War over hostage taking?

[spud the mackem]

Why are people on U.M. always having a go at Israel...have you been there, the people are ordinary citizens going about their daily lives the same as you and I , if you can call yourselves "ordinary".Israel is surrounded by hostile forces and must protect its self,thats why it retaliates to violence from other Countries, and it aint gonna lose, no matter how long this violence goes on,because the people of Israel have no where else to go.

[Leonardo]

Zionists created Israel (obviously with the help and blessings from Great Britain and France)...

This is revisionist history, possibly manufactured and promoted by various Zionist groups to forward their agenda.

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 actually set forth British support for the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." - not the founding of a "Jewish State". The distinction between the two might appear minor, but is very important.

After WWII, when Britain surrendered the Palestinian Mandate to the UN, the British Govt expected the UN to supply a Resolution calling for a binational autonomous State (the whole of what was then Palestine), comprising both Jewish and Palestinian/Arab citizens with no one group having 'ultimate authority'. It was via the pressure of Zionist groups in the US on the govt of Truman that the UN actually supported, via US pressure/lobbying, the founding of a "Jewish State".

The 1917 Balfour Declaration's wording reflects the wording of the Zionist 'bible' - Der Judenstaat - written in 1896 by Theodor Hertzl where he also sets out the original Zionist agenda of a "homeland for the Jews", not a "Jewish State". This wording became corrupted - possibly deliberately - by more fundamental Zionist elements within the early movement, setting the ongoing Zionist agenda of a"Jewish State" in the Palestine.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Leonardo

[RoofGardener]

Yes_Man; thank you for your earlier post regarding international law in relation to Israel. You obviously took some time, and put some effort, into compiling this, and I'm grateful for it.

Now that we've got some ACTUAL laws to consider, I'd like to run through them, as I don't think your analysis of their applicability is entirely accurate. However, it will take me some time to do this, so please be patient.

Please come down with your gunboat you pompous, stuck up, lily-butt pom

He's just cranky 'cos Australia got kicked out of the World Cup.

[Yamato]

Why are people on U.M. always having a go at Israel...have you been there, the people are ordinary citizens going about their daily lives the same as you and I , if you can call yourselves "ordinary".Israel is surrounded by hostile forces and must protect its self,thats why it retaliates to violence from other Countries, and it aint gonna lose, no matter how long this violence goes on,because the people of Israel have no where else to go.

I can't speak for anyone else but as for myself, I actually respect human rights and civil liberties. All this crap policy promises is more violence. Why don't you care? And moreover, why does the UK often seem to know better while the US is the sole veto on the UN Security Council in favor of Israel? If I could just get to where you are, then it'd look a lot easier to ask others why they're having a go at Israel.

If you call throwing feces on people you're herding through politically correct fencing blocking most of the ways their kids walk back and forth to school "ordinary" then yeah. Ordinary. That little kid who sees his family senselessly murdered, who has human feces flung on him on the way to school, whose family and neighbors don't even have building supplies to rebuild the piles of rubble they're living on. Settlers are extremists and the government that enables them is extremist too.

[Black Red Devil]

This is revisionist history, possibly manufactured and promoted by various Zionist groups to forward their agenda.

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 actually set forth British support for the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." - not the founding of a "Jewish State". The distinction between the two might appear minor, but is very important.

Surely debatable Leo. Taking Wiki info for what it is, the info below suggests that some authors are of the opinion that the idea of a Jewish State was heavily supported by top ranked British officials at the time which might also explain the large influx of Jews in the early 20's. Until then, both sides lived quite in peace with each other.

Both the Zionist Organization and the British government devoted efforts over the following decades, including Winston Churchill's 1922 White Paper, to denying that a state was the intention.^[22] However, in private, many British officials agreed with the interpretation of the Zionists that a state would be established when a Jewish majority was achieved.^[23]

link

Considering the circumstances and the moral debt Britain had towards the Arabs for joining in with the Allies to fight the Turks, it's quite extraordinary that British officials would even consider something so ludicrous as a Jewish State. On top of this, both the Zionists and the British Govt were even denying this was their intention! Hmmm, I wonder if British mindsets changed at the glint of a few gold lingots?

