Start A Petition

Israel's "Right to Defend": By Definition, An Aggressor Cannot Act in Defense

World  (tags: Human Rights, International Law, occupation, annexation, aggression, oppression, defense, Palestine, Israel )

- 1429 days ago -
"Israel has the right to defend itself against Palestine" is like saying that if, e.g the US annexed, occupied & started building illegal settlements in Cuba, it would have the right to "defend" itself against Cubans acting in retaliation to US aggression


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


MmAway M (519)
Saturday June 20, 2015, 1:09 am
I was going to copy/paste some of the news at site, but I do believe that people need to read this news!

Darren W (218)
Saturday June 20, 2015, 3:01 am
Simply put, this is a mess.
It has continued, continues and will continue, because each "side" believe in its rights.

The laws constructed back 50 years ago, I reckon, need an impartial overview and possible complete reworking.

Each side seems to forget, at the end of the day, that they're all people.

Sheryl G (359)
Saturday June 20, 2015, 12:36 pm
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
― Malcolm X

Carol R (11)
Saturday June 20, 2015, 12:57 pm
Excellent Evelyn!


Eleonora Oldani (37)
Saturday June 20, 2015, 1:28 pm

You beat me to it Evelyn - thanks for putting up this article which is well worth the time spent in reading and absorbing it!!

"…where an occupation already is in place, the right to initiate militarized force in response to an armed attack, as opposed to police force to restore order, is not a remedy available to the occupying state."

This statement brings to mind the interview in Haaretz Excerpts from Haaretz interview with Colonel (res.) Daniel Reisner, who headed ILD (International Law Division in the Military Advocate General's Office)

"Did the attacks of September 11 influence your legal situation?

"Absolutely. When we started to define the confrontation with the Palestinians as an armed confrontation, it was a dramatic switch, and we started to defend that position before the Supreme Court. In April 2001 I met the American envoy George Mitchell and explained that above a certain level, fighting terrorism is armed combat and not law enforcement. His committee [which examined the circumstances of the confrontation in the territories] rejected that approach. Its report called on the Israeli government to abandon the armed confrontation definition and revert to the concept of law enforcement. It took four months and four planes to change the opinion of the United States, and had it not been for those four planes I am not sure we would have been able to develop the thesis of the war against terrorism on the present scale."

The last sentence is noteworthy:

"It took four months and four planes to change the opinion of the United States, and had it not been for those four planes I am not sure we would have been able to develop the thesis of the war against terrorism on the present scale."


Evelyn B (63)
Saturday June 20, 2015, 2:25 pm
If four thousand years in residence is the criteria for rights - Palestinians were there continuously (under different names) .... Hasbara handbook instructs on how to present the Zionist versions ...

But Israel ANNEXES & OCCUPIES the land beyond the 1967 Green Lines ... that is what makes it the aggressor, and eliminates legal "rights" assumed for building settlements, grabbing lands on land not covered by any of those documents.

Carol R (11)
Saturday June 20, 2015, 3:11 pm

When History is Erased
Correcting the Zionist Narrative of Israel

by Gary Leech
(Garry Leech is an independent journalist and editor of Palestine Journal. He is the author of numerous books including Capitalism: A Structural Genocide (Zed Books, 2012); Beyond Bogota: Diary of a Drug War Journalist in Colombia (Beacon Press, 2009); and Crude Interventions: The United States Oil and the New World Disorder (Zed Books, 2006). ). He is also a lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Cape Breton University in Canada.)

The Zionist narrative exists to justify the existence of the state of Israel. It is the narrative that dominates the perspectives of the US and Canadian governments as well as the mainstream media in North America. This narrative accepts as its starting point the right of a Jewish state to exist based on the fact that Jews lived in the biblical lands 2,000 years ago and that these lands belong to God’s chosen people: the Jews. But does this narrative reflect the truth? Or is it self-serving propaganda? After all, given this starting point, the inevitable outcome of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine was the ‘cleansing’ of the existing Arab population in that region because a Jewish majority was required to make a Jewish state viable.

Prior to the emergence of the Zionist movement in Europe in the late 1800s, the Jewish population in Palestine had remained steady at about four percent for centuries. And by all accounts the Jews lived in relative harmony with the Muslim majority as well as with Christians and the Druze. But European Zionists began urging European Jews to ‘return’ to the Holy Land with the objective of establishing a Jewish state.

In the Zionist revision of history, the Palestinians suddenly and irrationally began attacking the Jewish population in Palestine between 1920 and 1947, while Jews were simply defending themselves. But most of the Jews in Palestine by 1920 were not the Jews who had been living there for centuries; the overwhelming majority were European Zionists who had recently migrated and whose primary objective was to establish a Jewish state.

In the decade following the Balfour declaration in 1917, more than 100,000 Jews migrated to Palestine from Europe, and by 1948 that number had reached half a million. Many of these European Jews did not migrate to Palestine to co-exist in harmony with the Arab majority, but to help fulfil the Zionist goal of establishing a Jewish state with a Jewish majority. There are countless records of statements made by Zionist leaders between 1920 and 1948 on the need to remove all Arabs from the ‘Land of Israel’ in order to make a Jewish state with a Jewish majority viable.

Was there violence perpetrated by Arabs against the recently-arrived European immigrants? Yes, there was. But this violence was in response to the threat that the Zionist project posed to Palestinians and their lands—and in response to Zionist violence too. Consequently, it was the Palestinians who had lived there for generations who were defending themselves, not the European Zionists. After all, where were they supposed to turn for redress? Following the implementation of the British Mandate in 1922, the Palestinians were being governed by the same foreign government that had pledged in the Balfour declaration to create a Jewish state on their lands.

Many Zionists claim that the Palestinians were being unreasonable when they rejected the independence they were offered in 1947 under the UN Partition Plan that sought to establish the state of Israel on 56 percent of the territory of Palestine (despite the fact that Jews only constituted 32 percent of the population) and a Palestinian state on 43 percent of the land with Jerusalem decreed an international city to be governed by the United Nations.

But how would Israelis respond today if the United Nations passed a resolution declaring the partition of Israel so that the Christian minority in the country could establish a Christian state in the Holy Land? We know what the response would be, it would be a flat-out rejection, especially if that Christian state was to encompass 56 percent of Israeli territory. Therefore, the Palestinian rejection of such a proposal by foreign powers in favour of a Jewish minority who overwhelmingly consisted of recently-arrived European immigrants was a perfectly rational response.

A crucial part of the Zionist narrative is the claim that Palestinians voluntarily fled during the 1948 war to escape the conflict rather than being forcibly expelled in what the Palestinians call the Nakba, or the ‘catastrophe.’ But this is pure historical revisionism. Documents that have emerged from Israeli archives since the late 1980s have led many Israeli historians to challenge the long-established Zionist narrative about the creation of the state of Israel. These documents include the diary and letters of Israel’s ‘independence’ hero and first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, as well as the writings and military orders of other prominent Zionist leaders during the 1930s and 1940s. These documents make clear that the Zionist objective long before 1948 was the removal of the Arab population from Palestine in order to create a Jewish state with a Jewish majority.

Thanks to these documents, which verify the countless oral accounts of the forced expulsion provided by Palestinian refugees over the years, we now know that the more than 700,000 Palestinian refugees did not voluntarily abandon their lands as the Zionist narrative would have us believe. These documents show that the forced expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs began six months before Israel declared its independence and its Arab neighbours sent in their armies (previously Arab volunteers had fought with the Palestinians). And, in particular, that the infamous Plan Dalet was launched six weeks before the 1948 ‘independence’ war began. This plan called for the systematic expulsion of Palestinians from Israel and, in reference to it, Ben-Gurion wrote that “the cleansing of Palestine remained the prime objective of Israel.”

Creating a Jewish state with a Jewish majority anywhere in the world would have required the removal of the majority of the existing inhabitants. And, as these documents make clear, this is precisely what occurred in Palestine as Palestinian refugees were forcibly and systematically expelled from Palestine in 1948—and this expulsion began before the Arab armies attacked Israel in response to the Zionists unilaterally declaring independence.

Zionists also claim that a Palestinian state could have been established following the 1949 armistice when the West Bank and Gaza remained in Arab hands (controlled by Jordan and Egypt respectively). But why would Palestinians accept only 23 percent of the land as a state only two years after rationally rejecting 43 percent of the territory? And while it is true that Jordan had its own political agenda in occupying the West Bank, this in no way de-legitimizes the desire of Palestinians to achieve their own independent and sovereign state. Furthermore, the declaration of a Palestinian state on only 23 percent of the land would have constituted a de-facto recognition of Israel’s ownership of 77 percent of the territory.

A powerful aspect of the Zionist narrative has been the portrayal of Palestinians as terrorists. Palestinians have lived under Israeli military occupation since 1967 and some have turned to armed struggle to achieve their liberation. So while it is true that Palestinian groups have targeted Israeli civilians through suicide bombings and other violent acts, the narrative has effectively portrayed Israelis as the victims while obscuring the state terrorism that has been perpetrated by Israel.

The resort to armed struggle should not come as a surprise given that the international community has repeatedly failed the Palestinian people, with the most powerful nations, particularly the United States, consistently siding with Israel. For instance, despite Israel’s repeated violations of international law, the Palestinians have never been able to obtain justice because the United States has used its veto power in the Security Council on 41 occasions to ensure that the numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel’s illegal occupation and refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their lands are not enforced.

Meanwhile, the state terrorism perpetrated by Israel is rarely addressed by the international community. The Zionist narrative that portrays Israel as the victim has succeeded in obscuring the fact that a hugely disproportionate number of Palestinians have been killed in the long-running conflict. Over the past 15 years, according to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, 8,701 Palestinians have been killed by Israelis compared to 1,138 Israelis killed by Palestinians. The disparity in the number of Palestinian children killed is even greater with a total of 1,772 killed during that period compared to 93 Israeli children.

This reality was never more evident than in the Israeli military’s seven-week assault on Gaza last year. According to the United Nations, the Israeli military killed 2,025 Palestinians, including 1,483 civilians, of whom 521 were children. Additionally, more than half a million Palestinians were forcibly displaced from their homes by the assault. Meanwhile, 71 Israelis died, of which 66 were soldiers. And yet, it is the Palestinians who are portrayed as the terrorists.

Zionists also claim that Palestinians are not serious about negotiating a two-state solution. It is true that many Palestinians do not want a two-state solution if it prohibits the more than five million Palestinian refugees who now live in camps from returning to their lands in Israel. But the Zionists are also adamantly opposed to a two-state solution—and always have been. The aforementioned documents released from Israeli archives illustrate how Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders wanted to incorporate the West Bank into the state of Israel back in 1948. This Zionist attitude is also evident in the statements of contemporary Israeli government officials. Tzipi Hotovely, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, recently declared, “This land is ours. All of it is ours. We did not come here to apologize for that.” Hotovely went on to refer to the Torah to provide justification her claim.

Perhaps the most blatant illustration that the Zionists have never seriously considered a two-state solution is the Israeli government’s long-standing policies promoting the building of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. There is nothing temporary about these illegal settlements that now house half a million Jews in the Occupied Territories; making it clear that Israel has no intention of relinquishing these lands to allow for the creation of a Palestinian state.

One only has to travel around the West Bank to realize that there is no possible way that a viable, contiguous Palestinian state can be established while the settlements remain in place and under the control of Israel. A related factor that has further undermined the possibility of establishing a viable Palestinian state is the fact that the Jewish settlements have appropriated most of the best agricultural lands and water resources in the West Bank.

The Zionists have effectively re-written the history of Israel and it is this misrepresentation of the past and present that has dominated the Israel-Palestine narrative. But one only has to visit the many national parks in Israel that have been established on the land of expelled Palestinian villagers to understand the degree to which historical revisionism has taken place in Israel. The plaques in these parks tell of the numerous ancient and past civilizations that existed on these lands but they do not mention a single word about the Palestinians who lived there just a few decades ago—and who had lived there for more than a thousand years. There is no clearer example of how the Zionist narrative has not only attempted to revise history, but has tried to erase it.

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Saturday June 20, 2015, 3:11 pm

Evelyn - why did you jump the illegal annexation of the land which was allotted to the Palestinians by the very same international body which sanctioned the creation of the State of Israel? May I remind you of the Plan Dalet which was in full swing from December 1947 well into after Israel was officially declared (and recognized) to be a State? THIS is equally illegal if one wants to go by the "books" as Colleen demands. Don't we have equal rights for ALL?

And Colleen errs when she states "occupied by illegal Arab settlers on land strictly designated for the Jewish Homeland." as the Balfour Declaration lives no doubt as to its intentions:

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Maybe one should emphasize this line: "... nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine ..."

But ... I assume this passed by Colleen ... as she was busy feeding kittens - LOL ...


Eleonora Oldani (37)
Saturday June 20, 2015, 3:20 pm

Thanks Carol - excellently written article. Maybe this short clip gives an idea of how things are twisted:

Raanan Gissin, short version

The longer version with Raanan Gissin, very interesting to watch!

“Israel is a national park for an endangered species = Jews” … according to Raanan Gissin! That might explain why so many parks are built were Palestinian villages used to be for centuries?


Carol R (11)
Saturday June 20, 2015, 4:14 pm
Lol! Thanks Eleonora! What an irritating little man.... he can't even be honest about what he just said when called on it let alone the lies in his justifications for Israels actions.

Colleen parrots the same propaganda, as always, with no links to prove her claims.... and try's to cleverly use cherry picked documents to prove her points. She underestimates the intelligence of the readers here because she believes: "And a lot of people suck it up...." which = they will believe anything I write.

Evelyn B (63)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 12:28 am
Carol - those who are already aware that there are massive discrepancies between the Zionist & State of Israel narratives as taught in State schools & many Jewish institutions around the world, and the historical realities will read that interesting article. But (as evidenced by CH) those wanting unconditional support for Zionist & right wing politics will hang on to every word that accords impunity to Israel for every human rights abuse ....

There are Israeli & non-Israeli Jews who do not swallow the official narrative that "justifies" abuse, interpretations of religious & political documents that are twisted to fit the official narrative. An unknown number struggle with the dilemma of sensing that the policies & strategies are not respecting fundamental religious principles .... yet wanting to be able to trust their government. Others reach the point of finding it intollerable, and they step into some degree of activism. One of these days, the level of activism will reach that of serving as a tipping point ... and doors will open for official genuine dialogue that will allow some viable form of peace to be hammered out.

Until then, all one can do is support those engaged in personal & group dialogue, and ensure that enough information and thinking about situations currently barricading opportunities for genuine dialogue are shared, to provoke analytical thinking about human rights abuses, inequalities in justice processes & systems, and suffering imposed by occupation & oppression.

Evelyn B (63)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 12:29 am
And ****************** to both Carol & Eleonora -
You're right to add the illegal annexation ...

Carol R (11)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 11:40 am
Now that made me laugh! Perhaps one who uses multiple profiles is not being honest, yes? I think this person has an embarrassing display of lack of understanding of Care2 rules terms of conduct/ suspension.

******************************* to Evelyn and Eleonora.

Evelyn B (63)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 11:41 am
Israel's refusal to recognise Palestinian rights allows its supporters to pretent they have not annexed land, passed laws to allow land grabbing, grabbed property ..... acts of aggression in the eyes of those suffering from such acts .... which are not legal under international law. The 1948 borders are the maximum covered by prior treaties (which were made by outsiders "allocating" land that did not belong to them but to another people).

Evelyn B (63)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 12:26 pm
Carol - your comment wasn't showing when I posted mine - Another set of stars! :>D
I was thinking more about an embarrassing lack of understanding of international law, historical archives as against hasbara ...... but of course, that's nothing new! We're back in Animal Farm territory "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" ...... Which gives rights to twist truth, bypass rules, reshape interpretation of laws to fit the purpose of those cracking the whip .....

Carol R (11)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 12:54 pm
So right Evelyn on both of your comments. So easy to ignore international law when the laws of Israel reflect your ideology.... Zionist ideology that is.... and makes ones actions "legal" in their mind, and yes, to twist and bypass international law, human rights, etc. as she pleases. Her multiple profiles reflect that idea that rules don't matter, she's above any laws/rules but her own, which doesn't seem to embarrass her at all. Something lacking upstairs there.



Evelyn B (63)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 1:19 pm
Very true

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 1:59 pm

Colleen – I don’t quite see where I intend to mislead the readers with respect to the Balfour Declaration; after all I just copied part of the text of said declaration! But maybe my interpretation of misleading doesn’t match yours?

Misleading IMO is to interpret/claim what was meant with “La Puissance mandataire s’engage à nommer dans le plus bref delai une Commission speciale pour etudier toute question et toute reclamation concernant les differentes communautes religieuses et en etablir le reglement. Il sera tenu compte dans la composition de cette Commission des interets religieux en jeu. Le President de la Commission sera nommé par le Conseil de la Societé des Nations.”

to mean (your words above):
“This clause was designed to protect the the INDIVIDUAL rights of Catholics, Maronites, Copts, Anglicans, and yes, Muslims, not the COLLECTIVE rights of any entity.”

If you’d care to point us readers to the original text where you must have this interpretation from? Or is this yet another Zionist narrative?

While it is easy to throw in a few documents in order to make belief that what you say is absolutely correct ... a closer look at just some randomly selected docs show a bit a different picture.


Here are the relevant original paragraphs of the San Remo Conference:

The British Mandate For Palestine
San Remo Conference, April 24, 1920
(Confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, [came into operation in September 1923])

"The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible FOR PUTTING INTO EFFECT THE DECLARATION ORIGINALLY MADE ON NOVEMBER 2ND, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, IT BEING CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT NOTHING SHOULD BE DONE WHICH MIGHT PREJUDICE THE CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF EXISTING NON-JEWISH COMMUNITIES IN PALESTINE, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall he explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;

Confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:

The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, AND ALSO FOR SAFEGUARDING THE CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF ALL THE INHABITANTS OF PALESTINE, IRRESPECTIVE OF RACE AND RELIGION.

The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist Organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall he recognized as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

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

The Administration of Palestine, WHILE ENSURING THAT THE RIGHTS AND POSITION OF OTHER SECTIONS OF THE POPULATION ARE NOT PREJUDICED, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
[Emphasis added by me where text is in caps]


Paris Peace Conference, 1919

Following the Conference's decision to separate the former Arab provinces from the Ottoman Empire and to apply the newly conceived mandate-system to them, the Zionist Organization submitted their draft resolutions for consideration by the Peace Conference on 3 February 1919.

The statement included five main points:

1. Recognition of the Jewish people's historic title to Palestine and their right to reconstitute their National Home there.

2. The boundaries of Palestine were to be declared as set out in the attached Schedule

3. The sovereign possession of Palestine would be vested in the League of Nations and the Government entrusted to Great Britain as Mandatory of the League.

4. Other provisions to be inserted by the High Contracting Parties relating to the application of any general conditions attached to mandates, which are suitable to the case in Palestine.

5. The mandate shall be subject also to several noted special conditions, including
- promotion of Jewish immigration and close settlement on the land AND SAFEGUARDING RIGHTS OF THE PRESENT NON-JEWISH POPULATION
- a Jewish Council representative for the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, and offer to the Council in priority any concession for public works or for the development of natural resources
- self-government for localities
- control of the Holy Places

However, despite these attempts to influence the conference, the Zionists were instead constrained by Article 7 of the resulting Palestine Mandate to merely having the right of obtaining Palestinian citizenship: "The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."

Citing the Balfour Declaration, the Zionists suggested that the British had already recognised the historic title of the Jews to Palestine in 1917. IN FACT, THE BALFOUR DECLARATION DOES NOT COMPRISE SUCH RECOGNITION. The preamble of the British Mandate of 1922, in which the Balfour Declaration was incorporated, merely states: "WHEREAS RECOGNITION HAS THEREBY BEEN GIVEN TO THE HISTORICAL CONNECTION OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE WITH PALESTINE AND TO THE GROUNDS FOR RECONSTITUTING THEIR NATIONAL HOME IN THAT COUNTRY ...".

[Emphasis added by me where text is in caps]


UN Charter
Article 4

1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

2. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

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

2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.

And so on and so forth … Every reader can make up his/her own mind.

I guess I better go feeding kittens again ...

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 2:10 pm

Hi Evelyn and Carol ;-) - what I always find fascinating is the fact that for 2'000 years none of the dispersed attempted to return. After all ... IMO 2'000 years is ample time to return to ones rightful home if the burning desire would have been there too, non? I for one would definitely fight and go back the soonest possible.

This notwithstanding ... it is simply wrong (and has always been) to go and kick people off their land which they inhabited and cultivated for centuries on a claim which is based on a man-written book to which some adhere and belief in. This goes for all religions who base any claim on any of their books. What they belief is not my belief.

But the Zionism project being what it is - colonialism in its worst form - it is all the more condemnable as it abuses the religion of the Jewish people in order to support its claim. I always find it appalling - Hitler and the Zionists are the only ones who ever tried to proof that Jews are a race rather than a religion. It's ironic to say the least.

I refer again to my linked exchange further up between Prof Finkelstein and Raanan Gissin - this short sequence sais it all.


Eleonora Oldani (37)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 2:16 pm

To go back to the topic of self-defense: how would it have been viewed by the world community if Sadam Hussein would have claimed "self-defense" when his army fought against being kicked out in Kuwait?

What if ISIS would claim "self-defense" - after all they have conquered territory and now get attacked by the US and its allies?

What if the US would claim "self-defense" in Iraq and Afghanistan after it had illegally invaded two sovereign countries?


Carol R (11)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 4:06 pm
Lol "dear" barb. Back to your old tricks. I could care less what you require and I thought it quite clear you do not dictate to me what I decide to comment on. You get suspended, you make up false profiles after said suspension, you make PUBLIC comments on articles with FALSE profiles.... well then, I'll comment about it.... after all, you are the one that put yourself out there under false pretenses....and it's your lack of respect for Care2 as an organization and their rules I find most inappropriate.......otherwise "dear" barb, I could care less what goes on privately between you and Care2.

Thank you Eleonora! **************************************

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 5:33 pm

"Colleen" aka Barbara? LOL! No wonder you're feeding kitties ... well, I don't feed trolls as you know. Just that much:

"Then we can compare your interpretations with the ..." These are NOT my interpretations - this is what is written in the official documents YOU brought up as reference. Plain and simple.

Israel admitted to UN but then reneged on the conditions under which it was admitted

"The [Lausanne] conference officially opened on 27 April 1949. On 12 May the [UN's] Palestine Conciliation ,Committee reaped its only success when it induced the parties to sign a joint protocol on the framework for a comprehensive peace. . Israel for the first time accepted the principle of repatriation [of the Arab refugees] and the internationalization of Jerusalem. . .[but] they did so as a mere exercise in public relations aimed at strengthening Israel's international image ... Walter Eytan, the head of the Israeli delegation, [stated]..'My main purpose was to begin to undermine the protocol of 12 May, which we had signed only under duress of our struggle for admission to the U.N. Refusal to sign would...have immediately been reported to the Secretary- General and the various governments.'" Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe, "The Making of the Arab- Israel Conflict, 1947-1951."

"The Preamble of this resolution of admission included a safeguarding clause as follows: 'Recalling its resolution of 29 November 1947 (on partition) and 11 December 1948 (on reparation and compensation), and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, the General Assembly ... decides to admit Israel into membership in the United Nations.' "Here, it must be observed, is a condition and an undertaking to implement the resolutions mentioned. There was no question of such implementation being conditioned on the conclusion of peace on Israeli terms as the Israelis later claimed to justify their non-compliance." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

The above can also be read in the official UN documents of the time. Equally we can read that peace (at the Lausanne conference of 1949) could not be achieved "due to the intransigence of Israel". This too is known widely today as Israel has proven this to be the case time and again.

Interesting in all this is the fact that the UN is always cited as THE source of “justice” when it comes to partitioning the land of Palestine in order to give in to the Zionist’s demands – but when it comes to complying with any resolutions then it can go **** itself.

Typical … I would say … for the Zionist mindset.

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 5:37 pm

Oh - one last thing, Barbara - re "ARE THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS". Just because you and the Zionist narrative wants it to be international law doesn't make it so.

polit-Israel has never cared about international law ... but IF ... then it only cares to know how it can twist and turn them to fit with their narrative hoping that the whole world will bow and abide by these interpretations.

No go anymore in today's world.


Eleonora Oldani (37)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 5:39 pm

Carol - I'd love to send you more Green Stars for your comment of June 21, 2015, 4:06 pm but you've used them all up!! Here are some more **************************************************

Carol R (11)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 7:02 pm
I do so appreciate you posting all this excellent information Eleonora. ***************************************

It seems rather hypocritical posting the Care2 code of conduct when in her situation, with threats no less, since her try at silencing me by intimidation didn't work. I rather like the Carolita touch, which she's done on other posts today,.... seems to be a habit, along with posting the Care2 C of C, she can't help. I remember she did that with you, Evelyn, Carrie, Dandelion and Jess, as well as others, intentionally misspelling names or twisting them around. Anyway, thanks. I hope you have a wonderful evening. I've a long work week ahead but will be checking in daily in as time permits. Goodnight! :)

Evelyn B (63)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 10:17 pm
Carol & Eleonora ********************************************
The declarations & commissions were one colonialist-minded country's position, and nobody but the Zionistss ever envisaged eliminating the rights of the indigenous population by agreeing to support a land to which the Jews could move. (Although the Palestinians began to see the political Zionist intentions, and the British blindness to what their promises were being used to justify in terms of non-respect of the indigenous population's rights.) Even when the Hebrew tribes moved to the "Promised Land" for the first time, they were not authorised by G*d to crush and drive out the people already there. And that was before they failed to live up to the conditions placed on them by their G*d.

But no matter how many times the actual wording is shared, those determined to justify total impunity and total perpetuity will refuse to recognise that rights come with responsibilities towards others. They'll invent & rewrite "history" to wipe out the presence of the people living there over the centuries ....... to disguise the human rights abuses that were taking place under the noses of the Mandate administrators. And in so doing they perpetuate the pattern of abuse. They are not universally supported by Jews in the world - or even in Israel .... but for now they manage to keep fear-mongering effective enough to keep the political leadership. However, each time they add to abusive patterns, they shake the moral values of more of their own people .... and the rest of the world.

The saddest part is that such arrogance is contributing not only to growing criticism of Israel's politics & strategies but also to a rise in genuine anti-Semitism. And there is too much racism already ... it is dangerous to feed it.

Evelyn B (63)
Monday June 22, 2015, 4:41 am
You should broaden the range of your history books, not just those issued under modern day Israeli & Zionist publishers, "Colleen". You would have a big surprise .....

The term "Arab" wasn't in the widespread use at the time the Hebrew tribes moved from Ur of the Chaldees Westwards - nor when they moved from Egypt to the land between the Jordan River & the Middle Sea .... a land where there were already other peoples. None of whom were called "Arabs" at that time. The origin of the term "Arab" is subject to a range of hypotheses. Modern use of the term is linked to political pan-ethnic grouping, linked mainly to language & culture. Philistine has more tie to Palestine (Falastin) ... ties that go back to before the arrival of the Israelites from Egypt.

The Israelites were not indigenous to these lands .... if indigenous to anywhere, it would be the Chaldees. But they left there. They were incomers .... immigrants then, if not invaders .....

How long is needed for incomers to be counted as "indigenous"? And how long can that 'indigenous" label be considered valid when people move away?
But Palestinians have a longer tie to the land through Philistine roots ..... so Jews who left cannot claim to be "more" indigenous than the Palestinians ....

If everything was so hunky-dory, why did most of the Jews leave 2,000 years ago? Those that stayed, and changed their labels as rulers came and left, were as Palestinian as their Christian, Muslim & Druze neighbours .... they were and are truly indigenous to this land. But they are a small percentage of Israeli citizens (and some still consider themselves as Palestinian Israelis, of Jewish religion).

Most Israelis are not indigenous ... yet.


Evelyn B (63)
Monday June 22, 2015, 5:33 am
I'd remind you that there were no people who identified themselves (let alone were identified by others) as Israeli a century ago ....... But there were Palestinians who identified themselves and were identified by others as Palestinian a lot earlier than that. And Im not talking about the phonetic form of Falastin & philistine ... but Palestinian.

I think it is a very dangerous idea for any people to move into an area and push out the local people because they have their indigenous roots from that place ... Thank you for stressing that point. I agree 100% ......

So why impose a diaspora, why impose a modern version of pogroms, why impose exile on another people? Beyond the fact that militant Zionists wanted to take over their land ..... and felt it was fair enough to impose on others what they had suffered themselves .... at the hands of very different people.

Why do some people believe that "NEVER AGAIN" should only apply to Jewish victims of such behaviour . ?

Darren W (218)
Monday June 22, 2015, 6:03 am
Agree with you Evelyn.
A Diaspora is an anachronism in contemporary modern day life.

John De Avalon (36)
Monday June 22, 2015, 6:48 am
Evelyn: The Jewish people were expelled from the Holy Land and 'scattered to the wind' by the Romans after the failed Jewish Rebellion of AD 66 - 70.

Carol R (11)
Monday June 22, 2015, 6:49 am
Thanks Evelyn. **************************

John De Avalon (36)
Monday June 22, 2015, 7:02 am
The Jews did not want to be part of a Muslim led independent Palestine, largely because the Muslims had threatened to exterminate every one of them, man, woman and child and demanded their own homeland.
At the same time the Muslims of Greater India (24.3% of the population) did not want to be part of a Hindu led independent India, and demanded their own homeland.

A million people died and 17 million people were displaced from their ancestral lands because of the partition of India. Not to mentions millions of rapes.

The map of Eastern Europe changed quite considerably after WW2 with millions displaced from their ancestral homeland to allow for the Communist spoils of war.

John De Avalon (36)
Monday June 22, 2015, 7:14 am
The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 was the first time the notion of a Jewish homeland was brought up.
The main driving force behind the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the hope that pleasing the Jews would harness Jewish influence to a) keep Russia in the war and b) bring America into the war.
The Balfour Declaration was abandoned in 1939 when Britain declared it was NOT British Government policy to have a Jewish homeland. the reason? To forestall an Arab uprising in the Middle East. Britain was facing the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese in the Far East. They couldn't possibly fight on a third front as well.
This is why Jewish extremists battled the British in subsequent years.
Britain abandoned the Palestinian Protectorate in 1947, Which is why the UN had to step in and arrange a two-nation solution.

. (0)
Monday June 22, 2015, 7:40 am
"The Jewish People's Right to the Land of Israel" Salomon Benzimra

After lightly touching on pertinent facts of ancient history, the book concisely and impartially spans the period from the late 1800's to the Statehood of Israel in 1948 and beyond. It covers all the relevant documents, treaties, pacts, and resolutions with heavy influence on the San Remo Conference which guaranteed the Jewish right to Palestine and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which guaranteed these rights in perpetuity.
It delineates the numerous malfeasances of Britain, the League of Nations and it's lawful successor, the United Nations in these matters.
BTW, John, the Arabs rejected the two-state solution which, if you include Transjordan, would have given them better than 7/8ths of Jewish Palestine.

Carol R (11)
Monday June 22, 2015, 8:09 am
Morning Evelyn... just saw this New York Times news alert:

Monday, June 22, 2015 7:33 AM EDT

A United Nations investigation has found “serious violations of international humanitarian law” that “may amount to war crimes” by both Israel and Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip during their bloody battle last summer.
A report released on Monday in Geneva by a commission of the United Nations Human Rights Council said that “impunity prevails across the board” regarding the actions of Israeli forces in Gaza, and called on Israel to “break with its recent lamentable track record in holding wrongdoers accountable.”
As for Palestinian armed groups, the commission cited the “inherently indiscriminate nature” of rockets and mortars fired at Israeli civilians, condemned the execution of suspected collaborators, and said Palestinian authorities “have consistently failed” to bring violators of international law to justice.
The report condemns Israel’s restrictions on Gaza residents’ travel and trade, saying “the blockade and the military operation have led to a protection crisis and chronic, widespread and systematic violations of human rights.”


. (0)
Monday June 22, 2015, 8:16 am
And of course Hamas went berserk denying even the little tiddles of implication of guilt which the UN had thrown in to keep the report above board.
Apparently, the UN has already forgotten that Hamas has already openly and publicly admitted and praised themselves for numerous counts of war crimes.

BTW, this is old news....

Evelyn B (63)
Monday June 22, 2015, 8:32 am
And you can be sure, Carol, that some people are going to start claiming the UN report is anti-Semitic because Israel is criticised as well as the Palestinians/ Hamas!! But Hamas has said since last summer that they recognised some infractions/war crimes .... Israel presents white-wash reports. Both committed acts condemnable under international law; the relative fire power intevitably led to relative differences in damage (human & material).

Evelyn B (63)
Monday June 22, 2015, 8:33 am
Colleen Harridan got in with proof before my post even showed up!!

Carol R (11)
Monday June 22, 2015, 8:46 am
Of course Evelyn! ********************* Off to work, have a pleasant day.

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday June 22, 2015, 10:35 am
The analogy at the beginning of he article is so totally off-base that I actually didn't bother reading further, which is a rare thing for me. I normally make a point of reading every article, post, or whatever, to the end no matter how stupid it looks.

The first obvious error in it is that it equates hypothetical Cuban action within Cuba to Palestinian strikes into territory to which they have nothing akin to a legitimate claim. No, those rocket-strikes and the bombings before them would be analogous to hypothetical Cuban attacks on the continental U.S., and the U.S. would very much have a right to defend itself against that.

The second obvious error in the analogy is that it presumes that the establishment of Israeli control over that territory had no prior related history and was totally arbitrary. This is frankly laughable. Military control of the territory was taken because there had been a steady stream of attacks over the border prior. In the analogy, it would be as though the U.S. had taken control of Cuba's borders, like through a blockade or something, after the U.S. felt it was threatened by Cuban basing of some larger enemy force, like if the USSR had a missile-base there during the Cold War or something. Oops, that would be the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the U.S. response has been widely applauded as perfectly reasonable, and would still be considered so if the Cold War were still ongoing. Maybe when tensions disappear in the Middle East, the analogy will be halfway correct in this respect.

The last error, which has a far less obvious severity, was the claim inserted that the U.S. control of Guantanamo Bay is illegal. Control there was given in the Cuban-American Treaty of 1903. In order for any country to effectively engage in international diplomacy, particularly if its government is seen as unstable, like if it is built heavily around a single old individual, long-term agreements which are written with the presumption of outliving individual administrations must do so. Calling it illegal effectively means insisting that no other country trust its agreements to last, denying Cuba the right to engage in international diplomacy. Last I checked, whether or not we all like the Cuban regime, it was a legitimate state and should be permitted to do so.

Birgit W (160)
Monday June 22, 2015, 12:35 pm
Dandelion says it all. PEACE!

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Monday June 22, 2015, 1:21 pm

John - "The Jews did not want to be part of a Muslim led independent Palestine, largely because the Muslims had threatened to exterminate every one of them, man, woman and child and demanded their own homeland."

I highly recommend you read the King Krane Commission's report of 1919 which - incidentally - was only fully published in the early 1950's (if memory serves me right it was 1951).

Said report speaks a totally different language and - most important - contains the petition to the Damascus Conference of 1919 by the JEWS, Christians and Muslims living in this unholy piece of land to NOT establish a Jewish State but rather a state for ALL of its inhabitants. It was ignored as were so many good, viable and peaceful solutions way back then.

""We, the undersigned, members of the General Syrian Congress, meeting in Damascus on Wednesday, July 2, 1919, made up of representatives from the three Zones, viz., the Southern, Eastern, and Western, provided with credentials and authorizations by the inhabitants of our various districts, Moslems, Christians, and Jews, have agreed upon the following statement of the desires of the people of the country who have elected us to present them to the American Section of the International Commission; the fifth article was passed by a very large majority; all the other articles were accepted unanimously.
"7. We oppose the pretentions of the Zionists to create a Jewish commonwealth in the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine, and oppose Zionist migration to any part of our country; for we do not acknowledge their title, but consider them a grave peril to our people from the national, economical, and political points of view. Our Jewish compatriots shall enjoy our common rights and assume the common responsibilities.

"8. We ask that there should be no separation of the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine, nor of the littoral western zone which includes Lebanon, from the Syrian country. We desire that the unity of the country should be guaranteed against partition under whatever circumstances."

It closes with the following lines:
""We also have the fullest confidence that the Peace Conference will realize that we would not have risen against the Turks, with whom we had participated in all civil, political, and representative privileges, but for their violation of our national rights, and so will grant us our desires in full in order that our political rights may not be less after the war than they were before, since we have shed so much blood in the cause of our liberty and independence."


It's history ... or water under the bridge ... very much like all the opposition voiced over the decades BEFORE the establishment of the State by JEWISH thinkers like Ginsberg, Martin Buber, etc. ... but it's nonetheless noteworthy. If only to show that so many real Jewish people were opposed to this last colonization project. It's also worth to mention that this report already noted in 1919 that a Jewish State can only be achieved by brutal military force and with a lot of bloodshed.

We didn't know? doesn't cut if and never really has ...

And just for accuracy: the first one who thought aloud about a state for the Jews was Theodor Herzl in his book "Der Judenstaat", which was published in 1896 and which is generally viewed as the birth of political Zionism. I believe it is safe to say that Chaim Weimann and Nahlum Sokolow were instrumental in securing the Balfour Declaration.

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Monday June 22, 2015, 1:25 pm

Evelyn - Isn't it nice to see so many kitten feeders visiting your thread - LOL!!! What a sham ...

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Monday June 22, 2015, 1:29 pm

Funny Balfour Declaration talk - this is ongoing here and with other Israel/Palestine related articles ever since that nice Zionist philanthropic gentleman has a big stake in Wiki. So sad – now we have to pull out all the old books again.


Janet B (0)
Monday June 22, 2015, 1:58 pm

Evelyn B (63)
Monday June 22, 2015, 2:49 pm
You're right, Eleonora - 3 personalities in one story thread must be a record. And for saving me from digging into archives ********************************************

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Monday June 22, 2015, 4:50 pm

Hi Marita - or should I rather call you by your seemingly real name, Barbara - LOL?! Now why don't you show me where I "complained" about an offensive remark on this thread ... I didn't. Your old habits shine through your every post, my dear. Accusing everybody of whatever although there's nowhere a shred of what you're claiming ... so déjà vu.

"Now, you see, by invading people's privacy, name calling, insinuating, accusing, demeaning, and insulting, YOU are breaking ..." Would you please be kind enough and provide evidence of where I did any of the above of which you accuse me?

What I really think funny though is your accusation of me invading anyone's privacy! You're quite something ... where and when did I do this?

You don't mind me ignoring your rather ... xyz ... remark about "true" knowledge, do you? I assume by now you must have advanced to Hasbara Manual, Version .666 or so, non?

That would be my answer if I wouldn't know who I'm dealing with, Barbara. But as it's you ... I still don't feed the trolls.

Go feed your kitties before they go hungry - LOL - and don't be jealous because Evelyn and I are having a cheerful time!


John De Avalon (36)
Monday June 22, 2015, 4:52 pm
Eleonora: I would refer you to the rhetoric of the day, (at the time of independence that is) chiefly that of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem which made a united Palestine impossible.

As you say there was earlier a call from some Jews for all religious factions to live harmoniously as one, under Arab rule. But nothing came of that unfortunately.

As you also say it is water under the bridge and we one cannot redraw the map of the world, but we must never stop trying to bring peace to the world.

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Monday June 22, 2015, 5:00 pm

Well John - as I recommended read the KKC report. It says it all. I don't like to jump back and forth in history were it suits me and pick up the thread at my convenience. I'm more a step by step person. I agree with you that we cannot redraw the map of the world - but we can and must stop the re-drawing of the Middle East which is going on since decades before it's too late and any half-way just and lasting peace can be achieved.

On the other hand, John ... we both agree that one cannot redraw the map of the world. Why then does it have to be redrawn for the Zionists at an extremely high price which people are paying which had nothing to do with the persecution of the Jews in Europe? Why is this then OK?

fly bird (26)
Monday June 22, 2015, 7:55 pm
Absolutely, "By Definition, An Aggressor Cannot Act in Defense" ---

Thank you, Evelyn!!

fly bird (26)
Monday June 22, 2015, 7:57 pm
@"Marita": "Sheriff Eric"??

Please --------- stick to the subject of the post.

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday June 22, 2015, 9:19 pm
Hi Eleonora :)

Here's the King-Crane report.
It found that the only independence-program in the region studied with sufficient detail for implementation was the Zionist one. There were dissenting voices, even among Jews, just as there are now dissenting voices among Jews against the existence of the State of Israel. Every community of substantial size has its fringe-elements, groups whose beliefs and positions are thoroughly divorced from reality. As for Jews not recognizing clear and present danger, we are talking about the same generation which included many who thought even into 1939 that the whole "Nazi thing" would just blow over and not come to anything.

There was no less danger to Jews in the Muslim Middle East before 1919 than there was in Christian Europe. In fact, coming out of Turkish rule, the danger was far greater. If you want, I can go into detail on the reasons why.

Evelyn B (63)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 1:03 am
Stephen - if you differentiate between the Jewish families who remained when many Jews left in the 1st century, & the Zionist settlements coming in to Palestine in the late 19th/ early 20th century .... the latter had problems - but their style of closing out the indigenous people was a first "flag" of the intentions to take over the land. Where cross-sections of Palestinian society were found together, Jewish families and the others co-existed in harmony (except occasionally, when politics stirred up trouple .... as in 1910 when a pro-Zionist groups tried to get the Sultan to endorse a Jewish state in Palestine, and were willing to betray non-Jewish Palestinian resistance groups as part of their proposal ... not appreciated at all. Listen to Israelis whose roots have remained firmly in the land alongside the other Palestinians over the many centuries .....

There was a myth among the early Zionist that there was a land without a people in Palestine - making it perfect for the people without a land. But early Zionists of integrity discovered that this was not the case. Hrezl was envisaging other places for the Zionist dream.

Magnes said “A Jewish Home in Palestine built up on bayonets and oppression is not worth having.” To the end, he opposed the creation of a “Jewish state” as contrary to Jewish values and unjust to the native population.

Einstein said, “I should very much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish State with borders, an army and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain.”

Zangwill pushed the idea of an empty land in the first years of the 20th century - but realised his error by 1905, recognising that "Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States" leaving Zionists the choice of driving the Arabs out or dealing with a "large alien population" (Zangwill, The Voice of Jerusalem, MacMillan, 1921, p. 92, reporting 1904 speech.)

At the time of the French & British Mandates, there was not a sense of "nationhood" in the ME - indeed, this is to some extent still true. In the case of Lebanon, the French carved out a State - Lebanon - but to this day, the concept of Lebanese nationality is not very clear ... at least, not in the way of Europeans & the US. The ties are to the land, to the village (even when villagers actually live in other parts of the world, many return to the village/ community to find spouses .....): the passport is Lebanese, but even identity & civic rights are tied to village/ family/ confessional affiliation. In the same way - nationhood wasn't a concept of meaning, but affiliation to the land was and is very strong for Palestinians. The years when Cis-Jordan was under the Jordanian rule didn't undermine this tie for the Palestinians of the West Bank & East Jerusalem. The Occupation, however, denies the Palestinians their full rights. And the displaced Palestinians (IDPs & refugees) are cut off from their roots. Something that most highly mobile Westerners have difficulty grasping - yet the same mindset underlies all the arguements used by pro-Zionists for grabbing and holding not only the land officially attributed to the State of Israel but the rest of the land between the Mediterranean & the Jordan Valley/ Red Sea

Refusing to recognise this reality is a major blockage to any dialogue that can allow construction of a genuine peace process, and ultimately, sustainable peace.

Jordan G (37)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 4:24 am
Or, perhaps the article gets the history wrong knowing you won't check it (and you won't, especially if it doesn't support your views).

Haters on parade ... a great site to monitor.

John De Avalon (36)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 6:20 am
Eleonora: Yes, but you could say exactly the same about the creation of West and East Pakistan. Or the Germanic peoples driven out of what had been Prussia/Eastern Germany. They hadn't done anything either.

The Grand Mufti was an admirer of Hitler. He supported the Holocaust and wanted to see the same policy implemented in the Palestinian Protectorate to eliminate the Jews. And he wasn't the only one who thought like that.
And the Jews also had their hotheads and extremists. Into that mix it would have been impossible to implement a peaceful, united Palestine.

The survivors of the Holocaust in Europe returned to their homes and found that others (who had lost their homes) had taken them over and they still faced anti-Semitism. Many thousands more were languishing in camps in Cyprus because the British prevented them from landing in Palestine. So something had to be done and the UN revived the idea of a Jewish homeland, and the rest as they say is history.

Egypt showed the way. With a more moderate stance, peace can be achieved.
An independent Palestine - Gaza, West Bank, with a land link joining the two entities, because I don't think it would be viable otherwise.
With foreign investment to create jobs and prosperity.
I believe it is possible. And short of another thousand years of the current status quo or Israel going down and taking the rest of the Middle East with them in a nuclear fire storm, I don't see any other practical alternative.


Past Member (0)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 10:14 am

Why do you think that the new Arab state will be feasible, with or without a land link?

No natural resources, no scientific innovation culture, no good relations with neighbors to facilitate trade. UNWRA money is gone, and all millions of Arab refugees from Palestine/Israel want to get in.

Add here, Hamas rulers want to have wars with Israel for as long, as Israel lasts, or Hamas lasts.Considering the quality of Israeli brains and the fact that elections are un-Islamic, that means forever.

I don't see how a country with such politics can be feasible.

Evelyn B (63)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 11:17 am
You forgot a little thing, John - the UN revived the idea but didn't actually muster a definitive vote - Israel was established unilaterally. (Which is why some pro-Zionists here correct those who claim that the UN didn't create the modern state of Israel).

Comparing the break-up of the Sub-Continent to the division of the British Mandate is mis-leading, if one is talking about demographics. The parallels go as far as drawing lines on a map; no more. The population affected - short and long term - were all within the Sub-Contient (Raj + Princely States).

Stafford Cripps & Mountbatten cooked up the insane idea of letting the borders be traced by the Hindu or Muslim affiliation of the majority in the states that would fall along the border. Hence the insane killing sprees of those wanting their State to be one side or the other ... and such battles for majority triggered racial hate actions even away from frontiers. An outcome absolutely predictable in the circumstances - and in a just world, both Mountbatten & Cripps should have been held to account for the "ethnic cleansing" that occurred: they were blind & insensible. They were also unduly influenced by Jinnah's arguements for a division .... very much a political game rather than a concern for the religious compatriots.

Nevertheless, Muslims still constitute a sizeable proportion of the Indian population, although Hindus & Sikhs who chose to remain in Pakistan (East or West) were relatively few.

But the huge difference is that the displacements of population triggered there were within the map area ... In Palestine, there was an influx from far outside the geographic zone, swelling numbers of Jews. A changing demographic situation, adding to the pressures of actions by Haganah, Irgun, Stern Gang etc (recognised terrorist groups at the time), and counter reaction by Palestinians not wanting to be driven out. But even then there was massive discrepancy in arms & military skills .....

Independent Palestine of WB, landlinked to Gaza, access to East Jerusalem ..... yes - but what about the archipelago of Jewish-only settlements that slices up the West Bank, and is growing from year to year, even month to month? Those are part of the Occupied Territories, and potentially constitute a barrier to a viable West Bank part of Palestine. Rationally, they should become part of the West Bank .... possibly with an option for the inhabitants to move to Israel or accept to be part of the Palestinian State .... That would allow definition of clear, manageable borders. But as we are all too well aware - the populations of these settlement ilots include some of the most extremist settlers who will neither tolerate cohabiting in Palestine, nor moving into Israel. These extremists include those who have grabbed land to form the "outposts" that evolved into "recognised settlements" ..... They consider all the land to be Eretz Israel ....

The "land link" you mention is a major challenge already ...... because it implies cutting across Israel. But the archipelago of Jewish only settlements is far more of a challenge. Netanyahu's hinted proposal of land swaps that keep the settlements as part of Israel only increases the almost insuperable problem of free movement within Palestine. Totally unmanageable for a Palestinian State. It is the problem of the landlink multiplied to the power of the number of settlement zones across the West Bank & East Jerusalem.

Logically, clear borders could provide a viable 2 state future .... archipelagos block totally such a concept. The frenetic expansion of settlements is killing the 2 State option almost day by day .....

But the demographic question makes a one state solution intolerable to the pro-Zionists & right wingers. They rejected it when some Zionists supported such an idea during serious discussions of such an option in the first half of the 20th century. How much less likely are the extremists, right-wingers going to accept a truly democratic state that includes a large proportion of non-Jews? And therefore cannot be a "Jewish State", but a State that is a homeland for all Jews who want to go there? And - by extension - how can a democratic state accord right to return to Jews - but refuse the right of return by far more recent refugees from the lands who are non-Jews?

John De Avalon (36)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 1:17 pm
Bob: The current situation comes about through hate. Netanyahu is a political knee jerk reaction to Hamas. And you could equally say that Hamas is a political knee jerk reaction to Netanyahu and his ilk. Both are 'feeding' off each other and both are barriers to peace.
Which is why we need to foster a more moderate political stance on both sides.

Remember Nasser's rhetoric was menacing in the extreme. Who would have thought that not so many years later a situation would come along whereby Egypt and Israel could sit down together and make peace. A peace which still holds.

The Israelis have made an economic success of their country. Why shouldn't an independent Palestine make a similar economic success of things, given the opportunity? Especially with foreign investment to create jobs.

People are people, with the same hopes, dreams and aspirations. If you can remove poverty, hopelessness and hate from the scenario, then the picture is transformed. Economic prosperity is the key to peace in the region.

John De Avalon (36)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 1:43 pm
Evelyn: The UN had a vote on a Jewish homeland which was passed on a majority vote.

That's rather a bizarre logic. If you get driven from your ancestral home, you get driven from your ancestral home! It doesn't become lesser or acceptable because the people driving you out were neighbours or people you went to school with.

Jinnah instigated a policy of 'direct action' to get his way, which translated as localised murder, rape and ethnic cleansing, which morphed into regional murder, rape and ethnic cleansing when the partition was sealed. 17 million driven out and a million a result.

A bitter irony considering Gandhi's long campaign of non-violent resistance to attain independence for a free, democratic and multi-faith India.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 1:50 pm

"Why shouldn't an independent Palestine make a similar economic success of things, given the opportunity?"?

And what exact similarities do you see between Israeli and Palestinian societies to justify this question?

Wouldn't comparison of Arabs of West Bank and Gaza to Arabs living in Syria be more accurate?

