy. They profess to hate colonialism yet they live in lands which were colonised by white European colonisers so thoroughly that the natives will never recover. Yet they preach to us for redeeming our ancestral homeland. I guess at least they are consistent. The idea of a native people (us) triumphing anywhere, terrifies them.

        Nauseating.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Notice however that like a true narcissist, [Yeah Right] hardly even acknowledges Brian’s lap dog like antics. He just carries on with his theatrics and like the true egomaniac that he is he never so much as thanks poor old Brian who runs around him like a pup, wagging his tail and with his tongue hanging out heaping uncalled for and undeserved praise on this narcissist who calls himself [Yeah Right]. Why? Because he thinks he is being coooooool maaaaan…

          LOL, what a motley pair.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            I would like everyone to read that post of Gustav’s, because it – like every other thread that Gustav chooses to pollute – has degenerated into a troll-defining invective.

            Gustav, sunshine, keep it up – you are outing yourself as a troll, and no mistaking.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Just for once in your life, get real [Yeah Right]. I took you on at your own game and I lasted the distance (at the least). You just can’t take it can you?

            And if you don’t understand the above, then this is a simple translation …

            If I am a troll, then YOU are a troll, [Yeah Right]. Because if I polluted the threads then so did you. Mull on that …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Troll on, Gustav, because the only reputation you are damaging is your own.

            So, please, continue to lurch around the talkback with this knuckle-dragging display of trollish behaviour.

            It’s ever so attractive and so very revealing.

            So, please, do carry on doing my work for me…..

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You are a funny man [Yeah Right]. Like I said, if I am a troll then you are a troll too. And you are in denial if you don’t see that.

            As for my reputation on a site like this? Are you kidding me? I don’t give a toss. You are all haters or lunatics. What do I care what you think of me? I am here to hold up a mirror to ya’ll so you can all see what you look like!

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Honestly, for someone accusing others of “narcissism” you sure spend a lot of time and effort insisting you be seen as superior and putting down others, angrily. I posted my own comment that made its own point. I suspect YR well knows I’m not seeking and don’t need any pat on the head as you insinuate. It’s not a mark of his “narcissism,” its a mark of his and my lack of insecurity. You seem to have redefined agreeing with someone and posting an amplifying comment as being “a lapdog.” It’s a bit like redefining “occupied” as “disputed.” It’s sneaky.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            But you gotta admit Brian, you do act like a lapdog. You can hate me for telling you this but I am just the messenger …

            Reply to Comment
    21. Brian

      No one hates you Gustav. You’re only proving our point.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        And what point is that, Brian dear?

        That you people are catatonic? This is how you come across …

        …no matter what, Israel is at fault. And …

        …no matter what, the Saint Palestinians are never at fault. And…

        …no matter what goes wrong, Israel has the responsibility to fix it. And…

        …no matter what goes wrong, the saint Palestinians have no responsibility for helping to fix it. It always has to be someone else who has to fix it for them…

        I’ll tell ya what Brian. It smacks of racism, not against us. It is racism against the Saint Palestinians because you insist on treating them like kids who are incapable of assuming responsibility for what they do. Hence your insistence that they ONLY have RIGHT but no RESPONSIBILITIES!!!

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          I’m glad you brought up racism and responsibility. No, I think the Palestinians are not saints and are at fault too in all this in the past but it is Bibi not we who today insists—insists—on treating Abu Mazen as if he were a child, as if he cannot ever assume responsibility for what he says he wants to assume responsibility for: a two-state solution based on the Arab Peace Initiative and based on the ’67 lines with swaps and a creative mutual solution to the refugee problem and all of these well-known elements, signifying the end of conflict. Were Bibi truly interested in seeking peace he would seize on this amazing, grown up, responsible overture by a man who has publicly declared that he wants to visit Safed but knows it will be as a tourist, and build him up not tear him down. Bibi publicly humiliates Abu Mazen rather viciously while at the same time depending on his well-documented competent efforts to be your security contractor and keep you safe—that is, Abu Mazen has demonstrated his “responsibilities” very well. Moshe Ya’alon—who is turning out to have distinguished himself as…not too bright, to put it kindly—just doubly reinforced that hypocrisy. Doubling down on stupidity. If Bibi were truly interested in peace and security he would be having Abu Mazen over for dinner like Olmert did. And talking about security security security AND borders, borders borders. And please–don’t tell us yet again that Abu Mazen rejected Olmert’s totally super awesome incredibly incredibly generous never to be repeated offer so woe is us we peace loving Israelis. We’ve heard it all before. So, to recap, it is Bibi who is the racist who treats Abu Mazen utterly disdainfully, indeed as if he were a child. I’ve said it before: Bibi and Lieberman hate the fact that Abu Mazen is neither a child nor a terrorist, is in fact a mature peace seeker with the patience of Job in the face of appalling treatment by the Israeli leadership. They hate it. They would like nothing more than for Abu Mazen to wrap a keffiyah around his head, strap pistols to his belt and start yelling itbach el Yehud. Bibi and Libi would dance for joy at the sight. Olmert is on record as cringing at the shameful way Sharon treated Abu Mazen. Bibi and Libi are worse than Sharon.
          You made your point. I made mine. Let’s not belabor it. Bye bye.

          Reply to Comment
    22. Gustav

      Let me get this straight, Brian…

      You want Bibi and Libi to treat Abbas as respectfully as Olmert dealt with Abbas. That is your last territorial demand, right????

      Earth to Brian, hellllloooooo!!!
      Remind us again, what did Olmert get out of Abbas for treating him respectfully, mmmmmmmmmmm?????!!!!

      Reply to Comment
    23. Click here to load previous comments