Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior

Despite stern warnings from the U.N. and even the U.S., Israel continues its steady march toward becoming an apartheid state that relies on anti-Arab racism to justify its behavior, as Lawrence Davidson describes.

By Lawrence Davidson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw a temper tantrum on Dec. 24 after the U.S. failed to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234 condemning Zionist settlements on Palestinian territory.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful.” He went so far as to tell the foreign secretary of New Zealand, one of the countries that brought the resolution forward for a vote, that this action was the equivalent of “an act of war.” He then started recalling Israeli ambassadors from the Security Council states that backed the resolution. Finally, Netanyahu said Israel would “not abide by it [the resolution].” All in all it was quite a performance.

In order to put the prime minister’s outrage in context, let’s look at what, in part, the resolution actually says. It “reaffirms the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War … and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…”

In other words, UNSC Resolution 2234 told the Israeli government that it is obliged to follow the rule of law – in this case international law. Mr. Netanyahu’s response was to repudiate that law. Thus, the Israeli prime minister ran from the law – something outlaws do.

This is nothing new. Israel has been acting in a criminal fashion in (among other areas) the West Bank of Palestine for the past 50 years – and doing so with impunity. “Impunity” is the key word here. The prime minister’s response was, in part, to the unexpected refusal of the United States to continue its half-century practice of protecting the Zionist state from any consequences for its illegal behavior.

Inadequate Responses

The response to Israel’s response has been telling. The European leaders have been very low-key in their reaction even though Netanyahu has bad-mouthed and snubbed many of them. The White House position is that Washington has always regarded settlements as “an impediment to peace” and a threat to a two-state solution, so their abstention on the resolution should be seen as consistent and appropriate.

In 1948, some Palestinians, uprooted by Israel’s claims to their lands, relocated to the Jaramana Refugee Camp in Damascus, Syria

On the other hand, Republicans in Congress sided with Israel. Take for instance the baffling assertion of Sen. John McCain that “Today’s passage of an ill-conceived resolution on Israeli settlements marks another shameful chapter in the bizarre anti-Israel history of the United Nations.” No mention here of the Israeli Prime Minister’s “bizarre” behavior.

However, and this is the important point, what is missing from these responses to Netanyahu’s tantrum is any public recognition of the main point of Resolution 2234. That is the fact that Israel stands in violation of the rule of law. And by doing so for decades, the Zionist state has eroded the force of international law generally. No state leader, including those who directly voted for the resolution at the U.N., has deigned to follow up on this point publicly.

Just to make things very clear, many aspects of civilized society are made possible by the rule of law. It’s the way all of us seek to maintain a tolerable level of order and strive to administer humane justice. However, such efforts can be fragile. There are problems:

— In practice, both laws and justice are traditionally defined by culture. Thus, it is possible that what is legal in one community is illegal in another, and that what is justice in one place might appear to be injustice in another. This is obviously an aspect of Israel’s problem. Israeli governments have seen things through the lens of a culturally determined and racist ideology, which precludes justice for those who have been subjected to ethnic and religious discrimination. Yet history has proven that such practices are a threat to everyone because of the dangerous precedents they set in a world of growing diversity. In such a world, laws assuring humane intergroup relations should be consistent across national and ethnic lines.

—In a world of nation-states, the concept of national sovereignty has often served as protection against outside interference even in the face of criminal state behavior. For instance, a national government can claim that its laws oppressing minority groups reflect national security needs. Israel is not the first state to take just such a position.

Outside states have traditionally been reluctant to interfere lest their own national sovereignty be eroded by the precedent of open intervention. On the other hand, surreptitiously, Western powers have been avid practitioners of selective “regime change.” Hypocrisy is rampant. In such conditions the rule of law and the notion of justice are allowed to remain provincial and, at an extreme, indistinguishable from criminality.

It was in response to these problems that, starting in the Nineteenth Century, efforts began to create international treaties and organizations that promulgated international law – law that seeks to move the concept of justice beyond culture and alleged national interest by giving it universal application. Such efforts were actually attempts to take civilization to a higher level. The horrors that spurred on such efforts, ranging from war crimes to genocide, proved to be strong motivators.

There have been some successes in this effort, notably the series of treaties arrived at in Geneva, Switzerland. Notable here are the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which updated previous agreements in the wake of crimes committed during World War II. Of these, the Fourth Geneva Convention provided protections for civilians in time of war. Resolution 2234 cites this Convention.

Trouble with the Law

The development of international law has always posed a problem for states that are warlike, expansionist or driven by intergroup hatreds. Israel certainly fits this description and the fact, so often brought up by Zionists, that there are other states which also fit the bill, should not be allowed to confuse the issue.

Palestinian boys prepare to welcome Women’s Boat to Gaza, which was intercepted by the Israeli naval blockade on Oct. 5, 2016.

Indeed, Israel has made strenuous efforts to deflect blame and suborn the foreign policies of other states through the use of special interest allies and agents wielding such sophistic arguments. However, such lobbying efforts are starting to bring diminishing returns.

It is the hard reality of Israel’s stubborn refusal to conclude a just peace with the Palestinians, while concurrently stealing their land, that has made the country so notorious – notorious enough that most of the world’s nations are now willing to declare that the Zionist state is in open violation of international law.

Unfortunately, there are no policemen to apprehend criminals of Benjamin Netanyahu’s stature. Even the International Criminal Court will probably not attempt to do so. But that does not mean the Zionist state will continue to escape the consequences of its criminal behavior. Step by step Israel has become a pariah state that lives in increasing social, cultural and economic isolation. It is to be fervently hoped that Netanyahu’s recent tantrum will speed up this process.

Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America’s National Interest; America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism.

51 comments for “Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior

  1. Zachary Smith
    January 5, 2017 at 13:30

    Israel owns the US Congress, and three of its sock-puppets there have introduced legislation to force Trump to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

    A trio of GOP senators have introduced legislation that would cut security, construction, and maintenance funds for U.S. embassies around the world in half until the president moves the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

    Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and Nevada Sen. Dean Heller are all willing to endanger the lives of US diplomats worldwide unless they get what they want. As the link says, previously presidents have promised the move, but came to their senses. This bunch of Israeli lapdogs are trying to prevent Trump from doing the same thing – coming to his senses.