After WWII, when Britain surrendered the Palestinian Mandate to the UN, the British Govt expected the UN to supply a Resolution calling for a binational autonomous State (the whole of what was then Palestine), comprising both Jewish and Palestinian/Arab citizens with no one group having 'ultimate authority'. It was via the pressure of Zionist groups in the US on the govt of Truman that the UN actually supported, via US pressure/lobbying, the founding of a "Jewish State".

Yep, this is where the US Govt took over the baby feeding.

The 1917 Balfour Declaration's wording reflects the wording of the Zionist 'bible' - Der Judenstaat - written in 1896 by Theodor Hertzl where he also sets out the original Zionist agenda of a "homeland for the Jews", not a "Jewish State". This wording became corrupted - possibly deliberately - by more fundamental Zionist elements within the early movement, setting the ongoing Zionist agenda of a"Jewish State" in the Palestine.

Even the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, it mentions him as the father of the Jewish State:

In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.

link

If his intentions were genuine, somehow, somewhere they got lost in translation over time and his ideas were manipulated as you suggest. I simply think he truly believed there was a place for both the Jews and Arabs to live in peace in their own land as long as they could access their holy sites and render homage to their Gods. As I mentioned above, Jews and Arabs lived quite harmoniously together with each other under the Ottomans and until the US Govt started poring in their aid contributions they were by no means a power to be reckoned with and therefore their biblical dream of the Land of Israel (Genesis 15) was just that, a biblical belief. Zionists took that dream to a new level and expanded it as their weapon stocks grew.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Black Red Devil

[Leonardo]

Surely debatable Leo.

Absolutely - everything's debatable.

Politics often involves "marriages of convenience", and what appears on the face of these "marriages" is often not what is the truth behind them. Even during the early 20th century Britain dearly wanted to rid itself of the Palestinian Mandate, as it was a drain on the nation. The politicians quite possibly saw cosying up to the Zionists as an expedient way of effecting the discarding of the mandate by leveraging their support in the League of Nations. As to whether the British politicians actually desired the formation of a "Jewish State", or whether they used that to get the Zionists 'onside' is up for debate - but I suspect they didn't really care so long as they got rid of the Mandate.

After WWII and the dissolution of the LoN for the UN, the US took charge provoked by the Zionist lobby in that country. At that time Britain was not in a position to deny the US, being heavily indebted by WWII. This is not to excuse the British govt - they showed weak moral/ethical character and a lack of leadership - but 'history' has tended to put the blame almost entirely on the British, whereas it was actually the US who instigated the situation that has now developed.

[+and-then]

Absolutely - everything's debatable.

Politics often involves "marriages of convenience", and what appears on the face of these "marriages" is often not what is the truth behind them. Even during the early 20th century Britain dearly wanted to rid itself of the Palestinian Mandate, as it was a drain on the nation. The politicians quite possibly saw cosying up to the Zionists as an expedient way of effecting the discarding of the mandate by leveraging their support in the League of Nations. As to whether the British politicians actually desired the formation of a "Jewish State", or whether they used that to get the Zionists 'onside' is up for debate - but I suspect they didn't really care so long as they got rid of the Mandate.

After WWII and the dissolution of the LoN for the UN, the US took charge provoked by the Zionist lobby in that country. At that time Britain was not in a position to deny the US, being heavily indebted by WWII. This is not to excuse the British govt - they showed weak moral/ethical character and a lack of leadership - but 'history' has tended to put the blame almost entirely on the British, whereas it was actually the US who instigated the situation that has now developed.

That was smooth, Leo Hefted all that "guilt" right onto the US shoulders in a seamless transition of logic

[Yamato]

That was smooth, Leo Hefted all that "guilt" right onto the US shoulders in a seamless transition of logic

There's enough blame to go around for everyone. Not that it changes much. When did debating historical blame become the rationale for what we do today?

White people had slaves so whites must be occupied by minorities and can't drink out of the black fountains or take the black-only roads or return home to where they were living before we designed our society around the sins of people who aren't even alive today. WTH is that? Only in Israel, bud and I mean ONLY does nonsense like that get supported by people from across oceans who couldn't stand eating what they're cooking for a minute if it happened to them.

[Black Red Devil]

Absolutely - everything's debatable.

