+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

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

What 'painful concessions' are left for Palestinians to make?

From accepting a state on 22 percent of Mandate Palestine to Israel’s facts-on-the-ground in the West bank and the loss of rights for refugees, Palestinians have already made significant, historic compromises.

By Willem Aldershoff and Jaap Hamburger

PA President Abbas holding up the application for UN membership in September 2011 (photo: UN/Marco Castro)

PA President Abbas at the UN in September 2011 (photo: UN/Marco Castro)

Despite the U.S.’s optimism, recent comments and statements coming from Israel and Palestine indicate that the U.S.-led Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are not progressing well. This is not only due to the relative complexity of the subject matter at hand, but first and foremost, due to the fact that the Palestinians and Israel differ greatly in power and position: one being the occupied, the other the occupier that maintains an “unbreakable bond” with the world’s only military superpower. Americans and Europeans do not tire of insisting that only “painful concessions” by both sides can make a just and lasting agreement possible. The central question is; what additional concessions can, or should the Palestinians still make without undermining the very idea of a two-state solution?

The territory of Israel already covers 78 percent of the former Palestine Mandate: this is almost 50 percent more than what the 1947 UN partition resolution recommended, which allocated 55 percent of the land to the Jews. Even under the most optimistic scenarios nowadays, a Palestinian state will never comprise more than 22 percent of Mandate Palestine. Accepting this unequal distribution is by far the greatest Palestinian concession, made by late PLO-leader Yasser Arafat when he formally agreed to a two-state solution in 1988.

Read +972’s full coverage of the peace process

As a condition for admission to the UN in 1949, Israel accepted UN Resolution 194, which stipulates that Palestinians who fled or were expelled during the Jewish-Arab hostilities of 1947-49, have the right of return. Israel has not respected this obligation. On the contrary, after its unilateral declaration of independence in 1948 Israel began destroying hundreds of deserted Palestinian villages in order to prevent the refugees from returning and confiscated the land they left behind, without compensation. The chance that large numbers of Palestinians will be allowed to return under a future two-state deal is nil. That is the second – forced – “concession” from the Palestinian side.

A third “concession” imposed on the Palestinians concerns their land on which Israel has been building settlements since 1967, in clear violation of international law. More than 500,000 Israeli settlers currently live in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Israel appears to take it for granted that the international community and the Palestinians should just accept that these facts-on-the-ground will, “unfortunately,” not be undone. Palestinians should be grateful that they will even be compensated with “comparable” areas of Israeli territory, according to Israel.

A fourth forced “concession” concerns Jerusalem, which according to the UN, should have been placed under international administration. During the 1967 war Israel annexed the Eastern part of the city. The UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice and the entire international community, including the U.S. and EU, have repeatedly stressed that this annexation violates international law, refusing to recognize its legitimacy or legality. Nonetheless, Israel encourages its nationals to move to East Jerusalem and pushes out Palestinian residents, all the while destroying their homes and community buildings and refusing to grant them building permits. Thus it is a virtual fait accompli that a future Palestinian state will not have the whole of East Jerusalem as its capital.

Next, it is self-evident that a fundamental condition for the viability of a Palestinian state requires that it be geographically contiguous. This is only possible through a physical connection (corridor) between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, currently separated by Israeli territory. Oslo II already provided for safe passage arrangements between the two territories. Therefore, this should not be a subject for endless negotiations. Also here, however, Israel will undoubtedly demand a price for this corridor, consisting of compensation in land.

A final point concerns the security of Israel and for the Palestinian state. Israel understandably demands guarantees for its security. Yet the question remains: what is reasonably required to achieve this? Israel insists that Palestine must become fully demilitarized, that its air force be allowed unrestricted use of Palestinian airspace and that its army maintain a presence in the Jordan Valley. Such conditions would be unacceptable for any independent state. Furthermore, the Palestinian state is no less entitled to security, such as guarantees that a heavily armed neighbor does not barge in whenever it pleases.

All this illustrates the impossible situation in which Palestinian negotiators find themselves. They must defend the interests of a small people, occupied for almost 50 years by a state with one of the strongest armies in the world and that enjoys the unconditional support of the only remaining military superpower. How can Palestinians under such conditions ensure that a final peace agreement leaves them with the very minimum to which they are entitled? Such an outcome can only be possible if a truly “honest broker,” for whom international law means something, mediates between the parties.

Despite its ambitions, the United States cannot play this role. Past experience shows that its “unbreakable bond” with Israel, of which it prides itself, causes the U.S. to give preference to Israeli interests at decisive moments. One need only listen to this week’s speeches at the annual AIPAC conference to hear the depth of the relationship in Israeli and American policymakers’ own words.

It is clear that the European Union urgently needs to actively commit itself to a solution that is acceptable to the Palestinians and not only for Israel. That means an agreement that gives them the bare minimum to which they are entitled: not one square meter less than 22 percent of the original Palestine, the entirety of East Jerusalem as their capital, a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank and a just solution to the refugee problem.

Israel must not be allowed to spin respect for international law and its existing commitments as a “concession”; that is the minimum it is obliged to do.

Willem Aldershoff is an adviser of EU-policy on Israel/Palestine in Brussels and Jaap Hamburger is the chairman of “A Different Jewish Voice” in Amsterdam.

Related:
Why the two-state solution needn’t stay that way
Good news: Obama gives the Palestinians an insurance policy

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. Ginger Eis

      This article contains numerous legal and factual errors. Here is the first. Linked below is UNGA Resolution A/RES/194 (III)11 December 1948. Article 11. Of the Resolution states as follows: “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible”. This (a) neither created any RIGHTS for anyone nor (b) imposed any OBLIGATION on Israel. Bernadotte’s recommendation that said resolution include e.g. “right of return”, “Arab refugees”, “the government of Israel”, etc. was handily rejected.

      http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C758572B78D1CD0085256BCF0077E51A

      Reply to Comment
      • Haifawi

        ‘under principles of international law’ are binding on the government of Israel.
        Israel has interpreted international law in the most cynical way imaginable:
        i.e. applying the Hague Convention and not the 4th Geneva, using Ottoman land law to confiscate non-Jewish property and applying Israeli civilian law to Jewish property, evicting people from Sheikh Jarrah so that (unrelated) Jews can ‘return’ there and denying the residents of Iqrit to rebuild their village despite a Bagatz decision in their favor

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          The only binding resolutions under International law are the ones made under Chapter VII Of The Chatter of United Nations. Only the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) can issue such Resolutions. Resolutions of the United Nation General Assembly (UNGA) are a-priori NOT binding. UNSC Resolution not taken pursuant to the provisions of Chapter VII Of The Chatter of United Nations are also NOT binding. Another point worth noting is that all Arab states rejected UNGA Resolution 194 and voted AGAINST it, because (a) it did not establish a “right of return,” and because (b) it implicitly recognized Israel. This has not changed till today (and if you have different fact(s), I would pls. like to know of it/then). Additionally the Arabs have pertinently refused to repatriate or compensate Jewish refugees and no mention of Jewish refugees was made in the Saudi peace plan.

          Reply to Comment
          • Darcha

            Ginger> Oh, the woeful ignorance! Oh, the tired hasbara!

            The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, a UN legal publication, says that during the United Nations Conference on International Organization which met in San Francisco in 1945, attempts to limit obligations of Members under Article 25 of the Charter to those decisions taken by the Council in the exercise of its specific powers under Chapters VI, VII and VIII of the Charter failed. It was stated at the time that those obligations also flowed from the authority conferred on the Council under Article 24(1) to act on the behalf of the members while exercising its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. See page 5, The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Extracts Relating to Article 25 [1] Article 24, interpreted in this sense, becomes a source of authority which can be drawn upon to meet situations which are not covered by the more detailed provisions in the succeeding articles of Chapter VI, VII, and VIII. See The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Extracts Relating to Article 24.

            The ICJ has ruled, most notably in its 1971 Namibia decision, that you are basically talking out of your backside, and that UNSC resolutions not under Chapter VII are indeed binding.

            I know they spoonfeed you this crap that you have no understanding of and you mindlessly repeat it. The problem is that there are people who actually know what they are talking about out here in the real world outside your little echo-chamber world.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Darcha, you said: “Oh, the woeful ignorance! Oh, the tired hasbara!” (…). The ICJ has ruled, most notably in its 1971 Namibia decision, that you are basically talking out of your backside”: (the rest of your post after the word “backside” cannot be seen and read, because said post is apparently too long). A reasonable conclusion from the part of you post that can be read, would be that you are not interested in a good debate based on (a) the law, (b) legal science and (c) the facts – nothing more and nothing less. Moreover, what you posted is non-responsive and incoherent in terms of the logic of the Int. legal system (indicating that it was copied from somewhere else). Thus, I am certain that you are NOT worth my time and energy. Take your garbage and ghetto attitude to someone else!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Darcha, my research has revealed the source you copied verbatim and pated here – which explains why your post was non-responsive, incoherent and outside of the context of the issue being discussed here:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_resolution (see para. 3 of the “Terms and functions mentioned in the UN Charter”).

            Geez, Darcha, ‘was für eine Dummheit‘! And you even have the guts hurl insults at me for no reason?! Wao! Just wao!

            Reply to Comment
          • Darcha

            Gee Ginger! Chapter and verse demonstrating that you are talking out of your backside is ‘unresponsive’ and the sources are not original enough for you. Care to instead offer a substantial argument? DSidn’t think so. Trolls never do.

            Reply to Comment
          • Darcha

            Oh, woeful ignorance. The comment is too long and therefore unreadable. Moron, there’s a thing in blue marked ‘more’. You press it; you get the rest of the text.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            AFTER pressing “a thing in blue marked ‘more’” the rest of your post after the word: “backside” does not SHOW/APPEAR! End of story. Now, talking of “moron”, here is what you need to do: (a) DON’T copy and paste! (b) Formulate your thoughts in YOUR OWN words and relay them in a few concise sentences, (c) if you must copy and paste, put it all in quotation marks, (d) quote within the context of the discussion and make sure that said quote provides adequate foundation for your argument, (e) do not hurl insults FOR NO REASON whatsoever, (f) do not use ghetto language, e.g. “talking out of your backside”, etc. for you diminish yourself, etc. This is the last time I engage you – unless I see changes.

            Reply to Comment
          • kate

            here just for you because more worked for me:

            The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Extracts Relating to Article 25 [1] Article 24, interpreted in this sense, becomes a source of authority which can be drawn upon to meet situations which are not covered by the more detailed provisions in the succeeding articles of Chapter VI, VII, and VIII. See The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Extracts Relating to Article 24.

            The ICJ has ruled, most notably in its 1971 Namibia decision, that you are basically talking out of your backside, and that UNSC resolutions not under Chapter VII are indeed binding.

            I know they spoonfeed you this crap that you have no understanding of and you mindlessly repeat it. The problem is that there are people who actually know what they are talking about out here in the real world outside your little echo-chamber world.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Thanks Kate. I have already addressed the issue in my discussions/exchanges with Shmuel. The only thing I can add to what I have already said is that the ICJ is (a) lower in hierarchy to the UNSC, (b) subordinate to the UNSC, (c) its Advisory Opinions are just “opinions”, not binding Judgments/Rulings re anyone/any UN-Organ or State and as such not a Court within the meaning of “Courts” under national law.

            Reply to Comment
          • kate

            it only works that way if the UNSC over rules the ICJ and that has never happened

            Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the Court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue may be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action. There are obvious problems with such a method of enforcement. If the judgment is against one of the permanent five members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement would then be vetoed. This occurred, for example, after the Nicaragua case, when Nicaragua brought the issue of the U.S.’s non-compliance with the Court’s decision before the Security Council.[5] Furthermore, if the Security Council refuses to enforce a judgment against any other state, there is no method of forcing the state to comply. Furthermore, the most effective form to take action for the Security Council, coercive action under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, can be justified only if international peace and security are at stake. The Security Council has never done this so far.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

            Reply to Comment
          • g. yagoda

            Ginger. You are not the senior person here. I am. Kindly moderate your language or it will become necessary to put you in your place. Remember, Ginger, you are a mere functionary, a paper-pusher, not one of the grown-ups. G.Yagoda

            Reply to Comment
          • Darcha

            Look. We are not at a checkpoint. You can’t tell anybody what to say or how to say it. I realize your Ziofascist mentality says otherwise, but that’s just another example of the Ziobot mentality bumping up against reality. Lump it.

            Reply to Comment
          • danni ashe

            I’m not sure whether Ginger is paid to discredit Israel or not. He certainly gives it an unattractive face. He might actually be working as a straw man, presenting Israel’s position in such a ludicrous manner that people will be tempted to think all supporters of Israel are as deranged as one-dimensional as he is.

            Reply to Comment
          • shmuel

            Ginger, thank you for remind us this point.
            UNSC’s resolution n. 476 (1980) pointed out that the “acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible” and reaffirmed “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”. This was a simple call for withdrawal, without reference to any condition.

            Israel’s admission to the United Nations was not unconditional, but bound to its compliance with its assurances regarding the implementation of the UN’s Charter and other resolutions (Israel’s original application for admission was, not by chance, rejected by the UNSC).

            Furthermore, before the establishment of the UN, the right granted to the Jewish people to settle in the mandated territories was neither exclusive nor unlimited, but explicitly subordinated to the protection of the “rights and position of other sections of the population”. Those very same rights are currently being violated by the continuous funding allotted to new settlements and through the exploitation of local natural resources, a policy specifically prohibited by the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907. About 94 percent of the materials produced nowadays in the Israeli quarries in the West Bank is transported to Israel.

            http://opiniojuris.org/2014/01/09/eu-adopting-double-standards-approach-toward-israel-palestinian-territories-part-2/

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Shmuel, you make solid arguments, but here are one fatal- and two minor weakness of said arguments: (1) Non-binding Resolutions create neither rights nor obligations. Only UNSC Resolutions taken under Chapter VII of the Chatter are binding. Resolution 476 was not taken pursuant to the provisions of Chapter VII of the Chatter. Thus, according to Int. law, Israel is NOT bound by Resolution 476, (i.e. said Resolution created no rights to anything for Arabs/Palestinians nor obligations for Israel). (2) Israel was accepted as a Member of the UN by UNGA Resolution 273. UNGA Resolution 273 accepted Israel’s interpretation of Resolution 194. Thus, it is misleading to state that Israel’s acceptance to the UN was “not unconditional”, because the condition you have in mind does not apply. (3) Israeli settlements in Judea&Samaria occupy less than 4% of the total landmass and is IMO the excuse for the absence of peace.

