PSC comes to North-West London to try to “dump Veolia”.

Salim Alam, Michael Deas, Chair, Simon Natas last night.

Salim Alam, Michael Deas, Chair, Simon Natas last night.

It was good to catch up with some old faces when I turned up for Brent PSC’s “Dump Veolia” meeting at Willesden library last night.

I was sat behind my old friend Abe Hayeem, of Architects for Palestinians, who I once sat down next to at an event when that was the only vacant chair left in the room and he promptly got up as if I was carrying the plague.

Last night he again showed his love when he noticed I was filming and asked that I be told to desist from such democratic behaviour, but luckily, the fairly nice Chair agreed that no harm was being done and allowed me to continue filming, although not before someone else from the audience shouted for me to have my camera confiscated. Here’s the clip:

I missed Michael Deas, Europe Coordinator of the
BDS National Committee, talk but I heard Simon Natas, a London solicitor, give his pick’n’mix interpretation of internation law (see clip below) in which he concluded that “the occupation is seen as being illegal under just about every tenet of international law” before going on to cite the UN Charter, UN Security Council resolutions “ordering Israel to vacate the OPT” and the 2004 ICJ ruling as evidence.

This, he suggested, would affect Veolia, especially as it is building the Jerusalem Light Railway which, he argued, will be transferring people into the “illegal territories”.

That might be Natas’ opinion, but it can also be argued that “the occupation” is not illegal. The ICJ ruling is non-binding, there are no binding Security Council resolutions that call for Israel to vacate any territory unilaterally and as the UN Charter technically incorporates the Balfour Declaration via the League of Nations’ incorporation of the British Mandate it can, therefore, be argued that Jews can live on the West Bank.

There was also this April’s ruling by a judge in the Ahava trial, where four anti-Israel activists were found guilty of aggravated trespass, that Ahava was “trading lawfully” at the time it was invaded by those activists.

I’d go with the objective judgement of District Judge Ian Baker every time over the judgement of the ever so slightly biased Simon Natas in this matter with his membership of Jews for Justice for Palestinians.

As ever Hamas and its “let’s kill all the Jews” Charter were not mentioned once throughout his speech, so presumably Hamas is not in breach of international law and so should just be allowed to continue on their killing spree if Israel is ever forced by Natas’ version of international law to take down the Security Wall.

Next up was Salim Alam who I have written about on various occasions but without knowing his name, so it was good to, finally, hear him introduced last night. He spends large portions of his spare time hanging around outside supermarkets that stock Israeli produce. That’s when he is not speaking at meetings against Israel.

Alam got himself arrested outside Ahava last December when he threatened to knock my camera out of my hand while I was actually filming him. He was released without charge.

Last night Alam spoke (see clip below) about how the London boroughs of Ealing, Harrow, Brent, Richmond, Hillingdon and Hounslow have formed the West London Waste Authority which is inviting tenders from companies to dispose of their residual waste, which is waste left over after recycling. It is business worth £485m, but a letter has gone to the Authority signed by 576 people against Veolia being the successful bidder

From what I could guage there have already been some successes against Veolia and Eden Springs. Last night they claimed to have had Eden Springs water stopped from being used in certain offices and universities in the UK and Veolia also seems not to have won contracts with certain councils, although whether the latter was due to pressure on those councils after anti-Israel campaigns is unclear.

There was also mention of Israel’s diamond industry. While admitting that Israel only cuts and polishes diamonds, but doesn’t mine them, making it difficult for Israel to be caught by the Kimberley Process Natas argued that a case could be made against Lev Leviev who, according to Natas, invests the proceeds of his diamond polishing company in the settlements.

It was mentioned that the strategy of shaming celebrities who are caught wearing Lev Leviev diamonds should continue.

It’s funny how people speak of the “Zionist lobby”, because there are many lessons that could be learnt from the well-financed and strongly motivated anti-Zionist lobby.

Clip of Natas:

Clip of Alam:

Last night’s posters:

About these ads

172 responses to “PSC comes to North-West London to try to “dump Veolia”.

  1. as if I was carrying the plague

    you do carry the plague, Richard, the plague of reason and an approach to things that strikes me as very humane. Imagine if that were as contagious as they seem to fear it is.

    The ICJ ruling is non-binding

    when the ICJ utters something in its advisory role is that a “ruling” also just like when a judge rules or is it an “opinion” or an “advice”?

  2. Once again, from the top:
    - ICJ is not a properly constituted and comptent court a kangaroo ‘court’ with no legal authority over a sovereign state.
    (This is before we even mention the ignorance the ‘judges’ of the law, that is, if ‘international law’ can even deemed law, which is nonsense.)
    - “the occupation is seen as being illegal under just about every tenet of international law” – laws don’t have ‘tenets’. They have Acts, sections, clauses etc. There is no Act or clause under which the ‘occupation’ is ‘illegal’.
    - there are no binding Security Council resolutions that call for Israel to vacate any territory unilaterally – the SC has no legal powers within any sane definition of ‘law’. Countries are under no legal obligation to join the UN. They may choose to do as the ridiculous SC or GA say, or they may not. ‘Legal’ or ‘illegal’ simply don’t come into it.
    - and as the UN Charter technically incorporates the Balfour Declaration via the League of Nations’ incorporation of the British Mandate it can, therefore, be argued that Jews can live on the West Bank – there is no ‘it can be argued’ about it, since there is no law that prohibits it. What isn’t prohibited by a real law, is permitted.

    • Sorry re typos:
      … BUT a kangaroo ‘court’ …
      … the ignorance OF the ‘judges’ of the law …
      Missing quotation marks (“there are no binding Security Council resolutions …”, “and as the UN Charter technically incorporates the Balfour Declaration …”).

    • Insofar the ICJ is acknowledged by states as a judge it is not a kangaroo court, at least that’s how I understood this lecture by a current judge at the court.

      When it comes to its advisory branch which as best I remember wasn’t discussed in this lecture that part of it seems to me given all the preconditions the real court makes to make sure it is considered empowered to evaluate a case more than dubious.

      http://uscdornsifehub.com/2011/11/02/international-law-and-todays-global-challenges-a-briefing-from-the-hague/

      • Exactly whose law does the IJC adhere to – French law in which you are guilty until proven innocent or British law where you are innocent until proven guilty or Sharia law in which you are guilty of everything unless you bow down to Allah, treat your women as second class citizens, tell lies to get your way etc etc? How in earth can there be an IJC? At any time it must contradict something in one country that is legal that it states is illegal – does it therefore supersede all law in every individual country? Which judiciary does it answer to, US, UK, French, Lebanese, Syrian, Pakistani, Indonesian? Or does it take a mean of all law and create a new benchmark?

        The very notion of an IJC is no different to Natas, Allam and friends expounding ridiculous views on subjects they know nothing about and then propagandising youngsters to follow them as heroes! Sounds a little like our friend Hitler and his buddies!

      • As best I remember from interviews with people explaining the in and outs of Israel’s blockade maritime law has had an international body operating for quite some time.

        I forgot its name though.

      • Insofar the ICJ is acknowledged by states as a judge it is not a kangaroo court

        Maybe not, except when it behaves like one as e.g. when ignoring what is laughingly known as ‘international law’.
        But it’s still not a court of law, only a voluntary tribunal. It has no source of legal authority except by voluntary consent, it has no enforcement powers – it’s just little children playing at being grown-ups.

  3. http://www.unwatch.org/cms.asp?id=2750557&campaign_id=65378

    These people quote organisations like the UN whose affiliate UNESCO has just recently elected Syria – yes SYRIA – unanimously to human rights committees! (OK – you can dust yourselves off and get up now)
    NOTE: The executive board includes the US, France and the UK amongst other Western democracies – remember the vote was UNANIMOUS!! And this at a time when the Arab League has threatened to expel Syria!! So it is clear that there is a lot of confusion about – how to reconcile Jew hatred (including that of the ASHamed Jews like Natas) with supporting fascistic genocidal countries like Syria and the rest of the League – my goodness their liberal egos must be in a contorted twist.

    Thank goodness Israel is strong and can combat these fools any time and like always save their bacon! Imagine if Israel had not destroyed Iraq’s nuclear facility and more recently that of Syria – the mind boggles at what Assad would have been doing to his people if it were not for Israel. And what about Egypt now using illegal chemical weapons on protesters who have returned to Tahrir Square because they suddenly realised that the army that took over from Mubarak is the same army that Mubarak used and it is continuing to deny democratic rights to the people killing them off at an alarming rate.

    But then of course a cleaning company who is also building a light railway in Israel is of far more concern to these stupid fools than any Muslims being killed by their Muslim brothers! Or of women being herded around Cairo tethered together like cattle lest they mingle with the men!!

    None of this is of concern to Natas and Allam and their cohorts!!

  4. Silke
    Maritime law might have been operating for some time, but it seems to have missed the coast of Africa and its pirates who kidnap at will. Perhaps that’s because it is focusing on the world’s favourite place to hate? Law seemingly by definition should have something to do with justice, but in practice it seems to be focused on Jew hatred.

    And just because one judge sat at a lecture to make a declaration about the IJC doesn’t make it feasible to have international law when every country in the world lives by different legal standards. Its a bit like the EU – one size cannot possibly fit all. As such any organisation or entity based on membership that cannot communicate a commonality, is doomed to be kangaroo by nature regardless of any supposed great minds who might declare otherwise.

    In my old age I am beginning to see that the greater the status the less the ability to think laterally!

    • the cases “my” judge heard were exclusively cases were both opponents had chosen to subject their case to the court. I think she said something about how the court takes “its” law and the laws of the opponents into consideration and since they deal with very few cases (I remember 22) they probably try to work out some basics there.

      Whatever the name of that international maritime court is as yet I have to come across the usual anti-Israel dirt from it.

      What I learned from those interviews I read or listened to was, that Israel’s blockade of Gaza is legal without any doubt (that was long before the Palmer report confirmed it) and that the conditions for any blockade to remain legal is such that not one ship must be let through.

      If that condition should apply indeed to all naval blockades all over the world as they claimed then I am unable to see anything bad directed against Israel in what they said.

    • the greater the status the less the ability to think laterally

      Very true. Or to apply first principles.

      If both parties agree to submit to a mutually acceptable tribunal, fine. But that’s what it is, a voluntary tribunal and not a court of law (for more than one reason). If the parties agree to the tribunal operating by UK law, or Peruvian law, or Botswana law, that’s fine too. If one of them later changes its mind, how exactly will the other party enforce any decision?

  5. Thankyou Richard for informing us but although it is interesting discussing the details of what these people say amongst ourselves it is not going to achieve much. .Ideas for combatting this group’s ability to recruit more activists against Israel should be the priority. One idea is to spread the positive news of what Israel is doing for the world and ideas for ways of doing this effectively would be appreciated., The information can be found in our weekly news letter at www,verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com and contact michael.goodnewsisrael@gmail.com with any help you can offer.

  6. For the record, I will first say that I am not a supporter of BDS.

    “That might be Natas’ opinion, but it can also be argued that “the occupation” is not illegal.”

    It certainly can be argued. It’s not actually a trivial question. It can certainly be argued that the occupation itself is not illegal, but there can be no question that Israel is violating international law and international humanitarian law in the manner of its occupation.

    “The ICJ ruling is non-binding”

    The ICJ’s advisory opinion is the most authoritative legal opinion ever issued. It is not binding, in the sense that it does not compel Israel to a course of action, it merely gives the most qualified opinion on Israel’s position with respect to international law and international humanitarian law.

    “there are no binding Security Council resolutions that call for Israel to vacate any territory unilaterally”

    It is a fundamental tenet of international law that states cannot acquire territory through war. So whilst there is no binding Security Council resolution compelling Israel to up sticks and leave, Israel is bound by the prohibition on territorial acquisition, and bound by the provisions of international humanitarian law.

