BDS

Fighting the caricature that spawned the boycott threat


The following essay was written by Roslyn Pine and first published at the Jewish News

The President and Vice President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews  recently commented on how the Diaspora should deal with the threat of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) following the refusal of the Methodists to reject it, and how to influence the Israelis and PA “to make the difficult concessions necessary for a lasting peace”.

Their Panglossian sentiment that peace will come when we engage in “bridge building” between Palestinians and Israelis doesn’t address the problem any more than would treating a very sick patient with paracetamol.

Enormous efforts towards reconciliation and peace have been expended by Israel and world Jewry for decades, only to be rewarded by hatred and a denial of the national, religious and historic rights of the Jewish people to its nation-state in its ancient homeland.

Numerous acts of outreach by Israelis towards Palestinians and disaster relief abroad are viewed with cold indifference by those promoting BDS of ‘apartheid’ Israel, because their ultimate goal is the demise of the Jewish state. Who acknowledges, for example, the ongoing dangerous Israeli rescue of Syrians caught up in the civil war, or the generosity of many Jewish charities for this cause?

So what to do?

We need a structured educational programme to negate the grotesque caricature that has spawned BDS, namely, that Israel is a colonial enterprise committed to the usurping of an indigenous, powerless third-world people.

We must teach that the wellspring of Israel’s sovereignty and legitimacy in international law derives from the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 (recognising the Balfour Declaration), as does that of Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, following the WWI settlement. It was supplemented by the Mandate for Palestine of July 1922, and the Franco British Boundary Convention of December 1920, all binding to the present day.

We should emphasise that Israel behind the Green Line sits on just 8,000 square miles, 17 percent originally allotted to it, while the 21 countries of the Arab League occupy more than five million square miles, almost double that of the United States.

The mantra of “illegal settlements” must be exposed as a dishonest device to prevent Jews from living in land designated for Jewish sovereignty, defying Article Six of the Mandate for Palestine, the provisions of which are still binding.

As the eminent American jurist Eugene Rostow ruled in 1967: “The Jewish right of settlement in Palestine, west of the Jordan River, was made unassailable” by the Mandate, and “has never been nullified”. Other international jurists, like Stephen Schwebel, came to the same conclusion on the ground that the West Bank had itself been illegally occupied previously.

Such an educational programme must reach universities, the press and government bodies and demands a concise, memorable and convincing message. Additionally, the use of existing legislation in the UK and elsewhere regarding boycotts should be increasingly deployed by experienced lawyers to counter them.

Future negotiations must be dependent on the deletion from The Palestine Charter of articles calling for the destruction of Israel, characterising its creation an illegal act and denying any Jewish connection to Palestine. It was promised in the past, but never delivered.

There should be intense lobbying of the EU whose largesse, courtesy of our taxes, helps fund the PA, that such humanitarian aid be conditional on the cessation of the incessant stream of hate-filled PA propaganda against Israelis and Jews in its media and schools, poisoning the minds of every generation. It should come as no surprise that reliable surveys among Palestinians demonstrate that a majority supports the two-state solution only as a conduit towards a unitary state of Palestine replacing Israel.

Ben Gurion’s legacy of standing firm in 1949 against intolerable threats from President Truman to “give up land for peace” including “occupied West Jerusalem and the Negev” should serve as a reminder to our leaders that, in rejecting this formula, he delivered peace for many years.

Following the War of Independence when the Jews prevailed against six invading Arab armies, the resultant armistice line (the Green Line) represented an area 40 percent greater than that allocated to the Jews under the illegitimate 1947 UN Partition Plan. Ben Gurion enacted legislation to incorporate the liberated land into Israel, which today everyone accepts as Israel proper.

As US Ambassador to Israel, James McDonald recorded, Ben Gurion’s determined stance ushered in a strong strategic relationship between the two future allies (“My Mission in Israel 1948-1951”). The rest is history.

Enhanced by Zemanta

125 replies »

  1. Yes. This is a close accurate analysis of the problem with many who simply do not understand the significance of the San Remo Resolutions of 1920 and the mistaken belief that somehow International Law has changed its meaning and dimensions. Until this is really understood, many “pro- Israel”Jewish leadership organisations happily score own goals by weakening defensive reasoning and as a direct consequence, promotes the anti-Israel cause by giving credence to the boycotters and to Israel’s enemies.

  2. Pine seems to think that support for BDS can be turned around by giving us all a history lesson. Her history is mostly false, but even if it weren’t the BDS movement would continue to grow because its success depends on anger about Israeli greed, aggression and racism in the here and now amongst people who wouldn’t know the San Remo Resolution from the San Andreas Fault.