Politics often involves "marriages of convenience", and what appears on the face of these "marriages" is often not what is the truth behind them. Even during the early 20th century Britain dearly wanted to rid itself of the Palestinian Mandate, as it was a drain on the nation. The politicians quite possibly saw cosying up to the Zionists as an expedient way of effecting the discarding of the mandate by leveraging their support in the League of Nations. As to whether the British politicians actually desired the formation of a "Jewish State", or whether they used that to get the Zionists 'onside' is up for debate - but I suspect they didn't really care so long as they got rid of the Mandate.

After WWII and the dissolution of the LoN for the UN, the US took charge provoked by the Zionist lobby in that country. At that time Britain was not in a position to deny the US, being heavily indebted by WWII. This is not to excuse the British govt - they showed weak moral/ethical character and a lack of leadership - but 'history' has tended to put the blame almost entirely on the British, whereas it was actually the US who instigated the situation that has now developed.

Not that I want to absolve the British and pass the blame over to others, but as an example, years ago a Palestinian migrant told me a bit about his personal story and his life in the West Bank under Israeli rule and subsequently what followed as a refugee. In the West Bank him and his family were living in a house that got bulldozed to make way for Israeli settlers. His family was actually told by Israeli authorities they had to knock down their own house and remove all the debris otherwise they would be fined. Obviously they didn't, they had no money to pay fines and the house still got demolished. The only thing his family was told was they were living in Area C which was under Israeli control and their house was illegal or illegally built, something on those lines.

They had nowhere to stay and they didn't want to live as second class citizens on their own land so they left and became refugees in Jordan, Yemen and Lebanon. They were treated badly everywhere they went but in Lebanon in 1982 at the Shatila refugee camp he barely got away with his life after Palestinians were massacred by Christian Lebanese fascists (phalangists) under the watchful eyes of Israeli officials who had invaded Lebanon at the time. Eventually he got away from the nightmare in the ME (not sure how) and settled in Australia. Never asked if his family got away.

From what I recall the only ones he ever laid the blame on for the conditions him and his family went through are the Zionists and to a lesser degree the US Govt for supporting them in their quest. Sure the British may have "innocently" laid down the foundations but it's how the house has been built and who has been supplying the material which are the ones responsible.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Why are people on U.M. always having a go at Israel...have you been there, the people are ordinary citizens going about their daily lives the same as you and I , if you can call yourselves "ordinary".Israel is surrounded by hostile forces and must protect its self,thats why it retaliates to violence from other Countries, and it aint gonna lose, no matter how long this violence goes on,because the people of Israel have no where else to go.

Actually. it is quite the opposite. The displaced stateless Palestinians have no place to go.

The European Jews can go back home, and the Sephardic Jews would be allowed to stay because they never caused this mes in the first place, and because they truly do come from the Levant. The peoples there understand the difference.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

The mother of the murdered Palestinian boy had some interesting things to say.

Look at the difference as to how Israel treated both situations, the 3 murdered Jewish students, v. the Palestinian teen.

Did you see Israel bulldoze homes in the neighborhood of the Jewish suspects, or drop bombs in the neighborhood?

Did the police round up scores of suspects and detain them for a long time?

She said that the teens brought in for questioning will be questioned and released.

That is the difference between "law enforcement" and using law enforcement as an excuse to murder/torture people you generically hate. That's Israel.

[Yamato]

Eye for an eye justice would have Palestine bombing Israel with 1/3 the amount of bombs Israel drops. Of course even one Palestinian bomb in retaliation would be "Terrorism!" because derp, doing the exact same thing is totally different when the other side does it.

[+and-then]

The mother of the murdered Palestinian boy had some interesting things to say.

Look at the difference as to how Israel treated both situations, the 3 murdered Jewish students, v. the Palestinian teen.

Did you see Israel bulldoze homes in the neighborhood of the Jewish suspects, or drop bombs in the neighborhood?

Did the police round up scores of suspects and detain them for a long time?

She said that the teens brought in for questioning will be questioned and released.

That is the difference between "law enforcement" and using law enforcement as an excuse to murder/torture people you generically hate. That's Israel.

The reaction on the official level against those murdering scum will be sure and relatively swift. It's been what? a week? They have 3 who've confessed and even walked the cops through how it was done. The grieving mother can say anything she likes but she cannot change the reality of what is being done to these Jewish perps. Now, let's see... the Palestinian leaders have done what, exactly to bring in the 2 who murdered THREE Israelis? That's right, nothing.

[RavenHawk]

This is revisionist history, possibly manufactured and promoted by various Zionist groups to forward their agenda.

Wow! The British definitely wanted to unload the Middle East. That's why they created nations (the wisdom of that is debatable) and handed it off to the various peoples. Palestine was different. They didn't have an organized body to hand off to. If Balfour was a leading strategy, then Israel would have been established in the '20s. The only reason it was established was because Israel declared statehood the day before the Mandate ended. I would think that if the UN was taking over, UN forces would have replaced the British as they pulled out. That never happened, therefore, anything that the UN may have considered had no teeth to organize. That left Israel as the only organized body to "leave" things to. Also, if the UN was taking over, there would have been no Arab army waiting to attack Israel.

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 actually set forth British support for the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." - not the founding of a "Jewish State". The distinction between the two might appear minor, but is very important.

Saying that it is an important distinction is like saying there is a major distinction between "Land of the Free" and "The Home of the Brave". Or saying that wiping out the regime in Israel isn't the same as destroying Israel. What part of "Israel is not Israel without Zionism to defend her" do people not understand? You can't have one without the other.

with no one group having 'ultimate authority'.

And how long would that last before Islam started to dominate the Jews and threatening violence to force them into Dhimmitude?

It was via the pressure of Zionist groups in the US on the govt of Truman that the UN actually supported, via US pressure/lobbying, the founding of a "Jewish State".

It was the Soviet Union that recognize Israel first. It wasn't until after the Yom Kippur War that the US started to really support Israel.

The 1917 Balfour Declaration's wording reflects the wording of the Zionist 'bible' - Der Judenstaat - written in 1896 by Theodor Hertzl where he also sets out the original Zionist agenda of a "homeland for the Jews", not a "Jewish State". This wording became corrupted - possibly deliberately - by more fundamental Zionist elements within the early movement, setting the ongoing Zionist agenda of a"Jewish State" in the Palestine.

I think that someone is just deluding themselves. A Jewish homeland *IS* A Jewish state.

[Leonardo]

That was smooth, Leo Hefted all that "guilt" right onto the US shoulders in a seamless transition of logic

Not that I want to absolve the British

If you had noticed, I didn't "absolve the British of blame" - in fact I said what I stated was not an excuse for the British govt. What I pointed out was the major role the US played in the setting up of the Jewish State - a role that much of history seems to have overlooked and lumped the entire fiasco on the British (and French).

Wow! The British definitely wanted to unload the Middle East. That's why they created nations (the wisdom of that is debatable) and handed it off to the various peoples. Palestine was different. They didn't have an organized body to hand off to. If Balfour was a leading strategy, then Israel would have been established in the '20s.

Balfour's 'white papers' never proposed the founding of an "Israel", nor the setting up of a "Jewish State" of any 'name'. And the 'organised body' the British "unloaded the Middle East" to was the UN. Prior to that, the issue was mainly dealt with by the UN's predecessor - the League of Nations. So your claim there was "no organised body" for the British to hand the issue off to is unfounded.

A Jewish homeland *IS* A Jewish state.

Many people of various ethnicities have a 'homeland' which is shared with others and do not have an 'ethnic state' as such. This was what the British originally envisaged would happen in Palestine - the setting up of a binational, autonomous state (Palestine) which would be the homeland of the Jews and the Palestinians.

Thus, the Jewish homeland would not be a "Jewish State".

However, the more extreme Zionist elements at the time had other ideas. And in modern times, those 'extreme elements' have assumed the condition of 'being moderates'.

It was the Soviet Union that recognize Israel first. It wasn't until after the Yom Kippur War that the US started to really support Israel.

The US govt recognised the founding of the Jewish State the day after Ben Gurion announced it. You are confusing economic and military support with political recognition, perhaps?

Edited July 8, 2014 by Leonardo

[Frank Merton]

Israel may have been conceived as a Jewish state, but that has to end. We need nothing but secular states where religion and government are separate. This includes Israel and even the Vatican if it wants to keep up the pretense of being a political entity.

Governments regulate religions, with regard to things like disturbing the peace or cruelty to animals or when different parts of a church argue over who owns a piece of property, but they stay out of doctrine. Religions must also be kept out of government.

Although atheism is not a religion, this nevertheless applies in atheist countries, where religions must be allowed within reasonable secular laws.

[RoofGardener]

OK, Yes_man kindly found some "interntional laws" to back up some of the criticism of Israel, and he posted these a little earlier.

Lets run through them, and see how they fare.

Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 2(4) & 51 (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 1

(1970).

Israeli Actions: It is illegal under international law to acquire land by force: Israel annexed land occupied by force during 1948 and 1967 wars (lands other than those given by the UN 1947-48 partition plan) ILRC article. Military action and occupations are legal only if they are for self-defense, or to directly benefit the native population. But studies show Israel is not just defending itself as it develops de-facto annexation with its settlements and separation barrier on occupied land, as it takes over most of the occupied territories (over 70%) and its natural resources for its own use and

economic benefit, at the expense of the native population. ILRC article on why the Occupation is illegal.

“.. it is illegal under international law..” . That is a circular argument, as the question was “which law(s) specifically”). Also note that Israel didn’t occupy any territory in 1948: it was Jordan and Egypt that not only occupied, but annexed the territory in question. Note the vital difference between ‘occupied’ and ‘annexed’, by the way.

OK, the cited articles where UN charter article 2, part 4 ( http://www.un.org/en.../chapter2.shtml and Article 51 http://www.un.org/en.../chapter7.shtml. I would suggest that neither of these support the “Israeli Actions” accusation if illegal occupation. Within the scope of Resolution242, I believe that UN Security Council regards Israel’s occupation as legitimate.

Outcome: Cited documents do not support accusation.

Laws Violated: Geneva Conventions IV, Article 49(6) (1949). It is illegal to colonize occupied land or transfer non-indigenous population to that land.

Israeli Actions: Immediately following the 1967 war, Israel began building Israeli civilian settlements on Palestinian lands, eventually building over 200 settlements throughout the occupied territories, and settling over 450,000 Israeli civilians in them, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian

civilians from their own legally owned lands. In addition, Israeli citizens live in hundreds of Israeli settlements on occupied land not originally given to them in the UN Partition Plan, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

OK, here is the cited convention: http://www.icrc.org/...ART/380-600056

Looks like Israel is bang to rights on this one... EXCEPT... are the settlements brand new villages, created in whole in an otherwise uninhabited area, or are they effectively expansions of existing villages. Because let us not forget... there WHERE Jewish settlements in the West Bank (prior to the Jordanian invasion), and some Jews where ‘indignant’. So it would be legal for an existing village to expand, just as Palestinian towns and villages expand.

Having said that, if the building work exceeded ‘natural’ growth levels, and non-indigenous jews where just “parachuted” in from Tel Aviv, then that would be a different matter.

Outcome: Israel possibly in violation of an identified International Law (Geneva conventions, Section IV article 49).

Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 2(4) (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 1

(1970).

Israeli Actions: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Nah, I think not Yes_man. Article 2(4) isn’t relevant (did you mean a different one ? ). As for the Partition Plan (Resolution 181(ii)), it has no legal force; it was just a General Assembly [ i]non-binding recommendation . It’s implementation executive office was stripped from it in 1948. The mandate of its Trusteeship Council for Jerusalem expired in 1959 and was never renewed. It cannot, in any shape or form, be regarded as ‘international law’. (though there are moves afoot to re-evaluate this status).

Outcome: Cited documents do not support accusation. (yet).

Laws Violated: Forbidding civilian populations the right to return to their homes following the end of armed conflict is in direct violation of international law and UN resolutions. Geneva Convention IV, Articles 45, 46 & 49 (1949), UN resolutions 194 (III) (General Assembly; 1948) &

237 (Security Council; 1967).

Israeli Actions: Since 1910, in different ways, the Zionists and then Israel have taken Palestinian lands, forced native populations from their land, and then refused the Palestinian landowners or tenants’ residency or employment on them. Following fighting in 1948 and then again in 1967,

Palestinian civilians who wished to return to their homes in Israel and the Occupied Territories were forbidden re-entry (“right of return”), confining them to increasingly smaller areas of Israel and Occupied Territories. The Israeli government enacts laws, and employs its military to keep

approximately 750,000 Palestinian Arab civilians from returning to their homes following the end of fighting both in 1948 and in the occupied territories in 1967. Israel then violates UN resolutions ordering them to respect Palestinians’ right to return to their homes.

Firstly, the cited Geneva articles do NOT support the “accusation”. http://www.icrc.org/...51?OpenDocument

Resolution 194 discusses the creation of a mediator. It makes no direct comment on a “right to return”. It does not support the “accusation”. It is also worth noting that this is a non-binding General Assembly resolution, and as such it is NOT “international law”.

Resolution 237 touches on a specific “right of return” – that is of those Jordanians and Egyptians displaced during the 1967 war. It only covers those displaced from the Occupied Territories (Gaza Strip and West Bank), and the ‘right’ is restricted to returning TO those territories. Israel HAS allowed these Palestinians to return TO THOSE TERRITORIES.

Note that Res237 does NOT confer ANY right for a return to Israel, only to the occupied territories.

At the same time, the resolution requires Israel to take responsibility for the safety of the returning former Jordanians (now Palestinians again) in the West Bank (and all former Egyptians in the Gaza Strip). Would anyone really classify the West Bank as a safe area ? Can it really guarantee the safety of returning former Jordanian Palestinians ?

Outcome: All of the cited documents BAR ONE are either not international law, or fail to support the accusation. Resolution 237 stands as being both International Law, AND has limited applicability. Israel is in partial compliance, but MAY be in breach of part of it.

Laws Violated: International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1976). Link to our fact sheets on Israeli

Apartheid.

Israeli Actions: The State of Israel has a formal system of legalized discrimination against Palestinian Arabs which technically fits the official UN definition of Apartheid. ILRC article. Israel’s society-wide system of discrimination and isolation of the Palestinian people within Israel, and its system of exploitation, oppression and isolation in the occupied territories, fits exactly the official, legal UN definition of apartheid, which is considered to be a crime against humanity. The practice of passing laws which give special favor throughout Israeli society to the Jewish people over all other people, and especially the native Palestinian Arab people, embodies the UN definition of apartheid, which is giving special favor to one group of people above all other groups based on criteria like what religion they are.

Another example is in 2003, the Israeli legislature (Knesset) passed legislation that forbade spouses of Arab-Israeli citizens who are in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel (with some exceptions). The reason for this legislation is to help maintain the Jewish demographic

majority family unification. The racist nature is evident in that only Palestinians (no other ethnic groups) are not forbidden to live in Israel after marrying an Israeli. ILRC article. General article. Amnesty International argues that this law violates fundamental principles of equity, human

dignity and personal freedom enshrined in basic law as well as the rights of the child to live with both parents and other fundamental rights enshrined in human rights treaties in which Israel is a signer

The ICSPC is indeed international law, since it was adopted by the UN as such.

Neither the General Assembly, the Security Council, nor the UN advisory body The International Court of Justice, have ever criticised Israel for the crime, despite having investigated it several times.

Outcome: the crime exists in international law, but Israel has never been charged with it by any competent authority.

On a personal note, I would LOVE to challenge some of the statements in the quoted paragraphs above, as some of it is outright factually WRONG. That will have to wait for another day.

Question: what is this “ILRC” you keep citing ?

Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 1 (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 5 (1970).

Israeli Actions: Studies by UN, I.C.J., and International H.R. organizations have found that Israel violates the human rights of Palestinian people on a massive scale, including torture, imprisonment without charges or trial, land confiscation, harassment at checkpoints, unwarranted civilian

shootings, not punishing Israeli settlers’ crimes against Palestinians, unwarranted disruption of medical care, commerce, employment, free movement, destruction of public and private property, family separation.

Outcome: Guilty as charged.

However, it’s a bit harsh, isn’t it ? Without the Israeli liberation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Jordanian and Egyptian annexation respectively, the Palestinians would not exist today as a peoples . There would have been no Palestinian Authority, no HAMAS or FATAH, no PLO, and no future Palestinian State. I guess it’s a case of “no good deed goes unpunished”.

Laws Violated: Geneva Conventions IV, Article 33 (1949); Geneva Conventions (Protocol I), Article 75(2d) (1977).

Israeli Actions: In response to Arab rebellion, Israeli Military takes massive action against entire Palestinian communities, for example destroying entire neighborhoods of homes, or confiscating communal farmlands, bulldozing homes, blocking off certain areas, or not allowing civilian

populations to leave their houses for extensive periods of time. This is called collective punishment because it punishes entire communities for the actions of a few

Outcome: the law is correct, but is the accusation ? Much of the cited actions could be viewed as legitimate counter-insurgency/counter-terrorism actions.

Laws Violated: Hague Regulations IV, Article 43 (1907).

Israeli Actions: Israel has created a dual legal system in the occupied territories – a democratic one linked to Israel for the Israeli settlements, and an oppressive, exploitive one for the Palestinian communities run by the Israeli military committees and Israeli-controlled civic administrations,

replacing all Arab government functions with Israeli military committees, and dismissing or deporting all Arab government official

I’m not sure whether the Hague Conventions are still considered International Law, but lets assume that they are. OK, article 43 it is.....

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country... 

What country, what laws ? The West Bank was ‘disorganised territory’ prior to being annexed by Jordan. Does that mean that Israel is supposed to uphold Jordanian law ? Or British Mandate law ? Or Ottoman Law ?

Outcome: endless legal arguments.

Laws Violated: Israel has violated 28 resolutions of the United Nations Security Council (which are legally binding on member-nations U.N.

Charter, Article 25 (1945); a few sample resolutions - 54, 111, 233, 234, 236, 248, 250, 252, 256, 262, 267, 270, 280, 285, 298, 313, 316, 468, 476,

etc.

Gosh, that looks awfully damning, doesn’t it ? Lets take a closer look.

54 – This was NOT against Israel; it requested ‘all parties’ to cease fire.

111 – acknowledges Syrian provocation. (why no Resolution criticising Syria ? )

233 - This was NOT against Israel; it requested ‘all parties’ to cease fire.

234 - This was NOT against Israel; it requested ‘all parties’ to cease fire.

236 - This was NOT against Israel; it requested ‘all parties’ to cease fire.

248 – This was NOT ag.... oh.. wait.. no.. it WAS. OK... fair cop on this one. (within reason).

250 – ROFL... you’re all going to have to READ this one yourself. It’s hilarious. Whatever happened to the UN not interfering with a nations internal affairs ?

252 – Criticises Israel for not adopting two (supposedly non-binding) GA resolutions. HUH ?

256 – Fair cop.

262 – Spoilsports !

267 - This is just a followup to 252.

270 – Probably fair, albeit unbalanced. (where are the resolutions against PLO/PLPF terrorism ?)

280 – This is a follow-up to 270.

285 – Follow up to 270

298 - Follow up to 252

313 – Really PEEVED follow up to 270.

316 – Even MORE peeved follow up to 270

468 – Probably fair, albeit both unbalanced and disproportional.

476 – and so forth.

So, an impressive list is whittled down to just 6 unique criticism, most of which Israel complied with.

Israeli Actions: Israel has violated many U.N. Security Council resolutions especially relating to its occupations, land annexations, military

aggression, HR violations, etc.. ILRC article.

Separation Barrier Ruled Illegal

Law Violated: International Court of Justice of 2004, in an advisory opinion, ruled the Israeli separation barriers illegal. They condemned the separation wall Israel is building throughout the occupied West Bank in a 14 to 1 ruling. The Court begins by citing, with reference to Article 2,

paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and to General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), the principles of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, as reflected in customary international law. It notes that significant amounts of land are defacto annexed by the separation barrier. It further cites the principle of self determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). As regards international humanitarian law, the Court refers to the provisions of the Hague Regulation of 1907, which have become part of customary law, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, applicable in those Palestinian territories which, before the armed conflict of 1967, lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further notes that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) are applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It finds that the construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to the relevant provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of the Fourth Geneva Convention; that they impede the liberty of

movement of the inhabitants of the territory as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and that they also impede the exercise by the persons concerned of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lastly, the Court finds that this construction and its associated régime, coupled with the establishment of settlements, are tending to alter the demographic composition of the Occupied

Palestinian Territory and thereby contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention and the relevant Security Council resolutions.