  2. Fergus Hashimoto
    January 4, 2017 at 02:15

    Yeah, Netanyahoo is an ornery SOB, no two ways about it.
    On the other hand it seems somewhat Utopian to expect, as Professor Davidson seems to do, a fanatical right-wing Zionist like Netanyahu to make any concessions to Palestinian demands for independence. It’s like squeezing blood out of a turnip.
    So how come his right-wing Likud party got into power in the first place? All Israeli prime ministers have belonged to Likud or to its offshoot Kadima ever since 2001, when the last Labor government, presided by Ehud Barak, lost its majority in the Knesset.
    Barak was willing to cut a deal with the Palestinians in the person of their legendary leader Yasser Arafat. As a matter of fact there were heavy-duty negotiations in 2000, largely held at Camp David, Maryland, under the auspices and with the active wheeler-dealership of then President Bill Clinton.
    However, despite Barak’s willingness to make substantial concessions, the talks didn’t pan out. So to this very day Palestinians are still groaning under the Zionist boot.
    What was the sticking point at the talks?
    I haven’t found any detailed account of the talks from the Palestinian viewpoint. I would be grateful for any links to such descriptions.
    So until such Palestinian versions become available, I will have to rely on the account published by the Israeli historian Benny Morris.
    But a word of caution: Morris is no Zionist zealot. As a matter of fact his objectivity has earned praise in the Palestinian Chronicle.
    Hasan Afif El-Hasan, PhD, published an article in the Palestinian Chronicle on March 3, 2016, called “Crimes against the Palestinians Are finally Called ‘Crimes’”.
    Among other things El-Hasan wrote: “… there were no IMPARTIAL HISTORIANS LIKE BENNY MORRIS [my stress] and Ilan Pappe, or Arab intellectuals in the mould of Edward Said or Salman Abu- Sitta or Ramzy Baroud to tell the real story about colonizing Palestine.”
    Consequently I think Morris’ account is reliable.
    According to Benny Morris, one of the major sticking points that eventually torpedoed Palestinian independence in 2000 was that Yasser Arafat insisted on full Palestinian sovereignty over the hill in Jerusalem where the Muslim shrines of Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock are located.
    “Camp David and After: An Exchange”, by Benny Morris, The New York Review of Books, June 13, 2002
    Muslims (with certain restrictions) are allowed to pray at those shrines any day of the week. So there was no issue of accessibility. No, the big problem was that Arafat demanded a purely symbolic trophy, and a religious trophy to boot.
    Since Barak was unwilling to concede sovereignty over the Temple Mount (and perhaps on other grounds as well – I haven’t finished reading Morris’ article) , Arafat decided that Palestinians should remain under Zionist occupation until further notice.
    But that’s not all.
    Only two months after the collapse of the Camp David talks, Arafat gave the order to start the Second Intifada, an Arab insurrection that lasted for five years or more. (Assertions that the Intifada was spontaneous and happened as a reaction to Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Holy Mount are not borne out by the evidence).
    One of the first casualties of the Second Intifada was Barak’s majority in the Knesset. Soon after the intifada began, his government collapsed and power went to the hard-line Likud. Barak’s successor as premier was Ariel Sharon of Likud, although a few years later he founded his own party, Kadima. Sharon’s idea of payback was to spice up Arafat’s shish kebab with polonium, with disastrous effects for the Palestinian leader.
    Accordingly Arafat not only turned down a generous peace offer, but in addition he directly brought about the fall of the Labor government, which was the Palestinians’ only hope for a peace settlement.
    So, the answer to my initial question: “How come Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party got into power in the first place?” is:
    “The Palestinian leadership put Likud in power and has kept it there for 16 years.”
    Clearly the Palestinians themselves are responsible for the current deadlock.
    In the words of Benny Morris,
    “The true story of Camp David was that for the first time in the history of the conflict the American president put on the table a proposal, based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, very close to the Palestinian demands, and Arafat refused even to accept it as a basis for negotiations, walked out of the room, and deliberately turned to terrorism.” [ibid.]
    I wonder what kind of history Professor Davidson teaches.

    • John P
      January 9, 2017 at 01:28

      I would like to make some points:
      At Camp David, Barak was already in a tenuous position as far as his coalition was concerned (they wanted nothing to do with it). So could he have made an agreement stick, I don’t think so. He made concessions from the typical Israeli position and the Palestinians were split. They wanted to take more time to go over the offer, and yes the Al-Aqsa mosque was a problem they wanted time to discuss amongst themselves. Then Sharon, who probably knew what was going on marched with a huge armed escort into the Al-Aqsa mosque / Dome of the Rock as though there was no way it would have any Palestinian presence there, and a message that east Jerusalem would not be the capital of a Palestinian state if there ever was one (never in his mind.) That started a riot of course, Palestinians got shot and the whole mess deteriorated.
      Benny Morris history of preparations for and of the ’48 war are very good. but later on after the intifada, he changed.
      Clinton told Arafat, it wouldn’t be his fault if an agreement wasn’t reached at Camp David and then afterwards started to broadcast that it was. (I often wonder if he had Hillary’s future in mind) Also on the American team, there were some stout Zionists, and mostly Jews and no Americans of Palestinian heritage. I think that would make the Palestinians a little uneasy and want to review thoroughly what was on the table. They wanted time and that was given.
      Before Camp David, Barak told Ha’aretz, (June 18, 1999), “The Palestinians are the source of legitimacy for the continuation of the conflict, but they are the weakest of our adversaries. As a military threat they are ludicrous.” Was that the right thing to say before negotiations?
      He was occupied with trying to get IDF forces out Lebanon after Sharon’s stupid and unwarranted invasion and the Lebanese resistance was proving too much. Barak was fixated on that northern border and the Palestinians were not a big issue.
      Palestinians where waiting in frustration for progress on the Oslo process and time was passing. As Alan Hart writes in his 3rd volume Zionism the Real Enemy of the Jew:
      “Barak was in a most uncomfortable position between the rock of gut-Zionism’s anti-Oslo stance, and the hard place of the insistence of his rational generals that , to prevent a possible security nightmare at some point in the future, he make a serious effort to complete the deal with Arafat – on Israel’s terms, of course. So Barak, under pressure, was not going to Camp David to negotiate. His only purpose was to give Arafat an ultimatum, effectively, ‘This is the best final settlement I am prepared to offer, take it or leave it.” And Barak was confident that, with President Clinton’s assistance, he could get away with it. Arafat would buckle rather than be blamed for the summit’s failure.
      Arafat’s gut instinct were telling him that he was being set up to take the blame if the summit failed. So why did he allow himself to be persuaded by Clinton to go to Camp David? Arafat decided that he could not afford to offend an American president who back in the hopeful days of 1993, had invested the prestige of his office and his personal good faith in the Arafat-initiated peace process. Prior to his departure for America, Arafat also elicited from Clinton a promise – that in the event of the summit failing, he, Clinton, would not blame Arafat and the Palestinians.”

  3. David F., N.A.
    January 3, 2017 at 22:24

    It is more than just defying international law, the Zionists in the U.S. have been harassing and threatening our citizens who support BDS and the Palestinians right to exist. Look at how Cuomo and most, if not all, of Congress has rolled over for them.

    Benny and Barry’s well choreographed dance is an effort to make progressives and liberals think that conservaDems care about the Palestinians. Who just gave Israel $3.8bln a year for new lawn mowers?