    • BDS movement would continue to grow because its success depends on anger about Israeli greed, aggression and racism in the here and now
      You shouldn’t be so complicated sencar, this anger can described in one word: antisemitism. You can wet your pants having dreams about the BDS success – it has the chance of a snowball in hell. And you know why? Because most people are not like you and BDS kind of losers and want to join the economic, scientific and social success of Israel. Your boycott attempt of Jews is not the first in the history of humankind.
      But I strongly support your personal crusade – please bring your friends’ and family attention to boycott this. Probably you will have to repeat your warning every day they will be extremely lightheaded….

    • Which part of the history is false?
      You cannot just make statements without reference to respected legal opinions.
      Binding agreements are just that…to be applied to all parties, not just selectively.
      If you hold that San Remo doesn’t matter, then the sovereignty of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon conferred at the same point in time, also doesn’t hold.
      Where is the Israeli greed…8,000 square miles as opposed to more than 5,000,000 sq. miles of Arab territory, the latter mostly acquired by conquest?
      As to racism, all the Arab countries have ethnically cleansed their Jewish populations which pre dated Islam, whereas Israel has an Arab population of more than 1.6 million….more than at any time in history.
      You just find the idea of any Jewish sovereignty unpalatable.

    • Sencar: “her history is mostly false”.

      And that’s why negotiating with people who share you world view is pointless. Israeli sovereignty is liberation from the visceral lies against the Jewish people that contribute substantially to the history of your rotten culture.

    • Your statements you delivered till now are completely false, not to speak of your false allegations and false suggestions.
      Understanding facts is beyond your reach.

    • “Pine seems to think that support for BDS can be turned around by giving us all a history lesson.”
      You certainly need one, sencar, plus a good spanking. Oh, I see Peter has already given you one.

    • “[E]ven if it weren’t the BDS movement would continue to grow because its success depends on anger about Israeli greed, aggression and racism…”

      Sencar makes sense here. The only reason why people boycott Israel is because they believe all the stereotypes and false tropes devised about the Jewish people over the past 3000 years.

      You are a caricature of yourself, Sencar. A pointy headed, obtuse brained, pathetic joke of a thinker.

  3. We need a structured educational programme to negate the grotesque caricature that has spawned BDS, namely, that Israel is a colonial enterprise committed to the usurping of an indigenous, powerless third-world people. Ha Ha Ha good luck with that, you had all the power and propaganda and yet the truth will still out,people see through you and your lies , hypocrisy. read what you say on this site and how you say it , its the ramblings of fools

        • you have earnt your money there gerry baby, for someone who fears god why are you not afraid of what will happen to you when you face the holy one

          • noam/Noam thank you for your concern about my immortal soul.
            I am also grateful to you for reminding my Father, you do know noam/Noam that Adam Levick is my Father?, that I have ‘earnt’ (sic) my money. Lately the cheques seem to have got lost in the post, so a word from a respected poster such as you will help.

            • By the way noam/Noam I do not fear God.
              My God is a God of love, yes he even loves you noam/Noam. It’s the rest of us who know you are an anti-Semitic twat that should have been strangled when you were hatched.

              • Reminds me of a bumper-sticker I once saw:
                “Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you’re an asshole.”

              • if thats your god of love, your faith is a joke and you can keep your god, read back your own words you religious charlatan, how fucked up you are seek help and remember faith is believing in something you know aint true, and your words prove it.

                • “..remember faith is believing in something you know aint true”

                  noam/Noam baby/Baby like your ‘faith’ that there is a country called ‘Palestine’?

              • from gerald By the way noam/Noam I do not fear God.
                My God is a God of love, yes he even loves you noam/Noam. It’s the rest of us who know you are an anti-Semitic twat that should have been strangled when you were hatched. you are pathetic anyone who reads this sad hate filled reply from you ,knows what a sad pathetic excuse for a human being you are, can you sink any lower and anyone who does not see the sickness contained here needs help like you do. you and your kin are morally bankrupt i pity you

                • “..can you sink any lower..”

                  Why of course I could noam baby.
                  I could sink to your level.
                  I take it that I am ‘off’ your Christmas Card list?

    • Noam: “good luck with that”. Such self-centred parochialism – its not always about you Noam. Education about Jewish history has always been lost on intellectually redundant and morally bankrupt chauvinists like yourself. You just stick to deploying your anti-Semitic tropes as a way of understanding the complexities of the world you live in – an education your racist granddaddy would be proud of.

    • “Ha Ha Ha good luck with that, you had all the power and propaganda and yet the truth will still out,people see through you and your lies , hypocrisy. read what you say on this site and how you say it , its the ramblings of fools”

      This is almost literate in parts.

    • Roslyn, I could only see fault in you writing that the partition plan was illegitimate. It was illegitimate in the Arab view. As you know israeli govt voted in favour of it.