            Reply to Comment
          • shmuel

            Ginger@
            Sorry if I start from the end.

            True, “Israeli settlements in Judea&Samaria occupy less than 4%”, but you forgot to add that they (settlers and settlements) control over 40% of the total land in the West Bank (thanks mainly to bypass roads and buffer areas) and exploit a relevant percentage of the local natural resources.

            “Resolution 476 was not taken pursuant to the provisions of Chapter VII of the Chatter”:
            There is nothing in the UN Charter – Israel “unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter” – to justify the view that Chapter VI resolutions are merely “non-binding recommendations”. On the contrary, Article 25 of the Charter says that:
            “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”

            Furthermore, the ICJ, in an Advisory Opinion of the 21th June 1971, clarified:
            “It has been contended that Article 25 of the Charter applies only to enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view. Article 25 is not confined to decisions in regard to enforcement action but applies to ‘the decisions of the Security Council’ adopted in accordance with the Charter. Moreover, that Article is placed, not in Chapter VII, but immediately after Article 24 in that part of the Charter which deals with the functions and powers of the Security Council. If Article 25 had reference solely to decisions of the Security Council concerning enforcement action under Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter, that is to say, if it were only such decisions which had binding effect, then Article 25 would be superfluous, since this effect is secured by Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter.” (Paragraph 113)

            Israel’s admission to the UN differed from the admission of other states to UN membership in 2 important respects. First, it was preceded by a long and searching examination by the UNGA of israel’s future intentions. Second, admission was granted after israel had given formal assurances concerning the implementation of general assembly resolution. The reason for such a procedure was that israel’s original application for admission, which had been made on 29 november 1948, was rejected by UNSC because several governments opposed Israel’s admission on the ground that the questions of boundaries, refugees and the status of jerusalem had not been settled. When israel renewed ist application for admission on 24 february 1949, the UNGA invited it to clarify ist attitude concerning the execution of the resolutions of UNGA ont he internationalization of Jerusalem and on the problem of the refugees. Israel’s admission to UN membership was not unqualified or unconditional but was made subject to ist compliance with ist explanations an assurances relative to the implementation of UNGA resolutions. See http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC Henry Cattan, The palestine question, Croom Helm, London1988, pp. 86.88
            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/1db943e43c280a26052565fa004d8174?OpenDocument#Mr.%20EBAN%20(Israel)%20understood%20tha

            Reply to Comment
          • shmuel

            Ginger
            Sorry if I start from the end.

            “Israeli settlements in Judea&Samaria occupy less than 4%”, but you forgot to add that they (settlers and settlements) control over 40% of the total land in the West Bank (thanks mainly to bypass roads and buffer areas) and exploit a relevant percentage of the local natural resources.

            There is nothing in the UN Charter – “Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter” – to justify the view that Chapter VI resolutions are merely “non-binding recommendations”.
            Article 25 of the Charter says that:
            “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
            The ICJ, in an Advisory Opinion of the 21st June 1971, clarified:
            “It has been contended that Article 25 of the Charter applies only to enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view. Article 25 is not confined to decisions in regard to enforcement action but applies to ‘the decisions of the Security Council’ adopted in accordance with the Charter. Moreover, that Article is placed, not in Chapter VII, but immediately after Article 24 in that part of the Charter which deals with the functions and powers of the Security Council. If Article 25 had reference solely to decisions of the Security Council concerning enforcement action under Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter, that is to say, if it were only such decisions which had binding effect, then Article 25 would be superfluous, since this effect is secured by Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter.” (Paragraph 113)

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Shmuel, first of all I appreciate very much your businesslike conduct. To the point: (1) I am sure Israel is willing to give up most of Judea&Samaria in exchange for peace, (e.g. Barak gave up 93-96%). (2) The non-binding character of UNSC Resolutions under Chapter VI of the Chatter flows from the system and structure of the Chatter itself, not from a specific Resolution. (3) An Advisory Opinion of the ICJ is what it is: an opinion with NO legal force re the UN-organs or Member States. (3) The UNSC is the highest Organ of the UN, has authority over the ICJ and does not consider its decision outside Chapter VII of the Chatter binding. (4) ICJ’s Namibia Advisory Opinion is irreconcilable with the Chatter because, it equates Chapter VI UNSC Resolutions with Chapter VII Resolutions, thereby destroying the internal system and structure of the Chatter and the goal/aims said system and structure pursue. (5) Within the legal society the Namibia Advisory Opinion is (a) either qualified to mean that the binding character of Chapter VI Resolution must flow from the text of the specific Resolution or (b) rejected out of hand. Either way Res 476 confers rights nor obligations, IMO.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

          • Darcha

            Gee! You don’t even read your own links! From YOUR cited research report>

            ‘The Council has general powers under articles 24 and 25 to adopt binding decisions and such decisions do not need to be always taken under Chapter VII.’ The whole rest of the study goes on to give example after example of non-Chapter VII resolutions that were considered binding.

            You are a typical shill–smoke and mirrors, arrogance coupled with idiocy.

            Read your own stuff before you post it. It’d save you some embarrassment.

            Reply to Comment
          • shmuel

            Ginger,
            “The non-binding character of UNSC Resolutions under Chapter VI of the Chatter flows from the system and structure of the Chatter itself, not from a specific Resolution”:
            Please provide a specific passage to support your claim. I quoted a specific article of the Chapter: “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
            Where is exactly written what you claim? I have the impression that you conflate the possibility to use the force with the fact that they are or not, according to the UN charter, binding.

            “An Advisory Opinion of the ICJ is what it is: an opinion with NO legal force”:
            Advisory opinions of the ICJ are not binding, but they nevertheless have normative force as they constitute an authoritative statement of international law in relation to the question posed. Judge Gros of the International Court has observed that ‘when the Court gives an advisory opinion on a question of law it states the law’, and while ‘it is possible for the body which sought the opinion not to follow it in its action…that body is aware that no position adopted contrary to the Court’s pronouncement will have any effectiveness whatsoever in the legal sphere’.

            “I am sure Israel is willing to give up most of Judea&Samaria in exchange for peace, (e.g. Barak gave up 93-96%)”:
            I am not sure about it, but I hope that you are right. As for Barak, he never offered the 93/96% of the total land, but instead the 93/96% of the total land that Israel was ready to discuss. Just think about Jerusalem. Palestinian neighborhoods such as Sheikh Jarrah, Silwan,and At-Tur would have remained under Israeli sovereignty, and Palestinians would have had only sovereignty over the outer Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem: Abu Dis&co.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Shmuel, I will be off line for a most of the day. But I will definitely get back to you. Promise.

            (If you can, do repost the last para of your post beginning with “I am sure Israel is willing to give up most of Judea&Samaria in exchange for …”. What follows after that is cut off from the rest of the post).

            Reply to Comment
          • Darcha

            Sure you’ll be away…with your tail between your legs! Still can’t seem to manage to make that blue thing marked ‘more’ work, eh?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Part I
            The matter at issue concerns the question whether or not UNSC Resolutions taken under Chapter VI resp. Chapter VII of the UN Chatter are both binding on the Member States of the UN – pursuant to Article 25 UN Charter, (pls. feel free to correct me if I misstate the bone of contention) . Along with leading legal Scholars, I stand firmly by my contention that the answer is NO and that the ICJ seriously erred in its Namibia Advisory Opinion as your relayed above! Here is my learned opinion on the matter: the obligation to accept the decisions of the UNSC refers, pursuant to article 25 of the UN Charter, solely to UNSC’s powers under Chapter VII of the Charter, NOT Chapter VI. Reasoning: (1) there is no provision in Chapter VI of the Charter that requires/authorizes the UNSC to take any “decisions”. Indeed all Articles of said Chapter state that the UNSC may “recommend”, “investigate”, “refer to”, etc. Since Chapter VI of the Charter contains no powers to take “decisions”, Article 25 of the Charter regards it thus not. (see for the rest parts II and III).

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Part II
            (2) Chapters VI and VII of the UN Charter pursue different aims within different mechanisms. Indeed, the goal of separating between Chapters VI and VII is to distinguish between (a) voluntary and (b) binding measures. Chapter VI of the Charter provides for-/pursues a pacific conflict-settlement and requires the consent of the parties for it to work and achieve its aims, while the binding measures in terms of Chapter VII are characterized by the absence of such consent. If the UNSC is allowed to take binding Resolutions under Chapter VI (as the ICJ erroneously suggests), such will definitely destroy the system and structure of Chapter VI, render pacific resolution of conflicts useless/illusory and by necessity remove the systemic division b/w Chapters VI and VII. (3) Chapter VI obliges UNSC-Members who are parties to a dispute to refrain from voting when Resolutions under Chapter VI are adopted. Chapter VII does not contain similar obligation with respect to binding Resolution adopted under Chapter VII. If indeed there is no difference between Chapters VI and VII – as the ICJ erroneously suggests – the framers of the Charter would not have made that distinction.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Part III
            Re: whence derives a Resolution its binding character? The answer is simple: direct applicability and enforceability – regardless of whether the recipients consent/agree to it or not. If a Resolution depends on the consent of any of the parties involved for it to be applicable and/or enforced, such a resolution is not binding. I would very much like to know if you have any other criteria for determining the binding nature of a Resolution. Said criteria must flow forth from the positive law and/or legal science and/or legal doctrine and/or case law.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Part IV
            Re Advisory Opinion. As stated earlier, Advisory Opinions of the ICJ are what they are, i.e. an opinion with NO independent legal force. Unlike the Rulings/Judgments of national Courts, Advisory Opinions of the ICJ are (a) not directly (and generally) applicable, (b) do not have the force of law and (c) are dependent on the acceptance of the relevant parties for them have any form of normative authority (for said parties).

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Part V
            Re Israeli settlements in Judea&Samaria
            I am not privy to your post in this regard. As such, I cannot reply properly. I defer to my earlier request to repost the missing part. Pls. do excuse me for that.

            Reply to Comment
          • shmuel

            Ginger, I just read now.
            This is the part that you couldn’t read. Now I answer to the other points:

            “I am sure Israel is willing to give up most of Judea&Samaria in exchange for peace, (e.g. Barak gave up 93-96%)”:
            I am not sure about it, but I hope that you are right. As for Barak, he never offered the 93/96% of the total land, but instead the 93/96% of the total land that Israel was ready to discuss. Just think about Jerusalem. Palestinian neighborhoods such as Sheikh Jarrah, Silwan,and At-Tur would have remained under Israeli sovereignty, and Palestinians would have had only sovereignty over the outer Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem: Abu Dis&co.

            Reply to Comment
          • shmuel

            Ginger, 1980 UNSC – res. 476: “acquisition of terriotry by force is inadmissible….reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”. This was a simple call for withdrawal, without reference to any condition. Can you tell me where in this UNSC is implied or requested “the consent of the parties for it to work and achieve its aims”?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Shmuel, from your question I gather that you want me to apply grammatical interpretation to determine the binding nature of a Resolution, but that’s IMO a false basis for making such a determination. The wording of a statement could NEVER in- and of itself determine its binding nature, but rather its (a) direct general- or specific applicability and (b) enforceability under the law. This is the ruling legal doctrine in both civil- and common law legal systems. The ‘a and b elements’ are cumulative and ‘conditio sine non qua’ for making the determination you ask of me. Grammatical- and/or teleological and/or other forms of methods of interpretation may also play important role in determining the binding nature of a Resolution, but they are never THE primary/determinant factors, (e.g. the UNGA can also make the same “simple call for withdrawal without reference to any condition”, but such will not make said call binding). Since the Resolution you refer to was not taken under Chapter VII of the Charter and as a result misses the two aforementioned primary characteristics, said Resolution has zero binding effect, IMO.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Re (a) Jerusalem and (b) acquisition of territory by force

            There is NO primary UN law/Resolution by which the whole of Jerusalem was awarded to the Arabs. There is NO primary law by which East Jerusalem was awarded to the Arabs. Resolution 181 designated Jerusalem as a Corpus Separatum. As such, Jerusalem never by law belonged to any Arab country or Palestinian-Arabs and the occupation of Jerusalem by Jordan was never recognized under International law. The multitude of UN Resolutions that state that Israel must vacate “occupied Arab territories including Jerusalem” presuppose a primary law/Resolution by which Jerusalem was awarded to the Arabs. But such a primary law/Resolution does not exist. As a consequence of that, said multitude of UN Resolutions are built/founded on thin-air/nothing and as such worthless. Thus, Israel’s re-conquest and annexation of Jerusalem does not violate the principle of non-acquisition of land by force – IMHO.

            Reply to Comment
          • shmuel

            Ginger@
            “There is NO primary law by which East Jerusalem was awarded to the Arabs”: I am not sure what your point is. I pointed out that Barak offered the 97% of what Israel was willing to negotiate. The UNGA has no place in this discussion. Anyway, as you clarified, resolution 181 designated “Jerusalem as a Corpus Separatum”. Israel was admitted to the UN after assuring that “Negotiations on that subject would not, however, affect the juridical status of Jerusalem, to be defined by international consent”.
            Jerusalem “never by law belonged to any Arab country”, nor to Israel. The multitude of UN Resolutions that state that Israel must vacate “occupied Arab territories including Jerusalem” simply reflect an universal international consensus. If you claim that “Israel’s re-conquest and annexation of Jerusalem” is legal, you are applying this consensus in a selective way. More than this,you are ignoring that Israel committed itself that the status of Jerusalem must “be defined by international consent”.
            Finally, Uru-Shalem, as Israel/Palestine, did not belong to one single people in its entire 5.000 years of history. Why should it belong to 1 single people today?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Shmuel, I am with a very loud group of girls right now in our home (I was not expecting them today). I will be back with you in about 2hrs or so and will address all your posts. Pls. bear with me.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Re Jerusalem
            My point was that “Jerusalem never by law belonged to any Arab country”, “nor to Israel” (as you added). We both agree on that. Thanks for that. What I said about Jerusalem though was within the context of Resolution 476 (not the Barak-stuff). The goal of the law against acquisition of territory by force is to prevent States from taking over the territories of other States/Peoples without their consent. Since Jerusalem belonged to no one under Int. Law, Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem could not have violated the spirit and the goal of the law prohibiting acquisition of territory by force. Additionally, there is a school of thought that uses Resolution 476 to support the claim that Jerusalem is an Arab land because the UNSC called on Israel to withdraw from it. I did not want to take the chance that you do not share that view and as a result went out of my way to explain that there is no primary law/Resolution by which Jerusalem was awarded to the Arabs, based on which the UNSC could called on Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem because it is an Arab land. Lastly, what you call “international consensus” re Jerusalem does not exist and even if it exists, it may not constitute Customary Int. law that serves as a source of law in adjudicating the territorial conflict b/w Arab States/Palestinians and the State Of Israel (‘opinio juris’ may play a role in diff. specific aspects of Int. law, but NOT in determining land ownerships/delineating borders).