    “and as the UN Charter technically incorporates the Balfour Declaration via the League of Nations’ incorporation of the British Mandate it can, therefore, be argued that Jews can live on the West Bank.”

    This is either dishonesty or an honest mistake (I will let you confirm which). The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine was not incorporated into the UN Charter, nor was the LoN’s responsibility for the Mandated territories passed to any organ of the UN.

    • there can be no question that Israel is violating international law and international humanitarian law in the manner of its occupation.

      Utter horse manure.
      Care to cite an actual Act and section, muppet, or will you run away again?

      • Where to start?

        How about the obvious one. Article 49 of the Geneva Convention.

        Backed up by:

        1. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600056?OpenDocument
        2. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
        3. Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute
        4. Security Council Resolution 446

        Now why don’t you explain, without drooling, why they are all wrong and you’re right, given that the ICJ and the UNSC are the highest legal authorities on Earth and the ICRC are the guardians of international humanitarian law.

      • Authorities? Authorities who says so?

        and the ICRC which couldn’t even manage one visit to Gilad Shalit

        I wish teh dubitantes of this world could afford better hallucination inducing drugs.

      • What’s the matter Leah? Have you run away?

        If you can’t find a way to engage with the arguments in a substantive fashion, feel free to insult me and the institutions listed instead. (Follow Silke’s lead) I will take that in place of a counter-argument.

      • given that the ICJ and the UNSC are the highest legal authorities on Earth

        UNSC is not a ‘legal authority’. You really are a swivel-eyed idiot, with not a shred of a clue what the words ‘legal’ and ‘authority’ even mean.

        Article 49 is completely inapplicable to your alleged ‘breaches’ by Israel.

      • I have a life outside this blog, you ridiculous little boy. You should try it sometimes.

      • “UNSC is not a ‘legal authority’.”

        The UNSC is the ONLY international court with universal jurisdiction. So I guess your claim that it isn’t a legal authority is a little silly.

        “Article 49 is completely inapplicable to your alleged ‘breaches’ by Israel.”

        The UNSC, the ICRC and the ICJ disagree with you. Are you going to mount an argument as to why you are right and they are wrong? Or should we just assume you have no argument?

      • richardmillett

        Oh this is ridiculous, Dubitante. No one anywhere with any properly constituted legal authority has found against Israel. The closest they came was Goldstone and then he retracted when he realised he’d been stitched up by the other three so-called investigators on his panel. You are wasting your time arguing here. Go back to Twitter.

      • The United Nations Security Council is a court – amazing, really amazing, somehow finally Dubious Débutante must have gotten his hands on some really good hallucinogens.

        I hope that they were of the kind that combines the swirling imagery with a really strong and lasting bout of halitosis.

      • “Oh this is ridiculous, Dubitante. No one anywhere with any properly constituted legal authority has found against Israel.”

        The ICJ and the UNSC are two of the highest legal authorities on Earth. And they have found against Israel.

        “The closest they came was Goldstone”

        The Goldstone report carried no legal weight. It was a fact finding mission.

        “and then he retracted when he realised he’d been stitched up by the other three so-called investigators on his panel.”

        No he didn’t. He claimed that the McGowan Davis report had exonerated Israel. If you had bothered to read the McGowan Davis report, you would see that it did no such thing. I should know, I went through the Op Ed and the McGowan David report line by line.

        “You are wasting your time arguing here. Go back to Twitter.”

        Plausible deniability is easier I guess on Twitter?

        Still waiting for you to correct your article re the LoN mandate and the UN Charter.

      • richardmillett

        Name one binding UNSC resolution against Israel.

      • oh a downgrade from COURT to legal authority has happened.

        this world is full of miracles.

        What is a legal authority?

        Isn’t that anybody who has gotten his office that gives him authority over something like lets say garbage collection or library lending legally? And yes IMHO a legal authority can be acquired by appointment by another legal authority. (My apologies to garbage collectors and librarians, I happen to have lots of respect for you and I promise that I will always happily obey your commands.)

        Does Dubitante inhale, inject or imbibe whatever he needs to come up with such “definitions”?

      • @RichMillet – Can you point to an instance where I’ve claimed there are binding resolutions against Israel?

        No, you can’t. Because the straw man argument is the norm here.

        Can you point to another country on Earth violating more UN resolutions than Israel? No, you can’t.

        Can you point to a higher legal authority than the UNSC/ICJ which has legalised Israel’s expansionism and colonisation programs? No, you can’t.

        The simple fact is, Israel’s expansionist policies and its colonisation programs are illegal. You know it, I know it, the ICJ and UNSC certainly know it.

        Still waiting for you to correct your article re the LoN mandate and the UN Charter. If inaccuracies are OK here, let me know and I will stop asking.

      • richardmillett

        But you can’t prove any illegality? Come back when you have evidence that Israel is in breach of international law via something that is properly binding. You’re just full of hot air.

      • The UNSC is the ONLY international court with universal jurisdiction. So I guess your claim that it isn’t a legal authority is a little silly.

        Since the SC is not a court in any shape or form, little boy, it can’t be the ‘only’ one, with or without universal jurisdiction.
        You really are quite insane, aren’t you?

        The UNSC, the ICRC and the ICJ disagree with you. Are you going to mount an argument as to why you are right and they are wrong? Or should we just assume you have no argument?

        No, little boy, the onus is on you to show why it’s relevant.

      • - The UN Charter is legally binding.
        - International humanitarian law is legally binding.
        - Customary international law is legally binding

        Israel has been held by the most senior legal authorities to be in violation of these laws. How is this not sinking in? A binding resolution is one that can be imposed by force. One does not need a binding resolution to be in breach of international law, just an authoritative legal opinion judging it to be so.

        Still waiting for you to correct your article re the LoN mandate and the UN Charter. Strangely silent on this.

      • richardmillett

        Ok, so quote a binding resolution then. Come on let’s see one, please.

      • “Ok, so quote a binding resolution then. Come on let’s see one, please.”

        Can you read back what I’ve just written, and maybe explain it to me in your own words, just so I know you understand it.

        Can you accept that the UN Charter, customary International law and international humanitarian law are binding? If you don’t accept this, then there is little to discuss as your argument is blatantly absurd.

        If you accept that they are binding, which bodies, in your view, are competent to judge what does and does not constitute a breach of said laws?

        Still waiting for you to correct your article re the LoN mandate and the UN Charter.

      • richardmillett

        Parts are binding and parts aren’t. You just can’t pick’n’mix the bits and bobs that you think make your own side’s case. You’re acting like Simon Natas. What about the Ahava judgement I quoted in my blog where the judge found that Ahava was trading lawfully? And that was in a properly constituted judicial court overseen by a completely objective judge, unless of course you think that British courts are meaningless.

      • Israel has been held by the most senior legal authorities to be in violation of these laws.

        It has not, nor are these ‘laws’. It’s a complete fiction that they are.
        The UN is a v-o-l-u-n-t-a-r-y body. As such, it has no sovereign authority to set up courts. A voluntary tribunal with no powers to enforce its decisions is not a properly constituted court. For a similar reason, the UN cannot pass laws. The idea that it can legislate or conduct judicial proceedings is laughable.
        The words ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ and ‘law’ (and as regards Israel, clowns like you use ‘illegal’ without any idea what the word means) are used improperly in this field. It’s just like astrologists claiming that astrology is a science, even though it exhibits none of the characterising features of science, because they think this would lend it (spurious) respectability. When clowns like you throw these words about, you are doing exactly the same thing.

      • The UN Charter is binding period. Customary international law is, by definition, binding upon all states, but yes, you are right that not all elements of international humanitarian law are binding.

        So, to brass tacks, is Article 49 of the Geneva convention binding?

      • “It has not, nor are these ‘laws’.”

        So you’re arguing that International LAW and international humanitarian LAW are not comprised of….LAWS? What and odd little world you inhabit. Black is white and up is down. Next you will be telling me that water isn’t wet.

        “The UN is a v-o-l-u-n-t-a-r-y body.”

        And did Israel voluntarily agree to be bound by the UN charter? Or not?

        Membership of the UN is voluntary, but international law, for the most part, is not.

        “For a similar reason, the UN cannot pass laws.”

        It doesn’t pass laws per se, but the UNSC and UNGA are both sources of customary international law.

        “The idea that it can legislate or conduct judicial proceedings is laughable.”

        The UNSC is typically known as a quasi-judicial body.

        You defend Israeli criminality without even a high school appreciation for how international relations and international law work. Put bluntly, it feels mildly unethical to repeatedly debunk someone’s arguments when they are almost completely ignorant on a subject.

      • You only seem to want to apply your laws to Israel. Go sort out Darfur, Iran, Tibet, the genocide in Burma (that the media seem to want to keep secret), Syria (just elevated to two posts on UNESCO commitees, one of which deals directly with human rights issues) and then we may listen to you. Until then, take your anti-Israel bias and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
        To paraphrase an earlier post, you seem intent on prosecuting Israeli parking violators while ignoring all the mass murderers of the world, justifying their crimes by blaming careless Israeli parking.

      • LOL. I use my brain to analyse the idiotic claims that any sort of law resides in a voluntary body, which is an entirely ignorant proposition demonstrating that the writer has no idea what ‘law’ means. All you are doing is copying and pasting, and falling back on the basic fallacy of appeal to authority.
        You get shredded here all the time, little boy. The fact that you can’t see this, and go on spluttering about your entirely imaginary victories, may be enough for you and your mummy on whose computer you type when she is out, but not for grown ups using their brain.

  7. “It is a fundamental tenet of international law that states cannot acquire territory through war……”

    If that is the case please give Judea (Judah – King David and King Solomon – from where the Jews were dispersed in 721) and Samaria (from where the Israelites were deported in 722 BC) back to the Jews as these lands have been taken from them by wars since the beginning of time and again a people calling themselves Palestinian (that has no real historical presence that predates renaming in 1964 CE of Muslims who lived in the British mandate named Palestine after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire) is trying to take it again from the rightful owners the Jews.

    • “If that is the case please give Judea (Judah – King David and King Solomon – from where the Jews were dispersed in 721) and Samaria (from where the Israelites were deported in 722 BC) back to the Jews ”

      The right to conquest, the right to acquire territory through war ended after WWII (arguably the Korean war), when people looked at the Nazi regime and realised that regimes dedicated to expansionist nationalism were detrimental to global security.

      • Isn’t it nice that the spittle-flecked Jew-haters always choose an arbitrary date that just happens to penalise those pesky Joooos?

        The right to conquest, the right to acquire territory through war ended after WWII (arguably the Korean war),

        Utter nonsense. But full credit for having just made it up.
        Jordan occupied J&S well after WW2, and there have been other instances.

      • “Isn’t it nice that the spittle-flecked Jew-haters always choose an arbitrary date that just happens to penalise those pesky Joooos?”

        You’re drooling. WWII was, if memory serves, a war in which Jews did not fair too well. Some might think that Jews should be amongst those best placed to advocate for laws which prevent such aggression from happening again.

        “Utter nonsense. But full credit for having just made it up.
        Jordan occupied J&S well after WW2, and there have been other instances.”

        Occupation isn’t acquisition. If you want to take a pause from spitting bile and learn something, you could read this:

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

      • You’re drooling. WWII was, if memory serves, a war in which Jews did not fair too well.

        Totally irrelevant, muppet – but of course this just proves again that you have an exceptionalist agenda vis-a-vis Jooos – and pathological hatred.
        And I don’t derive my information from Wiki, muppet.

      • The right of conquest was ended by a combination of the Nuremberg Tribunals and the UN Charter – a charter by which Israel swore to abide.