      • It was more than illegitimate…it was illegal, whether or not the Jews voted for it (Israel was not yet created).
        It was illegal because it contravened the binding international agreements following WW1, which the UN was bound to uphold by virtue of Article 80 of its own charter.

  4. The irony is lost on the writer of this blog.

    If we are to follow the logic of this blog all those who have attained there independence from the colonial powers that attended the San Remo Conference should now return themselves to their ex-colonial masters or that it was illegitimate to mount anti-colonial struggles.

    Anyway the blog is another indication of the shrinking world of Zionism on the day of the historic visit of the Pope to the Holyland and praying in front of the wall of seperation with the message loud and clear seen by billions in their homes across the world

    The blogger denies the Colonial nature of the State of Israel and its occupation of Palestine based on the fact that the legitimacy of Israel is derived from the San Remo conference and the Balfour declaration. San Remo conference was a coming together of imperial powers from Europe and Japan to carve up the world.

    Balfour Declaration was a declaration made on behalf of rhe most powerful colonial power of the time, Britain.

    Here is the reference to the conference at Wikipedia
    The San Remo conference was an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council, held at Villa Devachan in Sanremo, Italy, from 19 to 26 April 1920. It was attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the prime ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by Japan’s Ambassador K. Matsui.[citation needed]

    Resolutions passed at this conference determined the allocation of Class “A” League of Nations mandates for administration of the former Ottoman-ruled lands of the Middle East.

    The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to “be determined by the Principal Allied Powers,” and were not finalized until four years later. The conference decisions were embodied in the Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97). As Turkey rejected this treaty, the conference’s decisions with regard to the Palestine mandate were finally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922.

    • Jane Mardell.

      It’s wonderful how bigoted people like you, find refuge in Wikipedia, and unknowingly fall into the trap of exposing their ignorance for all to see.

      I can only go into a brief rebuttal here, but it will suffice.

      Before 1920 there were no countries in the Middle East, just a vast land mass under the control of the Ottoman Empire which prevailed for more than 400 years. It was inhabited by various peoples, Arab tribes, nomadic Bedouin and some Jews in the area known as Palestine, in which, btw, there had been a continuous Jewish presence since the Roman expulsion in the year AD 70.
      At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, different groups eg. the Armenians, Kurds, Arabs and the Zionist Congress representing world Jewry presented their claims.
      The Zionist claims to all Palestine, a geographical area defined by Great Britain in accordance with the maps of the biblical cartographer, George Adam Smith, covering the area comprising Jordan, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, Israel and a small part of what is today southern Syria, was agreed upon.
      Your specious argument comes crashing down with the Feisal/Weitzman agreement of 1919 in which Feisal, of the Hedjaz (The Arabian Peninsula) and leader of the Arab world at the time, agreed to these claims, and further, in a famous letter to Felix Frankfurter said “The Arabs, especially the educated among us, agree to the Zionist claims which are MODEST AND PROPER. We look forward to the Arab state alongside Palestine. (He didn’t know that there would be 21 sovereign Arab states created in the future.) Our two movements are NATIONALISTIC NOT IMPERIALISTIC, and one cannot be a success without the other. We wish our Jewish brothers and sisters a hearty welcome home.”
      Just to help you out of your confusion, there has never been an Arab Palestinian state in the whole of history, and there isn’t even a word for Palestine in Arabic,
      The Arabs hail from the Arabian Peninsula which is nowhere near Palestine, and the Jews from Judea, renamed the West Bank, when it illegally occupied it in a war of aggression in 1948, an occupation, incidentally, only recognised by Great Britain and Pakistan (without the recognition of the annexation of Jerusalem). No Arab country recognised this outrageous illegal annexation.
      In fact, the Jews had sovereignty in the Holy Land for 1,400 years in Judea , Samaria and what became Trans Jordan, until the Roman Conquest in AD 70.
      The Arabs were the invaders in AD 636 with the Mohammed and the birth of Islam, which he spread by conquest. The area was subsequently conquered repeatedly.
      In 1920 the Arabs received the vast bulk of the Ottoman lands, some 95%,thanks primarily to Allied sacrifices and huge losses of Britain’s forces, even though they contributed nothing to the victory.
      Subsequently, Haj Amin al Husseini, the violent and deeply anti-Semitic Mufti of Jerusalem, who later on teamed up with Hitler in WW2, incited riots against the Jews, and he fomented riots against the Jews in Jerusalem (1920) and then in 1929 in Hebron, Judaism’s second holiest place since biblical times, in which Jews were brutally murdered and then driven out.
      Just like a broken clock which tells the time accurately but twice a day, you are right about the British Mandate over Palestine, but you have no idea why.
      The point was that unlike the Mandate over Iraq and Syria, which had the numbers but were not ready for independence because they were still underdeveloped, the Palestine Mandate was in place until independence could be declared when there would be sufficient numbers of Jews to form a majority. Sovereignty was vested in the Jewish People at San Remo, in recognition that they had been forcibly removed from their historic homeland, not just in the Jews of Palestine. That was the whole point about which you are clearly clueless.
      That’s why the Mandate talks of re-constituting the Jewish National Home.
      That is why this mandate was called ‘sui generis’…ie unique, one of a kind, and the Mandate for Palestine was described as a ‘sacred trust of civilisation’.
      After 1920 because of the influence of T.E Lawrence in the Middle East department of the Colonial Office, subsequent British governments betrayed their own law, and international law, and sided with the Arabs inciting them against the Jews, and betraying their commitments to them.
      The worst act of betrayal was to encourage illegal Arab immigration form surrounding Arab countries into Palestine, deliberately sabotaging the Jewish national Home to increase the Arab numbers.
      The Arabs were never called Palestinians until they appropriated the name in 1969, with the express purpose of usurping the Jews. They scorned the name until then.
      If you look at the papers of the time, you will see that the word ‘Palestinian’ only referred to the Jews.
      You really should read “Middle East Diary” by Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen (last published in 1959) but available on the web.
      He was a non -Jew and the British government’s Chief Political Officer in 1919 in Palestine, Churchill’s military advisor in the Colonial Office in 1921, Allenby’s chief intelligence officer in 1919 in Egypt and a member of HM’s delegation to the Paris Peace Conference. He was a rather important person and he was there to record these important events.
      He records in great detail British betrayal, anti-Semitism and the flaunting of British and international law in deference to perceived ‘British interests’.
      He records the greed, ingratitude and abominable behaviour of the Arabs, incited by the British, of the denial of any territory whatsoever, not just to the Jews, but also to the Kurds, Armenians and any other non Arabs.

  5. Kouf you present some credible arguments – just kidding – you are watching too much Monty Python – What is Transjordordan in then non-fictional real world?

    • Actually, I read a history book. From Time Immemorial. It’s about 400 page of text and another 120 pages in references. There are diagrams, but nothing you color in with crayon. Which means, naturally, it goes over your head and into the Zionist Plot order of things.

      Stay irrelevant, Moron.

      • oh dear joan peters plagiarised work of fiction grom times gone by, its a piece of propaganda for idiots like you to masturbate over again and again and again

        • The history in the book is legitimate history. No matter a legitimate moron like you has to say.

          The world has existed before you. It will continue after you. You, in fact, are an after thought. A nothing.

          Shhhhh…. What’s that? Oh, just wind rushing through the empty brain of noam. Sounds the same as someone pissing against a bush. Coincidence?

          • wonderfully selective excuse me if i dont play your game, you know that the real authorities on the subject reject your twaddle

              • His real authorities are Hamas, the moolahs of Iran and other murderous antisemites.

                • Excellent Fritz!!
                  It was written sometime ago to debunk Arafat’s speech at the UN depicting Palestine as a pastoral idyll before all those colonial, horrible, terrible, marauding thieving and power grabbing Zionists came to spoil ALL the fun.The reader is taken through every region and is given more than enough to show what lies and myths have been told . The research is meticulous; mainly from first hand sources. It is a depressing read about poverty, disease and sand.
                  Guaranteed: Miko Peled, Ilan Pappe and George Galloway have not read the book yet.

        • I tried to find out more about the plagiarism you mentioned. All I could find online, though, was the controversy where Norman Finkelstein accused Alan Dershowitz of plagiarizing *from* the book. Do you have a source for your claim?

    • Jane,
      Your constant and repeated sloppy spelling and grammar are an indication of your sloppy thinking and sloppy “facts.”
      Perhaps it is time to choose another moniker – one that reflects the fact that English isn’t your first language, and that the name Jane most probably is not a true reflection of your gender, cybercrossdressingNatziePampers.

  6. Jane: “Iraq, Syria and other countries get their legitimacy and statehood not from any conferences held by the imperial powers but by their own struggles against those imperial powers.”

    And you deny the Jews the right to the history of their own legitimate national liberation struggle against European and Islamic persecution and imperialism, because you continue, in your own personal way, to subjugate them to the injustice of your own double standards. Hypocrisy, bigotry and spite are the ingredients of your progressive thinking.

  7. IslamistJane and the invented history of Iraq, Syria and others. The postcolonial narrative and wishful thinking set against historical truth.and facts.
    Don´t argue with this antisemite, as a fanatic won`t listen, deafened by his own yelling of hate lines.

