Category not assigned

One man’s “illegal settlement” is another man’s “historic Jewish homeland”

Even though Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization by the US and EU, most Western journalists don’t dare use the word “terrorist” when characterizing the group, out of concern that the term is prejudicial and subjective.  They often opt instead for the term “militant”.  

A great example of this ‘sensitivity’ can be found in the Guardian’s Style Guide, which cautions its writers that they “need to be very careful about using the term” as “it is still a subjective judgment”, before concluding that “one person’s terrorist may be another person’s freedom fighter”.  

Regarding Israeli communities across the 1949 Armistice Lines, however, there is rarely any such concern about using subjective, tendentious terminology.  

Such towns on the ‘wrong’ side of the green line are almost always characterized as “illegal”, despite the fact that this designation largely rests on an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice – a decision (based on an interpretation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention) which many believe was reached using specious legal logic.

In fact, most journalists don’t even bother explaining to readers why they believe Israeli settlements are illegal. They don’t cite the ICJ advisory opinion. And, they certainly don’t note the existence of dissenting opinions by highly respected legal scholars.

Interestingly, however, a journalist for the Independent named Ben Lynfield recently tried to explain the international legal basis for describing settlements as “illegal”, in a report on June 5 titled ‘Israel plans to build 3,000 new settler homes in occupied territories to punish the Hamas backed Palestinian Authority’.

Here’s the relevant paragraph:

Palestinian leaders said they would not remain quiet over the settlement expansion and spoke of using their non-member state status at the UN to hold Israel accountable for violating international law. Settlement contravenes the Fourth Geneva Convention’s ban on an occupying power settling its nationals in the occupied territory.

In addition to the fact that Lynfield fails to explain which legal body reached an “advisory” opinion that settlements “contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention”, he also distorts the language of the Convention, and omits key words which are highly relevant to the debate.  

Here’s the exact language of Article 49, in the opening sentence. (You can read the full text here)

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

As you can see, contrary to Lynfield’s claims, the passage does not seem to prohibit the “settling” nationals in “occupied territory”, as Lynfield claims, but speaks explicitly of a prohibition against “forcible transfers“.

International lawyer Prof. Eugene V. Rostow, a former dean of Yale Law School and U.S. Undersecretary of State, wrote the following in 1990:

[T]he Convention prohibits many of the inhumane practices of the Nazis and the Soviet Union during and before the Second World War – the mass transfer of people into and out of occupied territories for purposes of extermination, slave labor or colonization, for example….The Jewish settlers in the West Bank are most emphatically volunteers. They have not been “deported” or “transferred” to the area by the Government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population it is the goal of the Geneva Convention to prevent.

Ambassador Morris Abram, a member of the U.S. staff at the Nuremberg Tribunal who was later involved in the drafting of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is on record as stating the following:

[The Convention] was not designed to cover situations like Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, but rather the forcible transfer, deportation or resettlement of large numbers of people.

Similarly, international lawyer Prof. Julius Stone, in referring to the absurdity of considering Israeli settlements as a violation of Article 49(6), wrote:

Irony would…be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that…the West Bank…must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context excludes so tyrannical a reading of Article 49(6.)

David M. Phillips argued thusly in an essay at Commentary:

Concluding that Israeli settlements violate Article 49(6) also overlooks the Jewish communities that existed before the creation of the state in areas occupied by today’s Israeli settlements, for example, in Hebron and the Etzion block outside Jerusalem. These Jewish communities were destroyed by Arab armies, militias, and rioters, and, as in the case of Hebron, the community’s population was slaughtered. Is it sensible to interpret Article 49 to bar the reconstitution of Jewish communities that were destroyed through aggression and slaughter? If so, the international law of occupation runs the risk of freezing one occupier’s conduct in place, no matter how unlawful.

While reasonable people can of course disagree with Israeli settlement policy – in the context of efforts to one day reach a final status agreement with the Palestinians – lazily asserting that such settlements are “illegal” is ahistorical, and has, at best, a highly questionable basis in international law.  

Professional journalists (such as Ben Lynfield) should at least avoid language suggesting that the “illegality” of Israeli settlements represents a universally agreed upon understanding of international law, and acknowledge – at the very least – the existence of highly credible dissenting legal opinions.

Employing the Guardian’s post-modern logic regarding the word “terrorist”, you could say that “one man’s illegal settlement is another man’s (legally codified) historic Jewish homeland”.

Enhanced by Zemanta

102 replies »

  1. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention “is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign.”
    Prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948.

    • The Palestinian Territories represent a “sui generis case” among most of the “occupations” currently in place in different parts of the world. Not only in consideration of how long this occupation has been prolonged, but also because it represents one of the rare cases in which a military power “has established a distinct military government over occupied areas in accordance with the framework of the law of occupation.”
      In other somewhat similar contexts, such as, just to name a few, Abkhazia, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) and East Turkestan, the occupying powers of these areas have created in loco nominally independent states (TRNC-Turkey, Abkhazia-Russia and so on), and/or are not building settlements in their “occupied territories” (Chechnya is just an example), and/or have incorporated the local inhabitants as their citizens: with all the guarantees, rights and problems that this entails.
      Some scholars have stressed out that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem have been (unofficially, in the case of East Jerusalem) annexed by the State of Israel and that despite this, the EU Guidelines (discussed in the previous post) are to be enforced in these territories as well. Therefore, according to them, the comparison with other “occupations” would show that the Palestinian case cannot be considered “sui generis” and that the EU approach on the issue is marred by incoherence. These claims deserve a short preliminary clarification.
      Contrary to several other occupying powers, Israel has made no attempts to set up a nominally independent state with the aim of preserving maximum flexibility. In this way it doesn’t have to renounce sovereignty over any specific part of its occupied territories. Furthermore, the status quo ensures the exploitation of the Palestinian territories – as well as control of an area considered of strategic importance for defense purpose – without requiring additional “inconvenient responsibilities” for its local majority. By annexing East Jerusalem and the Golan, but not the whole West Bank, the Israeli authorities fulfilled several policy goals as well as ideological purposes. The West Bank is mainly perceived in demographic terms: how much land can be taken by new and old settlers without giving the impression that Israel has to take on responsibility for too many Palestinians?

      The “disputed territories” logic
      According to a research paper recently published by the Kohelet Policy Forum, the EU Guidelines “explicitly and erroneously refer to the pre-1967 armistice lines as borders, and implicitly and incorrectly insist not only that the EU does not recognize potential Israeli claims to sovereignty in the disputed territories but that Israel is not entitled to assert those claims. ”
      The lack of clear-cut borders, however, cannot be considered a valid objection. Neither Israel nor Palestine have agreed boundaries in the context of a peace agreement. Based on the same reasoning as presented by some Israeli leaders, Palestine, recognized as a non-member State by the UNGA on 29 November 2012, could theoretically start building settlements on Israeli soil.
      It is sometimes claimed that Jordan, because of its “unlawful acquisition” of the West Bank, was entitled at most to claim the status of belligerent occupant. In its 2004’s Wall advisory opinion, the ICJ ruled that the regulations on the matter of occupation applied to any armed conflict between High Contracting Parties and that it was irrelevant whether territory occupied during that conflict was under their sovereignty. The Israeli High Court of Justice itself established that the application of the regulations depends on the effective military control exercised from outside the nation’s borders, and not from previous sovereignty over the territory of a specific state (HCJ 785/87). Therefore, the fact that the West Bank was occupied by Jordan until 1967 – an occupation which was opposed by the local population at the time, most of all by Fatah militants, to the point that King Hussein felt obliged to impose martial law – does not justify the use of the expression “disputed territories” in place of “occupied territories.” Even more so considering that Israel, in Allan Gerson’s words, “never challenged the lawfulness of Jordan’s control of the West Bank” and tried to reach a peace treaty after the Six-Day War which would have returned, with modified borders, the West Bank to Jordan.
      The “disputed territories” logic is based on a selective use of international consensus. A good example is provided by the Palestinian village of Umm Rashrash, present-day Eilat. It was taken by the Negev and Golani Brigades on March 10, 1949, eight months after the United Nations Security Council’s resolution No. 54 called for a ceasefire, forbidding any acquisition of territory from that date on.
      It is only thanks to an established international consensus – expressed by 160 countries – that Eilat is today legitimately part of the State of Israel. The same international consensus established the illegality of settlements as well as of the occupation of the Palestinian territories. UNSC’s resolution n. 476 (1980) pointed out for example that the “acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible” and reaffirmed “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”. This was a simple call for withdrawal, without reference to any condition. It is not possible to invoke international consensus over Eilat (and other areas), while disregarding it for the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The tendency to overlook the selective use of international consensus, while reducing every discussion to security, doesn’t fully take into account the complexity of the issue.
      This is even more the case when considering that Israel’s admission to the United Nations was not unconditional, but bound to its compliance with its assurances regarding the implementation of the UN’s Charter and other resolutions (Israel’s original application for admission was, not by chance, rejected by the UNSC).
      Furthermore, before the establishment of the UN, the right granted to the Jewish people to settle in the mandated territories was neither exclusive nor unlimited, but explicitly subordinated to the protection of the “rights and position of other sections of the population”. Those very same rights are currently being violated by the continuous funding allotted to new settlements and through the exploitation of local natural resources, a policy specifically prohibited by the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907. About 94 percent of the materials produced nowadays in the Israeli quarries in the West Bank is transported to Israel.

      (Mis)using Oslo
      The Oslo Accords explicitly preserve the positions of the parties without resolving the question of territorial sovereignty. That’s the reason why the already mentioned research paper released by Kohelet pointed out that “none of the agreements empower a third party like the EU to override the negotiations and impose its own views of sovereignty over the disputed territory”. However, to invoke the Oslo Agreements in order to undermine the EU approach on the issue is problematic.
      The Oslo Agreements – considered by several international lawyers as a legal anomaly in as much as they were not treaties concluded between states – provided that the interim period was not supposed to exceed five years (Article 1). It is still a matter of debate if the application of the Oslo Accords beyond its five-year interim period – a period characterized by the construction of a huge number of new settlements, by Palestinian terrorism and Israeli military operations – is compatible with the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination.
      Furthermore, as recently noted by Vera Gowlland-Debbas, not only is the legal status of the Oslo Agreements far from clear in that, not having been registered with the UN, they cannot be invoked before any organ of the United Nations, but also Article 103 of the UN Charter ensures that in case of conflict, the obligations of Israel under the Charter would prevail over any other agreement.
      Israel’s behavior as an occupying power is subject to several international customary laws (the “persistent objector” claim often mentioned to undermine these issues is “rather scant”: no case was decided on the basis of it). The Oslo Agreements did not supercede these laws: “Neither Party shall be deemed, by virtue of having entered into this Agreement, to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions (Article 31(6), Interim Agreement).”
      Finally, Article 31 of the Oslo Agreements clarified that “neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip”. This statement is subject to different possible interpretations. However, in each round of negotiations the Israeli authorities require to the interested parties to take into account the new local demography. This can hardly be considered as an unintentional result of their policies in the area.

      A few weeks ago President Barack Obama praised Nelson Mandela saying that he “freed not just the prisoner, but the jailer as well”. We cannot rely on any Palestinian or Israeli Mandela. The only chance to overcome the current stalemate is through the direct intervention of the international community. The EU Guidelines barring loans to Israeli entities established or operating in the Palestinian Territories, although very limited in scope, represent one relevant step in that direction. The recent EU-Morocco Agreement, beside being wrong from a political and moral point of view, risks to undermine these efforts.
      There are only two bad alternatives to the multilateral approach underpinning the guidelines approach. The first one is the sadly well-known “aggressive unilateralism” that Israelis and Palestinians showed in so many occasions. The second is what the Austrian-born Jewish philosopher Martin Buber termed “monologue disguised as dialogue”, i.e. the dialogue “in which two or more men, meeting in space, speak each with himself in strangely tortuous and circuitous ways and yet imagine they have escaped the torment of being thrown back on their own resources”. Buber wrote these words in 1947. At the beginning of 2014 they look truer than ever.

        • His point is to copypaste a fellow who swims with the Apartheid canard which renders his opinion as worthless.

              • Looks like you mistake your brain for your ass. Or maybe, you don`t mistake it. You should know it, who else?


          • The settlements are illegal are illegal. You can fantasise all you like, it will not change reality.

          • This article doesn’t have anything to do “with the Apartheid canard”. It explains that what it is happening beyond the green line is historically and politically problematic.

        • Gerald,
          “george” is going “C.B. DeMille” on us with a copy and paste job of epic proportions. Alas, it’s a flop.

        • The settlements are illegal and counter productive to reaching peace. No amount of writing by mr. Adam Levick can change that basic fact.

        • ‘As you can see, contrary to Lynfield’s claims, the passage does not seem to prohibit the “settling” nationals in “occupied territory”, as Lynfield claims, but speaks explicitly of a prohibition against “forcible transfers“.:

          There are two significant problems here. First, despite emphasizing war crimes, your post focuses solely on the Fourth Geneva Convention’s prohibition on the transfer of civilians into occupied territory; it simply ignores the Rome Statute’s very different war crime of direct or indirect transfer. Here is Art. 49(6) of GC IV (emphasis mine):
          The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
          And here is Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute:

          (viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.

          To begin with, it’s worth noting that it is anything but self-evident that Art. 49(6) requires “actually organizing and moving population en masse (compare to individual transfers in 49.1),”
          Unlike Art. 49(1), Art. 49(6) does not require the transfer of civilians to be forcible. Moreover, the war crime in question — Art. 8(2)(b)(viii) — even more clearly does not require “actually organizing and moving population en masse,” because it prohibits both direct and indirect transfer. Art. 8(2)(b)(viii) thus prohibits a much broader range of actions than Art. 46(1). And, of course, a violation of Art. 8(2)(b)(viii), unlike a violation of Art. 49(6), gives rise to individual criminal responsibility.

          • On what date, exactly, did Israel or “Palestine” become State Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court?

      • Dear God George,

        You’ll melt their minds with this! Haven’t your learned the format for comments on here?

        Respect the following syntax in your posts please:

        Ignore point raised + add spurious ‘fact’ + finish with ‘because you’re a Jew hater’

        You’ve been warned!

      • The legal definition of terrorism remains vague under international law – to the best of my knowledge, the UN could not reach a final agreement on this – while the illegality of Israeli settlements is well established under international law.

        Even without international law, anyone can tell that a people occupying another people’s land is unacceptable by moral standards, as is the case of Israel’s occupation of the territory of Palestine since 1967.

        • ” the illegality of Israeli settlements is well established under international law.”

          Had you read the article you would know that that’s not so. To use your own word, it’s vague.

          “The legal definition of terrorism remains vague under international law – to the best of my knowledge, the UN could not reach a final agreement on this”

          The UNGA is not an international legislature, and the reason they couldn’t come to a consensus defining terrorism is that so many of them support as well as engage in terrorism.
          But, (to paraphrase you), even without international law, which is definitely NOT determined by the serial human rights abuse bloc at the UN, any decent, rational person can tell that the incitement to murder (the expected result of the racist propaganda coming from the Arab world) against Israel’s civilian population is a campaign of terror, and that your “take” on the situation is tits deep in donkey shit.

        • Since it’s vague for you, I’ll point it out: Kidnapping international athletes at an international sporting competition, and then dragging out their impending murders so that the whole world can watch it, is terrorism.

          Hope that helps you draw some conclusions! I just hate seeing folks who are so confused. Deep? Hardly.

        • THE FACT that blowing up a pizzeria in direct response to rejecting a peace offer isn’t considered breaking some sort of international law means that we, y’know, have different impressions of International Law. Kindly fuck yourself with a chainsaw.

        • @Shavot – it will always be vague as it is a Political term, nothing more, nothing less.

          It is of no use in the arena of jurisprudence – for that reason alone Israeli’s love this term as they seek to control its meaning, skirting the real issues of law and order.

          As you rightly point out, occupying another people’s land is unacceptable by moral standards, as is the case of Israel’s occupation of the territory of Palestine since 1967.

          Very clear cut. Sorry apologists 😦

          • Well, only Israelis seem to get blow up in pizzerias. And, really, only the unhinged Israel bashing asshole thinks that it’s not considered Terror to blow up a pizzeria in the middle of the lunch hour.

            • That is because the Israelis always want to discuss how much of the pizza they can have as their share after they have eaten most of it.

      • Do you have an example of a war started and lost by 5 armies in a matter of days, and then the nations of those armies getting land that was never a part of their country to begin with? Because that would be AMAZING.

  2. Such towns on the ‘wrong’ side of the green line are almost always characterized as “illegal”, despite the fact that this designation largely rests on an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice – a decision (based on an interpretation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention) which many believe was reached using specious legal logic.

    Adam, is an advisory opinion a decision? In which sense?

  3. “As you can see, contrary to Lynfield’s claims, the passage does not seem to prohibit the “settling” nationals in “occupied territory”, as Lynfield claims, but speaks explicitly of a prohibition against “forcible transfers“.”

    The first part of 49(6) speaks of “forcible transfers”, but the last paragraph, to which you so helpfully point us, says:
    “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

    Couldn’t be much clearer really and has nothing to do with “forcible transfers”.

    • Forcible transfer includes the case when an occupying power incites its population to move to the occupied territory. Israel happens to give financial incentives to Israelis who agree to leave Israel and move to a settlement.

      • “Forcible transfer includes the case when an occupying power incites its population to move to the occupied territory.”
        Why is that? Because you say so? This is the way you use the word “incite?” You’re a clown.
        The donkey dung is closing in on your chin.

        • The settlements are illegal and counter productive to reaching peace. No amount of writing by mr. Adam Levick can change that basic fact. This is why you are so upset Jeff.

          • Rejection of Israel’s right to exist is the single biggest impediment to peace. It always has been. The Arab/Muslim quest to bring about Jewish State’s destruction has nothing at all to do with international law, except as an attempt to nullify that law or sublimate it to its own desires. The propaganda now being engaged in – amounting to nothing more than a faux legal facade, i.e., to award territory to one party that at most can be legally described as disputed territory and open to a negotiated settlement under international treaties, customs and in this case bilateral agreements, is an attempted end run around the law.

                • The concept has no LEGAL basis at all – nowhere, anywhere in the world.

                  It’s very simple: it is NOT a legal concept. It’s not even a philosophical one.

                  What it is is pure politicking-PR nonsense.

                  Show the readers of this blog where this ‘legal’ right is derived from , I’d be keen to know. In fact, we all would 😉

                • Must be a funny country which admits the fool of the school as lawyer, if this country exists at all.
                  Or do you consider yourself as a Sharia expert?
                  That explains all, fool who does not know that the San Remo Resolution is part of what is called international law

  4. Do the same reporters call Arab settlement expansions illegal? No? Then they are racist Jew-haters. It’s that simple.

    • Tang there are no Arab settlement expansions in Tel Aviv last time I was allowed to look. Bu tell me if there are and I will tell my friends at the Guardian to call them illegal. If you forward the names fo the settlements my friends at the Guardian would find it very helpful.

    • Palestinians have all the right to build on their land. Neither Israel nor Palestine have agreed boundaries in the context of a peace agreement. Palestine, recognized as a non-member State by the UNGA on 29 November 2012, should start building settlements on Israeli soil.

  5. As soon as I read the title of today’s article I knew the nut jobs would be out in force. Didn’t we all?

  6. “one person’s terrorist may be another person’s freedom fighter.”
    One person’s slanted propaganda sheet may be another person’s newspaper (a very stupid person).

  7. Shavot says.
    Even without international law, anyone can tell that a people occupying another people’s land is unacceptable by moral standards, as is the case of Israel’s occupation of the territory of Palestine since 1967.

    My comments.

    What Palestine, their was never in history any state called Palestine.
    Judea and Samaria weren’t called Palestine before 67.
    It was called the West Bank, not Palestine.

    Jews ALWAYS lived in Judea and Samaria. ALWAYS.
    Besides Biblical times:

    If you look at the documents from the Cairo Geniza, dating back to the 9th century, you’ll find that there were Jews in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

    If you look at travelers’ accounts from the Early Middle Ages, such as Nahmanides, Benjamin of Tudela, and a host of others, you’ll find that there were Jews in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

    Rabbi Jechiel Ashkenazi, who was actually Sepharadi, purchased the Karite synagogue of Hebron in 1540 on behalf of the Sepharadi congregants.

    In 1834, Hebron was taken by storm by Abraim Pasha, and given up to his soldiers for several days. Most of the Muslims fled to the surrounding hills, but the Jews couldn’t, and since they weren’t involved in any of the political feuds, they weren’t particularly worried (since they wouldn’t be viewed as rebels). When Abraim went to take Hebron, a petition was presented to him by the officers of the Jewish congregation in Jerusalem to protect the Jewish inhabitants of Hebron, which he promised to do; but still, five Jews were deliberately murdered, and all of their property that hadn’t been hidden was either stolen or destroyed. Only then, did Abraim place a guard around their quarter of the town, but it was too late. He wasn’t going to try and force his soldiers to give back the stolen booty. The Hebron Jewish community was impoverished- but they were still in Hebron.

    In 1845, Dr. Ernst-Gustav Schultz, the Prussian Consul in Jerusalem, discussed the Jews living in Shechem (Nablus) and Hebron in his book, “Jerusalem, Eine Vorlesung”.

    In fact, except for the periods of 1929-1931 and 1936-1968, there has been a significant Jewish presence in Hebron SINCE BIBLICAL TIMES.

    The ONLY period of time where there were no Jews in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza was between 1948-1967, when the Arabs ethnically-cleansed us from here.

    Now we’re back home again, where we ALWAYS were- FOR GOOD- BY RIGHT.

    Judea will not be Judenrein again

    • “This also points to the an interesting fact that the word Jew only came in to use in the 1700′s and itself has far less history than Palestine”

      If, as you claim, there is “an interesting fact that the word Jew only came in to use in the 1700′s”
      If, such a fact exists you will have no problem in providing a verifiable source to it.
      I look forward to reading your source, and a link, to this ‘fact’.

      • That does not substantiate your claim “an interesting fact that the word Jew only came in to use in the 1700′s”
        Neither have you provided a verifiable link to substantiate your claim that this ‘fact’ exists.

        “Fact: your record keeping was via a Rabid game of Rabbinical telephone played for thousands of years. Fact: the game of telephone, without fail, ends with nonsense or fallacies. No surprises here”

        What is that supposed to mean?

        • So you cannot provide any links.
          You cannot even explain the content of your own posts.

          Why am I not surprised that an anti-Semitic clown such as you lacks any intellectual ability to support their ludicrous claims.

    • The word “Jew” (יהודי) appears in the Bible. Please educate yourself so the rest of us don’t have to.

      “The Romans coined the word Palestine”

      Yes, and in those days, not a single Palestinian lived in Palestine. They Muslims invaded only a few centuries later.

      • ‘not a single Palestinian lived in Palestine. They Muslims invaded only a few centuries later.’

        Maxime Rodinson:
        “The Arab population of Palestine were native in all the usual senses of that word. Ignorance, sometimes backed up by hypocritical propaganda, has spread a number of misconceptions on this subject, unfortunately very widely held. It has been said that since the Arabs took the country by military conquest in the seventh century, they are occupiers like any other, like the Romans, the Crusaders and the Turks. Why therefore should they be regarded as any more native than the others, and in particular than the Jews, who were native to that country in ancient times, or at least occupiers of longer standing? To the historian the answer is obvious. A small contingent of Arabs from Arabia did indeed conquer the country in the seventh century. But as a result of factors which were briefly outlined in the first chapter of this book, the Palestinian population soon became Arabized under Arab domination, just as earlier it had been Hebraicized, Aramaicized, to some degree even Hellenized. It became Arab in a way that it was never to become Latinized or Ottomanized. The invaded melted with the invaders. It is ridiculous to call the English of today invaders and occupiers, on the grounds that England was conquered from Celtic peoples by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries. The population was “Anglicized” and nobody suggests that the peoples which have more or less preserved the Celtic tongues – the Irish, the Welsh or the Bretons – should be regarded as the true natives of Kent or Suffolk, with greater titles to these territories than the English who live in those counties.”

        • Many of the Palestinians families today have emigrated to the area in the last two centuries. I’m not trying to say that they don’t have any claim to the land. But it is ridiculous to imply that the Palestinians today should be considered the same people as the ones who were here in Roman times (mostly Jews), despite having absolutely nothing in common with them except for maybe a few genes.

          Also, the comparison to England isn’t very helpful. The Palestinians never had sovereignty, for a long time they didn’t have a separate identity, and there has been a continuous presence of Jewish people here for most of history and a claim to the land that has never been relinquished.

          The same cannot be said about England.

      • You know what, forget about self-education. Your case is clearly hopeless.

        P.S. The Torah is part of the Bible.

      • Be careful Nic, your Hamas friends took their religion from the Bible and some of them may read your wisdom, you can lose your head in less time you need to scream Allah akbar…

    • “Judea will not be Judenrein again”:
      Nazmi Jubeh: “I think that slogans are not useful and do not explain the complexity of things. Any Jew who wants to live in our community, following the rules which this entails, must be free to do so. It’s quite a different story, however, to request that the settlers who arrived here by force and in defiance of international law can ipso facto be entitled to see their actions justified. In other words, those who want to live in a future Palestinian state must do so under the law and not as colonialists. When Israel was created, the Palestinians were already here, and accounted for the vast majority of the local population. This is why there are now over one million Palestinians in Israel, many of whom are known as ‘internally displaced persons’ [IDPs]. In constrast to this, settlers arrived in the Palestinian territories through violence and incentives received in recent years from Israeli governments. Equating the former to the latter is not only simplistic, but also morally reprehensible.”

  8. Just imagine if these so-called peace loving Palestinian activists actually spent their time and energy devising peace strategies rather than finding nuances in how to bitch about Israel’s existence. But, hey, every lazy, hate filled, Jew bashing dipshit needs to feel as if they are doing something special.

    • i read this hate and maybe Hitler had a point, he has converted the jews here to monsters like himself

        • Is it Nic? I don’t think you know enough about me, but I think I know enough about you right now. Have you noticed Zionists support a Palestinian state, whereas pro-Palestinians support the destruction of Israel, and yet you still are calling out Jews for blood libels? And then you don’t want to be considered an anti-Semite? And you don’t consider this stupid, insipid, hate monger bullshit on your behalf?

          See, Nic, this is how you never, ever receive respect from people like me. You want to point out the minor similarities of Israel and Apartheid South Africa (“Look at all of this separation!!111) but associating yourself with such fine, upstanding generals of mis- and pre-conceptions as Goebbels and the other Nazis (“Gee, check out the 3000 year old hate memes….”) and you get personally insulted and claim we want to shut your miserable pie hole. Oh, the humanity of considering Western European fuckwads who hate Jews awful people with no chance at ever achieving a peaceful conclusion since, golly, they only happen to seek total capitulation and consider compromise some sort of weakness.

          Nic, I bet you get rocks off watching the GoPro videos that record the slaughter of Jews in museums and at schoolyards. In fact, I’m sure of it.

          Sorry, I went off-topic for a moment. So, Fuckhead, you were talking Blood Libels……

          • What’s great about you, Nic, is I don’t have to say anything to show the world just how completely inept and out of touch you are with reality, peace, Middle East history, and, you know, being a human being.

            Remember, I’ve got the land you want. I’ve got the support of world politicians. And you know why? Because history is on my side. Because Israel really is a benefit for this world rather than a 23rd Islamist state.

            Mostly, though, when you get down to it, your only purpose in life if to shit on Jews. That just hasn’t really worked out. Minus the 6 million murdered in the Holocaust which you simultaneously deny actually existed while proclaiming that there was a purpose for it.

            You are a dickless wonder. Maybe if you extend your neck another foot or so you can start blowing yourself. Lord knows, only the world’s most pathetic whore would allow you touch her body.

            • See how little of a surface I have to scratch for your moronic, race trashing, anti-Semitic bullshit to come frothing out of your dickless soul? I know so many losers like you in my town. Alex Jones mfers who are so caught up in the conspiracies of the Jews, that they can’t see how they are being taken advantage of. Mum must be proud of her dipshit son. Do shave her back tonight and remind her that you’ll always be downstairs in the basement.

            • Nicholas Donahue is just a poor idiot, lending himself some importance by his hate of Jews.

      • Let’s go over some noam insights!!!!!

        1. Israel is evil!
        2. Palestinians are sweet!
        3. Zionists are Nazis!
        4. noam is a genius!

        That sums it up, Buddy. 5 years of you on this site, and this is what I found. Quite the contribution!

        Now, go tell me why you don’t have a state. I say, it’s because you are more interested in defaming Israel and getting other people to blame world Jewry for Middle East wars than you are in finding a compromise. And the reason for this is because you consider compromise as evidence of a weakness. And if anybody is weak, it’s not the befuddled, ignorant, Jew hating trash such as yourself.

        Now. You tell me what’s up, Chickenshit.

        • If Israelis are evil why are the Palestinians thrown out of their homes and their houses demolished. What is wrong with the Nazi Zionists?

          • ChickenShit should change his/her moniker to StubbornlyMakingNoSense. But since you want to talk about home invasions, why is it simply a part of the revolution for 2 mentally disturbed cousins to break into a home a slice the throats of children and infants? Because that home was owned by a Jewish family and was located in the West Bank? It’s interesting, isn’t it, that not only is your syntax shitty, but your brain is demented and weak. That’s not a coincidence, StubbornShit. It’s just further proof that your entire life is a joke.

              • The only people causing blood spurts are the completely inept morons who can’t live with Jews in the Middle East.

                Yes, it must suck to be ChickenShit. 5 invading armies can’t beat back the Jews.

                You standing in front of a mirror is comedy that writes itself.

      • noamy baby, you’re back.
        Have you finished blubbering like an infant about how the nasty man was horrible to you?

          • “I rest my case..”
            Sadly Noam/noam you rested both of your brain cells a long time ago.

            “..listen to all the little Hitlers here”
            Noam/noam so you read a blog and hear things?
            Oh dear, the little voices inside your head are active again.

            • “oh gerry baby auschwitz is to good for you”
              noamy baby is that the best retort your feeble mind can think of?

              Off you go before you start weeping and wailing again.

              • “noamy baby is that the best retort your feeble mind can think of?”
                Having seen no am’s other posts we can certainly agree that it is!

                P.S. The spelling of no am’s name was not a mistake only part, but rather an indication of his nihilistic personality.

              • some of my comments were deleted, so much for the right of opponents to be heard, bullshit site, adam adam are you there, gerry baby are you there hello

  9. Message for anti-Semites: You’ve been spinning your wheels for over 3000 years. Maybe when you realize that your biases and hatred hasn’t changed after all of these generations, you, too, will start laughing at you.

  10. NAtzieNoam, the antisemite who equates Jews with Nazis, which implicates the wish to annihilate the Jews.

    • I saw a typical Jew hating asshole on the LA Times describe Israeli politicans as being anti-Palestinian. This is, of course, a direct response to Jews and Israelis pointing out that Hamas are anti-Semitic. And here is No-No Noam telling us all that we’re Hitlerites. Because we support Israel’s right to exist, see, just like Hitler?

      No-No Noam, still wondering why we all consider him the loser. Still wondering why we suggest he kills himself. Still trying to make a play by stipulating that it’s not him who hates people (casually calling out all Israel-supporters as Nazis, racists, and the like, even though WE’RE THE ONLY ONES PROVIDING PEACE PLANS) but rather us who hates the Palestinians AS REPRESENTED BY NO-NO NOAM. Which is part of the ensuing hilarity of the pro-Palestinian front. See, THEY (and by extension No-No Noam) are PEACE LOVERS because the Zionists are not. No other means are necessary to support this nonsense. Not that No-No Noam has his own 2-state plan (s/he has a 1-state, all Arab plan). Not that No-No Noam believes war isn’t a bloody mess (s/he’ll take one suicide bomb in a pizzeria to go, please). Not that No-No Noam doesn’t believe other countries should stay out of the mess of the Middle East (s/he loves to boycott so much that we all should do it).

      No-No Noam, a blight to all nations. You stay KKKlassy, Asshole.

    • noamy baby when you and your ilk try to be clever you always end up shooting yourselves in the foot, which causes brain damage.

      Bedlam is a corruption of the name Bethlehem.
      Which, interestingly, from your post you regard as Israel.
      Oh dear noamy baby your friends, the Fascist thugs of Hamas, will be calling to see you to air-mail you off the top of a high building, very soon.

  11. Tal Wasser. Photograph: Quique Kierszenbaum
    2006-09, Oketz (canine special forces), Nablus
    Standing at the roadblock for eight hours a day puts everyone under this endless pressure. Everyone’s constantly yelling, constantly nervous, impatient … venting on the first Palestinian to cross your path. If a Palestinian annoys one of the soldiers, one of the things they’d do is throw him in the Jora, which is a small cell, like a clothing store dressing room. They close the metal door on him and that would be his punishment for annoying, for being bad.

    Within all the pressure and the stress of the roadblock, the Palestinian would often be forgotten there. No one would remember that he put a Palestinian there, further emphasising the irrelevance and insignificance of the reason he was put there in the first place. Sometimes it was only after hours that they’d suddenly remember to let him out and continue the inspection at the roadblock.

    • An excellent choice of a moniker – a perfect .match to the content of his/her post.

  12. What’s that nicjdondon? A little replacement history, because a little fibbing goes a long way? Consider yourself an honorary “Palestinian.” Who knows, maybe someday the Arabs will incorporate the letter “P” into their language so the falestinian feofle of historic Falesteen can find their flace in amongst the other feofle of the flanet.

    • You low on nutrients? You misspelled many of your words… No doubt you know where to find a fresh milah to suck on. I am super fascinated by all the Pharisees ritualistic piety can you tell me what’s it like to be indoctrinated into cult that actually believes itself to be a race people which never existed? Joo is the race isn’t? Or is it the religion? Or is that Judean? It’s amusing how you all think your the original/first religion amusing in that it perfectly captures the deceived delusion. No wonder why most of you near fanatics you’ve duped into entire belief system which is nothing but a hodge-podge of Zoroastrian, Egyptian, Hindu, Roman, Chaldean, etc., etc. topped of with the mind numbing rambling books pedo high priests. Uh, also Phoenician or Hebrew or whatever you kipped doesn’t has no J. Brilliant usurping of cult titles.

      • nicdick,
        Other than wanting to thank you for exposing your irrational hate of all things jewish which of course is a huge help to the Zionist cause, I’d like to ask you about the crap about the letter “J.”.
        Go ahead and step into it, linguistic moron.

  13. Totally flattered that my comments where deleted – it means I burned like 6 Pharisees cunts in less than one day. You’re so welcome! May YWHW bless you all with snake cock cum directly up your cunts for eternity in Israhell. Dreams do come true don’t they? 🙂

      • Uh-huh, I need meds.. So, wtf is with the 613 commandments which none of you keep? Also why the need for so many explicitly against incest? No doubt they were the first commandments the Rebbe broke. EVERYONE knows the Rabbis like to diddle the littles – The Talmud tells them to. Often.

        • Thanks for illustrating the mental sickness of Antisemites, Nicholas. You are an excellent showcase. Please hold on.

  14. You mean the deletion of your posts where you declared that Auschwitz was to good for the Jews and Hitler had a point? I liked them because they demonstrated the real intentions and worldview of the so called anti-Zionists and human rights warriors.