The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > John Kerry destined for political scrapheap > Comments

John Kerry destined for political scrapheap : Comments

By David Singer, published 18/11/2013

Jewish settlement in the West Bank is not illegal, unlawful or forbidden by law - having been legally sanctioned and expressly enshrined in international law.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Singer states "Jewish settlement in the West Bank is not illegal, unlawful or forbidden by law - having been legally sanctioned and expressly enshrined in international law under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter"

Although he is quick enough to quote other documents that suit him, he doesn't bother with this one.
So here is the Mandate for Palestine, http://www.mideastweb.org/mandate.htm of which Article 6 says
"ART. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

Nothing about confiscating land owned by other people. Nothing about excluding non-Jews from these settlements. Nothing about the Government of Israel controlling the process. But it does say "ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced", something Singer is always quick to ignore.

And of course none of this says anything about whether anything in the Mandate survives the UN partition arrangements of 1947-8, which, as one might confidently assume, is not the case. See United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, at http://www.mideastweb.org/181.htm, which says
"The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948."
Posted by jeremy, Monday, 18 November 2013 10:30:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Singer's sophistry is a beacon of lazy thinking to those similarly deluded.
Poor t'ing. Poor t'ings.
Perhaps the ultimate benefit of all these settlements will come when they are occupied by all those - Jews, Muslims and Christians - who choose to remain in Israel/Palestine after the increasingly obvious single state emerges from the current troubles.
Posted by halduell, Monday, 18 November 2013 10:58:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I saw the name Singer on the article list my heart jumped. I thought to myself: Has Singer suffered a Road to Damascus conversion, has he finally discovered his heart and a conscience, is he going to apologize for what his people have done to the hapless Palestinians, the atrocities, the humiliations, the genocide?

Alas and alack, it was the same old crap, you know, "We're Jews and we should be entitled to lay claim to land that we might've walked around on two thousand years ago."

Struth, the hide of these people is beyond comprehension. Not only do they reckon they are God's Children, a preposterous claim seeing God doesn't exist, but they claim they can drop in and out of history whenever they feel like it laying claim to anywhere their sandaled feet have trod and bombing anyone who says otherwise.

Stone the crows, they have more hide than all the elephants in Africa.

Know what'll do? I'm going down to the Main Street in my town with a large sign which reads:

I'M DAVID,THE LONG LOST SON OF TUTANKHAMAN AND I LAY CLAIM TO ALL OF EYGPT AND HITHERTO ONLY TUTANKS LIKE ME CAN LIVE THERE!

Gees, I reckon I'd be in the local lockup within five minutes and in a psychiatric ward within the hour.

I'm sure there's a moral in this story somewhere!
Posted by David G, Monday, 18 November 2013 11:19:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David G

You can't expect too much from the Zionist Ambassador to Australia.

Perhaps only a disservice to sensitivity, to Israel's interests, to moderate Jews

and a disservice to genuine Palestinian independence.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 18 November 2013 12:57:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Drawn from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Legal_status :

Most countries, as reflected in numerous UN resolutions, regard the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as a violation of international law.

UN Security Council Resolution 446 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_446) refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup.

The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice.

The position of successive Israeli governments is that all authorized settlements are entirely legal and consistent with international law.

In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure, but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are. The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow has disputed the illegality of authorized settlements.

Under Israeli law, West Bank settlements must meet specific criteria to be legal. In 2009, there were approximately 100 small communities that did not meet these criteria and are referred to as illegal outposts.
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 18 November 2013 1:12:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the first things to know about Zionists: Like the Nazis, they always lie.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. Clause 6:

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Source http://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/380-600056

Look again at the territory under illegal occupation:

http://www.bobmay.info/images/westbanksettlementsmap.jpg

Each red dot represents land befouled by forced foreign settlement.

“Illegitimate” is a weasel word for illegal, used by the Yanks for many years to appease the Israel lobby. The rest of the world simply calls it for what it is: illegal.

Something else to know about Zionists: They aren’t only enemies of the Palestinians. They are enemies of seven billion human beings, leveraging their foothold in America and Europe and their alliance with the worst Middle East dictatorships to nudge-nudge-nudge the world towards the mother of all holocausts. Hence the latest farce in Geneva.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Monday, 18 November 2013 1:59:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G they are called psychopaths and Israel has more than it's fair share.The ordinary Israeli people remain oppressed by their own Govt and it is not their fault.