Israeli Action: The separation barrier built by Israel snakes it way though the West Bank, isolating Palestinians from each other, from their land,

work, schools and health care. The wall confiscates significant amounts of land and annexes more land to Israel. The court said: The construction of

the wall being built by Israel, the occupying power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated

regime, are contrary to international law.” “Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall

in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.” The court noted that significant amounts of the West Bank are,

defacto, annexed by the wall.

Outcome SOME highly specific sections of the wall have been ruled unlawful. The overall wall itself, however, has NOT.

Edited July 8, 2014 by RoofGardener

[Black Red Devil]

Israel may have been conceived as a Jewish state, but that has to end. We need nothing but secular states where religion and government are separate. This includes Israel and even the Vatican if it wants to keep up the pretense of being a political entity.

Governments regulate religions, with regard to things like disturbing the peace or cruelty to animals or when different parts of a church argue over who owns a piece of property, but they stay out of doctrine. Religions must also be kept out of government.

Although atheism is not a religion, this nevertheless applies in atheist countries, where religions must be allowed within reasonable secular laws.

I sought of agree with what you're saying but, the Vatican a Secular State?! LOL. That's like saying let's put all Catholic Priests in charge of Childcare Centre's.

[Frank Merton]

Actually the Vatican should be incorporated into Italy. The point is no religious states. History and current events combine to show what a bad idea they are. The Vatican doesn't really matter as it doesn't actually govern, but it should set an example.

[RoofGardener]

Soooo... we're going to abolish Iran and Saudi Arabia ? (and Brunei, and Oman, and... )

What about the UN Principle of National Self Determination ? If a nation WANTS to be a theocracy, by what right should "we" prevent it ?

[Frank Merton]

That is my view, that governments that pretend to have a religious justification are bad news and should be encouraged to move away from it. It is a fraud anyway as surely no one nowadays thinks God endorses politicians or kings.

Self determination is another little bit of nonsense invented in the nineteenth century so the Austrians and Russians could ride roughshod over their minorities and use that as a way to keep others out. The Chinese have of late found the idea useful.

[RoofGardener]

So you reject the concept of national self-determination, Frank ?

Then who decides what constitutes a nation, if not its people ?

[Frank Merton]

I am talking about ideals. As a practical matter what is a nation and what isn't is largely an accident of history, which is to say the events involved are so many and so intertwined and so downright chaotic that it becomes possible only to trace it in broad terms.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Eye for an eye justice would have Palestine bombing Israel with 1/3 the amount of bombs Israel drops. Of course even one Palestinian bomb in retaliation would be "Terrorism!" because derp, doing the exact same thing is totally different when the other side does it.

You nailed another one, Yamato. It's called propaganda. And it works.

Israel goes into Lebanon and occupies it for like three decades, or more, and when fighters from all throughout the ME team up and fight for Hezbolah and pushes Israel OUT, all of a sudden, Hezbola is a terrorist entity!

Right, but in the meantime, mad man Menachin Begin, the prime minister of Israel - then acting as a Zionist Terrorist, can blow up the King David hotel, killing 91, and Israel is not a terrorist entity by Israel/US standards,, nooooooooooooo, their a good people fighting tyranny!

And of course, "News by Jews" in the US will cover it just that way.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

The reaction on the official level against those murdering scum will be sure and relatively swift. It's been what? a week? They have 3 who've confessed and even walked the cops through how it was done. The grieving mother can say anything she likes but she cannot change the reality of what is being done to these Jewish perps. Now, let's see... the Palestinian leaders have done what, exactly to bring in the 2 who murdered THREE Israelis? That's right, nothing.

Well I suppose since her statement, they did nab three teens that confessed.

But look at over the years. You know that what she said are basically true statements.

Some Pal kills a "Settler" in newly stolen land, and out come the bulldozers and neighborhoods get deleted.

rinse and repeat.

And do we EVER see the UN do anything about it?