        You may have some extremist position which ignores what Israel agreed to do, ignores international law and ignores international humanitarian law, but in that case, we reserve the right to laugh at your extremist views.

        To quote from UNGAR273, when Israel was admitted to the UN:

        - Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it “unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations”,

        Israel is free to withdraw from the UN if it cannot keep its word.

      • ignores international law and ignores international humanitarian law

        Cite an Act and clause or shut up, muppet.

        but in that case, we reserve the right to laugh at your extremist views.

        We? Crikey, the muppet is also schizophrenic.

        Israel is free to withdraw from the UN if it cannot keep its word

        Sure, and there is ONE country in the world that has not at one time or another been in breach of some minor clause, eh?
        All countries, that’s ALL countries, pursue their own interest and have been been in breach of some minor clause, and several of them (not including Israel) do so continuously on a mega-scale. Your obsession with Israel tells us exactly where you are coming from, ponscum.

      • “The right to conquest, the right to acquire territory through war ended after WWII (arguably the Korean war), when people looked at the Nazi regime and realised that regimes dedicated to expansionist nationalism were detrimental to global security.”

        Really – tell that to the Greeks and the Italians who have both recently been replaced by unelected rulers at the instigation of Germany and her French mistress, once again waging a war (albeit economic rather than military) to gain power of all of Europe as the rest of world fiddles!! Will we soon be shouting once more “never again” as a German regime instigates the installation of dictators in Greece and Italy and soon probably Spain as well? And who will be the allies in the Middle East – the the so called palestinians – you bet that is the aim. Read about the EAD to find out!

        Plus ca change mais plus ca reste la maime. Only this time there is an Israel and we Jews refuse to face the same fate as we no longer fear the likes of Jew haters and organisations like the UN and its affiliates who care not a jot for Jews, keeping us out of the club until it was no longer possible to resist as we were not going anywhere. We are here to stay!

        NB: The UN is passed its use by date. It must be dismantled and sent to that graveyard of its predecessor the League of Nations. It has long lost its credibility, authority and moral compass! Perhps we should all deduct from our taxes the amount our governments donate to that crippled useless organisation full of despots, dictators and free wheelers.

        So please @dubitante – stop sprouting your rubbish!

      • For Sharon Klaff who seems to have swallowed the nonsense about the Fourth Reich hook line and sinker.

        http://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2011/11/germany-european-economic

        I can’t but help to think that the 4th Reichers want us to bankrupt ourselves in order to prove that … ??????

        When splurging and going into debt was the fashion of the day we were accused of the most sinister dealings because we wouldn’t go for splurging also. As soon as splurging ex- or imploded or whatever all those who’ve previously accused us of undue austerity now want us to voluntarily bankrupt ourselves.

        Really the nonsense people are willing to believe beggars belief.

        And even though we are Germans we should be allowed a virtue if saving first spending then may still be called a virtue these days.

        BTW Evans is wrong the little plates are not a speciality of Hamburg they can be found all over Germany i.e. in every city that was willing to allow them and are installed as fast as the artist can do it. Apparently he has more donated funds than working hours but for reasons of artistic integrity refuses to “subcontract”. If there is something one can accuse “us” of it is that we are more considerate about the dead than we are about the living and that the will to dominate anybody is except for some nutty pockets thank heavens still very much underdeveloped. Again sadly Israel being the one exception with Netanyahu being the only other head of government I am aware of Merkel has gone after AND let it become public knowledge.

        Whether the French are our poodle or whether it is the other way around is still open and my bet is on the latter since whatever Sarkozy wants seems to be liked by Obama.

        http://www.stolpersteine.com/

    • To take your argument to its ridiculous conclusion, let’s bring Canaan back shall we? I wonder if any Canaanites survived Joshua’s genocide against them.

      Let’s give the land back to its rightful owners, the Canaanites.

      • There was no Canaanite state ever,
        There was a Jewish state.
        You really make it embarassingly easy, you historically ignorant muppet.

      • States as we know them today didn’t emerge until the 1800′s. Perplexing how this fact seems to confuse you so much. So the Canaanites, who fell victim to a Jewish, genocidal maniac, are the rightful owners, are they not?

      • States as we know them today didn’t emerge until the 1800′s

        This idiot’s ignorance is just gobsmacking, isn’t it?

        “States as we know them” have existed since at least 3000 BC.

  8. Richard,

    Where do you get the stamina to sit through such meetings? They all seem so damn tedious. I’m home with flu, so I thought I’d give the clips a go. Almost immediately I found myself skipping forwards a minute to see where it gets interesting –it didn’t. There was just a monotonic bloke with a plastic cup droning on and on.

    The chair did seem like a nice bloke, he also seemed to be daydreaming most of the time, moving his head but occasionally to remind us he was still there – perhaps in fear that a member of the audience might rush on the stage to administer artificial respiration or the kiss of life. I would have, just to keep myself awake.

    Are the UK anti-Israel spokesmen required to take no course in rhetoric or body language? Just waving one’s hand from left to right every 30 seconds hardly does it. A year ago I gave a course in public speaking and debate to a class that included the son of Salam Fayyad. I’m jolly glad I did now. At least, in five years time when he’s featuring on your excellent blog, I won’t doze off instantaneously.

    Where are the great British orators of once? Where are the Gladstones and the Disraelis? (I’ve been gone a long time). Where are the Churchills? Where are the Oswald Mosleys and Enoch Powells? You didn’t have to love’em, but they knew how to talk!

    Whatever happened to the heroes?

    • richardmillett

      At least someone’s watched them! I wish you better.
      Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

    • One German historian (Herfried Münkler) travels the media with the claim that we live in “post-heroic times” (post-heroischen Zeiten).

      As best I can tell from afar that doesn’t apply to the IDF – what an arrow in the flesh of post-heroists they must be.

      (As best I can assume Herfried Münkler himself prefers the IDF to the – delusions of the – post-heroists. Assume only because it’d probably harm the sales figures of his books if he were too outspoken about his preferences and I can’t even decide whether that is more likely to make people think in the direction I want them to think.)

  9. Those four muppets look like an X Factor panel from Jew-hating hell.

  10. If it were me I’d show up in full SS regalia and scream nonstop for the extermination of the Jews, just to see if they’d try to stop me or they would cheer.

  11. Empress Trudy, they only need the uniforms, they already scream for extermination of the Jews and get cheered for it.
    Dubitante, Transjordan annexed Judea and Sumaria and ethnically cleansed Jews from that area. Jerusalem was forbidden to Jews while Jordan ruled. There were no human rights activists campaigning for either Jewish rights or Palestinian rights at this time. If you and your kind don’t hate Jews, prove it.

  12. Hi sharon
    Don’t have your email address
    Can you contact me via Richard if poss

    Harvey

  13. The infantilism of dubitante is displayed, inter alia, by his obsessive counting of UNGA ‘resolutions’, as though the number of times the representative of some Islamic or communist or other fascist hellhole farted some antisemitic statement at the UN means anything.

  14. where are the court decision (not advices or any other such shenanigans) that develop the international law.

    Name them!

    A law that is just written with meters and meters of shelves full of commentary all contradicting eachother on finer points is no living law with courts rulings on it.

    Amazing how dubitante first labels an institution a court then a legal authority and never explains why his oh so mighty ICRC never managed to get access to Gilad Shalit. Some mighty authority that couldn’t even accomplish that.

  15. International Law
    Judges or juries are not always right, but it’s fair to assume they’re often mistaken. Their decisions must still be adhered to because the judicial system is necessary in every state, otherwise there would be anarchy. Courts derive their mandate by their having been appointed by a sovereign authority.
    International courts do not derive their authority from a sovereign authority, because no such international authority exists. There are some voluntary bodies that states usually agree to adhere to, as long as they perceive doing so as being in their interest.

    For an international court to ask Israel to adhere to or even take note of its rulings it must find a source of authority and this must first and foremost be a moral authority. It must convince Israel that its decisions were made based on an objective legal code with which it judges all states. Israel must be persuaded that this legal code was not one constructed or interoperated post facto in order to incriminate her. Lastly, Israel must be convinced that the interpretation of international law, as applied to the Jewish State, is reasonable and rational. If the international court or body fails to meet these standards it should not expect to be heeded, whatever its name or initials might be.

    Yesterday 51 innocent Syrian citizens were killed/murdered by Syrian security forces in cold blood. A few hundred kilometers away in the center of Jerusalem the new light railway takes Jewish, Muslim and Christian commuters into town in the morning and returns them home at night. Before the lawyer who rushes to condemn Israel for being in contravention of international law for establishing this railway line condemns her, let him explain why he is silent about the 51 murder victims. Would a policeman or court anyway give preference to the apprehension or punishment of the perpetrator of a parking offense over mass murder?

    Now has come time to relate to the law that of which Israel is allegedly in contravention:
    Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:
    Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

    This is an article that was meant to forbid forcible transfers of populations, such as those that the Germans carried out during the Second World War.

    The rather barmy contention is that West Bank settlers have been transferred or forcibly deported to Judea and Samaria. I happen to live in a settlement and I can assure one and all that nobody forcibly transferred me or anyone else here. We came on our own free will and have complete freedom to enter and leave the rest of Israel, which we all do every day, or move there whenever we so wish.

    Furthermore, if all the judges and bald headed lawyers in the world make a judgment that I was forcibly transferred or deported, it will make absolutely no difference to the fact that I was not.

    We all know that most of those who demand that Israel adhere to “international law” make no similar demand of any of her neighbors or most other states. If they are to be honest with themselves, international law to them is what Blood Libels were to their grandfathers or the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion were to their grandparents – another chance to have a go at the bloody yids.

    Ironically, such behavior is excellent for us of the Israeli Right Wing as it makes the arguments of what remains of our Left seem increasingly out of touch with reality and impossible for the electorate to accept. They either have to defend indefensible or distance themselves international Left-wing bodies – either way, they don’t look too great.

    • @Daniel –

      “Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:
      Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”

      And paragraph 6 states:

      “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

      “This is an article that was meant to forbid forcible transfers of populations, such as those that the Germans carried out during the Second World War.”

      That’s incorrect.

      The ICRC’s commentary to the Geneva conventions states that paragraph 6 “is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories.” It then goes on to say “that in this paragraph the meaning of the words ‘transfer’ and ‘deport’ is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49 since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power”

      The ICJ in it’s legal analysis said “That provision [article 49(6)] prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory” and “concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law”

      “The rather barmy contention is that West Bank settlers have been transferred or forcibly deported to Judea and Samaria.”

      Your understanding is incomplete, see above.

      • You are an idiot. You copy and paste, but you don’t read and think.

        The Article is quite clear. It talks about ‘transferring’. It makes no mention of ‘encouraging’. ‘Transferring’ is a transitive verb. It requires a transferring agency, and a transferred object (note: logically and legally an object, not a subject). Transfer means that the object is passive and has no say. There is nothing, zilch, nada in this Article that implies a subject moving of his own free will. Anyone who claims otherwise is illiterate, in the most basic sense of the word.
        I don’t give a flying fuck what the ICRC think. It’s an antisemitic body that for 60 years refused to admit Israel as a full member. Their mendacious reinterpretation of the Article may satisfy swivel-eyed, hatred-dripping idiots like you, but not anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

        H

      • Don’t inflate its ego by giving it such a high IQ. Room tempreture is around 21 degrees, its IQ is nearer to its shoe size.

      • Sadly, as an ignorant forum troll, your opinion counts for nought. The Geneva conventions, the ICRC and the ICJ are very clear on this matter. As you don’t have any argument except how mean they are, I will let you run along.

      • Well, it’s not my fault you are too thick to understand the arguments.