Israel has done a deal with Saudi Arabia to attack Iran and draw the USA into WW3.I doubt that Obama will fall for it, although General Martin Dempsey said that the military is ready to fight. Just exactly who is uncertain. It was Dempsey who advised Obama against an attack on Syria.

Perhaps David Singer the Israeli elites need to re-think their aggression since Russia, USA and many countries on this planet are tired of their aggression and deception.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 18 November 2013 5:40:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would appear the Mr. Kerry needs to brush up on his history and try to get a handle on his job. He's almost as embarrassing as our previous unlamented foreign minister in relation to Middle eastern politics. Another interesting article.
Posted by Prompete, Monday, 18 November 2013 7:09:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From the comments of Prompete and Singer we see the power of the Zionists. They are threatening the end of a political career of anyone who deviates from their agenda.

This is article is more a message to our politicians to tow the line or suffer political demise. Call this democracy or oppression?
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 18 November 2013 8:56:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Singer. You may believe that I agree with you but nay, it is merely a Baldrician 'cunning plan' of mine to ensure my local member (Jamie Briggs) adheres to my policy wish list or else!... yes, I know it is the lowest form of wit....
Posted by Prompete, Tuesday, 19 November 2013 7:05:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jeremy

Thank you for quoting article 6 which makes clear that:
1. close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes was to be encouraged. Please note that Jews were not restricted from buying private lands owned by Arabs and settling on that land - which in fact occurred. Jews lived in the West Bank and Gaza from 1927-1948 until they were dispossessed in the 1948 War.

2. the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced. Please note there is no mention of any group called the "Palestinians" or even the "Palestinian Arabs". Israel's High Court of Justice is available for any person claiming to be prejudiced. Indeed the Court has made orders in favour of Arab plaintiffs on many occasions.

Can you point to one instance where land owned by other people in the West Bank has been "confiscated" without payment of compensation - a process called "resumption" anywhere else in the world?

Are you aware that Jews are excluded from settling anywhere in Area A of the West Bank which is under the total administrative control of the PLO?

Are you aware that Arabs selling their land in the West Bank to Jews face death and have been murdered in many cases?

Resolution 181 was never accepted by the Arabs. Being a non-binding resolution it has no legal effect.

The provisions of article 6 of the Mandate subsist in 2013 because of article 80 of the UN Charter.

#David G

You apparently cannot comprehend that the international community unanimously endorsed the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine in 1920 and again in 1947.

Without that endorsement and international guarantee the Jews to quote you would have been "in the local lockup within five minutes and in a psychiatric ward within the hour."

The Arabs have never accepted the international community's decision - and neither have you.

Jew-hatred and unending violence and conflict between Arabs and Jews for the last 90 years has been the result.
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 19 November 2013 10:18:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#plantaganet

Calling me the "Zionist ambassador in Australia" does you no credit.

Attack the message - not the messenger.

The United Nations refuses to address the legal binding effect of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter which deal specifically with the West Bank and Gaza. Until they do - no progress will be possible in ending the 130 years old Jewish-Arab conflict.

#Arjay

You state:

"The ordinary Israeli people remain oppressed by their own Govt and it is not their fault."

Are you saying there are indeed Zionists=Jews who :

1.Russia, USA and many countries on this planet do not hold guilty of aggression and deception?

2.Do not threaten the end of a political career of anyone who deviates from their agenda?

3.Are not psychopaths?

4. Who do not send a message to our politicians to tow the line or suffer political demise?

5. Who do not claim they can drop in and out of history whenever they feel like it laying claim to anywhere their sandaled feet have trod and bombing anyone who says otherwise?

How do you sort out the goodies from the baddies or is it easier to lump them altogether and just get rid of all of them - as Emperor Julian and David G are proposing?

Israel - unlike Hamas and the PLO - have elections every three years where the people choose who should represent them. Certainly the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank are oppressed - no vote for the last 7 years. Does that concern you?

Have you got any better idea for getting people to get rid of an oppressive government?