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Ginger@Jerusalem
            “Since Jerusalem belonged to no one under Int. Law, Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem could not have violated the spirit and the goal of the law prohibiting acquisition of territory by force”: be careful not to be selective. israel annexation of west jerusalem, following your reaoning, is illegal. jerusalem’s status cannot be decided if not through international consensus (this doesnt mean that it is or was a land that anyone could conquered at his will). that’s one of the main condition that israel accepted in order to enter in the UN. if you think that israel annexation is legal, is only because you rely on international consensus. if not for international consensus, eilat, for example, could not be part of israel today.
            btw, would you accept that the non-member state of palestine would start to built settlements inside israel?

            Reply to Comment
          • shmuel

            Ginger, I didn’t request any “grammatical interpretation to determine the binding nature of a Resolution”, but instead I pointed out that, despite being aware that the issue is not “white or black”, the fact that the UN Charter explains that ““The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council” and the fact that UNSC resolution476 doesnt imply/request any agreement between the 2 sides but instead “deeply deplores”, “urgently call”, and “reaffirms”…can show a non-sequitur in your position.
            UNSC476:

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Shmuel, your question was: “Can you tell me where in this UNSC is implied or requested “the consent of the parties for it to work and achieve its aims”?”. I assumed (erroneously?) that you belonged to the school of thought that argues that the binding character of a Chapter VI Resolution could be established by analyzing its wording. Hence the kind of reply I gave. I apologize if I erred in that assumption. To the point though: the consent of the parties does not have to be explicitly requested or wilfully implied in a given Resolution. As long as the implementation of a given Resolutions depends on the voluntary actions of the addressed part(y)(ies), then consent is by necessity/automatically inherent in that Resolution. The only way Resolution 476 gets implemented is by Israel’s consent/acceptance/voluntary action. Nothing more. Nothing less. If Israel rejects Resolution 476 (and she did in fact reject it), there is wholly nothing the UNSC can do about it within the ambit of Chapter VI of the Charter. Therein lies also the non-binding nature of said Resolution, NOT in “the fact that Resolution 476 doesn’t imply/request any agreement between the 2 sides but instead “deeply deplores”, “urgently call”, and “reaffirms”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Ginger, I have the impression that you continue to downplay the meaning of a UNSC resolution under chapter VI. This sounds strange to me. Israel itself justified its military assault on Lebanon in the summer of 2006 in part because of Lebanon’s failure to implement Security Council resolution 1559 (chapter VI). Israel’s Ambassador Dan Gillerman, addressing the Security Council on 11 August 2006:
            “The way to avoid the crisis between Israel and Lebanon has been clear: implementation of the unconditional obligations set out in resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), which set out issues for resolution between Lebanon and Syria”.

            I belong “to the school” of those convinced that what you claim is not true in relation to the resolutions we are discussing here, since they require action by Israel and Israel alone. Furthermore, I believe that the occupation of the Palestinian Territories is immoral, as immoral are the persons that support or cover it.

            Reply to Comment
          • shmuel

            Ginger, finally it is important to keep in mind that the UNSC was just repeating the international consensus on the issue.
            I suggets you to read this article (below a short excerpt): http://opiniojuris.org/2014/01/09/eu-adopting-double-standards-approach-toward-israel-palestinian-territories-part-2/

            The “disputed territories” logic

            According to a research paper recently published by the Kohelet Policy Forum, the EU Guidelines “explicitly and erroneously refer to the pre-1967 armistice lines as borders, and implicitly and incorrectly insist not only that the EU does not recognize potential Israeli claims to sovereignty in the disputed territories but that Israel is not entitled to assert those claims. ”
            The lack of clear-cut borders, however, cannot be considered a valid objection. Neither Israel nor Palestine have agreed boundaries in the context of a peace agreement. Based on the same reasoning as presented by some Israeli leaders, Palestine, recognized as a non-member State by the UNGA on 29 November 2012, could theoretically start building settlements on Israeli soil.
            It is sometimes claimed that Jordan, because of its “unlawful acquisition” of the West Bank, was entitled at most to claim the status of belligerent occupant. In its 2004’s Wall advisory opinion, the ICJ ruled that the regulations on the matter of occupation applied to any armed conflict between High Contracting Parties and that it was irrelevant whether territory occupied during that conflict was under their sovereignty. The Israeli High Court of Justice itself established that the application of the regulations depends on the effective military control exercised from outside the nation’s borders, and not from previous sovereignty over the territory of a specific state (HCJ 785/87). Therefore, the fact that the West Bank was occupied by Jordan until 1967 – an occupation which was opposed by the local population at the time, most of all by Fatah militants, to the point that King Hussein felt obliged to impose martial law – does not justify the use of the expression “disputed territories” in place of “occupied territories.” Even more so considering that Israel, in Allan Gerson’s words, “never challenged the lawfulness of Jordan’s control of the West Bank” and tried to reach a peace treaty after the Six-Day War which would have returned, with modified borders, the West Bank to Jordan.
            The “disputed territories” logic is based on a selective use of international consensus. A good example is provided by the Palestinian village of Umm Rashrash, present-day Eilat. It was taken by the Negev and Golani Brigades on March 10, 1949, eight months after the United Nations Security Council’s resolution No. 54 called for a ceasefire, forbidding any acquisition of territory from that date on.
            It is only thanks to an established international consensus – expressed by 160 countries – that Eilat is today legitimately part of the State of Israel. The same international consensus established the illegality of settlements as well as of the occupation of the Palestinian territories. UNSC’s resolution n. 476 (1980) pointed out for example that the “acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible” and reaffirmed “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”. This was a simple call for withdrawal, without reference to any condition. It is not possible to invoke international consensus over Eilat (and other areas), while disregarding it for the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The tendency to overlook the selective use of international consensus, while reducing every discussion to security, doesn’t fully take into account the complexity of the issue.
            This is even more the case when considering that Israel’s admission to the United Nations was not unconditional, but bound to its compliance with its assurances regarding the implementation of the UN’s Charter and other resolutions (Israel’s original application for admission was, not by chance, rejected by the UNSC).
            Furthermore, before the establishment of the UN, the right granted to the Jewish people to settle in the mandated territories was neither exclusive nor unlimited, but explicitly subordinated to the protection of the “rights and position of other sections of the population”. Those very same rights are currently being violated by the continuous funding allotted to new settlements and through the exploitation of local natural resources, a policy specifically prohibited by the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907. About 94 percent of the materials produced nowadays in the Israeli quarries in the West Bank is transported to Israel.
            (Mis)using Oslo
            The Oslo Accords explicitly preserve the positions of the parties without resolving the question of territorial sovereignty. That’s the reason why the already mentioned research paper released by Kohelet pointed out that “none of the agreements empower a third party like the EU to override the negotiations and impose its own views of sovereignty over the disputed territory”. However, to invoke the Oslo Agreements in order to undermine the EU approach on the issue is problematic.
            The Oslo Agreements – considered by several international lawyers as a legal anomaly in as much as they were not treaties concluded between states – provided that the interim period was not supposed to exceed five years (Article 1). It is still a matter of debate if the application of the Oslo Accords beyond its five-year interim period – a period characterized by the construction of a huge number of new settlements, by Palestinian terrorism and Israeli military operations – is compatible with the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination.
            Furthermore, as recently noted by Vera Gowlland-Debbas, not only is the legal status of the Oslo Agreements far from clear in that, not having been registered with the UN, they cannot be invoked before any organ of the United Nations, but also Article 103 of the UN Charter ensures that in case of conflict, the obligations of Israel under the Charter would prevail over any other agreement.
            Israel’s behavior as an occupying power is subject to several international customary laws (the “persistent objector” claim often mentioned to undermine these issues is “rather scant”: no case was decided on the basis of it). The Oslo Agreements did not supercede these laws: “Neither Party shall be deemed, by virtue of having entered into this Agreement, to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions (Article 31(6), Interim Agreement).”
            Finally, Article 31 of the Oslo Agreements clarified that “neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip”. This statement is subject to different possible interpretations. However, in each round of negotiations the Israeli authorities require to the interested parties to take into account the new local demography. This can hardly be considered as an unintentional result of their policies in the area.
            Conclusions
            A few weeks ago President Barack Obama praised Nelson Mandela saying that he “freed not just the prisoner, but the jailer as well”. We cannot rely on any Palestinian or Israeli Mandela. The only chance to overcome the current stalemate is through the direct intervention of the international community. The EU Guidelines barring loans to Israeli entities established or operating in the Palestinian Territories, although very limited in scope, represent one relevant step in that direction. The recent EU-Morocco Agreement, beside being wrong from a political and moral point of view, risks to undermine these efforts.
            There are only two bad alternatives to the multilateral approach underpinning the guidelines approach. The first one is the sadly well-known “aggressive unilateralism” that Israelis and Palestinians showed in so many occasions. The second is what the Austrian-born Jewish philosopher Martin Buber termed “monologue disguised as dialogue”, i.e. the dialogue “in which two or more men, meeting in space, speak each with himself in strangely tortuous and circuitous ways and yet imagine they have escaped the torment of being thrown back on their own resources”. Buber wrote these words in 1947. At the beginning of 2014 they look truer than ever.

            Reply to Comment
          • shmuel

            Ginger,
            as the link that you were kind enough to provide us explains: “The Council has general powers under articles 24 and 25 to adopt binding decisions and such decisions do not need to be always taken under Chapter VII.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Shmuel, that part of the link you correctly relayed also says that determining the binding nature- or lack thereof of Chapter VI UNSC Resolution depends on how one interprets the language used in a given Resolution. The proponents of that school of thought have at least three major problems: (a) Chapter VI contains no enforcement authority and mechanism; (b) at best one would have to rely on the ICJ to adjudicate EACH individual Chapter VI Resolution and issue an “Advisory Opinion” as to whether or not it has binding character and, (c) one or two or more UNSC Members might actually disagree with said Advisory Opinion and claim that they never intended a specific Resolution to be binding, should the ICJ opine that it is, or that they intended said Resolution to be binding, should the ICJ opine that it is not. This will definitely result to more ‘lawlessness of International law’. On that basis, the arguments of those in the link who claim that the UNSC can take binding resolutions under Chapter VI of the Charter, fail.

            Reply to Comment
          • shmuel

            Ginger, I think that we already discussed this aspects. The point that I made is that the document that you provided contradicts what you claim.

            PS
            I answered to your other posts but, I don’t why, they are still pending.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Shmuel, I think we misunderstand each other on that point. My apologies for that. Here is the clarification: I did not provide the link to support- or not to support my position. I provided the link to provide a broad base for the discussions. That’s how I was trained, i.e. put everything on the table during a debate, including that which diverges from your position. The only reason I will hide info from a debate such as this would be to score points. But I don’t do that. I wanted have a discussion with you and Kate on, among others, what I disagree with (I do that a lot). That’s why I said I found the info contained in the link “very interesting”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            You are correct in saying that the only binding resolutions are those enacted by the Security Council. Therefore GA resolution 181 which partitioned Palestine cannot be considered to be binding.
            On the other hand, Security Council res. 242 is binding. As you may know this resolution begins with the following words: “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war……
            That means that Israel has no right to keep the territory of the West Bank. Unfortunately the only country that could have forced Israel to abide by that resolution is the US which has been captured by the Israel Lobby within its borders.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Good post, Jan. But here are a few of what I will add to it: (a) not all UNSC Resolutions are binding. An example of that is Resolution 242; (b) Israel has not annexed Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). As such Israel has not acquired that territory. Jerusalem was NEVER awarded to anyone. Resolution 181 designated Jerusalem as a Corpus Separatum. Thus, Israel did not violate the principle of non-acquisition of territory by force by annexing Jerusalem; (c) Israel is extremely small and the only Jewish State on earth facing over 57 Muslim States and over 1.6 billion Muslims around the world who want Israel gone as we speak. The United States Of America is honored to be the best friend of- and stand by the endangered People Of The Book and their State.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Ginger, “Israel has not annexed Judea and Samaria”, in order to keep maximum flexibility. Furthermore, it can continue to exploit the local natural resources without taking responsabilities for the local majority.
            “Israel is extremely small and the only Jewish State on earth facing over 57 Muslim States”: Palestinians have the right to self-determinate their present and future, and certainly not for religious considerations. Religion should be a private matter between you and your god, not a political tool.
            As for Jerusalem, as I wrote above, resolution 181 designated “Jerusalem as a Corpus Separatum”. Israel was admitted to the UN after assuring that “Negotiations on that subject would not, however, affect the juridical status of Jerusalem, to be defined by international consent”.
            Jerusalem “never by law belonged to any Arab country”, nor to Israel. The multitude of UN Resolutions that state that Israel must vacate “occupied Arab territories including Jerusalem” simply reflect an universal international consensus. If you claim that “Israel’s re-conquest and annexation of Jerusalem” is legal, you are applying this consensus in a selective way. More than this,you are ignoring that Israel committed itself that the status of Jerusalem must “be defined by international consent”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Shmuel, (1).Palestinians have the right to self-determination. We agree on that. (2) No one is making a religion-based argument here. Referring to the Jewish People as the People of the Book is a statement of fact. (3) You rightly said that Jerusalem never belonged to the Arabs or Israel under Int. law. Based on that premise, any UN Resolution that calls on Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem because it is an Arab land is intrinsically irrational and will not be accepted – regardless of how many times per year members of the Organization of Islamic Conference and the Arab League manage to get the UN to regurgitate the SAME nonsense in multitudes of UN Resolutions. (4) Israel LEGALLY re-conquered Jerusalem, which as you acknowledged did not belong to the Arabs at any time in history. No amount of “international consensus” (of which there is none, but assuming there is one) can change that fact or determine that Arabs have ownership of J’lem after Israel LEGALLY re-acquired the City.