  4. Herman
    January 3, 2017 at 11:16

    Not much else to say except our emulation of Israeli behavior on a worldwide scale makes a mockery of our beacon on the hill claim. Claiming the right to kill our enemies anytime anywhere makes international law meaningless. While our treatment of Israel’s lawlessness is not the sole cause of our own, it is a powerful instrument given Israel’s control of our politicians. If it’s ok for Israel it is ok for us. Perhaps a stretch but not to be totally discounted.

    All this suggests a close look at our governance, and how small numbers of people can control the destiny of the rest. The relative recent rise of media conglomerates has only made the situation worse or perhaps more complete.

  5. January 3, 2017 at 06:14

    “Above the law” & ‘beyond the pale’ of every human *dignity* marking the difference between Man & Beast.

  6. Outrage Beyond
    January 3, 2017 at 00:21

    Milikovsky, the Polish Crusader who calls himself Netanyahu, believes that laws are only for the goyim, while the Jews can do as they please. Once you view his actions through the lens of Jewish Supremacism, it all makes perfect sense.

  7. Bill Bodden
    January 2, 2017 at 21:37

    Israeli police question Benjamin Netanyahu in corruption inquiry: Prime minister has denied any wrongdoing and told opponents earlier on Monday to ‘hold off on the partying’-

  8. Abe
    January 2, 2017 at 21:37

    “While the establishment media occasionally reports on Israeli crimes against Arabs in the occupied territories, the overall effect is neutralized by an avalanche of reportage that consistently portrays Palestinians as terrorists dedicated to the destruction of Israel. This biased coverage—in essence, fake news by omission—legitimizes Israeli violence and apartheid. Moreover, US support for Israel amounting to approximately $3 billion per year—including $10.2 million in military aid each day—continues to embolden the Zionist plan to ethnically cleanse Palestinians.

    “Obama’s symbolic and politically motivated support of the UN resolution on Israeli settlements will be rolled back after Donald Trump enters the White House.

    “On December 29, the president-elect told reporters at Mar-a-Lago on Wednesday evening that he’s ‘very, very strong on Israel.’

    “Trump said ‘Israel has been treated very very unfairly by a lot of different people. If you look at resolutions in the United Nations … they are up for 20 reprimands and other nations that are horrible places, horrible places that treat people horribly haven’t even been reprimanded. So there is something going on and I think it is very unfair to Israel.’

    “This statement completely ignores history and the political reality on the ground in Israel and the occupied territories. In fact, the United States has consistently supported—and paid for—Israel’s efforts, in large part due to the tireless lobbying of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.”

    • John P
      January 2, 2017 at 21:55

      I don’t think some one in big business, like Trump, is going to upset the powers that run many big banks and media venues. Also I can’t see how he will be able to keep big business out of his mind with any decision he makes.
      If you want the economy to hum, people need money to spend. Poor people will spend it locally which is good for local business. The gambit of low interest rates to induce people to spend even beyond their means can only go on so long before it collapses. Already many feel it has outlived it usefulness and we had better batten down the hatches for the failing results.

  9. Zachary Smith
    January 2, 2017 at 20:17

    Theory Time!

    Not too long ago I was researching the effects of “Forgiveness” in religions, and turned up with several interesting articles which validated what I remembered reading many years ago. From the abstract of the first link:

    Though religion has been shown to have generally positive effects on normative ‘prosocial’ behavior, recent laboratory research suggests that these effects may be driven primarily by supernatural punishment. Supernatural benevolence, on the other hand, may actually be associated with less prosocial behavior.

    I translate that this way: when people get in the habit of “sinning”, then going to the Priest for a holy water/3 Hail Marys or to the Preacher/alter for “sincere repentence”, they tend to continue their anti-social behavior. The penalties weren’t nearly enough + there is zero fear of Time In Hell because they’ve been declared sin-free by their religious authorities.

    A recent non-religious example verging on trivial (except for the few people directly affected) involves a college basketball super-star.

    It’s human nature that super-athletes and female beauties tend to get special treatment from the time they show signs of their extraordinary height/talent/good looks. When the rule books get repeatedly lost or warped for them, it usually effects their personalty and future activities. Usually badly. “Coach K” let this fellow get away with behaving extremely badly twice, so why wouldn’t the player assume he was immune – above the rules affecting the smaller and less-talented players?

    This is what Israel has been getting away with since at least the end of WW1. Britain took the Zionists under its wing and always bent the rules in their favor. NEVER for the majority Palestinians. After WW2, Harry Truman and a long succession of US presidents followed the practice of coddling Poor Little Israel.

    As a nation they’re a bunch of spoiled and whining brats, first expecting and now demanding that they’re above the rules of the rest of civilized humanity. Because they’re God’s Favorite People and because they’ve come to see every US government kissing their feet, fighting their wars, and forking over ever-increasing sums of taxpayer dollars, they’re as warped as any spoiled cheerleader/quarterback/basketball forward who ever lived.

    Disclaimer: I have many books and journal articles by intelligent and decent Israelis. I merely claim that the grownups over there are a miniscule minority among the bratty rednecks who make up most of the population of Holy Israel.

  10. Bernie
    January 2, 2017 at 19:13

    The two state solution died by suicide-bomber. Why do leftists not understand that if Israel pulled out of the West Bank it would just become another hell hole like Gaza? Get real. And this whole campaign to brand Israel as an apartheid state is bizarre. Have you people been to Israel? Have you been to Gaza? Do a little comparison please. Look up why Israel was once supported by the Soviets, why most of the weapons used to fight Israel’s first war in 48 with the Arab League came from Czechoslovakia and the arms for the Arab League were British and French. Why was it the Palestinian Communist Party supported the state of Israel? Why did the Soviets switch to supporting Nassar’s Egypt and then the U.S. supported Israel beginning with Nixon? Is Israel really the bad guy?

    • Bill Bodden
      January 2, 2017 at 19:25

      The two state solution died by suicide-bomber.

      Which part of “the Zionists and subsequent Israeli politicians never ever had any intention of two states in the Palestine Territories” do you not understand?

    • Dennis Merwood
      January 2, 2017 at 19:53

      Yes Bernie. Israel is the bad guy. Unarguably. And it’s not only leftist’s who understand this.

      Operation Cast Lead, also known as the Gaza Massacre was a three-week armed conflict between Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and Israel that began on 27 December 2008 and ended on 18 January 2009 The conflict resulted in between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinian being killed, and 13 Israeli deaths, 4 from friendly fire.

      Operation Protective Edge was a military operation launched by Israel on 8 July 2014 in the Gaza Strip. According to estimates between 2,125 and 2,310 Gazans were killed and between 10,626 and 10,895 were wounded (including 3,374 children, of whom over 1,000 were left permanently disabled). 66 Israeli soldiers, 5 Israeli civilians (including one child) were killed. The UN reported that 69–75% of the Palestinian casualties were civilians.

      The Israeli’s refer to their periodic shelling of the Palestinian territory as “mowing the lawn.” It is a disturbing metaphor because it is so indiscriminate. They don’t talk about “weeding the garden” or “pruning the trees.” A lawnmower cuts down everything in its path—grass, weeds, and wildflowers.

      Also, a lawn needs constant mowing, suggesting that Israel plans to conduct these murderous illegal bombing campaigns on a seasonal basis with weapons paid for by the American Tax payer.

    • Zachary Smith
      January 2, 2017 at 21:58

      The two state solution died by suicide-bomber.

      But so long as Zionists are causing the explosions by non-suicide-bombers, the murders are ok?

      BTW, are you claiming that because Israel bulldozed away the Palestinian towns and replaced them with nicer-looking buildings with pretty grass and trees justifies the murders and thefts?

      To me it’s more than a little obscene you compare the fancy new construction on the stolen properties with the open-air prison and military ordnance practice range which is Gaza. Were you among those fine Israeli citizens sitting in lawn chairs on their roof cheering the razing of Gaza’s infrastructure and the slaughter of the people there? Or are you a Devout American Fundamentalist who wants Israel to blossom to the point where God returns and gives those filthy Christ Killers what they have been promised and deserve?

    • John P
      January 3, 2017 at 00:50

      Bernie, There were no Palestinian suicide bombers until after the American/Israeli zealot, Baruch Goldstein, on 25 Feb. 1994 killed over 2 dozen Palestinians and wounded 170 praying at the Abraham’s tomb mosque in Hebron. Israeli forces then killed another 25 or so protesters after the incident.
      Then we have an Israeli IDF unit wearing racist t-shirts (1 shows a gun site on a pregnant woman and titled, ‘1 shot 2 kills’. A Christian church had ‘Mary the whore, mother of Jesus,’ painted on the wall. Palestinian farmers are shot at by settlers, Palestinian children often have to be escorted to school because of settler aggression, settler bands descend upon Palestinian farms and frighten the owners (KKK like tactics).
      Don’t forget Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon when Sharon dove into Lebanon for no good reason (attack on Israel’s London embassy by Black September, Arafat’s enemy) and told his allies, the Christian Phalange, falsely that Palestinians had killed their leader. Then he let the Phalange into the unprotected refugee camps, provided caskets and trucks to remove bodies and watched for almost 2 days as old men women and children were killed.
      The Israelis had modern weapons in ’48, the Arabs had old WWI weapons and only a few uncoordinated units. Benny Morris: The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited,’ he states never was Israel out manned or out gunned in ’48. Also the Soviets did support the birth of Israel, but the US was quick to recognize Israel, Zionist pressure. American support for Israel became less controlling with the 67 war, and LBJ saw it as a regional power to align with during the cold war, even though Israel had purposely tried to sink the ‘Liberty’ so that Americans would be slow to learn that after taking out the Egyptian air-force they were going into Syria. LBJ had allowed them to take on Egypt (unknown to the Egyptians {US tried to negate Egyptian nationalism}) but no one else.
      Also during WWII Zionists pressured Western governments not to accept Jewish refugees as they wanted them to go to Palestine. Yes, sadly there was anti-Semitism then, but many refugees would have been accepted in Western countries had Zionist not had their ambition overruling decency.

  11. Bernie
    January 2, 2017 at 18:56

    “Above the Law”. The West Bank was controlled by the British and then occupied by Jordan beginning in forty eight in direct violation of the UN Partition Plan and laws concerning wars of aggression. Jordan did not create or encourage the creation of a Palestinian State. The Palestinians at the time did not encourage it either for they wanted all of Palestine, not a piece of it. Isreal took over the West Bank as a result of the 1967 War in which Jordan and a other Arab States again tried to dissolve Israel. A peace accord between Israel and Jordan gave Israel occupation rights to the West Bank. Is Israel obligated now to turn this land over to the Palestinians who rejected the UN Partition Plan in forty eight? Would it become another security nightmare ten times worse than Gaza? Do the Palestinians really want a separate state?

    • Bill Bodden
      January 2, 2017 at 19:22

      Isreal took over the West Bank as a result of the 1967 War…

      during which on June 8th Israeli air and naval forces tried to sink the USS Liberty, flying a large American flag, and murder all of its crew. They “only” managed to kill 34 crewmembers. We don’t need any more enemies with “friends” like these.

    • John P
      January 2, 2017 at 21:37

      Bernie, Palestinians wanted to live in equality with those already in Palestine. They had lived with Jews, Christians and Muslims within the Ottoman empire, but wanted to govern themselves not under Turkish control. Also the partition plan was rejected because the Arabs, a much higher population in the area were offered much less land. Also the partition plan in reality has not been passed in the Security Council but that’s another story about bribery in the General Assembly in favour of a partition plan still to have been negotiated.
      It is well documented that the ’67 war was Israel’s doing. Perhaps you should read Alan Hart’s trilogy, “Zionism: the real enemy of the Jews.” Others too, Kimmerling, Finkelstein etc show that Israeli leadership in 67 knew Egypt didn’t want war, wasn’t prepared for war (had just been devastated by a war to its south) the position in Sinai was defensive not offensive, was undermanned and no threat. They knew Egyptians wanted the US to intervene. Weisman, Rabin, Begin, and Eshkol have all stated it was Israel decision to attack and Egypt was no threat. They were following Ben-Gurion’s plan at the time of partition, don’t be too greedy now (’48) we will get the rest later. He was afraid that their greed for more land would undermine the whole Zionist ambition at the time.
      Yes Gaza was handed back to the Palestinians but the doors were shut. Why was it handed back, because Zionists were looking at annexation and population figures. Too many Arabs.
      May I ask if you have thought what happens when people are dispossessed, are occupied for over 60 years, do not have equality when it comes to water, trade, movement. When they are put on a ‘diet’ as the Israeli leadership put it as far as food was concerned.
      Perhaps you don’t know, but in the 80’s Israel supported Hamas over the PLO in the typical divide and conquer game that colonists use. They gave Hamas a licence to collect funds, and even Israel provided some funds for mosques and schools etc. The PLO got nothing like that. This stupidity went on for some time until suddenly years later, Hamas wins an election over the PLO in Gaza, and Israel goes nuts, not that it wasn’t nuts before.
      Most Palestinians want to live with equality, they don’t want to live like those in Israel (25% of population) who cannot live where they want, don’t receive equity as far as infrastructure funding is concerned, where their towns are not serviced as well and are being encircled by Jew only communities etc.
      It’s shameful !! The essence of religion has been completely lost in the Zionist outlook. When Arabs talk of change they don’t want Israel as it is, they want Israel as an open equal opportunity land. It’s hard for some Jews to get that into their heads as they are inundated by Zionists fear mongering and politics. Some Jews have broken that barrier and get on well with Palestinians. Give it a try. Get to know some. Think for yourself.

      • Bernie
        January 3, 2017 at 20:13

        John. I’m confused about “the law”. The UN voted for the Partition Plan but your are saying that the Palestinians weren’t happy with it and therefore had the right to resist? That the Arab League countries, because they were unhappy with the land division that they were entitled to attack Israel? Where does the “law” start and where does it end?

        On the eve of the war, Egypt massed approximately 100,000 of its 160,000 troops in the Sinai, including all of its seven divisions (four infantry, two armored and one mechanized), four independent infantry brigades and four independent armored brigades. No fewer than a third of them were veterans of Egypt’s continuing intervention into the North Yemen Civil War and another third were reservists. These forces had 950 tanks, 1,100 APCs, and more than 1,000 artillery pieces.[48]
        Syria’s army had a total strength of 75,000 and was deployed along the Syrian border.

        Remember that Israel was still technically at war with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. The Arab air forces were aided by volunteer pilots from the Pakistan Air Force acting in an independent capacity, and by some aircraft from Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to make up for the massive losses suffered on the first day of the war. PAF pilots shot down several Israeli planes. 100 Iraqi tanks and an infantry division were readied near the Jordanian border. Two squadrons of fighter-aircraft, Hawker Hunters and MiG 21s, were rebased adjacent to the Jordanian border.

        Israel had no option but a pre-emptive attack because without the advantage of surprise, they would have lost.

        Note: Arab Israelis can live wherever they want. There are no restrictions. The standard of living in Israel for Arabs is much higher than the standard of living in all surrounding Arab countries. In fact, the most economically successful ethnic group in Israel are not the Jews, but Arab Christians.

        • Zachary Smith
          January 3, 2017 at 23:01

          I’m going to ignore all the incoherent nonsense preceding this little gem:

          “Note: Arab Israelis can live wherever they want. There are no restrictions.

          Now the question arises, is Bernie telling something he knows to be a lie, or is he saying it out of ignorance?

          Just a few hours on April 12 after enforcement authorities demolished the home that Tareq Habib built for himself in Kafr Kanna without receiving the proper permits, his friends and neighbors gathered to rebuild it. It took about an hour to lay the foundations and build the ground level. “We won’t abandon our lands here — over our dead bodies. We deserve to live like human beings,” Habib told journalists, who came to Kafr Kanna to cover the demolition of his home and the outrage of the villagers directed at the State of Israel’s harsh policies toward Israeli Arabs over the housing crisis and illegal construction in their settlements


          Yes, the fine citizens of the murderous and thieving little shithole of a nation-state are making life for their Second-Class citizens as bad as possible.

          Israeli Discrimination Against Non-Jews Is Carefully Codified in State of Israel’s Laws
          By Dr. Israel Shahak

          The legal system of the State of Israel can be described as a weird mixture of advanced democracy and retrogressive discrimination, combined with clumsy attempts to hide the discriminatory reality. For example, in all Israeli laws except one, the Law of Return, the word “Jew” does not appear. The term employed when the law gives discriminatory privileges to Jews is that those privileges are granted to “persons who would have benefited from the Law of Return had they been outside the borders of Israel.” The Law of Return specifies that its benefits can be given only to Jews. However, Israeli propagandists calculate, correctly in my view, that a great majority of the opponents of discrimination would not dare to criticize this law.

          The second trick, especially beloved by the Meretz Party and other “leftist” hypocrites, is to campaign for and then pass a high-sounding law in favor of equality or human rights. Such laws, however, always contain one little paragraph stating that their provisions will not affect any laws or regulations enacted in the past. The high-sounding preambles of the new laws then can be solemnly quoted without mentioning that since discriminatory laws and rules were passed in the 1950s and early 1960s (by Labor, of course), the new laws cannot change the existing discrimination. When one understands those two tricks, one comprehends that Israeli laws, and even more so government regulations on all possible subjects, are full of discriminatory measures which, if employed against Jews anywhere else in the world, would be regarded as anti-Semitic.

          More at the link:


          I would remind people of the Israeli policy of quietly and slowly starving the Palestinians in Gaza. This is happening all the time, and is quite independent of the period murder sprees with US F-16s and artillery and tank fire.

          Israel’s starvation diet for Gaza

          Six and a half years ago, shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections and took charge of Gaza, a senior Israeli official described Israel’s planned response. “The idea,” he said, “is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”


          They calculate the food requirements of Gaza down to the last calorie, then use bureaucratic BS to make sure all the deliveries aren’t made. So Gaza slowly starves, thanks to God’s Favorite People.

          Well, also thanks to some seriously devout and deranged American Fundamentalists.

          Some U.S. Christians Rank Cult of Israel Above Teachings of Christ

          By Grace Halsell

          Do literally millions of U.S. “Christian fundamentalists” put a cult of Israel above the teachings of Christ? Do they not care that, in the Land of Christ, Israeli tactics of confiscation of land belonging to Christians, denial of building permits to Christians, and denying Christians access to their jobs are creating a new and terrible Christian exodus?

          I dealt with Exodus II in the March-April issue of the Link, published by Americans for Middle East Understanding (AMEU).* Responses to that article, entitled “In the Land of Christ, Christianity is Dying,” indicate that for some U.S. Christians, whatever Israel does is fine with them.


          Ok Bernie, the ball is in your court. Were you “exercising extreme dishonesty for Holy Israel”, or did you not know any better?

        • John P
          January 5, 2017 at 00:48

          Bernie, The vote at the UN was in the General Assembly and was to see whether it was time to progress on the proposed, not final plan. Why should the large indigenous majority (Arabs), end up with much less land? Israel was already prepared for war before ’48 (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited: Benny Morris). The Jewish forces had collected intelligence for years on each Palestinian town, knowing who would be a problem to take care of and how to handle each region once the fighting started.
          As for the 1967 war I’ll quote from #1 Politicide: Ariel Sharon’s War Against the Palestinians: Baruch Kimmerling, and from Zionism: #2 the Real Enemy of the Jews: Alan Hart who was both a friend of Arafat and Golda Meir.,
          Yes the Egyptians had forces in the Sinai, they were there because of a Treaty they had with Syria, that if one was attacked the other would come to their aid. Israel was diverting water from the Jordan River without discussing it with other parties who by law should have been. Shots were being fired and Syria felt threatened.

          Book #1
          – Rabin, Chief of Staff, admitted that: “Nasser didn’t want war. the two divisions he sent to Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew and we knew it.” (Lw Monde, Feb 28, 1968.)

          – Levy Eshkol himself admitted that “the Egyptian layout in Sinai and the general build up there testified to a militarily defensive Egyptian setup, south of Israel.” (Yediot Abronot, Oct. 16, 1967)

          – Menachem Begin defending the 82 invasion of Lebanon, said: “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” (New York Times, Aug. 21, 1982)

          Book #2 Volume 3
          – The key to understanding is the secret visit to Washington on 30 May of Brigadier Meir Amit. This former DMI was now the head of Mossad. Amit travelled to America under an assumed name and probably a disguise to match. His job was to sell the benefits for the US and Israel going to war.

          – Mordecai Benetov, a member of the wartime national government: “The entire story of the sanger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.” (Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar 14 Apr. 71 (Is that what you wanted to see Bernie?)

          – General Haim Bar-Lev, chief of staff before Rabin: “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Day War, and we had never thought of such a possibility.” (Ma’ariv 4, Apr. 1972)

          – General Szer Weizman, Chief of Operations: “There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.” (Ma’ariv 4, Apr. 1972)

          – General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief Logistical Command: “The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war. (spoken at a Tel Aviv literary Club) * once again instill fear in the population and take more land. Absolute abuse of the people you represent for political benefit.

          General Peled on radio: “Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel.” “Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”

          General Peled wrote an article in La Monde: “All those stories of huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over………..To pretend that Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.” (June 3 1972)

          The war was a planned land grab, and it is well documented that both Israel and the US knew he didn’t want war, was waiting for the US to intercede. Unknown to Nasser, the US wanted to can Arab nationalism. Are you confusing the ’67 war with that of 1973 when Israel was warned of an imminent attack sat back while Egypt amassed along the Nile. That was to take back the Sinai that Israel stole, and Sadat new he couldn’t go any further than take the Sinai which was right by international law. Your history is false.

          As for restriction on where Arabs can live, you are wrong. You go talk to Jonathan Cook, a reporter married to a Christian Palestinian in the Arab Nazareth. The town is now encircled by new Jew only suburbs.

      • Bernie
        January 3, 2017 at 20:38

        John. I know quite a few Palestinians. No problem. What I do have a problem with is that while all the surrounding countries have forced the Jews to leave, Israel is supposed to open its borders to all the relatives of Palestinians who left during the 48 war. I’m assuming that is what you mean by making Israel an “open equal opportunity land.” No, Israel isn’t an open equal opportunity land for Arabs living on the West Bank, because technically it isn’t part of Israel and most of the residents are not Israeli citizens but residents. They were offered citizenship by the way but most refused. Of course there is discrimination in Israel as there is in every country on earth. This is something the human race needs to work on but Israel is no worse than other countries in this regard. In fact, Israel is a model that other countries in the ME should copy as it is the only functioning democracy. Compare Israel to say Saudi Arabia where citizens are executed for apostasy and witchcraft.

        • Zachary Smith
          January 3, 2017 at 23:11

          Compare Israel to say Saudi Arabia where citizens are executed for apostasy and witchcraft.

          Yes, let’s compare.


          Like everything else evil in the craphole of a nation, the Authorities are allowing a SLOW growth of the roving death squads there. Every now and then the redneck Zionists miscalculate and they get ahead of the schedule – like when they burned that Palestinian kid alive.

          And Saudi Arabia matches up very well with Israel in bombing the hell out of helpless people. the Saudi Goons target Yemen, and the Israeli Goons shoot up Gaza. I’d expect the Israelis still have a big lead in that all important Death Count number.

        • John P
          January 5, 2017 at 02:17

          I think this should rattle the timbers. Again plans to steal Arab land whilst elevating the fears in Jews to further the Zionist cause. It is most inhumane.

          From Politicide: Ariel Sharon’s War Against the Palestinians: by Baruch Kimmerling

          Rabin, Chief of Staff: “Nasser didn’t want war. The two divisions he sent to Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive ware. He knew it and we knew it.” La Monde, Feb28, 68

          Levy Eshkol: “the Egyptian layout in Sinai and the general build up there testified to a militarily defensive Egyptian setup, south of Israel.” Yediot Ahronet, Oct 16, 1967

          Menachem Begin: “in June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentration in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” New York Times Aug, 21, 1982

          The problem was over Israeli diversions of Jordan River water which should have be discussed between nations Israel, Jordan and Syria. Egypt had a treaty with Syria to come to its aid but it was well recognized that Egypt was not ready for war.

          From Zionism: the Real enemy of the Jews volume 3: by Alan Hart

          Persuading Johnson to give a green light to Israel taking on Egypt.
          “The key to understanding is the secret visit to Washington on 30 May of Brigadier Meir Amit. This former DMI was now the head of Mossad. Amit travelled to America under an assumed name and probably with a disguise to match. His job was to sell the benefits for the US, of Israel going to war with Egypt.

          Mordecai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government: “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.” 14, Apr. 1971 Al-Hamishmar (an Israeli newspaper)

          General Haim Bar-Lev, Chief of Staff before Rabin:: “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Day War, and we had never thought of such a possibility.” Ma’ariv 4, Apr. 1972

          General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations: “There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.”: Ma’ariv 4, Apr. 1972

          General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command: “The thesis according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.”

          On radio Peled said: “Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel.” He added, “Israeli intelligence knew Egypt was not prepared for war.”

          On the same program, Chaim Herzog (former DMI, future Israeli ambassador to the UN said: “There was no danger of annihilation. Neither Israeli headquarters nor the Pentagon – as the memoirs of President Johnson proved- believed in this danger.”

          Peled wrote an article in La Monde: “All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over………To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.”

          I find several of these quotes a disgusting abuse of people for politics.
          Perhaps you should talk to Jonathan Cook, reporter married to a Palestinian Christian living in the Arab Nazareth. He reported a year or so back, that Nazareth was almost surrounded by new suburbs not easily accessed by Arabs. Far more houses are built in areas more open to Jews than in areas where Arabs feel comfortable.

        • John P
          January 5, 2017 at 16:03

          Absolute tripe. Israel is cast before the public as the great democracy. And no I wasn’t talking about the right of return (recognized by international law and the Geneva Convention) – but gee Israel is different and immune. I’m talking about Israeli Arabs and Zachary Smith presents some good information on that:
          If you want more:
          housing bias in Israel

          housing scams in occupied territories

          just for starters, you can find much more for yourself.

          It is hard for Israeli Arabs to get building permits compared to Jews. Arab areas don’t get infrastructure funding like Jews do. Arab MKs are treated differently and harshly. Arab political parties were treated differently. Different Arab parties cannot unite in common rebellion against some offensive legislature, they had to remain separate unlike Jewish parties. However Arab parties can unite with any of the multitude of Jewish parties. They are finally uniting within a new party much to Israel’s concern.

          “the West Bank, because technically it isn’t part of Israel and most of the residents are not Israeli citizens but residents. ”

          The West Bank isn’t part of Israel, and Israeli nationals living their are breaking international law and the Geneva Convention but heck they are special compared to anyone else in Zionist minds.
          For Arabs in the West Bank to ask for Israeli citizenship is a scam, because to do so would be a hand over the West bank to Israel and they would be treated just like Israeli Arabs today. They wouldn’t be getting their fair share.
          Yes Jews were forced out of some ME countries in response to the developing partition plan and how unfair it seemed to the indigenous people. It was a grave error, a flaw of human nature, but two wrongs never make a right.
          From all your comments, it’s obvious you are incapable of putting yourself in the other person shoes, be it due to Zionist ideology or religion. It only makes one more fearful as Israel transitions more and more into a fascist state. The rise of more ultra-orthodoxy along with Zionist influence there, is scaring many good Jews away. It will become a cesspool in time unless people think beyond their blinkered vision. My good wishes to all those Jews who support Mondoweiss and even Jewish Voices for Peace and the like, you’ve got a tough nut to crack.

