Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support.

Click here to help us keep going

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

What Palestinian media is saying about the Jerusalem violence

From the murder of Muhammad Abu Khdeir to unrelenting settlement expansion and police harassment, the sources of anger in East Jerusalem are many. But the aspirations and provocations of right-wing Israeli Jews to change the status quo in the Aqsa Mosque compound seems to the driving force. A survey of major Palestinian newspapers.

By Henriette Chacar

Palestinian youth take cover behind a door as they shoot fireworks toward  Israeli Border Police during clashes at a checkpoint between the Shuafat refugee camp and the rest of Jerusalem, November 6, 2014. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Palestinian youth take cover behind a door as they shoot fireworks toward Israeli Border Police during clashes at a checkpoint between the Shuafat refugee camp and the rest of Jerusalem, November 6, 2014. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Many Palestinians are calling it the “Car Intifada.” In the span of just a couple of weeks, three Palestinian residents of east Jerusalem made their vehicles into weapons and ran over pedestrians, killing four Israelis and wounding dozens more. This is hardly a new terror tactic, but the proximity of the attacks on top of intensifying tensions in Jerusalem all contributed to it its name — to it even being given a name.

So what’s going on in Jerusalem? Why is this happening now? And what is the Palestinian media’s narrative of the latest events in Jerusalem?

Since Israel seized control of Jerusalem’s Old City in 1967, during the Six Day War, Israel has vowed to maintain the status quo at the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. That arrangement stipulates that non-Muslim visitors may visit but may not pray at the site. Over the years Israeli authorities have largely enforced those rules, although a series of recent events has made Palestinians increasingly suspicious of Israel’s intentions.

Photos of the month: The holy city nears its boiling point

Palestinian media was reporting perceived Israeli challenges toward the status quo on the Noble Sanctuary since early June, even before the war in Gaza broke about. The June 3rd headline in Palestine’s most widely read broadsheet, Al-Quds, read: “Israel bans Muslims, allows Jews to enter al-Aqsa Mosque.” Citing local sources, the news item mentioned that, “more than 60 extremist settlers stormed the mosque courtyards on Tuesday and performed Talmudic rituals under police protection. Meanwhile, Palestinian worshipers were prohibited from entering al-Aqsa Mosque to pray.”

Multiplying layers of anger

Palestinian Muslim worshipers perform traditional Friday prayers in a street in Wadi Joz neighbourhood outside Jerusalem's Old City, as policemen block their way to Al Aqsa mosque, October 17, 2014. The Israeli government has restricted access to the al-Aqsa mosque compound, Islam's third holiest shrine to men under 50. (Activestills.org)

Palestinian Muslim worshipers perform traditional Friday prayers in a street in Wadi Joz neighbourhood outside Jerusalem’s Old City, as policemen block their way to Al Aqsa mosque, October 17, 2014. The Israeli government has restricted access to the al-Aqsa mosque compound, Islam’s third holiest shrine to men under 50. (Activestills.org)

By June 13th, Al-Quds reported on tightening restrictions and worsening measures being taken towards Muslim worshippers, including “crackdowns, arrests and [issuing] orders banning entry to al-Aqsa for periods reaching several weeks, not to mention the confiscation of worshippers’ ID cards and the difficulties in regaining them.” It also criticizes the absence of Arab and Islamic pressure on Israel in the case of al-Aqsa.

The perceived al-Aqsa takeover was joined by yet another layer of anger in early July, after the brutal kidnapping and murder of 16-year-old Muhammed Abu Khdeir, which sparked serious protests and clashes with Israeli police in his East Jerusalem neighborhood. (When Netanyahu ordered the demolition of the vehicular attackers’ homes, many Palestinians pointed out that the prime minister never even consider demolishing the homes of the Israelis who murdered Abu Khdeir.)

By late September, just a month after the Gaza ceasefire was reached, Muslim worshippers attending the usual Friday prayers were subjected to tighter restrictions: Israeli police prohibited men under the age of 50 from entering the Aqsa Mosque compound, which it says are aimed at preventing clashes between Israeli police and Palestinians.

Many Palestinians perceive the restrictions, combined with much more frequent police-escorted visits by Jews, as a strategic measure exercised to aid far-right settler Jews in advancing their agenda of extensively “invading” the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif compound. A breach of the status quo to say the least.

The surreptitious takeover of 25 apartment units in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan in early October only added to the boiling Palestinian anger. Now Jewish settlers were not only provoking the status quo on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, but also invading the homes of East Jerusalem residents.

Retribution and revenge

Palestinians attend the night funeral of Moataz Hejazi, outside Jerusalem's old city, October 30, 2014. Police limited the access to funeral to 45 family members, but hundreds of Palestinians managed to enter the premises. Moatez was killed in a raid of the Israeli police on his house in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Abu Tor, as he was a suspect in shooting of Israeli right-wing activist Rabbi Yehuda Glick the day before. (photo: Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

Palestinians attend the night funeral of Muataz Hijazi, outside Jerusalem’s Old City, October 30, 2014. Police limited the access to funeral to 45 family members, but hundreds of Palestinians managed to enter the premises. Hijazi, the primary suspect in the attempted assassination of right-wing Jewish activist Yehuda Glick, was killed in an Israeli police raid on his house in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Abu Tor. (Photo: Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

And then there is the way that Israeli authorities and the Jerusalem Municipality pushed back against the city’s Palestinian population that it hardly serves, and which has never accepted its legitimacy. Al-Quds reported that, “teams from the Israeli Jerusalem Municipality — income tax agents and water company representatives — raided and searched shops in [the East Jerusalem neighborhoods of] Silwan, Jabal Al Mukabber, Wadi Joz and Essawiyeh. In the raid, [Israeli authorities issued] demolition orders, traffic tickets and tax fines on stores; police barricades were also set up throughout the city and [officers] were inspecting cars at random.”

Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem saw this coordinated operation as a collective punishment and harassment campaign in response to their protests against settler attacks and increasing radical Jewish infiltration to al-Aqsa, as noted by an Al-Quds report in late October.

Read also: How Likud became the Almighty’s contractor at the Temple Mount

The police killing of Muataz Hijazi, the man suspected of attempting to assassinate far-right Jewish activist Yehuda Glick, was itself depicted by Palestinian media as an assassination. Israeli police forces shot over 20 bullets into him and reportedly blocked paramedics from taking him away.

Tensions were far from assuaged when an Israeli government committee this week approved a plan for 500 new houses units in the Ramat Shlomo settlement in East Jerusalem. A week earlier, Netanyahu confirmed the advancement of 400 additional housing units for Har Homa, another once-highly contested East Jerusalem settlement.

Police enter the mosque

On Wednesday, Israeli forces stormed the Aqsa compound, for the first time since 1967 reaching al-Qibli Mosque, the main mosque within the compound. Policemen entered the mosque while carrying weapons and keeping their shoes on, which was perceived as a provocative desecration of one of the holiest places for Muslims. According to the Palestinian media reports, Israeli police assaulted worshippers inside the mosque, firing tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets, injuring many.

Many Palestinians were outraged by their understanding that the purpose of the police attack was to forcefully push Muslim worshippers out of the mosque’s courtyards in order to allow the entry of Israeli settlers. According to Al-Hayat al-Jadida, the Palestinian Authority’s official daily newspaper, this incident is what led Ibrahim Al-Akari to carry out a deadly attack with his car later the same day.

A sign warns of the destruction of Al-Aqsa mosque sat Najah National University in Nablus, West Bank, September 26, 2013. The signs were hung by students in protest of visits by Jewish nationalists to Al-Aqsa Mosque and suspected Israeli intentions to divide the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount between Muslims and Jews. (Photo by Ahmad Al-Bazz/Activestills.org)

A sign warns of the destruction of Al-Aqsa mosque sat Najah National University in Nablus, West Bank, September 26, 2013. The signs were hung by students in protest of visits by Jewish nationalists to Al-Aqsa Mosque and suspected Israeli intentions to divide the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount between Muslims and Jews. (Photo by Ahmad Al-Bazz/Activestills.org)

Palestinians take seriously Israeli right-wing radicals’ claims and declarations, as described in a front-page article of Friday’s Al-Hayat al-Jadida. Many are convinced that recent incursions into al-Aqsa and the tightened restrictions on Palestinians are part of larger plan aimed at destroying the possibility of an independent Palestinian state, with east Jerusalem as its capital.

‘The Israeli government is responsible’

Some even contend that the Jewish activists and Knesset members who are advocating for the right of Jews to pray at the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif are actually aspiring to destroy al-Aqsa in order rebuild the Jewish Temple.

According to a report on Thursday by Al-Ayyam, a leading Arabic-language daily published in Ramallah, Palestinians consider the events in Jerusalem to be so grave that less than two months after the end of the devastating war in Gaza, many Gazan citizens, particularly young people, see it as less harmful and disturbing than the struggle over al-Aqsa Mosque.

While Bibi blames Abu Mazen for fueling the flames in Jerusalem, Palestinians hold responsible the Israeli government and its state authorities. Rather than act with restraint and good judgment, Palestinians perceive the actions of the Israeli government to be intentionally provocative and deliberately defying.

Read also: No one left for Bibi to blame – except, of course, Abbas

One of yesterday’s headlines in Al-Hayat al-Jadida read: “Violence – Netanyahu’s Plan,” claiming that Netanyahu is actively promoting an escalation, clearly demonstrated by the settler takeover of the city, including its incursions on the Aqsa Mosque. Palestinians view these actions as violent attempts to divide al-Aqsa Mosque “spatially and temporally.”

The restrictions on Muslim worshippers praying at the mosque, coupled with the increasingly vocal Jewish far-right lobbying for permission to pray on the Temple Mount are inflaming the continued violent clashes. Put in a wider context with the murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, harsher enforcement and harassment in East Jerusalem, escalated settler takeovers of Palestinian homes and proliferating settlement building in in occupied East Jerusalem, the sources of Palestinian anger and protest may be better understood.

East and West Jerusalem are not only divided geographically; now more than ever, there is a sharp dichotomy in the experienced realities of the Holy City’s Jewish and Palestinian residents.

Related:
The only way to stop stone throwing is to end the occupation
There are no good guys in Jerusalem
Why the status quo on the Temple Mount isn’t sustainable
No one left for Bibi to blame – except, of course, Abbas

Born and raised in Jaffa, Henriette Chacar is an aspiring journalist. She is fascinated by Palestinian identity on local, regional and global levels. Aside from writing, she is active in various regional cooperation and community development initiatives. Follow her on Twitter: @HenrietteChacar.

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. Shelby

      As an American I am speechless with the inaction and selfishness of my government, placing politics before life & law. The U.S. government should practice the principles of what our constitution preaches that all are created equal, deserving equal protections under the law.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Gustav

      “That arrangement stipulates that non-Muslim visitors may visit but may not pray at the site”

      I am not religious so basically, on a personal level, I could not care less.

      But the above, says it all. On a site which is holy for BOTH Muslims and Jews, Muslims insist that they are the only ones allowed to pray there.

      Arab/Muslim supremacism at it’s starkest. No tolerance for non Muslims and we stupid Jews have been enforcing this on their behalf as an appeasement.