  8. Rolyn I love your rebuttal – there were countries in the Middle East just a huge mass of land occupied by the Ottomans. By same account there were no countries in Africa but just a huge land mass occupied by the European Powers.

    She is right on one count. The British and most European colonialists were as anti-semitic as you can get.The reasons behind the Balfour Declaration was anti-semitism that was common in most European country. Indeed, the only Jewish member of the British Cabinet, Edwin Montagu opposed the Balfour Declaration. He saw the Balfour Declaration as a means of creating an international Ghetto for the Jews and he denounced the Declaration as Anti-Semitic.

    As for Rolyn advice that I read some of the obscure authors, please be assured I have read widely and am well informed on the issue. Thanks for the advice. My advice to Rolyn is not to indulge in abuse as abuse is the last refuge of a …

    • “..please be assured I have read widely and am well informed on the issue.”
      How interesting Tehran Jane. I strongly believe that it is one of the joys of life to increase my own knowledge and always seek to do so.

      So which books by which authors have you read?

    • Jane: “Edwin Montagu opposed the Balfour Declaration. He saw the Balfour Declaration as a means of creating an international Ghetto for the Jews and he denounced the Declaration as Anti-Semitic”.

      Montagu was as forward thinking as you then Jane. Better to subjugate and murder the Jews in Europe than confine them to an ‘international ghetto’, one that happened to be – under the terms of the Balfour Dec – four times the size of the current state of Israel, and you – with your sanctimonious liberal-left wisdom, humanity and generosity, obsess about denying them even this.

      • I do believe the declaration also provided that the rights of Jews in other countries of residence were not to be affected negatively. Well, we can see how that worked out, but it had nothing to do with the Balfour Declaration, except maybe the failure to implement it.

  9. Jeff is there any consensus among the Zionists. DId the Palestinians exist? Yes they did but were Jews. No they did not but were invented.

    What is a Mandate except the Colonial Powers getting together and dividing the world among themselves. The wrold as a whole has long denounced the validity of colonialism, including the one extended under the Mandate. The Mandate is like the criminal gangs getting together dividing the place among themselves and appointing there bully boys to police the communities.

    • Jane,
      Your impersonation, one might call it “parody of the intellectual style,” is always good for a giggle.
      The League of Nations Mandate system was an effort to bring self-governance – a liberal notion – to regions of the world that had been provinces of colonial empires. I’m afraid to tell you that Britain’s betrayal of its international commitment to Palestine, i.e., the Jewish National Home, and its siding with Arab interests, then as now, represents a phenomenon known as backsliding.

      You should re-read Roslyn’s response to you, this time for meaning.

    • DId the Palestinians exist?

      The partition plan called for an arab country not for a Palestinian one

      Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, testified in 1937 before the Peel Commission, a British investigative body:
      “There is no such country [as Palestine]! Palestine is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries, part of Syria

      In a 1946 appearance before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, also acting as an investigative body, the Arab-American historian Philip Hitti stated:
      “There is no such thing as Palestine in [Arab] history, absolutely not.”

      There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people.” – Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to the PLO leader Yassir Arafat

      “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria.” – Representative of Saudi Arabia at the United Nations

      etc etc etc

  10. At San Remo the colonialists got together and shared the loot among themselves. If they gave some of it to the Zionist entity than that makes the Zionist entity a colonialist entity. No colonial entiy has any right of self determination over the lands usurped from others. 20th Century has seen many of these so-called self determination of colonial powers denied and reversed. The last one was in South Africa when Apartheid was demolished.

    • @Jane Mardell.

      “At San Remo the colonialists got together and shared the loot among themselves. If they gave some of it to the Zionist entity than that makes the Zionist entity a colonialist entity. No colonial entity has any right of self determination over the lands usurped from others”.

      So which lands of the Ottoman Empire ended up in the hands of The Principal Allied Powers as permanent possessions?
      If you look in a dictionary you will find that the “usurpers” are those who invade the land of others. They are the later arrivals.
      The Arabs invaded Palestine 566 years after the Jews were conquered and expelled.
      Moreover, Muhammed’s first act of colonialism and barbarity was the usurping of Jews from Medina, a Jewish city, and the beheading of its 600 men (many just teenagers) who refused to convert to his new religion. Nothing has changed.
      You seem to be in denial.

    • So what does that make Syria and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (formerly Transjordan) and Iraq and Lebanon, then?

      Or Pakistan, come to that?

    • “At San Remo the colonialists got together and shared the loot among themselves.”
      What was the loot? Sand? Backwardness?
      ” No colonial entiy [sic] has any right of self determination over the lands usurped from others.” That statement should end your support for the so-called “Palestinian Cause.”

  11. Jane: “At San Remo the colonialists got together and shared the loot among themselves”.

    Yes they did, and the last thing they actually wanted to do was give anything of substance to the Jews – Britain did not deliver what it promised under the Palestine Mandate and left the Jews to perish in Europe, and stood in the way of Israel’s creation in 1948. You carry on that very British tradition Jane, a deep-seated, visceral animosity to the Jewish national liberation struggle. You side with tyranny – (Arab despotism is no concern of yours is it Jane) – and bare an obsessive malice towards the Zionists for succeeding in liberating themselves from the yoke of European AND Islamic oppression.

  12. We should emphasise that Israel behind the Green Line sits on just 8,000 square miles, 17 percent originally allotted to it

    a) Why “just”, when that’s roughly the same size as biblical Israel?
    b) What is now Jordan was never assigned to become part of a new state of Israel. And indeed: on what historical grounds would it have been. Although … I see from the one of the author’s responses above that she believes biblical Israel stretched to the Iraqi border!!!!

    Why on earth is CiFW publishing this historical revisionism? There’s enough sound evidence out there to combat the pro-boycott idiots without having to make things up.

    • @Pretzelberg.

      “b) What is now Jordan was never assigned to become part of a new state of Israel”

      What is your evidence for this assertion?
      What are your sources?

      Richard Meinertzhagen describes how Churchill illegally separated Trans Jordan from the National Home on the advice/ persuasion of Lawrence. He describes the outrage he felt and the anger of Chaim Weitzmann. He and Lawrence were both in the middle east department of the Colonial Office as advisers to Churchill at the time.
      It was done to assuage the anger of Abdullah and Feisal following the removal of the latter from the throne of Syria by the French.
      The British illegally tampered with the Draft Mandate in November 1920 to facilitate this, and inserted Article 25 into the document.
      Biblical Israel stretched to both sides of the Jordan River,…clearly your knowledge in this field is wanting. Trans Jordan was home to two and a half Tribes.
      I repeat, the maps of the biblical cartographer George Adam Smith were to be used to define the area of the Jewish National Home.
      Howard Grief deals with this topic in great detail in his book “The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law” (pages 303—390).
      The legal issues are discussed and sourced in their historical context.

      Are you seriously suggesting that the Green Line defined the area of the National Home when the Zionist leadership presented their claims to the Paris Peace Conference?

      • Biblical Israel stretched to both sides of the Jordan River,…clearly your knowledge in this field is wanting.

        I never said it wasn’t. Of course for a short time biblical Israel/Judea conquered/incorporated territory east of the Jordan. What a disingenuious and arrogant reply from you.
        It’s you who is revising history here, e.g. that proto-Israel had a claim to the land stretching to the Iraqi border!
        I don’t think your knowledge is wanting. It’s just that you twist the facts for your own propaganda purposes.

        As for this earlier comment by you:
        The Arabs hail from the Arabian Peninsula which is nowhere near Palestine, and the Jews from Judea

        i.e. the Jews dropped into Judea from outer space? Your Arabs-back-to-Arabia-style talk is reminiscent of the tone employed by anti-Semites.

        Two sides of the same bigoted coin.

        • It’s not what she said nor was she implying Pretz. Propaganda? Ah, you mean the narrative that repeatedly gets buried under the anti-Israel slime.

        • I asked you for the sources upon which you refute the fact that Jordan was slated to be part of the National Home.
          You have not. Why not?
          No serious scholar has disputed that fact.
          Read the Mandate including the Preamble (legally binding) and the Franco British Boundary Convention of 1920.

          “The Arabs hail from the Arabian Peninsula which is nowhere near Palestine, and the Jews from Judea”.
          That factually accurate comment was in response to the accusation that the creation of Israel was a colonial enterprise, and to demonstrate that the Arabs brandishing the sword of Islam were the colonisers over vast areas of other peoples lands.
          Sorry if it doesn’t fit your PC narrative.
          When you arrive in the next world why not have it out with the late Lord Robert Cecil, the assistant Foreign Secretary, who said at a public meeting on December 2 1917
          on behalf of the British government:–
          “Our wish is that the Arabian countries shall be for the Arabs, Armenia for the Armenians and Judea for the Jews”.
          Remember to reprimand him for his bigotry!

          • – You know fully well what I meant, i.e. that Jordan was never slated to be included in a Jewish state. Or are you claiming it was? And as I asked before: on what grounds would it have been?
            – Saying that “the Arabs hail from the Arabian Peninsula” is hardly a factually accurate comment – no more than it would be to state that the Jews hail from Ur!

            • “….that Jordan was never slated to be included in a Jewish state. Or are you claiming it was?”

              It was included in the proposed Mandate in 1920 at San Remo as was Gaza, the west Bank and parts of Sinai.. So yes it was. What happened subsequently is something else Pretz .

