UN political chief criticizes Israel for new settlement plans

[japsportscarmad]

Yes but not everyone knows about the terrorist acts that were carried out up to and including 1946. Are you denying the terrible murderous act at the St David's hotel by cowardly bombers? Or the assassinations that took place?

Stop with the troll baiting questions. Forget about any further responses. Again, you need to post SOURCE LINKS instead of acting like you have written long historical posts.

He's no troll,obvious anti-semitic!

Obviously anyone raising any question about what Israel does if branded an 'anti Semetic' I best stop working with the many Jewish people I know then. Or I'll stpo popping around to my neighbours to make sure they are ok as not allowed to turn their own electric on during the many Jewish festivals. You know nothing wether I am Anti Semetic = Anti Jew i am not actually I am certain ally not.

These kinds of stupid accusations just lead to more true anti Semetic feelings. As brand me it I may as well be it!!!

Actually been anti Semetic is not a crime anywhere and it doesn't matter if you use the term to describe me I coukdnt care less.

The problem you have is you have a narrow and distorted view of how the world is and how the forced moving of people from lands they have lived on for many years and centuries is ethnic cleansing not unlike we saw in Bosnia. Even your chums the U.S. are getting increasingly pissed off by your actions.

Anti Semetic call me what you like I Do NOT CARE at least I am prepared to condem all terrorist acts you are not. Just the sekectuve ones you decide you will condem.

ANTI SEMETIC A BADGE OF PRIDE???????

Edited November 1, 2014 by japsportscarmad

[Ulysses G.]

Putting myself in the shoes of the Irgun for a moment for the purposes of this post, my answer is no I don't condemn the attack on the King David.

The King David was British Army headquarters. The Irgun were not targeting a normal "hotel".

They said something similar about the UN compound they targeted and shelled

Facts are facts, including the fact that the Brits were warned and ignored it. The King David Hotel was the site for the British Military Command in Palestine. It also served as the headquarters of the British Criminal Investigation Division.

For years the British denied that this was true. However, in 1979 evidence was presented to the House of Commons in London that Britain had received a credible warning. A former British Army officer based at the hotel admitted that he had heard other officers joking about a threat that had been made to the hotel. In later years, when Menachem Begin had moved into legitimate politics, he claimed that Irgun had sent a warning directly to the hotel but the person who sent the warning was told:

"We don’t take orders from the Jews."

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bombing_of_the_king_david_hotel.htm

[Ulysses G.]

ANTI SEMETIC A BADGE OF PRIDE.

Your twisted version of "history" kind of gave it away.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed. Please stop trolling and bickering and stay on topic.

[dexterm]

I have just come across a speech made by a Northwestern Professor on the status of settlements/etc. I think the presentation is fair, balanced and very useful to our forum today. Start at 12:30 mark.

The fact that Prof Eugene Kantorovich is devoutly Jewish and from his bio is an adviser to the Israeli government on settlements makes me immediately question his impartiality. But I watched anyway.

Within the first 3 minutes he dismisses the authority of the UN and ICC and makes no mention at all of the Geneva Convention and the right of return of fleeing refugees in time of conflict, nor of the treatment of civilians by an occupying power. No mention either of promises made to Arabs in revolt against the Ottomans during WW1

Instead in one fell swoop he decides that the League of Nations of almost 100 years ago is the sole authority and that Britain and France had the right to arbitrarily carve up the Middle East into their own spheres of influence without once consulting the resident Palestinian population.

In another leap of logic he then misquotes the Balfour Declaration of 1917 studiously avoiding the words “...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” and assumes that any mandate must therefore be a 100% Jewish Mandate encompassing all land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan even though Jews at the time (1922 ..the date of the Mandate that he seems so fond of) made up only 11% of the population

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

and Jews owned a mere 5.2% of the land (in 1945!...that’s 23 years later..cant find figures for land ownership in 1922)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#Land_ownership

as though the resident 89% Palestinians were somehow invisible people.

How’s that for chutzpah?

Where’s the justice or morality in the man? Eugene may get you off a parking ticket on a technicality, but the likes of Geoffrey Robertson, Noam Chomsky, Norm Finkelstein or Hanan Ashrawi would make mincemeat out of him.

Eugene...FAILED!

Edited November 1, 2014 by dexterm

[dexterm]

I see nothing wrong in settlements if Israel was perusing a single state solution. However they maintain they want two states but continue to develop an apartheid landscape in the West Bank.

There is a lot of global support for an embargo on goods and services from the so called settlers.

..and one such casualty today of boycotts of goods made in the illegal settlements is Sodastream. No sympathy from me.

The bubble bursts for Sodastream

Sodastream began the year with a bang: it signed up the Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson as its first “global ambassador” and vowed to take on rivals Pepsi and Coca-Cola in a Super Bowl commercial watched by millions.

Since then, the Israeli company’s stock has lost half its market value in New York, plunging from $55 a share in January to $21, amid falling sales and mounting calls for a boycott over its presence in the occupied West Bank and with investor enthusiasm fizzling out.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/the-bubble-bursts-for-sodastream-9829869.html

I think this is the only way to bring Israel to its senses about the illegality of its colonies.

Well, not the only way. The US could show some guts like Sweden and condemn Israeli settlements in the UN. But alas the AIPAC tail continues to wag the US dog.

Edited November 1, 2014 by dexterm

[arjunadawn]

I have just come across a speech made by a Northwestern Professor on the status of settlements/etc. I think the presentation is fair, balanced and very useful to our forum today. Start at 12:30 mark.

The fact that Prof Eugene Kantorovich is devoutly Jewish and from his bio is an adviser to the Israeli government on settlements makes me immediately question his impartiality. But I watched anyway.

Within the first 3 minutes he dismisses the authority of the UN and ICC and makes no mention at all of the Geneva Convention and the right of return of fleeing refugees in time of conflict, nor of the treatment of civilians by an occupying power. No mention either of promises made to Arabs in revolt against the Ottomans during WW1

Instead in one fell swoop he decides that the League of Nations of almost 100 years ago is the sole authority and that Britain and France had the right to arbitrarily carve up the Middle East into their own spheres of influence without once consulting the resident Palestinian population.

In another leap of logic he then misquotes the Balfour Declaration of 1917 studiously avoiding the words “...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” and assumes that any mandate must therefore be a 100% Jewish Mandate encompassing all land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan even though Jews at the time (1922 ..the date of the Mandate that he seems so fond of) made up only 11% of the population

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

and Jews owned a mere 5.2% of the land (in 1945!...that’s 23 years later..cant find figures for land ownership in 1922)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#Land_ownership

as though the resident 89% Palestinians were somehow invisible people.

How’s that for chutzpah?

Where’s the justice or morality in the man? Eugene may get you off a parking ticket on a technicality, but the likes of Geoffrey Robertson, Noam Chomsky, Norm Finkelstein or Hanan Ashrawi would make mincemeat out of him.

Eugene...FAILED!

He also made no mention of the super delicious flavor of fresh citrus fruit, equally outside the scope of his discussion.

I am not as learned as this man generally, and certainly not on these topics, but I did not find the gross intellectual negligence you infered. I thought he astuely presented varying points of view regarding the narrow scope of his discussion. It is true that my general lack of knowledge might therefore have me gleaning a well thought out argument when he did not have one. It could be true. But so much of what he said comported with my basic understanding of these issues.

You mis apply your musing regarding the B Declaration and incumbent duties. The land was assigned for Jews and insofar as arabs remained, they have been afforded their civil and religious freedom in the state of Israel, the only place on earth where arabs have any freedom. No one presumed the mandate must be 100% Jewish, only that it would be a vessel for jewish emirgration. It was the local and regional arabs that reneged on their approval and began the conflict that remains intractable today. It makes no matter what precentage were jews or not, at any given point in time. The inclusion of this information is a red herring. The Mandate was not provided, nor elsewhere, dependent on christian, jewish, arab populations- only that the title for such people to emigrate and form, if wished, a state.

Why are those who take a position such as yours not demanding upon Lebanon? Why was everyone silent on Kuwait? Surely there were Syrians on the coast when Lebanon was carved out of the French Mandate.

You make a great logical but emotive argument to be supicious about the orginal cause issues. I can see you have great interest and information, and perhaps there is more for me to learn to challange my assumptions, but right now, I find this man's argument to be the better. Lastly, I agree: as an advisor to the Israeli government his comments should be measured.

NOTE: It is grossly false to frame the mandate process as two powers carving up the region. This or a similar mechanism had been used in multiple places previously, had the entire support of the known managing world, and moreoever, the final products where agreed upon by the relevant arab authorities representing these regions. The emotional argument that every Palestinian arab did not have their door knocked upon nor consulted is wrong. They choose this mechanism. They choose also to flee after once having choose this mechanism the regional arabs reneged and promised if they left they would facilitate a later return. I dont disagree people were injured and lost much, all. But that is not the issue I am discussing.

[Ulysses G.]

I see nothing wrong in settlements if Israel was perusing a single state solution. However they maintain they want two states but continue to develop an apartheid landscape in the West Bank.

There is a lot of global support for an embargo on goods and services from the so called settlers.

..and one such casualty today of boycotts of goods made in the illegal settlements is Sodastream. No sympathy from me.

So Sodastream relocates to Lehavim, in southern Israel, and 500 Palestinians lose their jobs. The Palestinian Arabs and their supporters are cutting off their noses to spite their face. This is the kind of backwards thinking that got them in the situation that they are in the first place.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

I see nothing wrong in settlements if Israel was perusing a single state solution. However they maintain they want two states but continue to develop an apartheid landscape in the West Bank.

There is a lot of global support for an embargo on goods and services from the so called settlers.

..and one such casualty today of boycotts of goods made in the illegal settlements is Sodastream. No sympathy from me.

So Sodastream relocates to Lehavim, in southern Israel, and 500 Palestinians lose their jobs. The Palestinian Arabs and their supporters are cutting off their noses to spite their face. This is the kind of backwards thinking that got them in the situation that they are in the first place.

The divestment movement actually also attacks general Israeli products and sometimes products just identifiable as Jewish or Kosher even if no Israeli connection whatsoever. The divestment movement is disgusting especially the move to boycott the ACADEMIES of Israel and also when these hateful bigots attack Israeli cultural events (such as music and theater) done abroad that have nothing to do with politics. Many of the most talented people in the world are Israelis. Some important work is being done there in EBOLA research. I suppose the haters want to divest themselves of that too. I suppose these Israel haters would like to dump all the technology on their computers that have any Jewish state origins. Go for it!

Edited November 1, 2014 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

I have just come across a speech made by a Northwestern Professor on the status of settlements/etc. I think the presentation is fair, balanced and very useful to our forum today. Start at 12:30 mark.

The fact that Prof Eugene Kantorovich is devoutly Jewish and from his bio is an adviser to the Israeli government on settlements makes me immediately question his impartiality. But I watched anyway.

Within the first 3 minutes he dismisses the authority of the UN and ICC and makes no mention at all of the Geneva Convention and the right of return of fleeing refugees in time of conflict, nor of the treatment of civilians by an occupying power. No mention either of promises made to Arabs in revolt against the Ottomans during WW1

Instead in one fell swoop he decides that the League of Nations of almost 100 years ago is the sole authority and that Britain and France had the right to arbitrarily carve up the Middle East into their own spheres of influence without once consulting the resident Palestinian population.

In another leap of logic he then misquotes the Balfour Declaration of 1917 studiously avoiding the words “...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” and assumes that any mandate must therefore be a 100% Jewish Mandate encompassing all land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan even though Jews at the time (1922 ..the date of the Mandate that he seems so fond of) made up only 11% of the population

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

and Jews owned a mere 5.2% of the land (in 1945!...that’s 23 years later..cant find figures for land ownership in 1922)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#Land_ownership

as though the resident 89% Palestinians were somehow invisible people.

How’s that for chutzpah?

Where’s the justice or morality in the man? Eugene may get you off a parking ticket on a technicality, but the likes of Geoffrey Robertson, Noam Chomsky, Norm Finkelstein or Hanan Ashrawi would make mincemeat out of him.

Eugene...FAILED!

He also made no mention of the super delicious flavor of fresh citrus fruit, equally outside the scope of his discussion.

I am not as learned as this man generally, and certainly not on these topics, but I did not find the gross intellectual negligence you infered. I thought he astuely presented varying points of view regarding the narrow scope of his discussion. It is true that my general lack of knowledge might therefore have me gleaning a well thought out argument when he did not have one. It could be true. But so much of what he said comported with my basic understanding of these issues.

You mis apply your musing regarding the B Declaration and incumbent duties. The land was assigned for Jews and insofar as arabs remained, they have been afforded their civil and religious freedom in the state of Israel, the only place on earth where arabs have any freedom. No one presumed the mandate must be 100% Jewish, only that it would be a vessel for jewish emirgration. It was the local and regional arabs that reneged on their approval and began the conflict that remains intractable today. It makes no matter what precentage were jews or not, at any given point in time. The inclusion of this information is a red herring. The Mandate was not provided, nor elsewhere, dependent on christian, jewish, arab populations- only that the title for such people to emigrate and form, if wished, a state.

Why are those who take a position such as yours not demanding upon Lebanon? Why was everyone silent on Kuwait? Surely there were Syrians on the coast when Lebanon was carved out of the French Mandate.

You make a great logical but emotive argument to be supicious about the orginal cause issues. I can see you have great interest and information, and perhaps there is more for me to learn to challange my assumptions, but right now, I find this man's argument to be the better. Lastly, I agree: as an advisor to the Israeli government his comments should be measured.

NOTE: It is grossly false to frame the mandate process as two powers carving up the region. This or a similar mechanism had been used in multiple places previously, had the entire support of the known managing world, and moreoever, the final products where agreed upon by the relevant arab authorities representing these regions. The emotional argument that every Palestinian arab did not have their door knocked upon nor consulted is wrong. They choose this mechanism. They choose also to flee after once having choose this mechanism the regional arabs reneged and promised if they left they would facilitate a later return. I dont disagree people were injured and lost much, all. But that is not the issue I am discussing.

I really don’t know where to begin responding to your reply. Every single sentence cries out for a riposte. I don’t have the time. It’s late and I have to travel tomorrow.

Where is the justice? How would you feel if some superpower gave away your country to 11% of your population in order to invite a further 89% of their alien cousins to come and swamp you ...in the process dispossessing your property and making millions of you and your countrymen into refugees. And you didn't get a single say in the matter. Well that is what has happened to Palestinians

It is morally wrong and needs to be corrected if there is ever to be peace.

And the Israelis are still perpetrating the same crime in the West Bank today. It's scandalous, but the whole world is watching this time.

[arjunadawn]

The fact that Prof Eugene Kantorovich is devoutly Jewish and from his bio is an adviser to the Israeli government on settlements makes me immediately question his impartiality. But I watched anyway.

Within the first 3 minutes he dismisses the authority of the UN and ICC and makes no mention at all of the Geneva Convention and the right of return of fleeing refugees in time of conflict, nor of the treatment of civilians by an occupying power. No mention either of promises made to Arabs in revolt against the Ottomans during WW1

Instead in one fell swoop he decides that the League of Nations of almost 100 years ago is the sole authority and that Britain and France had the right to arbitrarily carve up the Middle East into their own spheres of influence without once consulting the resident Palestinian population.

In another leap of logic he then misquotes the Balfour Declaration of 1917 studiously avoiding the words “...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” and assumes that any mandate must therefore be a 100% Jewish Mandate encompassing all land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan even though Jews at the time (1922 ..the date of the Mandate that he seems so fond of) made up only 11% of the population

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

and Jews owned a mere 5.2% of the land (in 1945!...that’s 23 years later..cant find figures for land ownership in 1922)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#Land_ownership

as though the resident 89% Palestinians were somehow invisible people.

How’s that for chutzpah?

Where’s the justice or morality in the man? Eugene may get you off a parking ticket on a technicality, but the likes of Geoffrey Robertson, Noam Chomsky, Norm Finkelstein or Hanan Ashrawi would make mincemeat out of him.

Eugene...FAILED!

He also made no mention of the super delicious flavor of fresh citrus fruit, equally outside the scope of his discussion.

I am not as learned as this man generally, and certainly not on these topics, but I did not find the gross intellectual negligence you infered. I thought he astuely presented varying points of view regarding the narrow scope of his discussion. It is true that my general lack of knowledge might therefore have me gleaning a well thought out argument when he did not have one. It could be true. But so much of what he said comported with my basic understanding of these issues.

You mis apply your musing regarding the B Declaration and incumbent duties. The land was assigned for Jews and insofar as arabs remained, they have been afforded their civil and religious freedom in the state of Israel, the only place on earth where arabs have any freedom. No one presumed the mandate must be 100% Jewish, only that it would be a vessel for jewish emirgration. It was the local and regional arabs that reneged on their approval and began the conflict that remains intractable today. It makes no matter what precentage were jews or not, at any given point in time. The inclusion of this information is a red herring. The Mandate was not provided, nor elsewhere, dependent on christian, jewish, arab populations- only that the title for such people to emigrate and form, if wished, a state.

Why are those who take a position such as yours not demanding upon Lebanon? Why was everyone silent on Kuwait? Surely there were Syrians on the coast when Lebanon was carved out of the French Mandate.

You make a great logical but emotive argument to be supicious about the orginal cause issues. I can see you have great interest and information, and perhaps there is more for me to learn to challange my assumptions, but right now, I find this man's argument to be the better. Lastly, I agree: as an advisor to the Israeli government his comments should be measured.

NOTE: It is grossly false to frame the mandate process as two powers carving up the region. This or a similar mechanism had been used in multiple places previously, had the entire support of the known managing world, and moreoever, the final products where agreed upon by the relevant arab authorities representing these regions. The emotional argument that every Palestinian arab did not have their door knocked upon nor consulted is wrong. They choose this mechanism. They choose also to flee after once having choose this mechanism the regional arabs reneged and promised if they left they would facilitate a later return. I dont disagree people were injured and lost much, all. But that is not the issue I am discussing.

I really don’t know where to begin responding to your reply. Every single sentence cries out for a riposte. I don’t have the time. It’s late and I have to travel tomorrow.

Where is the justice? How would you feel if some superpower gave away your country to 11% of your population in order to invite a further 89% of their alien cousins to come and swamp you ...in the process dispossessing your property and making millions of you and your countrymen into refugees. And you didn't get a single say in the matter. Well that is what has happened to Palestinians

It is morally wrong and needs to be corrected if there is ever to be peace.

And the Israelis are still perpetrating the same crime in the West Bank today. It's scandalous, but the whole world is watching this time.

There never was a (Palestinian) country to give away.

Some superpower did not carve up the land, a large number of countries did, and so did the arabs.

The local arabs, for the most part, left and fled as part of their combined civilian impetus to war on the Jews at the request of Arab armies, with the false promise of speedy return.

All of it is morally wrong regardless of my view of the facts. I dont argue morality here. It sucks!

IMO, the West Bank is wholly owned by Israel. Not sure how they should best manage it now though, but IMO it should not have any relation to a future Palestinian State- it was land stolen by Jordan, held as contested land during armistace pending final status, and returned to Israel at the next great arab debacle. A palestinian state should be comprised of lands that were originally intended to be so. Otherwise, reposses the Hashemite kingdom, dispossess Lebanon, and carve up the other borders too, not just Jews.

The whole mess is scandalous as great horrors exist on all sides. Regardless of legal status, the whole world is watching now and antisemetism is at a particularly feverish pitch. Israel's future is quite perilous.

Have safe travels.

[chuckd]

All this talk of boycotting Israeli products is ridiculous. When I first landed in Saudi Arabia in 1981, Ford, Coca Cola, Sears Roebuck and any number of companies were under boycott. They were being boycotted for having manufacturing facilities in Israel.

Some 10 years later, Fords were everywhere and Coca Cola was abundant. Boycotts mean nothing in the long term.

Just a lot of hot air.

Edited November 1, 2014 by chuckd

[up-country_sinclair]

The UN political chief can criticize until he's blue in the face, but the rogue state of Israel does not and will not care about the illegality or immorality of its actions.

I see nothing wrong in settlements if Israel was perusing a single state solution. However they maintain they want two states but continue to develop an apartheid landscape in the West Bank.

There is a lot of global support for an embargo on goods and services from the so called settlers.

..and one such casualty today of boycotts of goods made in the illegal settlements is Sodastream. No sympathy from me.

Nor me.

When I first became aware of Soda Stream I was intrigued by the concept. Even after learning it would take years for it to be a cost effective purchase, I still considered buying it because it seems like a 'fun' appliance to have.

Then I found out where the company is located.

No thanks.

They can keep their blood stained products.

Edited November 1, 2014 by up-country_sinclair

[Jingthing]

You can keep your hypocritical money.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Lissos]

So Sodastream relocates to Lehavim, in southern Israel, and 500 Palestinians lose their jobs.

BDS appears to use an approach of - "you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs", and I suspect that people within their ranks even view Arabs who decided to work with Israel (but have now lost their jobs), as collaborators, traitors to be dropped for some 'greater good' etc.

Even Norman Finklestein saw right through BDS, that for BDS it is not about settlements and legality, it is ultimately about Israel full stop.

One step at a time, systematically, starving it till the end. Kill it! Kill it! Kill it! For all the clever candy wrapping tactics of infriltrating well known charities and universities in the west, with posters of bleeding oranges and dodgy map timelines of the conflict, the underlying focus of the movement itself is akin to blowing oneself up in a busy market in the absence of being able to actually do so anymore due to increased security. In the process of carrying it out, you may end up harming Jewish lives, but you're also going to wreck the lives of local Arabs in carrying out the act. "No matter. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs", as BDS will pat each other on the back later on, from the luxury of abroad. It seems to me that just as most of the Arab states have since 48 gone out of their way to ensure that limbo land Arabs are kept in limbo land, writing laws that ensure those Arabs are denied equal rights and access to services so that things are never resolved, BDS doesn't want local Arab cooperation with Israel.

[japsportscarmad]

The UN political chief can criticize until he's blue in the face, but the rogue state of Israel does not and will not care about the illegality or immorality of its actions.

I see nothing wrong in settlements if Israel was perusing a single state solution. However they maintain they want two states but continue to develop an apartheid landscape in the West Bank.

There is a lot of global support for an embargo on goods and services from the so called settlers.

..and one such casualty today of boycotts of goods made in the illegal settlements is Sodastream. No sympathy from me.

Nor me.

When I first became aware of Soda Stream I was intrigued by the concept. Even after learning it would take years for it to be a cost effective purchase, I still considered buying it because it seems like a 'fun' appliance to have.

Then I found out where the company is located.

No thanks.

They can keep their blood stained products.

Don't tell Jing thing or he will call you anti Semetic for Boycotting a product made in Israel.

[japsportscarmad]

All this talk of boycotting Israeli products is ridiculous. When I first landed in Saudi Arabia in 1981, Ford, Coca Cola, Sears Roebuck and any number of companies were under boycott. They were being boycotted for having manufacturing facilities in Israel.

Some 10 years later, Fords were everywhere and Coca Cola was abundant. Boycotts mean nothing in the long term.

Just a lot of hot air.

Your actually right in the past boycotts have not worked but carefull targeting of certain goods does now as we see with Soda Stream. In truth though no ones going to stop buying Ford or Coke but pressure on their public relations department will affect how they invest and where. Fords changed a lot Henry ford was often accused of been anti semetic and wrote/published several articles which were not Jew friendly at the very least. In simple terms he accused the Jews of been dishonest, looking after themselves, been selfish and a whole host of other nasty things.

When I go back to the UK I know many people who just will not buy anything from Israel but sometimes you have to as due to import restrictions into the EU for example most fragrant basil is sourced from Israel now. Who could live without it?

[japsportscarmad]

Amazing arab mentality.

ISIS can kill to their heart's content....not a whimper from the 'arab street'..they even rush to enlist.

An outsider (Israel) does it, and in very small proportion....the whole muslim world is up in arms

Your sort of suggesting that Israel are the same as Islamic State (IS) murdering people and that's not true as IS is an intolerable monstrosity sending videos of it murdering often aid workers which is deplorable and horrid, and Israel try to deny it like the UN compound artillery bombing they carried out and the 2000 Palestinian woman and children they murdered.

Please remember Israel is a democracy where everyone is equal unfortunatly it may apear to an educated person (not a Jing thing anti Semite type?) that some are much more equal than others.

[japsportscarmad]

You can keep your hypocritical money.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

We will

[japsportscarmad]

I have just come across a speech made by a Northwestern Professor on the status of settlements/etc. I think the presentation is fair, balanced and very useful to our forum today. Start at 12:30 mark.

The fact that Prof Eugene Kantorovich is devoutly Jewish and from his bio is an adviser to the Israeli government on settlements makes me immediately question his impartiality. But I watched anyway.

Within the first 3 minutes he dismisses the authority of the UN and ICC and makes no mention at all of the Geneva Convention and the right of return of fleeing refugees in time of conflict, nor of the treatment of civilians by an occupying power. No mention either of promises made to Arabs in revolt against the Ottomans during WW1

Instead in one fell swoop he decides that the League of Nations of almost 100 years ago is the sole authority and that Britain and France had the right to arbitrarily carve up the Middle East into their own spheres of influence without once consulting the resident Palestinian population.

In another leap of logic he then misquotes the Balfour Declaration of 1917 studiously avoiding the words ...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine and assumes that any mandate must therefore be a 100% Jewish Mandate encompassing all land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan even though Jews at the time (1922 ..the date of the Mandate that he seems so fond of) made up only 11% of the population

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

and Jews owned a mere 5.2% of the land (in 1945!...thats 23 years later..cant find figures for land ownership in 1922)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#Land_ownership

as though the resident 89% Palestinians were somehow invisible people.

Hows that for chutzpah?

Wheres the justice or morality in the man? Eugene may get you off a parking ticket on a technicality, but the likes of Geoffrey Robertson, Noam Chomsky, Norm Finkelstein or Hanan Ashrawi would make mincemeat out of him.

Eugene...FAILED!

He also made no mention of the super delicious flavor of fresh citrus fruit, equally outside the scope of his discussion.

I am not as learned as this man generally, and certainly not on these topics, but I did not find the gross intellectual negligence you infered. I thought he astuely presented varying points of view regarding the narrow scope of his discussion. It is true that my general lack of knowledge might therefore have me gleaning a well thought out argument when he did not have one. It could be true. But so much of what he said comported with my basic understanding of these issues.

You mis apply your musing regarding the B Declaration and incumbent duties. The land was assigned for Jews and insofar as arabs remained, they have been afforded their civil and religious freedom in the state of Israel, the only place on earth where arabs have any freedom. No one presumed the mandate must be 100% Jewish, only that it would be a vessel for jewish emirgration. It was the local and regional arabs that reneged on their approval and began the conflict that remains intractable today. It makes no matter what precentage were jews or not, at any given point in time. The inclusion of this information is a red herring. The Mandate was not provided, nor elsewhere, dependent on christian, jewish, arab populations- only that the title for such people to emigrate and form, if wished, a state.

Why are those who take a position such as yours not demanding upon Lebanon? Why was everyone silent on Kuwait? Surely there were Syrians on the coast when Lebanon was carved out of the French Mandate.

You make a great logical but emotive argument to be supicious about the orginal cause issues. I can see you have great interest and information, and perhaps there is more for me to learn to challange my assumptions, but right now, I find this man's argument to be the better. Lastly, I agree: as an advisor to the Israeli government his comments should be measured.

NOTE: It is grossly false to frame the mandate process as two powers carving up the region. This or a similar mechanism had been used in multiple places previously, had the entire support of the known managing world, and moreoever, the final products where agreed upon by the relevant arab authorities representing these regions. The emotional argument that every Palestinian arab did not have their door knocked upon nor consulted is wrong. They choose this mechanism. They choose also to flee after once having choose this mechanism the regional arabs reneged and promised if they left they would facilitate a later return. I dont disagree people were injured and lost much, all. But that is not the issue I am discussing.

I really dont know where to begin responding to your reply. Every single sentence cries out for a riposte. I dont have the time. Its late and I have to travel tomorrow.

Where is the justice? How would you feel if some superpower gave away your country to 11% of your population in order to invite a further 89% of their alien cousins to come and swamp you ...in the process dispossessing your property and making millions of you and your countrymen into refugees. And you didn't get a single say in the matter. Well that is what has happened to Palestinians

It is morally wrong and needs to be corrected if there is ever to be peace.

And the Israelis are still perpetrating the same crime in the West Bank today. It's scandalous, but the whole world is watching this time.

Watching and boycotting :-)

[Ulysses G.]