Would you care to comment on the subject matter of my article - Is US Secretary of State Kerry destined for the political scrapheap because he appears hellbent on tearing up the guarantees given to the Jewish people by many former Presidents over the last 95 years?
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 19 November 2013 10:29:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Without Israel's ownership of the Bomb its rightwingers couldn't claim Holy-er-than-Thou exceptionalism.

Basically Israel's message is "support us or else we'll blow up the Region."
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 19 November 2013 11:51:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pete, love the clarity of the point you have made.

Like the U.S., Israel believes in: 'It's our way or the highway!'
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 19 November 2013 3:36:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks David

David G that is.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 19 November 2013 4:27:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" the international community unanimously endorsed the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine in 1920 and again in 1947."

As I wrote: "One of the first things to know about Zionists: Like the Nazis, they always lie."

The British created a "Mandate for Palestine" under which Palestine was "terra nullius" and the inhabitants were mere fauna. Par for the course for the British as our Aborigines knew to their cost. British colonial officials are not, of course, "the international community", not even the British community. Equating them is just another Zionist lie, as is the libellous equating of "the Jews" to Zionist criminals.

A fairly comprehensible timeline, written unfortunately in only a crude approximation to English, is at
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ip/man/pal-man.htm
Posted by EmperorJulian, Tuesday, 19 November 2013 7:12:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Emperor Julian

The 51 member countries of the League of Nations who unanimously endorsed the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine and who conferred the Mandate for Palestine on Great Britain to bring this to fruition were:

Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, British India, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of China, Romania, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

The Mandate provided that the civil and religious rights of the "non-Jewish communities" in Palestine were not to be prejudiced.

Why was there no mention of the " indigenous Palestinians"?

Was the international community that stupid that they could not recogniize an indigenous community going back centuries in time that had inhabited Palestine like the Aborigines in Australia.had inhabited Australia?

The answer is given in the very link you posted:

"Muslims west of the Jordan generally desired to be part of the kingdom proclaimed by the Syrian Natiinsal Congress to be ruled by Emir Feisal. There was no real sence of Palestinian nationality at the time. Many saw thmselves as southern Syrians. A young anti-Semitic Amin al-Husayni strongly advocated becoming part of the new Arab Syrian kingdom. With the French occupatiion and ouster of Emir Feisal (July 1920), this option was no longer available. Then the idea of a Palestinian entity began to take hold. Amin al-Husayni began to emerge as a Palestinian leader, in part by assainating rivals with more moderate outlooks"

"No sense of Palestinian nationality at the time" - get it?

Wanted to be part of the new Arab Syrian Kingdom - get it?

Your Jew-hatred has clearly blinded your ability to understand the international consensus that sanctioned and awarded the Jews the legal right to self determination in 0.01% of conquered Ottoman Empire whilst the Arabs were awarded self determination in the remaining 99.99%.
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 19 November 2013 10:03:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David Singer

This bringing of 90-100 year old Balfour etc history into the argument won't help your cause much. Its like claiming Australia-Britain should still be at war with the Kaiser's Germany and the Ottoman Empire due to the events of 1914.

Equally would someone test an Israeli audience with the intricacies of Australia's 100 year old history?

Perhaps a standard Australian audience may just want to know the forest rather than the trees.

For example:

Is it true that the overall trend is that Israel's neighbours have tended to marginalise the Palestinians in a virtually racist kind of way in order to maintain the political heat on Israel?

Isn't it true that Arab oil money, from undeserving absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia, are funding Palestinian militancy?

Equally haven't key countries (like the US, France and UK) influenced by the Jewish diaspora and Israeli foreign relations provided finance and military hardware that have maintained (for better or worse) the Israeli side of the conflict for decades?

Regards

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 20 November 2013 9:55:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Singer:

What an impressive array of corrupt officials of the colonial states and their satellites – Albania to Venezuela - a massive task for assiduous lobbying by the global Zionists. I guess all they really needed to do was get the British and French colonial officials in the bag and he rest would follow. No Palestinians in this "unanimous decision" (which excluded little countries like the USSR, the USA, Germany, most African and Middle Eastern populaions).