              I referred readers to a book by Saul Friedman and you Pretz may benefit from reading it. There it will tell you about the Arabs and how they came to settle and from various locations and at different times including 200,000 Arabs that came to Palestine in the 1920s. That’s a big number, often not mentioned, but it also coincides with the immigration of Jews that brought opportunity to many seeking to improve their lives – until the Brits started to put restrictions on immigration to appease and appeal to Arab sensitivities and to further its own colonial ambitions.
              So no , it’s not a case of “no more than it would be to state that the Jews hail from Ur” as you put it.

              • Of course it was included in the proposed Mandate – but that doesn’t mean Jordan was ever going to be included in a prospective Jewish state.

                As for your final sentence: yes it is – because Roselyn is saying that all Arabs come from the Arabian peninsula. As I said before: that’s as ridiculous as saying that Jews are originally from Ur.

                • Your comment demonstrates a lack of knowledge on your part,
                  Read Howard Grief’s book, specifically the chapter on the separation of Trans Jordan from the National Home, which is was slated to be part of .
                  Also read Richard Meinertzhagen’s Middle East Diary in which he recorded the events of the time as they happened.
                  My assertions are not my own….I simply go to the best sources themselves, as well as the legal documents.
                  If you were better read on the topic you would know that prominent politicians at the time refuted the idea that any part of Palestine was to go to the Arabs, including McMahon. In fact, he wrote a letter to the Times in July 1937 specifically denying that he had ever suggested that.

  13. Thank you for all this. However, I fail to see what has this got to do with what happened to the Palestinians. Israel came into being by expelling the Paletinians who lived on that land and the land was taken up by the newcomers from Europe. Bombs or no bombs is not the issue.

    UN has always insisted that the refugees be allowed to return to their homes since 1948.

    United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 was adopted on December 11, 1948, near the end of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The Resolution defined principles for reaching a final settlement and returning Palestinian refugees to their homes. It called for an establishment of a U.N. Conciliation Commission to facilitate peace between Israel and Arab states, continuing the efforts of UN Mediator Folke Bernadotte, following his assassination. It also discussed solutions to refugee issues.[1]

    Settlements are considered illegal in internatioanl law and is the basis of the success of the BDS worldwide.

    It is not so much as what you say mean anyhing to me it is just it is irrelevant to the issue of the rights of the Palestinians. Perhaps they do not mean much to you but for Palestinians they mean their survival against an illegal occupation.

    • “Israel came into being by expelling the Paletinians (sic)”

      Wow Tehran Jane I didn’t know that before.
      Israel came into being by expelling people living on pallets. How very unkind of them.

      • Actually, it was even worse than that: Palletinians lived on pallets, but the poor Paletinians had to make do with palets because the expansionist Zionists stole their second ‘l’.

    • Israel came into being in San Remo. Arabs were offerd as well as the Jews 181 resolution. They rejected it ,started a war and lost.
      Tell me do you imlpy that Jews were expelling arabs before 47?
      By the way arabs rejected 194.

  14. A protocol to the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons bans the use of white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas.

    The use of White Phosphorus in Gaza, which is densely populated my common sense tells me would be illegal as it would be difficult to see how civilians would not be impacted in an area as desnsely populated as Gaza, Your qualifications are inspiring but what happened to your common sense.

    Israeli government has also acknowledged the illiegality as they have promised not to use whit phosphorus again.

    • GENEVA — The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent is being used improperly or illegally.
      “In some of the strikes in Gaza it’s pretty clear that phosphorus was used,” Herby told The Associated Press. “But it’s not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it’s being used in any other way.

    • Pity however that Hamas fire rockets at Israel populated areas with white phosphorus and you have no problem with that.

  15. The most glaring truth about contributors to this board is that Zionists consistently use abuse and vilification in confronting opponents such as Jane and Noam whilst the latter engage in reasoned argument. Does that tell us something about the mentality of Zionist CifWatchers, or just about the weakness of their case?

    • sencar,
      The most glaring truth about opponents on this site is that they constantly try to vilify and demonize Israel and Israelis. They do this with falsified history, historical inversions, corruption of language and unsound arguments.

      “If we are to follow the logic of this blog all those who have attained there independence from the colonial powers that attended the San Remo Conference should now return themselves to their ex-colonial masters or that it was illegitimate to mount anti-colonial struggles.” – Jane Mardell
      Is this your idea of a reasoned argument? Aside from the fact that no one here said any such thing, because to many of us it sounds like a hysterical rant.

      “you have earnt your money there gerry baby, for someone who fears god why are you not afraid of what will happen to you when you face the holy one” -noam
      Another respectful and well-reasoned argument?

