Start A Petition

Distorting the Facts of Occupation: RegavimâEUR(TM)s Attacks on the EU

World  (tags: israel, occupation, settlements, EU, Regavim, East jerusalem, Palestine, International Law, E1 violations, West Bank occupation, illegal settlements, middle-east, news )

- 1269 days ago -
An Israeli settler NGO has accused the EU of illegal building in the West Bank. But the facts âEUR" and its understanding of international law âEUR" just donâEUR(TM)t add up.


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


fly bird (26)
Thursday April 30, 2015, 12:49 am
An Israeli settler NGO has accused the EU of illegal building in the West Bank. But the facts — and its understanding of international law — just don’t add up.

Reports started circulating before Israel’s elections that Prime Minister Netanyahu had ordered the destruction of mobile structures distributed by the EU in Area C of the West Bank. This harks back to a report in November 2014 by the Israeli NGO Regavim, which draws a shocking parallel between the EU’s humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Area C and Israel’s building of settlements there. Assuming that Israel’s settlements are legal under international law, Regavim accuses the EU of assisting the Palestinians in an illegal plan to take control of large parts of the West Bank.

This simply puts matters on their head. There is no doubt that Israel’s settlement policy violates international law whereas assistance to Palestinians building in their own country is in full conformity with the EU’s responsibilities under humanitarian law.

Regavim claims that Israel does not “occupy” the West Bank, since that area was not under the sovereignty of any state when it was taken over by Israel. That argument is specious: it was firmly rejected by the International Court of Justice in 2004 in the case concerning the construction of the Wall, and it is not accepted by any other member of the international community. Contrary to Regavim’s argument, Israel does not enjoy sovereign rights over any part of the West Bank, whether in East Jerusalem or in Area C ; Israel must respect the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which it is a party, and which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its population into occupied territory.

In 1947, the UN General Assembly recommended splitting mandatory Palestine into two independent states – an Arab State (Palestine) and a Jewish State (Israel). Whereas Israel unilaterally proclaimed independence at the time, Palestine could not do so, being occupied by Jordan and, since 1967, by Israel. This does not mean that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are subject to Israeli sovereignty. Palestinians in the West Bank live in their own country.

The Regavim report acknowledges that the EU saves Israel a great deal of resources through its humanitarian activities, which, “in effect, carry out Israel’s obligations towards the Palestinians.” However, it complains that, when financing Palestinian construction in Area C of the West Bank, the EU violates the Oslo II agreement, which, “clearly specified that Area C would be under the full responsibility of the State of Israel.” The EU thereby “cynically exploits … Israel’s unwillingness to clash diplomatically with the European States” by “trampling on the law.”

The origin of this ire is to be found in the particular situation at which the Regavim report is directed. It is well known that Israel intends to isolate East Jerusalem from the remainder of the West Bank by building settlements in an area north-east of Jerusalem referred to as E-1. Doing so would make a contiguous and viable Palestinian State impossible.

Regavim claims that the EU-financed structures were built without the required permits. The zoning rules imposed by the Israeli authorities, however, allow construction by Palestinians in less than 1 percent of Area C; the remainder is reserved for Israeli settlements, closed military zones and nature reserves. Therefore, it is practically impossible for Palestinians to obtain building permits, as the World Bank attests in its 2013 report on the Palestinian economy. This constitutes a violation of Israel’s obligation, as an occupying power, to exercise its powers for the benefit of the Palestinian population. Moreover introducing these restrictions violates Israel’s obligation to preserve, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force before the occupation.

Regavim also claims that the Oslo II Agreement gave Israel “full control” over Area C and accuses the EU and the Palestinian Authority of preventing Israel from “exercising its sovereignty” in the area. This is a shocking distortion of the facts: Oslo provided that powers and responsibilities relating to planning and zoning would, subject to certain issues, be resolved in permanent status negotiations, and come under Palestinian jurisdiction within 18 months from the inauguration of the Palestinian Council (7 March 1996). Israel’s role was clearly designed to be temporary.

The Oslo Agreement was never fully implemented. The result, however, was not to place Palestine in a situation of everlasting dependency on Israel’s goodwill in planning matters. The Fourth Geneva Convention provides that the occupied population may not be deprived of the benefits provided for it under its provisions, even as the result of an agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territory (Palestine) and the occupying power (Israel). Therefore, Israel may not take advantage of the breakdown of the Oslo negotiations to deprive Palestinians of rights they had under pre-existing legislation.

The Regavim report completely distorts two basic concepts by accusing the EU of acting illegally through its provision of humanitarian assistance to residents of Area C. It is Israel that acts in breach of international law, both by building settlements for its own citizens, and by acting as if it were entitled to exercise sovereignty in the West Bank. The EU is fully justified in helping Palestinians avoid the consequences of these violations.


fly bird (26)
Thursday April 30, 2015, 11:29 am

Congress: Don’t Endorse Israeli Annexation of the West Bank

fly bird (26)
Thursday April 30, 2015, 11:35 am
TAKE ACTION: Condemn the Apartheid State of Israel for Their Human Rights Violations Against the Palestinian Peoples.

Past Member (0)
Thursday April 30, 2015, 11:37 am

Past Member (0)
Thursday April 30, 2015, 11:53 am
Just another Islamist PR BS. Expect nothing else from Jess, or from 972 mag extremists.

Regavim claims that Israel does not “occupy” the West Bank, since that area was not under the sovereignty of any state when it was taken over by Israel.

This is not a "specious" argument, this is a fact. Palestinian Arabs love to bend facts to their benefit, and wish that the world would forget that there was no Palestinian Arab state in Palestine, except for Jordan.

International Court of Justice does not have an authority to decide on sovereign powers, and this court decision is irrelevant.

"Israel must respect the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which it is a party, and which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its population into occupied territory"?? Really? Not that Arab states show respect for various conventions. Anyway, no one forced Israelis move to West Bank, after it was won from Jordan in the defensive war.

Jess, instead of collecting and posting any anti-Israeli garbage you can find on the Internet, you should off focused on real apartheid treatment Palestinian Arabs get in other Arab states, and press them for naturalization.

When Europe becomes less anti-Semitic to the level when they decide NOT to pay their taxes for well-being of Palestinian Arabs called "refugees" for no apparent reason, the Palestinian Arab cause will be closed in one day.

Egypt will take over Gaza, and West Bank will be divided between Jordan and Israel, how it was before 1967. UNWRA billions will be given to Egypt and Jordan, and to those states that offer naturalization to the Arabs from Palestine.

That will be THE END of Arab-Israeli conflict.


Past Member (0)
Thursday April 30, 2015, 12:33 pm
Agree with Bob A.

Past Member (0)
Thursday April 30, 2015, 12:35 pm

Bruce C D (89)
Thursday April 30, 2015, 3:55 pm
Petition signed, noted. Thank-you, Jess.

What a surprise! The hasbara doesn't want to accept responsibility for all the Palestinian refugees created by Israel's ethnic cleansing. They wish the problem would just "disappear." So they engage in fantasies and fabrications.

The hasbara comments display the same racism and far-right Zionist extremism as their fascist counterparts in Israel.

Past Member (0)
Thursday April 30, 2015, 4:15 pm
No surprises from Arab apologists.

First they are happy to watch Arab Nation going to war and proudly pronouncing how fast they will threw Jews to the sea. Then they watch their armies badly beaten, and begin to be cry babies. Repeated so many times by so many Arab armies and terrorist groups, that it is becoming horribly annoying.

Then watch Arab Nation - Arab League getting out of its responsibility for Palestinian Arab refugees, and well as for Jewish refugees, robbed and ethnically cleansed by Arab states. Jewish refugees got nothing, Palestinian Arab refugees got money for life,. for their lives and for lives of their descendants forever.

The best joke comes with a definition of "Palestinian Refugee". This is just anyone who lived in Israel between Jun 1946 and May 1948. These two years make any vagabond or economic migrant "Native of Palestine", aka "Native of The Land of Israel".

Returning tantrums to the senders: "The " DAWA " comments display the same racism and far-right " Islamist and Arab Nationalist" extremism as their fascist counterparts in " many Arab countries.

Alexa R (319)
Thursday April 30, 2015, 10:10 pm
The truth:

Apartheid is the epitome of segregation. It was the official term in South Africa for the legal policy of restricting rights of the native Black Africans. Nowadays, people claim that it exits in Israel against Arabs, but the truth is very different.

n.nounAn official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
The condition of being separated from others; segregation.

There are many more restrictions of Jewish Israelis than on Arabs in Israel. OK, to be clear, I define “Israel” as the Land of Israel and all of the Land the League of Nations mandated to Great Britain to develop into a Jewish State and Land that Israel liberated in the 1967 Six Days War.

This is the map of the land that the League of Nations had decided should be a Jewish State.

Franco-British Boundary Convention Mandate for Palestine Map

Great Britain illegally chopped off much more than half, everything east of the Jordan River and gave it to the Hashemites who were not native to the area at all. They then declared Abdullah the Hashemite as Emir of Transjordan.

The Jordanian monarchy was set up in 1921, with the help of Britain. The sons of Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif and Emir of Mecca from 1908 until 1917, were set up as kings of Iraq and Jordan. In Jordan, Abdullah I was made Emir ofTransjordan, a post he held from 11 April 1921 until Transjordan was granted independence on 25 May 1946 as the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. Abdullah was crowned the country’s first king. The country’s name was shortened to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on 3 April 1949. (Wikipedia)

That’s illegal occupation if anything is!!

And if you want to check out a Jewish community and Jewish Rights in Jordan, then and today, you’ll easily discover that it’s judenrein, yes, the Nazi term for an area cleansed of its Jews.

Judenfrei (“free of Jews”) or Judenrein (“clean of Jews”) was a Nazi term to designate an area “cleansed” of Jewish presence during The Holocaust.[1]While Judenfrei referred merely to “freeing” an area of all of its Jewish inhabitants, the term Judenrein (literally “clean of Jews”) was also used. This had the stronger connotation that any trace of Jewish blood had been removed as an impurity.[2] (Wikipedia)

Please don’t ignore the timing of the invention of Jordan. It’s barely a decade before the beginning of Nazism and explains why the Government of Great Britain never protested the Nazi persecution and murder of its Jewish population. Even though the the League of Nations was clear in what it demanded of Great Britain, the British did its best to sabotage the creation of a Jewish State. It only fought the Nazis to preserve its own sovereignty.

Transjordan/Jordan was established for the sole purpose to keep Jews out– apartheid- of the historic and documented Land of Israel.

Post-World War Two, when the Zionists finally lost patience with the British and realized that we would only get a Jewish State if we took unilateral action and declared one, the British helped the Arabs in their attacks on the State of Israel and was one of the only two countries to recognize Jordan’s illegal occupation of what they called the “West Bank,” which was the land between the ceasefire lines and the Jordan River. Jewish communities in those areas, such as Gush Etzion, were massacred or forcefully taken from their homes, held in Jordan and eventually released to Israel.

And today most of the world, including a shocking amount of Jews and Israelis, still support apartheid against Jews in the Land of Israel.

We’re condescendingly told that it is for our own good and safety, because if we enter, we may not come out alive. Now, they see nothing wrong or immoral in Arab terrorism. They do not condemn or try to stop the terrorist activity, but they placate them by giving them freedom of movement. Yes, the Arabs can travel all over, but we Jewish Israelis can’t. That is the “apartheid” we have here. It is against Jews!

Alexa R (319)
Thursday April 30, 2015, 10:14 pm


fly bird (26)
Friday May 1, 2015, 12:31 am
kvetch alert. and another red herring.

The notion that you can wag the dog, would be funny, if it was not so contemptible... hasbara mode, again.

Juden this, Juden that...

The state of Israels policies of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, started decades ago - it is ongoing, every day. This post is about that, not some convoluted ethno- centric abstraction, intended to shift attention away from racist discrimination and abuses by the state of Israel and it's apartheid policies.

Stop denying and abusing Palestinian human rights. End the illegal occupation of Palestine.
Get out of Palestine.

fly bird (26)
Friday May 1, 2015, 12:54 am
Celebration of ethnic cleansing is intolerable': Baltimore JVP crashes ‘Israeli Independence Day’ party. Video -

The following press release was sent out by the Baltimore chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace:

Yesterday, members of the Baltimore chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace interrupted a Yom Ha’Atzmaut party held at a downtown bar, denouncing it as a celebration of ethnic cleansing and confettiing it with educational flyers about the Nakba.

The “Israeli Independence Day” party was hosted by IMPACT and Charm City Tribe, organizations which program events for Jewish young adults in service of the agendas of the Associated and the JCC, their respective sponsoring institutions. The members of Baltimore JVP object to aspects of these agendas, especially to what they call the “celebration of Israeli nationalism at the expense of Palestinian human rights,” according to a letter the group sent to IMPACT and Charm City Tribe early last week, demanding the cancelation of Thursday’s party. The letter, signed by over 30 local Jews, stressed both the “displacement and continuing abuse of Palestinians,” as well as the way these kind of events “misrepresent and alienate us [as Jews.]” In addition to the letter from local Jews to the organizers, over 50 Baltimoreans of various faiths and ethnicities sent a separate letter to the Pratt Street Alehouse, the popular Inner Harbor landmark which the party. In response to the letters, Rabbi Jessy Gross, director of Charm City Tribe, sent only a brief and dismissive email asking for “tolerance and cooperation.” Despite this language of communication, and many phone calls from JVP, both IMPACT and Charm City Tribe refused to meet with JVP before the scheduled event.

With their sincere demand that the event be canceled summarily brushed off by Charm City Tribe, and with their insistence on scheduling a meeting likewise evaded, the JVP members decided to intervene directly with the party, which they consider a celebration of “the atrocities done in the name of Judaism,” according to Sam DiDonato, a JVP member who signed the letter and participated in the interruption. Some members were particularly upset by the party hosts’ attempt to reframe their objection in the terms of “tolerance and cooperation.” “Ultimately, ‘tolerance’ isn’t the value we’re demanding here. The Nakba is an ongoing human rights catastrophe. The institutional Jewish community throws parties to celebrate it, and from Baltimore, the least we can do is refuse to tolerate these celebrations,” explained JVP member Annie Sommer Kaufman.

As friendly young adults, most of whom are Jewish, the JVP members who attended the party to interrupt it seemed right at home, and in fact several of them noticed their acquaintances among the attendees. At 9:10 though, in a carefully planned chorus, the group clinked a glass to call attention to their message and surprised the crowd by chanting “stop celebrating ethnic cleansing!” numerous times as they confettied the space with hundreds of flyers. As they left, they admired how drastically the flyers had changed the landscape of the party, both by blanketing the surfaces, and by the content of their text, which explained that while the attendees of this party celebrate the foundation of the State of Israel as Yom Ha’Atzmaut, Palestinians mourn it as the Nakba, or “Catastrophe.” The flyers describe that “Israeli independence” in 1948 meant forced displacement, destruction of Palestinian villages and cities, and massacres: ethnic cleansing. By celebrating one, contend the JVP members, attendees celebrate both.

Jewish Woman exposes Israel Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing - Must Watch Documentary -

VIDEO: Anna Baltzer, a Jewish-American woman, gives a presentation on the Israeli occupation and how Palestinians are systematically deprived of human rights.

Palestinians face home demolitions leaving tens of thousands homeless. Checkpoints within the West Bank humiliate Palestinians who have to wait for hours. They are not for "security" and are placed between Palestinian cities.

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

The apartheid wall is a giant concrete wall that dwarfs the Berlin Wall. The wal is not on the border, but 90% of it runs inside the West Bank, separating villages, and destroying homes and Palestinian farmland in the way of its construction

650,000 illegal Israeli settlers live in illegal settlements(colonies) on Palestinian land, destroying Palestinian homes and leaving innocent families and children homeless.
4.7 million Palestinians are classified by the U.N as refugees that were displaced from their homes by Israel.
The Archbishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela as well as other South African leaders have reported that the Israeli apartheid is worse than in South Africa.

"We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians" - Nelson Mandela

Please spread the movement!!!!!!! It worked for South Africa, and it will work to free Palestine from Israeli apartheid.

Bruce C D (89)
Friday May 1, 2015, 4:09 am
Alexa just did quite a thorough job proving the title of this article in her distortion of Israel's brutal military occupation and heinous apartheid regime. Like some alchemist spinning straw into gold, Alexa turns reality upside down and inside out, trying vainly to transform Zionist aggressions and human-rights abuses into Zionist victimhood. To be sure, they are also victims--victims of their own greed, covetous of land and resources which did not and do not belong to them.

No nation recognizes the Occupied Territories as Israeli. Every other nation in the world recognizes Israel's settlements and population transfers there as illegal. But Alexa, like many right-wing Zionist extremists, claims a "Greater Israel." Even half of Jewish-Israelis do not believe Israel should annex any land in the Occupied Territories. There has also been steadily declining support among Jews in Israel for the settlements over the last six years. The majority see them as harmful, and 40% think they are a waste of money. Alexa is engaging in those fantasies and fabrications I mentioned.

I don't agree with what the British did with Jordan (or what they did with many other nations, including Palestine), but Jordan has nothing to do with this any more than British creation of Iraq. In April 1921, Transjordan provisionally became an autonomous area for 6 months but then continued to be part of the Mandate until independence. It eventually became the independent Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (later Jordan) on 25 May 1946. A plan for peacefully dividing the remainder of the Mandate failed. The Mandate terminated at midnight between 14 and 15 May 1948. On the evening of 14 May, the Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, David Ben-Gurion, had arbitrarily declared the establishment of the State of Israel. But already prior to that, Zionists ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Jewish terrorist groups and militias under Plan Dalat had been ongoing for several months.

Alexa is also confusing what the League of Nations expected from Great Britain when it granted its Mandate over Palestine. Also, the concept of a Jewish "homeland" was not necessarily used to denote automatic approval for a Jewish "state." There were conditions and changing views involved. And, as typical of Zionists, they selectively choose which bits and pieces of League of Nations and United Nations directives are valid. They grant authority to them when it suits their purpose, while ignoring and berating them when they don't serve their territorial ambitions for Israel. They cite the part about UN Resolution 181 that recommended partitioning Palestine, but defy the part that provides for a Palestinian state on 44% of former Palestine. And, of course, to such racist Zionists the morality involved and legal/human-rights of Palestinians are always a moot point. They display no objectivity on this issue; Zionist self-interest is always given prominence.


The League of Nations was to play a crucial role in Palestine after the League of Nations was created after World War One. The League of Nations was dominated by Britain and French in its first few years as they were the only world powers in the League that had the necessary clout to enforce its authority – though after the casualties both nations experienced in World War One, this apparent authority was debatable. America had not joined the League and Germany and Russia were forbidden from doing so when the League was created.
The League of Nations handed Palestine to Great Britain to govern as a League mandate. This achievement reflected a heady mixture of religious and imperial motivations that Britain would find difficult to reconcile in the troubled years ahead. Faced the with the apparent contradictions of the McMahon Agreement and the Balfour Declaration, the British inherited an area that both Palestinians and Jews believed to be theirs after what appeared to be bona fide promises to both parties from Great Britain
Article 22 from the Covenant of the League of Nations was clear as to what would happen to Palestine as a mandated territory to Great Britain.

1. To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

2. The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

3. The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic condition and other similar circumstances.

4. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.


"The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory." Clearly, Great Britain violated both the spirit and letter of its Mandate in forcing European Jewish immigration upon the majority indigenous community in Palestine that were strongly opposed to it. Such contradictions form the question of where Britain’s duty lay if its specific obligations to the Zionists under the Balfour Declaration clashed with its general obligations to the Arabs under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. They also formed the basis of the Passfield White Paper, issued in October 1930, which accorded some priority to Britain’s obligations to Palestinians.

Zionists like to point to the Balfour declaration as proof of Israel's right to exist, but they conveniently wish to overlook the relevant part which was also incorporated into the Sèvres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire and the Mandate for Palestine:

" being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

Obviously, given that and assurances made to Arabs previously before the Balfour Declaration, such as the McMahon Correspondence, the British created for themselves a contradiction in both terms and deeds with no clear resolution, which became increasingly impossible for the British government to ignore or reconcile with each passing year they administered the Mandate.

British public and government opinion became increasingly less favourable to the commitment that had been made to Zionist policy. In February 1922, Winston Churchill telegraphed Herbert Samuel asking for cuts in expenditure and noting:

"In both Houses of Parliament there is growing movement of hostility, against Zionist policy in Palestine, which will be stimulated by recent Northcliffe articles. I do not attach undue importance to this movement, but it is increasingly difficult to meet the argument that it is unfair to ask the British taxpayer, already overwhelmed with taxation, to bear the cost of imposing on Palestine an unpopular policy."

European Jewish immigration to Palestine increased dramatically after Hitler’s rise to power in Germany in 1933, leading to new land purchases and Jewish settlements. Palestinian resistance to British control and Zionist settlement climaxed with the Arab revolt of 1936–1939, which Britain suppressed with the help of Zionist militias and the complicity of neighboring Arab regimes. After crushing the Arab revolt, the British reconsidered their governing policies in an effort to maintain order in an increasingly tense environment. They issued the 1939 White Paper (a statement of government policy) limiting future Jewish immigration and land purchases and promising independence in ten years, which would have resulted in a majority-Arab Palestinian state. The Zionists regarded the White Paper as a betrayal of the Balfour Declaration and a particularly egregious act in light of the desperate situation of the Jews in Europe, who were facing extermination. The 1939 White Paper marked the end of the British-Zionist alliance.

Although the United States supported the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which favored the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had assured the Arabs in 1945 that the United States would not intervene without consulting both the Jews and the Arabs in that region. The British, who held a colonial mandate for Palestine until May 1948, opposed both the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine as well as unlimited immigration of Jewish refugees to the region. Although the United States backed Resolution 181, the U.S. Department of State recommended the creation of a United Nations trusteeship with limits on Jewish immigration and a division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab provinces but not states.

There is also a question of the legitimacy of the Mandates themselves, but first a bit more history to allow greater appreciation of the gross injustices the British imposed upon Palestinians through its mandate.

During the First World War, Allied forces under British command occupied Palestine, which was then one of several Arab territories part of the Ottoman Empire. The British government had secretly come to terms with France and Tsarist Russia in the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, determining that parts of Palestine would fall beneath its sphere of influence with the anticipated decline of the Ottoman Empire.i Additionally in November 1917, the British cabinet issued the Balfour Declaration, a one-page letter from Arthur Balfour, the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs to Lord Rothschild, head of the British Zionist Federation. The Balfour declaration granted explicit recognition of and support for the idea of establishing a Jewish “national home” in Palestine through immigration and colonization.ii The indigenous Palestinian population is simply referred to in the text as "the non-Jewish communities."
At the time, Jews constituted only 8% of the population of Palestine,iii and owned less than 3% of the total land.iv The majority of the indigenous Jewish community of Palestine did not support the Zionist idea of creating a separate and exclusive Jewish state in the country.v The great majority of European Jewry also did not view Zionism as an answer to their systematic Despite widespread Palestinian Arab opposition to the Balfour Declaration, Great Britain viewed Zionist colonization as a way to advance British interests in the region.vii Likewise the Zionist leadership understood the role it was to play for its future imperial backer, as quid pro quo for supporting the creation of a Jewish state.viii

Publicly Great Britain reaffirmed commitment to the principle of self-determination of the Arabs. In November 1918, France and Great Britain signed the Anglo-French Declaration, which affirmed that their goal “[... was] the complete and final liberation of the peoples who have for so long been oppressed by the Turks, and the setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations.”ix In 1919, the Allied powers met in Paris to determine the status of the non-self-governing territory that had been part of the former Ottoman Empire. Member states of the League of Nations decided to establish a temporary “Mandate System” in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations to facilitate the independence of these territories.x The August 1920 Treaty of Sèvres between the Allied Powers and Turkey affirmed that Palestine “be provisionally recognised as an independent State subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.”xi

In 1920, the League of Nations entrusted the temporary administration (“Mandate”) of Palestine to Great Britain, as a “Class A” Mandate – a categorization closest to independence.xiiThe Mandate for Palestine, however, aimed to facilitate the colonization of the country through Jewish immigration and settlement in order “to secure the establishment of the Jewish national home,” in line with the political commitment set out in the Balfour Declaration. The Mandate accorded the Jewish minority in the country and non-resident Jews residing elsewhere full political rights; it granted the Palestinian Arab majority only civil and religious rights.

“[I]n the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine,” observed the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs privately, “we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country” (as was required by the League of Nations). “Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”xiii The British Mandate of Palestine was thus based on an inherent contradiction: the simultaneous establishment of an independent state of Palestine for all its citizens on the territory of Mandate Palestine, and a Jewish national home within or on that same territory.

The British administration in Palestine promulgated new laws, including the 1925 Citizenship Order and the 1928 Land (Settlement of Title) Order, which enabled Jews from around the world to acquire citizenship and immigrate to Palestine. Thousands of Palestinian Arabs who were abroad at the time were unable to acquire citizenship under the 1925 law.xiv By the early 1940s, the average rural Palestinian Arab family had less than half of the agricultural land required for their subsistence.xv

Rising Palestinian disenchantment led to a series of uprisings including the “Great Revolt”, which lasted from 1936 to 1939. The British responded with a combination of military force and administrative measures severely curtailing basic civil and political rights.xvi Palestinian Arab leaders were arrested, jailed and deported. Thousands of Palestinian Arab homes were demolished.xvii Some 40,000 Palestinian Arabs fled the country during the mid-1930s alone.xviii

In early 1947, the British government informed the newly-established United Nations (the successor to the League of Nations) of its intention to withdraw from Palestine, ending more than two decades of British rule. The UN Charter stipulated that non-self-governing territory should become independent with the termination of a mandate. Alternatively, the Charter provided for the establishment of a “Temporary Trusteeship” similar to the mandate system.

The UN General Assembly, however, decided to appoint a special committee to formulate recommendations concerning the future status of Palestine. The Assembly also rejected requests by Arab states to obtain an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the appropriate legal outcome of the British decision to terminate the Mandate in Palestine, as well as the legal authority of the UN to issue and enforce recommendations on the future status of the country.xix

Draft Resolution Referring Certain Legal Questions to the International Court of Justice (excerpts)

The General Assembly of the United Nations resolves to request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion under Article 96 of the Charter and Chapter IV of the Statute of the Court on the following questions:
(i) Whether the indigenous population of Palestine has not an inherent right to Palestine and to determine its future constitution and government;

(ii) Whether the pledges and assurances given by Great Britain to the Arabs during the first World War (including the Anglo-French Declaration of 1918) concerning the independence and future of Arab countries at the end of the war did not include Palestine;

(iii)Whether the Balfour Declaration, which was made without the knowledge or consent of the indigenous population of Palestine, was valid and binding on the people of Palestine, or consistent with the earlier and subsequent pledges and assurances given to the Arabs;

(iv) Whether the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine regarding the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine are in conformity or consistent with the objectives and provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations (in particular Article 22), or are compatible with the provisions of the Mandate relating to the development of self-government and the preservation of the rights and position of the Arabs of Palestine;

(v) Whether the legal basis for the Mandate for Palestine has not disappeared with the dissolution of the League of Nations, and whether it is not the duty of the Mandatory Power to hand over power and administration to a Government of Palestine representing the rightful people of Palestine;

(vi) Whether a plan to partition Palestine without the consent of the majority of its people is consistent with the objectives of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and with the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine;

(vii) Whether the United Nations is competent to recommend either of the two plans and recommendations of the majority or minority of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, or any other solution involving partition of the territory of Palestine, or a permanent trusteeship over any city or part of Palestine, without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine;
(viii) Whether the United Nations, or any of its Member States, is competent to enforce or recommend the enforcement of any proposal concerning the Constitution and future Government of Palestine, in particular, any plan of partition which is contrary to the wishes, or adopted without the consent of, the inhabitants of Palestine.

Reprinted in Yearbook of the United Nations 1947–1948. UN Doc. 1949.I.13 (31 December, 1948).

In September 1947, the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) presented its final report which included majority and minority proposals given Committee members' inability to reach consensus on the future status of the country.xx The majority opinion supported the partition of Palestine into two states, one Arab and the other Jewish, although it conceded that, “[w]ith regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the “A” Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of a Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle.” xxi

The minority proposal called for one federal state for Arabs and Jews. Committee members of the minority were clear in their warnings of the consequences of partition: “Future peace and order in Palestine and the Near East generally will be vitally affected by the nature of the solution decided upon for the Palestine question. In this regard, it is important to avoid an acceleration of the separatism which now characterizes the relations of Arabs and Jews in the Near East, and to avoid laying the foundations of a dangerous irredentism there, which would be the inevitable consequences of partition in whatever form. […] Partition both in principle and in substance can only be regarded as an anti-Arab solution. The Federal State, however, cannot be described as an anti-Jewish solution. To the contrary, it will best serve the interests of both Arabs and Jews.”xxii

Despite the warnings, on 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181(II) recommending the partition of Palestine.xxiii This Resolution proposed two states, one Arab and one Jewish, in which all persons were to be guaranteed equal rights.xxiv The proposed Jewish state was allotted 56 percent of the land, even though the Jewish community comprised less than one-third of the population of Palestine at the time and owned no more than 7 percent of the land, including 714 km2 acquired by Zionist colonization associations mostly from large landowners who did not live in Palestine.xxv The dispersal of the Arab and Jewish populations in the country also meant that nearly half the population of the proposed Jewish state consisted of Palestinian Arabs, who owned nearly 90 percent of the land.xxvi

From the beginning of the British Mandate in Palestine in 1922, to the end of 1947 when the United Nations recommended the country be partitioned into two states, an estimated 100–150,000 Palestinians - nearly one-tenth of the Palestinian Arab population - was expelled, denationalized or forced to leave their homes.xxvii Tens of thousands of Palestinians were internally displaced as a result of Zionist colonization, the eviction of tenant farmers, and punitive home demolitions by the British administration.


As we see, the U.N. refused to address key human-rights and legal aspects of their recommended partition plan, and those questions still remain as to the justness, morality and legality of the U.N.'s recommendation. It is that same willful neglect which forms the basis of a conflict which has endured to this day.

There are also valid reasons for questioning not only the morality, but the dubious legitimacy of the League of Nation's Mandate at the root of this conflict.


Legitimacy of the allocations
Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was written two months before the signing of the Versailles peace treaty, before it was known what communities, peoples, or territories were related to sub-paragraphs 4, 5, and 6. The treaty was signed, and the peace conference had been adjourned, before a formal decision was made. The mandates were arrangements guaranteed by, or arising out of the general treaty which stipulated that mandates were to be exercised on behalf of the League.
The treaty contained no provision for the mandates to be allocated on the basis of decisions taken by four members of the League acting in the name of the so-called "Principal Allied and Associated Powers". The decisions taken at the conferences of the Council of Four were not made on the basis of consultation or League unanimity as stipulated by the Covenant. As a result, the actions of the conferees were viewed by some as having no legitimacy.
In testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations a former US State Department official who had been a member of the American Commission at Paris, testified that the United Kingdom and France had simply gone ahead and arranged the world to suit themselves. He pointed out that the League of Nations could do nothing to alter their arrangements, since the League could only act by unanimous consent of its members - including the UK and France.
United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing was a member of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace at Paris in 1919. He explained that the system of mandates was a device created by the Great Powers to conceal their division of the spoils of war under the color of international law. If the former German and Ottoman territories had been ceded to the victorious powers directly, their economic value would have been credited to offset the Allies' claims for war reparations. Article 243 of the treaty instructed the Reparations Commission that non-mandate areas of the Saar and Alsace-Lorraine were to be reckoned as credits to Germany in respect of its reparation obligations.
Legitimacy of the provisions
Under the plan of the US Constitution the Congress was delegated the power to declare or define the Law of Nations in cases where its terms might be vague or indefinite. The US Senate refused to ratify the Covenant of the League of Nations. The legal issues surrounding the rule by force and the lack of self-determination under the system of mandates were cited by the Senators who withheld their consent. The US government subsequently entered into individual treaties to secure legal rights for its citizens, to protect property rights and businesses interests in the mandates, and to preclude the mandatory administration from altering the terms of the mandates without prior US approval.
The United States filed a formal protest because the preamble of the mandates indicated to the League that they had been approved by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, when, in fact, that was not the case.
The Official Journal of the League of Nations, dated June 1922, contained a statement by Lord Balfour (UK) in which he explained that the League's authority was strictly limited. The article related that the 'Mandates were not the creation of the League, and they could not in substance be altered by the League. The League's duties were confined to seeing that the specific and detailed terms of the mandates were in accordance with the decisions taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, and that in carrying out these mandates the Mandatory Powers should be under the supervision—not under the control—of the League.'


It is also helpful to know the history behind the McMahon correspondence, which preceded the Balfour Declaration.


The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence
Main article: McMahon–Hussein Correspondence
Henry McMahon had exchanged letters with Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca in 1915, in which he had promised Hussein control of Arab lands with the exception of "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo". Palestine lay to the southwest of the Vilayet of Damascus and wasn't explicitly mentioned. That modern-day Lebanese region of the Mediterranean coast was set aside as part of a future French Mandate. After the war the extent of the coastal exclusion was hotly disputed. Hussein had protested that the Arabs of Beirut would greatly oppose isolation from the Arab state or states, but did not bring up the matter of Jerusalem or Palestine. Dr. Chaim Weizmann wrote in his autobiography Trial and Error that Palestine had been excluded from the areas that should have been Arab and independent. This interpretation was supported explicitly by the British government in the 1922 White Paper.
On the basis of McMahon's assurances the Arab Revolt began on 5 June 1916. However, the British and French also secretly concluded the Sykes–Picot Agreement on 16 May 1916. This agreement divided many Arab territories into British- and French-administered areas and allowed for the internationalisation of Palestine. Hussein learned of the agreement when it was leaked by the new Russian government in December 1917, but was satisfied by two disingenuous telegrams from Sir Reginald Wingate, High Commissioner of Egypt, assuring him that the British government's commitments to the Arabs were still valid and that the Sykes-Picot Agreement was not a formal treaty.
Hussein called on the Arab population in Palestine to welcome the Jews as brethren and co-operate with them for the common welfare. Following the publication of the Declaration the British had dispatched Commander David George Hogarth to see Hussein in January 1918 bearing the message that the "political and economic freedom" of the Palestinian population was not in question. Hogarth reported that Hussein "would not accept an independent Jewish State in Palestine, nor was I instructed to warn him that such a state was contemplated by Great Britain". Continuing Arab disquiet over Allied intentions also led during 1918 to the British Declaration to the Seven and the Anglo-French Declaration, the latter promising "the complete and final liberation of the peoples who have for so long been oppressed by the Turks, and the setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations."
The Declaration to the Seven was a document written by Sir Henry McMahon and released by the British Government. The Declaration stated the British policy that the future government of the regions of the Ottoman Empire occupied by Allied forces in World War I should be based on the consent of the governed. The Declaration to the Seven is notable as the first British pronouncement to the Arabs advancing the principle of national self-determination.
Lord Grey had been the Foreign Secretary during the McMahon-Hussein negotiations. Speaking in the House of Lords on 27 March 1923, he made it clear that he entertained serious doubts as to the validity of the British government's interpretation of the pledges which he, as foreign secretary, had caused to be given to Hussein in 1915. He called for all of the secret engagements regarding Palestine to be made public. Many of the relevant documents in the National Archives were later declassified and published. Among them were the minutes of a Cabinet Eastern Committee meeting, chaired by Lord Curzon, which was held on 5 December 1918. Balfour was in attendance. The minutes revealed that in laying out the government's position Curzon had explained that: "Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future."


Recognizing the British motivations for the Balfour Declaration is helpful to understanding.


James Gelvin, a Middle East history professor, cites at least three reasons for why the British government chose to support Zionist aspirations. Issuing the Balfour Declaration would appeal to Woodrow Wilson's two closest advisors, who were avid Zionists.
"The British did not know quite what to make of President Woodrow Wilson and his conviction (before America's entrance into the war) that the way to end hostilities was for both sides to accept "peace without victory." Two of Wilson's closest advisors, Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, were avid Zionists. How better to shore up an uncertain ally than by endorsing Zionist aims? The British adopted similar thinking when it came to the Russians, who were in the midst of their revolution. Several of the most prominent revolutionaries, including Leon Trotsky, were of Jewish descent. Why not see if they could be persuaded to keep Russia in the war by appealing to their latent Jewishness and giving them another reason to continue the fight?" ... These include not only those already mentioned but also Britain's desire to attract Jewish financial resources.
At that time the British were busy making promises. At a War Cabinet meeting, held on 31 October 1917, Balfour suggested that a declaration favourable to Zionist aspirations would allow Great Britain "'to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America"
The cabinet believed that expressing support would appeal to Jews in Germany and America, and help the war effort. It was also hoped to encourage support from the large Jewish population in Russia. Britain promoted the idea of a national home for the Jewish People, in the hope that Britain would implement it and exercise political control over Palestine, effectively "freeze out France (and anyone else) from any post–war presence in Palestine." According to James Renton, Senior Lecturer at Edge Hill University, an Honorary Research Fellow at University College London, and author of The Zionist Masquerade: the Birth of the Anglo-Zionist Alliance: 1914–1918 (2007), Prime Minister David Lloyd George of the United Kingdom supported the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine because "it would help secure post-war British control of Palestine, which was strategically important as a buffer to Egypt and the Suez Canal.". In addition, Palestine was to later serve as a terminus for the flow of petroleum from Iraq via Jordan, three former Ottoman Turkish provinces that became British League of Nations mandates in the aftermath of the First World War. The oil officially flowed along the Mosul-Haifa oil pipeline from 1935–1948, and unofficially up until 1954.
David Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time of the Balfour Declaration, told the Palestine Royal Commission in 1937 that the Declaration was made "due to propagandist reasons". Citing the position of the Allied and Associated Powers in the ongoing war, Lloyd George said that (in the Report's words) "In this critical situation it was believed that Jewish sympathy or the reverse would make a substantial difference one way or the other to the Allied cause. In particular Jewish sympathy would confirm the support of American Jewry, and would make it more difficult for Germany to reduce her military commitments and improve her economic position on the eastern front." Regarding the intended future of Palestine, Lloyd George testified:
The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth.
In his Memoirs, published in 1939, Lloyd George further elucidated his position:
"The Balfour Declaration represented the convinced policy of all parties in our country and also in America, but the launching of it in 1917 was due, as I have said, to propagandist reasons... The Zionist Movement was exceptionally strong in Russia and America... It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchases. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry."


However, even if we disregard the immorality and unjustness of depriving Palestinians of their basic inalienable right to self-determination, there never was a "definite" Jewish majority in Palestine, despite the massive illegal Jewish immigration there before, during, and after WWII, and despite the exclusion of tens of thousands of non-Jewish Palestinians unjustly evicted from their own land under British rule. A majority was only achieved in 1948 through Jewish ethnic cleansing of 750,000 non-Jewish indigenous Palestinians.

Bruce C D (89)
Friday May 1, 2015, 4:17 am
The Israeli state was founded upon terrorism, and it relies upon terrorism to continue its subjugation of the indigenous Palestinian people and its continued theft of their lands.

Past Member (0)
Friday May 1, 2015, 6:13 am
I'm sure you would know, brucie, as you've apparently studied hamasbara propaganda for quite some time. LOLOL!!!
After reading that diatribe of yours I'm feeling the need for another cup of java.

Past Member (0)
Friday May 1, 2015, 6:19 am
I'm sure you would know, brucie, as you've apparently studied hamasbara propaganda for quite some time. LOLOL!!!
After reading that diatribe of yours I'm feeling the need for another cup of java.

jess, quit pretending you speak Yiddish. It's anti-Semitic and shows you're a ligner. Na!

Past Member (0)
Friday May 1, 2015, 6:51 am
Jess, Palestine, or The Land of Israel, is the Jewish homeland. Jews are the real Palestinians, not Arabs.

Arabs already got 22 states to choose from. If anyone does not like Israel - they may choose for themselves any Arab "brotherly" country to live in.

Leave Israel at peace.

Past Member (0)
Friday May 1, 2015, 7:07 am
Too bad they didn't share their *brotherly love* with 539,000 of their own expats...................

Bruce C D (89)
Friday May 1, 2015, 8:19 am
Bob A. wishes to ignore and deny that Palestinian ancestry predates Jews, and their ancestry includes the Canaanites and the hunter/gatherer tribes that preceded them, as well as Jewish people and all the others who have ever lived or ruled there. Palestine/Israel is much more THEIR homeland than any Jews from Europe or elsewhere. But even if they didn't possess that ancestry, no one has a right to deprive a people who have lived there for centuries of their lands and rights.

Bob A. espouses the racist hasbara notion that just because Palestinians identify themselves as Arab that somehow deprives them of their right to their lands. Which is no different than if racist white South Afrikaners under apartheid deemed that blacks in South Africa should just move to another African country merely because they were African. Or, just imagine Bob A. telling the French or English they should all just move to another European country because, hey, they're all European, so they're all the same. Does Bob A. think all blacks look the same? How about all Arabs? Do the hasbara even have a clue how racist they are being when they spew such ignorance?

Given that every human's ancestry traces back to Africa, according to hasbara logic, any group of us could at any time colonize African territory, displacing and dispossessing the current inhabitants. Of course, no such right exists to usurp an indigenous people's right to their lands and their own self-determination, and it has long been recognized that colonization is wrong -- since before the creation of Israel.

Bruce C D (89)
Friday May 1, 2015, 8:26 am
The hasbara wishes to pretend that U.S. State Department archives, British historical archives and U.N. historical archives are somehow Palestinian propaganda, just because they don't fit with the mythical self-serving Israeli narrative they wish to disseminate.

Past Member (0)
Friday May 1, 2015, 8:29 am

Where are the palentian temples, the palestinian cities, the palestinian artifacts, the palestinian coinage, the palestinian language, the palestinian jewelry, the palestinian pottery, the ancient palestinian writings?

This time I can say with cetainty that you sure as hell weren't there and no archeaologist has EVER found a trace of a palestinian civilization.


Past Member (0)
Friday May 1, 2015, 9:08 am
Arabs has nothing to do with Canaanites. The Land of Israel is homeland of Jews as much as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and Syria are homelands of Arabs - and some other nations as well.

Arabs claim ALL Middle East lands for themselves, leaving nothing to others. This is the worst type of racism, that Arab Nationalist and Islamist workers try to hide.

It is true that "Palestinians" stole the title that belongs to several ethnic groups - Jews, Druzem, etc exactly like if one nation would can call itself European at if all the other European nations - German, French, became less European because of that.

Stupidity of Islamist PR people sometimes is too much to watch: there are lots of ethnic groups of Black people, with different languages, different history!

Arabs Nation is well represented by the Arab League, people speak the same Arabic language, have well-coordinated policies and a concept of One Arab Nation. Calling Arabs coming to Israel from Egypt and Syria to make some money Palestinians, is the same as calling Arabs coming to Dearborn, MI as Dearborners or Michiganers.

The was never an Arab state is Palestine. Jordan was created for Palestinian Arabs, but now they want more from Israel as well.

Arabs should understand that they are not entitled to get ALL lands they want, other people need land to live on as well, especially when it was theirs.

Bruce C D (89)
Friday May 1, 2015, 9:45 am
Bob A. continues conducting the racist hasbara exercise of trying to conflate Palestinians with all Arabs while showing off his ignorance about Palestinian heritage.

But this isn't about all Arabs, this is about Palestinians. Palestine/Israel is their homeland. No, Jordan was not created for a Palestinian homeland. Did Bob A. get that fallacy from the back of a hasbara cereal box, or did he just make it up on the spot?

Well, Bob A. can at least admit that there are different ethnic groups of Africans, but he seems unable to grasp that the same principle applies to Arabs. They are not the monolithic group that he tries to portray in a racist manner.

Bob A. is making the silly, specious argument that Palestinians "stole" the title just because different ethnic groups identify themselves as Palestinian since that's their home. It's like saying American's are stealing the title of American because of the different ethnic groups here. It's a ridiculous thing to say and it shows the desperation of the hasbara when they feel they must resort to clutching at straws in such a manner.

Past Member (0)
Friday May 1, 2015, 9:55 am
Disruptive posts - No member may disrupt the discussion boards by posting repeatedly with the same information or by otherwise preventing the use of these boards by other Care2 members.

Any harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or otherwise objectionable posts.
Any posts which are invasive of another's privacy.
Name calling or otherwise attacking the person posting rather than the content of the post. Disagreement is encouraged, but you should only comment on the argument or position taken, never against the person posting their opinion or belief.
Any racial or ethnic slurs or insults relating to the mental, physical or intellectual qualities of any member.

Past Member (0)
Friday May 1, 2015, 9:57 am
Post an opinion or a reponse to the content of comments.

This is making you look really uninformed and possibly functionally illiterate.

Alexa R (319)
Friday May 1, 2015, 10:24 am
jess b and Bruce C D, in today's climate it is vital to 'Juden this, Juden that...' to rise the awareness and profile of the violence against Jewish people, not only in Israel. The increase in violence against innocent Jewish civilians have reached totally unacceptable proportions!

I quote from the UK Guardian:
The number of antisemitic incidents in the UK has reached the highest level ever recorded, with reports of violence, property damage, abuse and threats against members of Britain’s Jewish population more than doubling last year .

The Community Security Trust, a Jewish security charity which runs an incident hotline, recorded 1,168 antisemitic incidents against Britain’s 291,000 Jews in 2014, against 535 in 2013 and 25% up on the previous record in 2009.

Theresa May, the home secretary, described the figures as “deeply concerning” and “a warning to everyone to do more to stop antisemitism in Britain”, while Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said they were “appalling”.


Bruce C D (89)
Friday May 1, 2015, 10:38 am
The hasbara wishes to pretend that the plethora of archeological and anthropological evidence of Palestinians over the last 1400 years and their ancestors (which includes Canaanites and Jews) in the millenniums preceding that don't exist. Unfortunately for the hasbara, Zionists can't completely erase Palestinian heritage, try as they might. Some of the physical aspects still exists today.

But Palestinian heritage (as with any people) is not confined solely to physical structures, many of which have been bulldozed, set afire and blown up by Israel. Many factors interact to make the national identity of a people. Some elements that constitute Palestinian heritage include customs and traditions, proverbs, folkloric dance, foods, handicraft and embroidery. In the Palestinian case the importance of folklore and heritage is connected in fundamental ways to the land and to the loss of that land. Those elements of heritage described evolved over many centuries, sometimes millennia, in agricultural communities where land was a main means of livelihood and production.

The highly acclaimed movie 'It's Better to Jump' provides a glimpse of that Palestinian heritage for one city, Akka, or Acre. It also shows the ugly, insidious side of Zionism. I don't expect the film will soften the hard hearts of the hasbara or cure their blind bias, and they will no doubt choose to learn nothing from it, but others can certainly benefit.

It's Better To Jump Documentary

Past Member (0)
Friday May 1, 2015, 10:49 am
Is there hiding somewhere in that *plethora* of *profundity* a valid point anyone needs be aware of?? LOLOL!!!!!

Bruce C D (89)
Friday May 1, 2015, 10:54 am
Alexa R. chooses to ignore how the racism inherent in Zionism and Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians is a source of anti-Semitism. I don't agree with it, because I don't think one racism justifies another, and because all Jews are not responsible for what some Jews do.

In many countries, including mine, racist incidents against Muslims are at an all time high. And I see pro-Zionists here constantly engaging in racist comments against Muslims, with other pro-Zionists actively and tacitly supporting it. Not once have I ever seen a pro-Zionist speak out to tell another that is wrong. Yet, if someone were to speak about Jews the way pro-Zionists speak of Muslims, they would not tolerate it for one minute. If I see someone talking that way about Jews, I speak out and let them know it is wrong.

However, none of that changes how Alexa R. is still trying to claim victimhood to divert this discussion away from how the Palestinians are being persecuted by Zionism.

Past Member (0)
Friday May 1, 2015, 11:37 am
Once again, brucie is unable to present a rebuttal, therefore he resorts to abusing a valued Care2 member for voicing her valid and knowledgable comment.

Isn't it funny how he tends to question the intelligence of Jews and Israelis?? Very telling.....

Alexa R (319)
Friday May 1, 2015, 12:11 pm
Bruce, once more you're putting words in my mouth rather than allowing me to speak for myself, let alone the continued stream of false accusations from you against me on every thread I comment ..


I'm defending, speaking out and trying to protect the Jewish people in UK and abroad from living in an increasingly antisemitic environment !!! THEY are the VICTIMS, not me/us Israelis, we with the help of IDF defend ourselves (my martial art skills would put most British men to shame if they ever try to attack me) We defend ourselves against the anti-Jewish violence in Israel those that wants to wipe us off the map (the rest of the other 1.5 million non-violent non-Jews living in Israel live in peace and harmony with us) I most certainly NEVER claimed we are victims ..!!! Am Yisrael Chai!!!

So, by your twisted 'logic', which I most certainly do not subscribe to, in ANY way shape or form, and as you well know I'm as Zionist as they come ..

So by your twisted 'logic' that you claim you don't even subscribe to yourself, but which you ABSOLUTELY INSISTED on in sharing, the violence committed in the name of Islam is the source of the rise in Islamcphbia?


Past Member (0)
Friday May 1, 2015, 12:45 pm
Dawa tries to tell that the real Palestinians are Arabs, not Jews. This is laughable and contradicts any historical documents.

Even the concept of "Palestinian People" meaning Palestinian Arabs did not exist prior to 1967, when West Bank was ruled by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt.

Repeating the word "racist" tens of times bring nothing to the value of the post. Especially, considering that Arabs and Jews belong to the same Semitic group and the same race.

Comments about Racism coming from Arabs, whose states were historically the worse slave traders and even now demonstrate REAL RACISM towards blacks, are too ridiculous to reply.

Everyone knows that Arab nation is split into clans, warring with each other. But this internal hate of theirs does not make an obligation on the part of others to create them states, one per clan.

There are already 22 independent Arab states with 22 UN votes. These 22 Arab states have less population than US, Russian, India, China - each one having one voice. Who needs that 23rd Arab state, Islamist and militant?

The term "Palestinian" was coined by Russian KGB for their terrorist friend Arafat to keep him known. It is time to stop this nonsense and obligate Arab states to participate in the solution of the problem they created.

Bruce C D (89)
Saturday May 2, 2015, 4:01 am
@Alexa R.--
No false accusations.

I already knew you are from Israel, I never said or intimated otherwise. Wherever did you get the idea that I thought you were from the U.K.? And why do you say, "once more," when you've never needed to tell me that before? You're not making any sense; it seems you're confusing me with someone else. It's as if I started yelling at you, "ONCE MORE, I'M NOT A GREEK ATHEIST, I'M AN AMERICAN!!!" -- even though you said absolutely nothing about me being Greek or atheist now or in the past.

You say you don't worry about violence against Jewish people in Israel, but your words contradict that claim. Moreover, despite your vaunted IDF and "fortress Israel," Jewish people are far more likely to be killed or injured in Israel than in the U.S. or anywhere in Europe. In my country, Muslims are more likely to be discriminated against and targeted by racism than Jews, and it appears that holds true in most European nations, too.

Whether or not you personally feel a victim, you are still using Jewish victimhood to detract from the topic at hand. This article is not about anti-Semitism, nor was the discussion--you created that diversion all on your own. Zionist racism against Palestinians can't be justified by anti-Semitism, either.

I was right about you ignoring the source of much of the anti-Semitism, which you deny as being a cause in your response. And, yes, the rise in Islamophobia is due to acts of senseless violence. But, as has been documented in my country, the sharp increase long after 9/11 is directly attributable to the proliferation of Islamophobic organizations and Islamophobic media that sprang up in the aftermath a few years later. Now it's a whole industry. There is no comparable increase in anti-Semitic organizations and media that could account for any corresponding rise in anti-Semitism.

My point still stands about pro-Zionists often being responsible, complicit or tacitly condoning racist comments against Arabs and Muslims that they would never tolerate if the target was Jewish people. Is racism against one group of people any less wrong than racism against another group? Is it right a person should tolerate anti-Semitism just because those people might be sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians? Similarly, is it right pro-Zionists should tolerate racism against Arabs and Muslims from other pro-Zionists simply because they are allied in their support for Israel? My answer to all three questions is an emphatic no -- can you say the same?

Alexa R (319)
Saturday May 2, 2015, 2:26 pm
Bruce, ONCE MORE you ask me questions I've already answered and the stream of false accusations continue ..

I VERY CLEARLY posted about the victimhood of Jewish people in the UK and you FALSELY accused me of claiming victimhood - I'm ISRAELI ..

I cannot express it more simply or clearly .. And I'm most certainly not going to answer your questions AGAIN and AGAIN ..

If you REALLY wanted to know the TRUTH, you would have accepted my repeated answers already ..

Could the reason be that because I do not fit your little 'zionist' box therefore you think that by repeatedly ignoring my answers, I might one day give you the answer you've already assigned to ALL zionists?

Your anti-zionist racism is astounding ..

ParsifalAWAY S (99)
Saturday May 2, 2015, 9:50 pm

Bruce, if a hasbara asking you:

'Where are the palentian temples, the palestinian cities, the palestinian artifacts, the palestinian coinage, the palestinian language, the palestinian jewelry, the palestinian pottery, the ancient palestinian writings?'

just show it

Palestine: Old Photos Expose Old Lying


As the Land-Grab in Palestine Works

Alexa R (319)
Saturday May 2, 2015, 11:37 pm
Parsifal, and what about the TRUTH about what the Mandate of Palestine's flag looked like? Why ignoring the TRUTH about the Star of David on the flag? Look at the following, embrace the truth, Parsifal, it would make you feel a whole lot better .. Truth has that habit, embracing it makes you feel a whole lot better ..

1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
ArticlesNov 14, 2014 116956

This a Larousse French dictionary from 1939. In the appendix it lists all the then current flags of the world in alphabetical order. You’ll notice that for Germany at that time the flag was the Nazi one replete with Zwastika which proves that this was pre-1945 ( before 1945) !

Now, alphabetically, look for the Palestinian Flag. YES , there is one. What does it look like? Surprised? Oh, but you thought (Mandate Jewish) Palestine was an Islamic Arab-,Turkish-, Circassian Sovereign State that the bad Jews took over , right?

Palestine Mandate Jewish Flag

From 1920-1948 a ( class ‘A’ Mandate) State of Palestine existed as per international law but it was, as all of its major institutions, Jewish. Until the 1960s, name “Palestine” resonated as something Jewish to peoples ears. The 4,000 year old Jewish homeland or “Land of Israel” or the “Holy Land” were all synonymous!!

The British as legal Mandatory over the Mandate managed or mismanaged the state partially with Jewish Auxilary until Jews regained official sovereignty in 1948, by declaring independence.

The U.N. did not recreate Israel as some people claim.



Alexa R (319)
Saturday May 2, 2015, 11:56 pm
WE ARE HERE TO STAY: A Letter to the World from Jerusalem – 1969

Open Letter

Read history, for the past 3000+ there has been a strong Jewish presence in Jerusalem and Israel ..

Thursday April 30, 2015, 10:14 pm


ParsifalAWAY S (99)
Sunday May 3, 2015, 12:58 am

Israel is an expansionist state with imperialist ambitions.
I wonder if anyone has heard about Erez Israel.
This would explain the fact, the Zionesia Apartheid has virtual interest to destabilize it's neigboring states and destroy - either by direct intervention or, as we can clearly see by proxy terrorists.

The claim for a Erez Israel (Greater Israel) also indicates that Israel's parliament, the Knesset, contains an inscription or, rather map asserting Israel's right to rule from the Nile to the Euphrates.

The Israeli Flag is indeed the flag of Rothschild Zionism bordered by two blue lines: One on top, representing the Nile and the below blue line, the Euphrates and in the middle we see the Rothschild insignia, the Six-Pointed Star, became the Zionist symbol which adorns and centers the flag.

This surname of Rothschild is an Ashkenazic Jewish house name from a house which was distinguished with a red sign.
The famous notoriously banking family of the name took it from a house marked in the Jewish quarter of Frankfurt-am-Main.

The Rothschilds have been Satanists for many generations.
The Rothschilds are an important part of the history of the Seal of Solomon (also known as hexagram, Magen David, six-pointed star, Star o' David.)
The Seal of Solomon, the hexagram, was not considered a Jewish symbol before the Rothschilds began using it.

In 1836 Zevi Hirsch Kalischer approached the Rothschild brothers and proposed Rothschild buy all of Erez Israel.
It took many years for the Rothschilds to finally create Israel.
The Rothschilds have been a primary force behind the creation of Israel, and so it is very appropriate that the nation carries their magical Seal of Solomon as the state logo.
The Ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel will not serve in the Israeli army because they know that Almighty God was not behind the creation of modern Israel, but rather the rich ungodly apostate Jews.
They refuse to serve the ungodly.

Even Jews Ask: Is Judaism a Satanic Cult? - 'Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer... and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much alive'
- Harold Rosenthal, former assistant to Sen. Javits of New York


ParsifalAWAY S (99)
Sunday May 3, 2015, 1:42 am

The Yinon Plan
According to the founding father of Zionism Theodor Herzl,
'the area of the Jewish State stretches: From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates'
According to Rabbi Fischmann,
'The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon'

Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States.
It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

The Yinon Plan is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority.
It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state.
This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World.
In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims.
The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military's Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan.
Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria.
The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views.
The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

Greater Israel requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states


Past Member (0)
Sunday May 3, 2015, 7:50 am
brucie, I have to say I love the comments from you, ellie, jester, schnoz, parsleyfull......because the more I read them, the more confident I am that people like you are essentially harmless and nothing more than a petty nusiance.
We have survived much more and will always survive as a democratic and free nation.

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday May 3, 2015, 9:34 am
I started reading the article and stopped when it started talking about international law. The law in question here is not international law, but building-codes. You require a permit to build any structure intended to house people anywhere in the developed world, and need permits for major renovations throughout much of it.

This is like saying that people should be allowed to burn down their ow homes because nothing in international law forbids it, and that locking people up for it would be a violation. Local laws against arson may forbid such burning and prescribe imprisonment, but as long as the scope of discussion is dictated by international law rather than the events in question, that will never come up. That is the 972 standard drivel, implicitly limiting the scope of discussion to exclude any counterarguments so that the article can argue whatever point the author wants, regardless of how absolutely ridiculous it is. "Distorting the facts" indeed.

I looked lower at the section on zoning laws. Limiting construction to about one percent is actually not that abnormal. Canadian law limits construction to roughly three percent on average. The fact is that in Israel, without irrigation or other ready access to water, people typically cannot survive a summer. My umbers area few years old, but unless there has been massive infrastructure-growth, less than a tenth of the country is safely inhabitable. Area C is not that far from the norm, and the uncertainty of the area's future, and sparse habitation prior to the occupation, suggest that it should be below average, particularly when construction by only one of two major populations in the area is considered in the typical 972 scope-limited way..

I am honestly not shocked to see this out of Waelbroeck. He is a scholar specifically of international law. When all he has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and that plays perfectly into 972's style of distortion.

Bruce C D (89)
Sunday May 3, 2015, 2:01 pm
Clearly, Alexa is not interested in the truth. Alexa is being disingenuous while engaging in hasbara trolling. As anyone can see, she obviously didn't answer the questions, and this article and discussion had nothing to do with anti-Semitism in the U.K. -- it's just a dishonest tactic to deflect the subject away from Palestinian victimhood, shifting it to Jewish victimhood. And when called on it, Alexa plays stupid. Nor does Alexa respond to any of the points, instead merely spewing more hasbara propaganda.

As Alexa well knows, Israel's illegal settlements on Palestinian land are composed exclusively of Jewish-Israeli settlers and therefore Palestinian-free. They constitute a heinous form of apartheid. What the Zionists want is a Palestinian-free Palestine, or as Palestinian-free as they can make it. But the Palestinians have maintained a continuous presence there since before there was ever any Jewish tribe, while Palestine had only a small Jewish minority for many centuries. It is rightfully the Palestinian's homeland, not a Jewish one, and no amount of European Jewish immigration can hide the fact that Zionists are usurping Palestinian's rights.

Alexa holds the same position as many racist right-wing extremist Zionists when it comes to Palestinian land -- what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, too. Alexa tries to project her transparent racist attitudes onto others by accusing them of racism -- for, of all things, opposing Zionist racism!





Bruce C D (89)
Sunday May 3, 2015, 2:24 pm
Stephen Brian concocts a strawman argument, then proceeds to tear it down, proving nothing.

Stephen Brian wishes to ignore and deny that Israel's colonization settlements and population transfers contravene International Law, and that the world community regards them as illegal.

Stephen Brian wishes to ignore and deny Israel's racist discriminatory laws against Palestinians, and the racist application of laws by Israel against Palestinians. Which is why Jewish-Israelis are routinely given building permits, while Palestinians are routinely denied -- both within Israel and in the Occupied Territories of Palestine.

Stephen Brian wishes to ignore and deny the racist manner in which Israel resources and distributes water in the Occupied Territories, so that an Israeli settler in the West Bank receives an allocation on average five times greater than that of Palestinians living there. Israel has no problems providing water to new settlements and settlers, but not a drop extra to spare for Palestinians? Really? Moreover, Palestinians are often charged more (for their own water) than the settlers, who also receive generous subsidies by the Israeli government.

Past Member (0)
Sunday May 3, 2015, 4:17 pm
Palestine is alloted to pump 23.6 million cubic centimeteres of water from the gaza aquifer, but instead were pumping totals over 70 million cubic centimeters. The gaza aquifer was drained so badly that salinization took place and in addition the aquifer is now also heavily contaminated with toxic waste from the palestinian's Neolithic sanitation system.
Israel has only four water sources: the Mountain aquifer, the coast, Kinneret, and the Shafdan reclamation center in Tel Aviv, all well within Israeli land boundaries.
Despite critical water deficits in Israel, she supplies water to palestinian villages and has supplied 37 water projects in the west bank.
Israel has also offered to build a desalinization facility for the palestinians in Hadera several times and were rebuffed. Which is, I suppose, the palestinian style way to treat a neighbor offering help..........
So, once again, lil brucie, you are so far off center as to be off the map. Like I said, every time I read one of your hateful, mendacious polemics............


Past Member (0)
Sunday May 3, 2015, 4:24 pm
brucie, Isarel wasn't *founded*. But if you mean in 1882, then yes, we came in blazing with shovels and hoes and picks!
And guess what? THERE WERE NO PALESTINIANS THERE. Maybe a few syrians who were squatting on lands that belonged to absentee arab owners, but no PALESTINIANS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PALESTINE.

Bruce C D (89)
Sunday May 3, 2015, 7:11 pm
The hasbara wish to propagate the long-debunked racist myth of a "people without a land for a land without people" while engaging in inane semantics. As if it makes any difference what Native Americans, Australian aborigines, or indigenous Palestinians called themselves.

And, naturally, the hasbara is once again being disingenuous, since what was specifically stated was the founding of the state of Israel, which was arbitrarily declared in 1948 by Zionists. Of course, Zionists had been engaging in terrorism for some time prior to that also.

Bruce C D (89)
Sunday May 3, 2015, 7:20 pm
Typical hasbara deception -- telling half truths to obscure the big lie.

Israel's water miracle that wasn't
Covering up a crime in plain sight: The dual function of Israel's water industry.
30 Mar 2014 11:25 GMT

It was impressive at first: Long stretches of seemingly barren, beige hills punctuated by abundantly fertile farms growing oranges, dates and watermelons, first appearing in southern Israel in the middle of the 20th century. Unlike the gaudy, fake lakes and gushing fountains of Las Vegas plopped in the middle of the Mojave desert, this prodigious agricultural production was not meant to signal decadence; rather, it was a testament to Israel's prudent husbandry of the land, an intelligence and expertise that not only enriched the region but legitimised the presence of Israel and the expulsion of Palestinians.

Israel credits its use of desalination plants and drip-irrigation with enabling the desert to bloom - the iconic image reinforcing the still-lingering notion that the land of historic Palestine was a dry one, while further impressing Israel's world audience with the young country's wizardry with water.

Less attention is given to the Knesset report commissioned in 2002, nearly four decades after Israel's national water carrier began diverting the Jordan river to Israeli citrus orchards in the Negev region. The report concluded that the region's ongoing water crisis - a desiccated Jordan river and shrinking Dead Sea - was "primarily man-made".

Less attention is given to the Knesset report commissioned in 2002, nearly four decades after Israel's national water carrier began diverting the Jordan river to Israeli citrus orchards in the Negev. The report concluded that the region's ongoing water crisis - a desiccated Jordan river and shrinking Dead Sea - was 'primarily man-made'.

In December 2011, Ben Ehrenreich reported the unrecuperated cost of such agricultural opulence: It required half of Israel's water while providing only three percent of the country's GDP. Nevertheless, the extravagance was deemed necessary by the commission, which determined it held a "Zionist-strategic-political value, which goes beyond its economic contribution".

But there is another motive behind peddling the myth of eternal water scarcity in Palestine: If you argue that you're creating potable water out of what was nothing, you've already successfully obscured your theft of something.

In fact, Palestinians have not historically wanted for water. But the characterisation of Palestine as a desperately arid land has, as Clemens Messerschmid wrote in 2011, "naturalised" the water crisis that Palestinians experience every day. Gaza, which is currently subsisting off of a water source that is 95 percent non-potable, long served as an oasis for travellers crossing from Cairo to Damascus. This history - and more - is important to consider amid the recent enthusiastic clamour over Israel's miraculous water surplus that promises to provide a glimmer of hope for peace and cooperation, but is, in truth, a helpful cover-up for its ongoing theft and exploitation.

The mythology is currently in a renaissance.

At the beginning of this month, Netanyahu paid a visit to California - which has experienced record-low rainfall this year - to create a pact with Governor Jerry Brown that vaguely promised a collaboration on future projects, especially those concerning water conservation and production. To nervous Californians, Netanyahu crowed, "Israel doesn't have a water problem!" - no doubt expecting to dazzle his audience with this miracle before trotting out the virtues of his country's innovation and industry.

The statement was a stunning show of hubris and mendacity in light of the fact that Netanyahu's country has long deprived Palestinians of their own water.

The visit - and the message it carried - are just the latest in the PR ploys aptly called "bluewashing". Israel doesn't have a "water problem" because it steals water from Palestinians.

The theft
The Israeli military has governed all sources of water in the West Bank and Gaza since 1967 and 1974, respectively. Originally gained by military conquest, its control has subsequently been affirmed through the Oslo Accords and, increasingly, the work of the Palestinian Authority and international NGOs.

A brief review of the state's dominion over water resources shows that Israel diverts the Jordan river into Lake Tiberias, as do Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon to their respective territories, leaving the Dead Sea with a declining sea-level. Flaunting international laws against the pillage of occupied lands, Israel controls the mountain aquifer - 80 percent of which lies beneath the West Bank - and over-extracts it for agriculture, as well as settlers' pools and verdant lawns. In 2009, the Mountain Aquifer supplied 40 percent of Israel's agricultural needs and 50 percent of its population's drinking water.

Israel also takes more than its share from the coastal aquifer that lies beneath Gaza, and diverts the Wadi Gaza into Israel's Negev desert, just before it reaches Gaza. Lastly, Israel's wall conveniently envelops wells and springs that lie east of the Green Line.

With all these sources of water, it's no miracle that Israelis can comfortably consume about five times as much water as Palestinians.

In 1982, the Ministry of Defence - then led by Ariel Sharon - sold the entirety of the West Bank's water infrastructure to semi-private Mekorot for one symbolic shekel. What was once a military acquisition became the property of a state-owned company; today the Palestinians in the West Bank buy over half of their water from Mekorot, often at a higher price than nearby settlers.

Founded in 1937, Israel's water company, Mekorot, has been crucial to the Zionist state-building project, and to that end has aided in Israel’s erasure of its original boundaries. Israeli occupation watchdog group, Who Profits, notes that on Mekorot's map of its National Water System, there is no Green Line.

Mekorot's governance of water ensures Palestinians remain on their knees of dependence on Israel - prohibited from using the water flowing beneath their feet or develop their own water infrastructure.
Mekorot's governance of water ensures Palestinians remain on their knees of dependence on Israel - prohibited from using the water flowing beneath their feet or develop their own water infrastructure. The years immediately following Israel's usurpation of Palestine's water resources saw a sharp 20 percent decline in Palestine's agricultural production. Nearly 200,000 Palestinians in the West Bank have no access to running water, nor do Palestinians have the ability to collect water themselves without explicit permission, which is rarely granted.

Mekorot executes this crime of theft all the while Israel maintains that it has the solutions to scant rainfall and scarcity of water, and that Mekorot provides humanitarian assistance to parched and needy Palestinians.
March 22 marked World Water Day, a day commemorated globally every year since 1993. This year, the day was intentionally chosen to kick off a week-long protest against Mekorot - dubbed International Week Against Mekorot - that will end on March 30, Palestine's Land Day. The campaign is crucial amid the current amplification of Israel's trumpeting its water tech prowess.

Mekorot began expanding internationally in 2005; a year that also saw the launch of Brand Israel Group, a multimillion-dollar initiative to improve the country's image abroad, in which the exporting of commodities plays a useful role. Israel is presented as the country that provides an answer to one of the globe’s most ominous threats - global warming, drought, and water scarcity.

"Israel has taken the challenge of water scarcity and built an export industry in water tech," Will Sarni of Deloitte Consulting, recently wrote, noting that the industry saw a 170 percent increase in exports in six years. McKinsey has estimated that the global water market is the third or fourth largest commodity market in the world.

And, while the Palestinian Authority long resisted desalination projects as a substitute for restoring water rights to Palestinians, today it has embraced these technical solutions - yet another indication of its impotence as a political entity.

Yet in spite of all this, not everyone is buying Israel's campaign of bluster and braggadocio. Proponents of BDS, a movement calling for boycotts and sanctions against Israel, have already scored significant victories against Mekorot: The Netherlands and Argentina recently cancelled contracts with Mekorot, citing Mekorot's violation of international law.

The significance of these successes cannot be overstated: A clear indication that the call for BDS is reaching the ears of government leaders and, perhaps more important, that Zionists are failing in their ceaseless quest to make the world forget their crimes against Palestinians.

Alexa R (319)
Monday May 4, 2015, 2:43 am
No surprise, Bruce continues with his false accusations and putting words in other people's mouths rather than allowing them to speak for themselves, while twisting half truths to support his anti-zionist racism while clearly ignoring the repeated answers given to him when these answers do not fit his little anti-zionist box .. Let alone him ignoring any questions asked him, I guess when you cannot win an argument you go for attack and false accusations, stereotyping the zionists, Jewish people, etc.

Does not matter how many times you repeat a lie, it still doesn't take away the truth that the Palestinian flag in 1939 had a Star of David on it, was not under Ottoman power and that Israel was not founded in 1948 by the UN.

Only an extreme racist anti-zionist would diminish their achievements and try to demonise their every move.

Israel is at the forefront of innovative projects on water world wide:
Lately, the Israeli water field has been undergoing a revolution in infrastructure and organization, which includes the establishment of water and sewage corporations, in an effort to properly improve and sustain the municipal water sector; some of the largest desalination plants in the world, the operation of which requires essential adaptations in the water supply system; and some of the largest wastewater reuse systems in the world for agricultural purposes.

The water shortage has inspired creativity amongst Israeli entrepreneurs, who had introduced novel innovations in water and agricultural technologies. The world-wide interest rising -
by the international WATEC conferences, taking place in Israel The many participants arriving at these conventions from all around the globe testify for the international trust in Israeli supremacy in these fields.

Water is a natural and valued commodity in Israel. Perhaps if it was equally valued in other parts of Palestine where violence, war and terrorism take preference in how resources and manpower was applied rather than for innovation with water, then all this whining and blaming others for their problems would not have been necessary..

Plus there would have been peace .. the zionist dream achieved ..


Past Member (0)
Monday May 4, 2015, 7:25 am
brucie, thanks so much for the laugh riot! But if I may make a suggestion, try using mendacious or duplicitous because disingenuous is so...well....disingenuous.

ParsifalAWAY S (99)
Monday May 4, 2015, 11:19 am

Alexa - get a grip, Zionists are no race.
No racial Zionist haunch applies

ParsifalAWAY S (99)
Monday May 4, 2015, 11:23 am

pid=904384673 who gave you permission to call me different as Parsifal ?

Past Member (0)
Monday May 4, 2015, 11:40 am
Get a life.

Bruce C D (89)
Monday May 4, 2015, 2:25 pm
More self-serving distortion of the truth by Alexa, who still hasn't answered the questions or responded to the arguments. Instead, she spews fallacious Zionist propaganda which has nothing to do with this article or discussion.

Pamela Geller's racist Islamophobic organization is credited with first publicizing this obscure reference to a Zionist flag which was incorrectly labeled as the Palestinian flag in the LaRousse Dictionary. (Actually, it is described there not as the official flag but as the flag of Palestinian Jews.) Immediately, numerous other Isalmophobic and pro-Zionist sources began repeating this propaganda the same way the Islamophobic organization and Alexa did as some kind of "proof" that Palestine was already Zionist. It is a pro-Zionist revisionist bid to rewrite history that no reputable historian or vexillologist would support. In essence, this is also just another pathetic, deceitful and vain attempt by Zionists to somehow justify their ethnic cleansing and dispossession of the Palestinian majority.

Here is the truth about the flag, which no doubt Alexa and the rest of the hasbara will simply dismiss out of hand, as they do with all facts that don't support their hateful agenda:

Palestinian flag pre-1948
The flag pre 1923 was that for the Ottoman Empire: Red with a white crescent and white star. Post 1923 to May 1948: Union flag on land; Red Ensign with white roundel with the word 'Palestine' inside edge of top half.
In 1927 it was found that there was no legal procedure by which a merchant ship owned by an inhabitant of Palestine could be registered. Palestinians were not British subjects, and only ships owned by a British subject could be placed on the British Register. The Palestine Shipping Register was established, and an Admiralty Warrant of 27th October 1927 authorised, "the Red Ensign of HM Fleet defaced on the fly thereof by the word PALESTINE in a white circular field, to be used on board vessels belonging to the inhabitants of Palestine".

In 1944 the only flag that represented the area that roughly corresponds to modern Israel was the defaced Red Ensign. It was for use only at sea, and was internationally recognised as the ensign of a ship registered in Palestine. It appears Haifa was the only port ever used for registry. Introduced in 1927, it was used legally until 15th May 1948, and illegally after that.


The following link has a picture of the only official Palestinian flag for the period in question:

Civil Ensign 1927-1948 (British Mandate of Palestine) Red Ensign


The following link displays three different versions of Zionist flags used by the Zionist minority in Palestine and flown on their merchant ships. Undoubtedly there were additional various manifestations of the same design. At times it was flown as supplementary to the official British-Palestinian flag, while at other times Zionist vessels sailed under only the official British-Palestinian flag. Illegal immigrants' ships hoisted only the Zionist flags no matter where those were registered. The link includes the version show in the LaRousse Dictionary. None of these Zionist flag versions were ever the official flag of Palestine pre-1948, any more than was a Palestinian flag very similar to the current one that was used by Palestinians since the time of the Arab revolt.

Flag on the SS Emanuel 1934


Not to add any credibility to hasbara propaganda, but the LaRousse Dictionary was apparently not the only publication from that era to misrepresent the flag of Palestine. However, this link does make clear these are merely Zionist flags used by Palestinian Jews, and not in any way official flags of Palestine:

Zionist Flags

Past Member (0)
Monday May 4, 2015, 2:44 pm
And although, once again, you've amused us I fail to see what a discussion of flags has to do with the fact that he west bank is not *occupied*. Have you a notion as to the legal definition of the term? By definition alone, an occupation is impossible.

Past Member (0)
Monday May 4, 2015, 5:55 pm
The palestinians didn't *disappear*......because they were never there. A few stray syrians maybe....

Past Member (0)
Monday May 4, 2015, 5:57 pm
And the original Palestinian flag?

Past Member (0)
Monday May 4, 2015, 6:00 pm
Oh, brucie, so sorry! Forgot to thank you for your amusing blather. It's lovely that you repeat yourself; saves having to think an original thought.

Past Member (0)
Monday May 4, 2015, 6:23 pm
I wasn't answering your question......

But here's a hint: Ask Alexander.

Past Member (0)
Monday May 4, 2015, 7:31 pm
nyack, sweetie, there's an old saying: Wishing doesn't make it so.

* There has never been a civilization or a nation referred to as "Palestine" and the very notion of a "Palestinian Arab nation" having ancient attachments to the Holy Land going back to time immemorial is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated upon the world! There is not, nor has there ever been, a distinct "Palestinian" culture or language. Further, there has never been a Palestinian state governed BY Arab Palestinians in history, nor was there ever a serious Arab-Palestinian national movement until 1964.
If anything, the name "Palestine" was associated with Jews. In the years leading up to the rebirth of Israel in 1948, those who spoke of "Palestinians" were nearly always referring to the region's Jewish residents. In fact, Arab leaders rejected the notion of a unique "Palestinian Arab" identity, insisting that Palestine was merely a part of "Greater Syria."
Israel became a nation in 1312B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam! Seven hundred and twenty-six years later in 586 B.C. these first ancient Jews in the Land of Israel [Judea] were overrun and its First Jewish Temple (on Jerusalem's Old City Temple Mount) was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of ancient Babylon. Many of the Jews were killed or expelled; however many were allowed to remain. These Jews along with their progeny and other Jews who would resettle over the next 500 years, rebuilt the Nation of Israel and also a Second Temple upon the Temple Mount. Thus the claim that Jews suddenly appeared fifty years ago right after the Holocaust and drove out the Arabs is preposterous.
Then in 70 A.D. (nearly 2000 years ago), it was the Roman Empire's turn to march through ancient Israel and destroy the SECOND Jewish Temple, slaughtering or driving out much of its Jewish population. Many Jews left on their own because conditions for life were made unbearable in many respects... yet thousands upon thousands stayed and rebelled on for centuries in order to once again rebuilt a Jewish Nation in this Holy Land.

Over the next 2,000 years various Peoples, Religions and Empires marched through Jerusalem, Israel's ancient capital. None bothered, nor were they in the least bit inclined, to build a Nation of their own. The region was successively ruled by the Greeks, Maccabeans, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Egyptians, Crusaders, Mamelukes and finally the Ottoman Turks who indifferently governed the backward, neglected territory from the 16th century until the British drove them out during World War I (1914-18). It must be noted that in 636 A.D., when the Arabs marauders came to the land and uprooted even more of its Jews, they did not form any Arab nation there... and certainly not a "Palestinian" nation. And remember this one fact... it was not the Jews who "usurped" (a favorite word from the Arab propagandists) the land from the Arabs. If anything, it was the Arabs in 636A.D. who overran and stole it from the Jews!
In Conclusion: No nation, other than the ancient nation of Israel and later again in 1948 with the rebirth of the Nation of Israel, has ever ruled as a sovereign national entity on this land. A mighty Jewish empire extended over this entire area before the Arabs and their Islam were even born.*

*Funny, no Palestinian artifacts were found in this ancient Jewish village in the Galilee, Israel. Archeologists say this is because Palestinians are Arabs who came via colonial imperialism starting in the 7th century and primarily during mass immigration in the mid 20th century, while Jews are the indigenous population of Israel and have always been there... but then again, what good is fact when compared to oil-funded propaganda lies?*


Past Member (0)
Tuesday May 5, 2015, 4:46 am
*Judaism is one of the oldest religions in the world that still exists today. Its history, beliefs, and traditions were recorded in the Hebrew Bible beginning as early as the 8th century BCE.*

*At its core, the Tanakh is an account of the Israelites' relationship with God from their earliest history until the building of the Second Temple (c. 535 BCE). Abraham is hailed as the first Hebrew and the father of the Jewish people. As a reward for his act of faith in one God, he was promised that Isaac, his second son, would inherit the Land of Israel (then called Canaan). *

*c. 1300-1200 BCE: The Israelites enter the land of Canaan: the age of the Judges starts*

*Caliphate, the political-religious state comprising the Muslim community and the lands and peoples under its dominion in the centuries following the death (632 ce) of the Prophet Muhammad. *

The oldest human remain in the Middle East, a Neanderthal skull discovered in January, 2015, at the Manot Cave in the Galilee, was carbon-dated to 55,000 years.