In particular, no Palestinians. To the Zionists and other “men born to rule” they were only local fauna, not actual people. The link I gave was from the British colonialists, OK for listing events but useless for evaluating how the Palestinians saw themselves. Not surprising that they sought inclusion in the Kingdom of Syria and stopped seeing themselves that way when the colonialists abolished the kingdom. A much better reference to how the Palestinians saw themselves would be http://palestinechronicle.com/old/view_article_details.php?id=19649

As for ancient times, there were always Palestinians but they were known as Canaanites and derivative and preceding tribal names. The narrative seized on by the Zionists is that given in the Pentateuch, in which the heroic Israelite soldiers, responding to a spook speaking in the sky, are supposed to have grabbed Palestine and murdered every Palestinian to clear the land for settlement. Familiar?

Worth having a look at a morality vs religion exchange on that little incident:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-crai
Posted by EmperorJulian, Wednesday, 20 November 2013 6:53:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#plantaganet

Sorry. - but the law is the law no matter how old it is.

The Statute of Frauds 1677 and The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 are good examples of laws still applied in 2013.

The Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter comprise binding international law that cannot be erased by the PLO, Hamas or anyone else - although one can understand their continuing efforts to do so - since acceptance of the binding effect of that body of law makes the claims of the PLO and Hamas unsustainable.

Burying the fact that the international community did not recognize any indigenous Palestinian national identity in 1920 or even in 1947 is fundamental - if the Arab narrative is to be believed.

The political issues you raise must not be confused with the legal issues.

The PLO and Hamas do not recognize the legal decisions of the international community as laid out in the Mandate and article 80. Their political decisions based on rejecting such law have brought them nothing but grief over the past 95 years.

Kerry is foolishly following in their footsteps - and see what is happening to him.

It's that simple - recognize the law, obey the law and results can then begin to flow.

Ignore the law at your peril - as you are quick to do - and you have a perfect recipe for disaster - as events of the last 95 years have surely proved.
Posted by david singer, Wednesday, 20 November 2013 8:54:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pete, I hope you enjoyed Singer's little lecture on the law. Recognize the laws, obey the laws and..., well it's heaven on Earth. What crap!

The truth is that laws come, laws go, laws are what the mighty says they are. For example, there is a law prohibiting building on occupied land but what do the Israelis care? There are laws prohibiting cruelty and brutality during an occupation. What do the Israelis care?

Singer has two main problems. He believes in the crazy laws of his religion and, as a lawyer, he makes a living out of the mess of laws that govern every aspect of our lives.

He can and will use the law to stifle discussion or criticism of his rogue nation.

The world will never know peace while people like Singer and his ilk are given free reign.
Posted by David G, Thursday, 21 November 2013 8:49:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Davids

The sympathy of the US and other white nations allow Israel to exist. Israel regularly abuses this support and trust.

Yes I agree international law should be recognised - in particular the most recent iterations of international law, particularly UN Resolutions. Such UN Resolutions run contrary to the religion based discrimination of Israeli right-wingers who abuse international support and trust.

I wonder what Israel thinks of its long-standing decision to ignore the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT has been signed by almost all countries but never Israel. Non-signatories have often been labelled "rogue" or "pariah" states but white Israel is allowed to build the more powerful thermonuclear weapons.

I assume racism and illegal help from white nations has made Israel an exception to the rules law abiding nations abide by?

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 21 November 2013 10:53:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Emperor Julian

First you claimed there was no international consensus.

When that bubble bursts - you then allege the officials of the 51 member states of the League of nationswere corrupt - without a skerrick of proof.

Now you claim the Palestinians are supposedly descended from the Cananites. That is not what the PLO alleges in its Charter.

The link you provided contains the following statement:
"After World War I, Feisal who would become King of first Syria and then Iraq, proposed to the Zionist leader Chaim Weizman, a mutual partnership in developing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Arabs leaders subsequently rejected this understanding, clasiming that the Allies had not met their commitment to the Feisal's father Sherif Hussein. Arabs mobs conducted the first major anti-Jewish riots in Palestine (1920)."

I suppose you would find it perfectly reasonable for the Arab leaders to reject the understanding between Feisal and Weizmann since they only got 99.99% of the conquered Ottoman Empire. Agreeing to the Jews getting 0.01% was too much for them to concede and the same is apparently too much for Jew-haters like you.