        A swivel-eyed, thick, ignorant Jew-hating spotty adolescent to calling me ‘troll’ is hilarious.

      • If this were a German blog I’d ask at this point the simple question when a vacation day has been granted and is taken. To this day none of those deeming themselves perfectly able to understand “int’l law” has even come remotely near to the answer and that includes those who are regularly granted vacation days and take them.

        But never mind, the law is so easy, everybody can rule based on it.

    • Good analysis.

    • Judges or juries are not always right

      that’s why in any trustworthy state justice system there are layers and layers of control where judges check on eachothers’ decisions. Another thing that is lacking internationally where there is just one court and it is final. Of course there are final courts in states also but as soon as they have come up with a verdict the lower levels of the court system start re-chewing it, checking the wording, refining on it, asking questions, challenging it and so on until it reaches the top again and the process begins anew and at the core of it all is maybe one sentence. Now when it comes to “international” law everybody is his or her own commentator and never realises how ridiculous he/she is by that. He/she may of course have opinions galore on what it all stands for but to believe he she is in possession of the final wisdom of interpretation is proof of hubris and ignorance and nothing else.

      otherwise there would be anarchy.

      But anarchy seems to be the fashion of the day and not only for dubitante. By what I read it seems the new anarchists will all be lovely people and never become violent. On the other hand I have been told that anarchism still has some practioners in Greece and they have quite a number of deaths to account for. Could it be that there is a difference between theory and practice? BTW the Pirate Party who seems to believe in at least some anarchy and had quite some success at recent elections in Berlin now seems to have a problem because their talking heads are allowed to say in interviews only what the “basis” has allowed them to say. I wonder whether it will end up with them informing the public apart from flyers only as something resembling Greek chorus-ses.

      The judge from the ICJ I listened to told that the US initially signed up to the IC hook, line and sinker and then thought better of it. As I understood the judge the US had good reason to do so. As I also understood from the judge the whole thing seems to be a project in process and one I personally don’t hope much from because (see above) it lacks checks and balances and everything that lacks checks and balances IMHO is bound to eventually become despotic.

      All in all international agreements have their benefits as when the world agreed that it would be practical to set all clocks according to the same principles (railways “forced” them into that agreement) but other than that lots of these processes adhere to a highly delusional belief typical of technocrats that take care of it whatever it is once and for all and you never have to bother with it again. As the judiciary of any state who takes the law seriously to approach the law with that image in mind is ridiculous.

  16. Sorry about the missing prepositions!

  17. Please reread what I wrote:

    “For an international court to ask Israel to adhere to or even take note of its rulings it must find a source of authority and this must first and foremost be a moral authority. It must convince Israel that its decisions were made based on an objective legal code with which it judges all states.

    Israel must be persuaded that this legal code was not one constructed or interpreted post facto in order to incriminate her.

    Lastly, Israel must be convinced that the interpretation of international law, as applied to the Jewish State, is reasonable and rational. If the international court or body fails to meet these standards it should not expect to be heeded, whatever its name or initials might be.”

    The international law argument, as I’ve explained and I suspect that we both know actually a political weapon used to attempt to harm Israel diplomatically and economically. It is used, among others, by representatives of the the vilest of dictatorships, who care as much as international law and its upkeep as you do about Yom Kippur. I don’t blame you giving it a go or making out that you can’t understand the simple things I’ve already said, but there’s a limit to the amount of political mileage that you can expect to make from the redefinition of “forcible transfers” of populations as “government encouragement”. Incidentally there’s been no such “encouragement since the 90s and that took the form of subsidized pre-school and an income tax break so small that many people never even bothered applying for it.

    At the end of the day, the real Palestinians (not you) will have to sit down and talk with us. At that point they’ll tell us what they want and we’ll tell them what we need. Maybe we’ll find a way to live together in peace and maybe we won’t, I believe that most people on both sides will hope profoundly that we do.

    All those who wish for what I have described to happen must ask themselves whether they are one of those who are seeking ways to build bridges and facilitate communication and understanding or whether G-d forbid, they are helping to pull those bridges down and cause further friction. You see for us Dubitante, and on this single occasion I allow myself to speak on behalf of both myself and my neighbors, this is no game of twisting history or exercise of doing intellectual acrobatics with international law – this is our lives.

    Looking out my window in the direction of my Palestinian neighbors, I might also say that this is the future of many men, many women and many children who have long deserved much more than to be manipulated and egged on by cynical Western anti-Semites.

    • @Daniel – “Israel must be persuaded that this legal code was not one constructed or interpreted post facto in order to incriminate her.”

      With respect, that has to be the lamest defence of state criminality I’ve ever seen. Does Iran need to be convinced that the UNSC isn’t out to get it? Does Libya? Syria?

      The rule of international law is not predicated on making states feel that they are not being victimised. The aspects of international law of which Israel is violating are binding upon all states. The bodies which are competent to assess violations of these laws are the main organs of the UN, particularly the UNSC and the ICJ.

      The suggestion that international humanitarian law was set up to victimise Israel is…well…it’s absurd.

      • I’m really trying to be polite, but you just aren’t getting it. Before I begin typing again, did you really not understand? It’s okay to just say you don’t agree so what is this game of pretending to be literate?

        I was not suggesting that “that international humanitarian law was set up to victimise Israel”. I was saying that the idiotic equating “forcible transfers” with “government encouragement” is either a made-to-measure ruling when lawyers found nothing in international law against settlement building or just plane idiocy. Did you really not comprehend that?

        I’ve told you, I don’t care whether you are convinced or not so please do not grade my writing. I certainly wasn’t defending anything. I am not on trial, nor are my people. If you have questions ask them, but don’t waste my time with childish attempts to pretend you don’t understand and then argue with something I’ve never said.

        May I please politely suggest you reread slowly everything I’ve written before replying. It’s okay to think before you type too.

      • @Daniel – “I was not suggesting that “that international humanitarian law was set up to victimise Israel”. I was saying that the idiotic equating “forcible transfers” with “government encouragement” is either a made-to-measure ruling when lawyers found nothing in international law against settlement building or just plane idiocy. Did you really not comprehend that?”

        Perhaps I’m not being clear, if that’s the case, then I apologise. Paragraph 6, the paragraph that you didn’t quote, is the key paragraph for the Israel-Palestine conflict.

        The intention and interpretation of this paragraph was decided upon in 1949, not post 1967, and it was decided upon following the practices of some powers in WWII – it’s not about Israel.

        http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600056?OpenDocument

        Read the section on paragraph 6, including footnote 14.

        Post back if it’s not clear.

      • The bodies which are competent to assess violations of these laws are the main organs of the UN

        Beyond parody. The UN is a voluntary club, most of whose members are fascist regimes. They are entirely INcompetent to assess anything.

      • Dear Leah,

        You said, “The UN is a voluntary club, most of whose members are fascist regimes. They are entirely INcompetent to assess anything.” They are incompetent to assess anything, but they sure are asses, or maybe even arses.

      • The despotic states of Syria, Libya and Iran don’t feel that the UN is out to get them, as they are part of the cabal that run that Godless dung pit of injustice. They, along with many of the worlds worst human rights offenders are elevated to the highest ranks of the UN. The real democracies of the world should unite in their own organisation and leave the UN to drown in its own excrement.

      • I have been saying this for 15 years now!

      • You’re cleverer than me Sharon, I’ve only come to that conclusion over the last five or so years. I also advocated Israels unilateral withdrawl from Gaza for the last 25 years, since serving there in 1986. I was stupid and mistaken in that. I supported Peace Now until about 10 years ago, but now see how naive I was.
        Israel must take back Gaza, destroy Hamas and start to develope it to be an autonomus region in 10 years and an independent state in 20.
        Israel must annex the Jewish parts of Juda and Samaria, ceding similar areas of Israel in return, then do as with Gaza. This way there will be two Palestinian states (three if you count Jordan) and one Jewish one. This shouldn’t be too hard to sell to the free world, won’t change our standing with the Israel haters, but would put us firmly in the driving seat of our own destiny.
        We can build a vibrant democratic Gaza, re-educate the population and lure back the Palestinian middle classes who the terrorists have driven away. And what we can do in Gaza is already half done in the west Bank. We just need to do as our enemies have done and ignore the rules that don’t suit us.

    • I should also add – Israel is a high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions. And have been since 1951 if memory serves. They are legally bound by them. It is inescapable.

      And a binding, Chapter VII resolution from the security council confirms that these are the laws by which conflicts are governed.

      • Ah, ‘high contracting’.
        So perhaps you can tell us the territory of which high contracting party Israel is occupying?
        These Jew-hating clowns think we were born yesterday.

      • “So perhaps you can tell us the territory of which high contracting party Israel is occupying?”

        Perhaps you can tell me why it matters? No, didn’t think so. You really need to stray beyond the Israeli MFA website for your education.

        The Fourth Geneva convention relates to the protection of civilians. Article 4 outlines who is protected under these laws. And I quote:

        “Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.”

        Israel has voluntarily signed this to say they agree. Let me know when you’re tired of having your ignorance illuminated.

      • You can continue with your meaningless handwaving, it’s still nonsense. We are not talking here about protecting civilians (as a side-note: dubitante’s ongoing bad faith is demonstrated by him once again, as always, trying to move the goal posts, a pathetic trick that wouldn’t fool the average field mouse; more on this below); we are talking about the alleged TRANSFER of Israelis into a territory. So, besides Israel not ‘transferring’ anyone, a simple point this clown is too thick to grasp, there is in addition no relevant ‘territory’ covered by any of the supposed legal instruments he is attempting to rely on, into which anyone can be transferred in the relevant sense discussed here.
        Caterwauling about the SC supposedly being competent to rule on this is one piece of nonsense from the clown; but being unable to follow a simple argument is quite another.
        Another example of his pathetic goalpost-moving is the history of states. First he insists that states were invented post-1800. When he is mocked for this laughable statement, he belatedly claims that he is talking about nation-states. If you had meant nation-states, clown, you would have written nation-states: it’s only a few more key-strokes. So clearly you didn’t. Of course, your claim about nation-states is equally silly and ignorant.
        Aren’t you getting tired of being shredded for your ignorance?
        The so-called ‘court’ that the clown is trying to rely on is equally ignorant, of course: the ‘judges’ were too stupid to understand, or too ignorant to know, or chose to ignore in bad faith, the simple fact that the Green Line was never an international border in law. Now, if you want to rely on legalistic arguments, you cannot ignore such a basic legal facts simply because they disprove your case against Israel. This is not a pick-and-mix sweets counter. Since the GL wasn’t a border in law, you cannot claim that Israel is occupying a foreign territory in law.
        This entire issue is argued by the Israel-haters in bad faith. Law doesn’t come into it: it’s all to do with power politics, nothing else. But the swivel-eyed haters, like the clown here, think they can hide their hatred behind respectable-sounding legal terms. This is a complete con trick.

    • I am beginning to doubt that there even is something like international LAW. If there were there should be a code book like our Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch which was written around 1900 or there should be a body of cases which I understand is more dominant in the anglo legal system.

      (so from the start we have two very different basic philosophies on how to do law. If indeed there should be anything resembling a Code Book or a pile of cases on which ICJ-judges base their decisions I’d be amazed. If they base their decisions on piles and piles of Conventions signed or unsigned with caveats here and caveats there then again where is the judiciary chewing over their decisions? Just one court for the whole world working away on 22 cases with no verdict yet? To be sure it may be a nice try at establishing “universally admitted truths” with all the pros and cons that may come with that, but to believe that any of the different conventions is the last word and its wording finally and definitely clarified is plain ridiculous.)

      There certainly are lots and lots of conventions to which all kinds of states have become signatories.