All this talk of boycotting Israeli products is ridiculous. When I first landed in Saudi Arabia in 1981, Ford, Coca Cola, Sears Roebuck and any number of companies were under boycott. They were being boycotted for having manufacturing facilities in Israel.

Some 10 years later, Fords were everywhere and Coca Cola was abundant. Boycotts mean nothing in the long term.

Just a lot of hot air.

Your actually right in the past boycotts have not worked but carefull targeting of certain goods does now as we see with Soda Stream.

That is nothing but wishful thinking by the Israel haters. BDS does not work.

The failures of the Israel boycotters

The various campaigns by British BDS groups have been noisy and sometimes messy, but in practical terms, they have been a complete failure.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1408/the_failures_of_the_israel_boycotters

[Steely Dan]

I see nothing wrong in settlements if Israel was perusing a single state solution. However they maintain they want two states but continue to develop an apartheid landscape in the West Bank.

There is a lot of global support for an embargo on goods and services from the so called settlers.

..and one such casualty today of boycotts of goods made in the illegal settlements is Sodastream. No sympathy from me.

So Sodastream relocates to Lehavim, in southern Israel, and 500 Palestinians lose their jobs. The Palestinian Arabs and their supporters are cutting off their noses to spite their face. This is the kind of backwards thinking that got them in the situation that they are in the first place.

At least the foreign one issue activists with their faux concern for the Palestinians should be happy.

[arjunadawn]

The UN political chief can criticize until he's blue in the face, but the rogue state of Israel does not and will not care about the illegality or immorality of its actions.

The reason he can speak until blue in the face is because his word is not binding, thus Israeli actions not illegal, thus there's no reason for "the rogue state of Israel" to care about nonbinding resolutions, etc. furthermore, Israel must agree to be bound- international law. The reason they speak till blue in the face without recourse to legal pressure is because they are without legal footing in so much of the UN drivel against Israel. Perhaps had the UN demonstrated consistent impartiality their voice would have value but as it so happens there's hardly a year that goes by without some spokesperson or agency sticking their antisemetic foot in their mouth. Credible? I hardly think so.

The UN should consider universally accepted morality in the construction of laws, etc, but should shy from injunction of penalty of law for perceived immorality. This results in nothing but despotism. If something is immoral but not illegal, too bad- change the law if displeased; But we don't indict and convict on the amorphous charge of immorality. This is separate from legal tools. It does inform the boycott talk noted here, though.

Edited November 2, 2014 by arjunadawn

[Seastallion]

The UN political chief can criticize until he's blue in the face, but the rogue state of Israel does not and will not care about the illegality or immorality of its actions.

The reason he can speak until blue in the face is because his word is not binding, thus Israeli actions not illegal, thus there's no reason for "the rogue state of Israel" to care about nonbinding resolutions, etc. furthermore, Israel must agree to be bound- international law. The reason they speak till blue in the face without recourse to legal pressure is because they are without legal footing in so much of the UN drivel against Israel. Perhaps had the UN demonstrated consistent impartiality their voice would have value but as it so happens there's hardly a year that goes by without some spokesperson or agency sticking their antisemetic foot in their mouth. Credible? I hardly think so.

The UN should consider universally accepted morality in the construction of laws, etc, but should shy from injunction of penalty of law for perceived immorality. This results in nothing but despotism. If something is immoral but not illegal, too bad- change the law if displeased; But we don't indict and convict on the amorphous charge of immorality. This is separate from legal tools. It does inform the boycott talk noted here, though.

Laws are made and unmade with the stroke of a pen. Morals, albeit they are only opinions, seem to have a higher source of compulsion, a greater imperative to be obeyed, and for society to enforce. To say that "something" is immoral but that it is legal because there is no law against it is technically correct but plainly that "something" should be discouraged, and it is incumbent upon society to see that the "something" ceases.

Usually society ensures that moral values are somehow woven into it's laws. Global society is stymied from making suitable laws because of the powerful politics of the US (or, to be fair, sometimes Russia), but to the topic, it is the USA that blocks and politics away anything that Israel does not want.

Besides, it's a rather farcical situation because as you said, Israel would have to agree to be bound. Just as with their refusal to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (THE most widely subscribed to arms control treaty in history), Israel is essentially saying, "We do not agree to abide by any of global society's rules. We will do what we want, when we want, where we want, and bugger off anyone who dares to interfere."

What does society do to a member that refuses to agree to the rules? Especially when that member is actively harming a people, who by dint of history happen to be stateless and thus not official members of society?

[Ulysses G.]

Why would Israel sign the NPT when its enemies have signed and then brazenly violated it: Iraq under Saddam, Libya, Syria and Iran. Israel is way too smart for that. As per usual, the Israel bashers hope that the Jewish state will commit suicide by ignoring the harsh realities of the Middle East.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[arjunadawn]

The UN political chief can criticize until he's blue in the face, but the rogue state of Israel does not and will not care about the illegality or immorality of its actions.