But the above statements of fact conveniently explodes your baseless and unsubstantiated claims. So throw that link out the window and give us another one.

This one contains a doozy that Jew haters would love:

"Britain was given a Mandate over Palestine by the League of Nations to shepherd the natives toward the goal of governing themselves and eventually achieve complete independence"

I swear the mandate talks about reconstituting the Jewish National Home in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities.

Wow and another great revelation from you - Germany was not a member of the League of Nations it had sought to destroy - neither was Russia which did not get an invite because of the slaughter then occurring there.

There were no African or Arab states because there were no Arab or African states other than those listed.

Can you get anything right - except your Jew-hatred?
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 21 November 2013 5:23:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David Singer

Now turning to Amnesty International's Annual Report 2013 http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-2013 concerning end of 2012:

"Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories"

"The Israeli authorities held more than 4,500 Palestinian prisoners, including 178 administrative detainees at the end of the year, after a temporary decrease in numbers following Palestinian and international protests.

Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees during arrest and interrogation was reported. Israel’s military blockade of the Gaza Strip continued to severely affect Gaza’s 1.6 million residents.

[for balance] In November, Israel launched an eight-day military campaign against Palestinian armed groups who fired rockets indiscriminately from Gaza into Israel; more than 160 Palestinians as well as six Israelis were killed, including many civilians. Both sides violated international humanitarian law in the conflict.

The Israeli authorities continued to restrict the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, construct the fence/wall, and expand illegal Israeli settlements while failing to protect Palestinians and their property from settler violence. They also continued to demolish Palestinian homes and carry out forced evictions.

The Israeli military continued to use excessive force against protesters in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT); in addition to 100 civilians killed during the November conflict in Gaza, Israeli forces killed at least 35 civilians in the OPT during the year.

Palestinian citizens of Israel faced discrimination in housing and residency rights, and continued home demolitions, particularly in the Negev/Naqab region. Thousands of people seeking international protection were detained administratively under a new law implemented in June. Israeli forces responsible for the killing and injuring of Palestinian civilians and torture and other ill-treatment of detainees continued to evade accountability."

Yes things are worse in Syria, but the point is that Israel is sponsored by the West making for high expectations concerning Israel's human rights record.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 21 November 2013 6:01:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#plantaganet

You and David G seem to be at odds. He has contempt for the law but you appear to recognize its role in regulating human conduct.

There really is nothing better.

You appear to be suggesting Israel is in legal breach of UN Resolutions.

Which ones are you referring to and why has no UN member State sought to bring legal proceedings to remedy that breach?

We agree on one thing - Syria is far worse than Israel - and so are many others to which you failed to alert readers.

Of course you just apparently forgot to mention what Amnesty International's Report had to say on what the PA and Hamas have been up to in the West Bank and Gaza:

"Arbitrary arrests and detentions by both the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and the Hamas de facto administration in the Gaza Strip continued, particularly of their respective political opponents. In both areas, security forces tortured and otherwise ill-treated detainees with impunity. Four detainees died in custody in suspicious circumstances; two in Gaza and two in the West Bank. Palestinian armed groups in Gaza continued to commit war crimes by firing indiscriminate rockets into Israel, especially during an eight-day armed conflict with Israel during November. During that conflict, Hamas’ armed wing summarily killed seven men accused of “collaborating” with Israel. Both the PA and Hamas arbitrarily restricted the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and their security forces used excessive force against demonstrators. Women in both areas continued to face violence and discrimination; at least six women were reportedly killed in “honour” killings. In Gaza, at least five people were sentenced to death and six people were executed. One man was sentenced to death in the West Bank; there were no executions there. The 1.6 million residents of the Gaza Strip continued to suffer severe deprivation due to Israel’s ongoing military blockade and the sanctions imposed on Hamas by other states; however, conditions eased in comparison to previous years."

So much for any semblance of balance where you are concerned.
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 21 November 2013 7:54:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Davo S

You work it out for your next article matey.