      As it happens I made a living from paralegalling it within the frame work of such a (UN-administered) treaty for almost 20 years. Maybe that’s why all these discussions of international LAW strike me as being as absurd as they are. Could it be that I am the only one around here who has actually spoken again and again to UN-personnel who implements a treaty?

      • I am beginning to doubt that there even is something like international LAW.

        Well, that’s exactly what I have been saying all along!
        It’s a con trick, like astrologists claiming that they are ‘scientists’: they think it gives them respectability.
        In either case, the emperor is as naked as naked can be.

      • I meant LAW as opposed to treaties, conventions, charters etc. Maybe we should ask DD to enlighten us on the differences between them.

        If there is one thing I was always sure of when doing paralegal work that when the word is different something vital is different also.

        Here is a link to the latest decision of the court. First it doesn’t mention any law, only statute and rules (again what are the differences) and what is it about? The court has made sure that one of the parties doesn’t object to an extension of time requested by the other party. Quite a decision!

        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/138/16725.pdf

      • Yes, so did I.
        My recent posts have stressed the difference: a treaty is a voluntary agreement between sovereign states. It cannot be enforced except by one party using force (including economic and diplomatic, and of course military) against the other. That makes it NOT a law by the definition of a law.
        I have stressed repeatedly the absurdity of calling this ‘law’. It’s a complete subversion of the term ‘law’ and its underlying concepts. It’s a complete fiction, and I mentioned above why this fiction is being perpetuated (both in general, and as a weapon specifically against Israel).
        A statute is an OK term: it simply means a law that was enacted through a proper legislative process (as distinct e.g. from common law).
        Of course, the pronouncements of absurd bodies like the GA and SC are not statutes, nor are they legal judgments, they are simply the maneouvrings of interested parties in the domain of power politics.

      • “I am beginning to doubt that there even is something like international LAW….”

        Isn’t this what we have been saying? The notion of international law according to the UN and its affiliates is absurd.

        When the UN was formed in 1945 with 51 members the world was a very different place . It was post WWll and there was a great consciousness of what had transpired in Germany vis a vis the Jews. The statutes and rules were very much governed by the events of the holocaust and the guiding principle was “never again”.

        In 1945 India was still part of the British Empire, the USSR governed over a vast area of nation states, Iran was known as Persia, The United Arab Republic comprised Egypt and Syria, most of Africa was carved up between Germany, Belgium, France and Great Britain, Israel had not yet regained its independence, Iran was Persia, most of Africa was divided amongst Germany, Belgium, France and GB and so on.

        In little more than a century the world has advanced from the creation of the combustion engine to space travel, from the printing press to the PC, from horse telegraphs to emails and the iPhone. During that time in the democratic West women have gained equal rights, children have been taken out of the workhouse and most Western countries are run by elected government (apart from Greece and Italy as of this month and the EU with its appointed Commissioners).

        Is it not absurd to continue quoting the laws and rules of a 76 year old organisation that has metamorphosed from a guiding principle of “never again” following the industrial murder of 6 million Jews, to domination by members who increasingly follow the tenets of a 6th century reactionary ideology with dictatorial laws embedded in a deity that closely resembles the behaviour that was instrumental in its creation in the first instance?

        In 1945 it was considered that the League of Nations could no longer keep the peace and so a new entity was born. Since then, although there has not been a military war in Europe, most of the world has change shape through conflict that the UN has been unable to arrest eg – a UN peace keeping force was stationed along the Suez Canal to stop conflict. Along came a new Arab dictator, orders the peacekeeping force out, and off it goes – result = war; the UN peace keepers in Gaza and the West Bank have also not managed to maintain any sort of peace and indeed are an active part of the terrorist forces there.

        So if this UN cannot use its own laws to ensure its peacekeeping forces are effective and cannot take control of its own lawbreakers, how on earth can any country take their so called International Law seriously?

        What a pile of rubbish – let’s get rid of the UN and sooner is better.

      • Sharon, there was no UAR in 1945 :)

  18. Still waiting for the hilariously ignorant dubitante (the comedy gift that keeps giving), to explain to us the non-existence of states before 1800. This one should be a beauty!

  19. For once, let me break ranks and support Debtane of this “state” matter. I think it’s almost a truism to say that states as we know them have not existed until recently. The same must be said of most things.

    Furniture, as we know it, has not existed until recently. Clothes, as we know them, have not existed until recently. Policing, as we know it, has not existed until recently. Fast food, as we know it, has not existed until recently. Music, as we know it, has not existed until recently. I know that King Solomon said that there is nothing new under the sun, and what that has been will be, etc, but with changes in man and society and technology few things stay exactly the same. I have not visited the UK since 1995, but have no doubts that the UK as you know it has not existed till recently, so what?

    Look at anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism as we know it today hasn’t existed until recently. Once they were trying to force us to convert to Christianity or they’d boycott and kill us, then they were boycotting and killing us for not being Aryans and now they just try to boycott us and encourage others to kill us. Nothing stays the same – or perhaps Solomon was right?!

    If an argument is being made for a return to a different type of state – apparently like the types that existed before the Industrial Revolution or whatever, I have no objections. My only request would be that the experiment be performed on various states in alphabetical order and when the letter “I” is reached, we’ll be happy to comply.

    • Perhaps it would be clearer if I say the nation state didn’t exist until the 1800s.

      • You would still be wrong. The Jews had a nation-state in 1000 BC. The Chinese had one earlier than that. Both of these are nations.

    • support Debtane of this “state” matter

      Well, it’s still nonsense. You might as well say that states didn’t exist before iPhones were invented, because these changed the whole ball game.

      As long as there is a central authority, a civil service with tax collectors etc, a central army answering to the central authority, rules and regulations, and some geographical concept of where the central authority ceases to apply, you have a state. The pharaos of the old dynasty had all these. They had a state.

      Whether it’s a democracy, a totalitarian state or whatever, is entirely irrelevant to this argument.

    • Anti-Semitism as we know it today hasn’t existed until recently.

      Hardly. It existed under Mohamed.

  20. I see nothing there of which Israel is in contravention.

    1. Israelis were not transferred to Judea and Samaria. Nothing about encouragement is mentioned in this document.

    2. The Arabs living in Judea and Samaria were no more “natives” than the many Israelis who had been living in Judea and Samaria before 1948.

    3. Nobody has ever contested the right of an Israeli Arab to live in Judea and Samaria. If the voluntary movement of Israelis to Judea and Samaria is still considered a transfer, should they also be required to return to Israel?

    4. Nobody has ever claimed that the economic situation of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria has worsened since 1967.

    5. Are you claiming that Jewish settlements “endanger their separate existence as a race.” – If so, are the Palestinians a race and how do the settlements endanger it?

    Now I wish to ask you a question. Though I have little doubt as to your motivations, you have demonstrated a certain amount of intellectual honesty. Do you seriously consider the situation today of Israelis with zero coercion, encouragement by the government moving voluntarily to Judea and Samaria to in any imaginable way being what the authors had in mind in 1949 when they wrote what they wrote? Pause for a minute, forget that you’re on a Zionist blog and that you finally want to win an argument, reread everything I’ve written and reread your own link. It’s my Shabbat, so I’m off-line till tomorrow night. Don’t rush. Take time to think this time.

    • @Daniel -”Israelis were not transferred to Judea and Samaria. Nothing about encouragement is mentioned in this document.”

      “It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories.”

      Is it the word “transfer” that is bothering you? It explicitly states in the commentary that the meaning of the word “transfer” is different here, and that its intention is to PROHIBIT THE COLONISATION OF OCCUPIED LAND. It is very clear on this point.

      “The Arabs living in Judea and Samaria were no more “natives” than the many Israelis who had been living in Judea and Samaria before 1948.”

      I would be more comfortable with saying that the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria were no more “natives” than the many Israelis who had been living in Judea and Samaria before the advent of Zionism. The ramping up of Jewish immigration following the advent of Zionism is well documented. But personally, I would love to see Arabs and Jews living side by side in all parts of historic Palestine.

      “Nobody has ever contested the right of an Israeli Arab to live in Judea and Samaria. If the voluntary movement of Israelis to Judea and Samaria is still considered a transfer, should they also be required to return to Israel?”

      Would an Arab family be allowed to move into a settlement?

      “Are you claiming that Jewish settlements “endanger their separate existence as a race.” – If so, are the Palestinians a race and how do the settlements endanger it?”

      Race is really an outdated term now. The Palestinians are a people.

      You might not want to take the ICRC’s word for it. You might not want to take the ICJ’s word for it. Perhaps you will believe the Israeli government’s own legal adviser, who, in 1967, gave a legal opinion to the government of the day.

      Hebrew: http://southjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/theodor-meron-legal-opinion-on-civilian-settlement-in-the-occupied-territories-september-1967.pdf

      English: http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/resources/file48485.pdf

      He said, and I will quote him:

      “From the point of view of international law, the key provision is the one that appears in the last paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel, of course, is a party to this Convention…”

      The next section is critical:

      “The prohibition therefore is CATEGORICAL and not conditional upon the motives for the transfer or its objectives. Its purpose is to PREVENT SETTLEMENT in occupied territory of citizens of the occupying state.” [Emphasis mine]

      So we can add Israel’s own legal adviser to the list of people who agree with the position I’ve outlined. At some point, the sheer weight of evidence must start to at least nag a little.

      Shabbat shalom.

      • there is just ONE commentary?

        and that is a something that you consider to be gospel?

        ROTFLMAO

      • A retrospective attempt to change the meaning of simple English words, such as ‘transfer’, so they mean something entirely different that just happens, purely by a 1 in a million chance, to apply to Israel and put her in the dock, is a massive FAIL.
        Daniel, I can see no ‘intellectual honesty’ here. I see an attempt to con, deceive, lie and cheat.

  21. for a lover of anarchism Dubious Débutante strikes me as very much in love with self-appointed authorities.

    which supports Kate Fox’ claim to have observed that anarchists are good at marching in step.

    • “for a lover of anarchism Dubious Débutante strikes me as very much in love with self-appointed authorities.”

      And with his entirely mythical erudition.

  22. Maybe I should bore dubitante with tales of all the hard day to day work it took to get stuff implemented states had signed up to in the little but far from unimportant corner of the UN-world I was familiar with.

    States sign up to something then it turns out that the administering body has another understanding of the text than the signing state had (which is natural and unsurprising since there is a great variety of basic legal thinking from state to state and then a workable handling of it is achieved – again and again and again and again and quite often involving the same states and no Israel wasn’t one of them. Its previously existing state laws happened to sync. The emphasis here is on “happened” i.e. coincidence.

    Dubitante is writing about this Geneva Convention very much as if it were a sibling to concepts like Immaculate Conception.

  23. Shall we ask our self-appointed expert on the Geneva Convention to explain this in its context and any other context he lectures so hubristically on?

    http://www.translatingjihad.com/2011/11/international-union-of-muslim-scholars.html

    The International Union of Muslim Scholars Wishes You a Happy “Save al-Aqsa Friday” (while Pushing for War with Israel)

    The International Union of Muslim Scholars is headed by the highly-popular cleric, Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is also the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. Point being, when these guys issue a statement, you can pretty well consider it the view of the Muslim Brotherhood.

  24. Love the immaculate conception simile!

    • if you love the immaculate conception then I highly recommend Papal Infallibility – it is one of my favourites – it makes my favourite (radio) historian on the papacy who is as best I can tell a pious man sound deeply deeply unhappy every time he has to mention it in some context.

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

      Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation.

      PS: if I get you right about statute (our legal procedures seems to be very different from yours) then how come the ICJ has one? The way I understood it in that decision it is just a codification of the procedure by which that court operates i.e. what we would call a Satzung in the context of the local housewife brigade.

      • oops I forgot to suggest that explaining all this should be left to Mr. Infallible Dubitante.