      And now for your own well-reasoned and non-vilifying contribution to the proceedings:
      “Her history is mostly false, but even if it weren’t the BDS movement would continue to grow because its success depends on anger about Israeli greed, aggression and racism in the here and now amongst people who wouldn’t know the San Remo Resolution from the San Andreas Fault.”
      This is inexcusably contemptuous and inverted as it is slanderous. Would you like to fisk it or shall I? This is the kind of mealy-mouthed, self-preening crapola one expects from a rarified anti-Semitic dandy such as yourself.

    • The most glaring truth about contributors to this board is that Zionists consistently use abuse and vilification in confronting opponents

      Is using facts to prove they are liars is abusing? is asking question which your friend never bother answering is abusing? implying we are getting money for writting here among other lies is not abusing?

  16. Noam/Natzie/Avram, the scottish-irish social worker teaching lies for money.

  17. Pappe, the sloppiest historian?
    He is more of a politicised tell-taler, his book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, shows, besides the bitzarre title, a romanticised and idealised landscape that was brutally taken by Jewish force. With some, according to him, brave Germans and Bosnians fighting side by side with the Arabs. Not to speak of villages he counts as destroyed by the Jewish forces whereas they were already burnt down by the British army during the Arab uprising 1936-1939. It is a political pamphlet against Israel, not a scientific book of any value.
    He studied with Albert Hourani who is still considered as the great British-Arab historian of the Middle East, his influence on Said`s tales is great, especially referring to the “Orientalist” thesis. Hourani as officer at the Arab office in Jerusalem and London worked against the creation of Israel. It`s easy to imagine what he taught on the subject of Israel.
    Pappe was Knesset candidate for the communist Hadash which is quite telling. At Haifa he was professor of political sciences, not history. Before that position he worked for a Peace Institute.
    After reading this book I doubt that he can master the historical-critical method or perform a source criticism, although he meade his PhD in history in Oxford.

    Citing an interview shows his contempt for scientific integrity and his commitment to political activism
    http://www.logosjournal.com/pappe.htm
    At that age I began my military service which introduced me to other groups and to the host of social problems facing Israeli society. But it was only in the 1970s, at Hebrew University, that I was exposed to the plight of the Palestinians in Israel as an undergraduate in the department of Middle Eastern History. It was then and there that I found my love for history and developed my belief that the present cannot be understood and the future changed without first trying to decipher its historical dimensions.

    It was clear that this could not be done freely inside Israel-especially if its own history was to be my subject matter. This is how I found myself at Oxford in 1984 as a D. Phil student under the supervision of two great supervisors, the late Albert Hourani and Roger Owen. The thesis was on the 1948 war in Palestine, a subject that has engaged me ever since my career as a professional historian began. This is still a subject that haunts me and I regard the events of that year as the key to understanding the present conflict in Palestine as well as the gate through which peace has to pass on the way to a comprehensive and lasting settlement in Palestine and Israel. Intimate and strong friendships with Palestinians and the newly declassified material in the archives produced my new look at the 1948 war. I challenged many of the foundational Israeli myths associated with the war and I described what happened in Palestine in that year essentially as a Jewish ethnic cleansing operation against the indigenous population. This conviction informed not only my work as a historian but also affected significantly my political views and activity.

    I also ventured, in between my forays in the1948 story, into the exciting-but always productive for me-world of historiosophy and hermeneutics. I do think, in retrospect, that much of what I had read and discussed influenced my attitude to historiography in general. I treat history from a much more relativist point of view than many of my colleagues and I was also highly impressed by the need-which informs my work in the last few years-to write more a history of the people and less a history of the politicians, and more a history of the society and less of its ideology and elite politics.

  18. The best strategy is to fight fire with fire. Keep stressing that the terrorists who kidnap children, shoot young women in the head, and blow up innocent civilians are the same people who want to see Israel destroyed.

    Join up the dots between Hamas and Fatah and the jihad against the west. Tar Palestinian terrorists with the crimes of their brothers in arms elsewhere around the world..

  19. Not because they will be changed into adipose tissue,
    but because excess protein in your diet causes you to burn more protein and stare more fat.
    Below is healthier details about the elements of Adiphene which will show you how to to understand
    which ingredient entering into your body does what. Then I took these dietary supplements and now Im again in shape.

  20. Search engine optimization (SEO) is a method designed to improve the flow of organic visitors to a website by achieving a higher ranking within search engine
    result pages (SERPs). In your Ad – Words campaigns you
    must wisely find high profitable keywords, the “buyer kind” of keywords.
    Perhaps it’s better not be using these social networks,
    they say they keep people connected, but only in a virtual world, it probably
    prevents a lot of people from going outside and really connecting.