Cheers

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 21 November 2013 9:25:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Singer can’t unwrite what he wrote about “the international community” “unanimously” endorsing the “right’ of the “Jewish people” to “reconstitute” the “Jewish National Home” in Palestine…

The international community consisted of 2.2 billion people in 1920. How many of these were sampled in the questionnaires? No surveys? Thought not. How can the omission of even the mainly corruptible officials, let alone the people, of major countries like Germany and the USA and the USSR, and of the many countries under the heel of the colonial overlords, amount to “unanimity” of “the international community”? How can people who whose existence as “a people” is in serious doubt RE-constitute a national home that never existed when not even a nation ever existed?

But the main offence against truth is to treat the voice of government officials who decided the map of Africa and the Middle East as if was the voice of the international community.

Colonialists always lie, and Zionists are colonialists of the worst type being RACIST colonialists with tickets on themselves.

Mr Singer falls back again on the self-comforting claim that those who reject the lies of criminals are anti-Semitic (“Jew-hating” this time). But racist colonialists always lie, including Jewish ones. A REAL lie is to equate Jews with Zionists. For me, Jews are no better or worse than anyone else. In Mr Singer’s view they are a great deal worse.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Thursday, 21 November 2013 11:24:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Emperor Julian

The Mandate unanimously endorsed by all 51 Member States of the League of Nations - contained the following paragraphs:

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might 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;"

" Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"

" The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

By the way - America although not a member of the League fully endorsed the Mandate - as I explicitly stated in my article.

The Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter constitute binding international law - as did the Mandates for Syria and Lebanon, and Mesopotamia.

99.99% for the Arabs, 0.01% for the Jews - of which 78% of 0.01% was to be taken away from the Jews.

But of course you will never let the facts stand in the way of your Jew-hating tirades.
Posted by david singer, Friday, 22 November 2013 9:32:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Davo S

On the anti-Semitism scale EJ is mild compared to some http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15737#272455

Cheers

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 23 November 2013 2:28:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#plantaganet

I never knew there were different degrees of Jew-hatred.

EJ is mild - according to your definition. What does that mean?

How many degrees of Jew-hatred are there?
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 24 November 2013 7:30:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many, mate, many.
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 24 November 2013 12:37:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pete, according to Singer the world is filled with Jew-hate! From the moment he opens his eyes in the morning until his eyes close in sleep, he sees anti-Semite hate everywhere.

The whole world of Singer is filled to bursting point with Jew-hate. He sees Jew-hate in the eyes of children, teens, young adults, married couples, old people. Nursing homes bristle with Jew-hate and every thing in print or on television illustrates Jew-hate.

The problem for Singer is that most of what he sees is a product of his own sick mind. Most people in the world couldn't give a damn about Jews let alone hate them. They are a total non-entity, at most a quaint curiosity, in the lives of most of the world's 7 billion people.

Most people are too busy trying to survive life to be concerned about a tiny group of extreme racists with their extreme views and high opinions of themselves.

If only Singer could get out of the dark cave of fantasies he inhabits and stand for a while in the sunshine of reality!
Posted by David G, Sunday, 24 November 2013 12:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David G

Of course I'm unaware of David Singer's psychology and past experiences.

Certainly anti-Semitism in varying degrees is frequent.

Anti-Semitism may be at its worst in the Middle East (including long before 20th century Israel) and most parts of Europe.

In Russia probably millions died in anti-Jewish pogroms-massacres http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom over the centuries including the 20th with anti-Semitism blending into Bolshevism.

And then naturally there's those who have a nostalgia for Nazism.

The common element is people finding excuses to hate, hurt or kill those (of any category) unable to defend themselves.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 24 November 2013 6:22:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The common element is people finding excuses to hate, hurt or kill those (of any category) unable to defend themselves."

Describes the persecution by the Israelis of the Palestinians perfectly, Pete!

Cheers.
Posted by David G, Sunday, 24 November 2013 6:53:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep.
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 24 November 2013 7:33:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Justice looms. Netanyahu dancing with rage after the world turned its back on the racists' deadly ambitions over Iran was truly a sight to see. Have the Zionists pushed the envelope too far this time? Beware the inevitable false flag.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Monday, 25 November 2013 12:14:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Its been a while but I see not much has changed.

Your constant attempt to eke out support the WB settlements where none exists is really mindboggling. There is not a single sentence in the Bush letter affirming the legality of the settlements. Nothing Hilary Clinton has ever said supports the settlements. You cannot point to any US admin that has ever supported the settlements. Your attempt therefore to discredit Mr Kerry is rich.