The reason he can speak until blue in the face is because his word is not binding, thus Israeli actions not illegal, thus there's no reason for "the rogue state of Israel" to care about nonbinding resolutions, etc. furthermore, Israel must agree to be bound- international law. The reason they speak till blue in the face without recourse to legal pressure is because they are without legal footing in so much of the UN drivel against Israel. Perhaps had the UN demonstrated consistent impartiality their voice would have value but as it so happens there's hardly a year that goes by without some spokesperson or agency sticking their antisemetic foot in their mouth. Credible? I hardly think so.

The UN should consider universally accepted morality in the construction of laws, etc, but should shy from injunction of penalty of law for perceived immorality. This results in nothing but despotism. If something is immoral but not illegal, too bad- change the law if displeased; But we don't indict and convict on the amorphous charge of immorality. This is separate from legal tools. It does inform the boycott talk noted here, though.

Laws are made and unmade with the stroke of a pen. Morals, albeit they are only opinions, seem to have a higher source of compulsion, a greater imperative to be obeyed, and for society to enforce. To say that "something" is immoral but that it is legal because there is no law against it is technically correct but plainly that "something" should be discouraged, and it is incumbent upon society to see that the "something" ceases.

Usually society ensures that moral values are somehow woven into it's laws. Global society is stymied from making suitable laws because of the powerful politics of the US (or, to be fair, sometimes Russia), but to the topic, it is the USA that blocks and politics away anything that Israel does not want.

Besides, it's a rather farcical situation because as you said, Israel would have to agree to be bound. Just as with their refusal to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (THE most widely subscribed to arms control treaty in history), Israel is essentially saying, "We do not agree to abide by any of global society's rules. We will do what we want, when we want, where we want, and bugger off anyone who dares to interfere."

What does society do to a member that refuses to agree to the rules? Especially when that member is actively harming a people, who by dint of history happen to be stateless and thus not official members of society?

I dont disagree; you are correct.

[up-country_sinclair]

Israel (and particularly this Netanyahu government) is the greatest threat to peace in the region.

Enough is enough.

Israel is a rogue state and the UN needs to act forcefully. How much longer will the world sit by and watch Israel thumb its nose at international law? How much longer will the world look the other way when Israel violates the basic human rights of the Palestinians? The time to act is now.

The UN should give Israel 6 months to return to the'67 borders and if it fails to comply then a moderate set of economic sanctions should be applied. If there is no progress after three months, then the severity of the sanctions should increase. This should be repeated every three months until the message gets through. If Israel still refuses to comply, then perhaps it will be time to discuss sending in ground troops.

Edited November 2, 2014 by up-country_sinclair

[Ulysses G.]

The UN ain't going to do squat except try to pass non-binding resolutions that they don't bother with on countries with much worse violations. What a bunch of corrupt hypocrites the UN Human Rights Council are.

[arjunadawn]

Israel (and particularly this Netanyahu government) is the greatest threat to peace in the region.

Enough is enough.

Israel is a rogue state and the UN needs to act forcefully. How much longer will the world sit by and watch Israel thumb its nose at international law? How much longer will the world look the other way when Israel violates the basic human rights of the Palestinians? The time to act is now.

The UN should give Israel 6 months to return to the'67 borders and if it fails to comply then a moderate set of economic sanctions should be applied. If there is no progress after three months, then the severity of the sanctions should increase. This should be repeated every three months until the message gets through. If Israel still refuses to comply, then perhaps it will be time to discuss sending in ground troops.

Lets have class. There is no such thing called 1967 borders. If pressed, the 1967 borders would be... exactly what we have today! However, the 1948 borders are pretty much what we have today as well. How so? After Israel was created the arabs enticed the population into exodus and launched a multi army strike on Israel. Following conflict an armistice line was drawn and within this area, for example the west bank, Jordanian forced remained until roughly 1967- contrary to the legal mandate of years earlier. Significantly, the armistice had the language that no current occupation of lands was to be construed as representing the final status of these lands. this was actually an issue the Arabs insisted upon.

So, some land titled to the Jews in the mandate was occupied by arabs after the declaration of the state of Israel. The arabs insisted this did not constitute their accepting only this land. They did not realize that years later they would be repelled and have even less of their war booty from 1948.

I am unaware of any international law that Israel is "thumbing its nose" at. I do agree that basic human rights are not being afforded but I am unsure how otherwise one would manage a population that wants Jews dead.

If Israel was required to return to armistice borders the entire foundation of international law would be turned on its head. The land occupied by Jordan was simply not their land, there land was in the other part of the mandate.

Sending in ground troops? Really?

[Ulysses G.]

If Israel still refuses to comply, then perhaps it will be time to discuss sending in ground troops.

The UN has not "sent in ground troops" for the leader of Syria that has killed 190,000 of his own citizens and used illegal chemical weapons. It is delusional to think they are going to do anything of consequence to a democratic country protecting itself from terrorists.