      • No, they are pretending they have one. As I said, they are subverting the meanings of legal terms, in a little children’s game of “Astrology is a science”.

    • Yes!

  25. Dear Dubidunce
    Even if your contorted pseudo legal arguments were all 100% sound and unbiased, it all comes to nothing unless you accept the Islamofacist narrative and totally dismiss the Jewish one.
    Only if you discard all the facts and accept that: Jews have little or no claim to Juda and Samaria, never lived in Hebron or Schem(Nablus), didn’t build outside the walls of the old city in the late 1800s, don’t have the same rights to migrate, settle and aquire land and property (as say Bosnian or Syrian Muslims) and rather than being ethnically cleansed from the region during the Arab riots of the 1920s they invaded and colonised them in 1948, can you say that these are Palestinian terratories.
    If you deny Jews the same rights as all other people and uphold the rights of racist Palestinians who want a Jew free state, were all non Muslims will be discriminated against, along with women and gays, then what kind of human rights activist are you?
    Do you really not see that throughout history law has been used to hurt and disadvantage Jews? The UN, dominated by despostic regimes, has never once come close to helping Israel in any way? Whatever gifts of learning, healing and helping we Jews give to the world, it’s never enough and we are always hated. So we really don’t care weather you approve of our existance. Your 5th form debating club semantics are only good to impress your Islamofacist pals and fellow appeasers. Go and maths debate somewhere else.

  26. lets get rid of the UN – nice and fine – what will you do to preserve the WHO and its international monitoring of epidemics? Kick that out too, take it out as an independent organisation?

    Unfortunately way too many international organisations have been allowed to get administered by the UN. To untangle it all will be quite a tough job.

    That particular monster has been allowed to take root in way too many areas.

  27. I’m sure there’s a way to finance the WHO without the UN.

    • Of course there is. Professional and commercial organisations, say, telecommunications, postal services and so on, can exist without the UN. Each member pays a sub. It works in every other sphere.

    • Every body who currently complies grudgingly with the rules will immediately take a stand to redefine whatever took its fancy during the past years..

      Institutions are extremely hard to establish and once there extremely hard to dismantle. And the WHO is by far not the only octopus within the UN.

      It is the coordinating that is the tough job, get everybody to agree on even miniscule stuff.

      And since there isn’t immediate profit in harmonising rules and regulations like there is or was in railway and postal services “they” will certainly insist on making it conducive to islamic laws, the Chinese will re-enforce their ideas of sovereignty and so on and so forth.

      Lots of those now going along with as much resistance as they can get away with have by now realized that the diligence these organisations demand as standards are damn inconvenient and lots of them are on the short run with a narrow focus even bad for business, but of course a stroke of the pen will take care of all that.

      • Marc Levinson wrote a book about the history of shipping container. It was amazing how long the container had been around and recognized as useful without the industry managing to come up with a standard. It took the Vietnam War and the military’s supply demands to arrive at one size for everybody.

        Draw your own conclusions. I don’t say it can’t be done, everything can be done but it will be a long and extremely difficult job.

      • Institutions are very easy to establish. All it takes is the desire to establish them, and about 5 people with good organisational skills: all the rest is routine bureaucracy.
        A long time ago I was warned against setting up a company, this being supposedly horrendously complex. I went ahead anyway. It took me a total of 10 hours to do the research, draw up articles and have it registered.
        An existing organisation, say WHO, can be spun off very easily, as long as special interests are not allowed to disrupt this.

  28. as long as special interests are not allowed to disrupt this

    the WHO and in all likelihood lots of other entities within the UN are umbrella-ing nothing but special interests.

    Setting up a company and setting up an institution are very very very different from eachother – for one the economical motivator is lacking.

  29. Example of an existing institution

    http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/general/

    It may be possible to rebuild the whole thing from scratch but I doubt very very very much unless those 5 or 6 determined people happen to be almighty dictators.

    And that is even though those involved in intellectual property rights have lots and lots of economic interests in it going on to function (but since I have been a close witness to the endless squabbles despite that incentive going on between signatories and administration I am not too hopeful even for this probably best suited to be isolated branch of it all.)

    My personal guess is that when they founded the UN their bet was on ever bigger states then decolonisation happened and the one state one vote created the current mess.

    • “My personal guess is that when they founded the UN their bet was on ever bigger states then decolonisation happened and the one state one vote created the current mess.”

      Yes, that’s pretty astute. That could well have been a decisive factor in this almighty mess.

  30. Okay, this has been reasonably interesting, and maybe it’s time to sum up.

    There has never been a sovereign Arab state of any kind called Palestine. Up until the First World War the land area in question was indisputably part of the Ottoman Empire and occupied by Muslims, Jews and Christians.

    The Balfour Declaration was not just a document among many, but formed the basis of the British Mandate. Its purpose was to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine and specifically forbade the division of Palestine. The rights of other populations that were to be protected were to be “civil and religious”. The fact that their political rights were not mentioned is no oversight as those of Diaspora Jews were mentioned:

    “.. it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

    Later the British illegally partitioned Palestine creating Trans-Jordan from about 76% of the original land area. This area today has a majority Palestinian population and is in the land area that was Mandate Palestine.

    In 1948 the United Nations voted for the partition of the remaining 24% into an Arab and Jewish State. The partition was rejected by the Arab side who wanted 100% and to drive us into the sea. Thank G-d they lost. As a result of this rejection partition became null and void and the areas of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem were illegally annexed by Jordan.

    In 1967 Jordan launched hostilities against Israel and in a war of defense Israel liberated areas that did not belong to Jordan in the first place.

    Since then negotiations have taken place both between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Fatah. The final status of all these areas will be determined by political negotiation.

    If international law was against me, I’d still be quite happy to settle Judea and Samaria and declare that when the rest of the Middle East/ World acted according to international law, I’d discuss the matter further. I’m no expert, but I’m guessing that the various massacres taking place as I type in Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc are against international law too. Since international courts can only advice, I’d say thanks for the advice and I’ll take it into consideration. If that’s not good enough, sue me or call the international police. I see no reason why Israel should be the first country in world history to endanger its existence because of international law.

    However, and I repeat that I’m no expert, it seems to me that the Geneve Convention happens to agree with me. We can both read the arguments for and against in Wikipedia, both sides citing important judges etc, but to me the plain reading of the convention was never meant to forbid individuals voluntarily choosing where they want to live – as I have. I honestly believe that the intention of the clause was either to prevent populations European Jews being moved to concentration camps in Poland etc or the German Jews being sent outside Germany to camps, as they were.

    “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”

    I am not naïve and have no illusions as to the motives of those who single out Israel as apparently the only country in contravention of international law in 2011. Apparently about 40% of United Nations condemnations are and have been against Israel. This has been throughout a period when regimes in Africa, China, Central America and the Middle East have carried out massacres of their own peoples as well as their perceived enemies. Between 49 and 80 million people were killed in the Cultural Revolution, but it was condemned by the UN far less than an attempt to build new apartment blocks on an empty hill a few hundred meters from my house.

    As I have already said, the future of Judea and Samaria is a political not legal question and will be solved at the negotiating table not in a court of law. Anyone who encourages our current “enemies” to sit down at that table is doing them a favor that they’ll one day thank you for. Those who give them vain hopes that by silly boycotts or pompous articles in unread blogs the Jewish People will one day, after 3,000 years of history, will just decide to throw up our hands into the air and give in are feeding them cruel illusions. It was such dreams that they could destroy us that led them to what they call their Nakba, which was a human tragedy – one brought about by similar illusions. If you don’t believe me go to Abu Gosh and meet the Israeli Arabs who never fought against Israel, never left and have a standard of living and quality of life that all their cousins abroad can only dream of.

    • Well said Daniel, do you mind if I use your post as the basis for some of my own?

    • Pretty good, except for the breathtaking arrogance, pomposity and self-importance encapsulated in the statement “Okay, this has been reasonably interesting, and maybe it’s time to sum up.”
      Who the blazes DO you think you are? Our parent? Our headteacher? Our rabbi? Our prime minister?

      • No offense intended. I was referring my personal discussion with debutane – not to the page in general. I felt that we had both stated our opinions and understood the others.

        I was beginning to repeat myself, not to mention finding my own posts boring. I also have a hunch that debutante may be having similar thoughts.

        Debutante,

        Next time you’re in Israel, you are more than welcome to visit and we’ll share some local wine and sort this matter out once and for all. I have no objection to your having the final word, but I’m finding this all a little tedious and with your permission I’ll leave you to carry on the debate with the other regular posters to this excellent blog, all of whom are far more capable than I.

      • Calm down madam, it’s only a blog.
        And it was a good post too.
        On Monday 5th December at 8:30pm, there will be a meeting in the Stanmore/Harrow area to discuss, “What we can do to counter media bias and the propaganda war being waged against Israel.” Entrance is free, there will be several expert speakers, refreshments will be provided and your support will be appreciated. Please contact me for details. tony@the-jacobs.co.uk

      • Tony,

        I always liked Stanmore as a lad. If there’s anything I can do to help, you only have to ask.

      • Thanks Daniel, if you’re in Israel, then you’re already doing more than enough.
        I hope I’ll be able to return to Israel on retirement, which I’d hoped was going to be around now. Due to the current economic difficulties though, it may be a decade or more.

    • @Daniel – Hello, apologies for the delay, I had the weekend off and may have lost the thread of the debate a little. Let’s see if I can catch up.

      “There has never been a sovereign Arab state of any kind called Palestine. Up until the First World War the land area in question was indisputably part of the Ottoman Empire and occupied by Muslims, Jews and Christians.”

      Agreed. There had never been a sovereign state of Israel either, and the area known as Palestine was predominantly Muslim, with small Jewish and Christian Arab minorities.

      “The Balfour Declaration was not just a document among many, but formed the basis of the British Mandate. Its purpose was to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine and specifically forbade the division of Palestine.”

      The Balfour Declaration was in itself, nothing. It was added to the Mandate which committed Britain to using its “best efforts” establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, not a Jewish state across all of Palestine.

      It in no way, shape or form forbade partition. That is pure fabrication.

      The rights of other populations that were to be protected were to be “civil and religious”. The fact that their political rights were not mentioned is no oversight as those of Diaspora Jews were mentioned”

      Here’s what it says:

      “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

      Read the last bit again:

      “…or the rights and political status enjoyed by JEWS IN ANY OTHER COUTNRY.”

      It’s not talking about Jews in Palestine, it’s talking about Jews in other countries. Do you know why that bit was there? It was because Zionism was extremely unpopular amongst European Jews. It was widely held to be aligned with anti-Semitism, which is understandable.

      There were calls from anti-Semites across Europe for Jews to go “somewhere else”, and all of a sudden, here was this plan to create the “somewhere else” for the Jews to go. The section about protecting the political rights of Jews in other countries is there to allay the fears of European Jews that they might be expelled and forced into Palestine.

      “Later the British illegally partitioned Palestine creating Trans-Jordan from about 76% of the original land area. This area today has a majority Palestinian population and is in the land area that was Mandate Palestine.”

      There was nothing illegal about it. As you may or may not already know, a year or two before Lord Balfour wrote to Lord Rothschild, Britain entered into a legally binding treaty which committed it to facilitating Arab independence across all of Palestine.

      Later, as a political and legal fudge, the British claimed that Palestine (to the West of the Jordan River) was never included in their promise of Arab independence, even though maps drawn up by the foreign office at the time clearly showed it was. So the Transjordan Memorandum was there to give the Brits bit of wiggle room, to satisfy their legal obligations towards Arab independence, and their political obligations towards Jewish independence.

      “In 1948 the United Nations voted for the partition of the remaining 24% into an Arab and Jewish State.”

      In 1947, not 1948, the UNGA voted (after much arm twisting) to recommend to the British that they partition Palestine, giving 55% of the land, and 85% of the agricultural land to the immigrant Jewish population.

      Understandably, the Arab majority in Palestine was not too impressed with this recommended dispossession, and rejected it. The British, who knew it could only be imposed by force, declined to partition Palestine, and referred the matter to the UNSC.

      The members of the UNSC discussed the matter, and decided to place Palestine into the UN Trusteeship system. Unfortunately, the Zionist terror groups had been cleansing Palestine for months, and when the Mandate ended, the Zionist conquerors unilaterally declared Israel to exist in violation of the partition resolution, and the Arab armies were already taking action to protect Arabs from what they saw as invaders.

      “As a result of this rejection partition became null and void and the areas of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem were illegally annexed by Jordan.”

      As a result…? lol, lovely non sequitur. As a result, you now owe me your car.

      “In 1967 Jordan launched hostilities against Israel and in a war of defense Israel liberated areas that did not belong to Jordan in the first place.”

      lol, come on, no one believes the 1967 “defensive war” myth any more. Not even Israelis….do they? The West Bank was administered with the support of the locals, and local Arab leaders were responsible for administration, it was never conquered.

      The UNSC unanimously passed a resolution calling for Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate their final borders, guided by what Lord Caradon called the “inadmissibility principle” – namely that Israel cannot acquire territory by war, but it was OK to engage in minor and mutual land swaps to “iron out” the border. Unfortunately, Israel took the opportunity to indulge in a little expansionism, in violation of international humanitarian law, as pointed out by their own legal advisor, resulting in the prolonged conflict.

      “I’m no expert, but I’m guessing that the various massacres taking place as I type in Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc are against international law too.”

      Probably not. International law governs the actions of states on the international stage, it doesn’t govern what states do with their own people, that’s not the purpose of international law.

      “However, and I repeat that I’m no expert, it seems to me that the Geneve Convention happens to agree with me.”

      So, Israel’s own legal advisor was….what? Biased? Paragraph 6, according to the conference where it was written, was intended to forbid colonisation.

      “Apparently about 40% of United Nations condemnations are and have been against Israel.”

      The problem with that argument, is that Israel is *allowed* to violate more resolutions than any other state on Earth. Had Israel observed the earlier resolutions, the later ones would never have been necessary.

      “As I have already said, the future of Judea and Samaria is a political not legal question and will be solved at the negotiating table not in a court of law.”

      It’s a question of law. But, as Israel is shielded from the rule of law by the US, it’s hard to see how it will be settled, as the Israelis demand extreme precondition after extreme precondition from the Palestinians before they negotiate.

      What argument can there possibly be for expansionism? For denying a people the right to self determination?

      That’s the nub of it. You are defending the indefensible.

      • For denying a people the right to self determination?

        by that logic Scotland should split from the UK, Belgians should divide the country, the Silesians’ strivings for autonomy should be supported. Why do the poor Basques and Catalans have to remain under Castilian overlordship?

        If given the free rein I think Bavarians would opt for becoming an independent monarchy again instead of having to suffer Berlin’s overlordship.

        What about the Bretons? I think they are suffering too and what about the Welsh? I have met at least one guy who suffered intensely from not having self-determination.

      • Dear Dribbultante
        Talk about twisting history. Your narrative is about as accurate as the Arabs who claim the Jews never lived in Jerusalem and there never was a Jewish temple.
        At this time of year, one often hears hymns with the line “once in royal David city” Are you saying that all of western history is a lie, while Islamic revisionist fundementalism is the truth?

      • There had never been a sovereign state of Israel

        Has this ignorant clown never opened a history book in his life, or does he get all his info from Islamist propaganda sites?

      • Maybe he should read a bible.

  31. Hi Dubitante,

    “….It in no way, shape or form forbade partition. That is pure fabrication.”

    Article 5
    The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.

    “It’s not talking about Jews in Palestine, it’s talking about Jews in other countries. Do you know why that bit was there? It was because Zionism was extremely unpopular amongst European Jews. It was widely held to be aligned with anti-Semitism, which is understandable.”

    That is my point. By the terms of the mandate, an Arab living in Palestine was afforded less political rights than a Jew living in Poland.

    “Later the British illegally partitioned Palestine creating Trans-Jordan from about 76% of the original land area. This area today has a majority Palestinian population and is in the land area that was Mandate Palestine.”
    There was nothing illegal about it…..”
    Article 5 again.

    “In 1948 the United Nations voted for the partition of the remaining 24% into an Arab and Jewish State.”
    In 1947, not 1948, the UNGA voted (after much arm twisting) to recommend to the British that they partition Palestine, giving 55% of the land, and 85% of the agricultural land to the immigrant Jewish population.

    Yup, 55% of the 24% that was left. From the whole of Mandate Palestine, we should have received about 15%.

    “As a result of this rejection partition became null and void and the areas of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem were illegally annexed by Jordan.”

    Yup, when two sides are offered a deal and one rejects it, but goes to war, the deal is off the table.

    “In 1967 Jordan launched hostilities against Israel and in a war of defense Israel liberated areas that did not belong to Jordan in the first place.”

    By way of fact, the first shots between Israel and Jordan were fired by Jordan soldiers. There are some revisionist historians who have claimed that by this point, because the war was going surprisingly well, tricked Hussein into believing that Egypt and Syria were winning and that they’d all meet in Tel Aviv. I doubt this is true, but even if it is, he should have controlled his urges.

    “I’m no expert, but I’m guessing that the various massacres taking place as I type in Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc are against international law too.”
    Probably not. International law governs the actions of states on the international stage, it doesn’t govern what states do with their own people, that’s not the purpose of international law.

    What is going on today in Syria are crimes against humanity and the only reason your blog won’t condemn or even mention them is that it’s Arabs killing Arabs.

    “The problem with that argument, is that Israel is *allowed* to violate more resolutions than any other state on Earth.”

    Yes, and we were violating more Nuremberg Laws than any other people in Europe.
    Tell them to stop passing their silly anti-Semitic resolutions and we won’t have to violate them. We’re surrounded by countries who daily massacre their own people and resolutions are passed against the opening of a new light railway in downtown Jerusalem, which incidentally is full of Arabs.

    “As I have already said, the future of Judea and Samaria is a political not legal question and will be solved at the negotiating table not in a court of law.”
    “It’s a question of law. But, as Israel is shielded from the rule of law by the US, it’s hard to see how it will be settled, as the Israelis demand extreme precondition after extreme precondition from the Palestinians before they negotiate.”

    Yup, we ask that they sit down and talk. Which is the extreme bit? The “sitting” or the “talking”?

    Look, to you it’s a game. I have no idea whether you’ve ever been in any of the areas under discussion or can speak either Hebrew or Arabic. The problem is that people like you egg them on and then they get hurt. Why not put your money where your mouth is?

    I decided at the age of 18 that my opinion would mean little until I became a player rather than a spectator, so I moved from London to Judea. I served in the army, and raised a family here.

    Why not do the same? I don’t think I’ll be revealing too many secrets if I say that your blog is largely unread and at the moment your main contribution to the Palestinian struggle is to waste the valuable time of Zionists like myself.

    Come out to Palestine, move to Gaza or Jericho or wherever, and get your hands dirty. You could demonstrate against the wall on weekends and educate the masses about what they really think mid-week. You could train a new generation of Palestinian activists and, though I hardly recommend it, you could set a personal example and blow yourself up at a check-point if things get really desperate. In short stop being an armchair anti-Zionist.

    Don’t just talk the talk- Walk the walk!

    Now I have to finish six chapters by the end of this month, five lesson to give and a simultaneous tonight, so please!

  32. @Daniel – “Article 5
    The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.”

    So your argument is that the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine, in particular Transjordan, were a foreign power….but the European Jewish immigrants weren’t? That must require some creative thinking.

    “That is my point. By the terms of the mandate, an Arab living in Palestine was afforded less political rights than a Jew living in Poland.”

    Jewish political rights in Palestine were not mentioned in the Balfour declaration. It’s an odd argument to make.

    “Yup, 55% of the 24% that was left. From the whole of Mandate Palestine, we should have received about 15%.”

    To the Arabs who lived West of the Jordan, that was their homeland. What happened to the East of the Jordan wasn’t their primary concern.

    “Yup, when two sides are offered a deal and one rejects it, but goes to war, the deal is off the table.”

    There was no deal on the table. There was only a recommendation to the British. The Zionist terror groups were cleansing Palestine way before Israel’s UDI, and Israel’s UDI also violated the partition resolution, rendering it unachievable.

    “What is going on today in Syria are crimes against humanity and the only reason your blog won’t condemn or even mention them is that it’s Arabs killing Arabs.”

    I agree that they are crimes against humanity. But crimes that are non-international in character are, unfortunately for the Arabs concerned, or a fundamentally different character.

    “Tell them to stop passing their silly anti-Semitic resolutions and we won’t have to violate them.”

    ?

    “Yup, we ask that they sit down and talk. Which is the extreme bit? The “sitting” or the “talking”?”

    It is the demand that the negotiations not be based on international law. And the demand that the right of return is negated.

    Your invitations are duly noted, and appreciated.

    • indigenous or not is irrelevant in the context – being indigenous doesn’t turn one into a “power”.

      That said please define “power” in the context.

  33. “So your argument is that the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine, in particular Transjordan, were a foreign power….but the European Jewish immigrants weren’t?..”

    And that my friend is a nice bit of good old fashioned anti-Semitism. Scratch so many seeming rational, decent critics of Israel and suddenly underneath that thin veneer of humanity is an anti-Semitic monster. The Jew is forever a stranger and a foreigner. My grandfather was mocked and ridiculed by other anti-Semites and told, “Go back to your own country!”

    I learn Talmud every morning with a neighbor,Yossi, who traces his ancestry in Israel back twenty generations. In contrast my wife works with a Palestinian colleague, Rania, none of whose grandparents were born anywhere near Israel. They came from other Arab countries when the “Zionist Invasion” opened up employment prospects. However, to the anti-Semite Yossi will forever be the European colonialist and Rania is an indigenous inhabitant because she speaks Arabic. If her son marries a girl from Hackney who moves to “Palestine”, that girl becomes an indigenous inhabitant too. Yassir Arafat was born in Cairo, but he was an indigenous inhabitant of Palestine. If an Israeli converts to Islam and moves to Ramalla he suddenly becomes an indigenous inhabitant. That my friend is a nice bit of good old fashioned anti-Semitism

    In those eyes a Jew can never be an indigenous inhabitant. Not of the UK or of Poland or of Israel or of anywhere. The Jew destined to forever be strangers and foreigners justifying our right to exist before the indigenous inhabitants. Well, guess what? No more. That’s why I came home, and I’m having a ball.

    In 1835 Daniel O’Connell, the Irish Roman Catholic leader, attacked Disraeli in the House of Commons. In the course of his unrestrained invective, he referred to Disraeli’s Jewish ancestry. Disraeli replied, ‘Yes, I am a Jew, and while the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.’”

    • @Daniel – “And that my friend is a nice bit of good old fashioned anti-Semitism….The Jew is forever a stranger and a foreigner.”

      I have population figures for Palestine going back through the Ottoman empire, and, like it or not, they are mostly an indigenous people.

      But, the curious thing is, you accuse the indigenous Arabs of being a foreign power, and that’s OK. But to declare the influx of Jewish immigrants as a foreign power…this is anti-Semitic? How does that work exactly? Methinks the bars are set at different heights.

      You and I both know that there has been a Jewish presence in Palestine since time immemorial (to use the title of Joan Peters’ hoax), but they were a tiny minority.