    • Zachary Smith
      January 2, 2017 at 21:47

      Hey Bernie, kindly explain how the UN had any authority to take one people’s land and property and award it to another people.

      While you’re at it, explain how the 1967 Land Grab War entitled Israel to steal another enormous chunk of Jordan. You ARE aware that Israel started that war, are you not?

      A peace accord between Israel and Jordan gave Israel occupation rights to the West Bank.

      Whoa! First I’ve heard of this, but I’m willing to learn. Tell me more about these “occupation rights”.

      Is Israel obligated now to turn this land over to the Palestinians who rejected the UN Partition Plan in forty eight?

      That’s an easy one – Hell, Yes.
      A settler posting from his stolen land in the illegally occupied West Bank would have a different answer for that one. After all, aren’t thieves everywhere entitled to keep what they steal?

      Would it become another security nightmare ten times worse than Gaza?

      What a pitiful whine. It’s like what happened in our Southern States before the Civil War. The slaves were abused in every way imaginable, and naturally the slaveowners were suddenly sweating about the consequences of their decades of criminality. Israel created this problem, so sweating a little may be part of the penance. I’d expect some massive reparations to the Palestinians would help. What would you say to diverting the enormous American Taxpayer Allowance to the Palestinians, and Holy Israel would match it for about 50 years.

      Do the Palestinians really want a separate state?

      I thought I had examined all the Hasbara/Propaganda books Israel puts out for its trolls, but this is a new one!
      Are you serious, like with the swinish US slaveholders claiming that the Negro slaves were perfectly happy to be out of the African Jungles and living in fine little cottages doing light work and eating high on the hog?

      What do you suppose a referendum about the matter would show?

      • Bernie
        January 3, 2017 at 20:42

        So now you’re against the UN. Yes, the UN is a politically motivated institution and Israel knows that more than anyone, but it gets very confusing when people talk about “the law”. Whose law?

        • Zachary Smith
          January 3, 2017 at 22:23

          What at totally nonsensical non-reply! You simply don’t want to discuss any of those things so you change the subject to something I didn’t even mention in my post: “the law”

          The reason for your baffle-gab crap about the UN is – as you know the UN had no authority nor right nor anything else to snatch land from the Palestinians and give it to the Zionists. All that happened was a freaking rejected proposal which has been re-written in Zionist history as something Official.

  12. Bernie
    January 2, 2017 at 18:28

    The writer excludes the following: 1) Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2006 and we see the results. 2) A similar move for the West Bank would most likely result in a similar situation, namely a state run by intolerant, extremely violent, misogynist tyrants who hate and exclude from their society all those who do not embrace their version of fundamentalist Islam. This would describe Hamas which would be preferable to ISIS.

    Because of the lessons learned over the years visa vi Gaza, Sinai, etc. Israelis know that a two state solution is not viable.

    • Bill Bodden
      January 2, 2017 at 19:17

      Because of the lessons learned over the years visa vi (sic) Gaza, Sinai, etc. Israelis know that a two state solution is not viable.

      The Zionists who moved into the Palestine Territories a century ago never had any intention of two states. Their plan was to “transfer” (ethnic cleansing) all Arabs out of Palestine. The Israeli government established in 1948 took over this mission and are nearing completion of the task with Palestinians down to 22% of their former territory. Since 1948 the U.S. government has pretended an agreement for two states can be reached and in its traditional hypocrisy has performed the obligatory motions..

      • JWalters
        January 2, 2017 at 21:22

        Exactly right.

        More historical details on the “Zionist project” which are religiously omitted from America’s Israeli-controlled media are in “War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror” at

    • Zachary Smith
      January 2, 2017 at 21:23

      “Because of the lessons learned over the years visa vi Gaza, Sinai, etc. Israelis know that a two state solution is not viable.”

      Since you’re so knowledgeable about what the Israelis “know”, tell us their solution.

      • Bernie
        January 3, 2017 at 16:17

        Unfortunately, there is no simple solution, no magic pill. The world is a complex place. Here is what I predict will take place over the next 5 to 10 years. Israel will annex the West Bank. Palestinians will be offered citizenship. Many will accept and many will not out of fear of reprisal from Hamas and the PA. Hardliners will move to neighboring countries. Kurds will establish a state in what was northern Syria and western Iraq. The Kurds will align themselves with the Israelis for mutual protection. Egypt and Israel will form an alliance for the management of the entire Sinai to develop the area and also eliminate criminal gangs. Gazans will be offered land in the Sinai conditional upon severing all ties with Hamas and any other terror organizations.

        • Zachary Smith
          January 3, 2017 at 22:14

          Well sir, I see you have dropped the pretense of speaking about Holy Israel as if you have some deep insight into precisely what they are thinking over there. Example: “Israelis know that a two state solution is not viable.

          Are you now claiming that simple theft and and ethnic cleansing is too “complex” to unravel?

          As for your “personal” opinion, I expect you’re right about Israel taking over the West Bank. As for the astonishing claim that the subhuman trespassers on Holy Land will be allowed to stay except as the most degraded of serfs, I really doubt it. Tell me, would you willingly trade places with a Palestinian – either now or as a third-class citizen of Israel? One who has the same rights as the freed blacks in the US South – subject to casual lynching or burning or beating?

          My prediction? There is going to be another Death March. Just like in 1948 only lots bigger. I fully expect if that happens you’ll be defending it as some kind of humanitarian measure.

  13. Linda Doucett
    January 2, 2017 at 18:01
    • January 3, 2017 at 06:19

      “Are Americans that stupid”?

      They invented it.

  14. Linda Doucett
    January 2, 2017 at 17:53

    They have been an apartheid state for years

    • JWalters
      January 2, 2017 at 21:17

      It’s in Zionism’s DNA. Here’s an excellent article summarizing an explosive new book which documents in detail the Zionist deceptions, crimes, false flags, sabotage, and supremacist viciousness through the years.

      • Peter Loeb
        January 4, 2017 at 08:37


        I ordered Suarez’s STATE OF TERROR immediately.

        —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

  15. Bill Bodden
    January 2, 2017 at 17:34

    Israel treats U.S. leaders and politicians with contempt if they do not conform to Israel’s wishes. U.S. leaders and politicians tend to be a contemptible lot selling their souls to the Israel lobby to hold office in Congress or the White House. Very likely, Israeli politicians are contemptuous of these American politicians because they are so willing to sell their souls so cheaply; although, they probably are paid more than Judas Iscariot’s thirty pieces of silver.