Even more perplexing is your belief that Woodrow Wilson's statement on 3 March 1917 "incontrovertibly denies" Kerry's claim [that the settlement are illegitimate].

Wilson, a champion of the right of self determination("National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. Self determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action." 11 February 1918), would have condemned the whole settlement enterprise as inimical to the Palestinian rights to self determination.

The only basis on which Wilson, the 1922 US Congress, and the League of Nations ever supported a Jewish homeland in the area west of Jordan was with local Arabs enjoying equal civil and religious rights to Jews. Israel long repudiated that obligation (and therefore the Mandate) in respect of Palestinians living in the WB who do not share with Israelis that most basic civil right, an equal right to vote.

In relation to your beloved Art 80 point, have you ever pondered the significance of the words "nothing in this Chapter" ? Read Chapter XII carefully and you will see that with those words Art 80 only preserves rights to the extent that these are affected by the the trusteeship system established under Chapter XII. That system ceased to apply to Israel two years after the signing of the Charter.

Art 80 is therefore irrelevant.
Posted by Ben DR, Monday, 25 November 2013 7:25:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Ben DR

This is what the Bush letter dated 14 April 2004 says:

"As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."

This still remains the only realistic basis for achieving a second Arab state in Palestine - in addition to Jordan.

Wilson endorsed the foundation of a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine. No amount of ducking and weaving can deny that immutable fact.

If the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine were being violated as you claim - how come no action was taken by the League to revoke the Mandate during its 28 years existence?

This what article 80 (1) states:

"1. Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."

There was no trusteeship agreement in relation to Palestine. The rights under the Mandate were preserved encouraging close settlement by Jews on land in the West Bank including state land and waste land not required for public purposes.

Jews had been settling there between 1923-1948.

Their legal right to do so continues in 2013.
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 1 December 2013 3:00:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So the WMD liar and war criminal Bush claimed it was "impractical" to restore justice to those driven from their homeland in the Nakba. Lucky he wasn't around to declare it "impractical" to return those driven out of their homes in the German aggression in and after 1939.

The wartime generation lost patience with German application of its "laws", the first postwar generation moved inexorably against agreements made between the British, French, Belgian, Portuguese, Dutch colonial overlords and their captive territories, then it was the turn of the Soviet colonial overlords. Colonial overlords have had a dream run, but finally the ebbing of postwar sympathy for the land thieves in the Middle East has led to their angst expressed shrilly by Netanyahu and echoed by Mr Singer. As it sinks in that the people of the rest of the world are threatened with nuclear war to protect agreements enforced by foreign violence the residual will to accept this will drain away until nothing remains but hostility to the racist troublemakers.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Sunday, 1 December 2013 3:56:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Emperor Julian

Bush was being realistic in stating the principles for a negotiated settlement to occur to end the Jewish-Arab conflict.

So far he has been proved correct almost ten years later.

Trying to equate German laws with international law unanimously determined by the League of Nations is the kind of skewed thinking for which you are famous.

The mandate system approved by the League for Palestine, Lebanon and Syria , and Mesopotamia was internationally agreed and accepted.

Had it been accepted by the Arabs the conflict would have ended decades ago.

Those pursuing the law of the jungle because they do not accept such international law have not got much to show for their intransigence over the last 90 years.
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 3 December 2013 1:33:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bush has merely proclaimed that the aggressors should be handed everything they had grabbed since 1949 and be given secure borders behind their subsequent conquests,and that those whom the foreigners had exiled should remain in exile until they die out. Those who are too "special" to accept accommodation as equals in their own actual homelands will be condemned by their racist zealotry to declining world sympathy and increasing hostility. A close reading of the trajectory of the Boer Republic of South Africa will give a picture of what Zionism is wishing on them. Having nukes didn't save the Boer RSA either, as their adversaries were geographically too close. Like racist Israel's adversaries.

Mandates fashioned by European colonial overlords back when colonialism was widely held to be the norm won't help them. If the German occupation "laws" held no water as Mr Singer notes, why should "laws" cobbled together by collusion among other colonial masters whose territory they purported to assign to invaders?
Posted by EmperorJulian, Tuesday, 3 December 2013 10:17:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy