Israel demolishes West Bank homes, displacing 36 Palestinians

Over all, I thought the abbreviated article cited by " Papastox"[1] was good in that it helped to underscore the extent to which the Levant has been both a popular & strategically important Land Bridge / Trading Route and home to dozens if not hundreds of different Regimes & varied, Ethnic & Religious Populations.

Not just the brief "Home of the Jews"

I think the British would be the first to admit that things could have been done much more constructively. They simply underestimated the murderous treachery of Zionist terrorist gangs & ruthless Zionist Opportunists much as the US Government does today.

Unfortunately, in the article, there is no mention of the enormous influence of Britain's powerful & influential, old Zionist Lobbies that drove much of Britain's Mid East Foreign Policy, then, as AIPAC etc drives virtually all of America's Mid East Policy, today.

A small but, I think, interesting & significant footnote in inspiring Britain's deep involvement in 20th Century Palestine occurred in February of 1915 when a group of German officers managed to lead a contingent of Turkish / Ottoman soldiers from the north and threaten access to British control of the Suez canal, "The Jewel In The Empire's Crown", India.

It was then that the British realized the strategic importance of Palestine.

Israel's network of paid, full time, State supported Hasbara Hirelings would have us believe that Palestine had ONLY been "Home of the Jews" & that Levantine history only began in 1948.

It has been accurately stated that 19th & 20th Century Western Archeologists went to Palestine with a "Shovel in One Hand & a Bible in the Other" with the intent of "finding" only on things that validated the Hebrew / Christian mythology among the countless mythologies that comprised Levantine history.




Thanks







[1] "How Israel Became a State"
Emiliano Limon
Posted on April 8, 2002
HOW ISRAEL BECOMES A STATE

 

Very clever, but not clever enough. What about all the other 'settlers' and the towns Israel built in other occupies areas? They are there illegally.

 

No, your interpretations are the falsehoods. Please explain why only you and a couple of professors you cited (because you agree with them) are correct but the world's leading legal experts, the UN and even your sponsor, America, are all wrong. Because...?

 

Realpolitik.

You don't expect Europeans to risk another oil embargo like in 1967 and the 70s, do you?

You don't expect Americans to risk alienating their Muslim allies in the ME, do you?

Does anyone here think that politicians act according to their own principles, ideals, ethics, and high moral standards? (if they even have any of those...)

 

No you did not. You've repeatedly missed out all the things written in it. I have however read it and mentioned these elements.

Exactly. So the only valid arrangements stemming from the Mandate are where both jews and Arabs get to live anywhere they want in palestine.

That means that while Israelis can live in the West Bank equally arabs from the West Bank can live anywhere in Israel without restrictions.

Until that occurs Israelis have no right of settelment as the Land was never made exclusively theirs by the very documents you claim.

Israelis have a right to control area C. Not to live in it and call it Israel. Unless Palestinians can control and live in Israel.

No the arabs never agreed to give all of western Palestine to Jewish people. Why would they?

No one else. Be it faizal or anyone agrees with that evil notion.

No the law doesn't say that. As proven.

 

It's not just politicians it's the entire intellectual and legal membership across numerous nations in Europe and America and everywhere else. I'll grant you have a few supporters but they are mostly Israeli tied.

 

When I write responses to Posts submitted by apologists for the Israeli Government's, Zionist Ethnic Cleansing it doesn't matter to me if they are among the 50,000 + paid, trained, scripted & Israeli State supported network of full time Hasbara Trolls,[1] aka: "Hasbarats" or others who support Palestine's neo-Holocaust or, if they are simply clueless, anti-Islamic racists who have been professionally duped by America's Zionist dominated Major Media.

My "response Posts" are not intended to enlighten Individuals whose goal is to keep the realities of Zionist genocide in the dark but, rather intended for readers who will not see the facts behind Zionist genocide and / or Israeli Government criminality, betrayal of America etc through Major Media.

I believe that Al Gore once said, "You can't get someone to understand something they're being paid to not understand".

For decades, Zionist Regimes have been able to rely on their Zionist dominated Major Media to keep Mid East Realities from the American public & silence all criticism by simply howling "anti Semite"; the former "epithet of Mass Destruction.

With the advent of the internet & more truthful & balanced Independent Media, the Flood Gates opened with these pent up facts behind criminal Zionist genocide, War Mongering, Expansionism & betrayal of the US.
Hence, the creation of Israel's $ multi million (billion) dollar Hasbara propaganda network with the heavily manned, best equipped, most extensive & sophisticated Propaganda Industry the World has ever seen.

Does this look familiar:

“Israel’s Information Ops”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/israels-information-ops/
EXCERPT “ But the American public in particular should be aware of the extraordinary efforts that Israel and its supporters make to present a crafted and coordinated image through the media, particularly by way of the Internet.

When an intelligence organization seeks to influence opinion by creating and deliberately circulating false information, it is referred to as a “disinformation operation.”
But Israel has refined the art ....
.....in many cases paying students as part-time bloggers or exploiting diaspora Jews as volunteers to get its message out.
The practice is so systemic, involving recruitment, training, Foreign Ministry-prepared information sheets, and internet alerts to potential targets, that it is frequently described by its Hebrew name, hasbara, which means literally “public explanation.”

The hasbara comments are noticeable as they tend to sound like boilerplate....
.
the commenters generally go by American-sounding names and they never indicate that they are Israelis or working on behalf of the Israeli government.

They tend to repeat over and over again sound bites of pseudo-information, most recently maintaining falsely that Hamas had started the “war” and that Israel was only defending itself.

The commenters operate in the belief that if something is repeated often enough in many different places it will ipso facto gain some credibility and create doubts regarding contrary points of view."CONTINUED

_ _ _ _ _ _

Slowly as it may be, I'm happy to say that American sentiment to Zionist criminality has, apparently, changed & opposition to Israeli government atrocities is growing, world-wide

For a recent example:


“U.S. Senator Seeks to Cut Aid to Elite IDF Units Operating in West Bank and Gaza”
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.711646

EXCERPT “Senator Patrick Leahy claims Shayetet 13 unit, undercover Duvdevan unit, and the Israel Air Force Shaldag unit are involved in human rights violations in occupied territories.

U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy is promoting a bill to suspend U.S. assistance to three elite Israel Defense Forces units, alleging they are involved in human rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Leahy, a Democrat and senior member of the U.S. Senate, wants assistance withheld from the Israel Navy's Shayetet 13 unit, the undercover Duvdevan unit and the Israel Air Force's Shaldag unit.”CONTINUED


Yes, I know that this is a rarity in US Politics and AIPAC will probably manage to keep America's blood & $ Trillions flowing to America's most treacherous, Genocidal "Ally" but popular American support against Israeli criminality is, indeed, growing.


So, What are our choices?

Giving up is not one when our Government is responsible for funding the most ruthless Genocide & most easily resolved Man-Made disaster in Modern History by defunding criminality.

It is noteworthy, however, that many of the same people who scold & have scolded all of Western Civilization for its apathy in the face of the persecution of non Zionist Jews in Europe decades ago are, ironically, many of the same that would silence & scold those of us who are working to prevent the recurrence of what was recently labeled as "the Holocaust®"

We cannot alter crimes of the Past, but we CAN and must fight the atrocities of the Present.

Perhaps, it's time to spend a few minutes to praise Senator Patrick Leahy's initiative


Thanks,

 

I do understand English. You instead of replying to the things I wrote to you, you preferred to talk about me. Please reply to the topic we are talking about.

 

So now you are tell me what I did and what not? Please, the text is infront of me right now, as it was in the several days, I red it numerous of times.

I already said to you, "Palestinains" from the West Bank live and work today in Israel.

According to the document of the Mandate, the Jews can live and settle anywhere in "Palestine", which means that because the West Bank is part of "Palestine", then they can settle and live there as well, while the document of the Mandate dont tell us that the Arabs can control over areas in "Palestine", and therefore you claim that "unless Palestinains can control..." is not according to the Mandate. The Mandate only refers to the Arabs as "non-Jewish communities" that can rnjoy civil and religous rights.

That what Weizmann-Faizal agreement was.

As proven, Article 80 protects the rights that were granted to the Jews over the Land of Israel.

 

All the settlements that are axisted today in the West Bank are legal since the document of the Mandate allows it, and it's valdity is kept thanks to Article 80.

It's not my interpetation, but what the law says. And there are no just "couple" of them, but more then 100 experts agree with me.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not my interpetation, but only the law.

 

You're so blinded with 'patriotism' that everyone except you has been wrong for the past 50 years. Until your 'experts' can successfully challenge existing legislation the law remains in force. If you don't like it you can write to the UN with your recommendations. I'm sure you will be received sympathetically.

 

British and American Jews were strongly against the idea of a Jewish State not least for fear they would be sent to it. They were the Jews consulted before the Balfour Declaration was made. There may though be a genuine reason for ambiguity.

Reform Judaism particularly in the US was very against the idea of a Jewish State or Jewish people as a nation. They saw Judaism as a religion and saw themselves as individuals belonging to the State of America and generally did not like ethnic nationalism at all. Most of them did eventually move towards Zionism because of what happened to European Jews in Germany and Eastern Europe and Russia in the early 20th C but you may be aware that this difference is re-emerging. American Reform Jews are finding it harder to support Israel and Israel is making claims that, gosh, I think I am remembering this correct, that Reform Jews are not really Jews.

So you have reform Jews particularly within the US as they are the ones I have mentioned who do not see Jews as a nation but as a religion. Until the early 20th C I think they were almost all American Jews and I think they came largely from Germany.

Then in the late 19th early 20C you start getting the influx of Jews from Eastern Europe where there was a completely different system of Government and where different ethnicities within countries were seen as 'nations' without any real rights unless you were the majority. They then even when they went to the US were seeing themselves as a Jewish Nation looking for a State.

What price Israel.p15

Most Zionists were East European Jews. The Balfour Declaration was made with the agreement of Western Jews who though they certainly included Zionists, in the main had no designs to go live in Palestine and did not see themselves as a 'nation' - that was largely an East European viewpoint as shown above.

By 1918 with the influx of East European Jews and the creation of the American Jewish Congress the hegemony of Reform Jews in the States had ended.

What price Israel p15

Basically there were two Jewish views - one primarily of Western Jews particularly Reform which had no desire whatsoever on a Jewish state and found the idea somewhat repugnant and the other being that of East European Jews who already saw themselves as a nation, just like all the other ethnic nationalist states which were forming around them and wanted their own state in Palestine.

I know somewhere in 'What Price Israel' he quotes concerning some arguments from non Zionist Jews that they are after a Zionist State when getting the Balfour Statement, that the concept of a 'State' had not even gone through Jewish Congress by the time of the Balfour Declaration. Now how they try to make it so now and accuse those who do not agree with them of anti-Semitism I believe is because they are taking the psychological viewpoint of East European and a few Western Zionists and trying to assert that that was what all Jews thought and what the agreement was when it was not. Lilienthal describes how effectively once European Jews were in danger and they started to get stronger support in the US due to the Jewish people wrongly believing that would help European Jews, how Zionists quickly took to calling anyone who did not want a Zionist State in Palestine an anti-Semite. And as we see this continues to this day. As Lilienthal, himself a conservative Jew who found ethnic nationalism revolting says, it was very effective and destroyed many good people. It stopped freedom of speech and is still doing so. It stopped the truth from being spoken and is still doing so. Nasty technique but it's effectiveness has been proven so they still do it unashamedly.

 

We give Israel a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing $ Trillions?

No wonder I enjoy skipping over your long, winding, hate filled posts

 

There is nothing here about petriotism, but only about laws and international instruments, that people here agree with me that they need to be fulfilled.

The experts dont need to challenge anything. The law that I'm referring to exists today and the countries of the world need to obey it.

 

What, you mean the rest of the world's legal authorities are all wrong and only Israel, and a few supporters, are right? It might help your case if Israel didn't routinely break the law or commit war crimes-you did mention obeying the law.

 

I only mean that the countries that are part of the UN must obey the law which is the UN Charter. It also mentions in the Charter itself.

 

Try to find out what you are talking about before you put your foot right in it.

Israel surveils and blackmails gay Palestinians to make them informants


Gay Palestinians Are Being Blackmailed Into Working As Informants

but it is not just being gay that will find a Palestinian being blackmailed to become a spy

Don’t single out (homo)sexuality in response to Israel blackmail revelations, Palestinians say

 

I have repeatedly asked you to show where the words Jewish State appear anywhere in the Mandate for Palestine or even the Covenant. you have spent pages deflecting and avoiding the challenge, we have now reached the point where you have resorted to logical fallacies. Unless you can show where the words Jewish State appear I see no point in continuing with the conversation.

For an explanation of why the British made the documents so ambiguous I suggest you read Alexa's excellent post on the subject. As I have pointed out the British at the time were very skilled diplomats, they crafted the documents for a reason.

 

I already done it. I never avoided challenges that put infront of me. Please read my previous posts in the subject, like post #669.

 

Americans have supported insurgents before It's not like you are supporting Israelis because of Palestinian terrorists activities haha

 

Sorry could you point me to the post where you show the words Jewish State are mentioned in the Mandate, oh you cannot because it isn't. You have avoided my challenge everyone can see it, and what that makes you!

Now speak to Yetzhera, he does not know what we were debating so goes off on a tangent about laws after the Mandate had finished but he appears to understand that the Mandate does not mention a Jewish State.

 

Finally to demonstrate how absolutely and utterly wrong Ria Raeb is in trying to infer that because he can't find the words "Jewish state", it can be implied to mean Britain never intended to create a Jewish state, someone needs to explain to him Britain had no unilateral power to decide anything. It may have taken it illegally upon itself to lie, mislead and try prevent a Jewish state to placate its Arab friends but it never had any power to prevent a Jewish state.

Let's put to bed the myth that only a Muslim Palestinian state was promised.

Back in 1915 by Sir Henry McMahon, the British Government stated and I quote:

“We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows: – ‘That letter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, 1915] is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.’

and

“It was in the highest degree unfortunate that, in the exigencies of war, the British Government was unable to make their intention clear to the Sherif. Palestine, it will have been noticed, was not expressly mentioned in Sir Henry McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, 1915. Nor was any later reference made to it. In the further correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sherif the only areas relevant to the present discussion which were mentioned were the Vilayets of Aleppo and Beirut. The Sherif asserted that these Vilayets were purely Arab; and, when Sir Henry McMahon pointed out that French interests were involved, he replied that, while he did not recede from his full claims in the north, he did not wish to injure the alliance between Britain and France and would not ask ‘for what we now leave to France in Beirut and its coasts’ till after the War.”

source for above: Palestine Royal Report, July 1937, Chapter II, p. 20.

McMahon wrote a letter to The Times of London on July 23, 1937, that comfirmed Palestine was excluded from the area in which Arab independence was promised and that this was well understood by King Hussein.

source: Memorandum on the British Pledges to the Arabs Report, March 16, 1939.

The mandate did not use the word "Jewish state" for these reasons:

It left it to fhe Mandatory to stipulate in a binding appendix to the final document in the form of a memorandum.

Article 6 of the “Mandate” however clearly stated:

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

Article 25 of the “Mandate for Palestine” also went on to entitle the Mandatory to change the terms of the Mandate in the territory east of the Jordan River:

“In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provision of this Mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions ...”

Legally, Great Britain activated this option in the above-mentioned memorandum of September 16, 1922, which the Mandatory sent to the League of Nations and which the League subsequently approved – making it a legally binding integral part of the “Mandate.

It was Britain that decided unilaterally that the “Mandate for Palestine” allowed it to unilaterally create a fourth Arab state east of the Jordan River, (Transjordan) but in fact its unilateral sieizing of 77% of Palestine, turning it Jewish free, calling it Transjordan and placing one of Faisal's son's in a throne to rule it was completely illegal and in fact a meeting was convened to declare it illegal the day after WW2 began which stopped it from being heard.

It was only 1946 when the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan was granted independence from Great Britain that this state came about because Jews were so desperate for a state at that point, they did not feel they could undo Jordan.

Not withstanding Jordan which is in fact a Palestinian state and defines itself as that, all the clauses concerning a Jewish National Home were excluded from Jordan because of Britain:

“The following provisions of the Mandate for Palestine are not applicable to the territory known as Trans-Jordan, which comprises all territory lying to the east of a line drawn from ... up the centre of the Wady Araba, Dead Sea and River Jordan. ... His Majesty’s Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Trans-Jordan.”

That creation of an Arab state in eastern Palestine (today Jordan) on 77 percent of the landmass of the original Mandate intended for a Jewish National Home DID NOT legally change the status of Jews west of the Jordan River, nor did it inhibit their right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea although it did illegally seize all of Jordan and make it Jewish free and a Palestinian state.

Article 27 states:

“The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.”

Technically there never was any consent to Jordan it came about illegally.

cont. next post

 

Lest Ria Raeb misrepresent and suggest the British did not know there was a Jewish state they were trying to prevent from coming about consider this April 22, 1925 Report of the first High Commissioner on the Administration of Palestine, Sir Herbert Louis Samuel, to the Right Honourable L. S. Amery, M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies’ Government Offices, describing Jewish Peoplehood in which he stated:

“During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one-fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs, an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns, elected councils in the towns, and an organisation for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious and social organisations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact national characteristics.”

cont. next post

 

Trying to dodge me by not using the quote system, Zionist?

 

Israel came about as a state because the Arab League of Nations initiated a war to prevent Jews from forming their own state and lost.

Its that simple and yet Ri Raeb chokes on that reality as do his anti Israeli buddies. They still are upset at losing a war to wipe out the Jews of Palestine.

Professor Stone, a distinguished authority on the Law of Nations, has stated that Israel’s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations’ Partition Plan because that plan became a dead issue when the Arab League of nations said under no circumstance would they agree to any Jew having a state anywhere.

sourcerofessor Julius Stone (1907-1985). Israel and Palestine, Assault on the Law of Nations. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.)

Its 2016 and we still have not seen the Arab world move an inch from their failed war to force the Jews out.

Prof. Stone stated:

“… The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vin dication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”

Israel came about because its people faced extinction and fought for their lives. No more, no less. and all these years later Ria Raeb and some neo Nazis try what-do deny history-pretend Jews were Nazis?

Hear read the UN document that proves Ria Raeb absolutely wrong for yourself:

http://www.mefacts.com/cache/html/un-documents/11070.htm