      Yet a-holes on sites like these have the hutzpah to label US as the racists and supremacists. Go figure …

      Reply to Comment
    3. Kolumn6

      Indeed, the Palestinians are offended that Jews might have any right to pray at their holiest site and have resorted to their typical reaction – terrorism against Israeli civilians. Their government is egging them on via state-controlled media and incitement such as the calls by Abbas to use “all means” to prevent Jews from visiting the Temple Mount.

      And it all goes back to the unwillingness of the Arabs to recognize the Jewish connection to the land of Israel and their persistent belief in their exclusive ownership of the land and its symbols. How else does one explain the visceral reaction to even the idea that Jews might pray at the holiest site to Judaism??

      Reply to Comment
      • Philos

        You know as well as I do that prayer on the Temple Mount is forbidden by Jewish law. The Chief Rabbi had to reiterate that point yesterday. Indeed, even planning to build the Third Temple is to usurp God’s authority as to when the Messiah will come, and the Knigdom of Israel restored. Theologically and halakhically, follower of ‘sug daled” rabbis ( like Kook Sr and Jr as well as Lior) are desecrating Jewish traditions to fulfill your supremacist interpretations of Zionist ideology

        Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn6

          You know as well as I do that there is disagreements about everything when it comes to Jewish law. Fortunately we do not live in a theocracy and Rav Yosef can shove his opinion. The idea that Jews should be prevented from visiting the Temple Mount because the Muslims don’t like it is the epitomy of the thought process still held on to by some Jews that gota used to being third class citizens in Muslim societies.

          It is interesting that atheist socialists have decided to show up to justify blatant discrimination against Jews on the basis of the opinions of the ultra-Orthodox. Any other opinions of Rav Yosef that you agree with or just the one in which he wishes to submit to Muslim supremacism to avoid confrontation?

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            It is breathtaking to watch a Jewish fascist complain about “blatant discrimination against Jews” in illegally-annexed occupied territory. It’s a bit like watching a white Klan member in 1950 complain about “those damn negroes don’t want me to come pray in their baptist church who do they think they are?” Only a lot worse.

            Reply to Comment
    4. Joel

      ” “more than 60 extremist settlers stormed the mosque courtyards on Tuesday and performed Talmudic rituals ..while, Palestinian worshipers were prohibited from entering al-Aqsa Mosque to pray.””

      So Al Quds newspaper is fanning the flames by publishing yellow journalism?

      That’s what I took away from this article.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “That’s what I took away from this article.”

        … Arab Muslims are allowed to pray at their third holiest site. Religious Jews not allowed to pray at THEIR holiest site. That you did not take away from this article.

        Why shouldn’t BOTH groups be allowed to pray at a site which is holy for BOTH groups? Is the prayer by the OTHER so offensive? No tolerance for the OTHER?

        That’s what I am taking away from this article. The bias of Arab apologists and no tolerance for the OTHER by some (many) Arabs.

        Reply to Comment
        • Joel

          Honestly Gustav,

          Would you like groups of Muslim men kneeling in prayer 5x daily at the Kotel?

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I would have no problems with that either. But why would they do it? The Kotel is not and never has been holy for Muslims.

            What is your point? Are you saying that the Temple Mount is not our holiest site where our temple stood before it was destroyed by the Romans? Because if you are saying that, then you are lying.

            Reply to Comment
        • NIZ

          As a muslim I say, you are more than welcome to visit the Aqsa mosque. The problem is not here, the problem is that you come to visit with a huge army while suppressing millions of palestinians. The visit to the mosque is just pure provocation and rubbing it in our faces. You can destroy it for all I care. It’s not its religious symbology i care about, but its historical, social and political….

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Spot on. Thank you NIZ. Suppression? Provocation? Humiliation? These people mock the very idea.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            And why is the large army necessary? You forgot to mention that mmmmm?

            Details, mere details eh?

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            To maintain the occupation and protect hilltop youth while they cut down olive trees. Silly.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Wrong again, Brian. Epic fail for you.

            The large army is necessary to protect innocent Israeli civilians, men, women and children, young and old who otherwise would be massacred as we were between 2000 and 2006 for “the crime” of offering a peace deal which Bill Clinton described as an opportunity of a life time to Arafat who instead of accepting it, initiated an Intifada.

            But for propagandists like you, Brian, that is just a mere detail of history which must be ignored because it does not further your anti Israel afenda.

            Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Since 1967, at the insistence of the Arabs, only Muslims were allowed to pray at Judaisms holiest site. And Israel enforced that wish. Sometimes our stupidity amazes me. Now that ban is being taken as normal.

        What is wrong with BOTH Jews and Arabs praying together at a site which is holy for BOTH?

        Reply to Comment
        • Bruce Gould

          All this stuff about religious sites are markers for power relationships, that’s how we humans operate. So here’s the situation: there are two tribes in the area of very roughly equal size but one of these tribes has all the power – they determine who lives where, they can decide to demolish any structure they want, they decide who goes to prison, with or without trial (‘administrative detention’), they control the water, the air, the electricity, immigration, and so on. So these flare-ups will occur constantly, because the people the dominant tribe controls are stateless people.

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Exactly right. It’s Derfner’s distinction today between subjugator and subjugated. In the framework of a de-subjugating comprehensive final settlement that restores dignity and respect, why don’t see what can be worked out about who prays where? Why don’t you try? Because you don’t want a deal. And don’t tell us about all the failures and grievances of the past. Spare us the litany Talk to Abu Mazen. Life is now.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yeah, Right …

            The subjugator gives up the right for it’s own religious people to pray at their holiest site while the subjugated insist that it should be so.

            Because the subjugated were used to the idea that they are in supremacy and that they can deternine where Jews pray or don’t pray.

            What’s the matter good people? I ask again: why can’t BOTH peoples pray at that holy site together? I am sure Allah would not mind if Jews too pray at a holy site to Jews. Why are the atheists on this site so against it while they support Arab religious rights?

            Double standards and hypocrisy anyone?

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Actually the subjugated are quite used to the fact that they are NOT in supremacy, quite the opposite, for decades now. For which you show as usual zero ability to empathize. That was the whole point of “in the framework of a de-subjugating comprehensive agreement….”
            But you’ll just keep perseveratively hammering away on your disingenuous “oh why can’t we all get along?…except where I don’t want to get along and then it’s different” theme. I know.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Booo hoooo, I will cry my eyes out for the poor oppressed Arab people…

            Reality Check: Israel represents 0.5% of the land mass which Arabs control in the Middle East and North Africa. In most places which Arabs control, minorities are oppressed by the Muslim majority and historically it has always been so.

            In one small place on this Earth which is under Jewish control (Israel), we Jews do our level best to treat our Arab minority fairly. Sometimes we fail because everyone would fail in our place if a minority takes it upon itself to side with the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza who never were, nor are, nor ever will be Israeli citizens because the plan is to let them have their own state and who constantly resort to violence against us.

            We Jews still are in the minority in many places on this earth. Only since the holocaust are we no longer second class citizens in most places where we Live. Before that, we were subject to discrimination in many places. That is why Israel was re-created in our ancestral homeland, to give us one place on this earth where we are the majority and where we won’t face discrimination. And that offends the sensibilities of Arabs who are used to treating Jews as second class citizens. And of course the sensibilities of people like Brian who steadfastly refuses to look at any fact which does not promote his anti Israel agenda.

            Reply to Comment
          • Y-Man

            I hope you’ll be okay! Your life sounds like it might be in danger! Log off the internet and call 911 immediately!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            My life is fine Y-Man, how is yours? You sound like a very bitter man because we exist. So I guess, you will die a depressed man because despite the likes of you, we will continue to exist.

            Howzat? LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            “Oh all we want to do is exist! And they won’t let us! Oh woe! All the world hates us because we are Jews!” What tiresome hypocritical rubbish. Ad nauseam.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            All the world hates us?

            Nah. Only Nationalist Arabs and their allies do.

            Oh and people like you too, Brian.

            But you know what? We don’t really mind because we are comfortable in our skins and we have learnt how to deal with haters.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Hasbara 101: The “hate” card. The same techniques again and again.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Nah Brian, red my post again. I didn’t even bring up the word “hate”. You did. And then I agreed with you that Morons like you hate us. Oh and our Arab enemies do too. Becaus surprise … that’s what enemies do …

            Or are you saying that most Arabs love us?

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            “that’s what enemies do”

            the kind of circular logic you and your hero Bibi love
            You call him just another politician you fierce democrats just happen to vote for but you are responsible for voting for him and in fact you love him. And you love Naftali Bennet. You love having him around. You just won’t confess to it in public. Your love affair with him is more coy and coquettish. Behind closed doors.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            My love affair, Brian?

            LOL,
            my love affairs are none of your business. I don’t tell you who to vote for, and I certainly won’t listen to idiots like you to decide who to vote for. Especially since I doubt your competence to tie your own shoe laces.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            You know you’re really obnoxious. Don’t ever run that stock off-the-shelf hasbara crap about 0.5% of “Arab land” by me again. These are real people whose forefathers owned and farmed and dwelt on that specific land, those specific villages and fields, and they are not to be dismissed in terms of their homeland by racist crap about “the Arabs.” Go off to Uganda and buy some “Jewish land” why don’t you if location for you and for them does not matter and they are not people but some Arab horde to you. You all here are revealing yourselves as a bunch of fascist Jewish supremacists. You pretend to be more reasonable than the openly fascist Trespasser and Kolumn but in the end you don’t want to give the Palestinians a thing. And when you reply to this in your obsessive abusive nudnik style (you think anyone actually READ that comically obsessive grievance-nurturing legal brief on the Marnie-Gustav affair you prepared?) KEEP IT BRIEF.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Keep it brief?

            Only if I want to Brian dear.

            Nobody reads my posts?

            You do and that’s enough for me since it gives you so much grief.

            Go to Uganda and buy some Jewish land?

            Nah, don’t wanna. We already have our ancestral home. What you gonna do about it? Implode? I hope yo do.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Oh no, Gustav hates me! I demand Gustav formally recognize Brian as the Individual State of the Jewish Brian so that we know Gustav won’t try to destroy Brian! It’s the only way! I refuse to even discuss borders between you and me until you do!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Everyone wants to be a commedian. But I am sorry to inform you Brian, that you ain’t.

            Nor have you valid opinions about Israel. Try dealing with your own country. On second thought, I wouldn’t do that either. You might make a fool of yourself on that issue too, you poor sod.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Replying before 5AM? ! Hmmmm. Well we haven’t discussed borders so what can one expect? Anyway, it’s just as I suspected. A refusal to recognize my right to exist. I knew it. I just knew it. So like “you.” Quelle horreur. It can only mean that deep in your heart an evil terrorist lurks. No other. Borders are out of the question. I must occupy your house. Security demands it. May I move in straight away?–no!, a settlement on your front lawn is the proper Zionist response! I shall book my flight. I shall notify Homeland Security to establish geostrategic depth on the hills of…um, your street. A 40 year presence in the valley east of you too is only reasonable. I’m sure you will have no qualms.
            Just imagine what it would be like to live with me camped out on your front lawn, and sneaking around burning down your trees in the middle of the night, Gustav, and you’ll be able to break through that empathy barrier and feel what the Palestinians feel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You poor darlink, as I said, don’t give up your day job. Even though I doubt you got one.

            Irrespective of that, aspiring to be a comedian won’t save your bacon. You are just the type of air head who might claim that your bacon is Hallal, your Airab friends might not apreciate your humor and that is never healthy for dumb individuals like you darlink …

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            I’m not the one posting comments all through the night into the wee hours of the morning . Are you a bored security guard on the night watch? Or just have no life outside + 972?

            Reply to Comment
        • Bryan

          Spot on. Sometimes Israeli stupidity amazes everyone.

          Reply to Comment
    5. David T.

      Gustav talking about “supremacy” while defending an occupier … Chutpah at its best.

      Who did illegaly annex Jerusalem according to international law?

      And whose laws forbids Jews from praying there, because it requires a ritual purification process that is not available in present times?

      Whose laws prevents Muslims and Christians entering holy sites during Ramadan or Eastern?

      While I agree that noone has the right to prevent Jews from praying at their holy sites, noone has the right to illegaly enforce Jews praying where ever they like.

      Whether some like it or not, East Jerusalem is not a part of Israel according to international law and according to the proclamation of Israel itself within borders according to partition plan. The whole of Jerusalem was illegaly annexed by Israel according to international law and I don’t think that any country or people has/have the right to violate international law, especially not after 1945, because of what happened before 1945 regarding occupation.

      If this was only about Muslim Palestinians preventing Jewish Palestinians (or Jewish tourists) from praying there I would agree that this is immoral.

      But this is also about Jews claiming the right to pray at a holy site even if they are not citizens of the country in which the holy sites lies, and also their claim that they have the right to enter this country any time they like, especially under the protection of occupation. And this is not only immoral, but also illegal and the definition of “supremacy”.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        1) It is perfectly within the boundaries of the international law to annex territory which belongs to no other state and which is used to conduct hostilities.

        “And whose laws forbids Jews from praying there, because it requires a ritual purification process that is not available in present times?”

        Bullshit.

        “Whose laws prevents Muslims and Christians entering holy sites during Ramadan or Eastern?”

        Bullshit.

        “While I agree that noone has the right to prevent Jews from praying at their holy sites, noone has the right to illegaly enforce Jews praying where ever they like.”

        So, by your logic, Muslims have no right to illeglly enforce Muslims praying where ever they like.

        “Whether some like it or not, East Jerusalem is not a part of Israel according to international law”

        It is.

        “and according to the proclamation of Israel itself within borders according to partition plan”

        The Partition Plan was effectively rendered irrelevant by Arabs who refused to accept it.

        “The whole of Jerusalem was illegaly annexed by Israel according to international law”

        For the third time – the annexatio nof Jerusalem is 100% legal.

        “and I don’t think”

        Yeah, I noticed that.

        “that any country or people has/have the right to violate international law”

        Oh wow. So now you are saying that Palestinian Arabs have no right to violate the international law. Why won’t you go and tell them?

        “If this was only about Muslim Palestinians preventing Jewish Palestinians (or Jewish tourists) from praying there I would agree that this is immoral.”

        Muslims are preventing Jews from praying at/nearby the Temple Mount for well over a century now.

        “But this is also about Jews claiming the right to pray at a holy site even if they are not citizens of the country in which the holy sites lies”

        You’ve just said that you would not mind Jewish tourists praying there. Also, what country are you referring to? Ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empitere there is only one country in this are, namely – Israel.

        “and also their claim that they have the right to enter this country any time they like, especially under the protection of occupation.”

        What country? Israel? What possibly could be wrong with Jews entering their own country?

        “And this is not only immoral, but also illegal and the definition of “supremacy”.”

        That’s bullshit.

        Reply to Comment
        • Bryan

          So, if Israel is hunky-dory on international law please give us a list of those states that acknowledge the annexation of East Jerusalem, recognize Jerusalem as the state capital, and have moved their embassies to the city. Even your strongest ally has consistently refused the claim. (see http://www.fmep.org/reports/special-reports/special-report-jerusalem/u.s.-policy-on-jerusalem) Wikipedia provides details of 82 embassies and consulates in Tel Aviv and zero embassies in Jerusalem. That seems a fair reflection of international opinion on the matter, doesn’t it? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_in_Israel) In such matters one is always reminded of the proud mother who attends her sons passing out parade at the military academy, and proudly exclaims “Look, my Shlomo is the only one who is marching in step!”. Yes hasbara nonsense has no difficulty proudly claiming that Israel is the only state among the nations of the world that can march in step.

          Reply to Comment
        • Bryan

          So if Israel is operating fully in accordance with international law, please give us a list of all those international states that recognise the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem, recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and have embassies in the city. Wikipedia cites 82 embassies in Tel Aviv and Gush Dan, and 0 (Zero!) in Jerusalem. In this matter of Israeli exceptionalism I am always reminded of the proud mother who attends her son’s passing out parade at military academy, and exclaims to all the other proud mothers and fathers: “Look, my Shlomo is the only one who’s managing to march in step!” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_in_Israel). Israel supporters like yourself are the only ones clever enough to properly understand what international law entails. Please continue talking to yourself.

          Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “… and according to the proclamation of Israel itself within borders according to partition plan”

        David, David, David …

        Stop the BS. Once Israel saw that the Arabs refused to recognize the recommended borders of UN resolution 181, in 1947, it did not declare it’s borders knowing full well that whatever borders it would declare, the Arabs would not recognize it. Consequently, the borders of Israel/Palestine were never resolved. The so called 1967 borders were not borders at all. They were armistice lines. The armistice lines of 1949.

        Go do some homework before you make silly assertions.

        Reply to Comment
        • Bryan

          Perhaps then we should stop referring to the state of Israel. The concept of a state comprises a system of administration, the means of establishing order and security and recognized territorial boundaries. Israel has three systems of administration (one for Jewish residents and settlers, one for non-Jewish residents and one for occupied non-Jews), huge armed forces (but deployed in such a way as to create disorder and insecurity) and indeterminate boundaries.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Perhaps then we should stop referring to the state of Israel”

            Haven’t you already done that? You are our sworn enemies. Why should we care what you say?

            Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        David T., you capture very nicely a lot that is germane to this conflict, and you do it in a very accurate, measured and civilized way. Contrast that to “Bullshit.” (Oh, impressive rebuttal.) You’ve reduced them to spluttering. You’ve caught them out. Which is why they mount no coherent response and quickly drop the subject.

        Reply to Comment
    6. Gustav

      I just love it when leftist atheists who insist on multiculturalism all over the world. And who go to bat for the rights of all cultures to practice their culture in freedom wherever they are and whoever they are …

      They make ONLY one EXCEPTION. And that is with Jews. No, Jews are the ONLY ones who haven’t got the right to worship in their holiest site. Why? Because the Arabs say so. They agree with Arab supremacism which forbids Jews to pray together with Arabs in a site which is holy to BOTH.

      And then the same leftists try to preach to us to agree to the so called right of return and to form a democratic bi-national state. What a pathetic joke.

      Can one imagine how that would turn out? The Arabs would declare how they would want to run things and the lefties would endorse their claims with a rubber stamp.

      That is why we ignore their pompous preachings. They have zero credibility with us. They are the mouth piece for Arab propaganda.

      Reply to Comment
    7. phil

      Trespasser and International Law

      UN Security Council Resolution 476 (1980).

      Made under chapter VII i.e. a legally binding resolution

      1. Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;

      2. Affirms that the enactment of the “basic law” by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;

      3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent “basic law” on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;

      4. Affirms also that this action constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

      5. Decides not to recognize the “basic law” and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Leftists liars and the international law.

        1) It is said nowhere that UNGC or UNSC resolution actually are the ‘international law’.

        2) Arabs had rejected each and every UN resolution which somehow favoured Jews therefore there is no reason not to ignore UN resolutions which somehow favour Arabs.

        Reply to Comment
        • phil

          @Trespasser

          Article 25 of the UN Charter

          “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”

          If you are still having difficulty, perhaps you should consider enroling in the Derek Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can’t Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good To..

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            For a treaty-based rule to be a source of law, rather than simply a source of obligation, it must either be capable of affecting non-parties or have consequences for parties more extensive than those specifically imposed by the treaty itself.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_international_law#Hierarchy

            UNGS and UNSC resolutions *might* become international law under certain circumstances, but it is just not the case here.

            Reply to Comment
        • phil

          @Trespasser.. history lesson

          “Ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empitere there is only one country in this are, namely – Israel.”

          The Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1918. Israel was founded in 1948. And of course, the entire area from 1920 to 1948 the whole area was Mandatory Palestine under British administration

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            The British Mandate for Palestine, or simply the Mandate for Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros.

            Administration of a territory by a foreign power does not make that territory a country.

            Reply to Comment
    8. Gustav

      Jews living in East Jerusalem is a violation of international law. NOT!

      The only period in which Jews did not live in East Jerusalem within the last 5000 years, was between 1948 and 1967. Do you know why? Because in 1947, “the peace loving” Arabs ignored UN resolution 181, they rioted and attacked the Jews of Palestine. In 1948, their siege of East Jerusalem ended up with the expulsion of the Jews of East Jerusalem which became Jew free for 19 years till it was liberated in 1967.

      Furthermore, as a matter of interest, Jerusalem was never allocated to the Arabs by UN resolution 181. It was to be an international city but the Arabs ignored and violated the recommendation of the UN. I’ll say it again, they expelled Jews from places in East Jerusalem which was called the JEWISH QUARTER. The Jewish quarter for Chrissake, what does that say to anyone with even half a brain who isn’t spouting PROPAGANDA?

      Furthermore, to anyone who quotes so called international laws, which say that Jewish presence in East Jerusalem is verboten is not really quoting International laws but spouts the utterings of the UN General assembly which is under the control of the Arab Muslim bloc in matters relating to Israel. For those who don’t know or don’t care, UN General Assembly Resolutions are non binding.

      Reply to Comment
    9. phil

      @Gustav

      As regards East Jerusalem, various UN Security Council resolutions clearly state that it’s annexation by Israel is an illegal act.

      As such, the area is occupied territory. Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute defines “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” as a war crime.

      Therefore, under international law, settlers in ANY place over the green line, are illegal colonists.

      Personally, I think Jews and Palestinians should be allowed to live wherever they want within the borders of what was Mandatory Palestine. Jews could reclaim properties in Silwan and other places, and Palestinians could reclaim property in Katamon and elsewhere.

      But this would involve sharing the land instead of stealing it..

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “As regards East Jerusalem, various UN Security Council resolutions clearly state that it’s annexation by Israel is an illegal act.”

        Read what I said above. Which bit of my previous post talked about annexation?

        I was talking about Jews living in East Jerusalem. Arabs object to it and so do their apologists who post on sites like these. They call our presence in East Jerusalem “Illegal Settlements”. Now read what I said above again and tell me how plausible are such claims?

        Reply to Comment
    10. phil

      Sorry Gustav, you must be having trouble reading

      I have amply explained why, under the current situation, it is illegal for Jews to live in East Jerusalem

      Again, my personal view is that the territory formerly known as Mandate Palestine should be shared with equal citizenship for ALL and then each could live where they please..

      What would your opinion on that be?

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Sorry Phil you have not explained anything. You are wilfully ignoring what I said two posts ago. And with good reason. Anyone with common sense would find it IMPOSSIBLE to rebut my above post unless they lie, use word tricks and repetition to misrepresent history (PROPAGANDA that is).

        Go on, take my above post point by point and try to rebut it. You can’t can you?

        Reply to Comment
    11. phil

      Various binding UNSC resolutions explicitly state that East Jerusalem is illegally occupied. Both the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute clearly state that the occupying power cannot transfer, directly or indirectly, parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

      As I’ve now answered your question twice, perhaps you’ll have the civility to answer the question I posed in my previous post.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “Both the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute clearly state that the occupying power cannot transfer, directly or indirectly, parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

        Like I said, you were playing word games. You steadfastly refuse to rebut my above post. I don’t blame you because it is impossible to rebut.

        Now let me address your word play.

        In 1947, civil war broke out between Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians. It ended up in an armistice agreement in 1949. No permanent borders were decided upon. The question of borders was left to be decided in the future. But to this day, borders have not yet been decided between the Jewish state or the Arab state. Again, the 1967 lines were NOT, I repeat, NOT borders but armistice lines. As such, neither the Geneva conventions, nor the Rome statute are applicable in the case of this conflict , with regards to population transfer.

        Now that you learnt that, Phil, go on, for the third time I invite you to tell me which bit of my above post you refute and explain with valid reasons (this time) why you disagree with what I said.

        Reply to Comment
        • Y-Man

          “As such, neither the Geneva conventions, nor the Rome statute are applicable in the case of this conflict , with regards to population transfer.” WOW! Are there any other exceptions to the Geneva Convention besides yours, Chosen One?

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Of course there are. Kurdistan, for instance.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Ok FW just this once, I’ll respond to the likes of you too.

            The Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute (with regards to population transfers) applies ONLY to conflicts between two sovereign countries which have recognized borders.

            They DON’T, I’ll repeat, for those with low attention spans, they DON’T apply to civil wars. And with good reason. In conflicts which are civil wars, there are NO borders which one side or the other violates. And legally speaking, each side is allowed to live anywhere in the place where they fight their civil war.

            Kappish, Y-Man? Now butt out and let the adults talk.

            Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        “Various binding UNSC resolutions explicitly state that East Jerusalem is illegally occupied.”

        These resolutions are in direct violation of your beloved international law, specifically Fourth Geneva convention article 2.

        “In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.”
        https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=C5031F972DD7E216C12563CD0051B998

        See? High Contracting Parties? Know who are these? Ever heard of Warsaw Convention? http://www.icao.int/secretariat/legal/List%20of%20Parties/WC-HP_EN.pdf

        No ‘Palestine’ of any kind was ever recognized as a country, hence it can not be occupied. Technically.

        Reply to Comment
    12. phil

      Ok.. I’ll make it simple even though I know you can’t be that stupid

      UNSC Resolutions

      Jerusalem = Occupied territory

      Geneva/Rome

      Occupier cannot transfer own civilians to occupied territory

      Therefore

      Israeli colonies in East Jerusalem = illegal under international law

      I agree that the armistice agreements in 1949 set a demarcation line and not a border, and never argues otherwise.

      However, this fact is immaterial both to the legal status of East Jerusalem under international law and to your original question and is obfuscation on your part..

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Ok, let’s make it simpler.

        Geneva
        Only a recognized country might be ‘occupied’

        Palestine
        Territory, never a country.

        Therefore

        Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem = legal under international law.

        Reply to Comment
    13. Gustav

      Phil

      Do you understand the difference between declaring the ANNEXATION as illegal and your claim that Jerusalem is “illegally occupied”?

      Yes the UN SC does not recognize the ANNEXATION in the same way in which it did not recognize Jordan’s attemp to annex East Jerusalem after 1948. Do you know their rationale in both cases? I’ll tell you: because UN Resolution 181 declared East Jerusalem to be an international city which was to be under international control. Never did it declare it to be an Arab city in which only Arabs would be allowed to live. Yet in 1948, the Arabs illegally expelled Jews from East Jerusalem which Israel had every right to reverse after it liberated East Jerusalem in 1967.

      So according to the SC, the status of East Jerusalem is indeterminate the fact that UN resolution 181 was a General Assembly resolution only which was non binding just complicates things. The SC was consistent when it voted against the ANNEXATION of East Jerusalem by both Arabs and Israelis. But that vote said nothing, nor does it imply that Israel had no right to reverse the illegal expulsion of Jews by Arabs from East Jerusalem after Israel’s 1967 victory.

      Reply to Comment
    14. phil

      I’ll copy this post again for you

      UN Security Council Resolution 476 (1980).

      Made under chapter VII i.e. a legally binding resolution

      1. Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;

      2. Affirms that the enactment of the “basic law” by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;

      3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent “basic law” on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;

      4. Affirms also that this action constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

      5. Decides not to recognize the “basic law” and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem

      This resolution – declares the annexation illegal – states that Israel is the occupying power – states that the Geneva conventions apply

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Nothing in your above post, talks about Jews not being allowed to return to live in areas where Jews previously lived and in which they were briefly and illegally prevented from living before by the Arabs.

        “Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949”

        Why would one claim that Jews returning to live where we lived before we were expelled from there is a violation of civilian rights?

        “legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power,”

        This refers to the annexation. Nowhere does it say “illegal occupation”. How could it? Israel was attacked by Jordan in 1967 that’s how Israel ended up controlling East Jerusalem.

        “Decides not to recognize the “basic law”

        Again, this talks about the annexation, not Jews returning to live where we always lived in East Jerusalem.

        “declares the annexation illegal”

        I rest my case. No reference to the idea that Jews cannot return to live in places which Jews always lived.

        So Phil, when are you going to rebut that post of mine and other ones since, point by point?

        Reply to Comment
    15. phil

      I don’t feel the need to explain this to you a fourth time.

      I knew from the beginning that it would be pointless, but I was waiting for a roast to cook so it helped pass some time

      I’m just wondering why my question regarding sharing the land is so threatening to you that you have been tying yourself in knots in order not to address it.. I guess I’ll never know..

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “I’m just wondering why my question regarding sharing the land is so threatening to you that you have been tying yourself in knots in order not to address it.. I guess I’ll never know..”

        You are a laugh a minute, Phil, dear. I rebutted each and every one of your claims point by point. You did not even dare to go near the points which I raised because you know you have no legs to stand on.

        And the best laugh which you give me is your point above.

        It is a matter of record that we Jews have always accepted the idea of two states for two peoples. In 1947 we accepted UN resolution 181 the Arabs were the ones to reject it and till the early 1990s continued to reject it openly.

        Since then, Hamas still rejects it while the PA pays lip service to the two state solution but steadfastly refuses to negotiate a peace deal with us. And just to punctuate the fact that they still refuse the two state solution (in reality), the PA announces at every opportunity that they will never recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. I’ll remind you that UN Resolution 181 talked specifically about a JEWISH sate and an ARAB state.

        But you say that WE are the ones who refuse to share? You are a funny man, PHIL, in a tragic sort of a way because people like you encourage Arab rejectionism but project that rejectionism on us which is not really funny!

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          Yes. You refuse to share. Nothing could be more obvious.
          Naftali Bennet, December 2013: “Let’s bring back the Jewish-Zionist education to all of Israel’s children…There is no room in our divine little piece of land for another country. It won’t happen.”

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            In Israel, only the voters count. We elect and dismiss politicians at elections. Bennet is not even the leader of the coalition government.

            Let’s see how we the Israeli voters would react if the Palestinians as a people would openly declare that they recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

            My guess is that we would react the same way in which we reacted to Sadat’s conciliatory Knesset speech in 1975. Egypt got all the Sinai back at the end of the process which consequently ensued. And that was under Begin’s rule who was at least as much of a right winger as Bennet is.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Actually young hothead Bennet is more of a fascist, and much less of a realist, than was the mature Begin. So why doesn’t Bibi reach out to Abu Mazen like Begin did to Sadat, however begrudgingly, and invite him to speak before the Knesset in return for a withdrawal from all of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem? Sadat knew exactly what he was getting before he made that speech. Sadat was neither a Zionist nor a fool.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Olmert already reached out to Abbas but he got ignored.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            You prevaricate. But let’s let that slide. Why won’t Bibi, in November 2014, do it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Because it is time now for your Palestinian Arabs to reach out to us.

            We list trust in Abbas.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            List = lost

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            My goodness you’d think Abu Mazen was your boyfriend. “Why doesn’t he call?!” The truth is that the leadership saw it was in their strategic interest to make peace with the Egyptians. The Israeli leadership has a very different long term strategic plan with regard to the Palestinians and their land. Peace is not part of it. If the Israeli leadership really truly wanted to “reach out” effectively it could and would. No one is fooled.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You are right. No one is fooled by idiots like you Brian.

            You can mouth your accusations and suggestions till kingdom come but we will never listen to enemies like you.

            Here is a suggestion: shove your suggestions into a place where the sun does not shine. The only thing they are good for is to help us decide what NOT to do because any suggestions from the likes of you are meant with intent to harm us.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Since your definition of harm is having to share 20% of something I suppose you are correct in a narrow sense. See ya.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “See ya.”

            Are you sure you see anything other than the tip of your nose, Brian dear?

            Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        They seem to think they have these technicalities of the applicability of international law at their disposal–get out of jail free weasel cards–but it’s actually cooked up nonsense or these types would long ago have acted on it instead of sneaking around grabbing settlements like a thief in the middle of the night bit bit by bit for 50 years. And whistling through it all is a surprisingly blunt moral bankruptcy, an admission: we do it because we can get away with it, the hell with what anyone else thinks or feels about it. This honestly is how an antisocial personality thinks.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          “They seem to think …”

          Whatever, Brian dear. But remember this: at least WE think and WE know who wants harm to come to us. You are a very unsophisticated propagandist if you think we cannot see through the likes of you. And others can too, much to your regret. If you only knew how obvious you are, you poor dear …

          But never mind, keep trying. Keep wasting your energy …

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            You’re definitely a man who knows what he knows.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yep. Can’t say the same thing about YOU though …

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Correct. This may be a native English issue. In part. I understand. “I know what I know” is usually meant to convey an attitude of indifference to contradictory information.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            And that definitely isn’t you?

            Reply to Comment
    16. Gustav

      Bennet is Bennet and Barak was Barak and Olmert was Olmert know what I mean?

      Israel, unlike most Arab lands is a democracy in which politicians come and go.

      How long ago was Abbas elected? What about Hamas? They are a long term fixture and they both refuse to come to terms with the existence of the Jewish state in the Middle East. You know the Jewish state which was specifically mentioned in UN Resolution 181.

      Reply to Comment
    17. Tomer

      Lets put an end to all this Bull&%.

      When Feiglin becomes PM, we must expel the Arabs back to Jordan. We will let King Abdullah go to the UN and they will pass some ridiculous resolutions against us.
      End of Problem.

      Reply to Comment
    18. Click here to load previous comments