Staking Out Israel’s Lawful Claims to the West Bank

Ari Lieberman is an attorney and former prosecutor.


israel-west-bank-settlements-e1Proponents of fairness and equity who have advocated against some of Israel’s most pernicious detractors have often advanced several well-reasoned arguments against further Israeli West Bank withdrawals and Palestinian statehood. Key among those arguments are that the Palestinian leadership is rejectionist, duplicitous, incites violence, is non-democratic and, in general, is not committed to a two-state solution recognizing Israel’s rights to exist within safe and secure boundaries. While all of these positions are accurate and by themselves would constitute sound reasoning to reject additional Israeli territorial concessions, there exits one reason above all others that favors the Israeli viewpoint; simply that Israel’s legal claims to the West Bank are far superior to those of the Palestinians’ under international law.

International laws are generally created by nations when entering into treaties with one another or more informally, through international custom.  General Assembly resolutions have no binding legal authority. In fact, the United Nations charter which spells out the powers of the General Assembly does not convey rule-making powers to that body.

Israel’s legal claims to the West Bank are rooted in the San Remo Conference of 1920, an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council. On July 24, 1922 the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations and a body which, under its charter had the authority to enact international laws, confirmed decisions hammered out at San Remo and resolved to establish the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

The League’s preamble, adopting the principles enumerated in the Balfour Declaration, recognized the Jewish “historical connection” to the Land of Israel and resolved to help facilitate the establishment of a Jewish nation there. At the time, Palestine consisted of land east and west of the Jordan River, encompassing all of modern Israel, Judea & Samaria, Gaza and what is referred to today as Jordan. The League entrusted Britain with being the mandatory authority whose aim would be to facilitate Jewish immigration to Palestine and to act as trustee until an orderly transition could be made to full Jewish sovereignty.

Article 5 of the Mandate prohibited Britain from ceding or leasing any part of the mandate territory to a foreign power. However, in 1923, Britain acting in contravention of Article 5 did precisely that and despite Jewish protest, gifted Eastern Palestine to Emir Abdullah thus creating a new Arab entity called Emirate of Transjordan. In so doing, Britain ceded 76% of Palestine to Arab rule leaving a paltry 24% for a Jewish homeland.

In February 1947 Britain announced that it would unilaterally terminate its mandate thus setting the stage for UN intervention. Following Britain’s announcement, the UN sent a team of international observers, known as UNSCOP, to Palestine to investigate and suggest a blueprint for the future of the territory and its inhabitants. After completing its investigation, UNSCOP formulated a plan, based on demographic patterns that involved the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states on roughly a 50-50 basis. Jerusalem and its environs were to be designated international zones.

In November 1947, the UN adopted UNSCOP’s findings and voted in favor of the partition. The UN General Assembly’s partition plan was merely a suggestion and had no legal binding authority. The Jews accepted the partition plan and the Arabs flatly rejected it, setting the stage for the first Arab-Israeli War and an Arab invasion.

Had the Arab’s accepted the partition, international boundaries between Jewish and Arab states would have been established and the matter settled. In the absence of such a settlement, the only legal, binding authority was the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which designated the whole of Palestine, including the West Bank, as the future Jewish homeland.

The first Arab-Israel War ended in 1949 and resulted in an Israeli victory and strategic defeat for the Arabs. Israel and Jordan negotiated a ceasefire agreement that was formalized into an armistice agreement. Neither side recognized armistice demarcation line as an official border. The agreement left Jordan in control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, territory that it illegally seized during its land grab. Shortly thereafter, Jordan annexed these territories, an annexation not recognized internationally save for Britain (only with respect to the West Bank) and Pakistan.

The Jordanian occupation of the West Bank lasted for 19 years. During that time, there was not a single UN resolution condemning Jordan’s illegal occupation. While this fact alone does not buttress Israel’s legal position, it does lend credence to the notion that the General Assembly can hardly be considered an impartial body.

On May 22, 1967, Egypt, in violation of international maritime law, closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. The act was accompanied by aggressive Egyptian military deployments, violations of Israeli airspace and genocidal rhetoric. On June 5, 1967 Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, destroying the bulk of Egypt’s air force in under 3 hours.

Contrary to the realities taking place on the ground, Egypt’s Nasser convinced King Hussein of Jordan that Israel was reeling. Hussein, lulled into believing these false claims, ordered his army to attack Israel. Jordanian Hunter jets bombed Kfar Saba and Netanya while Jordanian artillery shelled Israeli population centers in West Jerusalem. Jordanian infantry then began to take up positions in the demilitarized zones. In response to Jordanian aggression, Israel counter-attacked, taking over East Jerusalem and the West Bank in a matter of days.

While the UN considers war and conquests therefrom to be illegal, Article 52 of the UN Charter provides an exception to the illegality of war in cases involving self-defense. Israel acquired the West Bank (territory illegally seized by Jordan in 1948) through defensive conquest. Since Israel had the legal right to defend itself against aggression, its territorial conquest resulting from a defensive war is legal and binding. There is not a single case in history where a nation was forced to relinquish territory it had acquired through defensive conquest.

Following the war, a Soviet sponsored resolution requiring Israel to withdraw from all the territories acquired during the war was rejected by the United Nations Security Council. Several additional drafts were submitted and rejected. The UNSC finally settled on Resolution 242 with a language formulation that deliberately omitted the word “all” and merely required Israel to withdraw from “territories occupied in the recent conflict.” The omission of the word “all” was extremely significant in that it provided implicit recognition to at least some of Israel’s territorial gains.

Israel has fully complied with Resolution 242 by virtue of its withdrawal from Sinai, Gaza, Kuneitra (in the Golan Heights) and some 40% of the West Bank. Thus Israel maintains a strong legal claim to the West Bank, superior to all other claims, based on the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, Resolution 242 and basic principles of International law.

Notwithstanding Israel’s valid legal claims, Israel has been widely condemned in various quarters for its “settlement” activity in the “occupied” territories. The strongest condemnations emerge from the EU and the Muslim world though the United States position has been more equivocal and has varied from administration to administration. The United States has in the past opposed settlement activity as a matter of policy but with some very minor exceptions, has refused to term such activity “illegal.”

President Ronald Reagan explicitly stated that settlements were “not illegal” a position reinforced by President George W. Bush who provided implicit recognition of the legitimacy of settlements when he noted that, “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949…”

Those who condemn settlement activity rely on Article 49, Clause 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which states that, “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

As previously noted, the claim that Israel is an “Occupying Power” as defined in Article 49 is dubious at best. Israel maintains a valid, legal claim to the West Bank, far superior to those of the Palestinians or any other entity. But even if Israel was to be given the designation of “Occupying Power,” Article 49 would still be inapplicable.

Israel has not transferred or deported any part of its population into the West Bank. Individual Jews, with varied motivations, voluntarily moved into these territories. Moreover, many Israelis were born in the West Bank thus further highlighting the inapplicability of Article 49. Article 49 does not impose on Israel any duty to prevent its citizens from developing or moving into the West Bank.

Ambassador Morris Abram, a member of the U.S. staff at the Nuremburg Tribunal who was intimately involved with the drafting of the Fourth Geneva Convention, forcefully noted that Article 49(6) “was not designed to cover situations like Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, but rather the forcible transfer, deportation or resettlement of large numbers of people.” Other acclaimed and notable scholars such as Eugene V. Rostow, Dean of Yale Law School and former US Assistant Secretary of State, Stephen M. Schwebel, President of the International Court of Justice, Nicholas Rostow, university counsel and vice chancellor for legal affairs of the State University of New York, David M. Phillips, professor at Northeastern University School of Law and Fulbright Scholar and Professor Julius Stone, international lawyer and prolific author have voiced similar positions and have highlighted the absurdity of applying Article 49(6) in the context of Israeli settlements.

On July 9, 2012 a committee, headed by the respected former Israeli Supreme Court justice Edmond Levy, concluded that Israel’s presence in the West Bank was not an “occupation” within the meaning of Article 49 and that the settlements were not illegal. Recently, 1,000 jurists of various nationalities signed a petition supporting the findings and conclusions of the Levy Report and submitted it to the EU’s foreign policy chief and one of Israel’s shrillest critics, Catherine Ashton.

It is unlikely that Ashton was moved by the petition but it is demonstrative of the wellspring of support that Israel maintains internationally and that in at least some circles, sanity still prevails. The settlement enterprise, inspired by the original Zionist ethos of building and developing the land will continue to be a source of controversy but from the perspective of international law, it is on rock-solid footing.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • jack in a box

    The problem isn’t abstract legal paraphernalia, the problem is a current population of 2,5 million Arabs on the ground that would become Israelis, should Israel claim the territories.

    It would be either citizenship or some form of Apardheit. Legal chatter is cheap while facts speak for themselves.

    • StanleyT

      Which is why Israel would not claim all of the territories. However, you have completely misunderstood the purpose of Israel making its position clear. Quite simply, it’s thisL THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ISRAELI OBLIGATION TO GIVE ALL OF JUDEA AND SAMARIA TO THE ARABS. In other words, Israel has the right to build homes for Jews. As for the Arabs living on the land, they do not live where Jews live, and because of Israel’s legal rights, they have no legitimate claim to anything other than the areas Israel is prepared to surrender to them. It really is that simple.

    • Gee

      They are legal citizens of JORDAN. Israel is under no obligation to give foreign colonists citizenship.

      As for Apartheid – every single MUSLIM country in the entire world has laws that make South Africa look good in comparison

      • defcon 4

        Soddy Barbaria is far worse than South Africa. A Saudi muslime can murder you in Soddy Barbaria and only be required to pay a fine, if that. No other religion may be practiced in Soddy Barbaria save islam. No other religious texts may even be owned in Soddy Barbaria. The penalty for any najjis kaffir caught in Mecca or Medina is death. There are reports that foreign maids have been raped and murdered w/impunity by their Soddy muslime masters.

        • StanleyT

          but gee, it’s Israel that’s the apartheid state, right? Isn’t it? (sarc/off)

    • Drakken

      Throw out every last muslim and let allah sortem out. The Israeli’s are far too nice to a bunch of savages that want them dead.

  • Shingo

    This is a truly illarious and desperate piece that is full of falsities from beginning to end.

    The Levy Report was DOA, and such a lemon that not even the Israeli government who commissioned it, want to endorse it.

    The LONMandate for Palestine (1922) Article 7 tells us Jews could attain Palestinian citizenship. Not Israeli citizenship.

    The term you used, “historical connection”, was concocted to downplay the fact that the Zionists lack any legal standing to assert a claim to the territory of Palestine during the Post-WWI peace conferences at Versailles and San Remo. The Principle Allied Powers decided there were no bases for a legal entitlement, so Lord Balfour suggested that some polite words about the “historical connection” of the Jewish people be added to the Mandate instead. The travauxpréparatoires of the British Foreign Office Committee that was tasked with drafting the Mandate reveal that the Allies did not consider the historical connection as a basis for any Jewish claim:

    “It was agreed that they had no claim, whatever might be done for them on sentimental grounds; further that all that was necessary was to make room for Zionists in Palestine, not that they should turn “it”, that is the whole country, into their home.

    – See PRO FO 371/5245, cited in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972, pages 99-100

    Also, Jordan was not even part fo San Remo, and was only added to the Mandate after San Remo and under the explicit proviso that it was a separate mandate.

    So it is simply a lie to claim that the mandate consisted of land east and west of the Jordan River.

    Transjordan was promised to the Shariff of Mecca 2 years before Balfour’s Declaration. All of the territory of Transjordan was annexed to the British Mandate after the Syrian General Congress had declared Feisal their King. The Allies were still negotiating the territory that would be included in the mandates after the overthrow of Faisal’s Syrian Kingdom in July of 1920. That was several months after the San Remo Conference (April 1920). Historian Mary Wilson wrote that immediately after Faisal was overthrown:

    “The British suddenly wanted to know “what is the “Syria” for which the French received a mandate at San Remo? and does it include Transjordania?”

    Hubert Young to Ambassador Hardinge (Paris), 27 July 1920, FO 371/5254

    – cited in Mary Christina Wilson, “King Abdullah, Britain and the Making of Jordan”, Cambridge, 1988, page 44FYI, the British were under an obligation to establish self-governing institutions on both sides of the river under the explicit terms of Article 2 of the mandate.

    The British stipulated that status of the mandate had not been altered by that treaty or the subsequent treaty agreements between the United Kingdom and the Emirate of Transjordan. See League of Nations, Official Journal, 1928, p. 1574, and Marjorie M. Whiteman (ed), Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 631.

    Thus, the claim that Britain ceded 76% of Palestine to Arab rule is absurd.

    Also the claim that had the Arab’s accepted the partition, the borders of today would be the same as those from 1947 is also absurd. Ben Gurion stated that that the partition was only temporary and a stepping stone toward conquering all of Palestine. Furthermore, Israel declared it’s borders in May 1948 anyway.

    The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine did NOT designated the whole of Palestine, including the West Bank, as the future Jewish homeland. In fact, it did not even use the word “homeland” and stipulated that the Jewish National Home would be IN Palestine, not of Palestine. Not only that, but it stipulated that Jews would be invited to become citizens of Palestine, so there was never any mention of a Jewish State or Jewish sovereignty/control.

    The claim that neither Jordan not Israel recognized armistice demarcation line as an official border is also false. They are “permanent armistice lines of demarcation” adopted by mutual agreement under the auspices of two UN Security Council Chapter 7 resolutions (62 and 73). Those resolutions require the parties to implement and observe those armistice lines pending a final settlement. So they are still legally binding on member states, including Israel under the terms of Articles 24 and 25 of the UN Charter.

    It’s an undisputed fact that Israel cannot unilaterally alter the terms of those agreements or rescind those Chapter 7 UN Security Council resolutions. The representative of Israel pointed out that fact. During the Security Council’s 433rd meeting, Abba Eban stated that they clearly defined the State’s jurisdiction and had the normal legal characteristics of frontiers:

    “The armistice lines do not merely separate armed forces.They mark the clearly defined areas of full civil jurisdiction. The Government, the courts, the legislatures, the security authorities of each respective State operate smoothly and unchallenged up to the appropriate armistice line. These lines thus have the normal characteristics of provisional frontiers until such time as a new process of negotiation and agreement determines the final territorial settlement.…
    The Armistice Agreements are not peace treaties. They do not prejudice the final territorial settlements. On the other hand, the provisional settlement established by the Armistice Agreements is unchallengeable until a new process of negotiation and agreement has been successfully consummated.”

    There is no basis for the claim that Jordan’s control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank was illegal. In fact, it was perfectly legal an recognized by all 15 UNSC member in 1966 as outlines in UNSC228, which referred to Hebron as Jordan.

    That is why there is not a single UN Resolution condemning Jordan’s occupation.

    As for 1967, we already have Manchen Begin on record admitting that Israel started the war and chose to start the war. The matter of whether the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping was illegal was never established. Nasser proposed referring the matter to the ICJ, but Israel rejected the proposal.

    Contrary to Lieberman’s claims, the US UN Charter does NOT provide an exception to acquire territory in war, which is why the preamble of UNSC242 states so very clearly. Hence, the only legally binding argument is Israel’s obligation to withdraw.

    The argument about the omission of the words “the” and “all” is simply boilerplate to distract from the inadmissibility clause in the preamble. The French version, which was equally binding, made no such omission. Even Lord Caradon, who remains vague about the argument, insisted that it was never intended for Israel to hang on to East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

    To this day, Israel remains in violation of UNSC242, as illustrated by the 15-0 decision of the Justices at the ICJ.

    The United States has indeed stated that the settlements are illegal and a violation of the 4th Geneva Conventions, but chosen to refrain from repeating this position. Furthermore, the fact that Israel has changed the facts on the ground does not change the illegality of these settlements.

    All 15 ICJ Justices rejected the Israeli propaganda talking points about ambiguity and noted that resolution 242 cites the unambiguous prohibitions against the acquisition of territory by war and the corollary from the UN Charter against the use of force in the conduct of international relations. They all said the territory captured in 1967 is occupied territory; that the Geneva Conventions apply there; and that Israel had established settlements in violation of international law.

    How anyone could deny Israel is an “Occupying Power” is beyond laughable seeing as the the then president of the Israeli Supreme Court, Aharon Barak, in a High Court of Justice ruling from 2005 (Alfei Menashe) stated that:

    “The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation… His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been “annexed” to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05)”

    Seriously Ari, have you not done any homework?

    Israel has indeed transferred parts of its population into the West Bank and done so as a matter of policy.

    As for the opinions of Morris Abram, Eugene Rostow etc, their opinions were dismissed by all 15 justices at the ICJ as well as the Mitchell Report.

    Of course, if Israel really believed that it was on rock-solid footing, it could submit it’s argument to the ICJ to get a ruling. This piece by Ari Lieberman is typical of the usual Op-Eds. Like Charlie Sheen, they are always “winning”, except in Court, at the Reconvened Geneva Conferences, or at the Rome Diplomatic Conference when it actually matters.

    • Silver Gonzales

      One fact you ignored and it SHOULD be mentioned is that Jordan attacked first. Do humans, even Zionists have the right to defence and in so doing, over powering their attackers and conquer land?

      Israel has transferred parts of its population to J&S, including those living in Gaza, when it was handed to the Palies to ruin, including a family that was killed in their sleep by a typical Arab Muslim.

      The problem is that Arab Muslims hate all non Muslims and will never tolerate any country, even one that is 9 miles by 40 miles, at certain points, to exist.

      Israelis could be Buddhists, Baihais, Bonzais, Wickens, Shintoists,, and still be attacked in their sleep by Arab Muslims.

      Another issue are the 25 plus Arab refugee camps scattered in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, where it is against the law for a Palestinian to own land, nor work as an engineer, lawyer or doctor.

      • Shingo

        No, Jordan did not attack first. Israel had already been on the offensive for 5 months and during a meeting with British Foreign Ministers, Bevine, promised that Jordan would only defend the Arab territory but not invade Israel. The British agreed.

        And what’s more, is that that weer attacking Zionist forces illegally positioned outside the borders of Israel, so it was Israel that were the aggressors.

        “Israel has transferred parts of its population to J&S, including those living in Gaza”

        Yes, in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The West Bank is not part of Israel and Israel has no legal claim to the territory whatsoever.

        The fact is that that is was the Zionists that wanted to create a Jewish state with a Jewish majority. It was they who came up with the ideology of Hafrada – to keep Jews and Arabs separate.

        You’re projecting.

        The Arab refugee camps are the result of Israel’s expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians in 1947/48.

        • StanleyT

          Wow, you really are a revisionist. In 1967, Israel pre-emptively attacked Syria and Egypt and begged Jordan to stay out of it. Fooled by Egyptian claims of military victory, the King of Jordan began shelling Jewish parts of Jerusalem.

          That’s the real history. Your trumped up nonsense is just that – nonsense.

          As for trying to squeeze the situation into Judea and Samaria into the Geneva Conventions, this has been refuted time and again. Israel has not “forcibly transferred” its population into the area – and the area is NOT part of another state.

          • defcon 4

            I’ve read that Egyptian history, which includes teaching the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact, also includes teaching that Egypt won the Yom Kippur War.

          • StanleyT

            Yup. And they celebrate their “victory” in a big way, every year.

          • Taimoor Khan

            Your entire posts on this website are big pile of BS.

            No part of the land that is now Israel-Palestine belongs to Russian and Polish settlers – this is moral and ethical and historical argument. Legal argument – territories occupied in Israel’s offensive war in 1967 are to be returned – resolution 242.

          • Drakken

            You poor dumb inbred savages lost the wars you started, and then cry and whine because Israel handed you your azzes. If your looking for sympathy, you can find it in the dictionary between the words shi* and syphilis.

          • StanleyT

            Read 242. If you can,

            It does not say “the territories” or “all the territories” and it clearly says that borders must be negotiated. Which Israel has been trying to do, and which the “Palestinians” refuse to do.

            You have been brainwashed into believing that you know what you’re saying, but true international lawyers know otherwise.

            http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/08/02/lawyers-eu-has-no-right-to-determine-israel’s-borders-video/

          • Taimoor Khan

            Hey, ICC supports my interpretation. That is the legal body (this ain’t argument from authority, but argument fro CORRECT authority :D)

            BTW, here is one clause from 242. I don’t think you have read it:

            “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”

            You say there is no mention of territories and withdrawal?

          • defcon 4

            None of the land belongs to Arabic squatters either — who already have a religious and cultural homeland — it’s called Saudi ARABIa.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Taimoor Khancer, Your entire koran is a big pile of BS.

            I side with India against the barbaric aggression of “pakistan”.

          • Shingo

            “n 1967, Israel pre-emptively attacked Syria and Egypt and begged Jordan to stay out of it. “‘

            So what? If Iran attacked Israel and begged the US to stay out of it, would that mean the US had no right to come to Israel’s defense? Should the allies have stayed out of WWII if Hitler had begged them to stay out of it?

            Jordan and Egypt had a peace treaty. Jordan were obliged to come to Egypt’s defense.

            An no, it was not a pre-emptive attack, it was a preventative attack. The Generals who pushed Eshkol to go to war made the argument that Egypt would need another 12-18 months to prepare for war.

            “As for trying to squeeze the situation into Judea and Samaria into the Geneva Conventions, this has been refuted time and again”

            Only in the minds of a small echo chamber. All 15 Justices at the ICJ said the GCs applies. So did the US State Department, Theodore Meron and president of the Israeli Supreme Court, Aharon Barak.

          • StanleyT

            Your argument changes nothing. Jordan chose to attack Israel for whatever reason (and you know it had nothing to do with a treaty and everything to do with wanting to grab as much for themselves as they could, just like in 1948) – and that made Jordan the aggressor.

          • Shingo

            Wrong again.

            If Jordan wanting to grab as much for themselves as they could, they would not have stopped at the Armistice line, when Glubb ordered them to stop.

            The British had concluded a deal with the Zionists that there would be no confrontation between the Jordanian Arab army and the Jewish forces. This is why Glubb later called the ’48 war, the phony war.

          • StanleyT

            Now you’re just being ridiculous. The entire 1948 war against the Jews was all about each Arab state trying to get as much territory as it could for themselves. The Brits called a halt because their friends the Arabs were getting horribly beaten. And that’s what’s happened every single time. As soon as the Jews start getting the upper hand, the world calls a halt.

          • Shingo

            “The entire 1948 war against the Jews was all about each Arab state trying to get as much territory as it could for themselves”

            Quite the opposite actually. IN fact, it was Ben Gurion who told Moshe Sharett that Israel’s army would not only be powerful enough to repel the Arab armies, but that it would be powerful enough to conquer all of Palestine.

            ” As soon as the Jews start getting the upper hand, the world calls a halt.”

            Unless of course, they are getting their asses handed to them like in 1973 or 2006.

          • Drakken

            The bottom lines is the rag heads lost and they still whine about it, effem.

          • defcon 4

            Glubb nub was an islam0nazi, much like yourself, he has no credibility outside of the islam0fascist world.

          • Shingo

            Actually, what you describe is more aligned to the Zionist founders.

            Jabotinsky, Weizmann, Herzl, Ruppin, and Ben Gurion ridiculed ordinary Jews in the Diaspora and used derogatory terms to describe them, like Yid, eunuchs, Orientals, & etc. These were “Zionist people” who claimed they were inventing a “new Jew” and they even attempted to employ eugenics in pursuit of their goals. So it is hardly ludicrous to give them credit for inventing a new people. See for example Etan Blooms dissertation on Arthur Ruppin, the Father of Jewish Settlement in Palestine.http://www.tau.ac.il/tarbut/tezot/bloom/EtanBloom-PhD-ArthurRuppin.pdf

            I’ve quoted Ben Gurion himself on this point. He and the majority of the founders of the State of Israel didn’t believe in the God of the scriptures or offer prayers about returning the exiles to Zion.
            http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/bg6.html

            Chaim Weizmann thought that the majority of the exiles in Europe were little more than human dust with no future ahead of them. He had no intention of bringing them to Palestine. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1940v03&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=837

            Ben Gurion was little more than a thug. He ran around Poland extorting funds for Palestine from wealthy Jews at gunpoint. See The Israeli-American connection: its roots in the yishuv, 1914-1945, Michael Brown, Wayne State University Press, 1996, page 198 http://books.google.com/books?id=UEQggnBIUUgC&lpg=PA340&ots=tIPwVKVYFM&dq=the%20abc%20of%20zionist%20policy%20by%20david%20%22ben%20gurion%22&pg=PA198#v=onepage&q&f=false

            it goes to show you become what you hate.

          • Shingo

            In 1967, Israel preventatively attacked Syria and Egypt.

            Begging Jordan to stay out of it is BS, seeing as Israel was bombing Jordan earlier that year. In fact, UNSC228 condemned Israel for attacking Jordan in 1966.

            “As for trying to squeeze the situation into Judea and Samaria into the Geneva Conventions, this has been refuted time and again.”

            No it has not. The ICJ, the Israeli Supreme Court and the US State Department have all stated that the Geneva Conventions apply.

            The GC says nothing about forcible transfer, though it has indeed forcibly removed Palestinians.

            The question is beyond dispute.

        • Drakken

          Funny how you raqhead muzzys scream about the Geneva Conventions and turn around and never follow them, get bent haji, the infidels ain’t playing anymore. Your lucky that I am not in charge, from the river to the sea it would be muzzy free.

    • gray_man

      Actually the Jews have the most “Rock Solid” footing there is. God gave the land to them. All other is nonsense.

      • defcon 4

        Including the Temple Mount.

      • Cold_Drake_80

        Well, then I guess they will be packing up and leaving soon. After all early Judaism lift heavily from Babylonian religious thought. So the TRUE chosen people are the people of the Tigris and Euphrates since it was there ancient gods and practices the ancient Hebrew’s copied.
        Oh, well to bad for Israel. I guess their is some decent land left in the US desert southwest.

        • Drakken

          You wish haji lover, those Israeli’s aren’t going to go anywhere and you can take that to the bank.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Well, bigot, you failed to get my point, or even comprehend it, no surprise. Israel is going to carry on as long as it has nukes and bullets. Take that away and they will fall. Their policies are absurdly short sighted like some raging gang banger. I can see why you would admire that attitude.

          • Drakken

            Yes you are right they are very short sighted in letting these muslims continue to wage jihad against them. Killem all and let allah sortem out. By the way puzzy, do you need more cheese to go with that whine?

          • Cold_Drake_80

            So you’ve decided to be my new cyber-stalker? Oh, well, I guess everyone who comes to FPM and isn’t a foaming at the mouth racist gets stuck with one.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Run out of talking points?

            Back to the old standby – call others fascists, racists, bigots – WHILE backing your Islamofascists, Islamosupremecists?

            It’s the old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Why else would a “progressive” side with the most REGRESSIVE cult on the planet which hijacks passenger planes and flies them into buildings.

            CD80, are you a 9/11 Troofer too?

          • Cold_Drake_80

            So your logic goes I denounce the ravings of an obviously genocidal bigot so that makes me one? You whine I’ve run out of talking points when you have no point at all.
            I never said I was Muslim or support Islam. I simply don’t hate them so much that I want to see them all murdered. I know that fries your little brain but not everyone is blinded with hate the way you are.

          • Drakken

            Typical libtard, throw out the race and bigot card like so much confetti when they have no argument, go suck your boyfriend off, it is more effective.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            LOL, After calling for genocide you’re pretending to be butthurt when I call you out for what you are? You’re a genocidal bigot through and through. So now you have to own your pathology.

          • defcon 4

            Nukes and bullets are the only things that have kept the Jewish people in Israel from being victims of another Holocaust at the hands of the islam0nazis in the Mid-East.

          • gray_man

            No, clown, you miss the point. Israel will never again be taken from the Jews. God won’t let it happen. The Messiah (Jesus) will come back and eradicate the satanic religion of islam.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            He will also eradicate the Jews as well. You have read your book of Revelations haven’t you? Some friend of Israel you are. Go back to cowering in the face of your non-existent sky dwelling war god.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Wonder if CD80 challenges the beliefs of Muslims?

            If so WHERE?

          • Cold_Drake_80

            I don’t believe in your sky daddy war god at all. So why would I believe in Islam which follows the exact same sky daddy war god? You really aren’t very intelligent.

          • gray_man

            If you are going to argue scripture, you should at least read it. Christ does not eradicate the Jews. I mean real scripture (the Bible), not your koran. That filth should only be used as toilet paper. Take your asinine gibberish elsewhere.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You call others bigots? Pot. Kettle.

            The rage in the Islamofascist world has turned in on itself. Hence the mosque bombings, the various bombings, shootings in the Islamist world.

            Why do you think there are Checkpoints at every airport in the World?

        • gray_man

          Judaism lifted heavily from babylonian religious thought?
          What asinine nonsense are you babbling?
          Judaism was directly the opposite. That was the point.

        • defcon 4

          LOL, yeah human sacrifice was always integral to Judaism wasn’t it? Fool.

      • Shingo

        You might believe that God gave them the land – and everyone else think he gave it to them too. But that is not based on any rock solid laws.

        • gray_man

          When the Messiah comes and destroys your filthy ideology, we’ll have the last laugh.

          • Shingo

            Would that be the same Messiah who went on hiatus in 1939?

          • StanleyT

            And here you reveal your sickness. Quelle surprise – another disgusting Jew hater.

          • Shingo

            Not at all. I just think people who believe in sky daddies are delusional.

          • StanleyT

            Your reference to 1939 demonstrates exactly who and what you are.

          • Shingo

            What is wrong with referencing the worst crime against humanity in modern history and asking why God allowed it to happen?

          • StanleyT

            Context. The way you said it and when you said it.

          • Shingo

            The context is very simple. If God was on the side of the Jews, then where was he in WWII?

          • StanleyT

            The most erudite Rabbis decline to answer that question. What makes you think you’re smarter than them?

          • Shingo

            What do the erudite Rabbis have to say about gray_man’s thesis?

          • StanleyT

            What he said.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You’re asking why bad things happen to good people.

            Socialist hitler was a non-smoker, vegetarian and an atheist.

          • Shingo

            No I am asking why a gray_man’s Messiah let it happen if he’s so sure the same Messiah will be on his side the next time around

          • gray_man

            God doesn’t run this world like a toy. He gave us free agency.

          • gray_man

            He didn’t go on hiatus in 1939. He wasn’t supposed to come back then. Try reading some scripture. The prophesies are all there in plain black and white. Real scripture, not the filth of the koran.

          • Shingo

            “He didn’t go on hiatus in 1939. He wasn’t supposed to come back then.”

            Wow, you messianic nut jobs are truly a spectacle The scriptures are fiction. So are the prophesies.

          • gray_man

            And yet they keep coming true. So who’s the dumbass?

          • defcon 4

            Hitler admired MUSLIMES, he admired islam. He deprecated Christianity. And just like the islam0nazis of today, he was an antisemitic nutcase.

          • Shingo

            Hitler was a social Darwinist, just like Herzl. It’s no surprise that the ideologies they both gave birth to have so much in common.

          • Shingo
          • defcon 4

            Bollocks. There were two nazis in Israel who were defacing/vandalizing synagogues in Israel.

          • Shingo

            Wrong.

            As this report tells us, there are ‘Heil Hitler’ salutes. People beaten in the streets because they are Jewish.

            And no, it’s not because of only 2 neo Nazis.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Todays neo-nazis are Islamofascists.

            Google Image “arab nazi salute”

            Here is one for your scrapbook.

            1941 The Grand Mufti meets Hitler

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSUEx1cKUlg

          • defcon 4

            I have about as much faith in the HuffPo as I do PressTV.

          • Shingo

            So what? I don’t have any faith in Commentary or Frontpagemag, but I will still debate the issues.

          • Drakken

            The time for debate, niceties and pleasantries is over, we been there, done that, got the postcard and tee shirt. It just gives you effing ragheads abd their leftist enablers, more room to maneuver and kill us infidels, time to turn the tide and give you SOB’s a healthy dose and taste of pure unadultered fear of the West because you muslims and the leftist fellow travelers have brought us to this point. Not one more bloody inch, period!

          • Shingo

            “time to turn the tide and give you SOB’s a healthy dose and taste of pure unadultered fear of the West because you muslims and the leftist fellow travelers have brought us to this point. Not one more bloody inch, period!”‘

            Wow scary. What are you going to do? Post more bile?

          • Drakken

            Come on out to the ME and join me, and we’ll play.

          • Shingo

            Sorry, don’t do video games and I don’t life in the ME.

          • Drakken

            The irony is a atheist sand ape like you stands shoulder to shoulder with other primitive sand apes who will kill you given the first opportunity, PRICELESS!

          • Shingo

            The irony is that you sound like a member fo the KKK.

          • Drakken

            Wrong, Western Culturalist and you are on the wrong side of history.

          • Shingo

            While it’s true the KKK originated in the US, you are more social Darwinian than Western Culturalist

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Then tell Muslims that Mohmmed never was in Jerusalem and never flew on the back of a horse to wherever.

          No Double Standards pal.

          • Shingo

            I will gladly tell Muslims that Mohmmed flew on the back of a horse to wherever, just like I’ll tell you guys Moses did not part the Red Sea.

            But then again, the Muslims are not claiming that God gave them the land. They were already there when the Europeans arrived to conquer and colonize it.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Which Islamic websites have you posted your dismissive views of Muslim theology?

            A link?

          • Shingo

            “Which Islamic websites have you posted your dismissive views of Muslim theology?”

            I have no interest in any religious theology unless someone claims it gives them the right to someone else’s land.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Why so coy. Tell Muslims how you feel about their religion. Let’s see how tolerant they are of your views. Maybe they will invite you to a debate.

          • Shingo

            Like I said, I am not interested in anyone’s religion until they start claiming it’s a land deed.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Land deed?

            Don’t Muslims claim that the Temple Mount is Muslim because their “prophet” left the Earth on the back of a flying horse?

            That gives them title?

            Or that the various Hindu temples that were destroyed and a mosque was built on its ruins make the spot “muslim”?

            No Double Standards pal.

          • Shingo

            “Don’t Muslims claim that the Temple Mount is Muslim because their “prophet” left the Earth on the back of a flying horse?”

            There is a Mosque there, which is obviously only of interest to Muslims. They are not claiming title to the area.

            “Or that the various Hindu temples that were destroyed and a mosque was built on its ruins make the spot “muslim”?”

            Clearly they have no right to.

          • JackyTreehorn

            The Muslims still claim Spain. Can we look forward to your
            dismissive views on Islam.

          • Shingo

            When was the last time they claimed spain?

            And yes, I do dismiss Islamic claims to territory. No territory should belong to any one religion.

          • JackyTreehorn

            Now you see that’s why I try to steer clear of Islamic apologists. At least if you are going to comment on sites like this try and do some basic homework. Why do you think the followers of the religion of peace planted bombs on the Spanish railway system?
            Can you direct us to the lefty/liberal/Islamic sites where you argue against their ideas?
            “When was the last time they claimed Spain” honestly its too easy.

          • Shingo

            Actually I have done my homework, which is why I have been able to refute all the tired and worn hasbara being recycled here.

            “Why do you think the followers of the religion of peace planted bombs on the Spanish railway system?”

            Probably the same reason Zionist terrorists tried to plant bombs in London.

            http://wolfblitzzer0.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/jewish-plan-to-bomb-london-1947do-it-in.html

            Or the plot to kill Churchill.
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/8425271/MI5-files-Zionist-terrorist-plotted-to-kill-Winston-Churchill.html

            “Can you direct us to the lefty/liberal/Islamic sites where you argue against their ideas?”

            I am opposed to all terrorism, be it Islamic or Zionist. Do you condemn all terror and if so, can you link to some right wing Zionist sites where you do so?

            There’s a good boy.

          • JackyTreehorn

            You are a brain dead idiot and I would be wasting valuable time getting into a discussion with you

          • Shingo

            Yes you would because I just exposed your mind numbing hypocrisy.

            I take the answer to my last question is a no and that you are OK with some terrorism and not others.

          • JackyTreehorn

            Okay. 1, The Jews who wanted to bomb London did not want to claim London as a Jewish territory, the Islamist still claim Spain as their own, only an idiot or a child would use that as an equivalence.
            2, What happened 60 years ago was 60 years ago.
            If Islam grew up right now, in 60 years time we would not be talking about Islamic terrorists.
            Now go away child and don’t bother me again.

          • Shingo

            “he Jews who wanted to bomb London did not want to claim London as a Jewish territory”

            Neither did the culprits who carried out the bombings in Spain. They did it because of the Spanish government support for the Iraq war.

            “What happened 60 years ago was 60 years ago.”

            So what? it goes to show that anyone can resort to such violence when they are desperate. it goes to show that civility is not exclusive to any particular culture or religion.

            “Now go away child and don’t bother me again”

            It was you that first addressed me remember?

          • defcon 4

            Yet you rant and rave about Israel and having nothing to say about Soddy Barbaria, and I don’t have to wonder why.

          • Shingo

            I have plenty to say about Saudi Arabia. They are the vilest and most destructive regime in the region and nothing would please me more than to see it overthrown.

          • defcon 4

            Kinda like muslimes stole Medina from the Jewish people right?

          • Shingo

            How can Median be Jewish if they arrived at least 8 centuries after it was created?

          • defcon 4

            LOL, really? What about the Temple Mount? What about Soddy Barbaria? What about the Jewish villages in Saudi Arabia?

          • Shingo

            “What about the Temple Mount?”

            It’s shared between 3 major religions.

            “What about the Jewish villages in Saudi Arabia?”

            Which ones?

        • defcon 4

          Funnily enough muslime, you have no problems w/the fact that muslimes believe the entire world is theirs, by allah’s will.

          • Shingo

            Christians also believe the world is theirs.

            Some rabbis tell us that non Jews have no purpose in life but to serve Jews.

            Your point?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Some rabbis. Are they cutting off the heads of non-Jews or the heads of apostates?

            Do you know who kills apostates, filmmakers, issues fatwas against writers, shoots girls who want an education in the head, beheads people?

          • Shingo

            “Do you know who kills apostates, filmmakers, issues fatwas against writers, shoots girls who want an education in the head, beheads people?”

            Lunatics. Israelis have perpetrated pretty much all those crimes, with the exception of beheading.

            That’s what makes Michael Oren’s statement, that Israel would prefer Al Qaeda to be running the show in Syria, all the more disturbing,

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Which Jew/Israeli has stabbed a filmmaker to death like a Muslim stabbed Theo Van Gogh to death?

            Which Rabbi has issued a death decree for a writer of fiction as the satanic ayatollah khomeni issued against writer Salman Rushdie?

            Which Rabbi issued a death sentence to cartoonists as Islamists did to Danish cartoonists?

            I await your response.

            Whoever is running the show in Syria has a thing for killing men, women and children with poison gas. 1,000+ died, in addition to the 100,000+ who died with conventional weaponry.

          • Shingo

            “Which Jew/Israeli has stabbed a filmmaker to death like a Muslim stabbed Theo Van Gogh to death?”

            Stabbings happen in every culture in every country in the world.

            “Whoever is running the show in Syria has a thing for killing men, women and children with poison gas.”

            Are the the ones also having a thing for beheading, eating human organs and suicide bombings – you know, the ones that Micahel Oren is sheering for?

    • StanleyT

      In your incredibly long and hard to read screed, you ignore the most important fact in the article. The Jews claim to the land was enshrined in international law by the San Remo conference. It’s as simple as that. If you dispute Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria, you must similarly dispute Arab claims to Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Forget about historical connections and G0d given rights to the land – international law was created at San Remo and cannot be rewritten, not even by the UN (see chapter 80 of the UN Charter), Everything else you have written is simply irrelevant

      • defcon 4

        The longer the screed, the bigger the lie.

        • StanleyT

          Great line. I may steal it in future!

          • Cold_Drake_80

            How very FPM of you. I suppose you’ll hide behind it to avoid actually reading future posts.

          • StanleyT

            Unfortunately, I did not avoid reading yours.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Go be butt hurt some place else. If you want to be a good FPMer that is your problem.

          • StanleyT

            Like I said, the trolls are out in force today.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            So talking about International Law and FPM’s well known disdain for it makes me a bigot? That interesting. I also find it very telling that you jump to the conclusion my opposition is sexually based. So was it a black man or a middle eastern one who took a woman you were stalking away from you? It would explain why you became an FPMer.

          • SC

            Disregard for International Law?

            Is that what using poison gas on the Kurds of Halabja, the people of Syria, hijacking passenger planes, bombing passenger planes, hijacking cruise ships, hijacking tankers, kidnapping people and beheading them and posting the video on the Internet?

            Is that what’s troubling you pal?

          • Drakken

            Hmmm last I looked, I am a citizen of a sovereign county under it’s laws, rights and responsibilities, I never signed a pledge to some we are the world nonsense? So take your so called international law and get bent with it you commi fu**!

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Well, since you don’t care about treaties and international law I suppose you’ll now declare your opposition to the arguments made in this article? Nah, they serve as a rational for what you want so I’m sure they are fine in your diseased mind.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            FrontPageMag scares you that your regressive “progressive” idea aren’t convincing the non-drone population.

      • Taimoor Khan

        You don’t dictate UN. UN has declared Israel occupied territories as occupation and so has international court of justice. Any settlement, construction, development in occupied territories is crime.

        • Drakken

          So with that in mind you pakis better hand Kashmir back to India right?

          • Taimoor Khan

            Hey, read this slowly. Kashmiris converted to Israel. They are local Kashmiris. They want to live with Pakistan, but occupied by India. Got it?

          • StanleyT

            Now you’re not making any sense at all. “Kashmiris converted to Israel”? What on earth are you talking about?

          • Taimoor Khan

            I was supposed to write “Islam”. My apologies.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You have much more to apologize for than a typo.

            9/11, 1993 bombing of the WTC, 2005 bombing of London buses and the underground, Mumbai India massacre, Nairobi Kenya massacre, death fatwas, beheadings, shootings, stabbing, bombings, homicide bombers.

            Khancer, it is YOUR DEATH CULT that necessitates Checkpoints at every airport in the World.

          • defcon 4

            You might have offended his delicate islam0fascist feelings.

          • defcon 4

            The Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs should take a clue from what the Myanmar Buddhists are doing to your islam0fascist porcine brothers, or, perhaps, the same thing your islam0fascist porcine brothers are doing to ANYONE non-muslim in Pakistain or Bangladesh.

          • Taimoor Khan

            So you support burning, killing, mutilation of innocent people in Myanmar?

          • Drakken

            I sure am! It shows you bloody savages that we will no longer tolerate your intolerant false evil religion.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            YOUR co-religionists of the OXYMORON called “The Religion of Peace” burn, kill, mutilate innocent people ALL OVER THE WORLD.

          • defcon 4

            I propose nothing less than what islam0nazis like you are currently doing in:
            1. Bangladesh
            2. Pakistain
            3. Nigeria
            4. Sudan
            5. iraq
            6. Syria
            7. W. Papua New Guinea
            Sound familiar hajji?

          • Drakken

            Hopefully the Indians dissuade them of such silly notions.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Have your fellow savages pack up and LEAVE Kashmir to its rightful owner India.

          • Omar

            How about make all of Pakistan part of India. Islamists do not deserve having their own country, after all the misery they have caused in the world for 1,400 years.

        • StanleyT

          Read the UN Charter, Chapter 80. The UN cannot overwrite or rewrite any decisions of the League of Nations. So it’s not me who’s dictating anything to anybody. It’s international law that’s dictating the reality to you, no matter how little you may like it.

          • Drakken

            Forgetaboutit Stan, Haji don’t surf.

          • Taimoor Khan

            International Law? ICC, the international body on International law, has declared Israeli occupied territories as such and any construction within teh same as a violation of international law.

          • StanleyT

            You don’t listen, do you? Nobody – not the UN, not the ICC, nobody – can rewrite the resolutions taken by the League of Nations. The only way Judea and Samaria can ever become anything but Jewish land is if the Jews offer to surrender some or all of those territories – which they have done on numerous occasions, but your lot keep saying NO

          • Taimoor Khan

            It is YOU who need to listen. The UNSC has decided and you don’t get to decide if that decision is wrong based on your interpretation of ANYTHING. Your interpretation is worthless. UNSC and ICC interpretations count. Here we are talking strictly from “legal perspective”. Do you understand?

            Here is 242:

            “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”

          • StanleyT

            Exactly!! Not “all territories”. Not “the territories”. Not “all the territories”. What’s more, both Israel and the “Palestinians” have stated that this is to be done on the basis of NEGOTIATIONS!!!!!!

            Educate yourself and then you can stop looking like an idiot stuck in a groove of repetition

          • Taimoor Khan

            You are funny. “Territories occupied in the recent conflict”. That pretty much does it for Israel.

            And my interpretation – which is universally accepted two state settlement interpretation – is upheld by UN and ICC.

          • StanleyT

            Stop with “UN and ICC” already! I cannot keep writing the same thing again and again, even if you can

          • Taimoor Khan

            ICC judgement and 242 is REALITY. No amount of wishing will make it disappear.

          • StanleyT

            I am not wishing. I am providing evidence of why ICC judgement (I think you mean ICJ – not judgement, merely opinion, highly biased by the makeup of the court) and why your reading of 242 is wrong. It’s you that I wish would disappear.

          • Taimoor Khan

            Yep, you want me to disappear so nobody wakes you up from your dreamworld. But I am dreambuster, sorry.

            I have summarized this argument in a post below.

            For this post – ICJ (thanks for correction) judgement – JUDGMENT on wall and settlement – stands. UNSC reading is debated in the latter post.

          • StanleyT

            It was an OPINION! It was not a judgment, and as I’ve already said, the court was biased. I’ve already told you that. Why do I bother?

          • Taimoor Khan

            You bother because something in you tells you that you are wrong. It was a judgement on the Israeli wall which annexed occupied territories. BTW, accusing the court of bias is what a convicted criminal always does!

            BTW, I deliberately mentioned U.S. judge in the panel – Goldberg. Go refer.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            YOU are a dreambuster? LOL!

            Israel is YOUR dreambuster.

            You think that the Israelis are the Jews of Khybar – but it didn’t work out the way it did in the past.

            YOU are a member of an increasingly hated cult of death – which kills people EVERY DAY.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Have your “palestinains” move to the Hague. Let them deal with your fellow savages.

        • N. Wasse

          How come you do not seem to care about the murder of many of your ancestors by your Muslim masters that invaded India?

          • Taimoor Khan

            Who are you? Tell me your ethnicity. I will tell you about your ancestors. :D

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            WE will tell you about YOUR ancestors, your FALSE prophet muhammed, YOUR imperialism, YOUR fascism, YOUR racism.

          • N. Wasse

            You still did not answer my question: How come you do not seem to care about what happened to your Hindu ancestors at the hands of the Muslim invaders of India

            Oh moi? I’m anything that can drive your Allah out of his mind

        • defcon 4

          Who gives a FFF what the UN thinks anymore? They’re corrupt. They’re nothing but a rubber stamp for the OIC.

      • Shingo

        ” you ignore the most important fact in the article. ”

        No, I addressed all of them.

        1. First of all, San Remo enshrined nothing in international law. It required the LON did that.

        2. San Remo does not say what Lieberman claims it does. There is no mention of any claim to any land in San Remo or LON. Neither one gave a single inch of land to the Jews. it gave them the right to migrate there, become citizens and buy land there.

        Nothing more.

        The problem with you and Liberman is you have never bothered to read San Remo.

    • Taimoor Khan

      Well done! You have undressed them from historical perspective. I have made my tiny contribution in terms of presence.

      • StanleyT

        Except that every word shingo wrote has been refuted and shown as the utter garbage it is.

        • Taimoor Khan

          You are wrong.

          • StanleyT

            Interesting. I’ve provided you with irrefutable evidence that disproves everything you say, and your only answer is to repeat everything you say ad nauseam. And then you tell me I am wrong. Clearly, you are deaf to reason, like every other Jew hater out there.

          • Taimoor Khan

            You are still wrong. :D

            See one of my posts below.

      • defcon 4

        Your jihad is weak-willed. You have failed muhammad in your duty as a SoA.

  • Bklyn Farmer

    Ari, congratulations on a great article. Not only do you state the reality of the situation, it looks like you’ve caused the Islamo-fascist trolls a kinpshin – THANKS

    • Shingo

      Very funny Bklyn Farmer

      Ari apparently didn’t even know the president of the Israeli Supreme Court had already declared Israel were an occupier. Yet you are still impressed by his shoddy research.

      I guess your expectations are extremely low.

      • Bklyn Farmer

        My expectations are only low when it comes to you, Tony.

      • Gee

        But he didn’t and he didn’t have that authority either.

        Your claim is wrong, because he said that Israel was to ACT AS IF were the occupier. A totally different statement than your claim

        • defcon 4

          Lying comes naturally to the islam0fascist.

        • Shingo

          “Your claim is wrong, because he said that Israel was to ACT AS IF were the occupier”‘

          Wrong. He said that the West Bank is held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. That makes Israel the occupier.

          He also said that the Geneva Conventions apply there:

          “The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation… His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been “annexed” to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907… These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949… The State of Israel has declared that it practices the humanitarian parts of this convention… We are aware that the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice determined that The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the Judea and Samaria area, and that its application is not conditional upon the willingness of the State of Israel to uphold its provisions.”

          • Taimoor Khan

            Well done. You have stripped them. Right from horse’s own mouth. “Belligerent Occupation”. Yeah!

            Ladies and Gentlemen, Israel has absolutely no legal argument to annex West Bank and Gaza!

            Can’t get more embarrassing than this!

          • Gee

            Except for the facts.

            To be occupied one must be a “High Contracting Party”, must have a sovereign claim to the territory and no other “High Contracting Party” can have a sovereign claim. And finally it cannot be against existing international laws.

            The Arabs are not a “High Contracting Party”, the Arabs do not have a sovereign claim and Israel a “High Contracting Party” does have a sovereign claim. And it is against international law to give it to the Arabs.

            Israel qualifies and the Arabs do not.

            Just minor case of facts

          • Shingo

            “To be occupied one must be a “High Contracting Party”, must have a sovereign claim to the territory and no other “High Contracting Party” can have a sovereign claim”

            Who claims they are not a party to the Convention? Palestine : On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council “that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto”.

            On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, “due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine”.
            http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesParties&xp_treatySelected=380

            The ICJ majority opinion noted that, for its own part, the Swiss government considered the PLO declaration on behalf of Palestine in 1989 to be a valid accession.

            In other words, the Swiss government recognized the State of Palestine as another State Party and the legal consequences that flow from that recognition for both governments: “Furthermore, Palestine gave a unilateral undertaking, by declaration of 7 June 1982 (sic), to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention. Switzerland, as depositary State, considered that unilateral undertaking valid.” See paragraph 91 on page 79:
            http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

            All of the Geneva Convention signatories are represented in the UN General Assembly. They adopted resolution 67/19 (2012) upgrading the observer status of Palestine, based upon the 1988 Algiers Declaration of the State of Palestine. See the text of the resolution:

            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/19862D03C564FA2C85257ACB004EE69B

            Just minor case of corercting you there. No need to thank me.

          • Gee

            Sorry but they are NOT High Contracting Party because they have not SIGNED those protocols – that is a requirement.

            Nor would it matter if they did – Israel liberated our territory in 1967. There is no such thing as a retroactive occupation.

            Nice try but failure yet again

          • Shingo

            “Sorry but they are NOT High Contracting Party because they have not SIGNED those protocols – that is a requirement”

            Wrong again.

            All of the Geneva Convention signatories are represented in the UN General Assembly. They adopted resolution 67/19 (2012) upgrading the observer status of Palestine, based upon the 1988 Algiers Declaration of the State of Palestine.

            The Geneva Conventions are open for signature by all states and recognition by 92-104 state parties simply means that existing states recognized Palestine as state that had the same rights and duties as any other. The bottom line is that the General Assembly didn’t suddenly transform Palestine into a State, it already was one for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions.

            “Nor would it matter if they did – Israel liberated our territory in 1967″

            No, the territory was captured and occupied and there was nothing retroactive about it, hence the reference to “territories occupied” in UNSC242.

            Epic fail!

          • Gee

            Sorry to inform you but the Geneva Convention states otherwise – wrong again.

            Oh by the way they aren’t a state yet either – just another minor fact.

            UN Charter

            Article 80
            Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

            Mandate for Palestine
            ART. 5.
            The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

            ART. 25.
            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 provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

            EPIC FAIL!!!

          • Shingo

            “Sorry to inform you but the Geneva Convention states otherwise – wrong again.”

            Don’t be sorry, you are simply missinformed.

            “Oh by the way they aren’t a state yet either – just another minor fact.”

            194 states and the UN disagrees with you. A major fact.

            As for Article 5, it did not apply to Transjordan seeing as it was not Palestinian territory.

            Regarding Article 25, the first yearbook of the League of Nations contains The Draft Mandate for Palestine, but it contains no reference to Transjordan in any of its Articles, including 25.

            Ooops.

            It nonetheless contained all of the safeguards for the rights of the non-Jewish communities and called for the widest possible degree of self-government for all of their localities in Palestine:
            http://books.google.com/books?id=MwOtAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q&f=false

            At the time, “Palestine” was legally defined by an “Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919″. The occupation administrations were established using the Sykes-Picot Lines. The memo explicitly stated that Palestine would only include the territory under British occupation, after it’s withdrawal from Syria. Transjordan had been liberated by Arab forces, and it had been designated as part of an Arab state or confederation of Arab states under the terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the McMahon-Hussein correspondence. The Aide-memoire also referred to the region as “the Arab state”. As the Cabinet Minutes cited by Shingo indicated, Transjordan was not part of the British occupied territory or the territory of the mandate. So it was occupied and governed by Faisal’s Arab administration in Damascus under the terms of the Aide-memoire.

            .fter the overthrow of Faisal’s regime and the Cairo Conference, the British, French, and Hashemites agreed to annex the remaining Arab territory to the Palestine mandate on condition that none of the provisions pertaining to Jewish immigration and settlement would apply. That agreement was without prejudice to the existing rights of the non-Jewish communities of Palestine, which were already the subject of a safeguarding clause of their own in the text of the Balfour Declaration and the draft mandate.

            You’re welcome for the free education BTW.

          • artcohn

            But, the Palestinian Arabs never accepted the partition resolution In fact, they claimed that there was not a separate Palestinian Arab people.

          • Shingo

            The Palestinian Arabs never asked to accept or reject the partition resolution.

          • Gee

            You sure are a stupid liar. They sure as heck did do so.

          • Shingo

            No they did not. The partition was rejected by the AHC, not the Palestinians.

            Educate yourself.

          • N. Wasse

            The “educate yourself” topos!

            For the readers; ignorant Arab wannabes from Pakistan and India if they have nothing to say they come up with “read Qur’an”!

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            What’s AHC?

            Adolf HitIers Cronies?

          • Shingo

            “What’s AHC?”

            Arab High Committee.

          • Gee

            Actually Article 5 did apply – in 1922 there was no Transjordan the land was illegally taken from us by the British in direct violation of Article 5. We have a sovereign claim if we care to exercise it.

            The UN Charter says they are not a state – A major fact – the General Assembly doesn’t have the authority to do anything – another major fact.

          • Drakken

            Your arguments are immaterial and null and void, because Israel is sitting where they are and are not going anywhere, and if I know the arabs, they will go after Israel again and I do hope that Israel quits screwing around with them and takes the whole bloody thing and give the arabs a nice nasty nakba that will be sung around a thousand campfires for a thousands years.

          • artcohn

            The Arab “High Contracting Party” in this case is Jordan. Jordan signed peace treaty with Israel in 1994 in which Jordan ceded any rights it had in Judea- Samaria (the West Bank). Thus the Arab “High Contracting Party” no longer makes a claim for the territory.

          • Shingo

            “The Arab “High Contracting Party” in this case is Jordan.”

            It was at the time. Now it is Palestine.

            Secondly, Jordan ceded soveriginty of the West Bank to the PLO, not Israel.

          • artcohn

            But! They ceded it.

          • Shingo

            To the PLO.

          • artcohn

            But the PLO was/is not a “high contracting party”

          • Shingo

            “But the PLO was/is not a “high contracting party”

            Wrong.

            The ICJ recognized that, from the outset of hostilities, the territory had been subject to the jurisdiction of a high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions, Jordan or the PLO acting on behalf of Palestine. It also noted that Israel had interfered with the right of the Palestinian people, including the refugees, to exercise their right of self-determination.

          • Gee

            Jordan did not have a sovereign claim to the land. So they cannot cede something they didn’t have.

            Where is the sovereign claim? What is it based upon? When was it passed? Who did it? When was the San Remo Treaty, Covenant of the League of Nations and the UN Charter superseded?

            Try again

          • Shingo

            Yes, Jordan did indeed have a sovereign claim to the land, which is why all 15 members of the UNSC recognized the West Bank as the territory of Jordan in 1966 when they voted for UNSC228, which condemned Israel’s attack on Jordan (Hebron).

            “Where is the sovereign claim? What is it based upon? When was it passed? Who did it?”

            It was based on the Jericho Conference in which the political Union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan was created to form the state of Jordan in 1949. It was legal as it was conducted with a referendum which won majority support among Palestinians.

            “‘When was the San Remo Treaty, Covenant of the League of Nations and the UN Charter superseded?””

            When the mandate was terminated in 1948.

          • Gee

            Total BS. The Jordanian claim was not recognized by any country except Pakistan and the UK. Nice try but again you are a liar.

            The laws that created the mandates are still in effect according the the ICJ.

            The Mandate for South-West Africa ended in 1960. The ICJ ruled in 1971 that the provisions of the Mandate were still legal.

            Your knowledge of laws is non-existent

          • Shingo

            “he Jordanian claim was not recognized by any country except Pakistan and the UK. Nice try but again you are a liar.”

            False. It was recognized by the US and at least 14 other members of the UNSC in 1966.

            In fact, David Korn, former State Department office director for Israel and Arab-Israeli affairs, confirms that “Both Mr. Goldberg and Secretary of State Dean Rusk told King Hussein that the United States would use its influence to obtain territorial compensation from Israel for any West Bank lands CEDED BY JORDAN TO ISRAEL,” and that Jorda n’s acquiescence was based on these promises.

            UNSC228 refers to Hebron as the territory of Jordan and all 15 member of the UNSC recognized it as such.

            “The laws that created the mandates are still in effect according the the ICJ.”

            The laws that created the mandates do indeed still exist, but the mandates do not. Even Israel declared the mandate was terminated in 1948, so you might want to take that issue up with them.

            “The ICJ ruled in 1971 that the provisions of the Mandate were still legal.”

            True, because the provisions of the Mandate pertained to the protection of rights of the residents South-West Africa.

          • Gee

            What about that minor issue of the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”? They did not have any claim to the territory and invaded in 1948 and stole it.

            It’s acceptable for Arabs to do that, and that somehow denotes sovereignty? Not a chance. By the way Mr. Korn can have a the opinions he wants – he was not an authority

          • Shingo

            “What about that minor issue of the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”? They did not have any claim to the territory and invaded in 1948 and stole it.”

            False. They did not acquire the territory by war, they were invited by Arab Palestine to defend the Arab territory from Israeli aggression That is why you will not find any UN Resolutions condemning their actions.

            After all, none of the territory they annexed was Israeli territory. Israel had already declared it;’s borders along the agreed frontiers (as per UNGA181). You know, the partition you keep insisting Israel accepted?

            The problem is that the typical Zionist doesn’t realize that the terms “Judea and Samaria”, cited from the text of UN General Assembly resolution 181(II), were actually used to exclude those regions from the State of Israel (Medinat Yisrael), i.e.:

            The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road and then follows the western side of that road in a north-westerly direction to the junction of the boundaries of the Sub-Districts of Beisan, Nablus, and Jenin.

            UNGA181 not only excluded the bulk of Judea and Samaria from the Jewish state, it prohibited the inhabitants of the Jewish state from obtaining citizenship and moving there:

            “no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State.”
            — United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, November 29, 1947, Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations

          • Gee

            But the “Palestinians” didn’t have a legal claim to the land. You are using circular logic.

            First you claim the “Palestinian” claim was based upon Jordan “ceding” claim to them and now you claim that the Jordanian “sovereignty” claim was based upon defending “Palestinian” land from non-existent Israeli aggression – they invaded the Israel declared independence. Doesn’t work.

            As for UNGA 181 – that was a RECOMMENDATION. The General Assembly has no authority to make laws. Remember something called Article 80 of the UN Charter? Typical anti-semites ignore that it calls on the mandate laws not to be changed, especially Article 5 “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power”.

            You have just proven before a shadow of doubt that the Arabs do not have any legal claim and that it is ours.

            If you spent a quarter as much time in teaching the Arabs that their theft wasn’t going to be accepted as you just did in your convoluted series of lies and ignoring international law to ‘prove’ that they had some sort of claim – the world might be a better place.

            Consider yourself schooled – because you have shown that you are wrong across the board

          • Shingo

            “But the “Palestinians” didn’t have a legal claim to the land. You are using circular logic.”

            No you are, because they already had a legal claim to the land under the Mandate.

            Pierre Orts, chairman of Mandate Commission of the League Of Nations put your BS to rest:

            “The mandate, in Article 7, obliged Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed Palestinians formed a nation, & that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labor the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.”

            ————————–

            “First you claim the “Palestinian” claim was based upon Jordan “ceding” claim to them and now you claim that the Jordanian “sovereignty” claim was based upon defending “Palestinian” land from non-existent Israeli aggression”

            False.

            I did not claim the “Palestinian” claim was based upon Jordan “ceding” claim to them. Jordan was formed by the political union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan. Under that union, the status of Palestine as a state did not change. It was a state within a state – much like the states withion the United States.

            In 1988, Palestine declared it’s independence from Jordan and Jordan recognized it and dissolved the union.

            As to your second point, I did not say that Jordanian “sovereignty” claim was based upon defending “Palestinian” land from non-existent Israeli aggression. It was based on the political union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan. What I said was that Transjordan’s ctions in entering Palestine were legal based on the fact they were asked to come and defend the territory from Israel.

            “As for UNGA 181 – that was a RECOMMENDATION. The General Assembly has no authority to make laws””

            Yes it does, but the simple fact is that Israel stated that 181 was binding, so your point is moot anyway.

            Friday, 5 March 1948 Rabbi Silver stated to the UNSC
            “Nevertheless, reluctantly but loyally, we accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations”
            “We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. “
            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/02EA8C2370F7C75C85257656006775C1

            “Remember something called Article 80 of the UN Charter?”

            Sure I do and I already debunked your argument and interpretation. Transjordan was not part of the Mandare until is was appended to the Mandate in 1922 as separate protectorate.

            It’s even a matter of public record tha tArticle 80 of the UN Charter was inserted to protect Arab interests and the status quo established by the 1939 White Paper.

            See discussion under “Palestine” in “The United Nations conference on international organization, San Francisco, California, April 25-June 26, 1945″, Foreign relations of the United States : diplomatic papers, 1945.
            http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1945v01&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=859

            So I have just proven before a shadow of doubt that the Arabs have the one and only legal claim.

            That is why argument like the one proposed by Ari Lieberman appear nowhere except in fringe, right wing pro Zionist echo chambers like this one. Because such argument would be greeted with unstoppable laughter in the real world.

            BTW. No need to thank me for educating you. It is my pleasure.

          • Gee

            To educate one needs knowledge – you have none. You have done nothing but lie.

            The thieving Arabs have no legal claim and your nonsense of a state within a state exists only in the minds of morons. There is no such thing, has never been such a thing and your claims of laws are refuted by those same laws.

            You lied and no you cannot educate me – because you don’t know anywhere near enough to educate anybody

          • Shingo

            “The thieving Arabs have no legal claim and your nonsense of a state within a state exists only in the minds of morons. ”

            The ICJ disagrees with you and seeing as their legal authority is infinitely greater than yours, it’s safe to say you are wrong. The Palestinians do indeed have a the one and only legal claim which is why Israel has been so franctic about keeping the resolution of the dispute out of the UN – they know that cannot win in a court of law or court fo public opinion.

          • Gee

            Jordan’s sovereign claim was based upon their invasion and occupation in 1948-1949. Interesting that it is illegal to acquire territory as a result of war, that is unless you are an Arab thief and then the lying morons ignore that minor provision.

            The Jordanians did not ever have a legal claim to Judea and Samaria. They stole our land and we liberated it.

            Those are the facts. You can lie all you want and it doesn’t change them.

            The Arabs do not and have not ever had any legal claim to the land.

          • Shingo

            “Jordan’s sovereign claim was based upon their invasion and occupation in 1948-1949.”

            False. Jordan was the political union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan. It’s sovereign claim was based upon the request of Arab Palestine for Transjordan to intervene and protect them, followed by a referendum.

            The Jordanians did not need a legal claim to the West Bank. They formed a political union that made the West Bank part of Jordan.

            Furthermore, the Hasbara notion that Jordan was an illegal occupier can be easily countered by the Armistice Agreement between Israel and Transjordan. Israel agreed!

            Likewise the Hasbara BS that the GC’s do not apply because the West Bank was not a state. It was a part of a Sovereign State from the moment it was annexed to Jordan and a part of a UN Member State from the moment Jordan was accepted into the UN. This is also supported by UNSC res 476 “3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;”

            The Arabs have a rock solid legal claim to the land.That is why Israel is so insistent on holding negotiations outside the UN. Because the day Israel is dragged before the courts, they know they are screwed.

            For six decades the UN has patiently attempted to get the Jewish state to comply with the law. Israel has simply ignored its obligations and purposefully continued its ghastly illegal policies knowing no-body in the region particularly wants another full scale war in the region. All of Israel’s wars thus far, it has had to start. (the preemptor starts its wars)

            Already Israel has egg on its face by its illegal facts on the ground. The only legal way out of Israel’s perilous financial and moral morass is to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians in order to circumvent the law, a plea bargain. Too embarrassing to admit, I dare say Netanyahu’s speech at the UN will be the usual …. pure Hasbara

          • N. Wasse

            “Epic fail”! Sobhanallah!
            You are such a fake

          • N. Wasse

            Oh the “them” Jews? See? you are a careless reader and a demagogue and no more

            Oh what a Nakba Allah is a Zionist

          • Shingo

            No I am not a careless reader. Zionism is real. Allah is not. Therefore Allah cannot be a Zionist.

            Logic 101.

          • N. Wasse

            Then go and tell the Arabs in Palestine that you really believe that there ain’t (oh darn it) there is no Allah (the Zionist that is) and let us see what happens to you
            Logic 101 too

          • Shingo

            Why would I waste my time telling the Arabs in Palestine there is no Allah, when I don’t give a crap one way or the other?

          • N. Wasse

            So what would happen to you if you tell them that there is no Allah? I’m just curious

          • Shingo

            Probably nothing – after all, they are probably used to being told that by Israelis guards at check points as part of their humiliation.

          • Drakken

            You might want to tell your fellow rag heads to quit blowing people and things up and you won’t get treated like the filth you are.

          • N. Wasse

            When we get to the Islamophobia wake me up!

          • N. Wasse

            Muhammad was a Zionist! What a disaster

          • Shingo

            No, you said Allah was a Zionist, but allah never existed.

            And why would Muhammad have killed Jews if he was a Zionist? Are you suggesting that Zionists are anti Semites and Jew haters?

            Now that wold be a disaster!!

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            You still don’t get it, do you. Events on the ground have trumped international “law”.

          • Shingo

            <>

            No they do not, which is why Israel is so scared of the matter being referred to the ICC and wants to keep it out of the UN.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Yes, I’m afraid that events on the ground do trump the ICC. Israel might become a pariah state … though I don’t think so. But Israel also has the sheer power to exercise its will, in this matter.

          • Shingo

            “Yes, I’m afraid that events on the ground do trump the ICC. ”

            No they don’t, which is why Israel’s leadership is so anxious about the Palestinians referring the case to the ICC. They declared any such move by the PA to be an act of war, so they are are very fearful of the consequences.

            As for Israel’s pariah status, it’s already the case. Israel’s intentional approval ratings are in the gutter and sit alongside North Korea. In fact, Israel only enjoys approval in the US.

            Year ago, Tzipi Livni herself acknowledged that Israel is already a pariah state.

            “But Israel also has the sheer power to exercise its will, in this matter.”

            No, Israel enjoys impunity under the protection and support of the US. That would end overnight were the US leadership to grown a spine and say no.

            As we saw in the 1940′s, Germany also had the sheer power to exercise its will until it didn’t.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Sorry, but the situation on the ground DOES trump the ICC.

            Might may not make right, but it is its own form of law. Several wars against Israel, and Israel’s might prevailed.

            If Mr. Obama decided that Israel must abandon the West Bank and Gaza, exactly how is he going to accomplish this? The weakest leader in American history is going send in a massive American force against Israel, when the Democrats depend heavily upon Jewish votes from places like New York City? I don’t think so …

            And when the Republicans regain the Big Desk, there is not a single Republican that would force Israel to do this.

            “As we saw in the 1940′s, Germany also had the sheer power to exercise its will until it didn’t.”

            That is because the allies gained more might, and used it. Where is the coalition of the mighty in the shattered, divided Middle East that will prevail against Israel?

          • Shingo

            Sorry, but the situation on the ground DOES trump the ICC.

            Don’t be sorry, you simply don’t know the facts. If the situation on the ground did trump the ICC, then we wouldn’t have Israel and the US threatening the PA against referring the case to the ICC. You wouldn’t have Israeli ministers threatening that such actions would be an act of war.

            Might may not make right, but it is its own form of law.

            No, sorry, that form of law exists only in the Zionist mind.

            If Mr. Obama decided that Israel must abandon the West Bank and Gaza, exactly how is he going to accomplish this?

            Obama is not going to do anything. Like you said, he is a spineless leader and all he and Kerry are doing is kicking the can down the road. The reason they are bothering with the latest fake peace talks is to protect Israel from European sanctions, which were being discussed and have been put on ice pending the outcome of these round of talks.

            Nevertheless, when there was the first stand off between Obama and Bibbi, it was reported in Israel that the Israelis were so scared they were about to back down on the settlements. You see, Israelis know they are only able to wield the big stick while the US is on their side. If the US were to stop vetoing resolutions at the UNSC and stop sending them their welfare cheques, they know the state would collapse. Israel has always backed down when the US has told them to.

            And when the Republicans regain the Big Desk, there is not a single Republican that would force Israel to do this.

            At least you admit that Israel only gets to do what it does because the US allows them too.

            That is because the allies gained more might, and used it.

            And so will the international community. Israel is alienated, and has a negative approval rating that continues to decline. Eventually, not even US support will be enough to protect it from accountability, and then you will see how the law wins in the end.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            However, there are two problems that you have, with your scenario.

            First, Israelis may not like being a pariah, but they are willing to accept it.

            Second, you’re depending upon Obama to grow a spine?

            Israel is the regional superpower. With a powerful military, a vibrant economy, and a nuclear umbrella, Israel is not going to be shaken, anytime soon.

            Iraq is devolving into civil war. There is a civil war in Syria. Jordan is struggling with the Syrian refugee problem, and Egypt could have a civil war. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are more worried with Iran than with Israel.

            Where do you see a grand coalition arising to threaten Israel’s power?

            As for the United States, the President has decided that we should withdraw from world affairs, and is completely preoccupied with domestic matters.

            As I keep saying, “This is the situation on the ground.”

          • Shingo

            First, Israelis may not like being a pariah, but they are willing to accept it .

            Only so long as they continue to enjoy US support. Once that ends, the state will collapse, and they won’t like that. Once the US joins the rest of the international community, the sanctions against Israel will reach top gear and Israel’s economy will collapse. Israel is already suffering the worst brain drain in the West, so you can imagine how many Israelis will leave Israel.

            Israel is the regional superpower.

            No, Israel has the biggest and most powerful military, but it cannot sustain a long war against any of the larger states. It’s economy is fragile and entirely dependent on foreign trade, so it would collapse in a heartbeat under sanctions. It has the world’s largest brain drain so those with the means to live in other countries and earn a living are leaving in record numbers.

            Israel also relies entirely on US aid for it’s arms. It can’t afford to buy it’s own weapons and is asking for the aid to be increased.

            Where do you see a grand coalition arising to threaten Israel’s power?

            Israel’s greatest enemy is itself. Israel won’t be destroyed from the outside, sadly, it will self destruct.

            As I keep saying, “This is the situation on the ground.”

            Yes you do keep saying it. but if Israel’s leaders agreed with you, they would have nothing to fear from the PA referring them to the ICC.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            And, once again … sadly … Israel has nothing to fear from the ICC. It is a toothless agency, like all international agencies. The ICC will not send an army to Israel to arrest anyone. This is the situation on the ground …

            By the way, the “larger states” are divided and in conflict internally. How are they going to establish this coalition that will wage a “long war” on Israel?

          • N. Wasse

            Ladies and gentlemen the Arabs that invaded the Middle East in 633 AD have absolutely no legal claim to be in the West Bank or Gaza after all never reward imperialism so they all can go back to the Hijaz where they came from

          • Shingo

            “Ladies and gentlemen the Arabs that invaded the Middle East in 633 AD”

            Legend has it that the Hebrews did too.

          • N. Wasse

            Even your Allah’s stance on resolution 242 goes as follows in Q2:47 he says that them Jews are his favorite people and in Q5:21 he tells you that the scared land belongs to therm Jews West Bank and all and that this sacred land extends from the Euphrates to the Nile!
            You do not believe me? Read al-Tabari
            What a disaster Allah is a Zionist

          • Shingo

            “What a disaster Allah is a Zionist”

            If Allah is a Zionist, then the government of Israeli cannot be. After all, the government of Israel swears that the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not a part of its sovereign territory and jurisdiction.

            See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 or E/1990/6/Add.32, para 6-7

          • N. Wasse

            What a Nakba Allah is a Zionist!

            Careless reader: Mr Einstein we are not talking about the Israeli authorities we are talking about your so called Allah the Zionist

            It is your Islamic sources that tell us about these disasters

          • Shingo

            I take is English is your second language, because your comments are incoherent.

            I have no Islamic sources and I am not religious. The Israeli government had denied it has any sovereignty over the occupied territories, and seeing as Allah doesn’t even exist, your point is irrelevant anyway.

          • N. Wasse

            Oh the bogus “argument from English”! What does your little gem “English be it first or second language” has to do with the fact that your Allah is a Zionist?

            Oh I forgot you are an atheist!

          • Shingo

            “What does your little gem “English be it first or second language” has to do with the fact that your Allah is a Zionist?”

            It’s not a fact and it’s not my Allah, anymore than the Easter Bunny is your God.

            Allah is fiction, so how can he be a Zionist? And if Zionism teaches that all the land belongs to the Jews, why doesn’t the government of Israel agree?

          • N. Wasse

            Muslims believe that that there is an Allah. Allah is a Zionist then Muslims must believe that Allah is a Zionist after all Allah exists

            Logic 101

            See? Allah is your and their own worst enemy

            Oh I forgot that Allah does not exist as if I really care

          • Shingo

            Muslims are free to believe anything they want, but if Allah did exist and he was a Zionist, then Muslims would also be Zionists.

            And if Allah is Zionist and the government of Israel does not agree with him, then surely the government of Israel cannot be Zionist.

            So you see, it is your logic – or lack of – that is your own worst enemy.

          • N. Wasse

            Oh the “argument from Allah”!

            So let me see “them” Jews (oh darn it ) the Jews do not believe that there is an Allah therefore they do not believe what is written in the book of Arabian ignorance even if it says that Allah is a Zionist

            This only proves that the Jews do not believe a single word in the book of ignorance even if Allah claims to be a Zionist

            your logic is flawed

            But I’m curious are you a Pakistani? If not then you write like one

          • Shingo

            Sorry, you’ll have to unscramble your word salad and write that in English.

            “But I’m curious are you a Pakistani? If not then you write like one”

            Why, because I sound more educated than you or because I am dark?

          • N. Wasse

            You proved my point that your logic is flawed shame on you

            What a fake

          • Shingo

            “‘You proved my point that your logic is flawed shame on you”‘

            Sorry, but you would have to have a point before you could arrive at that conclusion. You’re verbal diatribes are incoherent.

          • N. Wasse

            The incoherent and fake is you.
            Mr Logic 101
            There must be an author for the Qur’an
            Logic 101
            Then if there is no Allah and that there was indeed a Muhammad who was an Arabian warlord and caravan raider and child molester then he must be the author of the Qur’an
            Logic 101
            The Qur’an says that the Jews are the his favorite nation and that their scared land that was given to them extends from the Euphrates to the Nile
            Then congratulations Mr logic 101: Muhammad is a Zionist
            I’m not the one who is saying that it is your Islamic sources that tell us about this disaster
            I urge you to leave Islam and get a grip on reality

          • Shingo

            “There must be an author for the Qur’an”

            There were probably several.

            “Then if there is no Allah and that there was indeed a Muhammad who was an Arabian warlord and caravan raider and child molester then he must be the author of the Qur’an”

            Stupid argument. That’s like saying because London is mentioned in the last of the Harry Potter novels, an London is real, then Harry Potter must be real.

            “The Qur’an says that the Jews are the his favorite nation and that their scared land that was given to them extends from the Euphrates to the Nile”

            No it doesn’t, and Israel has never extended from the Euphrates to the Nile. In fact, t your own myths say that the cities on the coastal plain, including Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, and Gath belonged to the Philistines. Their Kings gave the future King of “the Jews”, his two new wives, and his men and their families refuge from the King of Israel. 4-horned and 2-horned Philistine altars have been unearthed at Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tel es Safi (Gath).

            Jethro’s descendants, including the Rechabites, were not part of the Jewish nation. They had their own covenant and a portion of the land near Jericho for nearly 500 years.

            The myths say that Solomon gave 20 cities in Galilee to a Phoenician King. They also record that the Israelites never managed to subdue the members of the other nations living in the land. So David had to purchase the site for a Temple from a Jebusite and murdered a Hittite in order to facilitate an adulterous relationship.

          • N. Wasse

            Boring

          • Shingo

            History and education often is.

          • N. Wasse

            Boring again

            You see half knowledge is damn dangerous and you are an example of half knowledge

            You are ignorant and you do not get it

          • Shingo

            “You see half knowledge is damn dangerous and you are an example of half knowledge”

            In which case you are an example of much less than half knowledge

          • Drakken

            Your re education is self evident, dumber than a bag of hammers.

          • Drakken

            Silly leftard, it has been explained to you time and time again that your fellow rag heads lost the wars they started, suck it up sparky. I don’t know if it is the leftist re education you had, the inbreeding, your mommy didn’t pay enough attention to you when you were a kid, but you don’t understand simple concepts. I’ll bet that if I hit you in the head with a 2 by 4, that you would get the point though wouldn’t you?

          • Shingo

            “Silly leftard, it has been explained to you time and time again that your fellow rag heads lost the wars they started”

            The only one they started was in 1973 and Israel needed Nixon to come to their aid.

          • Drakken

            To the victors go the spoils and your point is moot.

          • Shingo

            If you were right, then Hitler would have owned Europe.

          • N. Wasse

            I got to go to work so we kuffar can pay your social benefits

            What a fake

          • Shingo

            I probably earn about 5 times what you make, so I suspect it’s me paying your social benefits

          • N. Wasse

            So let me guess you collect disability benefits and is it for back pain or menstrual cramps or both?
            What a fake

          • defcon 4

            Instead islam0nazis will.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Socialist SHlTlers pal Socialist Stalin did own Eastern Europe for decades.

          • Shingo

            Only because there was no one big and bad enough to drive him out.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            He didn’t own Europe because he couldn’t take Europe and hold onto it. Do you get it?

          • Shingo

            <>

            And Israel would have not been able to hang onto any part of the West Bank, Gaza or Sinai had a coalition of forces led by the US driven them out.

            Do you get that?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            And did they? No.

            The situation on the ground is what it is.

          • Shingo

            “The situation on the ground is what it is.”

            For now.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Now, you’re getting there. You’re understanding one of the facts of life.

            For example, why is Texas one of the 50 states of the United States? Simple. Because a war was fought over it, and Mexico lost. Also, Mexico does not have the strength to regain Texas, today. Even if the current occupant … backed up by international bodies and law … decided to give Texas back to Mexico, they would have to deal with the Texans.

            I’m not sure that Mexico could beat the Texans …

            The situation on the ground always trumps “law” …

          • Shingo

            For example, why is Texas one of the 50 states of the United States? Simple. Because a war was fought over it, and Mexico lost.

            Correction. Texas one of the 50 states of the United States because the war took place long before WWII when the international community came to the agreement that taking land by force is illegitimate.

            That is why the preamble of UNSC242 states that acquiring land during wartime and holding onto it is inadmissible. That is why no country in the world recognizes Israel’s claim to the occupied territories, not even Israel’s own supreme court.

            So no, the situation on the ground does not trump the “law”, and Israel’s leaders know it, which is why they are scared witless that the PA will refer their crimes to the ICC.

            You might also want to take the time to read Liberman’s argument. While he is 100% wrong about Israel’s legal claim to the occupied territories, he is nevertheless believes Israel has a legal claim. So not even he agrees with you that the situation on the ground does not trump the “law”.

          • N. Wasse

            What a Nakba Muhammad was a Zionist! Oh Nakba? Ask your Mullah to tell you what it means if he knows Arabic

            Now let me tell you who you really are: you sound like all the Islamo-fascists from Pakistan and when nothing works they come up with “The argument from English” and “Argument from logic” and “Argument from educate yourself” and “Argument from Islamophobia or brown-phobia” and “Argument from the no Allah” and “Argument from but the Jews and the Christians in the Middle East call their God Allah” and “argument from probably nothing!” and “Argument from if in trouble then change subject” and if nothing works then it is the “Argument from unscrambling”

            Your replies are stupid and boring. Get yourself a dog or read a real book

            You are ignorant and shame on you

          • Shingo

            “Your replies are stupid and boring. Get yourself a dog or read a real book”

            Your entire thesis is stupid, boring and incoherent. And if you are interested in real books, stay away from reading Islamophobic blogs about their interpretation of he Quaran.

            You really never had a point to begin with did you?

          • N. Wasse

            If you were smart enough you would be demanding that I provide you with evidence from the Qur’an in Arabic that says that the Jews are Allah’s favorite people and that Allah gave the “sacred land” to the Jews and that al-Tabari indeed tells us that this scared land extends from the Euphrates to the Nile and this should be in the primary language of these texts Arabic that is

            What a Nakba Muhammad is a Zionist

            But you are stupid

          • Shingo

            “If you were smart enough you would be demanding that I provide you with evidence from the Qur’an in Arabic that says that the Jews are Allah’s favorite people and that Allah gave the “sacred land””

            Why would I bother given that Allah is not real? You’re teh one who’s stupid here because you still haven’t realized that if Allah is fictional then you don’t have an argument.

            And even more pathetic is that you are trying to cling to to the what you claim the Qur’an says in order to disprove what your own myths say.

            And funniest of all, you are trying to suggest that the Muhammad, the killer fo Jews, was more Zionist that Zionists.

          • N. Wasse

            Muhammad killed Jews? can you tell us more about it? As in primary sources in their primary language!

            What a disaster Allah and his prophet Mo were Zionist!

            You are ignorant and you not even get it

          • N. Wasse

            I’m not the one who is saying that Allah and prophet Mo were Zionists it is your Islamic sources (oh darn it I forgot that you are an atheist) so if you do not like what your Islamic sources say then destroy them and good riddance

            What a disaster Allah is a Zionist!

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Forget “legal arguments”. West Bank and Gaza were lost to their former occupiers when they didn’t have the power to hold them, during a war. Aren’t you aware that the situation on the ground trumps all other arguments?

            Wars, as well as elections, have consequences …

          • Gee

            Try again – in Hebrew. Because you are wrong.

            As for being annexed – it was ours in the first place so we are not required to annex anything.

            To be occupied it must belong to a “High Contracting Party” per the Geneva Convention and guess what – oh the Arabs are NOT. Whoops. Nor do they have a legal claim whoops again.

          • Shingo

            “As for being annexed – it was ours in the first place so we are not required to annex anything.”

            No it wasn’t. Not even the Israeli government agrees with you, so good luck with that.

            “To be occupied it must belong to a “High Contracting Party” per the Geneva Convention and guess what – oh the Arabs are NOT.”

            Wrong again. The ICJ concluded otherwise. I’ll see your Ooops and raise you a ROFLA

        • Shingo

          “Your claim is wrong, because he said that Israel was to ACT AS IF were the occupier. “”

          False. He said no such thing.

          Here is his full statement.

          “The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation… His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been “annexed” to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907… These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949… The State of Israel has declared that it practices the humanitarian parts of this convention… We are aware that the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice determined that The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the Judea and Samaria area, and that its application is not conditional upon the willingness of the State of Israel to uphold its provisions.”

          • Gee

            So you post a mistranslation. Big deal.

            Oh by the way you considering the Israeli Supreme Court to be a body that rules on international laws? Nobody else does including the Israeli Supreme Court.

          • Shingo

            What was mistranslated?

            “Oh by the way you considering the Israeli Supreme Court to be a body that rules on international laws?”

            It wasn’t a ruling of international law, it was a recognition of it.

          • Gee

            It was written in Hebrew and what you posted was a mistranslation.

          • defcon 4

            Why I am not surprised a muslime posted a mistranslation?

          • Shingo

            What evidence do you have that the Israeli government that translated that finding mistranslated it? Are you questioning the Israeli government’s comprehension of Hebrew?

            BTW I am not muslim

          • Drakken

            Well you certainly side with the effing savages.

          • defcon 4

            Methinks Ahmed, you doth protest too much.

          • Shingo

            How do you know it was a mistranslated, especialyl seeing as it was translated by the Israeli government?

          • Gee

            Because I read it and that is not what it says

          • Shingo

            No you didn’t. You didn’t even know the ruling existed.

  • defcon 4

    I hope the Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria are armed — they need to be.

    • Taimoor Khan

      Then you can’t complain about rocket fire. Firing rocket on armed occupiers is UN ordained. (Here we are discussing only “Legally”).

      • Drakken

        Then you can’t complain when they drop a few MOABs on your dumb inbred azzes huh haji?

        • Taimoor Khan

          We can. Because Israelis are the attackers by violating 242 and ICC judgement. Here I am talking strictly legally.

          BTW, talk with some manners.

          • StanleyT

            YOU ARE DEAF!!!! I refuse to keep repeating why you are “strictly legally” absolutely wrong about 242 and ICC.

          • Taimoor Khan

            You keep repeating. That does not mean you are right. Repeating a falsehood does not mean it is not so.

            Territories occupied in 1967 war are to be returned – “the territories” not used as to give space for adjustments which would be mutual. Too difficult?

          • StanleyT

            Look up what Lord Carrington had to say about the omission of the word “the”. And the only reason I keep repeating is because you keep repeating.

          • Taimoor Khan

            Who is Lord Carrington? Appeal from authority? Nah, won’t work. When resolution is documented, personal opinion are good as mine and yours.

            UN 242 “emphasiz[es] the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security.”

            What does that tell you? Totally dismantles Israeli claims to occupied territories. “The” is not used to give space for mutual adjustments.

          • StanleyT

            “Who is Lord Carrington? ”
            One of the people who wrote 242. Get yourself educated because all you’re doing here is demonstrating your ignorance.

          • Shingo

            Wrong. There was no Lord Carrington who wrote 242. There was however a Lord named Carradon.

            Seriously Stanley, how can you claim to knolw what you are talking about when you can’t even get his name right?

          • StanleyT

            Okay so it was Lord Caradon. But you still need to know what he said, because it renders your argument baseless.

          • Taimoor Khan

            Whatever he said besides the documented 242 resolution amounts to nothing.

          • Gee

            Then stop misquoting it – because you are wrong about everything you have posted

          • Taimoor Khan

            No, you are wrong.

          • Gee

            Prove it – I posted the facts that the Geneva Convention says your wrong, I have posted the ICC made no ruling, nor do they have the authority to do so. And I can prove that the UNSC 242 says nothing you claim it does

          • Shingo

            You clearly have no idea what Lord Caradon said. In his comments written for the Georgetown seminar on the ambiguities of resolution 242, CAMERA deliberately trims-off portions of his statements where he had carefully explained that: the settlements are illegal and violate resolution 242; that the withdrawal clause always applied to East Jerusalem and the interior of the of the West Bank; and that only very minor straightening of the boundaries established by the armistice lines had ever been envisioned – and then only with the prior consent of the Arabs.

          • StanleyT

            source please.

          • Shingo

            ”At the same time scores of Israeli settlements have already been established on the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan. The process of colonisation of Arab lands goes rapidly ahead in disregard of objections from nearly every Government in the world, including’ even the American Government. These actions of the Israeli Government are in clear defiance of the Resolution 242.” p 12

            A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity” for a Georgetown symposium.

          • StanleyT

            You claim that “CAMERA deliberately trims-off portions of his statements” and when I ask for your source, you come back with a quote about settlements. There were no settlements in November 1967, when 242 was written!!!!

            You are the one who is wrong, wrong, wrong.

          • Shingo

            “There were no settlements in November 1967, when 242 was written!!!!”

            Caradon’s statements were made AFTER UNSC242 was written.
            He stated that all settlements were a violation of the GCs.

            You are the one who is wrong, and doesn’t even know the difference between Caradon and Carrington.

            Get new material from hasbara central.

          • StanleyT

            I have already acknowledged that I was mistaken with the man’s name. If that’s all you have to beat me with, it shows how weak your case is,

            And this is what Caradon said immediately after 242 was written: “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.” America’s then UN ambassador, Arthur Goldberg, similarly said the two omitted words “were not accidental …. the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal.”

            Source: Commentary magazine

          • Shingo

            No, it shows that you haven’t go t a clue what you are talking about and that you picked up a one like quote that Caradon made from some hasbara web site.

            When Caradon said “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.” he did not mean territorial changes. He was referring to straitening of the lines.

            Caradon also said that:

            “But it is very necessary to remember that when we drew up Resolution 242 we all took it for granted that the occupied territory would be restored to Jordan. I give my testimony that everyone, including the Arabs, so assumed.”

            “We all assumed that withdrawal from occupied territories as provided in the Resolution was applicable to East Jerusalem. This was not questioned at the time and has only much more recently been raised in fierce discussion.”

            >> America’s then UN ambassador, Arthur Goldberg, similarly said the two omitted words “were not accidental …. the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal.”

            False. Goldberg was lying through his teeth because the US was threatening to veto the resolution if the words “the” were no omitted.

            *Goldberg subsequently met with Lord Caradon and explained that he had circulated a draft template with the withdrawal clause deleted and that if it became known as a US resolution he would disown it.http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d478

            Goldberg wanted the entire withdrawal clause removed. The fact is that Goldberg’s argument was not representative of the US position.

            Here is a link to a 1967 White House memo which advised President Johnson, that Secretary Rusk had explained to Mr Eban that US support for secure permanent frontiers doesn’t mean the US supports any territorial changes.
            http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d487

          • StanleyT

            Your first link does not contain what you claim it does. Your second is irrelevant. you’re losing the argument about what Caradon said and so you’re trying to introduce something different.

          • Shingo

            Yes, the first links says exactly what I claimed and the second link proves that Goldberg was lying.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Shingo, AKA “Tony Andrew”, is a poster at Huffington Post who is a rabid Anti-Israel anti-Semite. His usual MO is to ask for references, then discount them because he claims are hasbarist site or something then misrepresents his own sources. Most often, he just wants you to chase red herring and then make off like he is above you. Bottom line he is pompous a low life dirt bag who is a legend in his own mind.

          • Shingo

            “Source: Commentary magazine”

            Commentary magazine is not a source. It never existed in 1967.

            Give me the original source.

          • StanleyT

            Here’s more from Caradon which answers your claim below and your assertion that you know better than Caradon what he meant. I still haven’t seen your source.

            Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring – Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

            Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

            A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

            Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

            Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. … We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

          • Shingo

            “Here’s more from Caradon which answers your claim below and your assertion that you know better than Caradon what he meant. I still haven’t seen your source”

            Over and over again he repeats that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. Which means Israel had no legal claim to the West Bank.

            He argues that the 1967 line was not idea,l which is true, seeing as it runs though towns and villages, which is why it was argued the lines needed to be straightened.

            So his argument is simple. No land captured by war can be kept, but the borders need to be fixed.

            Nothing more.

          • Gee

            And it wasn’t – it was liberated by us.

          • Shingo

            It wouldn’t require an occupation, home demolitions and ethnic cleansing is the territory was liberated.

          • Drakken

            They haven’t ethnically cleansed anyone, but you muslims will push us infidels to do it in spades. We will sooner later give you what I like to call the Serb option.

          • Shingo

            They ethnically cleanse 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 and have been continuing the crime ever since.

            And in spite fo your empty threats and blood lust, they aren’t going anywhere,

          • Drakken

            Hey I have a great idea, why don’t you go there and tell those Israeli’s how mean they are, I’ll get the bourbon and a cigar and watch as Rachel Corrie gets some company.

          • Gee

            Lying piece of scum. Even the Arabs are more honest than you. Over 80% of the Arabs were not even residents of the Mandate and nearly all left without ever seeing one single Jewish soldier.

          • Shingo

            BTW. Most of the Arabs were indeed residents of the Mandate. Joan Peters was debunked.

          • Drakken

            Heehheheheheheh you ain’t seen anything yet, but you will. Deo Volente!

          • Shingo

            “Heehheheheheheh you ain’t seen anything yet, but you will”

            We already saw it when the IDF was humiliated by 3,000 fighters in 2006. It’s little wander Israel is truing so hard to push the US into fighting a war with Iran. Israel have no hope of pulling it off by themselves.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Humiliation? 500 million Arab savages can’t defeat 6 million Jews.

            Now that’s what I call a NAKBA.

          • Shingo

            If you want to use those metrics, then 6 million Israelis, Armed to the teeth with state of he art US weaponry that they don’t even pay for, were humiliated by 3,000 Hezbollah fighters.

          • Drakken

            You kinda forgot to mention your little sand ape friends lost between 1,500 -2,400 casualties, some victory haji. Note to Israel, next time these sand apes fire rockets at you, start dropping MOABS and rolling arty barrages works wonders in urban areas.

          • Shingo

            “You kinda forgot to mention your little sand ape friends lost between 1,500 -2,400 casualties, some victory haji.”

            Yes, Israel killed a lot of civilians, but the world stopped judging the success of wars based on body counts after Vietnam.

            Israel got their butt kicked and knew it, which is why Winograd was appointed to find out why.

          • Drakken

            Overkill is highly under rated. You should read the declassified NATO assessment.

          • Shingo

            Sure, send me the link.

            Though I doubt it’s assessment is much different from
            Anthony Cordesman’s, which concluded that Israel suffered a defeat.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Israel defeated? Who ran to the UN SC wanting a ceasefire?

            If Israel wanted to crush your jihadi pals, it could do it in half an hour.

            When Israel fires back your jihadi pals run to the UN begging for help.

          • Shingo

            “Israel defeated? Who ran to the UN SC wanting a ceasefire?”

            Israel once they were losing.

            “If Israel wanted to crush your jihadi pals, it could do it in half an hour.”

            But that’s what they promised they were going to do.

            First they vowed to destroy Hezbollah.
            When that failed, they lowered expectations to stopping Hezbollah from fighting.
            When that faield they lowered expectation to reducing rocket attacks.
            When that failed they agreed to a ceasefire.

            In fact, Israel weer so clueless they couldn’t even knock out Hezbollah’s TV station, which broadcast uninterrupted for all 33 days.

            The campaign was such a disaster that the defense minister had to resign and Olmert was forced to appoint a Commission to figure out why Israel were humiliated.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Yeah. “Civilians” with AK47s, ammo, RPGs, wearing street clothes..

            LOL!

            Or the other Civilians. Real civilians whose homes and back yards are used at rocket launch sites.

            Using civilian homes as bunkers is a War Crime.

            Sand nazis WANT the deaths of real civilians as a propaganda tool.

            SHlTgo, your propaganda isn’t working here.

          • Shingo

            “Yeah. “Civilians” with AK47s, ammo, RPGs, wearing street clothes..”

            Sorry, I was talking about Palestinians, not Jewish settlers.

            “Real civilians whose homes and back yards are used at rocket launch sites.”

            Don’t exist

            “Using civilian homes as bunkers is a War Crime.”

            Yeah, except we never get to see the bunkers because Israel bulldozes the homes then expects us to believe then that there were bunkers there.

            “Sand nazis WANT the deaths of real civilians as a propaganda tool”

            I guess that’s what the Haganah wanted too when they blew up the SS Patria in Haifa Harbor, killing 260 Jews on board.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Israelis don’t use AK47s.

            AK47s are wielded by your islamofascist terrorist “civilians”.

            Your islamofascist terrorists classify civilian clothed fighters as “civilians” and bearded 17 year olds with AK7s and RPGs as “children”.

            And your “freedom fighter” jihadis murder (according to the UN) 100,000+ people in Syria.

          • Shingo

            “Israelis don’t use AK47s.”

            Yes they do. There are cases of settlers using them. An example is an Israeli who took out his AK47 killed a Palestinian and shot another in the back, paralyzing him for life. The Israeli courts gave him a 5 month SUSPENDED sentence.

            “And your “freedom fighter” jihadis murder (according to the UN) 100,000+ people in Syria.”

            The “freedom fighter” jihadis are being backed by the US and Saudi Arabia and your former ambassador to the US said he wants then to be in power in Syria.

            Israel’s amen corner is also whining that Obama didn’t go to war in Syria. Apparently 100,000+ dad people in Syria is not enough to satisfy their blood lust.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Cases. Ha! Comparing cases with Islamoascist jihadis armed with AK47s, RPGs, kassams – dressed as “civilians”.

            Settlers would have UZIs.

            Islamofascists have AK47s.

            Plus there is the video of your Islamofascist cannibal cutting out the heart of a soldier and actually eating it.

            That’s Organ Harvesting – Islamofascist style.

            A step beyond the Islamofascist in the UK who beheaded a British soldier IN the UK.

            You really are desperate when you try to blame the US for the actions of Islamofascists – backed by KGB Putin. KGB Putin likes to stir the pot.

          • Shingo

            “Settlers would have UZIs.”

            Not all of them. Uzis are not cheap and settlers tend to be low income earners, which is why they can’t buy a place in Israel.

            So yes, settlers also have AK47s. The IDF and PA security services have pretty much disarmed all the Palestinians in the occupied territories.

            “Plus there is the video of your Islamofascist cannibal cutting out the heart of a soldier and actually eating it.””

            Disgusting isn’t it? And worst of all, Israeli puppet John McCain met with him shortly after, insisting the US government give the same man weapons and money.

            “A step beyond the Islamofascist in the UK who beheaded a British soldier IN the UK.”

            No British soldier was beheaded in the UK.

          • Omar

            If the so-called “Palestinian” militants were disarmed, there would be peace in the Middle East. If the Jews were disarmed there would be increased chaos and terrorism. That’s the reality.

            Actually there is an article and video about the story of a British soldier who was beheaded by two radical Islamists. The link is here: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/muslims-shouting-allah-akbar-behead-british-soldier-in-london/

          • Shingo

            “If the so-called “Palestinian” militants were disarmed, there would be peace in the Middle East”

            No, there would simply be less resistance to Israeli oppression and domination, but it wouldn’t be peace. Based on your logic, rape isn’t violent if the victim submits.

            “If the Jews were disarmed there would be increased chaos and terrorism.”

            No, there would be just less land theft and ethnic cleansing.

            “Actually there is an article and video about the story of a British soldier who was beheaded by two radical Islamists. ”

            No one was beheaded you idiot. Try reading your own link.

          • defcon 4

            But isn’t allah on the side of the mujadeen?

          • Shingo

            Not sure how he can be on the side of the mujadeen if he doesn’t exist.

          • Drakken

            Heehehehehehe Amazing that Israel fights like the rest of us westerners, with their hands tied behind their backs, afraid to hurt anyone so the leftards amongst don’t scream and whine. The time tested and true way to fight wars is the total war option, it will be making a comeback soon enough and then we shall see how you sand apes like it then. We westerners can make your cities disappear overnight if we so wish, you shouldn’t be kicking that sleeping Dragon, otherwise when it fully awakes it isn’t going to care how many so called civilians it kills.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            800,000 Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries.

            It’s a wash.

            Speaking of Blood Lust, take a look at what is going on Syria. Are 100,000+ dead, 1,000 by poison gas enough to satisfy the Blood Lust of the “prophet” muhammed?

            Anyone who says that Islam is the “Religion of Peace” should be met by guffaws.

          • Shingo

            “800,000 Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries.”

            No, that was the total number that came from Arab states and seeing as it took place over 30 years, it can hardly be described as ethnic cleansing.

            As Yehouda Shenhav, an Israeli academic with Iraqi roots, said:

            “… Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews is unfounded. Palestinian refugees did not want to leave Palestine. Many Palestinian communities were destroyed in 1948, and some 700,000 Palestinians were expelled, or fled, from the borders of historic Palestine. Those who left did not do so of their own volition.

            In contrast, Jews from Arab lands came to this country under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some came of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression.”

            So no, it was not a transfer by any means.

            As for bloodlust, the Israelis were only too keen to add to the carnage, wanting Obama to bomb Syria for good measure. Bibbi’s pushing to start WWIII in Iran.

            What prophet are they trying to satisfy?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            800,000 Jews fled for their lives from Arab countries. They left their property there – uncompensated.

            It’s a wash. If you want compensation for your “palestinians”, the Jews from Arab countries deserve compensation too.

            Meanwhile Syrians have killed 100,000+ people in Syria, plus 1,000 killed with poison gas. But that’s business as usual in Islamist entities.

          • Shingo

            “800,000 Jews fled for their lives from Arab countries. They left their property there – uncompensated.”

            They fled Egypt (right after Israel expelled 800,000 Palestinians) and some fled Iraq, but the rest did not flee for their lives. You don’t take 30 years to leave a country if your life is threatened.

            And Shlomo Hillel, who was involved in helpin Jews from Iraq reach Israel said,

            “I don’t regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.”

            That’s not a transfer.

            “Meanwhile Syrians have killed 100,000+ people in Syria,”

            A bunch of Saudi/US and Israeli backed Jihadists have killed a great many in Syria too.

          • Omar

            And the neo-Communist Communistommunist Chinese/Islamist Iranian-backed Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt instigated a violent coup to overthrow the respected president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, from pow. Fortunately, the foreign- Brotherhood got a dose of their own medicine when Morsi was removed tRfrom power this past summer. Communists and Islamists are responsible for the chaos happening in the Middle East. That’s the reality.

          • Shingo

            “And the neo-Communist Russian/Communist Chinese/Islamist Iranian-backed Muslim Brotherhood”

            Wow, you really have all your alliances completely confused. Iran have never backed the Muslim Brotherhood and have been helping Assad defeat them in Syria.

            “Communists and Islamists are responsible for the chaos happening in the Middle East. That’s the reality.”

            And US intervention. It wasn’t Communists and Islamists that invaded Iraq based on lies.

          • Omar

            It wasn’t the U.S. nor the West that invaded Kuwait more than 20 years ago. That was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. By the way, Saddam’s illegal actions were supported by the evil so-called “Palestine Liberation Organization” and the evil Arafat, while most of the whole world condemned Saddam’s Iraq for that regime’s evil and unlawful actions. Also, Most of Israel’s enemies are supported by Communists. Syria, Egypt (until the 1970s), Iraq, South Yemen and Libya were Communist puppets. That is undeniable.

          • Shingo

            “It wasn’t the U.S. nor the West that invaded Kuwait more than 20 years ago”

            No, the US just gave Saddam the green light, so he was originally supported by Washington.

            “Also, Most of Israel’s enemies are supported by Communists.”

            No they are no, because there aren’t any. In fact, the Jihadists are staunchly anti communist, much like yourself I suppose.

          • Omar

            Actually, no. The United States was the first country to condemn Saddam’s illegal actions in Kuwait, and led an entire international coalition to expel Saddam’s forces from Kuwait. The only approval that the Iraqi dictator received was from his friends of the so-called “Palestine Liberation Organization”, as well as Marxist (and Islamist) dictator/thief/terrorist Yasser Arafat. Anyway, the Soviet Union gave Nasser’s Egypt the green light to invade Israel and the Suez Canal. The Islamist Jihadists are in an open alliance with the far-left, in their shared quest to destroy Israel, the West and democracy. Both the Communists and the Islamists share another common goal, which is world domination and global totalitarianism. The infamous Venezuelan Marxist terrorist, Carlos the Jackal, is also a radical Islamists who supports the totalitarian alliance. That is undeniable.

          • Shingo

            Actually, no. James Baker instructed April Glasby to give Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait.

            In fact, the US initially stated that they had no position on the invasion and that it was a matter for Iraq and Kuwait to sort out on their own.

            “Anyway, the Soviet Union gave Nasser’s Egypt the green light to invade Israel and the Suez Canal.”‘

            No they did not, which is why they stayed out of the ensuing crisis and why the US spanked Israel and Britain.

            “The Islamist Jihadists are in an open alliance with the far-left, in
            their shared quest to destroy Israel, the West and democracy.”‘

            Rubbish. The right is calling for backing Islamist Jihadists. Just listen to McCain and Graham, not to mention the cries of outrage from the necons and Likudniks when Obama refused to bomb Syria.

            “Both the Communists and the Islamists share another common goal, which is world domination and global totalitarianism.”‘

            False again. The only example of global totalitarianism we see is in the form of US empire and it’s 1000+ military bases in other countries.

            ” The infamous Venezuelan Marxist terrorist, Carlos the Jackal, is also a
            radical Islamists who supports the totalitarian alliance.”‘

            Also false. He had nothing to do with Islam.

            That’s the fact. Yours is fiction.

          • Omar

            Once again, you are wrong, you America-hating, freedom-hating, democracy-hating, Western-hating, Jew-hating, Soviet-loving, Chinese Communist-loving, Islamist-loving, totalitarian-loving Stalinist/Maoist ignoramus, how dare you insult my country as an “empire”. The United States is not an empire and never will be. Neo-Communist Russia and Communist China are Communist empires. Both countries have bases in Syria, Belarus, Nepal, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea and other places. I am also fed up with you falsely accusing this country of encouraging a despotic dictator to invade and occupy a sovereign country when the whole world knows that the United States led an international coalition to save Kuwait from Saddam’s Iraq. Along with the so-called “Palestine Liberation Organization”, the Soviet KGB secretly encouraged Saddam to invade and occupy Kuwait behind Gorbachev’s back. You just like to repeat propaganda from Communists and Islamists. Why don’t you condemn neo-Communist Russia’s illegal war against the Republic of Georgia back in 2008? Quit trolling on this website, King George III’s protege. No decent person will ever believe your totalitarian propaganda.

          • Shingo

            Whenever you clown use the word freedom, what you really mean is empire or domination. The fact that you believe the West has the right to interfere in other countries and overthrow their governments shows you have no understanding or regard for freedom. What you want is to impose your will on others.

            “how dare you insult my country as an “empire”.”

            Why not? Your own country is an empire and boasts about being an empire. Pretty much every scholar and academic from the left to the right recognizes it as empire.

            Even Max Boot, probably a hero of yours, calls the US an empire (I assume you your country is the US and not Israel). Obviously you never got the memo.

            Not only is the US an empire, but it’s an empire in decline. At the tail end of WWII, Washington was already making plans to take over the reigns of empire from the British and dividing the world up into segments that would serve it’s purpose.

            In the 1950’s Eisenhower was concerned about the image of the US in Arab world – not among the governments, but among the people. The National Security Council issued a memorandum in 1958 , since declassified, that there was a perception in the Arab world that the United States supports brutal dictatorships, that the US blocks democracy and development, and that the US does it because it wants to control their resources. The report concluded that the perception were accurate, but that the US should be pursuing these policies regardless.
            http://www.history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12/d35

            “I am also fed up with you falsely accusing this country of encouraging a despotic dictator to invade and occupy a sovereign country when the whole world knows that the United States led an international coalition to save Kuwait from Saddam’s Iraq.”

            You have every reason to be fed up about it because it’s an outrage, but it’s true and we have the Wikileaks Cable to prove it.
            http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/1990/07/90BAGHDAD4237.html

            So you see, it was not the KGB that secretly encouraged Saddam to invade and occupy Kuwait, it was Bush Snr.

            Just because the US then turned around and stabbed Saddam in the back doesn’t mean they did not give him the green light. Saddam would never have invaded Kuwait had he not believed the US was agreeable. After all, they backed him all the way against Iran.

            “Why don’t you condemn neo-Communist Russia’s illegal war against the Republic of Georgia back in 2008?”

            Umm, probably because the war was started by Georgia.

          • Omar

            Stop repeating Communist/Islamist propaganda, you ignoramus. The U.S. is not an empire and never will be. Neo-Communist Russia and Communist China are empires you annoying ignoramus. Let me tell you this: who backed the Baathist dictatorship of Moammar Gaddafhi in Libya? That was the Soviet Union/Russia an Communist China, you annoying anti-American, pro-Communist totalitarian ignoramus. Who backs the Baathist dictatorship of the Assad family dictatorship in Syria? That is Neo-Communist Russia and Communist China, you loon. Who backed the Communist dictatorship in the former South Yemen? That was the Soviet Union and Communist China, you annoying troll. Who backed the Communist dictatorship of Gamel Abdel Nasser in Egypt? That was the Soviet Union and Communist China, you Communist/Islamist sympathizer. Who backed the Communist dictatorship in Grenada? That was the Soviet Union, Communist China and Communist Cuba, you wise guy. Who backs the Communist family dictatorship in North Korea? That was/is the Soviet Uion/Russia and Communist China, you disrespectful lunatic. Who invaded and occupies the ancient country of Tibet? That is Communist China, with support from the Soviet Union/neo-Communist Russia (By the way, the Communist Chinese occupation has led to the ongoing genocide of over 1.2 million Tibetans already. In Tibet, the native Tibetans are a minority in their own homeland. But of course, you support that because their oppressors are Communists, which you support). Who supports the racist, black supremacist and Communist dictatorship of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe? That was/is the Soviet Union/Russia and Communist China. Who supports the Islamist apartheid dictatorship in Sudan and its genocide of black African Christians? That is neo-Communist Russia and Communist China. Who backs the Communist dictatorship in Belarus? That is neo-Communist Russia and Communist China. Who intervened in Spain during that country’s civil war back in the 1930s? That was the Soviet Union, along with the other totalitarian powers, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Who backed the Communist dictatorship in Ethiopia during the 1970s and the 1980s? That was the Soviet Union, Communist China and Communist Cuba. Who encouraged Saddam’s Iraq to invade and occupy Kuwait more than 20 years ago? That was the KGB (who did it from behind Gorbachev’s back), not the U.S. government, who liberated Kuwait. Who launched an unprovoked war against Georgia in 2008? That was neo-Communist Russia. Who is the Communist website, Wikileaks, supported and funded by? The answer is neo-Communist Russia and Communist China. So you can see, neo-Communist Russia and Communist China are behind most of the misery in the world. Can you name a single democratic state which was supported by those two empires? There are none because the regimes in both Moscow and Beijing believe in Communist totalitarianism. That’s the reality.

          • Omar

            The Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist Iran are united in their hatred of Israel and the Jews. You keep on complaining about U.S. intervention, while you support Soviet/Russia and Communist Chinese invasions of different places like Tibet, Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Suez Canal and other places. Why don’t you condemn the foreign intervention in the Spanish Civil War? Why don’t you condemn the Islamist apartheid dictatorship in Sudan for its on going campaign of genocide against black African Christians? Why do you support Communist and Islamist regimes? Why do you support King George III’s Britain against American patriots in the American Revolution? And most importantly, why do you hate Western-style democracy and support Communist/Islamist totalitarianism?

          • Shingo

            “The Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist Iran are united in their hatred of Israel and the Jews.”‘

            That’s like saying Israel and Al Qaeda are united in their hatred of Iran.

            Oh wait, that’s true, unlike your claim that Iran hates Jews. After all, the second largest Jewish population in the ME is in…Iran. And whats’more, they don’t want to go to Israel.

            I never said I supported Communist/Chinese invasions of different places like Tibet, Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Suez Canal and other places. I am as happy as anyone to have seen the fall of the USSR and that these states are free of Soviet influence.

            Sadly, the US has made an even greater mess of Afghanistan.

            “Why don’t you condemn the Islamist apartheid dictatorship in Sudan for its on going campaign of genocide against black African Christians”

            I am happy to and in case you hadn’t noticed, the war crimes of Sudan have been referred to the ICC.

            ” Why do you support Communist and Islamist regimes?”

            I don’t. Why do you support Arab Dictators?

            “Why do you support King George III’s Britain against American patriots in the American Revolution?”

            How can I support something that took place hundreds of years before my birth and entities which no longer exist?

            You’re just desperately throwing mud because your arguments have been debunked and you’ve run out of material.

          • Omar

            Oh, please. Israel and Al-Qaeda are not in an alliance at all. Al-Qaeda hates Israel and the Jews. How is Iran the country with the second-largest number of Jews? Have you heard that former Iranian “president” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly denies the Holocaust and calls for the destruction of Israel, as well as shouts the “Final Solution” from the rooftops? As for Sudan do you know who are the Islamist apartheid dictatorship’s largest military arms suppliers? Neo-Communist Russia, Communist China and Islamist Iran. Communist China has such an amicable relationship with Islamist/Apartheid Sudan that some human rights activists referred to the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing as the “Genocide Olympics”. And yet, Islamist/Apartheid Sudan doesn’t get condemned nearly as much as democratic, inclusive Israel at the United Nations. Why is that? It is because the UN is dominated by Communists and Islamists, that’s why. Regarding Arab dictators, I don’t support them. In fact, I have been very critical of the Assad and the former Gaddafhi regimes, in Syria and Libya, respectively. Both of those regimes were/are Communist puppet states. Most Arab dictators are hostile to the West. Remember the Soviet puppet Gamel Abdel Nasser in Egypt? As for King George III and the British during the American Revolution, I can only tell you how many times I hear leftists complain about the British losing the American Revolution, wishing that the British had won the war in order to prevent the creation of the United States of America, the world’s greatest democracy. I read articles from leftists in which they justified the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, ignoring the fact that Imperial Japan was an Axis power during World War II, allied with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The far-left goes as far as supporting absolute monarchies, as long as those monarchies were/are opposed to the United States, the West, the free-market system and democracy. That’s the reality.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            british and russian imperialism is the cause of many conflicts in the world today.

          • Shingo

            You should add US, French imperialism to that list too, though Russia figured out the hard way that empires are expensive and bad for business.

            Of course, Israel is an example of British imperialism and I agree, it is a cause of significant conflict.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Jordan, Iraq are examples of british imperialism.

            Today we see Fascist Iran trying its hand with Islamofascist imperialism.

            Fascist Iran is trying to trick its 12th Imam/Caliph to pop out of a well by triggering WW3.

            The Shah was a pussy cat compared to the ayatollahs. The best hope is that the Persian people rise up against the Islamofascist Revolution and restore sanity to a once great nation.

          • Omar

            And so-called “Palestine” is an example of Soviet/Russian imperialism and I believe that it is a cause of significant conflict in the world. You should also add Chinese and Cuban imperialism to the list of modern empires. This link should provide the truth: http://babalublog.com/2013/09/02/end-cuban-imperialism-in-latin-america/

          • Shingo

            “And so-called “Palestine” is an example of Soviet/Russian imperialism and I believe that it is a cause of significant conflict in the world.”

            What you believe and what is reality are clearly 2 different things. Work opinion shows that Israel is regarded as the greatest threat to world peace. Palestine isn’t even close.

            “You should also add Chinese and Cuban imperialism to the list of modern empires.”

            That’s hilarious. Empires don;t stick to their own borders. Maybe you need to look up the definition of empire.

          • Omar

            I wouldn’t exactly say that British imperialism has caused problems in the contemporary world. Yes, the British were oppressive in the Thirteen colonies and in other areas of the world, but compared with other empires, the British Empire was relatively successful at spreading democracy in other parts of the world, as there have been fewer military coups in former British colonies than in other countries. But, yes, and unfortunately, Russian imperialism is alive and strong and has been that way from 1917 to 1991 and again since 2000. Along with Chinese imperialism (which has been around since 1949), the Russian neo-Communists think that they own the world, as they have been using Wiki Leaks to spy on America in order to undermine it. That’s the reality.

          • Omar

            Oh, and Israel’s adversaries were so peaceful and tolerant towards Jews, now where they?(notice my sarcasm) Realize that it was Hajj Amin Al-Husseini (the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) who was allied with Hitler and Nazi Germany before and during World War II. During the war, Al-Husseini traveled to Berlin to meet with the Nazi dictator to discuss creating death camps for Jews in the Middle East. Shingo, you are supporting Islamist Nazis like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Islamist Iran and other Islamist terrorist groups and regimes. Learn from facts.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            If things were rosy for Jews in Iraq, Syria, Egypt why would they leave at all? The number of Jews living there would have grown. But they haven’t.

            Coptic Christians in Egypt are under attack by Islamists too.

            Islamism is in jihad mode and it’s bad for humanity.

          • Shingo

            “If things were rosy for Jews in Iraq, Syria, Egypt why would they leave at all?”

            Jews have left Brooklyn for Israel. Does that mean life was unbearable for them in the US?

            “Coptic Christians in Egypt are under attack by Islamists too.”

            Yes, and Israel is driving Christians out of Palestine.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            According to the following Wikipedia page 95% of Persian Jews have left Fascist Iran since 1979. That means there are only about 7,000 Jews left in Fascist Iran – down from 145,000..

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#Islamic_Republic_.28since_1979.29

            If you have more accurate numbers on the number of Jews living in Fascist Iran, present them.

            Tell me when 95% of Jews have left Brooklyn for Israel?

            Islamofascists have Islamicized Bethlehem – driving out Christians – that is in addition to attacking and killing Coptic Christians in Egypt, bombing churches in Pakistan, Nigeria.

          • Shingo

            “According to the following Wikipedia page 95% of Persian Jews have left Fascist Iran since 1979″

            Most of those that fled did so during the 1979 Revolution, fleeing violence they anticipated but never came.

            There are over 25,000 Jews in Iran and none of them want to leave Iran for Israel, even after being offered huge bribes.

            “Islamofascists have Islamicized Bethlehem – driving out Christians”

            So has Israel.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            “there are over 25,000 Jews in Iran”

            Present your supporting evidence.

            Notice that 95% of Persian Jews have left Fascist Iran. If Fascist Iran is such a tolerant place for Jews, why would they leave?

            And your Islamofascist pals murder Christians, Coptics in Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria – bombing churches, setting them on fire.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            According to the Wikipedia page…

            There are about 8,700 Persian Jews left in Iran – NOT the 25,000 you threw out.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#Islamic_Republic_.28since_1979.29

            And there have been executions of Jews by the Islamofascist regime – along with the hanging of gay teens, stoning women to death – and the malevolent use of children, with plastic keys to khomenis Paradise, to clear mine fields left over from the 8 year Iraq/Iran war.

          • Shingo

            “There are about 8,700 Persian Jews left in Iran – NOT the 25,000 you threw out.”‘

            The number is 25,000.

            “And there have been executions of Jews by the Islamofascist regime”

            One since 1979.

            ” and the malevolent use of children, with plastic keys to khomenis Paradise,”

            Propaganda that turned out to be a lie. There were no plastic keys.

          • Omar

            Israel is not an apartheid state. Israel is a tolerant and diverse democratic state. Islamist Iran and Islamist Sudan are the real apartheid states. That’s the reality.

          • Shingo

            Of course Israel is an apartheid state. The majority of Israelis also believe it is.

            Israel is democratic for Jews, but with over 30 racist laws, it is not a democracy.

          • Omar

            Israel is most certainly an inclusive democracy. Arabs living in Israel have more rights and liberties as Israeli citizens than people living in other countries in the Mddle East. In fact, Arabs are actually exempted fromm mandatory service on the IDF, though many voluntarily serve. Iran’s so-called “democracy” only works for Muslims. Non-Muslims are banned from almost every profession in the country. Bottom line: Israel is not an apartheid state, but Islamist Iran and Islamist Sudan are apartheid states. That’s the reality.

          • defcon 4

            “Islamism”, nothing like reiterating the talking points of islam0fascist apologists and propagandists. Maybe you should be accusing people of being islamaphobes as well.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The Jews of Arab lands had good cause to fear for their lives. Should the Jews of Arab lands stick around to be slaughtered? The Sephardic Jews in Israel are hardliners. They know how Arabs are.

            Arabs killing Arabs. 100,000+ in Syria. 1,000,000 Muslims died in the 8 year Iraq/Iran war.

            Spilling blood is second nature in Islamist entities.

          • Shingo

            “Should the Jews of Arab lands stick around to be slaughtered?”

            Many did stick around and were not slaughtered.

            The Sephardic Jews in Israel are hardliners because of indoctrination.

            “Spilling blood is second nature in Islamist entitie”

            And Zionists.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Sephardic Jews KNOW Arab Muslims. They lived under their thumb. Just like Russian Jews who know communism and are against it.

          • Shingo

            “Sephardic Jews KNOW Arab Muslims.”

            Ironiocsally, they were treated like Arabs by the European Jews when they arrived in Israel. They were exploited for cheap labor and deloused and treated like 2nd class citizens – living under the thumb so to speak.

            As for Russian Jews, most fled the Soviet Union for economic reasons but they are flooding back to Russia.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Jew from Arab countries were backward – a side effect of living in backward Muslim countries. And how are Sephardic Jews treated today in Israel?

            Russian Jews know first hand how repressive Russia was and is. That’s why they are overwhelmingly against communism. I can understand older Russian Jews wanting to return to Russia. They may have trouble learning Hebrew and feel a link to the place of their birth.

            Are Jews from Arab countries “flooding” back too?

          • Shingo

            Jew from Arab countries were not backward, they just weren’t European and didn’t speak Hebrew.

            “And how are Sephardic Jews treated today in Israel?”

            As 2nd class citizens.

            “Russian Jews know first hand how repressive Russia was and is.”

            Which explains why so many are returning to Russia. They are returning because Israel has fallen short of their expectations. Israel is experiencing the largest brain drain in the West as educated and skilled Israelis and leaving in droves for a better life elsewhere.

          • Gee

            The occupation, demolitions and ethnic cleansing was carried out in 1948-1949 by the Arabs. The eastern portion of Jerusalem was 70% Jewish.

            And yes we liberated from the thieving Islamofascists

          • Shingo

            The occupation, demolitions and ethnic cleansing has been carried out by Israel for 65 years.

            “The eastern portion of Jerusalem was 70% Jewish.”

            And Palestine was 66% Palestinian and 90% Palestinian owned.

          • Gee

            Total BS – 91% of the land was not privately owned – your lies are pathetic.

            Try again with a fact – over 80% of the ‘Palestinians’ were Arabs that came between 1946 and 1948 according to the UN

          • Shingo

            “Try again with a fact – over 80% of the ‘Palestinians’ were Arabs that came between 1946 and 1948 according to the UN”

            False.The population was almost entirely indigenous.

            The time span you are referring to is what the UN used to define a Palestinian at the time of the 1948 war.

          • Gee

            Liar – you are so pathetic – notice the UN’s special definition for ‘Palestinian’ refugees. That is because over 80% did not qualify under the Geneva Convention definition.

            The UN VIOLATED the Geneva Convention by changing the rules. Just another one of those facts

          • Shingo

            “notice the UN’s special definition for ‘Palestinian’ refugees. That is because over 80% did not qualify under the Geneva Convention definition.”

            False. The definition is completely arbitrary. And you are wrong about how many would qualify for the GC’s too. You are just making numbers up without any basis or facts.

            “The UN VIOLATED the Geneva Convention by changing the rules.”

            WTF are you talking about? The UN changed nothing.

          • Gee

            Under the Geneva Convention – persons had to live in a place from “time immemorial”. The UN change that to 2 years, then they added descendents both in violation of the definitions.

            Now we have people that are born in one place, where their parents were born, where their grandparents where born as well becoming ‘refugees’ without ever leaving home. Simply amazing – no other ‘refugee’ group in the history of the world as inherited refugee status.

            Yes stupid that changed the rules – in violation of international law. The UN is very good at that. Laws do not matter if Jews are involved.

          • Shingo

            “Under the Geneva Convention – persons had to live in a place from “time immemorial”.”‘

            False. No one can be proven to have lived anywhere from “time immemorial”.

            The UN did not change it to 2 years. The 2 years you are citing relate to those considered refugees.

            “Now we have people that are born in one place, where their parents were born, where their grandparents where born as well becoming ‘refugees’ without ever leaving home”

            False. They are not home to begin with, which is why they are called refugees.

            “Simply amazing – no other ‘refugee’ group in the history of the world as inherited refugee status.”‘

            False again.
            “All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved. Refugees in Kenya administered by UNHCR are a good example.”
            http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4082176,00.html

            You need new material Gee. Recycling old debunked stuff isn’t working for you.

          • Gee

            Nothing you have ever posted is remotely close to the truth.

            Alright – you have lied so much that all I going to do is flag you.

          • Shingo

            You’re just bitter because I have destroyed every one of your talking points, including the one about only Palestinian refugees being multi-generational.

          • Drakken

            Yeah sure ok rag head, keep dreaming.

          • Drakken

            Thank God, (not allah)that the Israeli’s liberated it from the Islamic savages. More to come as the rag heads lose more land in wars they start, happy nakba!

          • Shingo

            “More to come as the rag heads lose more land in wars they start, happy nakba!”

            Israel started every war except 1973, which they nearly lost were it not for the US saving their butts.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Islamofascists LOST every war since 1948 – and in keeping with their reputation of being “the Religion of Peace” – bomb, hijack, stab, shoot, burn, behead people ALL OVER THE WORLD.

          • Shingo

            ” and in keeping with their reputation of being “the Religion of Peace” – bomb, hijack, stab, shoot, burn, behead people ALL OVER THE WORLD.””

            It was Menachem Begin who boasted that he had brought terrorism to the Middle East. After all, 2 of it’s elected prime ministers weer terrorist leaders and proud of it.

            Not to mention the fact that Israel celebrated the 60th anniversary of a terror attack by Zionist terror gangs against one of Israel’s closest allies.

            With friends like these…

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            60th anniversary of an attack?

            Which closest ally?

            Where is the Begin quote???

          • Shingo

            “60th anniversary of an attack?”

            Yup.

            http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/celebrating-terror-israelistyle/article3109475.ece

            Celebrations were of course attended by Netenyahu.

            BTW. Here’s the roll-call on who introduced terrorism (along with biological, chemical and nuclear weapons) to the Middle East:

            · Bombs in cafés: first used by Zionists in Palestine on 17 March 1937 in Jaffa (they were grenades)

            · Bombs on buses: first used by Zionists in Palestine on 20 August- 26 September 1937

            · Drive-by shootings with automatic weapons: IZL and LHI in 1937-38 and 1947-48 (Morris, Righteous Victims, p681.)

            · Bombs in market places: first used by Zionists on 6 July 1938 in Haifa. (delayed-action, electrically detonated)

            · Bombing of a passenger ship: first used by the Zionists in Haifa on 25 November 1940, killing over 200 of their own fellows.

            · Bombing of hotels: first used by Zionists on 22 July 1946 in Jerusalem (Menachem Begin went on to become prime minister of Israel).

            · Suitcase bombing: first used by Zionists on 1 October 1946 against British embassy in Rome.

            · Mining of ambulances: first used by Zionists on 31 October 1946 in Petah Tikvah

            · Car-bomb: first used by Zionists against the British near Jaffa on 5 December 1946.

            · Letter bombs: first used by Zionists in June 1947 against members of the British government, 20 of them.

            · Parcel bomb: first used by Zionists against the British in London on 3 September 1947.

            · Reprisal murder of hostages: first used by Zionists against the British in Netanya area on 29 July 1947.

            · Truck-bombs: first used by Zionists on January 1948 in the centre of Jaffa, killing 26.

            · Aircraft hijacking: world-first by Israeli jets December 1954 on a Syrian civilian airliner (random seizure of hostages to recover five spies) – 14 years before any Palestinian hijacking.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            That’s the best you can do? An article by someone named “Hasan”?

            You left out the terrorism committed by Arabs against Jews in the 1930′s.

            Speaking of the British. The Colonists in the US attacked British soldiers in 1776. The British eventually surrendered to the Americans. And the British attacked the US in 1812.

            Fighting the British Empire is good for Freedom.

          • Shingo

            “That’s the best you can do? An article by someone named “Hasan”?”

            There’s plenty more where that came from.
            http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article690085.ece

            “You left out the terrorism committed by Arabs against Jews in the 1930′s.”

            You left out the terrorism committed by Jews against Arabs in the 1920′s.

            “Fighting the British Empire is good for Freedom.”

            Fighting any Empire is good for Freedom.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You have a problem with Jews fighting Arabs who want to kill them?

            Tough.

            Fighting imperialist Islamofascism and imperialist Socialism is good for Freedom.

            You OK with KGB Putin heading imperialist Russia?

          • Shingo

            “You have a problem with Jews fighting Arabs who want to kill them?”

            Does a rapist have the right to kill his victim who is attacking him for raping her? I guess it’s a philosophical debate, but if you steal someone’s land and kill his family, then you can hardly claim victim hood or self defense when he seeks revenge.

            It’s funny listening to right wing Zionists pan socialism when Israel is among the most socialist states in the world.

            “You OK with KGB Putin heading imperialist Russia?”

            That’s up to Russians to decide, but he’s managed to lift Russia from the hole it as in under Yeltsin.

          • Omar

            Under Yeltsin, Russians prospered and Russia was a Western ally, which was the first time that Russia truly was an ally in peacetime since before World War I. Under Yeltsin, the Communists in Russia were put on a leash. Yeltsin’s Russia was really trying to turn over a new leaf with the world. However, when Putin first assumed the Russian presidency in 2000, he reversed all of Yelstin’s reforms, revived the power and influence of the CommunistParty of the Soviet Union (under the new name, the United Russia Party), and returned Russia to its Cold War position. It is Putin who restored Communism and authoritarianism to Russia, under the ideology of neo-Communism. Russia was much better under Yeltsin than it is now under the neo-Communist Putin. That’s the reality.

          • Shingo

            “Under Yeltsin, Russians prospered and Russia was a Western ally,”

            On the contrary. Under Yeltsin, Russians became an economic basket case and was on it’s knees. It became an intentional joke.

            It was not a US ally so much as a US puppet. Yes, Yeltsin was effective for a short period of time and reigned in the Communists, but he quickly lost his mind and while he was asleep at the wheel, Israel’s assets were looted.

            When Putin first assumed the Russian presidency in 2000, he stopped the corruption, looting and restored Russia’s national assets. You will recall that Bush said he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw a man he could trust. It was only when Putin arrested the Oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was trying to sell off Russian oil and gas assets to foreign interests at fire sale prices, did Putin suddenly become Stalin re-incarnated.

            There is no Communism in Russia. It’s always telling what interests a leader is serving while in power. When Yeltsin was in power, he was popular in Washington and London but hated at home. Putin is hated in Washington and London, but loved in Russia.

            Russia is now returning to the world stage as a major player and Putin is schooling Obama and Cameron on foreign policy.

            In fact, for the first time, Forbes has placed a Russian president ahead of a US president in terms of international influence.
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2013/10/30/the-worlds-most-powerful-people-2013/

          • Omar

            Oh, please. Yeltsin was never a U.S. puppet at all. He was a Western ally who really tried to turn over a new leaf on Russia’s role in the world stage. If you really want to see a leader who was an actual puppet, look at one of our former presidents. Jimmy Carter was a puppet of the Breznev dictatorship in the Soviet Union. Carter’s foreign policy was controlled by the Soviet Union, since Carter was friendly to Communist dictatorships and militant groups and discouraged their political opponents. That was why the Communists were able to take power in Nicaragua and Grenada (as well as why the Islamists were able to take power in Iran). It was Carter’s policies that were some of the major reasons why the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and other countries. Carter weakened America’s strong stance on the world stage. It was Reagan who restored America’s strong stance on the world stage. Anyway, the main reason why Yeltsin was “hated” in Russia was because he put the Communists on a leash. Even with that move, the Communists wanted revenge for losing the Cold War. The interim government of Russia during World War I should have just imprisoned the Bolsheviks and/or exiled them to some place far away. Neo-Communists have been in power in modern Russia since 2000, and that is a fact

          • Shingo

            Of course Yeltsin was a Western Puppet. That is why he was such a poster boy in London and Washington.

            Like I said, Yeltsin faced down the Communists while standing on a tank in Red Square, but the Communist coup had no popular support. Soon after that event, Yeltsin became a rampant alcoholic and when he wasn’t asleep, he was paralytic in public.

            “Carter’s foreign policy was controlled by the Soviet Union”‘

            That’s hilarious seeing as it was Carter’s policy Afghanistan, which drove out the Societs, that Reagan got credit for.

            “That was why the Communists were able to take power in Nicaragua and Grenada”

            There were no Communists in Nicaragua and Grenada. That was simply formulaic Washington BS that they used every time they needed an excuse to overthrow a government they didn’t like. Washington used it back in 1953 with Mossadegh and 1954 with Arbenz in Guatemala. From Tehran to Nicaragua and Grenada, it was tried and tested way to get the American public to back wars in countries they couldn’t find on a map.

            “It was Carter’s policies that were some of the major reasons why the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and other countries”

            Actually, you are right. Brzezinski boasts about how he tricked the Soviets into invading Afghanistan to give the Soviets their own Vietnam.

            Anyway, the reason Yeltsin was “hated” in Russia was because the economy went to ruin and people starved. The Communists were no longer popular in Russia, so they had no way to affect Yeltsin’s popularity.

            What made people turn against Yeltsin was that he had no idea how to run the economy. He was so lacking in ideas that he turned to former KGB men and gave them Russia’s oil and gas resources for nothing and asked them to create an economy. Unfortunately, he was too drunk to realize that these thugs had no intention of sharing their wealth with Russia, and sent their profits off shore.

            You have no idea about Russia at all Omar.

          • Omar

            Oh, please. First of all, both Mossadegh and Arbenz were not just Communists, but they were Stalinists and Maoists. They followed the philosophy of two of the worst mass murderers in the 20th century: Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, Communist dictators of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People’s Republic of China, respectfully. Washington didn’t plan the anti-Mossadegh coup. The anti-Mossadegh coup was planned by the
            British intelligence agency, the M16, as well as numerous Iranian opposition groups. Mossadegh was appointed prime minister by the Iranian parliament, and the Shah (who was already in power as head of state), approved and ratified the choice. The coup came not when Mossadegh centralized the oil companies (the West could care less about centralization, so long as the government did not turn totalitarian or on the path o becoming another Soviet Union or Communist China), but when Mossadegh got into a power struggle with the people who put him in power in the first place (namely the Shah and the Iranian parliament). Mossadegh dissolved his country’s parliament, suspended civil liberties and jailed and/or killed Iranian dissidents who opposed his rule. Mossadegh was quoted by a Time Magazine article from 1952 saying, “Call me dictator”(Mossadegh, himself, admitted that he was a dictator). The CIA didn’t get involved with the anti-Mossadegh campaign until the British M16 and the Iranian opposition proved to the CIA and the Eisenhower administration that Mossadegh was a Stalinist/Maoist and a Soviet puppet who was seeking to turn Iran into a Soviet/Communist Chinese client state. At that point, the CIA agreed to participate in the campaign to oust Mossadegh from power.
            Regarding Arbenz, he was a Stalinist/Maoist who, like Mossadegh in Iran, was a Soviet puppet seeking to turn Guatemala into a Soviet clientstate, almost right next door to the United States. The anti-Arbenz coup came not when the Stalinist dictator centralized property (in this case, United Fruit), but when he received a bloc of Soviet-bloc weapons, suspended civil liberties, and oppressed the Guatemalan opposition. Also, once he was deposed, Arbenz sought exile not in France, Spain or Mexico (though he was in the latter for a short amount of time), but in the Soviet satellite of Czechoslovakia. Anyway, Moscow and Beijing overthrew existing governments around the world and replaced them with their Communist puppet states. Examples include, but not limited to: Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1989, Communist China (which Stalin helped Mao form) since 1949, Tibet (which Communist China, backed by the Soviet Union, forcefully invaded and occupied) since 1950,North Korea since the 1950s, Egypt during the 1950s, Syria in 1963 and 1966, Libya in 1969, South Yemen from 1967 to 1990, Many places in Africa during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, including Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Somalia and other places, Grenada and Afghanistan in 1979, as well as other places. Quit repeating Stalinist/Maoist propaganda.

          • Shingo

            Don’t be stupid. Neither were Communists, Stalinists or Maoists, they were nationalists.

            it was only after Arbenz passed laws to re-naionalize land in Guatemala by buying it back from the United Fruit Company (at prices declared publicly by United Fruit) that he suddenly was labelled a Communist overnight. Same with Mossadegh over Iran’s oil.

            “Washington didn’t plan the anti-Mossadegh coup. The anti-Mossadegh coup was planned by the British intelligence agenc”

            Kermit Roosevelt disagrees with you and has publicly boasted that he planned and executed it.

            Mossadegh was elected by democratic process, not appointed.

            Mossadegh did not get into a power struggle with anyone but British Petroleum. He actually left politics because he couldn’t be bothered the factional in fighting, and was begged to return.

            “The CIA didn’t get involved with the anti-Mossadegh campaign until the British M16 and the Iranian opposition proved to the CIA and the Eisenhower administration that Mossadegh was a Stalinist/Maoist and a Soviet puppet who was seeking to turn Iran into a Soviet/Communist Chinese client state.”

            Rubbish. There was no plans to turn into Iran into a Soviet/Communist Chinese client state. Like I aid, that was a false story for public consumption.

            “but when he received a bloc of Soviet-bloc weapons, suspended civil liberties, and oppressed the Guatemalan opposition”

            False again. The Guatemalan opposition was being backed by the CIA to incite unrest and chaos, thereby setting he stage for the coup – just like they did in Iran.

            When you read all today’s government propaganda about Islam, you realize that they are just recycling the crap from the 50s and 60 and replacing the word Communism with “radical Islam”.

            And as you have demonstrated, there are stil plenty of useful idiots prepared to swallow it.

          • Omar

            Everything you stated was a lie. Besides repeating Communist lies about the events leading to the removals of Mossadegh and Arbenz, you fail to explain about how Eric Gairy, prime minster of Grenada, was removed by the Soviet/Cuban Communist-backed coup instigated by the far-left New Jewel movement. Explain how Gairy was a so-called “fascist”, as the Communists in Grenada and elsewhere falsely describe him. What I stated above are facts. Both Mossadegh and Arbenz were Stalinists and Maoists, who were deposed when they grew increasingly authoritarian (that is a trait that all Communist regimes share). Mossadegh himself admitted that he was a dictator. Arbenz received arms from the Soviet bloc and chose Communist Czechoslovakia as his place to stay, since he shared their ideology. Check these links for the truth: http://townhall.com/columnists/dineshdsouza/2007/01/22/what_they_know_that_isnt_so/page/full and http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2054 . Gairy, on the other hand, was not a fascist, as the far-left depicted him. So, why did you support his overthrow? If the West was clearly concerned about leaders centralizing companies, why wasn’t Nehru deposed from his position as prime minister of India? He centralized Indian companies and he was prime minister from India’s independence in 1947 until his death in 1964. Almost no one had a grudge against Nehru, except for Communist China, which invaded India in 1962 over India’s policy regarding Tibetans, whose native country Communist China illegally invaded and occupied 12 years before.

          • Shingo

            NO everything I have said is based on historical accounts by those involved. You’re just suck in an anachronistic view of history that bears no semblance to reality. How else would anyone explain your ignorance of the Russia’s economic woes under Yletsin?

            “you fail to explain about how Eric Gairy, prime minster of Grenada, was removed by the Soviet/Cuban Communist-backed coup instigated by the far-left New Jewel movement.”

            So what? Arbenz was democratically elected 5 years after the coup that overthrew Gairy, a coup which was instigated by Bishop, who was pro American.

            Neither Mossadegh nor Arbenz were Stalinists or Maoists. That crap was debunked by Kermit Rooselvelt himself, who shamelessly and openly admitted the whole Communist BS was a use for the public.

            Mossadegh reference to being a dictator was based on sarcasm and ridicule.Dictators do not leave politics willingly the way Mossadegh did TWICE.

            There is no evidence that Arbenz received arms from the Soviet bloc. Just more right wing BS.

            “Gairy, on the other hand, was not a fascist, as the far-left depicted him.”

            True, but he was not a popular leader and was overthrown by a popular coup.

          • Omar

            You are wrong on different levels. First of all, Mossadegh admitted that he was a dictator. That was not sarcasm, that was the truth. He was quoted by Time Magazine from an article that the publication wrote back in 1952. That is undeniable. Second, Arbenz was not elected 5 years after the anti-Gairy coup. Arbenz was deposed from the Guatemalan leadership in 1954, 25 years before the Soviets and the Cuban Communists instigated a coup that ousted Gairy. That was in 1979. The evidence that Arbenz was a Soviet puppet is documented in a Spanish-language political article, translated as “Che: Myth and Reality”, written by Enrique Ros.As for dictators and autocrats leaving “willingly”, Mossadegh did put up a fight with that. He was impeached and removed from office by the very people who put him in power in the first place, which were the Iranian parliament and the Shah.If there was any autocrat who left “willingly”, it was Pinochet in Chile. Pinochet held an electoral referendum in Chile in 1988. The opposition Christian Democrats won that referendum. After some minor issues, Pinochet conceded the referendum and he abdicated his position as leader of Chile. As for Bishop being “pro-American”, that was a lie. If anything, Bishop was anti-American and a supporter of the Castro dictatorship in Cuba (who was also Bishop’s puppeteer) and the Sandinista dictatorship in Nicaragua. In addition, Bishop was also a puppet of the Soviet dictator Breznev. Those facts are undeniable.

          • Shingo

            “First of all, Mossadegh admitted that he was a dictator”

            No he didn’t, he made some sarcastic remark in passing which appeared in Time Magazine, which was doing at hatched job on him. The magazine labelled him the new menace, because it was obsessed with Western influence waning in the region.

            In fact, that Time Magazine story stated that he was immensely popular, represented the hearts and mind of Iranians inside and out of the country. Time Magazine concluded that this was the problem.

            In fact, he was trying to implement democratic reforms and dilute the power of the Shah, who was a dictator.

            ” Second, Arbenz was not elected 5 years after the anti-Gairy coup. Arbenz was deposed from the Guatemalan leadership in 1954, 25 years before the Soviets and the Cuban Communists instigated a coup that ousted Gairy.”

            False. The Soviets have nothing to do with any coup. Like I said, Roosevelt came up with that BS excuse simply because Arbenz wanted to buy back fertile land in Guamtemala from the United Fruit Company at land values publicly declared by the UFC, which were undervalued to avoid taxation.

            Arbenz was elected 5 years after Gairy was deposed. He was ousted by a CIA coup. Being the hypocrite that you are, you are fine with some coups and not others.

            “he evidence that Arbenz was a Soviet puppet is documented in a Spanish-language political article, translated as “Che: Myth and Reality”, written by Enrique Ros”‘

            Allegation which were baseless and never proven.

            ” Mossadegh did put up a fight with that. He was impeached and removed from office by the very people who put him in power in the first place,”

            Yeah, the Brutal US puppet dictator the Shah. Mosaddegh actualyl resigned from his position and appealed directly to the public for support for his reforms.

            It was only after five days of mass demonstrations that the Shah backed down when like Mubarak, he realized the military were not going to back him, so the Shah had to reappoint Mossadegh.

            Mosaddegh tried to strengthen the democratic political institutions by neutering the Shah. This led to a boycott from the British which damaged Iran economically. A,long with the CIA, the British instigated a coup to remove him.

            “.If there was any autocrat who left “willingly”, it was Pinochet in Chile. Pinochet held an electoral referendum in Chile in 1988.”

            Yeah after butchering thousands of his countrymen and his predecessor. It’s amazing how you can call Mossadegh, who never hurt anyone a dictator, yet you selectively refer to a US puppet mass murdered as an autocrat.

            “As for Bishop being “pro-American”, that was a lie.”

            No, it was a fact. He actually went out of his way to improve relations with the US, as well as Cuba. I know it’s hard for your brain to comprehend that a country can have relations with 2 states hostile to one another, but it happens all the time.

            These facts are undeniable. Yours a myth.

          • Omar

            You keep on posting more lies. First of all, Mossadegh was an unpopular leader after suspending civil liberties, dissolving the very parliament and trying to ovethrow the Shah and other government officials. There is ample evidence that suggests that Mossadegh was a Stalinist/Maoist who wanted to turn the then constitutional monarchy of Iran into a Soviet/Chinese Communist client state allied with the Soviet Union and Communist China. The Shah was not a puppet, but simply an autocratic leader. He was forcefully toppled by Jimmy Carter and the radical Islamists who Carter backed.
            As for Arbenz, the article by Enrique Ros is completely accurate. Arbenz was a Stalinist and Maoist who wanted Guatemala to become a Soviet client state. That is undeniable.
            The two autocratic leaders that were deposed were not overthrown due to centralized property (If that were true, then Nehru in India would have been overthrown, since he centralized property too. But Nehru was never overthrown, as he served as India’s prime minister from independence in 1947 until his death in 1964. Unlike Mossadegh and Arbenz, Nehru was not anti-Western, nor a Communist puppet. In fact, he was a victim of Communist China when it decided to invade India in 1962 over the Tibetan issue). Mossadegh and Arbenz were overthrown because they were Soviet/Chinese Communist puppets seeking to turn their respective countries into the Iron Curtain countries of Eastern Europe. That is undeniable.
            Regarding Pinochet in Chile, he did not “butchered” Salvador Allende, who was his predecessor. Allende was a Marxist and a Soviet/Cuban Communist puppet who became president by winning an election with a plurality of votes, not a majority. In fact, the election was a virtual three-ay election. That was not a popular mandate. In fact, Hitler won the last election for chancellor held in Weinmar Germany with a similar percentage number to that of Allende’s in Chile. Anyway, during his three-year autocratic rule, Allende of the proletariat.” had forcibly expropriated property from the Chilean people, demanded increased political powers , and infested his country with numerous agents from Communist countries, telling him how to run Chile and howto create a socialist regime. One of Allende’s own advisers stated that “The path to socialism would first require a dictatorship of the proletariat.” In addition, Allende had also praised the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, who butchered millions of his countrymen in peacetime during his almost thirty-year rule. Bottom line: Allende was a puppet of the Breznev dictatorship in Moscow. That is undeniable. Also, Allende had actually appointed Pinochet to be the top general of the Chilean Armed Forces. Allende’s downfall came when he committed suicide by using a shotgun given to him by Cuban Communist dictator Fidel Castro (who butchered more than 100,000 Cubans since 1959, and whose totalitarian regime is still around today). So, no, Pinochet did not eliminate Allende. He simply turned against his boss when it became clear that the elected autocrat was a Communist puppet who was surrendering Chile’s sovereignty to the Iron Curtain. For more information on the truth about Chile, visit these links: http://townhall.com/columnists/humbertofontova/2013/09/13/the-other-911when-commies-tasted-their-own-medicine-n1699528 and http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readarticle.aspx?ARTD=15648 . While Pinochet did rule with an iron fist and there were people who were victims of his rule, he should also be remembered as the military leader who stood up to Breznev and the Soviet Communist imperialists. Pinochet defied the power of the Soviet Communist empire. The Soviet Communist empire was so furious with Pinochet that they were training Chilean Communist militant groups in order to try and topple the Chilean autocrat so that the Communist empire could rule Chile again. The link to this information is here: http://www2.fiu.edu/~yaf/pinochetsenemies.html . The fact remains that as a result of free-market reforms and an electoral referendum, Chile is now one of the strongest, freest and most stable countries in Latin America with a strong democratic system today. Contrast Chile’s story with that of Communist Cuba and neo-Communist Russia. You have to stop blaming only the West for atrocities that Communists, Islamists and other totalitarian forces have inflicted on the people of the world.

          • Shingo

            I am educating you, not lying to you.

            Mossadegh was a hugely popular leader. He did not suspend any civil liberties, nor did he dissolve any parliament and nor he did not try to overthrow the feudalistic unelected Shah. He was granted emergency powers by parliament the same way your poster boy, Bush was after 911.

            He sought to curtail the Shah’s powers, which is after all, exactly what the founders of America did to the British.

            You know. The very actions you were praising a few posts ago. It’s funny how one minute you hate monarchies and he next you love them.

            Love your hypocrisy.

            There is ZERO evidence that suggests that Mossadegh was a Stalinist/Maoist. He wanted to introduce emocratic reforms, which clearly would have been contrary to any agenda to turn the constitutional monarchy of Iran into a Soviet/Chinese Communist client state allied with the Soviet Union and Communist China.

            The Shah was a puppet, without a doubt. Anyone with brain knows that. And this was particularly born out during his brutal , corrupt and murderous reign. He could hardly have been forcefully toppled by Jimmy Carter, when it was Carter who gave him unconditional support until he was outset and then gave him sanctuary.

            The article by Enrique Ros is completely bogus. There was no suggestion that Arbenz was a communist until he declared his intention to nationalise land owned by the UFC, so that’s claim is effortlessly debunked.

            The suggestion he wanted Guatemala to become a Soviet client state is beyond laughable. No one with any credibility takes that suggestion seriously.

            Neither were autocratic and both were overthrown by CIA backed coups. In fact, the British turned to the CIA when their efforts to oust Mossadegh were failing miserably.

            In fact,the move to centralise oil and land boosted the popularity of both leaders. But as we saw with about face of Bush towards Putin as soon as Putin put an end to the her imaging of Russian oil assets to western interests.

            The fact that Nehru was not overthrown proved nothing, seeing as the to siatuiions were not even remotely similar. Chavez was never ousted, but the US backed the failed coup to overthrow him. All it proves is that the US has limited resources.

            Mossadegh and Arbenz would never had been overthrown without US involvement and interference. There was no evidence that either could had anything to do with Soviet/Chinese Communism.

            That is a fact.

            Allende was assassinated by Pinochet’s cronies. Their whole fairy tale about how he committed suicide doesn’t even pass the smell test.

            Based on the 1973 autopsy, a medical examiner revealed that his wounds caused by different guns.

            He had only given a speech the day earlier vowing not to resign, and yet the junta claimed he changed his mind and committed suicide.

            “Allende was a Marxist and a Soviet/Cuban Communist puppet who became president by winning an election with a plurality of votes, not a majority.”

            Oh my God, you mean like Bush did in 2000? I never knew the US was a Marxist and a Soviet/Cuban Communist state.

            ” In fact, Hitler won the last election for chancellor held in
            Weinmar Germany with a similar percentage number to that of Allende’s in Chile.”

            Again, similar to Bush in 2000.

            Allende did not forcibly expropriated property from the Chilean people. Again, he pissed off the wrong foreign
            interests and that led to him ending up with a target on his head. It’s no surprise that Pinochet was indicted
            and arrested for war crimes, but hey your man crush for dictators and mass murders is all to obvious.

            Pinochet did nothing about standing up to Breznev and the Soviet Communist. He was another US puppet with a taste for murdering Chileans. The history of Kissinger’s manipulation of the events has now been declassified, so
            your false version of events is already an anachronism.

            http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB437/

            Pinochet was a useful idiot with megalomaniacal aspirations that was being totally controlled by the other war criminal, Kissinger, who was using Chile as nothing but a staging ground during the Cold War. Kissinger ignored all advice that was he was doing was illegal, immoral, and based on paranoia as opposed to facts and reason.

          • Omar

            You are wrong once again. Mossadegh and Arbenz were both Communist puppets controlled by the Soviet Union and Communist China. The evidence is overwhelming. When both leaders were exposed for who they really we they lost their popularity.
            As for Allende and Pinochet in Chile, a new autopsy was performed by the Chilean government and medical research and reported by the New York Times (not exactly a conservative paper) from a 2011 article confirmed that Allende did indeed commit suicide using the shotgun he received as a gift from the then-Soviet puppet dictator of Communist Cuba, Fidel Castro (who butchered more than 100,000 Cubans since 1959. I already provided ample evidence detailing that Kissinger knew nothing about the 1973 coup in Chile. It is very interesting to know that you only condemn pro-Western authoritarian regimes, but praise the anti-Western dictatorships and their despotic leaders. For example, you have praised Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Breznev, Mao, Deng, the Kim family, Mengitsu,Mugabe, Gaddafhi, the Assad family, the Castro brothers, Ahmadinejad, the dictators of Belarus and other places. Why do you ignore atrocities committed by Communist, Islamist amd other anti-Western dictatorships?

          • Shingo

            No
            it is you that is wrong as usual. Mossadegh
            and Arbenz were both Communist puppets, and neither was controlled by the
            Soviet Union let alone Communist China, which was not even operating beyond
            South East Asia at the time.

            The
            is no evidence whatsoever to support this paranoid wingnut conspiracy. Both
            leaders were popular and popularly elected, which is why the CIA had to resort
            to dirty tricks and coups to overthrow them.

            The
            new autopsy confirmed that Allende died from multiple gun shots, which itself
            proves it could not have been suicide, as victims of gunshot wounds are rarely able to confirm the
            kill with a second shot.

            I
            have proven with the link to the recent declassified papers prove that Kissinger
            orchestrated the whole thing, practically
            single handily. The papers show he not
            only admitted to it but boasted about his achievements.

            <>

            It would be interesting if it was true,
            however I have not praised any anti-Western
            dictatorships and their despotic leaders. What is interesting is that your arguments
            are so weak that the best you can do is resort to straw men and ad hominems.

            BTW.
            You seem to have a pretty strong affection for pro-Western
            dictatorships and their despotic leaders.

            <>

            Actually, not only have I not praised any
            of them, I did not even mention them.
            Another straw man. I don’t even
            recall discussing them.

            Why
            do you ignore atrocities committed by the weast and other pro-Western
            dictatorships?

          • Omar

            You are wrong, once again. You are defending Communist despots, while slandering democrats and pro-Western autocrats. Mossadegh and Arbenz were Communist puppets. There is overwhelming evidence that suggests that they were Communist puppets controlled by Moscow and Beijing. Regarding Chile, Allende was a Communist puppet of Moscow, Havana and the iron curtain who wanted to turn his country into a Communist client state. There is overwhelming evidence that he was pla.ning to do that. There is also overwhelming evidence that Allende committed suicide by using the shotgun given to him as a gift from the Cuban Communist dictator, Fidel Castro. The 2011 autopsy performed by the Chilean government reiterates that fact. In addition, neither Nixon nor Kissinger knew anything about the 1973 coup, as both of them were boping that the opposition would win the elections that would have been held in 1976. That is undeniable. With regards to Grenada, if Bishop was so popular, then why did so many Grenadans fled the island ountry after the KGB/Cuban intelligence-sponsored coup in 1979? Why do you support and defend every Communist, Islamist or ther anti-Western dictatorship? Why doid you support neo-Communist Russia’s war against Georgia in 2008, and why do you think that Georgia was the aggressor instead off the actual victim?

          • Drakken

            It is extremely obvious that you bought into the leftist lie, hook, line and sinker. Whatever you paid to the leftist re-education camp you went to, it is obvious that you got ripped off. Mossadegh was going into the Soviet camp, and thank God we put a stop to it. Then your buddy the peanut farmer threw the Shah under the bus and has us where we are today.

          • Shingo

            ” Mossadegh was going into the Soviet camp, and thank God we put a stop to it.”

            That’s rubbish of course, and has long since been debunked, but it’s funny to watch you taking pride in a policy that led to the Mullahs taking power.

            Job well done hey Drakken?

          • Drakken

            Debunked according to which leftist nutjob? That is what I enjoy about you effing libtard progressive commi’s, you believe in shi* that doesn’t exist except in your own minds and fits only the left narrative of make believe, go back to putting COEXIST stickers on Prius’s, it’s the only thing your good for.

          • Shingo

            “Debunked according to which leftist nutjob?”

            I didn’t know Kermit Roosevelt was a leftist nutjob. i guess when you are so far to the right of everyone, even right wing conservatives look like lefties to you.

          • Omar

            And I didn’t know that Maurice Bishop was a right-wing conservative (notice the sarcasm)
            I guess that when you are so far to the left of everyone, even left-wing radicals look like conservatives to you.

          • Omar

            The Islamist mullahs in Iran hated the Shah, not because he was autocratic, but because he was secular, pro-Western and he supported women’s rights, including the right to not wear veils if the women choose not to. Once the Shah was deposed and the Ayatollah assumed power in Iran, the Islamist theocracy was imposed and the number of political prisoners in Iran skyrocketed. The number of political prisoners during the first year of the Ayatollah’s theocracy was 100 times the number of political prisoners during the Shah’s entire rule. Also, there is an unholy alliance between the radical left and the Islamists, and the mullahs are part of that unholy alliance. That’s the reality.

          • Shingo

            “The Islamist mullahs in Iran hated the Shah, not because he was autocratic, but because he was secular, pro-Western”‘

            The Shah was hated by all Iranians, except the elite who grew right and fat under his corrupt and dictatorial regime.

            “Once the Shah was deposed and the Ayatollah assumed power in Iran, the Islamist theocracy was imposed and the number of political prisoners in Iran skyrocketed.”‘

            That usually happens after a coup, though the Iranian coup was remarkably benign.

            “‘Also, there is an unholy alliance between the radical left and the Islamists”

            That alliance is about as real the the existence of Communists under your bed.

          • Omar

            And the thuggish so-called “Palestinians” would have never been recognized as a “nation” had it not been for the Soviet Union (as well as Communist China). Remember that the Soviet KGB created the so-called “Palestine Liberation Organization” in 1964. Had the Bolshevik Revolution failed in Russia in 1917, there would have been no “Palestinian nation”, and that’s a fact.

          • Shingo

            “‘And the thuggish so-called “Palestinians” would have never been recognized as a “nation” had it not been for the Soviet Union”‘

            That’s funny. Wasn’t Stalin the first to recognize Israel after it declared independence?

            Anyway, you are wrong as always.Pierre Orts, chairman of Mandate Commission of the League Of Nations put that BS to bed back in 1922:

            “The mandate, in Article 7, obliged Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed Palestinians FORMED A NATION, and that Palestine WAS A STATE, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labor the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.”

          • Omar

            This is Islamist propaganda at its worst. Stalin was an anti-Semite who helped Hitler and the Nazis to instigate the Holocaust during World War II. Watch the Soviet Story documentary to learn more about the truth.

          • Shingo

            Staling was the first to recognize Israel. That is a fact.

            He was also the men who defeated Hitler, which is why the US were actually allied with him during WWII.

          • Drakken

            Come on sand ape, join those jihadist savages, put your money where your leftist big mouth is and join them, show them how it is done. You are nothing more than target practice and canon fodder for the jihad.

          • defcon 4

            LOL, the US took no direct action in ’73′ lying SoA.

          • Shingo

            The US sent one of the the biggest airlift of weapons in history. Sounds pretty direct to me

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Jordan in “palestine”.

            That’s the East Bank of the Jordan River.

          • Shingo

            No Jordan in Jordan.

            The East Bank of the Jordan River was not part of San Remo, let alone Balfour and was only added in 1922.

          • Drakken

            If no land can be kept after you capture it, then I should be able to get all my families lands and estates in East Prussia back right?

          • Shingo

            If you can prove you were driven off it and the property taken from your family by force, then sure, why not?

          • Drakken

            Not going to happen, isn’t going to happen and positively already tried. The Russians and Poles laughed at us. The same with the Israeli’s and Jordanians and the wes bank, they are not going to get any land for peace period.

          • Gee

            How about Eugene Rostow The New York Times, “Don’t strong-arm Israel,” Feb. 19, 1991

            “Security Council Resolution 242, approved after the 1967 war, stipulates not only that Israel and its neighboring states should make peace with each other but should establish “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Until that condition is met, Israel is entitled to administer the territories it captured – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip – and then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land to “secure and recognized boundaries free of threats or acts of force.””

          • Shingo

            “How about Eugene Rostow The New York Times, “Don’t strong-arm Israel,” Feb. 19, 1991″

            Rostow is lying, just like he lied about being one of the drafters of UNSC242, when in fact, he was just an observer.

            The Mitchell report repeatedly noted that resolution 242 requires Israel to first withdraw its armed forces from the territory it occupied in 1967 before the Palestinians can be asked to terminate all states of belligerency. It also stressed the illegality of Israel’s unilateral annexation of Jerusalem and its settlement policy. Those have been imposed by the threat or use of force. See the findings under the heading “Fourth Geneva Convention” on pdf page 65.http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/reports/ACF319.pdf

          • Gee

            Excuse me?!?!? WTF are you smoking. Rostow was one of the 4 main drafters. Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Arthur J. Goldberg, and Baron George-Brown.

            Who cares what George Mitchell said – it was no more a legal opinion than yours.

            Your lies are so moronic that you must not have a brain.

          • Shingo

            Wrong again.

            Rostow was not a drafter, though he claims he was. Dershowitz also claims he was a drafter and that too turned out to be false.

            “David Korn, former State Department office director for Israel and Arab-Israeli affairs, responded that “Professor Rostow may think he `helped produce’ Resolution 242, but in fact he had little if anything to do with it.” He was an “onlooker,” like “many others who have claimed a hand in it.” “It was U.S. policy at the time and for several years afterward,” Korn continues, “that [any border] changes would be no more than minor.” Korn confirms that “Both Mr. Goldberg and Secretary of State Dean Rusk told King Hussein that the United States would use its influence to obtain territorial compensation from Israel for any West Bank lands ceded by Jordan to Israel,” and that Jorda n’s acquiescence was based on these promises. Rostow’s evasive response contests none of these statements.”

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Shingo troll said:

            “Commentary magazine is not a source. It never existed in 1967.”

            WRONG.

            “First issue 1945″

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentary_%28magazine%29

            Shingo, YOU LIE.

            Happy Eternal Nakba!

          • Shingo

            Yes I stand corrected, Commentary does indeed date back to 1945.

          • Gee

            Liar. Lord Caradon NEVER said any such thing.

            How about something he really said?

            “We didn’t say there should be a withdrawal to the ’67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of ’67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier… . We did not say that the ’67 boundaries must be forever.”

          • Shingo

            Yes, Caradon did indeed say that and I have provided the source.

            “How about something he really said?”

            And your point? All Caradon is saying is that the borders needed to be corrected and straightened as they cut through towns and villages.

            Not one word in that quote suggests Israel were entitled to keep the land they captured in 1967.

          • Gee

            No – it was up to us to decide not you

          • Shingo

            It’s not for you to decide because it’s not Israeli land.

          • Drakken

            Sure it is, the Israeli’s won it fair and square, and you leftarded commi’s whine and cry about it, happy nakba.

          • StanleyT

            where did Caradon say borders needed straightening?

          • Shingo

            I beg your pardon, that was British Foreign Secretary George Brown, not Caradon.

            In an interview to the London monthly, “The Middle East” (May 1978) which clarified the exact meaning of the resolution and the nature of any territorial revisions:

            “It would have been impossible to get the Resolution through if the words “all” or “the” were included. But the English text is clear. Withdrawal from territories means just that, nothing more, nothing less. The French text is equally legitimate. In the French translation the word “des” is used before territories, meaning “from the”, implying all the territories seized in the ’67 war. The Israelis knew this. They understood that it called for withdrawal with only MINOR BORDER CHANGES from the old frontiers – just to STRAIGHTERN the lines. I told the Israelis they had better accept it, because if they didn’t they could be left with something worse, and with our version there would be something to argue about later.”
            — See Palestine and the law: guidelines for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict, by Musa E. Mazzawi, Ithaca Press, 1997, ISBN: 0863722229, page 209

          • Drakken

            Too bloody bad, the effing rag heads lost the wars they started so the un can take a hike. Your arguments are nothing more than a academic exercise in stupidity. The Israeli’s are in possession of land they conquered. The one thing I can always depend upon is you bloody savages will continue to wage jihad against Israel and us westerners until we give you that mailed fist that you savages so richly deserve.

          • StanleyT

            I’m still waiting for your source for this allegation. I have been trying to find it and cannot. Everything I find points to the interpretation I have mentioned here. Not only that, but Caradon went on to say “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.”

            And I can’t find this supposed Georgetown seminar. Give me a link to it.

          • Shingo

            So what you are admitting is that you never read the original statement from Caradon at all.

            Let’s start with what you claim Caradon said and provide a link to that, and see where it came from shall we?

            When and where did he say that:

            “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.”?

          • StanleyT

            No, you provide your link to what you claim Caradon said. Every search turns up the quotes I have given above and none of them even come remotely close to what you claim

          • Shingo

            “Every search turns up the quotes I have given above and none of them even come remotely close to what you claim”

            Commentary Magazine is not a source.

            Here is one source of Caradon’s quote:

            “We all assumed that withdrawal from occupied territories as provided in the Resolution was applicable to East Jerusalem. This was not questioned at the time and has only much more recently been raised in fierce discussion.” p 14

          • StanleyT

            P14 of what? Give me a link to this Georgetown seminar. I can’t find it.

          • Shingo
          • StanleyT

            that url turns up absolutely nothing. You’re a fraud. The quotes I gave you are everywhere – literally all over the Internet. Your quotes are remarkable only for their invisibility. Even when you claim to providing sources, they turn out to be completely bogus. Just like you.

          • Shingo

            What are you talking about? It links to a PDF

            Boston College International and Comparative Law Review

            With sub-heading

            U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242: A CASE STUDY IN DIPLOMATIC AMBIGUITY.

            By LoRD CARADON, ARTHUR]. GoLDBERG, MOHAMED H. EL-ZAYYAT AND ABBA EBAN. [Introduction by

            Joseph]. Sisco.] Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service,

            Georgetown University, 1981,54 pp., paper.

          • StanleyT

            I may have got the name wrong, relying on memory because I do have a day job, rather than confirming it. But I got the argument correct. So you still lose.

          • Taimoor Khan

            It doesn’t matter. That was the point. The writer will die too, would people consult him even then? What’s written is important.

          • StanleyT

            exactly. And what is written is “territories”. Not “the territories” Not “all territories”.

          • N. Wasse

            For the readers this Arab wannabe is not even concerned about what happened to his own ancestors the Hindus
            Timur charity starts at home

          • Drakken

            You rag heads lost the territory in wars you savages started, to the victors go the spoils.

          • Shingo

            “You rag heads lost the territory in wars you savages started, to the victors go the spoils.”

            So why wasn’t Saddam allowed to keep Kuwait then?

          • Drakken

            Because ole Saddam got a tad too big for his britches. Personally we westerners should have just taken the Kuwaitis and Saudi’s oil and called it a day. They could have then gone back into the desert and shagged their goats to their little hearts content.

          • Omar

            Because Saddam’s Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait was illegal and immoral. Most of the whole world condemned Saddam’s Iraq for the regime’s evil actions against a sovereign state. Only the Communists and the evil “Palestine Liberation Organization” supported the illegal invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

          • Shingo

            “Because Saddam’s Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait was illegal and immoral. “‘

            So is Israel’s occupation of Palestine, but you have no problem with it apparently.

          • Omar

            The difference between Kuwait and “Palestine” is that Kuwait is a sovereign country, while “Palestine” is a geographical entity, not a nation nor an ethnicity. That is Communist propaganda from the Soviet Union at its worse. Israel is a historical reality, while Arab “Palestine” is an artificial invention. Anyone who lives in the Holy Land region (Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan) is a Palestinian, regardless of characteristics. The Israelis and Jordanians are Palestinians. Palestine is not even an Arabic name. Palestine is a Latin name meaning Philistines, who were Greek sailors who had red hair (the Philistines were not Arabs). The Romans conquered the Holy Land in 66 AD, almost 600 years before Islam was established as a religion and when the Arabs started moving into the area. If Israel is “illegitimate”, so is Jordan, yet you have no qualms about Jordan occupying parts of the Holy Land. Another difference between Israel’s sovereignty and Saddam’s Iraq trying to occupy Kuwait was that the partition of the Palestine Mandate was approved by the United Nations, while almost no country approved of Saddam’s illegal actions towards the sovereign country of Kuwait, and rightfully so. Operation Desert Storm liberated Kuwait and ensured the sovereignty of that small country. That’s the difference. Learn from facts instead of repeating Communist/Islamist propaganda.

          • Shingo

            “The difference between Kuwait and “Palestine” is that Kuwait is a sovereign country, while “Palestine” is a geographical entity, not a nation nor an ethnicity.”‘

            You are using reverse logic to justify the action. The reason Palestine is a state, but does not enjoy sovereignty is because it is occupied by Israel. And Israel is violating the UN Charter by denying the Palestinians self determination in doing so.

            “Israel is a historical reality, while Arab “Palestine” is an artificial invention.”‘

            On the contrarty. Israel was the artificial invention created by colonist at a time when Palestine already existed.

          • Omar

            Oh, please. You are repeating Communist and Islamist lies and propaganda. “Palestine” is a geographical entity, not a nation nor an ethnicity. Israel is an ancient land and a historic reality. Even your beloved Koran says “Children of Israel” multiple times in that written text. The “State of Palestine” and the “Palestinian people” were invented by the Soviet Union when the KGB created the so-called “Palestine Liberation Organization” in the 1960s in order to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist. Israel and Jordan are Palestine and the Israelis and Jordanians are Palestinians. That’s a fact.

          • Omar

            Also, the Philistines did not “become” Arabs. They were never Arabs to begin with. The Philistines never became Arabs. That is Islamist propaganda. The name Palestine is Latin meaning Philistines, who were Greek sailors with red hair. Since Arabic has no “p” sound in its language, the Latin name “Palestina” became “Falastin”, a word that has no meaning and no etymology at all. Also, the Holy Land predates Jordan by a few thousand years, so yes, Jordan is occupying parts of the Holy Land region. The name Israel is mentioned multiple times in your beloved Koran as “Children of Israel”. That is undeniable. Neo-Communist Russia continues to support Communist China’s so-called “no-action” motion on the issue of Tibet and the plight of the Tibetan people. So, you are the hypocrite here, not me.

          • Shingo

            “Also, the Philistines did not “become” Arabs. ”

            Of course they did, which is why Palestinians are called Philistines throughout he region.

            ” Also, the Holy Land predates Jordan by a few thousand years, so yes, Jordan is occupying parts of the Holy Land region”

            There is no such territory as the Holy Land. It’s just a patch of territory that is significant to 3 religions.

            ” The name Israel is mentioned multiple times in your beloved Koran as “Children of Israel”.”

            So what?

            “Neo-Communist Russia continues to support Communist China’s so-called “no-action” motion on the issue of Tibet and the plight of the Tibetan people.”‘

            Tibet has always been part of China.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Territories have been returned to their owners.

            Israel.

            The arab bandits, thieves are upset that their ill gotten gain has been returned to their rightful owners.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Those territories will not be returned without war. If the Arabs win, then they do what they want, on the ground. That’s the way it works.

            The UN is nothing. The ICC is nothing. Events on the ground trump every decision made by any international body.

            Learn it.

          • Drakken

            He is an inbred wog after all.

          • Omar

            Islamist Nazis like Hamas and Hezbollah are guilty of human rights violations. Hamas lynches homosexuals (for the “crime” of being homosexual), as well as anyone else who is suspected of being an Israeli agent.

          • Taimoor Khan

            You are drifting. For example, Blacks were lynched in America not so long ago. Does that mean America should have been occupied then?

          • Omar

            But that practice has ended for quite a while. Meanwhile, whites are being massacred by firing squads in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. Where is your outrage over that? Black African Christians are being massacred in a campaign of genocide by the Islamist apartheid dictatorship in Sudan. Where is your outrage over that? And homosexuals are being lynched in Islamist states for the horrible “crime” of being homosexual. Where is your outrage over that?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Drifting? Homosexuals are lynched in koranazi regimes TODAY. Girls are shot in the head by taliban savages for wanting an education.

            Taimoor, Please stop worshiping Satan.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You are drifting. For example, Blacks were lynched in America not so long ago. Does that mean America should have been occupied then?”

            If there is no sovereign to turn to for relief and an oppressed minority rises up to fill that void and establish sovereignty, then yes.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            And how long has it been since Britain and France shipped slaves to the Americas? Perhaps the descendants of these slaves should take over the UK and France, by your “logic” …

          • Gee

            There is no ICC judgment, nor do they have any authority, nor does the UNSC 242 say any such thing.

            BTW moron stop lying

          • Taimoor Khan

            Then you don’t have any legal argument. Period.

          • Gee

            Wow the UN Charter is not legal. The Geneva Convention is not legal. The Covenant of the League of Nations is not legal. The charter of the ICC is not legal, the San Remo Treaty is not legal.

            So just what is legal?

            Where is the Arab claim? What is it based upon – since none of the real international laws are legal?

          • N. Wasse

            Amazing how about your Hindu ancestors that were brutalized by Islam care to tell us?

          • Shingo

            “There is no ICC judgment, nor do they have any authority, nor does the UNSC 242 say any such thing.”

            Yes it does. You don’t even know the difference between Lord Caradon and Lord Carrington,so what would you know?

            There is also the Mitchell Report that concludes that according to UNSC242, Israel have to withdraw form the occupied territories.

          • Gee

            Liar – I repeat the ICC does not have jurisdiction nor did they make a ruling and the UNSC 242 not only did not say it – it was illegal under the UN Charter and UNSC 242 was not legal because it was passed under Chapter 6 and not Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

            The Mitchell Report has a much authority as you – none whatsoever. It is not a legal authority in any way

          • Shingo

            “Liar – I repeat the ICC does not have jurisdiction nor did they make a ruling and the UNSC 242 not only did not say it””

            You’re another ignoramus who is confusing his courts. I referrered to the ICJ, not ICC.

            And while the ICJ does not have jurisdiction, they are recognized as the highest authority in the world with respect to international law, so if Ari believes Israel’s case is rock solid, he might try explaining why 14 of the 15 justices at the ICJ disagree.

            And yes, the ICJ did base their findings on UNSC242.

            And yes, UNSC242 is legal under the UN Charter. After all, Israel claims it recognized it, so you might want to take it up with them and point out the error of their ways.

            “The Mitchell Report has a much authority as you – none whatsoever.”

            Again, it was yet another ruling as to the facts of UNSC242, which say you are wrong.

            The whole point of this being that Israel’s claims have no legal basis whatsoever.

          • Drakken

            Your play at what un body said or didn’t say is an academic exercise in stupidity and ignorance, the sandf apes lost the land in wars they started, and the effing sand apes will never ever give Israel any peace unless it is peace of the grave. As far as I am concerned the Israeli’s have acted foolishly and stupidly, when those sand apes wage war against you, keep what you conquer and killem all and let allah sortem out, that is the only language the inbred muslim respect and understand. To give these leftarded commi’s any forum is to admit defeat. You tell the sand apes in gaza and the west bank that any more acts of aggression will be met by total war and Israel will keep what it captures. That will get their attention.

          • Gee

            You are the person that wrote ICC – not me.

            As for the jurisdiction of the ICJ – guess what – they don’t have any.

            2. The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:

            a. the interpretation of a treaty;

            b. any question of international law;

            c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;

            d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.

            Israel did not agree or ask them – so their recommendation is moot. That is in their charter – wrong one more time.

            Our claims are based on real international laws.

            Now for really hard one, I bet you cannot find a single legal claim for the Arabs. That is a challenge that I know you won’t even attempt

          • Shingo

            I never said the ICJ had jurisdiction, I said they represent the highest international legal authority. So if Ari Lieberman wants to argue that Israel’s legal claim is rock solid, he might want to explain why no one at the UN agrees.

            “Israel did not agree or ask them – so their recommendation is moot. That is in their charter – wrong one more time.”

            Again, your argument is both false and irrelevant. If Israel’s case was as rock solid as Liberman suggests, then the court’s ruling would have reflected that. Instead, they ruled 15-0 against Israel.

            So if you claims were based on real international laws. then the ICJ would have taken your position rather than throw it out of court.

            Secondly, it doesn’t matter if Israel asked or agreed to the recommendation. Of course, if Israel is so confident of it’s case, then it it free to reer the matter to the ICJ for a ruling and present it’s case.

            Of course, it won’t because it knows it has no legal leg to stand on.

            “Now for really hard one, I bet you cannot find a single legal claim for the Arabs.”

            Yes, the ICJ ruled in their favor.

          • Gee

            So in plain language you agree that the ICJ and their recommendation are not legal and have no bearing.

            Wonder where I heard that before – oh right – I said it

          • Shingo

            No, in plain language, the ICJ is the highest legal authority in the world and they reject Ari Lieberman’s arguments, which proves he is wrong in claiming Israel’s legal claims are rock solid.

          • Omar

            You are3 the ignoramus who is an anti-Semite and who supports Communist/Islamist totalitarianism. Learn from facts.

          • Shingo

            No you are the ignoramus. Islamist totalitarianism is supported by the US and Saudi Arabia…and Israel.

          • Omar

            You are the ignoramus. Communist and Islamist totalitarianism is supported by neo-Communist Russia, Communist China and Islamist Iran…and so-called “Palestine”. That’s the reality.

          • Shingo

            “Communist and Islamist totalitarianism is supported by neo-Communist Russia, “‘

            Rubbish.

            Russia is at war with Islamists in Chenya you idiot and they were actually backed by the US who used them to trick the Soviets into invading Afghanistan.

            In Syria, Russia is backing the secular leadership and the US is backing the Islamist yet AGAIN.

            That’s the reality.

          • StanleyT

            And faced with the truth, unable to argue or provide sources for his/her/its ridiculous assertions, Shingo is now Shingone.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Taimoor Khancer,

            Considering all the death and destruction that islamofascists have brought to the world,

            May your prophet of Satan, Muhammed, continue to BURN in H E L L for all time.

            INSHALLAH!

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          I prefer fuel-air explosives, although MOABs do leave a nuke-like mushroom cloud.

      • StanleyT

        You will clearly say anything to justify Arab killing of innocent civilians. Show me where the UN says anyone can fire rockets at anyone else, for any reason.

        • Taimoor Khan

          Settlers are armed, so they are enemy combatants. Aren’t invading combatants to be fought?

          • StanleyT

            They are not invading. They are simply living there, where they frequently get invaded by really nice little terrorists who are in the habit of slitting babies’ throats. So the fact that they are armed is hardly surprising – except to people like you who don’t think Jews have any right to self-defence.

          • Taimoor Khan

            They are living in illegal settlements, illegal declared by International law and international court and in violation of international conventions. So they are combatants, occupiers. That they bring their families with them, comes under human shield. I am talking strictly legal here. Tell me how living in illegal occupied territories is peaceful?

          • StanleyT

            You keep saying “strictly legal”, but then all you can offer is your interpretation of what is legal. I keep giving you the legal views of thousands of international lawyers, but YOU ARE DEAF to reason.

          • Gee

            Since there is no such thing as an illegal settlement under any international law – you are wrong. Name a single law – bet you can’t.

            The ICC has no jurisdiction and has never made any ruling – wrong yet again

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            hamass, hezbullah, al qada are armed enemy combatants.

            When they can’t kill Infidels, they kill each other – as in Syria.

          • Drakken

            Well good, with that Islamic thought process in mind, Israel, Killem all and let allah sortem out!

          • defcon 4

            Um, where has it been proven that Jews living in the W. Bank are allowed to be armed in self defense at all?

      • defcon 4

        The only difference I have with you is who constitutes the “occupiers” of Judea, Samaria, Israel and Gaza. I’ll give you a big hint: it’s not the Jewish people.

        • Taimoor Khan

          Read 242 and ICC judgement on wall and settlements.

          • Gee

            There is no ICC judgment – you are a liar. The UNSC 242 does not agree with you

          • N. Wasse

            But I just told you that Allah does not agree with 242 so do you disagree with your Allah the Zionist?

      • Omar

        Oh, so you justify Hamas firing rockets into cities and towns. You are a supporter of Islamist Nazism in the Middle East. Quit trolling.

        • Taimoor Khan

          I am only making a case in light of armed illegal settlers.

          • Gee

            No such thing under international law – you are a liar

          • Taimoor Khan

            Armed illegal settlers = enemy combatants, no?

          • Gee

            No such thing as illegal settlers – especially on our lands. Attacking civilians is a war crime.

          • Drakken

            They kill yours, you kill all of them.

          • Gee

            We are not like them

          • defcon 4

            As 65 years of unending islam0nazi terrorism in Israel can attest.

          • Drakken

            I am reminded that those who take the high moral ground are always buried in it, they call them mass graves. So you had better start dealing with the muslims in their own bloody coin.

          • Drakken

            I see you sand apes as nothing but targets.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Islamofascists = enemy combatants, yes?

          • N. Wasse

            You still did not answer my questions
            1. Is it true that your so called Allah says in Q2:47 that the Jews are his favorite people?
            2.Is it true that your Allah gave the “sacred land” to the Jews and al-Tabari tells us that Allah gave the area between the Euphrates and the Nile to the Jews!
            This is Allah’s stance on resolution 242
            This means that Allah is a Zionist! Right?
            What a disaster

      • Gee

        No the Geneva Convention explicitly states the exact opposite. Can’t claim it one place and deny it else where

      • N. Wasse

        Can you tell us readers is it true that your so called Allah says in Q2:47 that the Jews are his favorite nation? A yes or no will do

        And is it true that Allah says is Q5:21 that he gives “The holy land” to the Jews only and al-Tabari tells us that this holy land is really the area between the Euphrates and the Nile? A yes or no will do

        What a disaster it seems that you disagree with your Allah so do you disagree with Allah?

        Boys and girls Allah disagrees with resolution 242

        It is your Islamic sources that tell us about these disasters

      • objectivefactsmatter

        It’s legal to wipe out militants too. I say they should just finish it.

        And they’re not occupiers. They are the legitimate sovereigns. They did not displace any legitimate sovereign.

  • Gee

    You left off a few laws that need to be mentioned

    From the UN Charter

    Article 80

    Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

    So they too said it was ours and could not be given to anybody else.

    Then there is

    Article 78

    The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality.

    So once Israel became a member state the UN had no more authority over any territory.

    Followed by

    Article 2, Paragraph 7

    Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

    Meaning that the UN has no authority to change any country’s borders or immigration laws

    • defcon 4

      Great point Gee.

  • Gee

    Now I want to see the Arabs’ legal claim. Bet nobody in the entire world can produce one

    • StanleyT

      All they can do is scream loudly and often. As Goebbels said, repeat a lie often enough and it will become the truth,

      • defcon 4

        At least Goebbels had the decency to put some thought into his lies to at least give them the aura of plausibility.

    • Taimoor Khan

      The Palestinian claim is recognized worldwide LEGALLY. Here we are strictly arguing “legally”. Why do you think they have to defend it? It is Israel – like a criminal trying to make a case for himself – which needs articles like this. The UN, International Court of Justice, all upheld Palestinian case to Occupied Territories.

      It’s just the biggest thug of the World, U.S., supports Israel and its crimes, and vetoes actions against it.

      • Drakken

        Typical muzzy, cry and whine like a little bitch when the kaffir just doesn’t give into their demands. Well haji, your about to be a lot more disappointed.

      • StanleyT

        You say “LEGALLY” but you don’t prove it. The UN General Assembly can mutter and sputter all it likes, it cannot write international law. The UNSC cannot overwrite decisions of the League of Nations. The ICJ did not issue a ruling on Israel – and besides, it was highly biased, as I’ve already pointed out.

        So Israel’s claim is clear. The “Palestinian” claim? Just bluster and completely unprovable.

        • Taimoor Khan

          You CAN’T dictate what UN can do or not. The UN recognized 242 and two state-settlement. It’s just that the thug America stands in the way. Otherwise, Palestinian needs no justification. The whole world condemns Israeli occupation, except the thug U.S.

          • StanleyT

            LISTEN!!!!!! The UN (see Chapter 80 of its charter) CANNOT CHANGE ANY LEAGUE OF NATIONS RESOLUTIONS!!!!

            I apologize to others for shouting, but Khan clearly KHANNOT HEAR!

          • Taimoor Khan

            Oh, the UN did 242. Which makes it clear that Israel has NO legal right to territories “occupied in recent conflict” – i.e., 67 war.

            More so, ICC declared Israeli wall and settlements in territories occupied in 67 war as ILLEGAL and violation of international law.

            I don’t have to shout, because I am not desperate.

          • StanleyT

            You are clearly deaf to reason. Why on earth do you keep repeating the same thing again and again? It won’t make it any less a pile of nonsense.

          • Taimoor Khan

            You are prejudiced. And a prejudiced person thinks like that. The windows of your mind are shut. You are not open to reason and you are accusing me?

            We are talking about legal argument. And certainly, as things stand, Palestinian argument is recognized world wide, by international bodies, in 242, by ICC, while the argument for Israel to annex West Bank is embarrassing even for Israelis to state on international forums, such that they hide their true intentions.

          • StanleyT

            You know what? I am sick of tired of arguing with you. You have provided no new evidence to disprove my arguments. All you do is keep repeating the same arguments ad nauseam – and you have created nausea in me.

            And then you have the gall to call me prejudiced? You’re the Jew hater here. The only thing I hate is somebody who is so blinded by their own prejudices that they refuse to hear logic or reason.

            This is over. If you can offer anything new, I will be happy to reengage. But if you keep repeating the same nonsense again and again, I’m done.

          • Taimoor Khan

            I am not a Jew hater, but you are a Muslim hater, who eyes Palestinian land on dubious pretexts.

            See below where I exposed your argument fully. We’ll continue any debate from that post.

          • StanleyT

            Okay, you have provided a new argument. You say you are not a Jew hater – yet you call Israel a “settler state” and on that basis, you deny the Jews any right to a homeland on their ancestral lands. That is Jew hatred.

          • Taimoor Khan

            No, this is not. Sikhs don’t have a country. Why don’t you give California to Sikhs and remove its population, and if you don’t, I will acuse of you being Sikh hater.

            Jews can live as a minority to the country they were part of before they begin the settler enterprise, just as there are hundreds of small religious minorities doing so. You mean to say Jews cannot live without Jewish state? You mean to say the U.S. Jews can’t identify with U.S.? Can’t consider it their homeland?

            States are historical realities, not intentional orchestrations based on religions or ethnicity. Many states overlap in these terms.

            In fact, you demanding a ‘special’ state be build by taking the rights of the locals can be termed as “local-people-hating”, in this case, Palestinian-hating.

          • StanleyT

            And Israel is a historical reality, with more legitimacy than many other states. it was created under international law.

          • Taimoor Khan

            No it was not. There was no Israel, a minority of Jews in the region compared to local Palestinians and Christians, when Russian and Polish settlers started migrating as a conspiracy under British empire.

            Now this is not strictly legal argument, but historical.

          • StanleyT

            Conspiracy under British empire? You get more and more ridiculous with every post. The Jews migrated to the Holy Land because of pogroms and anti-Semitism and a historical yearning for the land of their ancestors. They were quickly followed by hordes of Arabs, coming in to take advantage of the new employment opportunities created by the Jews.

          • Taimoor Khan

            Hold on! You are wrong as usual. Consult regional population statistics of UN, can you?

            The region now Palestine-Israel was overwhelmingly non-Jewish and well-populated before any modern wave of Eastern European settlers. What are you smoking?

            You probably have read fraudulent works of Zionist writers who have argued that the land was empty when settlers came and then Arabs flocked. Absolutely nonsense. UN statistics, not Arab ones, confirm that the land was well populated and predominantly non-Jewish. Go educate yourself.

            I will respond to any further responses you come up with later. It’s late here, you know.

          • StanleyT

            In the words of a 1937 report by a British commission of enquiry headed by Lord Peel:

            The general beneficent effect of Jewish immigration on Arab welfare is illustrated by the fact that the increase in the Arab population is most marked in urban areas affected by Jewish development. A comparison of the Census returns in 1922 and 1931 shows that, six years ago, the increase percent in Haifa was 86, in Jaffa 62, in Jerusalem 37, while in purely Arab towns such as Nablus and Hebron it was only 7, and at Gaza there was a decrease of 2 percent.[26]

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            “pakistan” was carved out of India in 1947 – and “pakistan” promptly ejected most the Hindu population.

            Sounds like Ethnic Cleansing to me. How ’bout you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “UN statistics, not Arab ones, confirm that the land was well populated and predominantly non-Jewish. Go educate yourself.”

            And the UN is not dominated by the OIC.

            Do much crack?

          • Drakken

            It looks more like it every day that we westerners need to bring the empire back, it would put these sand apes where they belong, on their knees licking our boots.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yeah, just as a Sikh state would be created in California!”

            If the Sikhs are persecuted, fight off their oppressors and win sovereignty, I assure you that they will have their state in California or anywhere else it happens. That is how states happen in history.

          • defcon 4

            I don’t think appealing to international law is a good idea anymore, especially in light of the fact the UN has become nothing more than a rubber stamp for islam0nazism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, this is not. Sikhs don’t have a country. Why don’t you give California to Sikhs and remove its population, and if you don’t, I will acuse of you being Sikh hater.”

            Then you truly are delusional.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Jews can live as a minority to the country they were part of before they begin the settler enterprise, just as there are hundreds of small religious minorities doing so.”

            They could try that except that they were persecuted, rose up, and won.

            So please f off. Thanks a lot.

            “You mean to say Jews cannot live without Jewish state?”

            The have as much right as anyone else to form a nation. And in the circumstances, they are righteous in their dealings in Israel.

            “You mean to say the U.S. Jews can’t identify with U.S.?”

            Obviously many do. Just as many French and other immigrants do without sacrificing the rights of the people that remain in their ancestral homelands.

            “Can’t consider it their homeland?”

            Some might, others don’t. What’s it to you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “States are historical realities, not intentional orchestrations based on religions or ethnicity. Many states overlap in these terms.”

            Historical accidents? OK…you’re welcome to your own delusions.

            “In fact, you demanding a ‘special’ state be build by taking the rights of the locals can be termed as “local-people-hating”, in this case, Palestinian-hating.”

            It’s not hating anyone but their oppressors. You want to throw out the timeline so that we can feel sorry for the poor jihadis as the “oppressed” when in reality they f-ed themselves up by being oppressors and then the losers as well. Now you all want to hit the reset button.

            That’s not how the world works.

          • defcon 4

            Muslimes deserve nothing but hate — especially from the najjis kaffir, the untermenschen of islamic theology.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Taimoor Khancer, You are a racist person, blinded by hatred of others. Hatred of Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais and fellow Muslims.

            You are a sick and depraved person.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Palestinian argument is recognized world wide, by international bodies, in 242, by ICC,”

            It’s a good thing that those corrupt institutions don’t have sovereignty over me, nor over Israel.

            That’s why global democracy can’t work. Too much corruption out there in so many populations.

          • Gee

            The UNSC 242 did not say that – try learning to read. The ICC did not make such a ruling and cannot – it is in direct violation of numerous international laws and their own charter.

            Try again with a fact

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Not desperate?

            Your world is collapsing on your head. Your fellow Islamists are killing each other daily. And you sooth your blood by attacking others.

            100,000+ dead in Syria. Ever Arab Spring has resulted in more death and destruction.

            Cry yourself to sleep over the realization that the “sons of pigs and apes” defeat you and reveal you as “sons of vipers and hyenas”.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Oh, the UN did 242. Which makes it clear that Israel has NO legal right to territories “occupied in recent conflict” – i.e., 67 war.”

            That’s a guideline cited (often incorrectly) by others. That’s why it’s being discussed more than any other reason.

            Guess who the sovereign is? Guess who has the final say? Your legal arguments are not binding anywhere.

            If the PA thinks they have a legal argument they should present it in court in Israel.

          • Omar

            And Communist China, supported by neo-Communist Russia, always try to suppress any international discussion on Tibet and the plight of the Tibetan people at the hand of the Communists, which you support. Russia and China supports Islamist Iran and their puppets, the so-called “Palestinians” in their quest to instigate a second Holocaust against the Jews of Israel and around the world, just like the Soviet Union helped Nazi Germany instigate the Holocaust during World War II. You are a Stalinist/Maoist troll who supports Communist/Islamist totalitarianism. Learn from facts instead of repeating Communist/Islamist lies and propaganda.

          • Gee

            So what – it is in direct violation of Articles 2, 78 and 80 of the UN Charter. They do not have any authority

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Your “whole world” is a world of dictators, socialists, theocracies.

            The REAL World opposes Islamofascism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You CAN’T dictate what UN can do or not.”

            It doesn’t matter. It’s a political forum. Not legally binding unless members each make it so where they have sovereignty.

            Guess who has sovereignty in Israel? It ain’t the PA.

          • Nixys

            Ohhhhhhh America is such a big meanie! So CRUEL to not let Israel get wiped off the map! Those evil Americans are practically NAZIS!

      • Omar

        And the two biggest thugs in the world, Russia and China, support Islamist terrorists as well as the fictional “Palestinian” nationality, which the Soviet Union invented back in the 1960s with the creation of the so-called “Palestine Liberation Organization”. The Soviet Union/Russia supported and financed Communist China’s illegal m

      • Gee

        So you scream that they have a legal claim. Based on what? Where is their claim?

        The UN Charter, San Remo Treaty and Mandate for Palestine state that it is ours and cannot be given to anybody else. It says that explicit term.

        What is the Arab claim based on? Any law or treaty?

      • iluvisrael

        You muzzballs don’t give a crap about the invented ‘paleostonians’ – arab/muslim countries kick them out like kuwait did or they treat them like garbage – it just burns up up that we Jews have our own country – go cry in your koran.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        The biggest thug of the World is Islamofascism. 1,400 years of invasion, murder, theft, conquest, rape, beheading.

        Ask a Hindu what they think of Islamism.

  • defcon 4

    I feel that no settlement of lands w/the paleswine should be discussed until the right of return of the Jewish people to the lands forcibly taken from them in Soddy Barbaria is resolved (i.e. Medina, which was then called Yathrib).

    • Taimoor Khan

      Then Canaanites will come into question. :D

      • defcon 4

        Why are you planning on claiming the paleswine are Canaanites? That lie has already been undone.

        • Taimoor Khan

          I am not necessarily doing so. But if you want to back in history, I will too.

          • Omar

            Hey Communist/Islamist, Happy Eternal Nakba!

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Who claims to be Canaanites today???

            Islamism has killed more people over 1,400 years than any other totalitarian ideology.

          • defcon 4

            “ISlamism”? LOL.

          • N. Wasse

            Well let us start with step one send all the Arabs and Arab wannabes to al-Hijaz where they came from deal?

  • macdaddy31

    You sort of lost your additional argument towards the latter half of the article that the original, legally authorized mandate provided all of the areas to Israel. Britain improperly ceded most to the Emirate of Transjordan – sobeit. That is a reality now that nobody wishes to change. But the remaining territory was to be a part of Israel. This, in addition to Israel obtaining that land through defensive conquest, are both strong, viable arguments to their ownership of those lands and a counter to the use of the word “settlements”.

    • Taimoor Khan

      There were no defense “conquests” from legal point of view. Israel is occupied power legally.

      • Drakken

        You get to keep what you kill.

      • N. Wasse

        And let me paraphrase what you wrote
        There were no defense “conquests” from the legal point of view The barbarian Arabs that came from the Hijaz invaded the Middle East in 633 AD and the Arabs are really an occupier power now
        See? you are stupid

  • Taimoor Khan

    UN resolution 242 means Israel is an occupying power under international law, condemned so by International court of justice. International court of justice declared Israeli settlements as illegal and violation of international law and a war crime. Israeli wall is also illegal and war crime. Israel stealing of resources from occupied territories is also a war crime and declared as such by international court.

    The Israeli courts decisions in this regard are worthless and can be thrown in the dustbin.

    So here goes the author’s flawed legal argument into the trash can as the author is relying on misconstruing history and personal opinions of people.

    It is Israel which has rejected two state settlement – which is a compromised solution from Palestinians’ perspective, as they concede most of Palestinian land to Israel – after Palestinian leadership and Arabs state have accepted it. Israel’s in violation of international law but supported by the biggest violator of the same (U.S.) so it gets away with it.

    The initial rejection of Palestinians and Arabs of the state of Israel is understandable because no people would accept a piece of their land given to settlers. Would Americans accept Texas been given to Mexico (and I deliberately use this example for obvious reasons!)??

    But in recent decades, Arab states and Palestinians have agreed to the compromised solution (compromised from Palestinian perspective as stated), but it is Israel and its backer U.S. that stand in the way of peace.

    In short, Israel has no legal, moral, historical or any kind of valid case for occupying the occupied territories.

    • Drakken

      Your fellow rag heads lost the wars they started, to the victors go the spoils. I hope the Indians take Kashmir back and kick every muslim out of there as well. So shove you Islamic morals up your azz, we ain’t playing anymore.

    • StanleyT

      UNSC 242 says nothing of the sort! It calls for a negotiated settlement that will result in “secure” borders – something Israel has been trying to achieve since 1967 and the infamous Khartoum three “nos.

      Israel has better claim under international law (you know, the real international law, not the made up stuff you quote) than any other entity. The article explains it all, but that’s clearly a bit too much for your small mind.

      As for the ICJ, that’s a laugh. To begin with, one of the “judges” on that court at the time was Al‑Khasawneh, an advisor to the King of Jordan and later, Prime Minister of that country. You don’t see the conflict of interest there? Of course you don’t!

      Secondly, because of the biased nature of the submission to the court and of the court itself, Israel did not even bother mounting a defense, just one of the reasons the court could only issue an advisory opinion, NOT a judgement.

      You have no legal leg to stand on. All you can do is spout the usual “Palestinian” bunch of lies and misinformation.

      • Taimoor Khan

        YES! Israel runs away from International authority on International law, precisely because it has NO legal argument. There was also a US judge in iCC panel which condemned the Wall. So here goes your racism out of the window. We are supposed to believe in this trash of an article on a trash of a website, and not ICC judgement? You are not serious, are you?

        Article 242 demands withdrawal from occupied territories and return to pre-67 lines with only minor and mutual adjustments. Don’t teach me stuff you don’t know!

        • StanleyT

          Why on earth do you insist on mis-reading 242 and then arguing with me. GO AND READ THE DARN THING!!!

          And if you think this is a “trash of a website”, why do you spend so much time, especially on a “trash of an article”? Clearly it threatens you and your preconceived, hate-filled nonsense.

          • Taimoor Khan

            I have. And what I have stated about 242 is internationally recognized interpretation, upheld by ICC.

            BTW, I spend some time on this website because it is my hobby to burst bubbles of bigots and show them the light. When they squirm, I love it!

          • StanleyT

            but you’re the only one who’s squirming, because everything you say is nonsense, and I have been pointing that out to you, time and time again.

            For example, your BS about Israelis being eastern Europeans. More than 50% of the Jewish population of Israel is Sephardic – Jews from the Arab world, expelled by countries like Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Tunisia etc. So there goes another of your favourite lies. Too bad for you.

          • defcon 4

            There is no debate on his lies in islam0nazi states, to do so would be to invitation to imprisonment or worse. I remember a Coptic Christian in Egypt once came out in support of Israel (under Mubarak, I believe) he was incarcerated on some spurious charge immediately thereafter. He went on a hunger strike and I never heard anything of what happened to him thereafter. In Malaysia, Raja Petra, a member of the Malay royal family, suggested that Jews were not the descendants of apes and swine and were not the most despised people. He was also incarcerated, without charge, for months on end. I have no idea of what happened to him either.

          • Taimoor Khan

            You make me laugh. Who played the instrumental role in the creation of settler state? The Eastern European settlers. The Arab Jews would not migrate if it were not for the settler Eastern Europeans causing problems in the region. The European settler Jews are mixed. The real Jews are Arab Jews – yes.

          • StanleyT

            And your point is?

          • Taimoor Khan

            Israel is settler state.

          • Drakken

            I hope they expand it from the river to the sea and make it muzzy free.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Islamism is an imperialist, brutal, racist, fascist ideology.

          • Drakken

            Funny how those European “settlers” made Israel what it is today, a modern state, wtf have you effing muslims done besides wage jihad and live in the dark ages?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Funny thing that Eastern European Jews and Sephardic Jews DO NOT kill each other

            as Sunni and Shiite and Wahabbi and Salifi Islamofascists do.

            Clearly Israel isn’t the problem. It’s abhorrent Islamism – at War with the Entire World.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            I thought your hobby was to make us laught and see for ourselves what Islamo-fascist hate ou

    • N. Wasse

      How about your ancestors the Hindus care to comment?

      • Taimoor Khan

        Ask them. BTW, my ancestors were not Hindus.

        • N. Wasse

          But you seem to know all the answer right?
          And BTW your ancestors were Hindus but again this is what Islam is all about that you have no regard for your past right?
          Oh and Allah says that Islam is the religion of the arabs only would you like to know more?

        • N. Wasse

          And BTW your ancestors were Hindus! You are too obvious

  • M.T. Aziz

    Put aside, you Zionist criminals, that international law flies in the face of your lies. The higher authority is that of the Qu’ran, which tells of Muhammad (PBUH) ascending to heaven from al-Quds. It tells of the other great prophets who inhabited the land, Ibrahim, Musa, Isa (PBUT), all of them Muslims, despite the claims of your corrupted religions. All of Palestine–every centimetre–belongs to Islam, and we will not rest until the land is liberated and returned to the ummah. Jews and Christians may continue to live there, but they must submit to Islamic rule and respect the sharia. “Israel” is a cancer, and it cannot survive.

    • StanleyT

      Sorry – just checked your other posts, did not realize you had the “sarc” switched on.

      • Taimoor Khan

        Yes, he is a joker, trying to be sarcastic. He is anti-Muslim.

        BTW, why do you want us to believe the jokes of Isaelites goat herders on which Eastern European settlers make another joke about their “connection” with the land?

        • StanleyT

          I don’t ask you to believe anything, but I do strongly recommend that you learn the difference between international law and Arab propaganda.

          • defcon 4

            “Arab” propaganda? Or islamic propaganda?

          • StanleyT

            Both – thanks!

          • Taimoor Khan

            Tell that to ICC and UNSC. :D

          • StanleyT

            You know what? For once, you’re right. I wish Israel WOULD tell this to the ICC and UNSC. But that’s the whole point of this article.

        • Drakken

          Israel makes the desert bloom, you effing goat fookers bring misery and mayhem.

        • Texas Patriot

          The Promised Land of Israel is a gift from God, and you will soon see that God does not take back his gifts.

    • Drakken

      And your the very reason that there will never ever be peace with you muslim savages, I now truly believe that the only good muslim is a dead muslim. Deo Volente!

    • Texas Patriot

      Mark these words, M. T. Aziz. Israel will not only survive, but it will continue to confiscate the lands of those who attack Israel, until (a) the attacks cease or (b) Israel eventually re-acquires the entirety of the land originally promised to Israel by God. And why not? The Shia to the North cannot agree with the Sunni to the South, and the bloodshed caused by these two perpetually warring tribes is an anathema to God. What better way to keep Muslims from killing each other than to put their brother Israel in between them?

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      M.T. Aziz,

      May your prophet of Satan, muhammed (Pestilence Be Upon Him),

      continue to BURN in H E L L for eternity.

      INSHALLAH!

      That’s the way I feel after 9/11.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      P.S. M.T. Aziz,

      If your islamofascist savages do the unthinkable, Mecca will be TOTALLY OBLITERATED in retaliation – for starters.

    • Omar

      And your beloved Islamist Iran, Islamist Pakistan and Islamist so-called “Palestine” are all cancers to this planet. You Jihadist criminals cannot win and the free world will defeat you. Israel is a historic reality, while your Islamist so-called “Palestine” is an artificial invention. That’s the reality.

  • Cold_Drake_80

    What I find amusing about this whole article is it’s demonstration of the “FPM Hustle”. FPMer spend much of their time spitting on the UN and denouncing it due to its limited efforts to curtail the violence of the great powers. Now, in constructing a fig leaf, the UN Charter and Geneva Convention mean everything.
    I’m waiting for good FPMers to call for the extradition of Bush the Lesser to face War Crimes charges in the Hague. I suspect I’ll wait a long, long time.

    • StanleyT

      The trolls are out in force today!

    • Drakken

      Come on there liberal lover of anything anti-western, go to Gaza and put your money where you liberal big mouth is, I am absolutely sure that Rachel (st pancake) Corrie could use the company and it gives you a chance to show the world how mean those Israeli’s are by objecting to their being slaughtered by Islamic savages.

      • Cold_Drake_80

        *Yawn* you’re already recycling posts? Didn’t you bring up Rachel Corrie in another thread? Maybe you’re just copying another mouth breather here. FPMers are so dull and predictable. Next time try responding to my actual post.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Take a nap turkey. You could be the next Saint Pancake if you play your cards right.

      • Cold_Drake_80

        This is interesting. I knew you weren’t intelligent enough to avoid recycling the same so I did a quick search and found this:
        “Hey Glen, why don’t you put your money where your big mouth is and go join those inbred pali savages, I am sure that Rachel(st pancake) Corrie could use the company, and you could use a well deserved Darwin Award. If you side with the muslims, may you bloody well perish with them.”
        From: Israel and the New Munich at FPM.
        So basically you’ve been regurgitating the same damned comment with only slight variations for a while now. Thanks for making this so easy.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      I’m waiting for “progressives” to explain why they side with the most REGRESSIVE people on the planet today.

      You know, the people who hang homosexuals, stone women to death over family honour, shoot girls in the head for wanting an education, use poison gas on people in Syria, issue death decrees on writers like Salman Rushdie, behead captives like journalist Daniel Pearl.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Now, in constructing a fig leaf, the UN Charter and Geneva Convention mean everything.”

      The UN certainly has no real authority. It is what it is; a political institution. It’s often worth noting mostly because others refer to it. Lies need to be rectified and to do that they need to be discussed. If you actually comprehend what the articles discusses, Israel is not depending on the UN for its sovereignty but rejects UN political attacks and attempts to diminish Israel’s legitimacy.

      It’s mostly driven by the OIC.

      • Cold_Drake_80

        So, again, it says something that can be construed – correctly or not – as useful so it’s good. All other times FPMers spit on the UN and everything it stands for.
        It’s all tactical isn’t it? No, set policy, no stable beliefs just what gives a momentary advantage. It should be obvious but I’ll let you stew on it for a while.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “So, again, it says something that can be construed – correctly or not – as useful so it’s good.”

          It’s not good if it’s more useful to our enemies than it is for us. It’s construed as useful by a lot of people. That is for sure.

          “All other times FPMers spit on the UN and everything it stands for.”

          I wouldn’t go that far but in the context of certain conversations I absolutely understand extreme statements.

          “It’s all tactical isn’t it? No, set policy, no stable beliefs just what gives a momentary advantage.”

          Monetary advantage? Well if that’s how you want to analyze the world you can make that argument. Some people are motivated by other non monetary values but those are a lot harder to quantify.

          Maybe you expect too much.

          “I’ll let you stew on it for a while.”

          Stewing can be productive too.

          Going back to your first thread comment:

          “FPMer spend much of their time spitting on the UN and denouncing it due to its limited efforts to curtail the violence of the great powers.”

          I think it’s more about the hypocrisy than it is an expectation that the UN act like a global police force. If they want to take up certain political roles, they should do it with some degree of integrity or that will make a lot of people angry.

          It’s quite complicated but the point is that confusing them for rational arbiters of justice won’t do anyone any good except for those who manage to manipulate it against the interests of justice. Luckily they have no sovereignty so at least worries about the UN and some “New World Order” are premature even if there are members who would like to see such developments. The NWO crowd seems to be winning hearts and minds to its side and that is a bit scary.

          Again, back to your top comment:

          “I’m waiting for good FPMers to call for the extradition of Bush the Lesser to face War Crimes charges in the Hague. I suspect I’ll wait a long, long time.”

          You seem to be making some questionable assumptions about the cause or reasons for having such expectations. If Bush broke any laws, bring on the evidence and file charges in the appropriate venue. Venues outside of the USA are not appropriate. If you believe in our constitution, you should agree.

  • defcon 4

    The Arab muslimes don’t need the West Bank — they’ve got the rest of the Mid-East and N. Africa as their own, private, islam0fascist misery theme park to wallow in.

  • EVILHASWONAGAIN

    ISRAEL should stop all the -B S-, just drop nuclear bombs on every muslim country in the world. Then ISRAEL can drop nuclear bombs on NYC and THE WEST COAST and then Washington DC…..

    • defcon 4

      Interesting scenario. But doesn’t the largest Jewish population outside of Israel reside in the USA?

      • EVILHASWONAGAIN

        WHO CARES….?

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          EVIL has taken away the Shift key. on your keyboard.

        • defcon 4

          So you would have Israel killing Jews indiscriminately?

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      I’d rather see Eurabia self implode. It WILL happen.

      • EVILHASWONAGAIN

        OK….

  • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

    Ari, “On June 5, 1967 Israel launched a preemptive strike…”

    “Preemptive”=Ambush, that’s how Hitler started out.

    Larry Silverman, owner of the World Trade Center, says the government demolished the 9/11 buildings themselves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2q2mD2HaKA = Rather than prevent a CIA known terrorist attack, America helped those terrorists.

    CIA knew Airplanes would attack New York, yet never told FAA or FBI.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=68LUHa_-OlA#t=421

    • Gee

      Another racist troll with the IQ of a sack of sh*t

      • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

        What’s racist is troll countries who commit “preemptive” attacks.

        Like Israel on Egypt copied Hitler on Poland. Don’t you remember, both countries at some point falsely claimed they were attacked. When people are polite about Israel or Germany they call the attacks “preemptive”.

        Check the real history. Israel originally claimed they were attacked, but then could not prove it. Hitler claims Poland attacked him too.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          WAH!

          Nassar told his fellow savages that he would drive Israel into the sea, but it didn’t work out that way.

          WAH!

          The best defense is a good offense.

          Here is something for you to watch while you are waiting for your next Nakba.

          1941 The Grand Mufti meets Hitler

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSUEx1cKUlg

          • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

            So what?

            Harry S. Truman joined the KKK in 1920. He became President and then signed into existence Israel. He did so because of a Free & Accepted Masonic Brother who was a Jew had begged him to conspire with the Midnight UN meeting. Do you want me to call Truman Grand Wizard so you can feel even?
            http://www.kkklan.com/wall.htm

            F.A.M. are Religious Fraternity requiring pledges of faith.
            Being President & a member, also makes you their leader.
            http://www.pagrandlodge.org/mlam/presidents/truman.html

            So there you have it. The work of F.A.Masons, a Religious Cult, created the state of Israel. And they did this starting with the Mother Lodge in England creating PaleStone in 1919. Then Mandatory Palestine in 1922.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            WOW! Freemasons!

            Didn’t your furher SHlTler hate Freemasons too?

            I’ve already notified the Illuminati to get a Black Helicopter to lock on you. Don’t bother brushing your teeth.

          • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

            KKK and PaleStone was a little too close to the truth for you.

          • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

            You ignore, that a member of the KKK created Israel.
            Harry S Truman 1920-1922, He helped a Catholic.
            http://www.kkklan.com/wall.htm

            The Catholics Attacked Ottoman Libya in 1910.
            Which united the Ottomans war front with the Nazi’s against Fashist Italy. Who cares if there was a Mufti. The creation of Israel was entirely religiously motivated.

            The Free and Accepted Masons helped Hitler rise to power. Then they drove him insane so he would attack England.

          • defcon 4

            Truman joined the KKK? You’ll have to dig up better lies than that.

          • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

            Not a lie. Both Truman and Taft joined the KKK before becoming Presidents of the US. You just didn’t visit the official Klan website to read for yourself. http://www.kkklan.com/wall.htm

            Why we ignored WW1, was we had a string of KKK Presidents.
            Not listed active KKK supporter:
            > President Taft 1908
            KKK Listed members while in office:
            > President Warren G. Harding,
            > President Woodrow Wilson,
            > President McKinley, and
            President Calvin Coolidge
            KKK former member:
            > Harry S Truman

            Theodore Roosevelt, change the name “Executive Mansion” to “White House” in 1902. Named out Military, the “Great White Navy”. And sent Taft to the Philippines to cover up what happened to Magellan & (Moorish) Pigafeta when he landed translated Arabic Script in the Phillipines. When 3 black soldiers in Texas were accused of fighting with White people but then refused to come forward, Roosevelt kicked 150 Blacks military soldiers out of the armed forces for refusing to tell on each other.

            Then President Taft selected the first movie of the White House, to be “Birth of a Nation”. That’s a Klan movie. Then he selected the first Presidential car to be the “White” Steam Car, even though the Doble Steam car was much more reliable. His Favorite book was the Baptist Klan book “Leopard Spots”.

            Links to Truman as KKK:
            http://www.kkklan.com/wall.htm
            http://www.kkklan.com/tokens.htm
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics

            Look at Google for yourself: https://www.google.com/search?q=truman+KKK

            No one Refutes that Harry S. Truman joined the KKK in 1920 for about $150 in todays money given from his own pocket. But then Truman helped a fellow Freemason who was Catholic get a political chair and the KKK chased him out for betraying them.

          • Omar

            Okay, how much of the crap you posted is true? May I remind you that much of the information you posted is either left-wing propaganda or the Klan’s ridiculous propaganda. Now, some of the information may be true, but I don’t think that most of the info was fact. In any case look at Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, where Mugabe’s ZANU hate group regime (ZANU is the Communist/black supremacist version of the KKK) has been targeting, oppressing, jailing and killing whites for the horrible crime of owning farmland, as well as for the color of their skin. ZANU has also brutally oppressed and attacked numerous opposition groups that want a non-racial, free-market democratic system in Zimbabwe. In Sudan, black African Christians are being massacred in a campaign of genocide by the Islamist apartheid dictatorship ruling that country. Where is your outrage over those atrocities? While the Klan has no support from anyone in the United States, the two regimes have support from your Communist and Islamist friends. Fact-check.

        • Gee

          Israel has never made a preemptive strike. The Arab countries committed thousands of attacks and even declared they were going to commit genocide.

          Ever hear of the UN Charter?

          Article 51

          Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

          Israel has the same rights as any other nation to defend itself.

          • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

            I’m quoting Ari,
            “On June 5, 1967 Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, destroying the bulk of Egypt’s air force in under 3 hours.”

          • defcon 4

            LOL, who care islam0weenie? Nasser was making genocidal threats against Israel (i.e. his threat to “push the Jews into the sea”).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It was preemptive with respect to tactics. The war was started by Egypt and in fact the state of war had existed since 1948. Israel was in a defensive role strategically.

            It was an offensive move to affect a strong and legitimate defense of the nation. Put another way, they didn’t send the army or the navy to open up the strait. They didn’t simply respond directly to the breach of the peace treaty via removal of UN troops. They took a smarter route.

          • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

            Not objective or true enough.

            You do realize, nearly 20 years past between 1948 and 1967? Are you suggesting, Iraq should wait 19 years and make a preemptive attack on the USA?

            Facts matter, Hitler on Poland & Israel on Egypt are the only two countries to make a “preemptive strike”.

            Noun1.pre-emptive strike – a surprise attack that is launched in order to prevent the enemy from doing it to you
            coup de main, surprise attack – an attack without warninghttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/pre-emptive+strike

            “Surprise attack” means there was no war going on. If a war was going on the planes would not have been parked on the airfields without any soldiers around.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You do realize, nearly 20 years past between 1948 and 1967? Are you suggesting, Iraq should wait 19 years and make a preemptive attack on the USA?”

            1) False equivalence

            2) It’s not time that matters but the timeline of events

            “Facts matter, Hitler on Poland & Israel on Egypt are the only two countries to make a “preemptive strike”.”

            Another false equivalence. Hitler was not surrounded by belligerence. He had no legitimate casus belli. I’ve already given anyone enough information to validate the historical events that justified Israel’s defensive response, characterized as “preemptive” only in the context of expectations that it would sit back and tolerate aggression against it with a “matching” response at best or go whining to the USA and or the UN. Which actually it did, but they were left on their own.

            “”Surprise attack” means there was no war going on.”

            That’s hilarious. Then it wasn’t a surprise. And the Normandy Invasion wasn’t a surprise, or wasn’t during a war. Am I right?

            “If a war was going on the planes would not have been parked on the airfields without any soldiers around.”

            It was a tactical surprise. That phase of the war was started up again by Egypt via events already listed numerous times in this conversation. You have wax in your proverbial ears. It was not a surprise that Israel defended itself, it was a surprise how they did it.

            Get it?

            Show us just how dumb you are. I guess we’re the bad guys for sneaking up on Hitler so many times. A surprise attack is ipso facto perfidious. Some theory you’ve got.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Replying to myself because mr. “Hetero” got deleted or deleted it himself. The quotes are his:

            “War was actually going on after Hitler’s preemptive attack.”

            And war was actually going on when Israel struck in June of 1967. If you want a much better example of a preemptive strike you’re betting off citing the Suez Crisis.

            “You just don’t like what I wrote.”

            Precisely. I hate dumb statements intended to deceive people.

            “Israel would not even exist if not for the KKK & British Mandates for a PaleStone Country to cut off Africa from walking into Europe & Asia. Limiting them to boat traffic.”

            It was a KKK plot because Truman the machine politician once joined the KKK about 30 years before he instructed our UN rep to be one of many Western nations to accept Israel to the UN. I got news for you; even if the US voted no, Israel would still be a nation. The UN is nothing more than a political organization.

            Israel’s fate hangs on many things and politics are a part of it. But the UN did not create Israel. The UN interfered first at least as much as it helped for a short time.

            You might be impressed by the arguments but that doesn’t require anyone else to care. You’ve got to work on presented all of the salient facts with objective analysis. You’re so partisan and irrationally biased that you think inserting KKK references is helpful for your position. That’s how desperate your “objective” arguments are.

            “Look at Israel’s Anti-Black & Anti-Palestinian Racism. They imprison 99.85% of all Black People who come to the country for work.”

            OK lunatic.

            “No one refutes that Harry S. Truman joined the KKK in 1920, for about $150 in today’s money given from his own pocket. But then Truman helped a fellow Freemason who was Catholic get a political chair and the KKK chased him out for betraying them.”

            Read the Truman biographies. Anyone who has will have no problem separating his 1920s affiliations with his terms as POTUS. And Truman was not crucial to Israel’s existence. He just surprised a lot of people by going along the righteous path.

            And in any case I didn’t realize that the KKK was all about promoting Zionism. That’s new to me. There still is no real connection between the KKK and Israel’s legitimate sovereignty.

        • Drakken

          Step away from the crack pipe, slowly !

  • Bob

    Ari, thanks for all the info. We have a “peace advocate” speaker coming to town and I need to be able to ask intelligent questions if I get the chance.
    I learn and enjoy when I read the informed comments! Thanks everyone.

  • Dejan

    Shingo, all you do is LIE LIE LIE

    • defcon 4

      He’s a muslime, lying is sacrosanct.

  • defcon 4

    The amazing number of comments on this article and their tenor, just serve to remind me there is no point in negotiating w/islam0nazis. It’s a microcosm of the useless hypocrisy of thirty years of “negotiations”. They will never accept the existence of the state of Israel.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      The US should take over the oil fields of the Middle East, lower the price of a barrel of oil back to $10 per barrel.

      Peace and Muscle Cars and Eternal Nakba.

    • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

      Israel exists. Now get Israel to stop invading Palestine’s West Bank.

      http://www.pbs.org/pov/5brokencameras/

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Pal-e-SWINE is on the East Bank of the Jordan.

        And they have a beautiful Queen. Queen Rania. Not Arafats beard Suha.

        Five Broken Cameras is nothing compared to 100,000+ dead Syrians (that’s Arabs killing Arabs). Something to do with the self proclaimed “Religion of Peace”.

        • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

          This is about Israel not Syria.
          Besides “PaleStone” is closer to the Truth.

          Harry S. Truman joined the KKK in 1920. He became President and then signed into existence Israel. He did so because of a Free & Accepted Masonic Brother who was a Jew had begged him to conspire with the Midnight UN meeting. Do you want me to call Truman Grand Wizard so you can feel even?
          http://www.kkklan.com/wall.htm

          F.A.M. are Religious Fraternity requiring pledges of faith. Being President & a member, also makes you their leader. http://www.pagrandlodge.org/mlam/presidents/truman.html

          So there you have it. The work of F.A.Masons, a Religious Cult, created the state of Israel. And they did this starting with the Mother Lodge in England creating PaleStone in 1919. Then Mandatory Palestine in 1922.

          • Omar

            It’s the annoying self-hating ignoramus again. First of all, stop double-posting shenanigans. Second, what does the KKK have to do with anything regarding the creation of Israel. The hate group opposes Israel, since the Klan is anti-Semitic. Even if what you stated about Truman is true, he broke ties with the Klan later in his life. Third, England is not a country. England is one of four internal divisions (along with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) of the country named the United Kingdom (or Britain). Calling the UK “England” is offensive to the people living in the UK’s other three internal divisions. England has not been a sovereign country since 1707, and that is a fact.

          • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

            The United Grand Lodge of England 1717 is the international Headquarters of most American Masonic lodges. http://www.ugle.org.uk/

            Free & Accepted Masons play a pivotal role in Gov History. George Washington was a Mason who required all his generals become Master Masons before they were allowed his trust. He then betrayed UGLE & England and relied on the French to help Found America. Our wars were won by a Gay General, name Lafayette who came over from France. As thanks to France, Washington’s American Flag was made using French Flag colors.

            BTW, The “United Kingdom” was founded in the Acts of Union in 1800. So you see England/Britain was still trying to dominate other countries after 1707.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_formation_of_the_United_Kingdom

            Still, the Masonic Headquarter of Britain even today is named England. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGLE So my Point of the Mother Lodge in England remains FACT.

          • Omar

            You are repeating Celtic nationalist propaganda against the UK and the British people (who are not only English, but also Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish [Anglo and Celtic]). Celtic nationalist propaganda is part of radical left-wing propaganda. Anyway, the UK formed in 1707, not 1800. The UK formed when the Kingdom of England (which also included Wales) merged with the Kingdom of Scotland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Ireland was added to the Union in 1800, thus making Britain “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. When Ireland seceded from Britain in the early 20th century, Northern Ireland remained part of the Union, thus renaming the UK as “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The UK is a country, not an organization of countries. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are internal divisions of the UK, not sovereign countries. That’s the reality.

          • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

            Omar wrote: “Anyway, the UK formed in 1707, not 1800. ”
            We are arguing about the term “UK” correct?

            1707 Kingdom of “Great Britain”
            1800 “United Kingdom” of Great Britain and Ireland

            You are wrong. UK was first used in 1800. Look at this reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_formation_of_the_United_Kingdom

            UK stands for United Kingdom. Omar got your facts wrong.

          • Omar

            First of all, I was talking about the formation of the UK, which was in 1707, under the name of the “Kingdom of Great Britain.” I was referring to when the country first formed. Second, I am not insulting your Jewish heritage. I am only pointing out the fact that you are supporting lies and propaganda about Israel from Islamists who want to see the destruction of the people of your religion. Anti-Israel propaganda is generally anti-Semitic. That’s the reality.

        • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

          Instead of Swine, “Pale-Stone” is closer to the Truth.

          Harry S. Truman joined the KKK in 1920. He became President and then signed into existence Israel. He did so because of a Free & Accepted Masonic Brother who was a Jew had begged him to conspire with the Midnight UN meeting hour before he signed into existence
          at 8am.
          http://www.kkklan.com/wall.htm

          F.A.M. are Religious Fraternity requiring pledges of faith. Being President & a Fraternal member, also makes you their leader. http://www.pagrandlodge.org/mlam/presidents/truman.html

          So there you have it. The work of F.A.Masons, a Religious Cult, created the state of Israel. And they did this starting with the Mother Lodge in England creating PaleStone in 1919. Then Mandatory Palestine in 1922.

  • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

    Ari,
    “The League’s preamble, adopting the principles enumerated in the Balfour Declaration, recognized the Jewish “historical connection” to the Land of Israel and resolved to help facilitate the establishment of a Jewish nation there. ”

    This quote from your article is proof that Israel is another “Crusaders War”.

  • Silver Gonzales

    The real issue is that ALL countries established in The Americas were indeed built on lands taken from those natives whose cultures were arrested by the invading English, French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese ( The Germans lost their OCUUPIED lands in Africa and Asia after WW1). The biggest hypocrites are the Arab Muslims who whine about ’48 and ’67, living in the Americas, have benefited from the OCCUPATION of the Americas. They are walking on lands inhabited by a previous culture whose lands or at leas their development was swiped from them.

    Israel was attacked by Jordan. Irrelevant if they provoked them by dancing around in Muftis or seen in war prepping acts. This is the history of Man.

    Molon Labe -Greek apparently for “Come and take (it) “.

    1) No Jewish refugees. They must be compensated by the Arab states.

    2) Arab Muslim refugees – Balestinians ( there is no ‘p’ in Arabic ) cannot work as lawyers, doctors or engineers in Lebanon. Because of the Zionists no doubt. 30 plus refugee camps of Balestinians in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon since 1948!!! Not because all of the Zionists just the Jewish ones!.

    3) Time for the Muslims to move on but they will never accept peace with any non Muslim neighbour; be it Armenia, Israel, Christian Lebanon, India, Philippines or South West China, etc..

    • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

      You can’t make blanket statements and speak the truth. Some people can accept, some people can not accept. But all of anything, has never agreed one thing.

      Harry S. Truman joined the
      KKK in 1920.
      He became President and then signed into existence Israel. He did so because of a Free
      & Accepted Masonic Brother who was a Jew had begged him to conspire with the
      Midnight UN meeting hour before he signed into existence

      at
      8am.

      http://www.kkklan.com/wall.htm

      F.A.M.
      are Religious Fraternity requiring pledges of faith. Being President & a
      Fraternal member, also makes you their leader.
      http://www.pagrandlodge.org/mlam/presidents/truman.html

      So
      there you have it. The work of F.A.Masons, a Religious Cult, created the state of
      Israel. And they did this starting with the Mother Lodge in England creating
      PaleStone in 1919. Then Mandatory Palestine in 1922.

      Some Masons caused this discussion we call Israel. Not all of them.

  • Omar

    Taimoor Khan and Shingo are both Communist trolls that support Islamist Sharia Law. They are revisionists and do not care for the facts.

    • defcon 4

      They’re not communists they’re SoA.

  • muchiboy

    Interesting how seemingly diverse,even conflicting,points of view and agendas may converge.Personally,I should like to see an Israel that includes the West Bank.Judea and Samaria along with their Palestinian Arabs,belong within the borders that now constitute Israel.You just need find a way to include both peoples within a single border.Your efforts,and those of the Arabs,should be towards this goal,not fighting over every inch of what should be a homeland for what was always home to Palestinian Arab and Palestinian Jew,now including the Diaspora.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Personally,I should like to see an Israel that includes the West Bank.Judea and Samaria along with their Palestinian Arabs,belong within the borders that now constitute Israel.You just need find a way to include both peoples within a single border.”

      For anyone that can tolerate a non-Muslim sovereign it would be ideal. Unfortunately this war is primarily about those who can’t tolerate it.

      “Your efforts,and those of the Arabs,should be towards this goal,not fighting over every inch of what should be a homeland for what was always home to Palestinian Arab and Palestinian Jew,now including the Diaspora.”

      The few legitimate “peaceful” people on the Islamic Arab side are either killed or compromised. The jihadis hold all of the cards.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    1941 The Grand Mufti meets Hitler

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSUEx1cKUlg

  • defcon 4

    That’s a nice idea, but did you know that the religion that was born in Persia has all been but eliminated from Iran? Persian culture has been suppressed in deference to Arabic islam.

  • hiernonymous

    “There is not a single case in history where a nation was forced to
    relinquish territory it had acquired through defensive conquest.”

    As, for example, Greece was forced to give up Western Thrace to the Bulgarians after conquering it during the Second Balkan War? Or the territory Poland gave up to the Soviets after the Polish victory in the Polish-Soviet war, in part due to domestic pressure for an end to hostilities, and in part due to pressure from the (ahem) League of Nations? Or a little closer to home, topic-wise, the Arabs were forced to relinquish Damascus to the French after they’d liberated it from the Ottomans.

    • Texas Patriot

      Unless you want to believe that the Hebrew Bible is not the word of God, the Promised Land belongs to the descendants of Abraham forever. At what point in the history of the world have the descendants of Abraham ever had to give up any part of the Promised Land acquired through defensive conquest?

      • hiernonymous

        I’m responding to the argument that Ari made, which is based on (his interpretation of) international law and historical precedent. Your argument is based on religion, and requires that one share your religion for it to have any significance.

        • Texas Patriot

          Religion is also based on history, and it is an historical fact that the descendants of Abraham, including Isaac and Ishmael, are the prime protagonists in the battle for the land now occupied by the State of Israel. Do you find that there is anything about that lacking in a sufficient level of historicity?

          • hiernonymous

            “Do you find that there is anything about that lacking in a sufficient level of historicity?”

            Well, yes, on multiple levels.

            On the most obvious, that the Hebrew Bible is the word of God is a matter of faith, not history.

            Second, the ‘history’ of the Bible suggests that the Jewish title to the land rests on conquest,not right. That the leader of that tribe received his marching orders from the one true god speaking in the form of a burning bush is a matter of faith and religion, not historical fact.

            As for your assertion that it is the ‘descendants of Abraham” who are the prime protagonists, that’s a loose metaphor, not a cultural fact. The Palestinians can trace their lineage to a variety of ancestries – Arabs, Greeks, Nabateans, Canaanites, Hebrews, Romans. I’m not sure what “historical” significance you attach to painting the current parties to conflict as mere continuations of parties to past conflicts, but it’s more than a bit simplistic.

          • Texas Patriot

            H: “On the most obvious, that the Hebrew Bible is the word of God is a matter of faith, not history.”

            It purports to be the word of God, and it comes down to us as a historical document which is thousands of years old. Unless there is some specific reason for doubting it’s authenticity, it could be admissible in a court of law under the “ancient documents” exception to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein.

            H: “Second, the ‘history’ of the Bible suggests that the Jewish title to the land rests on conquest,not right. That the leader of that tribe received his marching orders from the one true god speaking in the form of a burning bush is a matter of faith and religion, not historical fact.”

            I would agree with the idea that the original acquisition of the land was by conquest.

            H: “As for your assertion that it is the ‘descendants of Abraham” who are the prime protagonists, that’s a loose metaphor, not a cultural fact. The Palestinians can trace their lineage to a variety of ancestries – Arabs, Greeks, Nabateans, Canaanites, Hebrews, Romans. I’m not sure what “historical” significance you attach to painting the current parties to conflict as mere continuations of parties to past conflicts, but it’s more than a bit simplistic.”

            Bill Clinton was the first American president I heard advance that theory, but apparently DNA tests have been made comparing the Jewish and Muslim parties to the conflict, and apparently they do point to an ancient common ancestor or at least to an ancient common gene pool.

          • hiernonymous

            “It purports to be the word of God, and it comes down to us as a historical document which is thousands of years old. Unless there is some specific reason for doubting it’s authenticity, it could be admissible in a court of law under the “ancient documents” exception to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein.”

            It might well be accepted as proof that, at the time the document was assembled, there was a tradition among the people of their assembler that one of their forebears had received instructions from the Almighty in the form of a burning bush. If you are asserting that not only the existence of God, but his specific manifestation as a burning bush, and the contents of his instructions to a sole witness, are legally established by the antiquity of the document, you’re talking nonsense. Is the substance of your argument really “the Bible is old, so it must be true?”

            “Bill Clinton was the first American president I heard advance that theory, but apparently DNA tests have been made comparing the Jewish and Muslim parties to the conflict, and apparently they do point to an ancient common ancestor or at least to an ancient common gene pool.”

            He may or may not have been the first American president to so assert; I generally don’t turn to presidents for my history, any more than I turn to professors of ancient linguistics for an explanation of the stock market. I’m not sure which DNA tests you are referring to – are you talking about Nebel’s work, or someone else? The genetic tests I’m familiar with show high degree of genetic mixing in the area, which is consistent with its history, and includes chromosomes common among Jews and Palestinian Arabs. In part, the flaw in your metaphor is that your are simply assuming that any genetic commonality found among Palestinian Jews and Arabs is a sign of descent from Abraham, which is begging the question.

            Putting this in terms directly relevant to your argument, if you are claiming that the belligerents today are essentially identical to the belligerents of biblical times, and that therefore it is appropriate to judge the rights and wrongs of the current conflict by one’s religious outlook (the Jews were the chosen people, etc), then that ignores the fact that many other peoples have become involved in the region and left their genetic imprint on the population: Romans, Greeks, Franks, Circassians, Kurds, etc. There’s a great deal less historical question about that than there is about the degree of congruence between the accounts of the Old Testament and actual events.

          • Texas Patriot

            H: ” If you are asserting that not only the existence of God, but his specific manifestation as a burning bush, and the contents of his instructions to a sole witness, are legally established by the antiquity of the document, you’re talking nonsense.”

            Not at all. Even if the Hebrew Bible was admitted under the ancient documents exception, the truth of the matters asserted therein could still be impeached, controverted, or refuted by any other competent and admissible evidence. It would then be up to the finder of fact in the particular judicial proceeding to balance and determine the greater weight and credibility of all the evidence admitted.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s unclear where you’re heading with this. You began by asserting that the ‘Promised Land’ belongs to the descendants of Abraham on the assumption that the Hebrew Bible is the Word of God. That’s a religious assertion, not a legal or logical argument.

            You then advanced the idea presenting the current conflict as some sort of successor conflict to that presented in the Bible, on the basis of the bible’s ‘historicity’ and the contention that the antagonists today are, in the metaphorical form of Isaac and Ishmael, the same ancient antagonists. You didn’t complete that argument – that is, you haven’t laid out the implications of such a presentation if it were accepted as fact – but, as we’ve seen, there a flaws in that as well. They include not only the tenuous and flawed assumption that the current parties are in some way identical or representational of the ancient parties, though it’s likely that many of the current inhabitants of the region share the biblical parties as ancestors, along with the many others we’ve mentioned (Romans, Greeks, etc). Of course, by using similar logic, one could portray the current conflict as a continuation of the Byzantine-Persian conflicts of the late first millenium AD, but no matter.

            You also appear to be trying to establish the Bible as a ‘historical’ document. It has historical value, certainly, but the current state of scholarship generally agrees that the events set out in the Pentateuch were recorded at a point long past living memory, when the events alluded to had already reached the point of mythology. That implies that the Bible is an excellent historical record of the beliefs and memories of the time, but can hardly be considered a reliable history.

            Is this Biblical excursion leading somewhere? We agree that the initial Hebrew claim to the land arose from conquest; there is no way, short of a leap of faith, to establish that this conquest was ordered by a deity. It’s clear that you believe that the Hebrews were granted title to the land by virtue of divine proclamation, but that’s hardly a basis for establishing international borders in the 21st century.

          • Texas Patriot

            H: “It’s unclear where you’re heading with this.”

            My basic view is that Jews have as much right to that land as anyone else. But there are competing claims to the land, and each is meritorious in it’s own way. There is no way that this will be settled in a court of law. At this point, it’s going to be the ballot box or the bullet.

            If non-Jewish settlers outbreed Jewish settlers, eventually they will have sufficient power to enforce their views on the minority. In the meantime, if the majority Jewish state is attacked, it has every right to defend itself and confiscate the lands of those who are the aggressors.

            One thing is for sure. The so-called “peace process” has no chance of creating a lasting peace in the region.

          • hiernonymous

            “My basic view is that Jews have as much right to that land as anyone else.”

            That’s not an unreasonable position, but it’s not one that’s supported by allusions to the Promised Land having been granted to the Jews by God Almighty.

            Once one recognizes that the historical ‘right’ of the Jews to the land is one of conquest, and one dispenses with the mysticism, one is left with trying to balance competing claims. That’s a much more difficult but promising proposition.

          • Texas Patriot

            No state or group of states has jurisdiction to decide the competing claims to the land in question other than the parties themselves, and from my standpoint, there is more than enough mysticism involved. Jews believe that God has given them the entirety of the Promised Land forever. Muslims believe that the land is theirs by right of conquest until the end of time.

            Do I have any personal favorites in this conflict? Yes. I’d like to see the Jews reconquer the entirety of the original Promised Land and thereafter serve as a buffer between the perpetually warring Shia to the North and the perpetually warring Sunni to the South. In that way the descendants of Isaac could bring some semblance of peace between the warring descendants of Ishmael, who would otherwise no doubt be at each other’s throats until the end of time.

            Perhaps it is God’s way of bringing peace to all the descendants of Abraham. It kind of has a ring to it, you know? ;-)

          • hiernonymous

            Well, except that even Greater Israel would not be a buffer between the Shi’a and the Sunni. The fault line between Shi’a and Sunni in the Levant lies in Lebanon. There are Shi’a-Sunni lines of confrontation in Syria, Iraq, Eastern Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Yemen (the Zaidis).

            “No state or group of states has jurisdiction to decide the competing claims to the land in question other than the parties themselves…”

            It’s not clear what you mean by “jurisdiction.” There are obviously many states and groups of states that are part of the process that will determine the eventual fate of the region. The UN obviously has a role.

          • Texas Patriot

            H: “It’s not clear what you mean by “jurisdiction.” There are obviously many states and groups of states that are part of the process that will determine the eventual fate of the region. The UN obviously has a role.”

            Jurisdiction means absolute right, authority, and power to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to impose and enforce its judgment in a way that is binding upon the parties . No such right, authority, or power exists in matters of this nature, so the parties themselves must resolve it. We would all hope for a peaceful resolution, but when opposing factions compete for the same objective, there will be winners and losers.

            H: “Well, except that even Greater Israel would not be a buffer between the Shi’a and the Sunni. The fault line between Shi’a and Sunni in the Levant lies in Lebanon. There are Shi’a-Sunni lines of confrontation in Syria, Iraq, Eastern Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Yemen (the Zaidis).”

            If Israel re-acquired the entirety of the original Promised Lands, the fault lines would be more clearly delineated between the Shia to the North and the Sunni to the South.

          • hiernonymous

            “No such right, authority, or power exists in matters of this nature, so the parties themselves must resolve it.”

            You’re presenting a false dilemma. The absence of a supranational body with full authority to adjudicate disputes in no way implies that no other states or organizations have a role to play in the resolution of such disputes. Clearly the UN has a role, just as it had a role in the creation of the state of Israel.

            “…the fault lines would be more clearly delineated between the Shia to the North and the Sunni to the South.”