            Reply to Comment
          • shmuel

            Ginger, how can you claim that “Israel LEGALLY re-conquered Jerusalem”? This contradicts what you claim. jerusalem’s status cannot be decided if not through international consensus (this doesnt mean that it is or was a land that anyone could conquered at his will). that’s one of the main condition that israel accepted in order to enter in the UN. if you think that israel annexation is legal, is only because you rely on international consensus (if not for international consensus, eilat, for example, could not be part of israel today).

            There is nothing legal in the unilateral decision of Israel to annex West Jerusalem and to de facto annex east jerusalem. The fact that no 1 state in the world has an embassy in Jerusalem should further confirm this aspect.

            Finally, why do you use the term “re-conquest”?

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            PS
            “Jerusalem, which as you acknowledged did not belong to the Palestinians [and to the Israelis/Israel] at any time in history”.
            It doesn’t make any sense to cut from this sentence one of the 2 (Palestinians or Israelis).

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Shmuel, you may not know this, but your posts do open up the proverbial Pandora box and I am not the one to leave any stone unturned. I will reply in FOUR posts so that we don’t conflate the issues.

            1st Post: Re Prohibition of land-acquisition by force. The goal of property laws in national criminal and private law in both Common-and Civil Law systems and in Int. law is to prevent acquisition of properties WITHOUT the consent of the rightful owner(s). Now, if J’lem under Int. law belonged to no one, J’lem is then what in legal science is called “res nullius” (i.e. an ownerless property). Israel captured W. & E. J’lem in TWO wars OF SURVIVAL , re-united the City and by its Basic Law acquired it and made it her Capital. In doing so, Israel violated NO existing ownership of any part of Jerusalem by any Arab State/People. As, such, Israel could NOT have- and in fact did NOT violate the ‘Prohibition of acquisition of property by force’. I would like to hear your arguments if you disagree.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            2nd Post: Re “International consensus” and the legitimacy of Israel’s annexation of J’lem. In both Common- and Civil Law Systems as well as in International Law, weighty UNFORESEEN circumstances and/or facts are grounds for nullifications of any obligation a party to an agreement/a contract may have taken upon her-/himself prior to said changes. At the very least, the THREE existential wars Israel fought against Arab States nullifies any obligation Israel may have taken upon herself re the legal status of J’lem. Beyond that, the concept of “international consensus” is at best fuzzy and at worst a laughable JOKE, because the Int. Com is dominated by 57 very Influential Muslim States, over 1.6 billion Muslims and their allies of 120 Members of the Non Aligned Movement with their billions of populations vs. just ONE single Jewish State with a population of just over 6 million Jews! Seriously, Shmuel, you don’t take that “international-consensus-stuff” seriously, do you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            3rd Post: Re “The way to avoid the crisis between Israel and Lebanon has been clear: implementation of the unconditional obligations set out in resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), which set out issues for resolution between Lebanon and Syria”.

            Resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006) prove my point, Shmuel, i.e. Chapter VI Resolutions are NOT binding – regardless of how imperative/”unconditional” the language contained therein is. If Israel refuses to abide by them, there is nothing the UN(SC) can do about it under Chapter VI of the Charter. If Lebanon refuses to abide by it, Israel can only exercise her rights under Article 51 of the Charter to force Lebanon into compliance. If Israel can’t do that, there is nothing the UN(SC) can do about it under Chapter VI. Said Resolutions depend on the voluntary actions of the parties to be implemented.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            4th Post: Re “Finally, why do you use the term re-conquest?”

            I use the term because there are other very heavy weighing arguments Israel can- and in fact makes for the legitimacy of her annexation of J’lem. BUT we both have the implicit understanding that the discussions here must be confined within the ambits of Int. law and I respect that. I also appreciate VERY MUCH the fact that you think and make your arguments within agreed upon parameters and are above all very civil. This is the first time I engage and “adversary” like you on this site. Congratulations!

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Ginger, I would then avoid the term “reconquest”. Palestinians also have very heavy weighing arguments, and not only in relation to Jerusalem, but this would not anyway justify the use of the term “reconquest”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Ginger, I am not sure that it proves your point. When Israel’s Ambassador Dan Gillerman was clarifying that “The way to avoid the crisis between Israel and Lebanon has been clear: implementation of the unconditional obligations set out in resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006)”, he was clarifying to the international community that that resolution bear “unconditional obligations”. The fact that Lebanon was not complying with it or that the international community was unable to implement it didnt negate its recognized (also by Israel) “unconditional” value.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Shmuel, the declarations of Mr. Gillerman/ Nabil Elaraby/politicians/diplomats shall not regard you in your interpretation of the law. As far as legal science is concerned (a) the enforceability- and (b) the binding character of a Resolution/law are INSEPARABLE, (other social sciences, e.g. theology, may have their own definitions of what is- and what is not binding, but the law is an autonomous science with its own logic, systems of definitions, etc.). Chapter VI of the Charter (1) contains no authority to prescribe sanctions, (2) prescribes no sanctions and (3) contains no mechanisms for enforcement of said sanctions, should the concerned party/parties not VOLUNTARILY implement Chapter VI Resolutions. These are the three most important doctrinal reasons why Chapter VI Resolutions are not binding – regardless how “unconditional the obligations set out” therein are. This is what is thought in ALL Western Universities TODAY.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Ginger, no state (including the US) in the world recognizes Israel’s unilateral annexation, nor Israel legitimacy beyond the Green Line. This is “international consensus”. Would you accept the fact that the non-member state of palestine would start to establish settlements inside Israel?
            The “disputed territories” logic is based on a selective use of international consensus. A good example is provided by the Palestinian village of Umm Rashrash, present-day Eilat. It was taken by the Negev and Golani Brigades on March 10, 1949, eight months after the United Nations Security Council’s resolution No. 54 called for a ceasefire, forbidding any acquisition of territory from that date on.
            It is only thanks to an established international consensus – expressed by 160 countries – that Eilat is today legitimately part of the State of Israel. The same international consensus established the illegality of settlements as well as of the occupation of the Palestinian territories.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Well, Shmuel, J’lem is firmly in Israel’s hands. That’s what counts the most. People Of The United States Of America acting through their elected Representatives the have recognized J’lem as the United Capital Of The State Of Israel. The reason the Executive branch of Western governments are yet to do so is because of fear of MUSLIM TERRORISM (burning embassies, suicide bombings in the streets of Western cities, kidnappings, etc.) that will ensure. Nothing more. Nothing less. J’lem is on the negotiating table as a gesture of good-will and to find agreed upon ways to accommodate reasonable demands of the Palestinians and the Muslim world. But as usual, Palestinians will miss no opportunity to miss an opportunity. In a few years from now, there will be nothing left to negotiate about in J’lem except maintenance of Holy Sites and access to them.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Ginger,
            I am not sure that the fact that “J’lem is firmly in Israel’s hands” is “what counts the most”.
            An action doesn’t become legitimate or moral simply because it happened. Think to be an Austrian in 1838: “Austria is firmly in Germans’ hands, this is what counts the most”.

            That single elected Representatives in the US can have personal opinions is irrelevant: the US, as the rest of the countries in our world, do not recognize that annexation.

            What “count the most” is that Israel was admitted to the UN after assuring that “Negotiations on that subject would not, however, affect the juridical status of Jerusalem, to be defined by international consent”.

            “because of fear of MUSLIM TERRORISM”: ideologic sentence not worthy of attention, sorry.

            “J’lem is on the negotiating table”, not certainly as a “gesture of good-will”, but only because a) it didnt belong to one single people in its entire history b) its future, according to international law and consensus cannot be decided in a unilateral way.

            “But as usual, Palestinians will miss no opportunity to miss an opportunity”: up to now they didnt miss any opportunity regarding Jerusalem. Under every Israeli proposals Palestinian neighborhoods such as Sheikh Jarrah, Silwan,and At-Tur would have remained under Israeli sovereignty, and Palestinians would have had only sovereignty over the outer Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem: Abu Dis&co.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Thank you, Ginger.
            Perhaps I was not clear enough. Israel was admitted to the UN after assuring that “Negotiations on that subject would not, however, affect the juridical status of Jerusalem, to be defined by international consent”. “J’lem under Int. law belonged to no one”, but this doesn’t mean that Jordan, Brazil or Australia could unilaterally annex it.

            “Israel captured W. & E. J’lem in TWO wars OF SURVIVAL , re-united the City and by its Basic Law acquired it and made it her Capital”: yes ITS basic law. Furthermore, it is problematic to speak about 1967 as a “war of survival”. As you know the issue is not white or black and certainly doesnt justify an unilateral annexation that violate Israel’s commitments and is not recognize by one single state in the world.
            In “the six-day war and israeli self-defence” (Cambridge UP), John Quigley, just an example, made a very detailed analysis and concluded that ‘the june 1967 war, rather than serving as precedent for preventing war, should be the poster child for pretexual invocation of force used in advance’.
            Again, the issue is not white or black. The only certainty is that Jerusalem’s unilateral annexation, also following your arguments, is illegal. Unless you refer to international consensus.

            Reply to Comment
      • carl

        “Mr. EBAN (Israel) understood that the questions raised in connexion with Israel’s application for membership in the United Nations were being discussed in the light of the compliance of Israel with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly.”
        Only thanks to these assurances Israel was admitted to the UNGA.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          UNGA Resolution 273 (III), May 11, 1949: “(…). Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representatives of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, The General Assembly, Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure, 1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations; 2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations”. The UNGA accepted Israel based on Israel’s interpretation of UNGA Resolution 194. Nothing more. Nothing less.

          Reply to Comment
      • David

        The UNSC reaffirmed the “right of return” for all Palestinians made refugees since 1947 when it adopted Resolution 605 (December 22, 1987). Resolution 605 refers to “the inalienable rights of all peoples recognized by the Charter of the United Nations and proclaimed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

        UNGA Resolution 194 (December 11, 1948) was derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UNSC the day before (December 10, 1948) and binding on all UN members.

        There is no special provision in international humanitarian law, (including the Fourth
        Geneva Convention)that enables Israel to violate it with impunity.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          (1). UNGA Resolution 194 nor any other Resolution created any “right of return”. (2) Thus, UNSC Resolution 605 (a) could not have- and did not in fact confirm/affirm “the right of return” because that right never existed. Moreover, said Resolution is not binding even under the most liberal interpretation of Chapter VI of the Chatter. (b) Said Resolution “[bore] in mind the inalienable rights of all peoples recognized by the Charter of the United Nations and proclaimed by the Universal Declarations of Human Rights” [UDHR]. UDHR contains the rights of individuals to leave- and return to their OWN country, but Israel is not “the country” of Palestinian refugees and UDHR is anyway not-binding (except “via-via”). The UN Chatter contains nothing that may be construed as a ‘right of return’ for Pal. refugees. (3) Israel accepts to respect Int. law, but at the same time, she will not allow Arab-States to abuse the UN/Int. law instruments to achieve the failed objectives of 1948, 1967, 1973 wars. It is not an accident that 99.98% of UN Resolutions re Arab-Israeli conflict are non-binding and thus worthless docs. Essentially, Israel outplayed Arab-States in their own game.

          Reply to Comment
          • Darcha

            Oh the ignorance! Oh the moronity!
            ‘Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
            – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948, Article 13(2)
            Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own….No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
            – The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966, Article 12, paras 1 & 4. (The Nov 1999 Human Rights Committee General Comment on the ICPPR makes clear that in Article 12 “his own country” applies to … individuals whose country of nationality has been incorporated in or transferred to another national entity, whose nationality is being denied them…(i.e. to Palestinians whose homes are now in Israel) International protection for a refugee ceases only when he has …voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained or he is …able to return to the country of his former habitual residence
            – (Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 1C, 28 July 1951)

            Reply to Comment
      • Berl

        Ginger, UN resolution are secondary. Long after the end of the World War II, Jewish organizations have worked hard to regain money in Swiss bank accounts, art in German homes and museums, and other assets the Nazis seized. That alone should make Israel sympathetic to Palestinian restitution claims for property lost during and after the War of Independence. Why can’t Jews who respect the enduring importance of a family art collection have the same attitude toward a family homestead, or an olive grove?

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          I do not accept any comparison between the fate of-, what happened to the Jewish People before 1947 in Europe and the Arab-Israeli wars and the consequences of said wars. Both events are not comparable even in the remotest form. Beyond that, the comparison you make come across as raw vulgarity designed to make caricature of the Jewish People. It is not by accident that I did not reply to your post below. Pls. do not unnecessarily inject the Shoah into the discussions.

          Reply to Comment
          • Berl

            From the perspective of a Palestinian that was expelled from Lydda – just one example – and that lost his relatives because was forced to walk miles during a summer heat…it is irrelevant if you accept or not this comparison. Furthermore, you are misunderstanding the issue. No one is comparing the two events, but instead it is important to understand that both traumas, that were extremely tragic for both people, deserves the same respect

            I never made any “caricature of the Jewish People”, I am just outraged in reading your solipsistic posts that are almost always unable to understand the sufferance and the rights of the “others”.

            Again, a palestinian that was expelled from his/her home and prevented to go back has the same right of a Jewish organization that work hard to regain money in Swiss bank accounts. The other exists, so does his/her trauma, if you like or not.

            As for 1948, I use Uri Avnery’s words: “No one asked the Arab Palestinians whether to accept or reject anything. If they had been asked, they would probably have rejected partition, since – in their view – it gave a large part of their historical homeland to foreigners. The more so, since the Jews, who at the time constituted a third of the population, were allotted 55% of the territory – and even there the Arabs constituted 40% of the population”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            I will engage you in a substantive discussion re Palestinian refugees under this condition: (a). make arguments for the restitution of Palestinian refugees WITHOUT mentioning anything relating to the Shoah. The Palestinian case is strong, stands on its own feet and can be made without mentioning the fate of the Jewish People before and during WWII, the lootings of Jewish properties by the Nazis, etc. I know you to be a very eloquent and knowledgeable advocate of Palestinian rights (regardless of whether or not you do that because of your love for human rights or dislike of Jews) and that you as such have the intellectual capacity to make a strong case for the restitution of Palestinians without involving the Holocaust. You would be surprised at my reaction. So then, let’s hear your arguments.

            Reply to Comment
          • Berl

            Read better, no one was comparing the two historical facts. The point is that until you will continue to perceive yourself as unique, downplaying the necessities and the sufferance of the others, your argument will remain weak and selective.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            I made myself very clear, mister. Take it or leave it!

            Reply to Comment
          • Berl

            Leave others to judge your alleged clarity. Arrogance would be the final ingredient to understand your posts in this page.

            Reply to Comment
    2. berl

      Ginger@: “Additionally the Arabs have pertinently refused to repatriate or compensate Jewish refugees”:
      1) Jews from Arab countries have been already more than compensated. A relevant majority of the Jews that arrived in Israel from the Arab States were absorbed because they took the houses of thousand of palestinians that were obliged to leave. Just make a tour in places such as Ein Houd. Palestinians, on the contrary, don’t live in Jewish houses.
      2) The Palestinians are not responsible for the expulsions that happened in other parts of the world. Palestinians and Iraqis and Egyptians are not the same people. I hope that you are aware of it.
      3) Long after the end of the World War II, Jewish organizations have worked hard to regain money in Swiss bank accounts, art in German homes and museums, and other assets the Nazis seized. That alone should make Israel sympathetic to Palestinian restitution claims for property lost during and after the War of Independence. Why can’t Jews who respect the enduring importance of a family art collection have the same attitude toward a family homestead, or an olive grove?
      4) It does not justify any possible kind of violence, but you should also mention that among the Jews that escaped from the Arab countries many did so in order to reach the “Jewish State” and others thanks to what Naemi Giladi called “Cruel Zionism”. Giladi was part of it and wrote about it.
      5) As already mentioned, an important percentage of the Jews that arrived in Israel from the Arab States were absorbed because they took the houses of thousand of palestinians that were obliged to leave. Musrara is just an example, but it explains quite well why the “madbarot” didn’t last long.

      Reply to Comment
    3. berl

      “Additionally the Arabs have pertinently refused to repatriate or compensate Jewish refugees”:
      1) Jews from Arab countries have been already more than compensated. A relevant majority of the Jews that arrived in Israel from the Arab States were absorbed because they took the houses of thousand of palestinians that were obliged to leave. Just make a tour in places such as Ein Houd. Palestinians, on the contrary, don’t live in Jewish houses.
      2) The Palestinians are not responsible for the expulsions that happened in other parts of the world. Palestinians and Iraqis and Egyptians are not the same people. I hope that you are aware of it.
      3) Long after the end of the World War II, Jewish organizations have worked hard to regain money in Swiss bank accounts, art in German homes and museums, and other assets the Nazis seized. That alone should make Israel sympathetic to Palestinian restitution claims for property lost during and after the War of Independence. Why can’t Jews who respect the enduring importance of a family art collection have the same attitude toward a family homestead, or an olive grove?
      4) It does not justify any possible kind of violence, but you should also mention that among the Jews that escaped from the Arab countries many did so in order to reach the “Jewish State” and others thanks to what Naemi Giladi called “Cruel Zionism”. Giladi was part of it and wrote about it.
      5) As already mentioned, an important percentage of the Jews that arrived in Israel from the Arab States were absorbed because they took the houses of thousand of palestinians that were obliged to leave. Musrara is just an example, but it explains quite well why the “madbarot” didn’t last long.

      Reply to Comment
    4. It is worth adding to this discussion the fact that under international law ethnic Jews are entitled to establish and maintain communities on the West Bank.

      Reply to Comment
      • l. kagonovitch

        You mean someone who has received their religion in a miraculous fashion from their Mother? Is religion passed on like hair color or intelligence? Just asking:)

        Reply to Comment
        • Piotr Berman

          I think it was a burning bush, not a mother. The bush told Moses that his name is Y..e and that Moses has to tell the elders of the Israelites that Yahweh would lead them into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Benny Shanon, professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote a paper, “Biblical Entheogens: a Speculative Hypothesis”, in the philosophy journal Time and Mind, which suggests Moses may have been under the influence of a hallucinogenic substance when he witnessed the burning bush. Archaeologists raised several arguments indicating that Moses was not a historical figure, hence it cannot be assumed to be under a hallucinogenic influence.

          Reply to Comment
      • Berl

        Geoffrey, good point. That’s why I agree with you and Nazmi Jubeh: “Any Jew who wants to live in our community, following the rules which this entails, must be free to do so. It’s quite a different story, however, to request that the settlers who arrived here by force and in defiance of international law can ipso facto be entitled to see their actions justified. In other words, those who want to live in a future Palestinian state must do so under the law and not as colonialists. When Israel was created, the Palestinians were already here, and accounted for the vast majority of the local population. This is why there are now over one million Palestinians in Israel, many of whom are known as ‘internally displaced persons’ [IDPs]. In constrast to this, settlers arrived in the Palestinian territories through violence and incentives received in recent years from Israeli governments. Equating the former to the latter is not only simplistic, but also morally reprehensible.”

        Reply to Comment
    5. The authors make their point succinctly and well.

      The comment writers are engaging in a Talmudic legalese while the daily terror that is the occupation continues.

      Unfortunately, the only way Israel will do the right thing is under a boycott of Israel itself. Then Israelis will actually pay the price of the occupation and within a few weeks this entire travesty will resolve itself.

      I am Israeli myself and have fought in the 1982 war just to save the usual trolls garbage,

      Reply to Comment
      • danni ashe

        You are a lone voice of humanity here, I’m afraid, David. Ginger will be along shortly, one he’s found the relevant page of legalese. His employers pay him about $8 per hour to respond as he does, with robotic, repetitive legal quotes and references with which it is hoped all humans will wilt in despair and boredom.

        Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          “His employers pay him about $8 per hour to respond as he does, with robotic, repetitive legal quotes”

          As opposed to you lot who are here out of pure nobility fighting for the Palestinian Arab underdogs who are part of the 400 million Arab people who occupy most of the Middle East and North Africa. Who also have 22 Arab states many of them theocracies. Those poor underdogs who never did anything wrong against “the evil Jews” need champions like you to protect them from 6 million Jewish Israelis (who have one state) backed up by maybe another 6 million Diaspora Jews and one half hearted superpower which urges the Jews to give in at every turn.

          PS
          He is a She by the way …

          Reply to Comment
          • Y-Man

            Jews have it so hard, man! It’s not like Jews are the most economically privileged group of people on the planet! The just want to oppress brown people in ONE stupid country of their own, geez!

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            No you are right Y-Man, we Jews are historically the most privileged people on this earth.

            Are you for real?

            Reply to Comment
          • G. Yagoda

            “No you are right Y-Man, we Jews are historically the most privileged people on this earth.
            Are you for real?”

            Here’s Tzutzik, sitting in the cubicle beside Ginger’s. Tzutzik handles all the emotional stuff, Ginger takes care of legalese. Shinbet must be working on a shoestring budget if they’re hiring people of this caliber.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Yagoda,

            Your assessment of Tzutzik and Ginger Eis is correct,so don’t feed the trolls.

            Is that “G.”for “Genrikh”?

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            And what about you, Sach? You are a conspiracy theorist.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            What’s that,Samuel?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Et tu Brute
            🙂

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            That’s it? No substance? That is all your argument, Yagoda? And you think of yourself as talented?

            But, hey my friend, let me whisper something in your ear … are you listening? …

            If you were really so sure that what we say has no substance, you would just ignore us. But since what we say rings true, you feel the urge to rebut us even if by ridicule. Keep trying, you just give us positive feedback by your effort.

            Reply to Comment
          • lev kamenev

            “…you would just ignore us.”

            So you admit you are sitting beside Ginger, churning out whatever drivel they throw on your desk? Are you saving up after the army?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            You are a funny man Lev, you admit nothing but expect me to admit whatever is in your imagination?

            No cigar.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            By the way, Yagoda, Shin Beth is only involved with internal security matters.

            You are looking for the word “Hasbarah” which you people on sites like these managed to turn into a dirty word. But in reality, it means explaining our side of the story. But hey, I know there are a lot of deaf ears around here. Nevertheless, we are here because we are talentless and they can’t use us for anything better. The pay is good though … Are you jealous?

            Reply to Comment
          • danni ashe

            “The pay is good though … Are you jealous?”

            Yagoda may not be jealous, Tzutzik, but I am, rather. Do you think there might be an opening for me? I’m willing to re-train. Would I have to be lobotomized?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            No need Danni, you already have been.

            Reply to Comment
          • Raf

            Er, you do realise that the Palestinians have received the most aid per capita in the last 30-40 years than pretty much anyone other group on the planet. Why aren’t you asking where it has gone?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            As opposed to you lot who are here out of pure nobility fighting for the Palestinian Arab underdogs who are part of the 400 million Arab people who occupy most of the Middle East and North Africa.

            This kind of rant is no different from calling Arabs a “cancer” or “bacillus” or some similar Nazi language. Hey, it doesn’t matter if you kill a Palestinian or two because they’re interchangeable with 400 million Arabs.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Rant on Andrew.

            Those are your words not mine. But good try.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            I think you are confusing Tzutzik with Iran’s supreme leader Khameini and his rant about Israel. Here read what he said –

            “Iran will help anyone willing to “cut out the cancer” of Israel, its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said.”

            I suppose that is not a problem for you though Andrew? Is it? You only think that what Tzutzik said is a problem?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            What exactly am I supposed to think when you keep speaking of Arabs as an indistinguishable horde?

            I have a problem with any use of “cancer” as a metaphor (It’s an ugly use of language) and a problem with opposing anything on theological grounds.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “What exactly am I supposed to think when you keep speaking of Arabs as an indistinguishable horde?”

            Which bit of the following comes across as Arab hordes?

            “who are part of the 400 million Arab people”

            Those were the words that I used. Does the use of the word “people” offend you?

            Get a grip you guys, you Israel haters are really starting to sound neurotic.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            You sarcastically called the Palestinians “underdogs” as if being part of that 400 million people gave them an advantage in the fight against Israel, when obviously they are alone. It also contains the implication that they could just live anywhere in the MENA and displacing them would be no crime. Given that this is a staple of Zionist thought starting with Ben-Gurion, you can’t even begin to pretend that’s a baseless inference.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “It also contains the implication that they could just live anywhere in the MENA”

            It isn’t an implication, that is the status quo. Which is not unlike the idea of white Anglo Saxons moving between, Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. All the same culture, language, religion and ethnicity. It should not be as horrendous as you make it sound.

            But I guess the Arab people chose to play politics with the Palestinians. Politics instead of humanity.

            The Jews on the other hand integrated up to 1 million Jewish refugees from Arab countries in Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Well, this is where we agree to disagree. I happen to think moving someone to another state at gunpoint is ethnic cleansing. So is achieving the same by barring them from land ownership (Which is how Herzl and Ruppin wanted to accomplish population transfer in the early 1900’s). I don’t think American Jews would appreciate being convinced to move to Israel either way.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Boring and discredited rant. Keep on repeating it, the converted will listen to you, the rest of us will ignore you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “I don’t think American Jews would appreciate being convinced to move to Israel either way.”

            If ever American Jews would try to do to their neighbours what the Arabs attempted to do to their Jewish neighbours, being moved to Israel would be the least of their problem. They would have to worry of much more severe consequences than that …

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            i.e. you hate any actual historical research on the Zionist movement.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Not exactly.

            I just hate your kind of one eyed biased research in which you overlook everything wrong that Arabs did but magnify or invent wrongs that Jews did.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            If ever American Jews would try to do to their neighbours what the Arabs attempted to do to their Jewish neighbours

            Now here’s a discredited rant: The one where the Zionists didn’t want to transfer the Arabs until they responded to Jewish immigration with violence. You can bring up Hebron 1929 again and again, it doesn’t explain why the JNF mandated itself to possess land for Jews only. The US outlawed this conduct in 1964.

            I just hate your kind of one eyed biased research in which you overlook everything wrong that Arabs did but magnify or invent wrongs that Jews did.

            Funny enough, I don’t have much stock in people who say they want a certain result (e.g. a Jewish state), then feign ignorance when called on the means necessary to achieve that result (e.g. population transfer).

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            But you do have a stock in people who openly say they want a certain result (e.g. an Arab state without Jews in it), then don’t even pretend to keep it a secret when called on the means necessary to achieve that result (murdering most of the Jews and expelling the rest which is what the Arabs promised in 1948)

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Again and again I’ve seen the Palestinian side equated to the Germans during WWII and their civilian loses equated to those of Dresden. That is, their leadership is ultimately responsible for having started the war while the party that inflicted the firebombing is absolved of moral responsibility. Of course, the Zionist-Arab conflict didn’t start in 1948, and the Zionists were the ones who wanted an imperialist power to invade Palestine and keep it afterwards in the hopes it would achieve a Jewish state for them, so it’s pretty clear cut to me who’s responsible for the conflict.

            And going by the rules of the Dresden bombing, which I don’t necessarily subscribe to, the Zionists are ultimately responsible for their own civilian casualties. They used whatever limited means were available to achieve an aim that would clearly amount to aggression had they been an armed force from day one. This is one consequence of the Balfour Decl. no one seems to think through, it was military invasion by proxy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            I rest my case.

            I just hate your kind of one eyed biased research in which you overlook everything wrong that Arabs did but magnify or invent wrongs that Jews did.

            Reply to Comment
    6. directrob

      Well written piece, and by the way it is a shame these are called peace negotiations. Just two superpowers acting as one to cheat indiginous have nots of their rights, before the rule of law can have its say.

      Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        As opposed to how the Arab people ended up occupying half the known world, right Directrob? They did it by honest conquests and forced religious conversion of the native populations of the Middle East and North Africa.

        Oh but wait, I forgot. In the seventh century it was all Kosher and above board to do it. But the gradual return of the Jewish people to our ancestral homeland was not legitimate because when it began, in the 19th century, there were maybe about 400,000 Arabs living in Palestine and only a few Jews who lived here from time immemorial.

        But hey,what was allowed in the 7th century to be gained by the sword was no longer legitimate even by immigration. But what would I know? I am an un enlightened dirty Zionist but you folks who profess the leftist religion are the pure hearted custodians of morality.

        Reply to Comment
        • Y-Man

          How do you think the Jews of lore took over the land of Canaan? Did they just sprout out of the dirt of modern-day Israel? Did they just use Talmudic logic to force the previous peoples who lived there to bow to their rule? Please, do tell.

          Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Yea, thanks for making my point, Y-Man. The whole history of mankind is a litany of conquests and settling on conquered lands. For, real man, I ain’t kidding you.

            The Arab conquests of the 7th century, North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand just to name a few.

            But what is the greatest crime committed by anyone? You guessed it, Jews immigrating (returning) to lands which we conquered about 4000 years ago and which was ours for about 3000 years. Suddenly that’s dirty play because we took over from Arabs who conquered the same land in the 7th century and didn’t even hold onto it for too long because they in turn were conquered by the Ottoman Turks who were in turn conquered by the Brits. But go figure, we Jews are the guiltiest of all the conquerors because it happened too late.

            A bit like musical chairs, right Y-Man? The Arabs are already sitting on 22 chairs and they want the 23rd chair too, Palestine. Because by the 1850s, it was too late for Jews to claim ONE, just ONE chair for ourselves because 400,000 Arab people grabbed it for the Arab people for eternity, right, Y-Man? What possessed us? what were we thinking?

            Reply to Comment
          • sh

            We were thinking that it would go on like that. Unfortunately the very disaster that befell the Jews between 1933 and 1945 changed the rules – including those of conquest by brute force. In particular, uni-ethnic nations became old hat. For a start-up nation, we’re having an uncommon amount of trouble understanding progress.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Yes Sh. I understand. The music has stopped in the musical chairs game and we Jews attempted to sit down after it stopped.

            So by rights, the Arabs deserve 23 chairs and we deserve none. I understand where you are coming from but I don’t think we should play by YOUR rules. I think your rules are unfair.

            I must be daft, but I don’t see why your rules permit 22 largely mono ethnic and by and large Islamic Arab states but there is no room for ONE only ONE state where the Jewish people are a majority. Not even mono ethnic, just a majority. Hey, we are a minority everywhere else. And in historic terms it didn ‘t work all that well for us.

            Tell me that I am wrong about how things worked for us as a minority, Sh, and I will show you a liar.

            Reply to Comment
          • directrob

            I think SH wrote all that needed to be written.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            I think Tzutzik wrote all that needs to be written.

            Reply to Comment
          • directrob

            And much more than that, tzutzik writes more than the bloggers and I do not think he helps Israels cause.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            No I am sure he doesn’t. Neither do you.

            Tzutzik on the other hand, I suspect, has come to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter because to some people the facts don’t matter. They want Israel to be wrong about everything and no matter what the facts are, they will say that Israel is wrong.

            So, I don’t think Tzutzik can do much harm. You can’t break what is already broken.

            Reply to Comment
          • sh

            You are wrong about the conclusions you have drawn, Tzutzik. Most of the 22 countries of which you speak are countries within which live not only Muslims of various denominations and ethnic origins but an equally varied array of Christians. Jews of various denominations and ethnic origins lived in many of them too until undercover operations were launched with a view to persuading them to come to Israel. Those 22 countries are far from homogeneous and are not only capable of going to war against each other, they are sometimes internally riven by civil war. So much for “the Arabs” having 22 monocultural/ethnic countries.

            I would remind you that the subject here is the Palestinians. who not only have no country although they are found by the world to be entitled to one, but have suffered, at the most conservative estimate, 47 years of increasingly cruel abuse under our thumb (and arguably more than that if you count from their provoked exodus in 1948).

            Finally, you don’t know my rules, I haven’t confided them to you. But in case your clumsy hints are intended to strip me of my personal family heritage, you’re out of luck. In full awareness of how the memory of hapless victims (of a nation that overestimated and misused its talents in an attempt to turn itself and the countries around it into a vast mono-ethnic culture) is constantly abused by people with your rules, you won’t be surprised to learn how completely I reject them.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Most of the 22 countries of which you speak are countries within which live not only Muslims of various denominations and ethnic origins”

            All countries have minorities. Israel too has 20% of Arab citizens. So If you don’t consider Arab countries mono ethnic, why do you use different standards for Israel?

            “Jews of various denominations and ethnic origins lived in many of them too until undercover operations were launched with a view to persuading them to come to Israel.”

            Yes, the Jews were at fault oops, I mean the Zionists, I forgot that the new code word in polite society for Jews is Zionists. Yes, the Zionists were at fault for the violent expulsion of nearly 1 million Jews from Arab countries.

            “I would remind you that the subject here is the Palestinians. who not only have no country”

            But they could have had their own country several times over. Pity that they chose to make war against the Jews instead. Consequently we hold on to their potential country till they are ready to sign a peace deal and undertake not to start more wars.

            “Finally, you don’t know my rules,”

            No but you made yourself clear. The music has stopped and the Jews should now be obedient little court Jews and do as we are told. It is now too late in history for us to live in a majority Jewish state. Only Arabs are allowed to have majority Arab states, 23 of them to be exact. Not us though, isn’t that what you said Sh?

            Reply to Comment
          • sh

            “All countries have minorities. Israel too has 20% of Arab citizens. So If you don’t consider Arab countries mono ethnic, why do you use different standards for Israel?”
            I am using the same standards. Israel, as it defines itself on its own maps, is minority Jewish. That’s why some Israelis are in a bit of a lather. http://www.israelnsp.org/what-they-say/status-quo-is-dangerous/israels-demographic-challen.html
            Like most if not all of those 22 countries, Israel is not the western democracy it likes to boast. Like some of those 22, it brutally suppresses its downtrodden majorities in order to rule.

            “I forgot that the new code word in polite society for Jews is Zionists.”
            No, the code word in polite and impolite anglophone society for Jews is Jews. Since without the existence of non-Jewish Zionists, Israel wouldn’t be here at all, the use of the word Zionist to define Jews is typical of ignorant, or dishonest societies.

            “Pity that they chose to make war against the Jews instead. ”
            Some Palestinians may have in 1948 (not entirely without reason, and not that they had an army to make war with, mind you) but they certainly didn’t in 1967. Did that initial docility make any difference in our attitude towards them? Not a bit of it.

            “The music has stopped and the Jews should now be obedient little court Jews and do as we are told.”
            That you tarnish the word music in this way is as offensive as the rest of the sentence. Until recently, Jews were brought up to (at least try to) love their neighbors as they do themselves, to assert their right to Torah “im derekh eretz”, use their brains instead of their fists. In the long run, the tired little trope circulated by people of your persuasion hopefully won’t tarnish the couple of thousand years spent keeping the Jewish religion and culture alive peaceably.

            “Only Arabs are allowed to have majority Arab states, 23 of them to be exact. Not us though, isn’t that what you said Sh?
            No. You are milking the word Arab to oppose it to Jewish. Skilful perhaps, but misleading. Especially as in Jewish Israel, the word Arab has been domesticated to become synonymous with Muslim, to promote the idea that Arab is a “they” that cannot ever be “us” and that it offers us a “we” that cannot ever be “them”. In several of the 22 (not 23), minorities rule the majority. Take a good look at Syria, Lebanon (which gets by by cooking its books in ways as accomplished as ours), Bahrain, Yemen.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Sh, you claim that Israel is not a democracy. Here are the two questions I have for you:

            (a) what is a democracy?
            (b) how does Israel not fit in that definition/description?

            You agree with me, don’t you that it is unfair to smear Israel without just cause. So, Sh, let’s hear your arguments.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Israel, as it defines itself on its own maps, is minority Jewish.”

            BS. How do you arrive at this conclusion? By creative accounting? Israel would have been majority Jewish within the borders that Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians in 2000/2001. Ditto within the borders that Olmert offered them in 2008. But alas the Palis were not satisfied with either border. So what do you want, Sh? You want to offer them the Right of Return. And after that, sure, we could eventually end up with the 23rd majority Arab state.

            Fortunately though, we (most Israelis) won’t listen to the likes of you, Sh.

            Reply to Comment
    7. danni ashe

      “What possessed us? what were we thinking?”

      You weren’t thinking, Tzutzik. You had been panicked into a stampede by the actions of some frenzied ideologues from within your own ranks, who themselves were merely stooges of large-scale criminal interests. Ordinary Israelis are simply hostages. Including you, Tzutzik, sitting in your Shinbet cubicle, working for peanuts, serving your masters. Sad, really. The Jews used to be respected as an intelligent people.

      Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        “The Jews used to be respected as an intelligent people.”

        What? We used to be respected?

        Heavens above, I wish that kind of respect on other people for a change (or preferably no one). We no longer want the kind of respect that you are talking about. We had enough of it, do you understand, Danni?

        Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          Hey Danni

          Do you think Norway is a civilised enlightened European country? Yes?

          Well guess what! Till 1851, Norway had a law which prohibited Jews from living in Norway. That was before the birth of Modern Zionism, Israel, occupation and “settlements” or other assorted charges that so easily roll off your collective tongues against us nowdays. Yet that’s the kind of “respect” that Jewish people received. And most other European and Arab lands were no better, some were worse …

          So, after a while it became obvious to us that we need to return to our own ancestral homeland where we won’t need to put up with the kind of “respect” that Europeans and Arabs were giving us and where we were in the position to defend ourselves.

          Reply to Comment
          • Lev Kamenev

            Like any country,Norway can do what it likes within its own borders.
            Since AD250 Jews were expelled from other peoples’ nations 109 times.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Fine then but then don’t let people like Danni pretend that Jews were respected before Israel was born.

            Reply to Comment
          • lev kamenev

            True, unless you include ‘fear’ as a form of ‘respect’.

            What would you conclude if you walked into a pub and a strange guy just punched you, for nothing? You’d conclude that you’d been unlucky. And what if that happened 109 times? Would you conclude that all pubs everywhere are filled with madmen? Of would you look in the mirror and say, ‘why me’?

            Reply to Comment
    8. Tzutzik

      “From accepting a state on 22 percent of Mandate Palestine to Israel’s facts-on-the-ground in the West bank and the loss of rights for refugees”

      I love this 22% myth. Try this little experiment though:

      On Monday, two kids, Isaac and Ishmael are promised a share of a birthday cake.

      On Wednesday, along comes uncle Britain, cuts off 80% of the cake and gives it to Ishmael’s first cousin, Little Jordan.

      On Friday, the remaining 20% of the cake is to be split and as it turns out, after a long tussle, In which Ismael attempts to snatch the whole 20% for himself, Isaac manages instead to wrest 78% of the 20% for himself.

      Then, Ismael starts spewing and screaming that it isn’t fair for him to end up with only 22% of the cake.

      Little Jordan and their numerous other cousins who have lots of other cakes back him up. And so do many of the so called adults. They claim that little Isaac dudded Ismael’s family.

      Hint
      ——
      Prior to 1929, Jordan was known as East Palestine. Then Britain, gave East Palestine (which was 80% of historic Palestine) to the Hashemite ruler who claimed to be the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, PBUH. And today, a large portion of Jordan’s population are Palestinian Arabs.

      Reply to Comment
    9. danni ashe

      The modern day Israeli is like the proverbial mushroom; kept in the dark and fed bullshit.

      Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        “The modern day Israeli is like the proverbial mushroom; kept in the dark and fed bullshit.”

        Oh, you are such a poet aren’t you, Danni? Did you dream this sentence up all by yourself? Nah, you plagiarised it.

        Now here is some homework for you. Do a bit of long overdue reading of history. Click on the link below;

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews

        This wasn’t compiled by Israel and if you are not lazy, you can do your own research. It is backed up by most respectable history books.

        Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          Oh and, Danni, here is a link to the home page of one of Norway’s most famous poets. He wasn’t Jewish or Israeli but in his time, he was a man of conscience. Read about what he fought for and accept that what I said about Norway wasn’t just a lie fed to me as an Israeli.

          http://valhalla.norden.org/news-archive/wergeland2008-2013-nettsted-om-den-norske-poeten-en?set_language=en

          This might jolt you out of your denial. Then again, I won’t be holding my breath. You seem to be the type who only does selective reading to reinforce your preconceived views. Sad.

          Reply to Comment
      • shachalnur

        I agree with Danni,Israeli’s are in the dark,and you(tzutzik)accusing anybody of “selective reading to reinforce your preconceived views”is a bit of a joke coming from you.

        Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          “I agree with Danni,Israeli’s are in the dark,”

          Context my man context … you might agree with Danni’s words but not necessarily for the same reasons.

          As for us being in the dark. Maybe, hey, we are all in the dark about some things some of the time. After all we are human, even if some people don’t see us as such (no, I don’t mean you of course Shachalnur)

          “and you(tzutzik)accusing anybody of “selective reading to reinforce your preconceived views”is a bit of a joke coming from you.”

          Now this is a bit of sour grapes coming from you. I did read most if not all of the reading list that you gave me but hey we disagree.

          Didn’t I warn you right from the beginning that we would probably end up agreeing to disagree? How do you think I knew that in advance? Could it be because I was already aware of some of the stuff that you were trying to get me to agree to?

          Actually, I didn’t even completely disagree with you. I just thought that your interpretation of the facts are a bit too simplistic. I on the other hand believe that it is not possible to predict exact cloud formations in advance. There are too many variables and imponderables if you get my drift.

          Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            clever.

            simplistic interpretation?

            Never gave you my interpretations,gave you facts,and I never heard you contradict or explain anything Chaitkin wrote,for example.

            “The People that requested their own enslavement”,that’s a real problem,as there are more of these symbolical actions.

            Try essential-intelligence,I suspect an Israeli psy-op,see my ideas are quiet normal,just unknown amongst Jews.

            Cognitive dissonance,remember.

            eppur si muove.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Never gave you my interpretations,gave you facts,and I never heard you contradict or explain anything Chaitkin wrote,for example.”

            I did explain my opinion and I expressed scepticism about some of his opinions. Go have a look again.

            You didn’t like what I said? What do you want me to do about it? Agree with you even if I don’t really agree with you?

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Chaitkin ,like me,deals in facts.

            Expressing your scepticism about his “opinions”.

            You haven’t contradicted os explained any of the facts stated anywhere in these articles.

            That’s why I said Danni Ashe is right,you and ginger are paid trolls,meesing up the commentboard and sending people in the wrong direction.

            You’re a (paid) cheerleader for the Nazi’s,keeping Jews in the dark and whipping up hate against Jews in general ,because your lies and manipulation of information and comments makes any normal person sick.

            People worldwide hate Zionists,you are making sure they hate all Jews.

            There’s too many of you,like there were too many of you before WW2.

            Bankerslave,that’s what you are,betraying Judaism for some monay and power.

            You make me puke.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Wow Shachalnur, you are a twit. Who would have thunk so. And to think that at one stage I thought that you sounded half intelligent.

            Get a grip and stop throwing tantrums because not everyone draws the same conclusions that you draw from bits and pieces of information that you come across in the net.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “People worldwide hate Zionists”

            Really? Only people who think that Jews have no right to live in their own independent state as a free people hate Zionists.

            And who are those people? Those people are the same people who fight tooth and nail for the right of every other liberation movement. Everyone except Jews. So really, they don’t hate Zionists, they hate Jews. And you seem to be one of those people.

            But never mind. There are lots of people out there who love Zionists. And they will overcome you lot.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            shmuel,

            “my lot” will stop tembeliem like you killing what’s left of Judaism.

            That a part of Judaism wants to commit suicide,that’s your problem,don’t drag the rest of us down with you.

            Happy Samson-option to you,Jews that will never sign up to your Nazi- culture will overcome Banker slaves like you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            Your lot will assimilate into your surroundings within a generation or so. Unfortunately, your kind (the hating kind) will turn into the worst kind of Jew hater because converted Jews who hate fellow Jews (Zionists) for being Jews (Zionists) are the worst kind of haters.

            Our hope is that most of the rest of the diaspora Jews will join us here in Israel and will become useful happy citizens. Sadly many won’t. Of the ones who will stay in the diaspora, the religious Jews will survive as Jews and hopefully they will live in peace. The non religious ones will inevitably shed their Judaism but hopefully won’t hate us. There are many good examples of Jewish converts who ended up helping Jews later on.

            You, I haven’t got much hope for.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            shmuel,

            En lega moesag,misken.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            Volecha yes?

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            That’s Hebrew?

            Try Jiddish!

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Jiddish?”

            That’s not how you spell it. It’s spelt Yiddish. Don’t you know anything, Shakhalnur?

            And no, he didn’t speak Yiddish, he said:

            “And you have?”

            His spelling was wrong too. He should have said:

            “Yesh” instead of “Yes”.

            But hey there are no hard and fast rules when you try to write Hebrew words in English.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            I know what he was trying to say but two mistakes in two words is a lot for someone claiming to be Israeli.

            “Vo”? “yes”?

            Never heard from Shmulik again,maybe just another Khazar from the US claiming to be something he’s not,after all this is the Net.

            Too many people cheerleading war,hate and exceptionalism,too many people urging Israel to start wars and provocking others to hate Jews.

            So he calls himself Shmuel from Israel,but no knowledge and no Hebrew,so for me just another war mongerer of dubious pedigree.

            Yesh mevien?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Yesh Mevin”

            Now that is poor Hebrew.

            “Vo” means “and”. You tell me how to spell the letter “vav” in English?

            You seem to be the pot calling the kettle black. Who are you really? A paid Arab agent who speaks a bit of Hebrew, maybe?

            Where is Samuel, you ask? I read his post in which he said you are not worth arguing with. I must admit he seems to be cleverer than I am. But hey, I get a kick out of arguing with you Shachalnur, sue me. LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            You’re confusing me.

            Might you be another secular imported Khazar acting as the leader of the Jewish people?

            There’s too many of you,taking over Judaism,speaking for Jews world wide,war mongering-,Islamofobic Westerners trying to impose your erronious version of what Judaism is.

            Save your Hebrew lessons for the Birthright Blondies being converted fast track as we speak.

            Ve’achsjaw yesh mevien,Tzutile?

            Ve ma ani? Ez?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “erronious version of what Judaism”

            “erronious”? Now your English is slipping, LOL.

            As for your Khazar slur, nothing more to be said. You are a racist pro Arab polemicist here to mess with the minds of your enemies (as Samuel rightly said).

            But why am I surprised? At one stage I did pick up on the fact that you concurred with your racist buddy before you hastily corrected yourself just so you could lead me by the nose a bit longer. I should have heeded my gut feel then but hey we all make mistakes.

            Now you lifted your mask you racist pig.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Well,at least you admit you think Jews are a race.

            And since you defend Shmuel,who made an utterly racist remark against Jews from Arab countries on this page,you condone this line of thought.

            The Ringworm Affair,The Yemeni Babies,forced Depo Proveera are more examples of Shmuel’s ideology.

            So ,if you’re in his camp,I’ll treat you the same way.

            You already said your your uncle Misha Brith Mila is thinking for you……it shows.

            Sei Gesund.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Well,at least you admit you think Jews are a race.”

            Bloody oath we are a race. I sm a Semite what are you? Most of us are, except our converts of which we have some too. Nothing wrong with that of course except for racists like you.

            I know you are not an Arab either because Arabs are Semites as well. They are our cousins even though they don’t want to admit it.

            You on the other hand sound to be a multi lingual chameleon with an agenda, who is not really a master of any of the languages that you pretend to speak. Could it be that you are a relic of the old KGB who taught you to speak Dutch, English and Hebrew in Russian KGB school? None of them well of course.

            How much money are you getting for your efforts, Shachalnur? I didn’t know the KGB is still actively meddling in other people’s lives.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Da,mucho Rubles.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Da,mucho Rubles.”

            I hope you can buy with it a nice Dacha? Enjoy the blood money.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “And since you defend Shmuel,who made an utterly racist remark against Jews from Arab countries”

            Who is Shmuel? Do you mean Samuel?

            Yes, I identify with Samuel. But I didn’t see him make any racist remark.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “You’re confusing me.”

            No I am not. You were born confused as we all were. Problem is, unlike the rest of us YOU stayed confused, Shachalnur.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Da Da Da,ich lieb dich nicht ,du liebst mich nicht Aha Aha Aha

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Da Da Da,ich lieb dich nicht ,du liebst mich nicht Aha Aha Aha”

            Now you seem to be imploding. Push alt control delete or you will melt down. LOL.

            Reply to Comment
    10. danni ashe

      I don’t mean you, Tzutzik. Nobody respects you.

      Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        “I don’t mean you, Tzutzik. Nobody respects you.”

        The feeling is mutual. Rest assured.

        Reply to Comment
    11. danni ashe

      “He wasn’t Jewish or Israeli but in his time, he was a man of conscience.”

      Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        “He wasn’t Jewish or Israeli but in his time, he was a man of conscience.”

        Yes? Any objection to that sentence, Danni?

        You said Jewish people used to be respected.

        You said we Israelis are fed BS.

        This guy wasn’t Jewish or Israeli yet he recognised that Jews were not respected. In his time, he was the exception to the rule. He felt compassion towards the Jewish people.

        I am sure you read something much more malicious intent into my sentence. Supremacism, perhaps? Because that is your preconceived notion about us. But now that I spelt it out for you, do you still object to my sentence?

        Of course you do why am I surprised …

        Reply to Comment
        • lev kamenev

          “He wasn’t Jewish or Israeli but in his time, he was a man of conscience.”

          I apologize for extrapolating any supremacist sentiment from your sentence, Tzutzik. I now understand that wasn’t your intention. I was misled by your use of English. The way it’s written, supremacist sentiment is precisely what is implied.

          Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “supremacist sentiment is precisely what is implied”

            Yes because that’s what YOU wanted it to imply coming from me. And I bet you still believe that even though I explained that it did not mean that. But who cares.

            Now, are you going to respond to my question as to why Jewish children and babies too were hated in your proverbial pubs? Did they too bring such hatred upon themselves that they deserved to be murdered?

            What’s the matter Lev? The cat cut your tongue?

            Reply to Comment
    12. shachalnur

      Even if they manage to get something on paper,these negotiations are fake ,and for public consumption.

      The real game is that the US is trying to set up all sides against each other(Israel-PA,Europe-Russia,Israel-Iran,Sunni-Shia in Lebanon,Syria and Iraq)

      All parties are trying to get the US out of their face,and it’s not easy to get the bully to split.

      All peace negotiations are part of Leon Stauss’ Chaos theory.

      Don’t worry about Israel-PA,that will be solved when the US is kicked out of the Middle East.

      The real danger is in Syria and Ukraine,these conflicts could blow up the world.

      To read more about the background try a site called essential-intelligence,run by pro-Israel,anti- globalist people.

      99% correct ,as any good psy-op intelligence site,for you to pick the lies.

      What we’re being fed by the MSM is all smoke and mirrors,to keep the sheeple busy.

      The real war is invisible,the visible war is an illusion

      Reply to Comment
      • shachalnur

        Michelle Bachmann today;

        “American Jews sold out Israel for Obama”.

        She was referring to the Lobby,AIPAC.

        At least one is aware what’s going on and speaks out.

        Reply to Comment
    13. The Trespasser

      “due to the fact that the Palestinians and Israel differ greatly in power and position: one being the occupied, the other the occupier that maintains an “unbreakable bond” with the world’s only military superpower.”

      1) USA is not the world’s only military superpower. Russia is vast, has very advanced weapons and historically ruthless army, while China has more troops than Russia and USA combined and could occupy them both within a month.

      2) Palestinians, by definition, have an unbreakable bond with the rest of the Arab world. I strongly recommend authors of this piece to read Palestine National Charter of 1964.


      Article 1. Palestine is an Arab homeland bound by strong Arab national ties to the rest of the Arab Countries and which together form the great Arab homeland.

      Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people has the legitimate right to its homeland and is an inseparable part of the Arab Nation. It shares the sufferings and aspirations of the Arab Nation and its struggle for freedom, sovereignty, progress and unity.

      Article 13: The destiny of the Arab Nation and even the essence of Arab existence are firmly tied to the destiny of the Palestine question … The people of Palestine assume a vanguard role in achieving this sacred national goal.
      http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/pid/12363

      “The territory of Israel already covers 78 percent of the former Palestine Mandate”

      Over 50% of territory of 1948 Israel are uninhabitable deserts of Negev and Edom.

      “… a Palestinian state will never comprise more than 22 percent of Mandate Palestine.”

      Or about 40% of inhabitable lands of Mandate Palestine.

      “Accepting this unequal distribution is by far the greatest Palestinian concession, made by late PLO-leader Yasser Arafat when he formally agreed to a two-state solution in 1988.”

      Formally agreed, yet never tried to implement. Worthless.

      “As a condition for admission … Israel accepted UN Resolution 194, which stipulates that Palestinians who fled or were expelled … have the right of return. Israel has not respected this obligation.”

      1) UNGA resolutions are non-binding in their nature.
      2) It does not seem that there is a sufficient number of Palestinian Arab refugees who wish to “live at peace with their neighbours”

      “…and confiscated the land they left behind, without compensation.”

      No one had ever asked for or agreed to accept compensation.

      “The chance that large numbers of Palestinians will be allowed to return under a future two-state deal is nil. That is the second – forced – “concession” from the Palestinian side.”

      What is being forced is the international law, which allowed Jews to create a nation-state in Palestine and as long as Palestinian Arabs defy the international law there is no reason for them to enjoy the protection of it. Hardly a concession. One either play by the rules or remain outside the game.

      >… in clear violation of international law.

      Not quite entirely clear at all. Merely, based on one of interpretations of the 4th Geneva convention, while accordingly to the letter of the convention, Palestine is not occupied because there was no actual sovereign at the time Israel took control of parts of it.

      >Israel appears to take it for granted that the international community and the Palestinians should just accept that these facts-on-the-ground will, “unfortunately,” not be undone.

      The international community and Tibetans just accept Chinese facts on the ground.

      “A fourth forced “concession” concerns Jerusalem, which according to the UN, should have been placed under international administration …Thus it is a virtual fait accompli that a future Palestinian state will not have the whole of East Jerusalem as its capital.”

      Do you guy even read your own writing? Jerusalem was never intended to be a capital of Palestinian state.

      >Therefore, this should not be a subject for endless negotiations.

      What negotiations? No one is even thinking about Gaza-Westbank freeway now.

      >Israel insists that Palestine must become fully demilitarized, that its air force be allowed unrestricted use of Palestinian airspace and that its army maintain a presence in the Jordan Valley. Such conditions would be unacceptable for any independent state.

      “Furthermore, the Palestinian state is no less entitled to security”

      Not really. No one is calling for its destruction.

      “such as guarantees that a heavily armed neighbour does not barge in whenever it pleases.”

      That’s just purest 100% nonsense crystallized. Palestine won’t ever have even 10% of Israeli military budget, nor there is a chance that Palestinian high-tech would offer breakthrough ways of warfare.

      >All this illustrates the impossible situation in which Palestinian negotiators find themselves.

      95 years ago the situation was quite a bit more impossible for Jews.

      The difference between Arab and Jewish approach in this case is that Jews sought state, while Arabs are looking for a way to get rid of Jews.

      “They must defend the interests of a small people”

      Palestinian Arabs are not a “small people”. There is about 400 000 000 Arabs worldwide.

      “occupied for almost 50 years by a state with one of the strongest armies in the world.”

      Israeli army is one of most combat efficient, however it is far from strongest. Only in this region Turkey and Iran have armies at least as strong. Israel would not even make it to top ten.