      “My grandfather was mocked and ridiculed by other anti-Semites and told, “Go back to your own country!””

      Precisely why Zionism was so unpopular, because it adopted many of the tenets of anti-Semitic thought.

      As a piece of advice, I will say this: I am immune to the anti-Semitism card. It has been used on me so many times (always by Zionists, never non-Zionist Jews) that it no longer has any effect. It is the death rattle of a failed argument.

      • never non-Zionist Jews

        and next we’ll get: “some of my best friends are …”

      • Many years ago I was discussing the Arab-Israeli Conflict with a not unattractive Irish lady of my age. Though we were getting on quite well and though I had assumed that it was quite clear from my skull-cap that I am a Jew she quite innocently let it slip that her opinion was that Hitler, “..had not killed enough.” For me that was the end of our brief friendship. She had thought that opinion to be quite a legitimate one in a discussion.

        You have made an anti-Semitic argument that a Jew, because he is a Jew cannot be an indigenous inhabitant.You neither deny having meant this nor have you apologized. By your corrupted thinking all “Palestinian” Arabs, wherever they were born are indigenous inhabitants and all Jews, wherever they were born cannot be. You are not even ashamed to use pseudo-history to backup it up. I have no idea who you are or where you are from, but you are a disgrace.

        Your next point was that you can’t be an anti-Semite because that’s what everybody calls you, so you’re immune.

        Originally I told you that I have no interest in your opinion but was prepared to answer questions. I have never solicited your “advice” and I now I’ve seen your true colors have no wish in carrying on this conversation. Why don’t you put it down to another glorious victory, like those on all the other blogs.

        If you’re feeling that this is ad hominem, you’re dead right. I get pretty ad hominem with anti-Semites.

        Like I said earlier. If the Palestinian cause is so close to your heart, do something about it besides pestering me.

      • Dribbletante, for all of the above reasons and a few more, don’t expect me to answer either.

      • @Daniel – “You have made an anti-Semitic argument that a Jew, because he is a Jew cannot be an indigenous inhabitant.”

        That’s what we know in the trade as a bare faced lie. Let me quote myself:

        “So your argument is that the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine, in particular Transjordan, were a foreign power….but the European Jewish immigrants weren’t?”

        My argument applied to “European Jewish immigrants”, which you replaced in your head with “all Jews everywhere”.

        My argument was also that they were not indigenous to Palestine because they were immigrants (as they were Europeans), hence not indigenous by definition. You replaced this in your head with “a Jew cannot be an indigenous inhabitant because he is Jewish.”

        I appreciate that the anti-Semitism card is an effective weapon, but sometimes, when used in the most desperate fashion, you come off looking rather silly.

        “You neither deny having meant this nor have you apologized.”

        I will give you an opportunity to retract your rather bizarre claims. It is possible that you misread my words, which can happen.

      • but they were a TINY minority.

        emphasis mine

    • “And that my friend is a nice bit of good old fashioned anti-Semitism”

      You have only just discovered it? I knew he was one from the off. The sneering contempt for Jews stood out a mile.

  34. Question to dubitante:

    shouldn’t it give you pause that Gamil seems to have lost interest in you?

    Or have you taken advantage of his offer to go off-blog with you?

    If so please let us know at least a wee bit of what you two managed to agree or disagree. Thanks! (and yes I confess to being as nosy a female as the best of them)

  35. for a long time reader of Daniel like myself – the most glaring difference about his calling dubitante an anti-semite is that he doesn’t call him an honest one which he did with all the others I remember.

  36. Okay Dubitante, here’s how it goes.

    Jewish people born inside or outside the Green Line are just as much indigenous inhabitants as Arabs born in inside or outside the Green Line. Do you acknowledge that or not?

    I’ll make it easy for you. If you don’t, this conversation ends. Then you’ll have won. Nothing would give me more pleasure than for that to happen.

    And please don’t talk to me about “playing Antisemitism cards” – to me this is not a game, to the Palestinians it’s not a game either.

    • @Daniel – “Jewish people born inside or outside the Green Line are just as much indigenous inhabitants as Arabs born in inside or outside the Green Line. Do you acknowledge that or not?”

      Indigenous to where? A Jewish family that had lived in, say, Spain for generations, is no more indigenous to historic Palestine than an Arab family from Lebanon is indigenous to Iceland. I would have thought this was self-evident.

      Unless I’m not understanding what you mean.

      • You don’t understand anything, that’s clear enough.

        A Jewish family is indigenous to the Jewish homeland. That is a fact despite airheads like you failing to understand it.

        There is no such thing as ‘historic Palestine’.

    • There is no such place as historic Palestine – there is only Israel. For more years than Islam or Christianity can remember Israel and its Jewish population has existed. The fact that the Jewish nation survives above all other now long forgotten so called civilizations is evidence that although her enemies have tried to expel the Jews from Israel forever, tried to destroy the Jewish nation, nobody has managed this. So you guys can talk all you like about Palestinian ancient rights/lands or any other name you might like to give the present enemy that tries to get rid of the Jewish nation. What you really need to do is understand the history, but then your minds are so addled with propaganda that you dare not read the truth or you would have to question your purpose in life. You would rather quote conventions and laws that have no logical foundation so you never have to face the truth.

      The very essence of those laws you quote emanate from the Jews. Its a shame that you cannot understand this.

  37. The land of the Jewish People is Israel and has been so morally since the time of Abraham, although only Abraham’s descendants were permitted to settle Israel as its owners at the time of Joshua and then establish a kingdom at the time of Saul.

    It was in these kingdoms that my fathers built two temples and created a civilization that all three major religions are based on – perhaps Christianity more than Islam.

    There were periods of exile when the Jewish population of Israel was partially expelled, and those remaining were often persecuted. Throughout this time a day did not pass when every Jew who prayed would face his body and heart in the direction of Israel and pray to his Maker to return him to Zion “in mercy”. The great majority of Jewish laws cannot be kept outside of Israel and most of those that are kept are seen as a kind of practice for the day we return, so we shall not forget how to observe them.

    There was a continued Jewish presence in Israel, even in years of famine disease and persecution. There were even periods when miraculously we constituted the majority.

    Not only is living in Israel a commandment that many rabbis see as being equal in importance to all others, but the Talmud teaches us that it is better to live in Israel among a majority of non-Jews than outside of Israel among a majority of Jews.

    The majority of Jews were not able to return throughout most of our 2,000 years of the second exile, but those who could did, sometimes returning in a coffin, at least to be buried here. Famous is the story of the Jew in Poland who was robbed by thieves, but refused to give them a small velvet bag. They were sure it contained valuable stones or gold and killed him for it. All they found was soil. His wife explained to them that it was a handful of earth from Jerusalem that he was waiting to have put under his head when he was buried.

    For 2,000 years Jews invited friends and family to weddings announcing that the celebration would be in the rebuilt city of Jerusalem. Underneath in small often handwritten writing would be a sad note, that if by any chance the messiah hadn’t come by that date and Jerusalem was not rebuilt, the wedding would be in the local synagogue hall.

    For 2,000 years my fathers cried for Jerusalem with a pain that grew ever greater with the passing of years. Napoleon once passed a synagogue on the 9th of Av and hears terrible crying, he asked what it was and was told that the Jews are mourning their temple of Jerusalem. He asked when it was destroyed and was told 1,800 years ago. Famously, he declared that any people who mourn for Jerusalem after so many years will see it rebuilt. He was right.

    Every Jew is an indigenous inhabitant of Israel, Jerusalem and Zion – including those who have never been privileged to set foot on her soil. Every Jew is an indigenous inhabitant of Jerusalem even if he was exiled many years ago, even if he or his fathers converted. Understand that or understand nothing.

    To us Israel is not one out of 22 options, it is our only option. I, my wife and many of my friends were born into the comparative affluence and comfort of London, New York, Paris and many other foreign cities. We joined all those other Jews throughout the ages who immigrated to a more dangerous country with a lower standard of living. That’s not something that happens every day to every people, but then not every people is the People of Israel.

    • Very beautiful Daniel!

    • @Daniel – Just beautiful. But a retrofitted load of twaddle.

      You airbrush out many unfortunate realities. You ignore the previous endeavours to create a Jewish state elsewhere. You ignore the crackpot Ararat City scheme. You ignore the Uganda plan, that was actually approved by the World Zionist Organization. You ignore Herzl’s consideration of Argentina.

      You ignore the Zionist plan for a Jewish homeland in USSR, championed by an anti-Semite.

      There were just so many crackpot Zionist schemes to create a Jewish homeland in all manner of different places. Hence the reason that Zionism was despised by European Jews, who thought it anti-Semitic. This eternal longing for Eretz Yisrael I’m afraid has been airbrushed into history, very effectively I might add.

      “Every Jew is an indigenous inhabitant of Israel, Jerusalem and Zion – including those who have never been privileged to set foot on her soil.”

      Aar, yes. Now this argument is familiar. Let’s define “indigenous” to mean whatever the hell we want it to mean. I can convert to Judaism and become indigenous. Awesome!

      Again, you probably don’t realise it, but you have just replicated much of early 20th century anti-Semitic thought. It’s odd that what was considered anti-Semitic 100 years ago is considered philosemitic today.

      • This eternal longing for Eretz Yisrael I’m afraid has been airbrushed into history

        Utter ignorant bollocks. You really know nothing at all about Jewish history, do you, Hill?

    • heartfelt thanks Daniel

      but since it is my nature that I can’t help finding “fault” a question.
      Is there a reasonable explanation why you refer to fathers only or is it just a tradition kept up for simplicity’s sake (and for the sake of keeping the language as beautiful as it comes across?)

      • You’re right Silke, it’s a strange thing. My youngest son pointed out to me a couple of weeks ago that it appears that most key Biblical figures had their wives dying before them. He asked me why.

        I had never thought about it, but suggested that from a literary standpoint, since the men were usually the key actors in most Biblical stories there was not much for say, Sarah, to do after Abraham had left the stage. Perhaps,that’s why she was “killed off” first.

        There are some wonderful exceptions to prove the rule, perhaps Esther in the book named after her first and foremost, but women are rarely protagonists of Biblical stories or of much of Jewish history. If the truth be known I know much about my great-grandfathers, but little about my great-grandmothers, other than that they were their wives.

        Thank G-d, the feminist ladies in my family, particularly my daughters and daughter-in-law are making up for this and I have no doubt that my off-spring will have little to say about Great-grandpa Daniel, other than the obvious fact that he was married to Great-grandma Roxana.

      • my bet is that grandpas will figure more prominently for generations and generations to come.

        Why do I think so?

        Just as one example: Because I have as yet to come across one (German) radio piece recommending Jean Paul Sartre to me as having been the companion of Simone de Beauvoir, while I can’t remember a piece that didn’t find it necessary to enhance Beauvoir’s importance by reminding me of her connection to Sartre.

        (I have an ear open for those two because it was one or several of Sartre’s plays which successfully immunised me against the communistic lure while still a teenager and it was Beauvoir who has two books to her credit which taught me valuable bits – one that immortality is not desirable in real life and the other that dowries may be to women’s advantage.)

  38. There were not crackpot Zionist schemes – the world was trying to divert Jews from their homeland by offering them other people’s lands! It would have suited the British to fob the Jews off with places like Uganda or some other element of their Empire as they then would not have had to deal with the duplicitous Nazi supported local Arabs.

    Amazing @debitante how you can turn things to suit your ignorant arguments. I am still waiting for the locality of the CLO.

  39. @dubitante – perhaps you haven’t read this yet:

  40. ah those terrible terrible decisions one has to take.

    What is more worthy of the gold medal?

    Dribbultante or Dribbletante?

    I vote for the first, it can’t be read as fast when first encountered and I think that increases the giggle factor.