            They might be, if the Sunnis were to the north of Greater Israel, and the Shi’a to the South. In fact, Greater Israel simply doesn’t lie between the two groups. That sounds like an attempt to find a justification for the pursuit of Greater Israel more than addressing an actual need with a potential solution.

          • Texas Patriot

            The epicenter of Shia Islam is Iran, which is to the north of Israel. The epicenter of Sunni Islam is Saudi Arabia, which is to the South of Israel. If Israel increased its territories to include the entirety of the original Promised Land, it would effectively cut off satellite Shia groups to the South and satellite Sunni groups to the North. Gradually the Shia would be forced out of the Sunni majority areas and the Sunni would be forced out of the Shia majority areas, leaving Israel in the middle as an effective buffer between the two warring groups.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If Israel increased its territories to include the entirety of the original Promised Land, it would effectively cut off satellite Shia groups to the South and satellite Sunni groups to the North. Gradually the Shia would be forced out of the Sunni majority areas and the Sunni would be forced out of the Shia majority areas, leaving Israel in the middle as an effective buffer between the two warring groups.”

            And increasing “Islamic grievances” by a factor of perhaps 1000. We’ll just have to see what develops and try to support justice.

            They know our house is divided and they can get away with a lot because of it.

          • Texas Patriot

            OFM: “We’ll just have to see what develops and try to support justice.”

            That makes sense. Israel has a clear path for resolving this matter, and we don’t need to be involved.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            They’re our allies. We can’t control everything.

          • Texas Patriot

            We shouldn’t try to control anything in this matter. Israel is a sovereign state with close and long-standing ties to America. Israel represents the Western values of human rights, individual freedom, and constitutional democracy, and as such is philosophically and ideologically aligned with America. They are our friends, and we are their friends. We wish them well, and they wish us well. In the context of the dispute regarding title to the lands currently occupied by the Israelis, we do not have standing to impose our will on any of the parties to the dispute. Our interests are not directly involved. As such, our role is to continue to monitor the situation and see if there are any ways we can be helpful in moving the dispute towards a peaceful resolution, nothing more, nothing less.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            They’re an ally in the region and we need to cooperate with them and support them when there is consensus, as they support our interests for the same reasons.

          • hiernonymous

            “Israel has a clear path for resolving this matter, and we don’t need to be involved.”

            As Israel is the single largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, we’re currently involved neck-deep. Are you suggesting we should not be?

          • Texas Patriot

            Yes.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            So we should but all foreign aid globally. Right?

          • Texas Patriot

            Since we are a de facto bankrupt nation which is $17 trillion in debt and borrows $.43 out of every dollar we spend, my answer to that definitely inclines toward the affirmative. I can’t imagine any scenario in which it would be justified at this point.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Since we are a de facto bankrupt nation which is $17 trillion in debt and borrows $.43 out of every dollar we spend, my answer to that definitely inclines toward the affirmative.”

            I think your instincts are correct.

            “I can’t imagine any scenario in which it would be justified at this point.”

            Just remember that most of the time what we refer to as aid are quid pro quo transactions. I think if we combine all of these sentiments we all agree that we should get better value from our dollars. But that goes for domestic spending as well.

            I just don’t think Israel is the problem here except in terms of propaganda value to enemies of our republic. For me that’s not a good enough reason to turn on them. And also remember that in many cases Israel has already delivered on its promises and we’re now paying for the privilege of telling them what to do (and what not to do). It’s not always clear how good we are at keeping our end of the bargain without increasing our demands, but that creates opportunities for them to ask for more as well.

            So it’s a lot more complicated than say, giving money to Haiti. Yet nobody complains about that. Nobody I know of.

          • Texas Patriot

            OFM: “For me that’s not a good enough reason to turn on them.”

            I don’t think we should “turn” on Israel by any stretch of the imagination. But I do think we should let them know that it is incumbent upon them to build themselves up to survive and thrive in the extremely hostile environment in which they live.

            Israel is one of the most highly educated and highly advanced societies in the world. Their per capita educational level and intelligence level probably far surpasses that of the United State today. If Israel continues to develop their capacities in the area of high tech weaponry, and simultaneously accelerates their efforts to produce the enormous natural gas fields lying in their territorial waters and then makes every necessary effort to convert that natural gas production to diesel fuel and jet fuel, they will be prepared for any war that comes their way. As their friend and ally, of course we would be standing by to use our own arsenal of weapons should the need arise.

            All of this depends of course on having Russia and China on board with our objectives, and in the past that would have been difficult if not impossible to imagine. But with the recent terror attack on Tiananmin Square, I think it is reasonably likely that the Chinese, along with the Russians, will increasingly see a need to stand together with us to reach a peaceful solution to this matter.

          • hiernonymous

            Iran is due east of Israel, and Saudi Arabia is east by southeast. Draw a line between the two, and there’s no Israel in between, however “great” Greater Israel becomes. You should learn some basic geography before offering geographical solutions to complex problems.

            Your idea of what would cause Sunni and Shi’a populations to die on the vine is pretty simplistic as well, but let’s stick with the most glaring silliness first.

          • Texas Patriot

            You’re quibbling about minor points of the compass. The overall concept makes sense, and because of the vast amount of desert involved, it would effectively separate the houses of Shia Islam and Sunni Islam and keep them from killing each other, and that’s something we should all be in favor of. Here’s a map. See for yourself.

            http://lilo97423.wordpress.com

          • hiernonymous

            “You’re quibbling about minor points of the compass. The overall concept makes sense…”

            You’ve predicated an alleged solution on interposing Greater Israel between the Sunnis and Shia when, in fact, Greater Israel would not lie between the Sunnis and Shia. That’s not “quibbling.”

            Even if you were to extend the borders of Greater Israel into Iraq – a rather mad proposition, but let’s run with it – that leaves Shi’a Iran and majority Shi’a Iraq surrounded by Sunni neighbors. Greater Israel would not interpose itself between these Shi’a states and Sunni Turkey, Sunni Turkmenistan, Sunni Pakistan, and largely Sunni Afghanistan. So much for the buffer.

            Similarly, to the south, the Shi’a Zaidis will still be wedged between the Sunni Hijaz and the Sunni southern Yemen – and the Ibadis will still be hanging out in Oman, doing whatever the Khawarijiin are going to do.

            And, of course, the Jewish population of Israel is barely sufficient to defend the small territory it already holds. Simply extending its territory to cover the Sinai Peninsula nearly resulted in the extinction of the Israel state in 1973, as the Israelis found themselves suddenly defending on two fronts that were no longer close enough to permit rapid shifting of forces from one crisis to the other. How, exactly, would they be able to secure Greater Israel, much less impose some sort of peace on their neighbors?

          • Texas Patriot

            You’re missing the bigger picture. Most of the Muslim nations along the Mediterranean in North Africa are Sunni, correct? And Iraq is predominantly Shia, correct? Assuming Israel, as a matter of defensive conquest only, were able, bit by bit, to require the entirety of the original Promised Land, there would be an acceleration of the Shia on Sunni ethnic cleansing already taking place in nations like Iraq and Syria, and likewise the days of the Shia in Sunni strongholds like Saudi Arabia would soon end as well. Shia would flee to Shia-dominated areas and Sunni would flee to Sunni-dominated areas. Thus we could hope to see an end of much of the internecine bloodshed we are seeing in the Islamic world today, and that is a goal worthy of our highest hopes and aspirations. Is Isarel up to the task of responding to attacks and taking the next step of seizing the land and expelling the attackers? Who knows? From my perspective it’s not impossible, but the Israelis would have to get lot stronger economically, militarily, and demographically to have more reasonable odds.

          • hiernonymous

            Most of the Muslim nations pretty much everywhere outside the Shi’a crescent are Sunni – north, south, and east.

            “Assuming Israel, as a matter of defensive conquest only, were able, bit by bit, to re-acquire the entirety of the original Promised Land…”

            We’re assuming that Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iraq are going to take leave of their collective senses and launch wars on Israel to provide the pretext for the “defensive” part of “defensive conquest?” Or is this a Newspeak term and you’re simply granting that any conquest that Israel engages in would be defensive more or less by definition?

            “…there would be an acceleration of the Shia-on-Sunni ethnic cleansing already taking place in nations like Iraq and Syria…”

            It’s your theory that the emergence of a large, powerful, and aggressive foreign threat would further splinter these states, rather than galvanize them? Have you studied the Iran-Iraq war, by any chance?

            “Shia would flee to Shia-dominated areas and Sunni would flee to Sunni-dominated areas.”

            You have some historical precedent in mind, or you’re just imagining this?

            “Thus we could reasonably hope to see an end of much of the internecine bloodshed we are witnessing in so much of in the Islamic world today…”

            What you just described is not the end of “much of the internecine bloodshed” so much as an escalation of that bloodshed into genocide and ethnic cleansing. You’ve offered no coherent reason that events would transpire as you suggest, but if they did, you’re basically suggesting that things would be better, not because anyone was more peaceful, but because they dropped their inhibitions and got their killing over with. There’s a vision worth fighting for!

            “Is Israel up to the task of responding to attacks by her neighbors and then taking the next step of seizing the land and expelling the attackers?”

            Which neighbors are you talking about? Israel decided to punish the PLO by invading Lebanon, and just ended up sparking the creating of Hizballah, a far deadlier organization than the PLO. Israel then invaded Lebanon again to crush the PLO, and had their collective posteriors handed to them. The states comprising “the original promised land” as you appear to envision it in the graphic your previously posted is attacking Israel.

            So let’s see. The Israelis would respond to attacks that aren’t occurring with military responses that would somehow be more effective than those they’ve actually managed to muster in the last decade in order to occupy ground that doesn’t actually lie between the Shi’a and many, much less most, of their Sunni neighbors, in order to goad them into accelerating their internal conflicts to the point of genocide and mass flight in the name of a more peaceful Middle East.

            What a plan!

          • Texas Patriot

            The biggest humanitarian disasters in the Islamic world today consist of the horrific massacres now taking place in Iraq and Syria where Shia on Sunni violence and Sunni on Shia violence is spinning out of control. Anything Israel could do to stop the violence by stepping in between the antagonists and forming a buffer to prevent further bloodshed should be welcomed by all people of good will everywhere. Sorry you don’t see it that way. Thanks for the feedback.

          • hiernonymous

            “Anything Israel could do to stop the violence by stepping in between the antagonists and forming a buffer to prevent further bloodshed should be welcomed by all people of good will…”

            Creating Greater Israel wouldn’t result in Israel stopping “the violence by stepping in between the antagonists,” and you don’t understand the Syrian war if you think it’s simply, or even primarily, a Sunni-Shi’a conflict.

            “Sorry you don’t see it that way.”

            How could I see it that way? Your scheme contradicts elementary Middle Eastern geography, relies on a basic misunderstanding of who the Sunni and Shi’a are and where they actually live, relies on current events that aren’t happening to justify military operations that couldn’t succeed to accomplish a goal that, in your own terms, amounts to genocide and ethnic cleansing.

            “Thanks for the feedback.”

            You’re welcome! Happy to help you out.

          • Texas Patriot

            Naysayers are to be expected in any great humanitarian endeavor. But of course you are entitled to your opinion. Time will tell how it all plays out. The truth is that almost anything would be better than the current scourge of bloodshed and hatred.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’re presenting a false dilemma. The absence of a supranational body with full authority to adjudicate disputes in no way implies that no other states or organizations have a role to play in the resolution of such disputes. Clearly the UN has a role, just as it had a role in the creation of the state of Israel. ”

            They have a role to play but it has little to do with justice and due process as we expect from institutions that pretend to impose laws and sanctions.

            I think most of the objections are about resetting expectations about the UN and other international organizations that pretend to offer solutions beyond what they are capable of.

            If they facilitate good faith negotiations or come up with some value-added solution for a given conflict, that’s just awesome. We all celebrate that. Even bloodthirsty nationalistic xenophobes. And who’s to say that as bad as things are that a lot of things wouldn’t be worse without it?

            OTOH, the UN in the case of Israel has done a lot more harm than good in these last few decades. The power of the OIC is hidden from the view of most people and the Islamic colonial agenda is therefore strongly cloaked as well.

          • hiernonymous

            No human institution is perfect. Your objections to the UN apply to governmental institutions as well, but we wouldn’t be better off without them. As for the power of the OIC, I’ve heard the same sort of complaints offered for the power of the Israeli lobby in the U.S., resulting in American support out of all proportion to Israel’s actual potential as an ally or trading partner.

            “OTOH, the UN in the case of Israel has done a lot more harm than good in these last few decades.”

            That’s your perspective, no doubt.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No human institution is perfect.”

            I’ve said that to you as well.

            “Your objections to the UN apply to governmental institutions as well, but we wouldn’t be better off without them.”

            Then you misunderstand the key point. First though, our system of justice is superior, and our sovereignty is not any any way dependent on the UN other than using the UN as a political tool that ideally helps us meet our needs.

            But my main point is that people often misunderstand the UN. The General Assembly has a huge impact on public opinion. It’s dangerous to think of the General Assembly as anything but a corrupt pack of politicians dominated by our rivals and enemies.

            It’s facts that matter, not rumors. There is no hidden Israeli agenda. Rumors turn out to be nuts while they accuse Israel of (among other things) trying to do what in fact the OIC is in fact trying to do; to dominate the world through stealth campaigns.

            “That’s your perspective, no doubt.”

            I believe Western culture and particularly American justice to to be superior so obviously I have a problem with enemies that attack it.

          • hiernonymous

            “It’s dangerous to think of the General Assembly as anything but a corrupt pack of politicians dominated by our rivals and enemies.”

            Then it’s you who misunderstands the role of the UN. I don’t know how many world wars it will take to convince you that taking refuge in the eternal sanctity of national sovereignty is not in anyone’s best interests. We all seem to understand that when the unit of sovereignty shifted from family to tribe, from tribe to clan, from clan to city-state, from city-state to nation-state, each step represented a huge advance in human well-being. In each case, more people enjoyed a degree of security, stability, and liberty that was unknown in the more chaotic state, and to this day, the flashpoints and centers of violence in our world are precisely those locations where the primacy of the nation-state is still contested. Yet we are so acculturated to our status quo that we regard the prospect of the continued trend toward some form of transnational or multinational sovereignty that it’s simply taken as a given that this must be a Bad Thing.

            I would submit that it would be dangerous to ignore the influence of our rivals in the UN, but it would be even more dangerous to simply dismiss the UN as nothing more than that. Certainly, a return to something as flawed as the Concert of Europe would be no improvement.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Then it’s you who misunderstands the role of the UN.”

            I doubt that. I described the difference between reality and public perception. Now you’re changing the subject.

            “I don’t know how many world wars it will take to convince you that taking refuge in the eternal sanctity of national sovereignty is not in anyone’s best interests.”

            That’s a straw man argument sir. Political organizations have their role. And at the same time we should be alarmed when their power grows beyond what was intended and what is good for peace. That’s the situation today. That was not the intention of the organization, to allow our enemies to divide our domestic consensus with deception and create a stage for phony grievance dissemination. Though it is a place to vent grievances and no doubt some will be marginally justified. Yet outright lies should be exposed for what they are.

            “We all seem to understand that when the unit of sovereignty shifted from family to tribe, from tribe to clan, from clan to city-state, from city-state to nation-state, each step represented a huge advance in human well-being.”

            There are plenty of examples in history to support that but counter examples as well. It’s easy to see that there are limits and exceptions.

            “In each case, more people enjoyed a degree of security, stability, and liberty that was unknown in the more chaotic state, and to this day, the flashpoints and centers of violence in our world are precisely those locations where the primacy of the nation-state is still contested.”

            That’s true. It’s just that people lie so often about the underlying tensions and motives for rejecting their sovereigns or worse, launching attacks at other sovereigns that truly don’t even threaten them.

            “Yet we are so acculturated to our status quo that we regard the prospect of the continued trend toward some form of transnational or multinational sovereignty that it’s simply taken as a given that this must be a Bad Thing.”

            You seem to misunderstand the arguments. Whenever you don’t understand you simply assume your opposition is stupid.

            Anything that subverts our American constitutional values is a bad thing. If there is some world court modeled after our supreme court, that rejects sneaky subversive ideas like one finds in sharia or any other values that undermine our own, then I reject it for good reason.

            So you still deny being an internationalist? Do you want to remain an international leftist that tries to control the discourse (so that you can comfort yourself by remaining a “patriot”) by trying to control what each word means?

            I’m open to new ideas, but not stupid ones. There are 3 key currents in international politics (and fundamental ideologies) that are all fundamentally in conflict. I am sure you won’t be able to name them.

            “I would submit that it would be dangerous to ignore the influence of our rivals in the UN, but it would be even more dangerous to simply dismiss the UN as nothing more than that.”

            I think I’ve accurately described what the UN is and what it does, if not comprehensively. I intended to clear up salient misconceptions about the UN.

            “Certainly, a return to something as flawed as the Concert of Europe would be no improvement.”

            All I’ve ever said is that the UN as it is now is often more destructive than constructive. In theory it could be an organization that is very important and useful towards true world peace. I’m just not naive enough to pretend that my wishes come true by simply closing my eyes to uncomfortable facts.

            OTOH, there are lots of backroom deals that go on and its utility is probably greater than anyone could possibly realize. But our role here in the public is to help rectify the destructive effects the UN has on public opinion. We don’t want the tail to wag the dog when we can avoid it.

          • hiernonymous

            “That’s a straw man argument sir. Political organizations have their role.”

            No, it’s not a straw man. I’m responding to an argument that claimed “No such right, authority, or power exists in matters of this nature, so the parties themselves must resolve it.” If you mean that you wish to distance yourself from Texas Patriot’s position, that’s fine.

            “That was not the intention of the organization, to allow our enemies to divide our domestic consensus with deception and create a stage for phony grievance dissemination. Though it is a place to vent grievances and no doubt some will be marginally justified.”

            It was not the intention, nor have you established that it was the effect.

            “It’s just that people lie so often about the underlying tensions and motives for rejecting their sovereigns or worse, launching attacks at other sovereigns that truly don’t even threaten them.”

            You believe that you have a clearheaded and accurate view into the true motivation, and can thus detect those lies? It’s my experience that people don’t understand the “underlying tensions and motives,” and it would take a Solomon to distinguish between truth, lie, confusion, and simple uncertainty.

            “Whenever you don’t understand you simply assume your opposition is stupid.”

            There are two unsupported assumptions in that statement.

            “So you still deny being an internationalist?”

            And I finally stopped beating my wife!

            I haven’t and don’t deny (or affirm) the labels that you attempt to paint your conversational partners with. That’s a fool’s game. I’ll point out when you’ve applied a label to a person or an argument without adequate (or any) support, but I’m not actually going to argue with you about which straitjacket you’re trying to fit me with in a particular post.

            If I point out, for example, that “nothing I’ve said is particularly leftist,” I’m simply pointing out the flaw in your characterization. I’m not making any comment whatsoever about my political beliefs.

            “There are 3 key currents in international politics (and fundamental ideologies) that are all fundamentally in conflict. I am sure you won’t be able to name them.”

            You seem to be sure of more things than you have good cause to be. You may be justifiably certain that I am not going to make your arguments for you, though.

            “All I’ve ever said is that the UN as it is now is often more destructive than constructive.”

            No, that’s not all you said. That’s not nearly as extreme or emphatic as your recent comment: “It’s dangerous to think of the General Assembly as anything but a
            corrupt pack of politicians dominated by our rivals and enemies.” “Anything but” doesn’t leave room for the constructive side of your latest construction.

            “But our role here in the public is to help rectify the destructive effects the UN has on public opinion.”;

            Who is “our?”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, it’s not a straw man. I’m responding to an argument that claimed “No such right, authority, or power exists in matters of this nature, so the parties themselves must resolve it.” If you mean that you wish to distance yourself from Texas Patriot’s position, that’s fine.”

            How could I possibly have misunderstood? It seems to me you replied to my statement when you said that I don’t understand the UN’s role. Hmm. I’m so stupid some times.

            Didn’t I write: “It’s dangerous to think of the General Assembly as anything but a corrupt pack of politicians dominated by our rivals and enemies.”

            And your reply was: “Then it’s you who misunderstands the role of the UN.”

            If I harmonize the gist of the agreement between me and TP, the point is that yes the UN has a role, no they do not have any power that trumps sovereignty.

            Instead of conceding to these points of clarification, as usual, you want to obscure the arguments because you wish that the UN or some other international body existed with power and authority to curtail “nationalists” and their pesky insistence that national sovereignty means something very important.

            How could anyone doubt your patriotism to America? You clearly are not patriotic to the idea of American exceptionalism as understood by most American patriots of the past.

            The bottom line is that unless you’ve included “the right to lobby,” then I guess the UN has no enforceable rights at all without explicit agreements from the sovereigns. If that’s what you’re driving at you could have been a little more direct. And you could have directed it towards the person who gave you wiggle room to argue rather than making blanket statements about my alleged confusion.

          • hiernonymous

            “Didn’t I write: “It’s dangerous to think of the General Assembly as anything but a corrupt pack of politicians dominated by our rivals and enemies.””

            Why, yes, you did. That doesn’t leave much room for a role for the UN, though you insist that you believe in one.

            “Hmm. I’m so stupid some times.”

            Lest I be accused of being contrarian once again, I won’t argue.

            “Instead of conceding to these points of clarification…”

            Because concession is the only reasonable course of action? As I’ve noted, your characterization of the General Assembly isn’t consistent with your assurances that you see a role for the UN, and the latter comment certainly doesn’t “harmonize with” TP’s position, such as it is.

            “…and their pesky insistence that national sovereignty means something very important.”

            There’s a world of difference between believing that sovereignty is ‘very important’ and that investing sovereignty in the nation-state represents the pinnacle of human achievement.

            My pride in and loyalty to my family did not evaporate when I joined the Army and swore my oath to the Constitution. If you see the UN as nothing more than a collection of rivals and enemies, then no, you don’t understand the intent of the UN. It was born in the fires of WWII, and was conceived as a way for humans to find a way other than mass slaughter for resolving their conflicts. The men who conceived it were very much patriots, and didn’t want to see succeeding generations called on to fight yet more world wars.

            “How could anyone doubt your patriotism to America?”

            An excellent question. The answer probably lies with an armchair hero who’s never put his life on the line for his country confusing gasbaggery with patriotism, or it might be as simple as a troll attempting to reach for the same button twice.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Why, yes, you did. That doesn’t leave much room for a role for the UN, though you insist that you believe in one.”

            Basically the conversation is too difficult for you to follow and you blame others.

          • hiernonymous

            Ah. Posturing. Knock yourself out.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Ditto.

            Either you don’t understand or you feign ignorance to justify droning on with your leftist dogmas.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you see the UN as nothing more than a collection of rivals and enemies…”

            I said that our rivals and enemies have corrupted the General Assembly. I didn’t say that the UN is nothing more than that. I said understanding this disparity between perception and reality is the most salient lesson.

            “…then no, you don’t understand the intent of the UN.”

            You’re making less and less sense as you go.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It was born in the fires of WWII, and was conceived as a way for humans to find a way other than mass slaughter for resolving their conflicts. The men who conceived it were very much patriots, and didn’t want to see succeeding generations called on to fight yet more world wars.”

            You’re changing the subject.

          • hiernonymous

            “You’re changing the subject.”

            No. You made a comment that equated “patriotism to America” with “patriotism to American exceptionalism as understood by most American patriots of the past.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No. You made a comment that equated “patriotism to America” with “patriotism to American exceptionalism as understood by most American patriots of the past.””

            You’re completely lost. The subject at hand in that subthread was my analysis of salient realities vis-a-vis UN, particularly the General Assembly and the fact that it is dominated by enemies and rivals of the West and Western capitalism. Your response was that I didn’t understand the intention of the role of the UN. That’s a change of subject.

          • hiernonymous

            And, again, no. The role of the UN isn’t to be a friend to the West and Western capitalism, though that doesn’t hurt. To argue that it’s dangerous to view the GA as “anything but” your dark lens (what it pleases you to insist is “the reality”) is to forget why it exists.

            It’s also quite germane to have pointed out that, as you injected your rather odd views on American exceptionalism and patriots, that quite clearly the American patriots who guided us through WWII did not share your horror of the specter of the possibility of limitations on national sovereignty. The UN couldn’t have been conceived or established by men who were unwilling to accept the idea that the sovereignty of the nation-state might some day be eroded by their creation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And, again, no. The role of the UN isn’t to be a friend to the West and Western capitalism, though that doesn’t hurt.”

            The subject was misconceptions. People think that UN findings are somehow objective and comparable to conclusions about justice similar to what we find in our own domestic justice systems.

            The UN itself is neither friend nor foe. We need to be aware of who is driving consensus if we want to protect our own interests and not be swayed by lies and antagonistic propaganda dressed up in the language of “human rights.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s also quite germane to have pointed out that, as you injected your rather odd views on American exceptionalism and patriots, that quite clearly the American patriots who guided us through WWII did not share your horror of the specter of the possibility of limitations on national sovereignty. ”

            They sure didn’t imagine limiting our own sovereignty. If you think they did, well I’ll just laugh again. OTOH, there were obviously Soviet Communists who had penetrated our institutions and may have influenced how those patriots understood global threats, particularly ideological threats. They expected the UN to be a tool of sovereigns to dissipate some of the pressures that lead to war between sovereigns as well as civil wars when possible.

            I am sure that various players had various ideas, but none of the American patriots envisioned the UN superseding American sovereignty. What’s the role of the Security Council? Why doesn’t our congress pass a law requiring us to obey UN decrees?

            You’re a blind idealist. I’m a pragmatic idealist.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “An excellent question. The answer probably lies with an armchair hero who’s never put his life on the line for his country confusing gasbaggery with patriotism, or it might be as simple as a troll attempting to reach for the same button twice.”

            Dummy, everyone is patriotic to something. You’re “offense” at being questioned is pathetic. It gives you a chance to define your patriotism. Especially since the first comments you made were derogatory about nationalism. Distinguishing between nationalism and patriotism in general doesn’t tell us anything about your patriotism to America.

            I’m entitled to ask any questions I want. You’re entitled to respond in any way you want. Each will be judged accordingly. I like it that way.

            And by the way, attacking people who are patriotic to the nation is not the best way to avoid “offensive” questions about your own patriotism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It was not the intention, nor have you established that it was the effect.”

            Not in your mind. I recognize lost causes when I see them.

            You quoting me: “All I’ve ever said is that the UN as it is now is often more destructive than constructive.”

            Your reply: “No, that’s not all you said.”

            That’s all I’ve said with regard to my views on the bottom line value of the UN.

            You again: “That’s not nearly as extreme or emphatic as your recent comment: “It’s dangerous to think of the General Assembly as anything but a
            corrupt pack of politicians dominated by our rivals and enemies.” “Anything but” doesn’t leave room for the constructive side of your latest construction.”

            It’s easy to harmonize the statements if you pay attention and want to understand the discourse. In order to understand the UN and its utility one must understand the realities. One can be constructive when dealing with corrupt political bodies if one is carefully paying attention to the salient realities.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You believe that you have a clearheaded and accurate view into the true motivation, and can thus detect those lies?”

            In some cases, yes. Dupes tell lies because they are unaware. But they’re still lies. Other liars knowingly spread them. All are lies. Understanding motive is not always important when discerning fact from fiction. It’s useful though when you can.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If I point out, for example, that “nothing I’ve said is particularly leftist,” I’m simply pointing out the flaw in your characterization. I’m not making any comment whatsoever about my political beliefs.”

            But to many objective observers you’ve made it clear that you’re either a dupe or liar. I don’t necessarily need for you to openly concede to anything. Maybe we’ve both accomplished what we each intended.

            Win win!

          • hiernonymous

            “But to many objective observers…”

            I’m not convinced that “many objective observers” have even read the exchange, but let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Who are you talking about?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Anyone can click on your username and read what you publish under that account. They can do the same thing with my username.

          • hiernonymous

            So when you said “[b]ut to many objective observers you’ve made it clear that you’re either a dupe or liar,” there were no objective observers that you knew to have read the exchange and drawn that conclusion.

            It’s no wonder that you seem to instinctively assume dishonesty in conversations.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…there were no objective observers that you knew to have read the exchange and drawn that conclusion.”

            I only know about those that follow the conversations.

            “It’s no wonder that you seem to instinctively assume dishonesty in conversations.”

            It’s not instinct. I already explained to you. You just ignore things you don’t want to hear or discuss.

          • hiernonymous

            “I already explained to you.”

            Making an assertion is not the same thing as establishing the validity of a proposition. You make many broad assertions, many couched in the language of the conspiracy theorist, and relying on invalid reasoning – ad hominem by association prominent among them – in an attempt to discredit the speaker rather than the reasoning. In particular, your tendency to claim to see a communist pulling the strings of your conversational partner seems to be an odd holdover from the pet fears of a previous generation.

            You put an awful lot of energy into silly accusations.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In particular, your tendency to claim to see a communist pulling the strings of your conversational partner seems to be an odd holdover from the pet fears of a previous generation.”

            Again you are confused. Communism is not a reality. It’s an ideology. Some fools try to make it real. Some are true believers and others are dupes that accept the fallacies along the way without realizing it.

            Communist and socialist ideas are mainstream, but I’m talking about dupes rather than true believers that understand it comprehensively. Few people actually understand the terminology or the implications.

            You’re a dupe because you think that international organizations can somehow organically deliver justice superior to what any nation can, including your own. You’re a dupe because you believe that ideology isn’t really that important so don’t question “progressive” dogmas because that would go against “social progress.”

            Only a dupe or a liar would stomp his feet for weeks about the dogmatic position that Islamic texts are not influential in the behavior of pious Muslims and if the texts and doctrines are influential it makes no differences because their circumstances are what drove them to act out so they’d just find another ideological justification if they needed it.

            And you’re so convinced of this that you must interrupt “hateful” conversations that challenge your dogmas.

            But you’re such an objective truth seeker that we shouldn’t worry about that. Excuse me, I shouldn’t worry about that. Maybe others will continue to worry or to consider you a dupe or a liar.

          • hiernonymous

            “Again you are confused.”

            No. You apparently see ‘communist ideology’ behind every idea that doesn’t conform with whatever you call your personal hodgepodge of beliefs. The regularity with which you accuse others of being communist dupes and liars is comical.

            “Few people actually understand the terminology or the implications.”

            Ah.

            “You’re a dupe because you think that international organizations can somehow organically deliver justice superior to what any nation can, including your own.”

            Assuming for the sake of argument that you had correctly captured my view of international organizations, it in no way follows that holding such a position would imply that one is a “dupe.” That’s an accusation you seem to reflexively offer to try to put the other person on the defensive; it’s a silly rhetorical parlor trick, not serious argument.

            “You’re a dupe because you believe that ideology isn’t really that important so don’t question “progressive” dogmas because that would go against “social progress.””

            Not agreeing with the central position of ideology in no way implies that one does not examine or question ideology – what sort of logical house of cards are you trying to construct here? (Nevermind – that part’s clear. It’s more ad hominem by association.)

            “Only a dupe or a liar would stomp his feet for weeks about the dogmatic position that Islamic texts are not influential in the behavior of pious Muslims…”

            Who said that Islamic texts are not influential in the behavior of pious Muslims? What I’ve said is that Muslim texts and dogma are not central to terrorism and the political violence – including Islamist violence – manifesting in the Middle East. Your formulation shows that you don’t understand the history of the Islamist movement and the nature of its own ideology. Men like Sayid Qutb and Muhammad Farag weren’t Imams, they weren’t religious scholars, they didn’t – and don’t – understand the Qur’an in the context of Muslim orthodoxy. They created their own ideology by doing what you seem to do – cherrypicking verses out of context and inventing new definitions for words. That’s not speaking vaguely, but precisely – a good example is how Qutb redefined “jahiliya” in order to bypass the religious prohibition on killing co-religionists.

            In short, three generations of radicals have had to work overtime to try to create a justification for their ‘religious’ agenda that will at least sound acceptable to a mainstream Muslim, but you argue – to the extent that your vague assertions could be called ‘argument’ – that their efforts were not necessary, and that their agenda turns out to have represented mainstream Islam all along. Farag’s The Neglected Duty was not needed, because it turns out that al Azhar didn’t understand what jihad meant after all. meh.

            “…and if the texts and doctrines are influential it makes no difference because their circumstances are what drove them to act out so they’d just find another ideological justification if they needed it.”

            Show that to be wrong.

            “And you’re so convinced of this that you must interrupt “hateful” conversations that challenge your dogmas.”

            No, I interrupt hateful conversations in which unjustified generalizations are being bandied about by folks trying to dehumanize the billion-odd followers of a rival religion.

            “Maybe others will continue to worry or to consider you a dupe or a liar.”

            It’s interesting the extent to which you rely on hypothetical others to bolster your rhetoric. You don’t seem to be comfortable simply presenting your own arguments as your own.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You apparently see ‘communist ideology’ behind every idea that doesn’t conform with whatever you call your personal hodgepodge of beliefs.”

            What are the 3 dominant and competing ideologies in politics today?

            “Assuming for the sake of argument that you had correctly captured my view of international organizations, it in no way follows that holding such a position would imply that one is a “dupe.””

            You could be a true believer. I’ve said that consistently. How can someone think they are defending the American constitution while at the same time promoting internationalism? You don’t see the underlying contradiction?

            I guess you’re just that much smarter than everyone else. That explains my confusion. Perhaps you should head this international organization and lead us all to the progressive global government that we all deserve. Because frankly without such a transcendent genius savior character, I’m afraid I’m going to have to put my confidence in the US constitution instead.

            “What I’ve said is that Muslim texts and dogma are not central to terrorism and the political violence.”

            You might use the phrase “not central” but your words imply “not relevant.”

            “Your formulation shows that you don’t understand the history of the Islamist movement and the nature of its own ideology.”

            You might have tried that earlier, Again, you’re a dupe or a liar. Show me the mainstream clerics and leaders that denounce the interpretations of Qutb or bin Laden. They disagree the way that popes disagree with each other. They might occasionally call each other heretics but not for the reasons you want us to believe.

            So basically jihad is modern confusion over the texts? Yet the texts are still handled more or less the same way today by MB and AQ, with trivial differences in tactics, not ideology. They don’t disagree about obligations and so forth but HOW to WIN in the modern context. Yes there are various schools but they are all equally dangerous in various ways. Some threaten our constitution and others threaten our lives.

            “In short, three generations of radicals have had to work overtime to try to create a justification for their ‘religious’ agenda that will at least sound acceptable to a mainstream Muslim, but you argue – to the extent that your vague assertions could be called ‘argument’ – that their efforts were not necessary, and that their agenda turns out to have represented mainstream Islam all along.”

            The most significant arguments in Islam today center around how to organize jihad in the absence of a caliph. That’s what the radicals fight about underneath it all when they’re not killing each other for traditional reasons.

            “”…and if the texts and doctrines are influential it makes no difference because their circumstances are what drove them to act out so they’d just find another ideological justification if they needed it.””

            The burden of proof is on you to show why the prima facia evidence, what the actors say, is wrong. Why would we listen to you rather than suicide video testimonies? I’ve already stipulated that of course humans are complex and drilling down on an individual level could also take us to some interesting discoveries, but your denial is laughable. Only a brainwashed individual would ignore and scoff at such evidence and then demand “the real proof.”

            “No, I interrupt hateful conversations in which unjustified generalizations are being bandied about by folks trying to dehumanize the billion-odd followers of a rival religion.”

            The root causes of anger at Islam are driven by the behaviors of the jihadis. You’re going to have to come up with something better than denial if you want to help dissipate the legitimate anger, even if that anger is often misdirected. Your efforts are misdirected as well.

            “It’s interesting the extent to which you rely on hypothetical others to bolster your rhetoric. You don’t seem to be comfortable simply presenting your own arguments as your own.”

            I’m trying to be helpful. If you think you only have disagreements with me, you’re even more deluded than I thought.

          • hiernonymous

            “What are the 3 dominant and competing ideologies in politics today?”

            As I’ve said before, if you have an argument to make, make it.

            “How can someone think they are defending the American constitution while at the same time promoting internationalism? You don’t see the underlying contradiction?”

            No, I don’t see an underlying contradiction between anything I’ve said I believe and the Constitution.

            “I guess you’re just that much smarter than everyone else.”

            You seem inordinately worried about my opinion of myself.

            “Show me the mainstream clerics and leaders that denounce the interpretations of Qutb or bin Laden.”

            Seriously? Al Azhar declared Qutb “munhafir,” which means deviant from Islam. You don’t get any more “mainstream Muslim cleric and leader” than al Azhar.

            “…with trivial differences in tactics, not ideology…”

            On what do you base this generalization?

            “The burden of proof is on you to show why the prima facia evidence, what the actors say, is wrong.”

            Extensive studies of suicide bombers are sufficient to question self-serving statements of motivation. We know of enough cases of suicide bombers coerced into the act – including the de rigueur pre-attack video – to accept that such statements alone are prima facie evidence of true motivations. A couple of articles worth mulling over:

            http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/what-motivates-suicide-bombers-0

            http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-logic-of-suicide-terrorism/

            “The most significant arguments in Islam today center around how to organize jihad in the absence of a caliph. That’s what the radicals fight about underneath it all when they’re not killing each other for traditional reasons.”

            Which is it – are those the most significant arguments in Islam, or are they what the radicals fight about? If you contend the former, what’s your source?

            “Only a brainwashed individual would…”

            Name that fallacy…

            “You’re going to have to come up with something better than denial if you want to help dissipate the legitimate anger, even if that anger is often misdirected.”

            If the anger is misdirected, it’s not “legitimate.” That’s rather the point.

            “If you think you only have disagreements with me, you’re even more deluded than I thought.”

            Nobody has suggested I don’t have disagreements with others. I have suggested that you don’t speak for those others, and that you quite frequently slip into the plural in an attempt to lend unearned weight to your comments.

            “I’m trying to be helpful.”

            And having said that, you’ve established prima facie evidence of your motives. I’ll take you at your word.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, I don’t see an underlying contradiction between anything I’ve said I believe and the Constitution.”

            Of course you don’t.

            “Seriously? Al Azhar declared Qutb “munhafir,” which means deviant from Islam. You don’t get any more “mainstream Muslim cleric and leader” than al Azhar.”

            And his argument was about what? That we should all just get along and tolerate each other? Of course they attack each other. I already stipulated. What was the fundamental argument that distinguishes Qutb’s ideas about jihad from mainstream Islam? It’s about tactics. And Qutb came up with new ways of looking at how to discern which Muslims are following sharia.

            Not only this, but my questions and interests are related to understanding what is driving jihad. Saying that so and so is more representative of mainstream Islam because he thinks Qutb was too impatient, which is what it boils down to, is not really helpful.

          • hiernonymous

            “What was the fundamental argument that distinguishes Qutb’s ideas about jihad from mainstream Islam? It’s about tactics.”

            Actually, no. Al Azhar has consistently disputed your apparent take on jihad. For example, Jad al Haq of al Azhar accused Sadat’s assassin of misinterpreting the Sword verse, asserting the mainstream Muslim orthodoxy that Muslims are called to fight only defensively against those who attack them, which is hardly an issue simply of “tactics.”

            “And Qutb came up with new ways of looking at how to discern which Muslims are following sharia.”

            Oh, no, it went much further than that. His redefinition of jahiliya didn’t simply determine who was “following Sharia,” it redefined who was actually Muslim. Hardly a minor matter of tactics.

            “Saying that so and so is more representative of mainstream Islam because he thinks Qutb was too impatient, which is what it boils down to, is not really helpful.”

            If you didn’t want the answer, you shouldn’t have asked the question.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Actually, no. Al Azhar has consistently disputed your apparent take on jihad. For example, Jad al Haq of al Azhar accused Sadat’s assassin of misinterpreting the Sword verse, asserting the mainstream Muslim orthodoxy that Muslims are called to fight only defensively against those who attack them, which is hardly an issue simply of “tactics.””

            Right. Only “caliphs” can order “offensive” jihad. People have various disagreements over how to “defend” sharia, not whether to defend it with any means. Any encroachment on sharia can be seen as worthy of opposing and then presenting that as a “defensive” action.

            That’s the heart of the debate. Jihadis today use multi-phased justifications for violent jihad. And they disagree over points that are relevant today when circumstances are so much more favorable to global sharia in many ways (from their point of view) even without a caliph to coordinate the jihad.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Extensive studies of suicide bombers are sufficient to question self-serving statements of motivation. We know of enough cases of suicide bombers coerced into the act – including the de rigueur pre-attack video – to accept that such statements alone are prima facie evidence of true motivations.”

            Psych profiles are interesting. But the point is that the ideological content of the discourse where these men are recruited uses arguments found in Islamic texts. Ideas are not fungible. There are other factors, but the factors that are distinct to jihadis have everything to do with religious ideology.

            You’re saying it’s not salient that a suicide militant believes he will be greeted with – whatever – immediately in paradise the moment he is killed. This is lunacy. It’s hard to believe you expect to be taken seriously. It’s clear you live in an intellectual bubble.

            You’re trying to argue that humans are more or less fungible robots with different ideologies that mean nothing more than the distinctions between Coca Cola and Pepsi. You are indeed a true believer in your religion.

            I never denied that there are other factors. All you do is cite other factors as evidence that ideology is not a factor. Defying clear prima facie evidence.

          • hiernonymous

            “You’re saying it’s not salient that a suicide militant believes he will be greeted with – whatever – immediately in paradise the moment he is killed.”

            What we know about suicide bombers very much suggests that that is not usually ‘salient.’

            “You’re saying it’s not salient that a suicide militant believes he will be greeted with – whatever – immediately in paradise the moment he is killed. This is lunacy. It’s hard to believe you expect to be taken seriously. It’s clear you live in an intellectual bubble.”

            That’s bombast, not rebuttal.

            “All you do is cite other factors as evidence that ideology is not a factor.”

            No, I cite other factors as evidence that ideology is not the only or even the most important factor.

            “Defying clear prima facie evidence.”

            Prima facie evidence is of value in a rapid initial evaluation; I’ve already offered you examples of much more in-depth study of the phenomenon. “Prima facie” evidence is not compelling once more robust study and analysis has been conducted.

            Bottom line: You pay lip service to the notion that humans are complex and that there are other factors in play, but you wax indignant when the factor that you’ve selected as most important – or, as you like to put it, ‘salient’ – isn’t acknowledged as obviously so. Sorry, but the evidence – either on the individual or on the collective level – doesn’t support your simplistic view.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What we know about suicide bombers very much suggests that that is not usually ‘salient.’”

            What your dogmatic institutions suggest is that that is not usually salient.

          • hiernonymous

            You’ll note that I included two sources from quite different political backgrounds in anticipation of precisely that non-argument.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’ll note that I included two sources from quite different political backgrounds in anticipation of precisely that non-argument.”

            I’ve already stipulated many many times that other factors can be discovered. Those are red herrings.

            I guess we just can’t trust anything anyone says about their own motivations. Is that what your sources show?

          • hiernonymous

            “I guess we just can’t trust anything anyone says about their own motivations. Is that what your sources show?”

            Is that your best good-faith effort at summarizing what you read?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Is that your best good-faith effort at summarizing what you read?”

            I’m summarizing your position. Not the article’s.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, I cite other factors as evidence that ideology is not the only or even the most important factor.”

            What matters is whether it’s important enough to discuss here. These are the conversations you deliberately interrupt because you’re satisfied with your institution’s dogmas and others like me are not. Or maybe I’m alone this time but I doubt it.

            I don’t believe I’ve ever even once said ideology is the only factor. It’s the one socialists (crypto-communists) want everyone to ignore.

          • hiernonymous

            “I don’t believe I’ve ever even once said ideology is the only factor.”

            That’s an improvement, anyway.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s an improvement, anyway.”

            If you’ve learned something important we can agree that would be progress.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Name that fallacy…”

            It’s only a fallacy if I’m relying on that statement as evidence. Which I’m not. It’s a closing remark and a wake-up call.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If the anger is misdirected, it’s not “legitimate.” That’s rather the point.”

            Anger is an emotion. The venting of that anger is another question. The anger is legitimate. You want to “correct” the “injustice” by mocking people for their anger, not where they’re directing it.

            Plus you actually do deny that it’s legitimate anger because all you do is publish justifications for jihad.

          • hiernonymous

            “The anger is legitimate.”

            To the extent that your sentence means anything at all, it means that the individual is justified in feeling as he does about the target of his emotion. How one ‘vents’ that anger is, indeed, a different question.

            “…because all you do is publish justifications for jihad.”

            Your analysis is as keen as ever.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “To the extent that your sentence means anything at all, it means that the individual is justified in feeling as he does about the target of his emotion.”

            An anarchist that denies complexity when it suits his agenda. Hmm.

            “How one ‘vents’ that anger is, indeed, a different question.”

            Right. One that you don’t actually address without instead attacking the messenger.

            >”…because all you do is publish justifications for jihad.”

            “Your analysis is as keen as ever.”

            The dupe question is still an open one.

          • hiernonymous

            “An anarchist that denies complexity when it suits his agenda.”

            That’s not a response, it’s simply more name-calling. Your comments are degenerating.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Anarchist” is “name-calling?” Because it’s “hateful?”

            Didn’t you just attack someone for not having the “gumption” to start his own vigilante campaign? Did I misread your words?

            What do you call that? What is the politically correct way to express criticism of your ideas? What…is that the point of “political correctness,” to shame those who attempt unwanted criticism?

          • hiernonymous

            “”Anarchist” is “name-calling?” Because it’s “hateful?””

            No, because it’s just another tired attempt to discredit someone with a label – in this case, one that doesn’t remotely follow from the conversation.

            “Didn’t you just attack someone for not having the “gumption” to start his own vigilante campaign?”

            Why, no. I criticized him for lacking the courage of his convictions, and for displaying the temperament of the executioner while trying to wear the clothes of the revolutionary.

            “Did I misread your words?”

            I doubt it. You mischaracterized them, though.

            “What…is that the point of “political correctness,” to shame those who attempt unwanted criticism?”

            You mean by labeling them liars, dupes, communists, communists, internationalists, unpatriotic, etc? Self-awareness is not your long suit, I’ll take it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You mean by labeling them liars, dupes, communists, communists, internationalists, unpatriotic, etc?”

            No. “Labeling” is about summary judgment. Only leftists expect people to slink away quietly when challenged. Most other people don’t expect to feel shame when challenged if they can support their views. According to political correctness, certain topics are out-of-bounds. I’m not trying to silence you in any way. I’m trying to challenge you to account for your views when you seem unaware of their origins. Or perhaps you think that your institutions only propagate “the real truth.”

            So no, it’s not the same thing at all. My values are different therefore the implications are different. Although if I made you feel shame due to your political correctness indoctrination, I do apologize. That was not my intention.

            So you’re not an anarchist? OK. Then why do you attack people for “lack of gumption” after they indicate they’re waiting for consensus before acting? It’s not consistent with your other stated values. My “label” is a challenge for you to reconcile this contradiction.

          • hiernonymous

            “Although if I made you feel shame due to your political correctness indoctrination, I do apologize. That was not my intention.”

            Ah.

            “Then why do you attack people for “lack of gumption” after they indicate they’re waiting for consensus before acting?”

            When one has indicated – as Drakken did – that the actions in question are inevitable and desirable – that does not indicate that what he is waiting on is ‘consensus.’ Rather, what he is waiting on is for someone with the courage to initiate events to do so.

            “My “label” is a challenge for you to reconcile this contradiction.”

            Ah, is that what it was? If you say so.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “When one has indicated – as Drakken did – that the actions in question are inevitable and desirable – that does not indicate that what he is waiting on is ‘consensus.’ Rather, what he is waiting on is for someone with the courage to initiate events to do so.”

            If that was your concern, why didn’t you simply ask him to clarify? Maybe he didn’t even mean it literally. You think attacking what you perceive as “hateful” with hate of your own is very modern.

            “Ah, is that what it was? If you say so.”

            Try to remember that I’m not a leftist.

          • hiernonymous

            “If that was your concern, why didn’t you simply ask him to clarify?”

            One seeks clarification of things that aren’t clear.

            “You think attacking what you perceive as “hateful” with hate of your own is very modern.”

            Hate of my own? Very modern?

            “Try to remember that I’m not a leftist.”

            Should I be inclined to try to reduce you to a label, I’ll make sure it’s not “leftist.” No worries.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “One seeks clarification of things that aren’t clear.”

            Motives and objectives matter too. That’s why you didn’t bother to ask. Your objective was to attack him.

            “Should I be inclined to try to reduce you to a label, I’ll make sure it’s not “leftist.” No worries.”

            Label? Just try to remember that I’m not a leftist. “Labeling” is something leftists concern themselves with. I’m open to any suggestions you have. If I detect that you’re serious, I’ll be a lot more likely to take it that way.

          • hiernonymous

            “That’s why you didn’t bother to ask. Your objective was to attack him.”

            Really? Here I thought that my means was a sharp comment to him, and that my objective was something else entirely. Thanks for clearing that up.

            “”Labeling” is something leftists concern themselves with.”

            The variety of human behavior you’ve decided are symptoms of “leftism” is truly astounding. What a strange a paranoid world you inhabit.

            “If I detect that you’re serious, I’ll be a lot more likely to take it that way.”

            Should it become important to me to be taken seriously by you, I will keep that in mind.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Really? Here I thought that my means was a sharp comment to him, and that my objective was something else entirely. Thanks for clearing that up.”

            English is slightly more flexible than you present it. Do we need to go to the dictionary again?

            “The variety of human behavior you’ve decided are symptoms of “leftism” is truly astounding. What a strange a paranoid world you inhabit.”

            I’m simply informing you where these theories and worldviews come from. Your sensitivity and responses to this information reveals more than my comments.

            “Should it become important to me to be taken seriously by you, I will keep that in mind.”

            At least you admit you’re not being serious. That’s progress.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m simply informing you where these theories and worldviews come from.”

            Well, you’re informing me what you affect to believe is the case, at any rate.

            ” Your sensitivity and responses to this information reveals more than my comments.”

            You didn’t set that bar very high.

            “At least you admit you’re not being serious.”

            You are a sloppy reader.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You are a sloppy reader.”

            Some times that’s true. It’s much more often here that you simply miss the point.

          • hiernonymous

            This should help:

            “Should it become important to me to be taken seriously by you, I will keep that in mind.”

            More attentive reading, less posturing.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            LOL

            Gee, I missed that…

            You still can’t argue that you should be taken seriously. But you are good for a laugh more often than you realize.

          • hiernonymous

            “Gee, I missed that…”

            Yes, you did.

            “You still can’t argue that you should be taken seriously. But you are good for a laugh more often than you realize.”

            Of course.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yes, you did.”

            And you’re omniscient. Or perhaps not. It’s one or the other. Go work that out.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I have suggested that you don’t speak for those others, and that you quite frequently slip into the plural in an attempt to lend unearned weight to your comments.”

            I don’t see that as salient but if it hurts your feelings I’ll try to be more sensitive to that.

            I think you constantly speak for a collective. That’s practically all you ever do.

          • hiernonymous

            “I don’t see that as salient but if it hurts your feelings I’ll try to be more sensitive to that.”

            Thank you. It’s my stomach, not my heart, that your solicitousness will spare, but it’s still much appreciated.

            “I think you constantly speak for a collective.”

            In this case, “think” is overstating the case, but as you like. Perhaps we could find some shorthand for these associational comments?

            “That’s practically all you ever do.”

            That seems an odd accusation when one considers that it is you, not I, that habitually speaks in the first person plural. Hmmm…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That seems an odd accusation when one considers that it is you, not I, that habitually speaks in the first person plural.”

            You’re a great champ at missing the point. You publish institutional dogmas. I present views that are some times my own and some times they are supported by consensus, but not necessarily consensus derived from rigid dogmatic institutions.

          • hiernonymous

            Once again, substantive content: null.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It has more than the one you used in reply.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You make many broad assertions, many couched in the language of the conspiracy theorist…”

            It’s easy to come on to comments pages and simply deny all of the leads you’re given to verify statements. Then complain about “lack of evidence.”

            Most of the things you deny have already been discussed on these pages. And you complain when I show you URLs, you ignore leads to find evidence or complain that you “don’t post on youtube” (you just have to view the video) or some other BS.

            So if you want to live in a world where you can deny anything that can’t be proved beyond all doubt in the confines of any given text-based comments page, that’s your choice.

            And at this point you’d need an extensive reading list to deal with all of your denial. As if you’d go along with that when you won’t even read the profile pages of authors that publish here.

            You’re kind of a crackpot.

          • hiernonymous

            Substantive comment of this post: null.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s a valid comment for those looking for information. You’re objectives are different. I don’t serve your objectives.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You seem to be sure of more things than you have good cause to be. You may be justifiably certain that I am not going to make your arguments for you, though.”

            I’m skeptical that you even try to understand the discourse before you start putting out your “anti-xenophobia” smoke screen arguments.

            That’s part of the reason that your expectations don’t matter. You’re blatantly adversarial while posing as objective.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m skeptical that you even try to understand the discourse before you
            start putting out your “anti-xenophobia” smoke screen arguments.”

            What you believe about my understanding and motivation is sausage to me. I’m interested in the quality of your arguments and their support.

            “You’re blatantly adversarial while posing as objective.”

            Of course I’m blatantly adversarial. You offer comments that are blatantly hateful. I don’t feel the need to offer them more respect than they merit.

            That said, though, you’ll note that it was not I who resorted to character assassination. When you complain about someone being “blatantly adversarial,” you might want to engage in a bit of reflection.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Of course I’m blatantly adversarial. You offer comments that are blatantly hateful.”

            There you go.

            Who do I hate again? I forgot.

          • hiernonymous

            “Who do I hate again? I forgot.”

            That’s excellent. Let’s hope you don’t remember.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s excellent. Let’s hope you don’t remember.”

            You’re not very helpful for someone that wants to eradicate hatred. I need to put a note on my hand. Why won’t you help?

            Help me reform my xenophobic ways.

          • hiernonymous

            “You’re not very helpful for someone that wants to eradicate hatred.”

            For someone who what?

            “Help me reform my xenophobic ways.”

            If you insist. How old are you? In how many languages are you conversant? What parts of the world have you lived in? We can use that to calibrate where you’re starting from and think about the next steps.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m an illiterate pig farmer that knows nothing about religion or culture. What do I need to know about Islam in order to understand jihad violence and the Muslim Brotherhood’s desired to resurrect the caliphate?

            Is it all really about nationalism? It is? That’s a relief!

            OK. Thanks so much!

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m an illiterate pig farmer that knows nothing about religion or culture.”

            My, we do have our work cut out for us, don’t we?

            “What do I need to know about Islam in order to understand jihad violence…”

            A better question would be “what do I need to know in order to understand jihad violence?” The question as you posed it presupposes an answer, which is a bad beginning to your stated goal.

            “…and the Muslim Brotherhood’s desired to resurrect the caliphate?”

            Same applies. Trying to understand the MB solely through religious dogma would be an exercise in futility.

            “Is it all really about nationalism?”

            Why, no.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Well preach on preacher. Help the Islamophobes here understand the flaws in our thinking. Do we need reprogramming camps?

          • hiernonymous

            You’re once again taking refuge in the first person plural.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I was wrong to assume that I’m not the only one that needs “reformation?”

            Is that the most salient lesson you have to offer us…er…me today?

            I thought you were going to explain my hatred as resentment that certain people don’t want to buy my product. That has to be at least a major part of it. Please don’t leave me guessing. I really need your help.

          • hiernonymous

            “Is that the most salient lesson you have to offer us…er…me today?”

            One could make a good case that it is.

            “I thought you were going to explain my hatred…”

            Did you? If you read “hateful” as “displaying hatred,” one might see how you could have come to that conclusion.

            “…that certain people don’t want to buy my product.”

            I don’t think you’ve mentioned what “your product” is, or who buys it.

            “I really need your help.”

            Many a true word is spoken in jest.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            So it really is all about you as a kind of messianic messenger of truth, and we are just rubes who can’t understand anything about conflict or what we see happening in the world.

            We should leave it to the elites of the Democratic Party to guide us through this scary stuff. I should focus on my pigs and not worry about who buys them or why they choose not to.

            And then the world will organically move towards a blissful peace. World hunger will likely solve itself along with “global warming” and all of the other concerns because we have The Party to work out solutions. If we get angry or confused and feel betrayed, it’s some internal personal character dysfunction because we…er…I’ve done all I can by supporting The Party.

            I don’t know why I even read these pages here. They should be banned as “hateful.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You seem to create more mysteries than you solve.

            “If you read “hateful” as “displaying hatred,” one might see how you could have come to that conclusion.”

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hateful

            hate·ful adjective ˈhāt-fəl

            : very bad or evil : causing or deserving hate

            : full of hate : showing hate

            Full Definition of HATEFUL

            1: full of hate : malicious

            2: deserving of or arousing hate

            — hate·ful·ly adverb

            — hate·ful·ness noun

            Am I alleged to have displayed someone else’s hatred?

          • hiernonymous

            Read the definitions you posted a bit more carefully and it may occur to you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The range of possibilities is clear to me. I’m asking you about hate. What is the source of this alleged hate? It’s your allegation. Don’t you like to be clear and precise?

            It sounds like you are the source of hate. Care to clear that up?

            Why does a rational discussion about ideology arouse hate in you?

          • hiernonymous

            “The range of possibilities is clear to me.”

            If so, you haven’t made it clear in your posts.

            “Why does a rational discussion about ideology arouse hate in you?”

            There are two questionable assumptions in that question.

            If you want to recap your opinions on Islam, I’ll be happy to recap what I find hateful about them.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you want to recap your opinions on Islam, I’ll be happy to recap what I find hateful about them.”

            Islam is a dangerous ideology and its adherents need to become a lot more tolerant to criticism because emulating a rapist warlord from 14 centuries ago is not acceptable today. Doing so while invoking a mandate from God makes it even more dangerous. The hazards are greatest for pious believers and their targets.

            Your turn.

          • hiernonymous

            Your caricature of Islam and Muhammad paint an unnecessarily and unjustifiably violent and prejudicial picture of adherents of Islam as a whole. Doing so requires that you adopt an intellectual double standard in which examples of unacceptable behavior in Muslim societies are cited as evidence of the impact of Islam’s ‘ideology,’ whereas examples of unacceptable behavior elsewhere are cited as aberrations and departures from that society’s values.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Your caricature of Islam and Muhammad paint an unnecessarily and unjustifiably violent and prejudicial picture of adherents of Islam as a whole.”

            What caricature? He wasn’t a literal rapist? Nor a warlord? I’m exaggerating, or is there a more accurate “nuanced” truth that we’re missing? I’m certainly entitled to that view without being declared hateful.

            “Doing so requires that you adopt an intellectual double standard in which examples of unacceptable behavior in Muslim societies are cited as evidence of the impact of Islam’s ‘ideology,’”

            What are the 2 distinct standards? The fact that I’ve concluded there are distinctions is ipso facto proof that my inconsistent standards must be the underlying reason for those distinctions? Where’s your evidence for that? Isn’t it more likely that there are actual distinctions to be drawn between various ideologies? What’s the Christian parallel doctrine to “jihad?”

            It’s not merely that there are examples of “unacceptable behavior” as there are in every society but that we’ve noted statistically there are dramatic differences and we’ve also noted that we can find many examples where the actors are themselves accurately citing the Islamic texts and doctrines as motive. As in recently.

            When is the last time a bunch of Christians staged violent global protests over “hurt religious feelings?” Does Christianity teach that believers must coerce and dominate non-believers and even kill them in some cases?

          • hiernonymous

            “What caricature? He wasn’t a literal rapist?”

            Are you claiming that you know that he was? Are you claiming that Islam promotes rape?

            “I’m certainly entitled to that view without being declared hateful.”

            No, you’re not. You’re simply entitled to hold whatever view you wish.

            “…but that we’ve noted statistically there are dramatic differences…”

            To what statistics are you referring? I haven’t seen you offer statistics in your posts, but I certainly haven’t seen all of your posts.

            “…and we’ve also noted that we can find many examples where the actors are themselves accurately citing the Islamic texts and doctrines as motive.”

            It’s not difficult to find the same in a Christian context. Again, a Christian quoting Leviticus to justify killing gays doesn’t understand his own religion, but a Muslim who claims religious justification for his crimes proves that his religion is violent.

            “When is the last time a bunch of Christians staged violent global protests over “hurt religious feelings?””

            When was the last time that Muslim armies of occupation controlled Christian countries, such that acts of perceived arrogance or cultural offense would spark such protests? Again, you ignore inconvenient but important – sorry, you prefer ‘salient’ – differences when they don’t support your Islamophobic agenda.

            “Does Christianity teach that believers must coerce and dominate non-believers and even kill them in some cases?”

            Well, yes; Christianity has historically taught just such things, and acted on them. The Albigensian Crusade comes to mind.

            And there’s no shortage of similar injunctions in the Bible. There’s Deuteronomy 17, for example:

            2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Way to blow it completely on saliency.

            Who are Christians to emulate? Who are Muslims to emulate?

            Was Christ or Mohamed a rapist? Was either Christ or Mohamed a warlord?

            If you want to have an independent discussion on the implications of Christian ideology, that’s fine. But you don’t defend Islam logically by showing how poorly you understand the vast differences between Islam and any other ideology.

            “And there’s no shortage of similar injunctions in the Bible. There’s Deuteronomy 17, for example:”

            Well who was that written for? Most Biblical laws were contextual with spiritual lessons for any who can discern them. No laws are coercive for Christians.

            OTOH if today we had people running around murdering and leaving notes quoting any part of the Bible we should explore that, not simply say well Muslims do it too. Any such effort to understand what drives such behaviors is worthy of examination. Why do you suppose the FBI spends so much on behavioral analysis?

            But instead we get the typical leftist false equivalence arguments. That’s why I say that you’re either…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Are you claiming that you know that he was?”

            A rapist? Well yes, according to most biographies. But really we don’t know if he existed at all. Most Muslims believe that his behaviors are acceptable or laudable and Westerners believe that Muslims who emulate those behaviors are rapists.

            “Are you claiming that Islam promotes rape?”

            Yes it does, according to the Western definitions for rape. It condones and excuses it, blaming the target rather than the actual “rapist.”

            http://alisina.org/blog/2011/01/02/muhammad-raped-safiyah/

          • hiernonymous

            Most biographies? You say this out of your own knowledge? Could you offer some of the more prominent examples?

            Ali Sina’s blog engages in a great deal of speculation aimed at trying to prove that Saffiyah was coerced into marriage. If that’s your basis for characterizing Muhammad as a rapist, you’re serving very thin gruel indeed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…a great deal of speculation aimed at trying to prove that Saffiyah was coerced into marriage.”

            You’re going to take the position that it isn’t clear she was coerced? Wasn’t her family killed in front of her, or is that just another misunderstanding as well?

            “Ali Sina’s blog engages in a great deal of speculation…”

            Well let’s figure out what we can figure out. I had no idea you’d actually deny she was coerced. At least we got the ball rolling.

            After that we’ll move on to Islamic doctrines for sex slaves. It should be a proverbial barrel of monkeys.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s not difficult to find the same in a Christian context. Again, a Christian quoting Leviticus to justify killing gays doesn’t understand his own religion, but a Muslim who claims religious justification for his crimes proves that his religion is violent.”

            And what are some statistics for that kind of event?

            https://www.lexisnexis.com/

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Doing so requires that you adopt an intellectual double standard…”

            It’s like I expect Christians to tolerate criticism from all quarters while expecting Muslims to riot and tear apart embassies and other property in response to perceived insults.

            That kind of double standard?

          • hiernonymous

            I don’t generally expect Christians to tolerate criticism from all quarters. Christians can be quite vehement and even violent in the fact of insult to their religion. It’s the Enlightenment-derived subordination of the religious to the secular in Western society that leads to the expectation that individuals of any religion who are offended must tolerate such offense.

            If you’re conversing with someone who has suggested that Muslims should be free to commit violence against those who offend them, while Christians should not, that person would indeed be employing a double standard.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I don’t generally expect Christians to tolerate criticism from all quarters.”

            That’s nice. It doesn’t explain your “consistent” standards for judgment.

            “Christians can be quite vehement and even violent in the fact of insult to their religion.”

            In theory we’re all the same. Don’t ask uncomfortable “hateful” questions about people that tend to tear apart embassies for significant no reason. Your standards are to judge people by their reactions and then assume something rational caused it. Building homes in Jerusalem is morally equivalent to terror attacks because terror attacks are a response to building homes in Jerusalem.

            That’s how moral equivalence works. All religions are morally equal because it’s an iron law of humanity. The rest can be worked out by following the iron laws and working backwards. No need to “make hateful comments” because that esoteric ideology stuff just does not matter. It’s merely superficial cover for things that they are driven to do by their human condition.

            “If you’re conversing with someone who has suggested that Muslims should be free to commit violence against those who offend them, while Christians should not, that person would indeed be employing a double standard.”

            I’m conversing with someone that takes distinct behavioral patterns and obscures the facts up until he can make them sound close enough to equal. To his own ears.

            You claim Islam and Christianity are more or less the same when Christians are called to emulate Jesus and Muslims are called to emulate Mohamed. And then for your example you pull out texts that gave the first laws to the ancient Hebrews as evidence for this position of “rough equivalence.”

            That is extremely rough. Some might call it a double standard. Including me. That’s just a very recent example.

          • hiernonymous

            “You claim Islam and Christianity are more or less the same…”

            No, but I’ll agree that when it comes to characterizing the violence of the religions, both have racked up sufficiently high body counts that it strains credulity when a follower of either tries to paint the other as uniquely bloody.

            “And then for your example you pull out texts that gave the first laws to the ancient Hebrews as evidence for this position of “rough equivalence.””

            Those ancient texts are part of the Christians’ holy books. A typical Christian worship service involves readings from both the Old and New Testaments, and Christians quite regularly cite Old Testament law.

            Hard to see a double standard in citing a religion’s Holy Book as an example of its ideology.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, but I’ll agree that when it comes to characterizing the violence of the religions, both have racked up sufficiently high body counts that it strains credulity when a follower of either tries to paint the other as uniquely bloody.”

            History is most often studied in order to understand our present and our future. You use history to convince us that you’ve decided certain topics are unworthy of discussion or hateful to discuss.

            If Christianity is “bloody” at times when people misuse the texts, and if we can show that over time it became peaceful as consensus was built over what the texts actually say, why is that not important to show in contrast with Islam if Islam can be shown to be less bloody only when they are in an inferior position?

            And if you want to talk about “Christian society” or “the West” vs. Islamic society at large and say that the West is just as bloody, I’ll stipulate to that. Because what’s important is knowing the lessons for planning our future course. We need to know if there are things that will help us reach our goals. If Islam has problems with compatibility, if we can understand better why there are issues in some cases with Muslim assimilation in the West, we need to figure out truly what is going on. We don’t need people limiting the discussion merely because they are convinced that they have all of the answers and that our ideas are too hateful to discuss.

            In the end, we may conclude that by being more critical about Islam in open discourse, that Muslims understand our limits more clearly when they choose to apply for immigration.

            And we might also decide that controlling our borders more carefully would be a good idea. Things like that.

            But you come here on the basis of your emotionally derived positions and declare that certain topics are too hateful for you to leave alone and you must inject your own “productive” form of hate.

          • hiernonymous

            “We don’t need people limiting the discussion merely because they are convinced that they have all of the answers and that our ideas are too hateful to discuss.”

            Good thing that nobody has done any such thing.

            “But you come here on the basis of your emotionally derived positions…”

            I thought they were communist-derived.

            “…and declare that certain topics are too hateful for you to leave alone…”

            Whereas you would prefer to … limit the discussion? Hmmm.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Good thing that nobody has done any such thing.”

            That’s exactly what you try to do. You simply don’t have any capability to do it.

            “I thought they were communist-derived.”

            Communist indoctrination leads to people following their emotions and their “gut” feelings about their dogmas. I thought we agreed that motives are complicated and that you were here to counter “hateful comments.” So it would actually be both.

            Didn’t you say something about “hateful comments?” Should I search the comments for the statement I’m referring to? Hate is not an emotion? What did I get wrong according to you?

          • hiernonymous

            “Didn’t you say something about “hateful comments?””

            Why, yes.

            “Hate is not an emotion?”

            You still seem to be struggling with the definition of “hateful.” A hateful comment is one that is bad, evil, or deserving of scorn or hate. So, no, that’s not an “emotion-derived” assessment, it’s a value judgment. Again, one wonders to what extent your perplexity on the matter is affected.

            “That’s exactly what you try to do.”

            You appear to believe so; that’s your right.

            “You simply don’t have any capability to do it.”

            Well and good; what are you complaining about?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You still seem to be struggling with the definition of “hateful.” A hateful comment is one that is bad, evil, or deserving of scorn or hate. So, no, that’s not an “emotion-derived” assessment, it’s a value judgment. Again, one wonders to what extent your perplexity on the matter is affected.”

            So you make subjective value judgements about hate, which is an emotion, without any emotional involvement of your own. That’s interesting. I hope it doesn’t offend you that I don’t believe you for one second.

            Maybe you can teach us how to be so purely objective about judging “hate” in others.

          • hiernonymous

            “So you make subjective value judgements about hate, which is an emotion, without any emotional involvement of your own.”

            You still seem to have reading issues. No human makes any decision without some “emotional involvement.” Your emotional involvement in your posts to me is transparent. But that’s not what you had asserted – you had characterized the assessment as emotion-driven. Not sure where you got the idea that recognizing either emotion or actions likely to provoke given emotions is, itself, an emotional assessment. I can watch a child in a store throw a tantrum and recognize anger without becoming angry myself. I may well have an emotional response to the tantrum – pity for the child, fond memories of my own child’s past, admiration or scorn for the parent’s response – without said emotions ‘driving’ my assessment.

            “Maybe you can teach us how to be so purely objective about judging “hate” in others.”

            This sentence is dripping in emotional investment; should it be ignored on that account? At any rate, if I want to start creating the silly impression that I’m purely objective, perhaps I’ll start by slipping “objective” into my screen name or some such.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I think you’re just full of BS. Denial or intention, it’s not that clear. I don’t think you fool anyone. I could be wrong.

            At least I’m consistently honest, although some times people misinterpret my humor. But I never actually try to deceive people and I try to ensure that I’m not deceiving myself.

            You OTOH want to present yourself as rational, balanced and open to evidence when you’re a propagandist that attacks people for “hate” when it upsets you. Emotionally. Based on your leftist worldview and how that worldview leads you to respond to discussions that threaten your worldview.

          • hiernonymous

            “At least I’m consistently honest….I try to ensure that I’m not deceiving myself.”

            You need to work a little harder at it.

            “You OTOH want to present yourself as rational, balanced and open to evidence when you’re a propagandist that attacks people for “hate” when it upsets you. Emotionally.”

            That would be a good place to start working harder at it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            As soon as I start to care about meeting the expectations of myopic leftist propagandists, I surely will.

          • hiernonymous

            One would think that the effort to be honest with one’s self would be independent of the political leanings and expectations of others, but no matter.

            Interestingly, honesty is one area in which I was quite vigorously indoctrinated as an undergraduate, with no ironic sense intended. “A cadet will not lie, cheat, or still, nor tolerate those who do.” In the ensuing years, I’ve found that the readiness to accuse others of lying is as good an indicator as any of the readiness to lie. I’ll leave you with that thought, if you’re the introspective type.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “One would think that the effort to be honest with one’s self would be independent of the political leanings and expectations of others, but no matter.”

            It is independent. That’s the point. If I care what you think just because you stomp your feet, I need better reasons than that.

            “In the ensuing years, I’ve found that the readiness to accuse others of lying is as good an indicator as any of the readiness to lie.”

            That’s fascinating but taking the entire conversation backwards. I explained my reasons for questioning your honesty. Your refusal to examine certain things meant that either your deceived about the importance or you know the importance and you’re lying about your loyalties.

            It’s just a matter of facts as best can be determined here. If you have reason to question my honesty beyond the fact that I challenged yours in that way, go ahead. I’m not a leftist, so I won’t cry and moan.

            Got any other reasons for questioning my honesty? Or is that another childish “you too” response?

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m not a leftist, so I won’t cry and moan.”

            “Crying and moaning” are now unique to the left, are they?

            “Or is that another childish “you too” response?”

            “Too?” No.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “”Crying and moaning” are now unique to the left, are they?”

            Your assumption that people should cry and moan about being “labeled” is distinctly leftist.

          • hiernonymous
          • objectivefactsmatter

            “RUSH: Look, I understand how you feel. I mean, your own company, as it were, your own government has classified you as nonessential.”

            That’s not being offended about being “labeled.” It’s the ideas that matter. Not the idea that, “Once you give people labels, it’s hard to see them as individuals.”

            It’s the specific idea behind that statement (from your URL) that matters. Not that I agree with that whiny lunatic either. Certainly people that consider themselves conservative and behave conservatively much of the time are impacted by the strong cultural hegemony of leftist ideas. The guy is certainly too sensitive. They’re just looking for things to complain about. Their arguments are not rational. Some conservatives believe they should emulate the tactics of the left when counter-attacking. This idea has limited value in my mind. Fake outrage rarely impresses anyone.

            And by the way, even you, a leftist propagandist, exhibit qualities that don’t fit the stereotypes.

            Treat people as individuals and try to grow a little thicker skin. It will help you grow in maturity as well when you do.

            My statement stands: Your assumption that people should cry and moan about being “labeled” is distinctly leftist.

            I’ll agree that getting upset over trivial things is not unique to leftist robots.

          • hiernonymous

            “Certainly people that consider themselves conservative and behave conservatively much of the time are impacted by the strong cultural hegemony of leftist ideas.”

            Group A and Group B display similar behavior, but Group A’s behavior is “typical” of its beliefs, while Group B’s behavior is aberrational. Clearly, we need to keep the focus on Group A; once it’s ‘fixed,’ Group B’s behavior will better reflect its ideology.

            “And by the way, even you, a leftist propagandist…”

            Hold that line in your thoughts for a moment…

            “Treat people as individuals and try to grow a little thicker skin. It will help you grow in maturity as well when you do.””

            So, for example, deal with the arguments and comments that are provided, rather than trying to associate them with groups of which you disapprove in order to try to discredit them. Excellent advice.

            An obvious objection to labeling is that it’s intellectually lazy and dishonest. For example, I’m neither ‘leftist’ nor a ‘propagandist,’ but you’ll repeat those allegations – and others – in a transparent attempt to discredit ideas through alleged associations. You then throw in a claim that objecting to such labels is 1) typically leftist, and 2) “crying and moaning.”

            In short, you engage in associative fallacies and attempt to preempt objection by associating the act of objecting with “the leftists” — not to mention characterizing such objections as “crying and moaning.” It doesn’t get much more nakedly intellectually dishonest than that.

            “I’ll agree that getting upset over trivial things is not unique to leftist robots.”

            True – nor is attempting to minimize one’s own gaffes by characterizing them as ‘trivial’ unique to a political outlook.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “An obvious objection to labeling is that it’s intellectually lazy and dishonest. For example, I’m neither ‘leftist’ nor a ‘propagandist,’ but you’ll repeat those allegations – and others – in a transparent attempt to discredit ideas through alleged associations. You then throw in a claim that objecting to such labels is 1) typically leftist, and 2) “crying and moaning.””

            My arguments and suggestions don’t depend on those statements. It’s more like a quick summary of conclusions I’ve made based on the sum of conversations with you. Most people would understand that I’m simply summarizing rather than repeating my arguments over and over again.

            And the whole “labeling” idea comes from the same babyish objection as “dehumanizing” complaints. If I call you a monkey, that’s technically a statement that your subhuman. But most people can discern according to context whether to take it literally. By coming up with the whole “dehumanizing” and “labeling” accusations leftists can whine about the same kind of complaint about supposed due respect and whatnot that people today in the West are programmed to accept without questioning.

            “Labeling” as you use it is a shame word to try to prevent me from drawing conclusions that you don’t like. For me it’s a timesaver that hopefully adults can accept and get value from, understanding that I’ve already justified that judgment and if not they can challenge my discernment rather than my word style of communication or lack of political correctness.

            “In short, you engage in associative fallacies and attempt to preempt objection by associating the act of objecting with “the leftists” — not to mention characterizing such objections as “crying and moaning.” It doesn’t get much more nakedly intellectually dishonest than that.”

            No, it’s not the act of objecting at all. It’s the whining and the leftist theories behind the objections. It’s the exact same set of dogmas that led you to “label” me as xenophobic and so forth and then btw you later complained about “labeling.”

            I didn’t cry and moan. I asked you to justify the ideas behind the words. Which led to hundred of comments with no substance. If I was a leftist baby I’d cry about being labeled or dehumanized. Maybe I’d even call you a xenophobe. But since I’m not a leftist, that’s not my manner.

          • hiernonymous

            “If I was a leftist baby I’d cry about being labeled or dehumanized.”

            Ah. You would assert that you’re not crying now, I take it? I’m apparently having more trouble with your very loose use of the language.

            “Which led to hundred of comments with no substance.”

            The realization is late coming to you, but well spotted at last.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I see you haven’t worked on that question of whether you’re omniscient.

          • hiernonymous

            Correct. As I’ve noted before, if you have an argument to make, feel free to make it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Whereas you would prefer to … limit the discussion? Hmmm.”

            I freely admit that I do try to direct the discussion back to the original or salient themes, especially if I think someone like you is here to pull of an “Internet filibuster.”

            Endless victim narratives and Marxist or post-modern theories have their place. But using that to keep people here from voicing their dissent with our political leaders and government policies is something that I oppose.

          • hiernonymous

            “But using that to keep people here from voicing their dissent with our political leaders and government policies is something that I oppose.”

            Very noble. Should anyone try to keep peoplehere from voicing their dissent with our political leaders and government policies, you go get ‘em.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Should anyone try to keep peoplehere from voicing their dissent with our political leaders and government policies, you go get ‘em.”

            Unless of course they are sincere in their heart with the belief that they are objectively evaluating and battling hateful comments. Those people can do what they want.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Those ancient texts are part of the Christians’ holy books. A typical Christian worship service involves readings from both the Old and New Testaments, and Christians quite regularly cite Old Testament law.”

            When they do, they don’t present it as you do. Therefore it’s deceptive for you to use your arguments as you do. If they cite OT law, they certainly do not tell attendants that OT law trumps the constitution. Or any local authority. So context matters but you abuse context constantly. Or you’re just that ignorant.

          • hiernonymous

            “When they do, they don’t present it as you do.”

            Excellent. Apply that same standard to Islam and you’ll find yourself making some progress.

            “…they certainly do not tell attendants that OT law trumps the constitution.”

            That’s not a function of the religion.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s not a function of the religion.”

            Actually it is. It’s explicit in the texts although some used to miss it more often than they do today.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Excellent. Apply that same standard to Islam and you’ll find yourself making some progress.”

            I already do. It’s your flawed assumptions about Christianity that (at least in part) lead you to believe it took inconsistency in judgment to arrive at my views.

            Again, Christians are called to emulate Christ, Muslims are called to emulate Mohamed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Trying to understand the MB solely through religious dogma would be an exercise in futility.”

            Sorry, I forgot that the MB is “largely secular.”

          • hiernonymous

            “Sorry, I forgot that the MB is ‘largely secular.’”

            Non-sequitur.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Me: “But our role here in the public is to help rectify the destructive effects the UN has on public opinion.”;

            You: “Who is “our?””

            Those who comment publicly about the realities of the UN.

          • hiernonymous

            Ah, you mean those who share your views and comment publicly about what you perceive to be the realities of the UN. Got it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Ah, you mean those who share your views and comment publicly about what you perceive to be the realities of the UN. Got it.”

            A small but important victory.