Your argument is pointless. The Israelites arose in the ancient Levant and established cities, temples, industry, agriculure, culture... Other Semitic peoples and immigrants were assimilated into one society centuries before the influx of the invaders who were never able to destroy or displace the Israelites.

Bruce C D (89)
Tuesday May 5, 2015, 8:03 pm
More hasbara Holocaust denial and history revisionism in trying to fallaciously promote a very self-serving, simplistic and unsophisticated view of history and anthropology.

Why does this extract from the Journal of the World Archeological Congress (2013) describe the hasbara so well?

"The National Heritage Sites Project has an intentional Jewish bias; it ignores much of the cultural heritage of the land that cannot be characterized as exclusively Jewish, obscuring the many cultural layers that exist below and above the Jewish remains identified (Mizrachi 2011, 2012). Archaeological sites in the territories are generally run by private bodies or regional councils that are associated in one way or another with the settlers (Mizrachi 2012:18). Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are embedded in an ideology that legitimizes the presence on the territory on the basis of a belief in Jewish national return. Israeli settlers have no doubts that they are the true natives and have a right to the land. Most Israelis are secular, but large part of the settlers in the West Bank promotes a vision of the Jewish right to the land derived from the divine promise. In this ambit archaeology configure itself as expropriation of land and appropriation of the past to the detriment of the Palestinian Arabs that are considered as temporary trespassers (Feige 2007:280). In this context this form of recollection requires the elimination of other memory and configure itself as predatory. ‘‘That is, they seem to be premised on that idea that for them to subsist something else must go’’ (Appadurai 2001:44). In the West Bank archaeology is also promoted by members of ultra nationalistic, fundamentalist religious movement Gush Emunim (Feige 2007:277–298). Gush Emunim is a messianic religious movement that claims the annexation of the territories occupied during the 1967 Six-Day War and promote the construction of Jewish settlements on the basis of the belief that God promised Judea and Samaria to Israelites and their descendants. The settler’s problem was and remains native status and persuading others of their authenticity and of their right to claim the land, regardless of actual historical precedence or contingent socio-demographic realities (Feige 2007:279–280). Toponomastic is a tool abundantly used for the reshaping of a Biblical landscape. The names of Israeli settlements are taken from the Bible and are located close to the archaeological settlements, sometime very approximately, to advance the idea of continuity between past and present. National imaginations require signature of the visible, and archaeology as a practice is about signatures of the visible (Appadurai 2001:44). In the idea of Arjun Appadurai there are two types of processes in identity building. One is driven by the past, the other is fundamentally future-driven, a real ‘project’. ‘Those that are projected usually are likely not to be predatory. But those that are excessively driven by the past tend to crowd others out’ (Appadurai 2001:47). Gush Emunim archaeological projects is definitely future-driven and incompatible with the presence of non-Jews in the land."

Bruce C D (89)
Tuesday May 5, 2015, 8:24 pm
Well, Nyack, the hasbara can cut-and-paste all the Zionist propaganda in the world to evade your valid point but, as the saying goes, "Wishing doesn't make it so."

The truth is that area of the world was known as Palestine before it was ever known as Israel or Judea, and it was known as Palestine far longer than it has ever been known as Israel or Judea. And the truth is that Palestinians have ancestry that dates back to before the Canaanites which preceded any Jewish people, and indeed their ancestry includes the Jewish people who lived there (it's well recognized that there were former Jewish converts to Christianity and Islam among the Palestinian population). This is just an old, well-worn, disgraceful hasbara tactic to delegitimize Palestinian rights which has been debunked countless times, yet they still keep trying to argue a position of ignorance that holds no standing in the academic community.

The hasbara is in denial because it doesn't fit with the Zionist narrative they "wish" to build. I don't think they even really believe half the nonsense they spew, which just makes it that much worse.

Bruce C D (89)
Tuesday May 5, 2015, 8:35 pm
The people who identify as Palestinians today arose in the ancient Levant and established cities, temples, industry, agriculture, culture. Other Semitic peoples and immigrants were assimilated into one society centuries before the influx of the invaders who were never able to destroy or displace the Palestinians. Not even the latest invaders, Zionists. And they will still be there when Zionism finally thankfully dies under it's own racism.

fly bird (26)
Tuesday May 5, 2015, 8:46 pm
I don't care how old 'judaism' is -- has nothing to do with this post and the illegal occupation - or Israel's land thefts and annexations of their lands and natural resources, or Israeli crimes against Palestinians for decades!

As for the 'exodus', even Israeli historians and archaeologists have not found any evidence to verify there was any such mass migration from Egypt, and the only found evidence found through modern radiocarbon dating, and discovered artifacts and historical records reveal slaves from Canaan (not 'Israelites'), leaving Egypt -
The Israeli 'occupation' and attacks-siege on Gaza is apartheid control of the Palestinian people, theft of the land of their birth and crimes against humanity.


fly bird (26)
Tuesday May 5, 2015, 8:51 pm
Barbara D has 'original' thoughts?


fly bird (26)
Tuesday May 5, 2015, 9:13 pm
This post is not about, " to stay, judenfrei, juden' .."

Read the post, if you want or don't - see, what, and whom it does concern... Israeli illegal occupation of Palestine, thefts and ongoing, decades long, crimes against the Palestinian people, documented for decades, to this day ---
So is the hasbara and intended deceit and lies to obfuscate, and attempt to fog and switch things around, to misrepresent the facts, all of them.

Past Member (0)
Wednesday May 6, 2015, 7:16 am
How MUCH do you want to bet, sweetcakes? LOLOL!!

Can I ask a question? Why do you people swipe each other's big, fancy, impressive words? You're starting to sound as if you all read the same comic books. Oh, right, you do.

Past Member (0)
Wednesday May 6, 2015, 7:24 am
*Judea or Judæa (/dʒuːˈdiː.ə/;[1] from Hebrew: יהודה‎, Standard Yəhuda Tiberian Yəhûḏāh, Greek: Ἰουδαία, Ioudaía; Latin: IVDÆA, Arabic: يهودية‎, Yahudia) is the biblical, Roman, and modern name of the mountainous southern part of the Land of Israel. The name originates from the Canaanite and later neo-Babylonian and Persian name "Yehud" for the biblical tribe of Judah (Yehudah) and associated Kingdom of Judah, which dates from 934 until 586 BCE.*

*The region known as Samaria wasinhabited by the Israelites and was assigned to the Tribe of Joseph. After the death of King Solomon (c. 931 BCE), the northern tribes, including those of Samaria, separated from the southern tribes and established the separate Kingdom of Israel. Initially its capital was Tirzah until the time of king Omri (c.884 BCE), who built the city of Shomron and made it his capital.*

* In the 2nd century CE, the Romans crushed the revolt of Shimon Bar Kokhba (132 CE), during which Jerusalem and Judea were regained and the area of Judea was renamed Palestine in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel*

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday May 6, 2015, 2:42 pm
Brucie, Brucie, Brucie,

When will you stop making yourself look dumb?

I honestly don't know if you read the original article, but it wasn't about settlement-construction. It was about Israel preventing construction in Area C by an E.U. organization because it lacked appropriate permits.

As for discriminatory laws, try worrying about your own backyard first. Get rid of the U.S.'s discriminatory laws against the Chinese, and we can talk. I want to see every Chinese adult vote in U.S. elections before we continue talking about how laws about excluding non-citizens from a country are discriminatory. As for unfair distribution, I'm waiting for your Social Security system to start paying out in Guangdong. Let me know when that happens.

Bruce C D (89)
Wednesday May 6, 2015, 4:21 pm
Stephen Brian is beginning to sound just like the hasbara. He gets mad when people poke holes in his arguments.

Just like here. Who is making themselves look dumb? Who didn't read the article? From the article:

"This simply puts matters on their head. There is no doubt that Israel’s settlement policy violates international law whereas assistance to Palestinians building in their own country is in full conformity with the EU’s responsibilities under humanitarian law."

Finally, Stephen engages in the hasbara logical fallacy that one can't chew gum while reading a book, or listen to music while driving a vehicle, or fight for justice in both the U.S. and in Palestine/Israel. But one logical fallacy for Stephen wasn't enough -- then he tries to equate correcting unfair Zionist allocation of resources to correcting the U.S. social security system.

fly bird (26)
Wednesday May 6, 2015, 5:52 pm
Stephen's comic schtick moment is kind of worn and flat - oy veh!

Past Member (0)
Friday May 8, 2015, 5:09 am
All of you are trying to prove you're right by proving we're wrong and you end up not doing eiher one.

Kvetch? Schtick? Hasbara? Oi, vey? Why are you trying to speak Yiddish not Hebrew? Yiddish isn't spoken in Israel.

Stephen Brian (23)
Friday May 8, 2015, 9:20 am
Brucie, Brucie, Brucie,

I'm glad to see you fighting for justice in the U.S. and to fix its Social Security system. Keep fighting for those U.S. Social Security payments to the poor residents of Guangdong!

Look, the fact is that I do see the contrast in the article between the settlements and the E.U. and Palestinian construction. I opted to ignore it because the arguments built around it are a whole can of worms that, frankly,make the author look like the most bigoted P.O.S. I've seen in a while and I didn't really want to insult folks here that much for siding with him.

First, his basis for claiming the settlements to be illegal is his apparent support for mob-rule rather than rule of law. He calls the argument specious because it was rejected by a community, not on grounds referring to the law itself. I guess when you support letting some claimed authority dictate selective application of the law, regardless of the content of the law in question so that it does not have to be equally applied, that somehow doesn't leave you supporting literally every case of persecution ever. No, clearly the support in the article for the basis of every tyranny ever, and in fact of the basic principle that divides tyranny from just regimes is not a problem at all, at least for you.

Second, he argues that the problem with the settlements is that their would make the creation of a contiguous and viable Palestinians state impossible. He's pretty much saying that a Palestinian state cannot have any substantial ethnic minority demographics, that one must be 100% Palestinian. There is nothing more bigoted. He not only wants there to be a state built on ethnic exclusion, but assumes this is the only way Palestinians can live. Clearly, extreme intolerance, to the point where the idea of building a multicultural society is to be ignored, is the order of the day. Before you go on about how necessary it is to eliminate all those settlements, keep fighting for that justice in the U.S. you promote so much and get all the Asian folks kicked out or something, with all of your commitment to justice, because obviously the U.S. cannot be an American country with them present. Obviously, the presence of Asian communities in the U.S. makes it impossible to have a contiguous and viable American state, so Chinatown has to be dismantled.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.