    To scare the American people into being anti-communist during the early years of the Cold War, the communists were referred to as the enemy within. The Israel Lobby and its paid courtesans in Congress and its presstitutes in the mainstream media are today’s enemy within corrupting the body politic.

  16. qwd
    January 2, 2017 at 16:14

    all underground news

    • Peter Loeb
      January 3, 2017 at 08:22


      Lawrence Davidson’s article assumes the legitimacy of
      Israel. Israel is not a legitimate state and never was.

      The Late Professor Maxime Rodinson wrote:

      “…European supremacy had planted in the minds of even
      the most deprived of those who shared in the idea that
      any territory outside Europe was open to European
      occupation…” “ISRAEL: A COLONIAL – SETTLER
      STATE?” p. 41

      The presumed biblical guarantees have no basis in law. The
      Bible is not a record of history but a collection of stories, legends.

      Danish theologian Niels Peter Lemche writes in “THE ISRAELITES IN HISTORY
      AND TRADITION” P. 87:

      “The exile …has two roles to play. It at one and the same time unites and
      disconnects the present and the past…The generation that returns should
      be allowed to stay in the land of their fathers will at the same time will understand
      that it is their land…nobody except the generation that returned should be allowed
      to stay in the land…”

      Benyamin Netanyahu exists and is a product of an increasingly right wing
      Israeli public based on biblical story as fact and thus interchangeable
      with international law. Netanyahu is also perhaps a bit shocked that
      other UN nations—such as the fourteen who approved Resolution 2234—
      do not act as US politicians controlled by the Israeli lobby and
      similar groups have traditionally performed.

      As long as Israel is militarized and enabled to violate international
      law by force, there can be no “two state solution”.

      Incidentally, Rodinson cited above, fled Russia with his parents
      (to Paris where his parents were liquidated by the Nazis). Despite
      what the US-Zionists want you to believe, only a few were
      interested in fleeing to Palestine. Thousands wanted to
      go to America. This was before the US immigration laws about
      which Professor Davidson has so eloquently written in his book

      —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

      • Nelu
        January 3, 2017 at 11:49

        Well…I know something else, Israel right to exist is based not exclusively on Bible, but on Jews right to a state of their own in Palestine. They at least had built some state–formations over there, the only ones to do so Arabs conquered land by sword and lost it by sword too.Remember this: what comes by sword goes by sword too.

        • Lenna
          January 4, 2017 at 00:22

          No one has a right to create a state on someone else’s land. Land theft is a crime.

          • R. Rivers
            January 6, 2017 at 01:11

            What kind of religion, what kind of God makes it o.k. to take land against international law? What kind of people accept this?

        • John P
          January 4, 2017 at 00:38

          “Well…I know something else, Israel right to exist is based not exclusively on Bible…”

          Nelu, You don’t know it, you believe it. The Bible is a mass of stories passed down over a long period of time. Politics alters the story a bit in each book (ie. who had Jesus killed, Jews or Romans – it depends on the period the book was created). Stories were selected by man to be placed in the Bible while others were not and can be found in the Gnostic gospels (Judas, Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Phillip etc.). God didn’t make those decisions, men did.

          “Arabs conquered land by sword and lost it by sword too.Remember this: what comes by sword goes by sword”

          So I guess because God supposedly told Jews to kill every man woman and child and the land was theirs, means that they will eventually lose it too. That is why he isn`t my god, he broke the commandment, thou shalt not kill. And we are told to love thine enemy (perhaps up to a point :-). Conversing and trying to find agreement is a better approach I think.

          Also, despite extensive searching no evidence of Solomen’s or David’s mansions has been found in Palestine. According to some Egpytian archiologists they are looking in the wrong place through mistranslations of the earlier texts which they reveal. The search should proceed in the Asir province in south western Arabia where structures, names, and geography fit Biblical stories better. A small clan of Jewish believers there eventually moved north when the camal caravans were replaced by sailing ships. They settled all around the Levant.
          Their leader was called Fir’awn, not an Egyptian word but one of Arabic roots from Far’a (very like Pharaoh) and they came from Misraim (very similar to Misr which was incorrectly translated into Egypt.) No Egyptian scripts ever refer to the Egyptian King as Pharaoh and Egypt was not called Misr, but Gebt, El Gibt or Al Gipt .

          Also being a Jew is not a nationality, it`s a religion. The DNA of Jews will tell you which part of the world they lived in (cross breeding). Many Jews in Europe, by conversion, are more related to people from an area between the Black and Caspian Seas who became Jewish believers long ago.

          • Peter Loeb
            January 4, 2017 at 07:53

            THANKS TO “JOHN P.” AND OTHERS….

            Many thanks for your support above.

            In addition to Niels Peter Lemche (op cit) see also:

            Thomas L. Thompson: THE MYTHIC PAST. This well-written
            book also supports at length many points you made. Both works
            have been an inspiration. (NB: Forget about other works of Thompson
            which may make sense to a divinity student but are gobbledy-
            gook for the rest of us!) THE MYTHIC PAST is written with perception,
            clarity and a peculiarly American sense of humor.

            —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

          • John P
            January 4, 2017 at 20:27

            Hello Peter Loeb, I wish I could write as clearly and precisely as you.
            I have met Palestinians and heard their stories of fleeing violence in ’48 and the struggle to make a new life. One family lived in a refugee camp. The eldest boy escaped to Egypt and in time was able to call for the others. They made it to NA. One boy became a pathologist, the other got a PhD and taught. I have also met young university students studying over here because their schools were closed.
            I’ve met Jews with stories of escape from the storm in Europe by immigrating to Israel in the late ’30s but couldn’t live with the Zionist politic.
            All marvelous people.

          • Druid
            January 6, 2017 at 18:02

            well said and very right. It’s all a scam!

        • junius
          January 5, 2017 at 09:58

          Remember that the Fellahim whom the European Jews are working so diligently to expel are the descendants of the Jews who converted to Islam back in the seventh century. The idea that Jews were forcibly “expelled from their homeland” is ahistorical. There was never a time when the majority population was exiled, but exile was the natural fate of its seditious aristocracy, who were constantly plotting against the succession of great empires in which their mythical promised land was never more than a vassal state. Palestine’s Jews welcomed the Islamic “invaders,” after suffering centuries of persecution by Byzantine Christian rulers. At that time islam offered a tax exemption to all converts, and this was as great an incentive to embrace the new faith as was the fact that Mohammed had invented a simpler, purer form of monotheism. There were many Christian converts to Islam at this time as well, as orthodox Christianity had become cluttered with semi-divine saints and complex rules that overshadowed the faith’s original message. But Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, reviled pagans and slaughtered them without mercy, and so the benevolent earth gods and goddesses revered in the Middle East for three millennia or more finally vanished, replaced by the petulant angry sky-god claimed by the three monotheistic faiths.

Comments are closed.