      “and that enjoys the unconditional support of the only remaining military superpower.”

      Hardly USA is the only remaining military superpower. Russia, and China are at least as strong.

      “How can Palestinians under such conditions ensure that a final peace agreement leaves them with the very minimum to which they are entitled?”

      The “very minimum to which they are entitled” is currently being offered, however Palestinians want much more.

      >It is clear that the European Union urgently needs to actively commit itself to a solution that is acceptable to the Palestinians and not only for Israel.

      The only solution that is acceptable to ALL Palestinian Arab is Judenfrei Palestine. It is very unlikely that EU would support that position.

      >That means an agreement that gives them the bare minimum to which they are entitled: not one square meter less than 22 percent of the original Palestine, the entirety of East Jerusalem as their capital, a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank and a just solution to the refugee problem.

      1) What exactly is the original Palestine?
      2) Palestinian Arabs were never entitled for capital in East Jerusalem
      3) Corridor between Gaza and WB is not needed until there is Palestinian unity government
      4) A just solution to the refugee problem would be resettlement in host states plus compensation for lost property.

      Reply to Comment
    14. lev kamenev

      I am still waiting for a reply to my question, Tzutzik. If you like, I’ll repeat it:
      What would you conclude if you walked into a pub and a strange guy just punched you, for nothing? You’d conclude that you’d been unlucky. And what if that happened 109 times? Would you conclude that all pubs everywhere are filled with madmen? Of would you look in the mirror and say, ‘why me’?

      Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        Why Lev, of course you are right. Everything is the Jooos fault. Even Jewish children and babies were at fault. That’s why they were not spared in periodic pogroms and in the biggest pogrom of all 70 years ago in Europe.

        Then again could it be that I am a target in that neighorhood because of malicious incitement against me like the charge of deicide? You have heard of the term, haven’t you Lev? Then again, maybe not only have you heard of it but you might agree with it, right, Lev? In which case I better anticipate a punch from you too and prepare to return the compliment.

        Reply to Comment
        • lev kamenev

          “….it be that I am a target in that neighorhood because of malicious incitement against me…”

          Sounds like a conspiracy theory, Tzutzik. Perhaps that was the case in one location at one time period. But over 1700 years, in multiple locations? That might be too much for any jury to believe.

          Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Yes, the charge of Deicide was levelled against us for 1700 years, maybe longer. You mean you haven’t heard of it?

            Oh and there were other charges too because of it. Have you heard the one about Jews having caused the plague? That we drink the blood of poor unsuspecting gentile children every Passover? Funny that you brought up the conspiracy theory, we were subject to those many times. Even today.

            I bet, your theory is different eh, Lev? According to you we are all filthy rich and exploit everyone else, right? And we are all communists too and we cause everyone else to go to wars. Which ones do you subscribe to Lev?

            I like the one about us all being filthy rich and communists at the same time. Especially the bit about ” … all Jews …”

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            And Lev …

            I am still waiting about your response as to why Jewish Children and babies had to be murdered. What sins exactly did they commit? Why were they hated so?

            Or did I just invent that charge? Is that just a conspiracy theory on my part?

            Reply to Comment
          • lev kamenev

            A tip for your section commanders: drop the dead baby, deicide and blood-drinking shtick. These memes no longer resonate with people. Look for other straw-man accusations.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “A tip for your section commanders: drop the dead baby, deicide and blood-drinking shtick. These memes no longer resonate with people. Look for other straw-man accusations.”

            I don’t take tips from the likes of you Lev. You only speak for yourself and like minded haters. Decent people out there, the majority of the world, know what happened. It is the 21st century, the age of mass communication. And people are aware of how we were treated by folk like you. It is well documented and you can no longer pull the wool over the eyes of decent people.

            But I know you won’t stop trying. And I know you have new schticks up your sleeves. Holocaust denial is passe though. Try something different.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Well Lev? ….

            You were so keen to press me for an answer before. Why are you so silent now?

            Reply to Comment
    15. Tzutzik

      I just love the “high” standard of debating of some of the people who post around here. According to one of them, I am a troll even though I was the only one who backed up my points with links and facts. But here is the standard of debating that I faced …

      – He is a talentless Shin Beth agent paid to do a job here ….

      – Jews were respected till eeeeeevvviiiiiil Zionists like him came along …

      – Jews are the most privileged people on this earth …

      – Jews brought all the hatred upon themselves …

      – Israelis are kept in the dark and fed on BS …

      LOL, there was more but I’ll stop here, I just can’t handle the pressure. You guys are too much for a talentless hack like me.

      Reply to Comment
      • Hdave

        You’re responding to the comments of one person and trying to imply that those comments came from everyone. That’s not true, if i scroll up, i can see plenty of respectful debate with yourself and others
        Neither side is homogenous masses. I support the right of jews to justice and equal rights in the country of their birth (yes including Israel). I support the rights of jews to return to any homes they were expelled from. I support the rights of jews to be able to vote for/against the power that controls them.
        Can you make the above statements and exchange ‘jews’ for ‘Palestinians’. I’m guessing you can’t or won’t and this is the fundamental weakness of zionist arguments, they are not universal principles, they are ethno-specific. If you got kicked out of your home tomorrow you would support the right of return for yourself, and so you should. The only difference in your support for the right of return is the ethnicity or religion of the person requesting that inalienable right and this makes your argument truly weak as it deviates from humankinds most engrained principles of fairness – the golden rule

        Reply to Comment
        • Samuel

          “You’re responding to the comments of one person and trying to imply that those comments came from everyone.”

          Actually, if you would have done your homework you would know that the comments did come from a number of different posters. Not necessarily everyone, but quite a few. But I guess it is just a bit easier to shoot your mouth off and pretend otherwise, right Hadav?

          As for the right of return, no there won’t be any. Get over it. Israel is not obliged to let in millions of people who were brainwashed from birth to believe that Israel has no right to exist. No other country would behave differently especially since Israel also had to absorb nearly a million Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

          Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            shmuel,

            “A million Jewish refugees form Arab countries”?

            1. They were bombed and scared into Israel by the Mossad.

            2.more than 100.000 Marrocan Jewish children had their heads bombarded by X-rays up to 25.000 times save dosage,in an experiment paid for by the US navy and the Rockefeller foundation.Hundreds died ,thousands are still suffering the effects.(The Ringworm affair)
            read about it on Barry Chamish site,a Zionist Jew,or Israeli newspapers.

            3.Yemeni Jewish children,at least hundreds were taken away from their parents,put up for adoption for infertile Ashkenazi Jews,and a few hundred were shipped to the US for nuclear experiments of the US army.
            nobody ever heard fo them again.All paid for by US army and rockefeller foundation.
            Barry Chamish,Rabbi Meshulam,+972 magazine,israeli newspapers)

            It’s called “Eugenics”and it’s alive and well in Israel as well.

            Recently; Depo Proveera forced on Ethiopian women and unjustified vaccine experiments maiming 700 young Israeli soldiers.

            You’re ignorance makes me puke.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            Lying is cheap. Keep it up, you will convince all the ones who want to be convinced.

            This happens in all wars. It is called psychological warfare and propaganda. Or in plain terms, trying to mess with your enemy’s mind.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            You’re not my enemy,you’re just ignorant, in denial and a danger to your fellow Jews.

            cognitive dissonance is a b&tch.

            What exactly is the lie in the above post?

            Just screaming it’s all lies is not enough,prove it!

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “You’re not my enemy …”

            Not much. If you are not his enemy then I hate to think what his enemies are like.

            Reply to Comment
    16. danni ashe

      Admit it, Lev, you’ve been outgunned by Tzutzik here. His Verbosity has simply overwhelmed your Reason. And when he pulled out the dead-babies, well it was game-over for all thinking people.

      Reply to Comment
      • shachalnur

        Dead babies,end of discussion?

        Ever heard of the “Ringworm affair”(Marrocan Jewish children),and the “Missing Yemini Babies”,Depo Proveera for Ethyopian Jewish Women,unneccesary vaccine tests on 700 young Israeli soldiers,maiming most of them for life.

        You don’t need Nazi’s to kill Jewish babies,the Israeli government does it for you,paid for by the US Army and the Rockefeller Foundation.

        Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          The ringworm affair I am a bit sceptical about. I gave you a link why.

          The rest, I don’t know. But if your allegations are true then heads should roll for it.

          But we discussed this already. Are you now bringing it up as an excuse for what happened to Jews in the Holocaust and before?

          Did you know why I brought up the Jewish babies? Because our Lev here claimed that we Jews brought all that hatred on ourselves.

          So I felt the need to ask him, yes but what did Jewish babies and children do to bring all that hatred upon themselves? Why was there a need to murder them?

          Could it be that your response is that since 60 years later some Jews in Israel committed some crimes, the murder of Jewish kids 60 years earlier was justified?

          Nah, I don’t think you would be so stupid that you would think like that would yah, Shachalnur? So why did you butt in, without reading the context of what transpired before?

          Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Your link on the Ringworm affair is a joke,it doesn’t give any explanation or proof that contradicts the facts stated by Barry Chamish and many others.

            And I don’t think you will find another link,since these are facts ,and that’s difficult to debunk.

            The rest you don’t know,as you admit,and that doesn’t seem to be a problem for you,your ignorance is not a burden to you,but it is very dangerous to all other Jews..

            Ignorance and blind cheerleading the Zionists killed millions of Jews in WW2,and you’re doing it again.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “Ignorance and blind cheerleading the Zionists killed millions of Jews in WW2,and you’re doing it again.”

            Hmmmm, another lunatic pro Arab propagandist. Rant on my man, rant on. Who do you think you will convince? Your fellow revisionist historians maybe. Not any sane person.

            You are not even worth arguing with. I sense too much teeth gnashing and foaming of the mouth. Take your medications.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            I don’t understand what the “Arab propagandist” stuff has to do with it ,but “lunatic” for sure.

            And we’re taking over the asylum.

            In Israel the Supreme Court has just decided to take the Israeli population off part of their medication(fluoride in tapwater),and that’s good news.

            Fluoride damages your teeth and your brain.

            Still ,Israeli children are amongst the most vaccinated in the world(brain-and immunesystem damage) and just had their shot of very dangerous OPV,Oral (attenuated)Polio Vaccine(brain- and nervous system damage),and drink their milk,and everything else, from plastic packing (BPA).

            It’s called “Eugenics”,please educate yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • IlonJ

            Alas, poor Yorrick, I knew him well.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            “Though this be madness,yet there is method in’t.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Your slip is beginning to show Shachalnur. And a seasoned troll like me cannot miss seeing it.

            Poor Shachalnur.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Are you talking about my underwear,tzutzile?

            That’s kind of sick,told you to watch out with tapwater and vaccines.

            You’re not seasoned,you’re overripe.

            You’re no troll,you are an embarrassment.

            I know you are trying to do good,but man ,are you gonna be sorry when you see what you bought into.

            Educate yourself,and you’ll gain the Rigth to Return…..to Humanity.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “told you to watch out with tapwater and vaccines.”

            Yea, yea same old boring paranoia. You really are beginning to reveal yourself for what you are.

            But I must compliment you. You did a good job for quite a while. I actually thought you had something to say. But then you had to throw a tantrum didn’t you? And revealed who you really are … a nut job.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Oh,and I forgot the BPA,an estrogen mimmicker.

            Feminizes boys,really nasty.

            And that you misjudged me,you’ll get over it.

            But you won’t get over the information and sources I give,so keep reading.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Oh,and I forgot the BPA,an estrogen mimmicker”

            Oh dear, invasion of the body snatchers, the sky is falling.

            Space invaders anyone? LOL.

            Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        “And when he pulled out the dead-babies, well it was game-over for all thinking people.”

        So, Danni, you deny that Jewish children and babies were murdered on an industrial scale in the Holocaust? And in many pogroms in various parts of Eastern Europe before?

        You certainly act as if you do with your flippant attitude. And to think that you claimed a few posts ago that Jews used to be respected. Yea right …

        Reply to Comment
        • Oriol2

          Tzutzik, you are absolutely right about the Holocaust, and I lament that some people who are in the best of cases banalizers of alien suffering, and outright Holocaust deniers in the worst, might joke about the horrendous sufferings of Jewish people.
          Nonetheless that doesn’t mean that Israel’s policies toward the Arabs are right, not even that the foundation of the State of Israel -in the terms in which it was founded; of course I am not referring to the general notion of a Jewish state- was just.

          Reply to Comment
    17. danni ashe

      “So, Danni, you deny that Jewish children and babies were murdered on an industrial scale in the Holocaust?”

      Has this been reported? I hope you’re not accusing me.

      Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        “Has this been reported? I hope you’re not accusing me.”

        Nah, you are just another dime a dozen looney sounding off on the internet.

        Run along boy.

        Reply to Comment
    18. Vadim

      Here are some more “concessions” the Palestinian can and should make.

      1. Publicly declare (in both English and Arabic) that they wish to negotiate the end of the conflict with Israel.
      2. Publicly declare that they recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
      3. Publicly denounce any form of armed resistance or violence against civilians.
      4. Call for the disarmament of all Palestinian or other Zubi brigades found in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Same as was done with Etzel, Lehi and Palmach – they should be integrated into existing PA police force. The PA already declared they only need a police force, not an army.
      5. A drastic change in media controlled by the PA – incitement should stop and the benefits of peace and stability should be stressed. Just like is done in Israel for years now.
      6. A drastic change towards the “heroes” of the Palestinian resistance. I don’t mind brave people to be displayed as heroes. I do mind that people who butchered children with axes for being Jewish are displayed as heroes.
      7. A call for Hamas to join the talks and finally making the lives of their subjects better.

      Assuming the PA leadership wishes peace – these concessions cost nothing but will have a huge impact.

      Sadly, I don’t see anything of the sort happening.

      Reply to Comment
    19. Oriol2

      I suspect I wouldn’t agree with you about many things, Vadim. Anyway, it is refreshing to find a comment of some substance after the previous never-ending rant from both Zionists and Anti-Zionists.
      The comment sections of 972mag used to be interesting…

      Reply to Comment
    20. Click here to load previous comments