"Especially with foreign investment to create jobs. "? In a closed and a corrupt environment, this money will be stolen as fast, as they arrive. Like they do now.

I also think that Jihad militancy, clan-mentality and Islamic compliance that are causes of inter-Arabs wars everywhere will show its effects in the new Palestine state.

Economic disadvantage does not play the factor. A number of Arabs, born and raised in Canada in middle class families, still plotted to gang up and behead our Prime Minister Harper several years ago. Osama Bin Laden was never poor or hopeless. Al-Queda, ISIS, Marxism and even Communism had and have well-to-do leaders, making the argument of economic prosperity irrelevant.

John De Avalon (36)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 1:52 pm
Jane Eliza: It worked for the Israelis. What economy did they have in 1948? Compare it to now.

John De Avalon (36)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 2:01 pm
Bob: Take the SodaStream factory. The Palestinian workers there had good jobs and were earning a good wage which enabled them to provide for their families and enjoy a good lifestyle. they were happy. They had hope for the future.
Even when the IDF and Hamas were at each others throats in Gaza, there was peace in the factory and life was carrying on as normal.

I can't help thinking this is a microcosm of the situation in general. Neither side wants to give an inch ... That's as may be, but a two-nation solution, with a good standard of living on both sides, like it or not, is the only way there can ever be hope of peace in the region.

Evelyn B (63)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 3:27 pm
John - you misunderstand my point - I was not saying displacement is unimportant - I was referring to the fact that the shuttle was internal to the sub-continent .... without additional numbers also pouring in to the same physical area.

The way you refer to the horrendous bloodshed of partition, one could misunderstand you to be placing all the blame on Jinnah. Jinnah tested a political concept - and sold it to the British leaders. Their decisions, firstly to accept the proposition & (even worse) then on how to define the borders were irresponsible: massacres were the uncontrolled response of groups (not unlike the Jewish militia) deciding to establish "their" majority ...... The British then lost all control over the resulting bloodshed. Some rajahs & maharajahs managed to control their own people - even going as far as accompanying those of their people who opted to leave their States and move to "future" Pakistan ...., in order to protect them from rioting murderous Hindus & Sikhs ...... It was a total mess, and a mess that Cripps & Mountbatten could and should have seen would be inevitable as an outcome of their "leaving the States to choose", according to their majorities .... Many Brits & Indians could see what the price of such a decision would be - why did the main decision makers ignore common sense?

And the same short sightedness is visible around how Israel was created ..... the inevitable problems were flagged in advance by many great Jewish & other minds - but their warnings were ignored.

If you can see so clearly how rough the having to leave one's lands (even if it is of own choice, not necessarily from fear), John .... how can you dismiss so lightly the suffering of Palestinians forced by fear & destruction of their homes, to land up mainly in camps .... some elsewhere in Palestine, but most in other lands ......

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 5:53 pm

Evelyn: “The Occupation, however, denies the Palestinians their full rights. And the displaced Palestinians (IDPs & refugees) are cut off from their roots. Something that most highly mobile Westerners have difficulty grasping –“

The Italian half of me disagrees with this part of your statement, Evelyn. The Italians (even the Swissies!) are very much attached to their roots – being the soil of the village they were born in. Yes, we have become highly mobile but we still cling on the our roots. My family goes every two years back to our village of origin (a small city today) and we have every time 4 days fiesta, having a reception by the mayor and officials and just having a great time “sniffing home air”. It’s a different air I can tell you that!

Agree with all of your postings and kudos - well put as always!!


Eleonora Oldani (37)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 5:57 pm
Hi Stephen ;-)

You may want to read the full KKC report and not just a fraction of it.

I’m not really interested in guess work and/or possible reasons. I’d rather stick with the facts. Fact is that reps of ALL three monotheistic religions petitioned NOT to create a Jewish State and fact is also that this petition was turned down. WHY?? It seemed logical, JUST and feasible. Especially feasible WITHOUT shedding any blood. Now I dare to guess: this petition wouldn’t have seen the light of the day if the Jews (or any other religious group) would have been under threat.

Fact is also, that the full KKC report was NOT accessible to the public until early 1950’s – again WHY?

You may also recall Point 16 of the Ad Hoc Committee Report A/516 (by Thor Thors, Iceland) of Nov 25, 1947 which states:
“16. The report of Sub-Committee 2 recommended the adoption of three draft resolutions. According to the first, the General Assembly, before recommending a solution of the Palestine problem, would request the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on certain legal questions connected with or arising from that problem, including questions concerning the competence of the United Nations to recommend or enforce any solution contrary to the wishes of the majority of the people of Palestine.”

This resolution was fought against with tooth and nail by the Zionists from going to the relevant international body of the time because the outcome would have been a definite NO!

We should remember that: “It was on 25 November 1947 that the world became acquainted for the first time with the final draft of the partition resolution: Resolution 181. The General Assembly refused a resolution to submit the Palestine question to the International Court of Justice to determine whether the UN had any jurisdiction to recommend the partition of Palestine or any other country.

For a draft resolution to become an official one, UN procedures required a two-third majority of its ad hoc committee. As two votes were lacking for such a majority, the draft was handed to the General Assembly. Both Zionist and Arab delegations were now in a race against time. Other delegates who had originally favoured the partition proposals, but now seemed to be wavering, were pressured and guided by the White House to ensure that a favourable outcome is secured. Concerted and remarkable lobbying by the Zionist lobby ensured at the last moment that those 8 wavering and doubtful votes, were swung into the partition lobby. The strength of the Jewish/Zionist lobby in Washington should not have come as a surprise to the world community.

Zionist politicians did not waste time to recruit and lobby wavering delegates. Intensive efforts were made by the Zionist leadership around the world to gain crucial votes: the French altered their position from abstention to supporting the resolution; Liberia, as a result of economic promises, offered support; the direct lobbying of President Truman and pro-Zionist senators and congressmen secured the votes of 12 out of 20 Latin American countries.

Not to be forgotten, the President of the General Assembly for that session was Oswaldo Aranha who is known to have lobbied as fiercely as the Zionists to sway the vote for acceptance. He even postponed the voting session for 3 days to ensure passage.”

I believe this says it all, does it not?

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 5:57 pm

John – I see that you decide to read over my comments and question, fine. Then let me just say that much: nowhere in history has land been taken away from the indigenous people and given by a body (without having the legal right to do so, see my comment to Stephen) to a group of people without any connection to that land and against the declare will of its people. Pakistan came not into being by ethnic cleansing of its indigenous people and transferring instead colonialists from Europe into Pakistan-to-be. The comparison thus doesn’t hold.

Those having the connection to the “holy land” have always lived there – the Haredim, the Christians, the Muslims and others. And they will continue living there until eternity. But as has been said umpteen times: IF it were truly the historic connection and the “holiness” of the “promised land” nobody would have ever looked at other countries to be taken over by the Zionists, like e.g. Canada, Uganda, Mozambique, Patagonia, etc. This fact alone refutes the myth of the promised land as a whole … other than the fact that God is really not a real estate broker …

We agree on “With a more moderate stance, peace can be achieved.”. Could you please tell this polit-Israel as going by their many public declaration there will never be a viable Palestinian state between the Jordan and the Med nor will there be any Palestinians left if we can go by that fine lady who called for genocide on the Palestinians.

And while your idea of foreign investment and creating jobs sounds great at first – such is simply not possible under brutal military occupation and I bet my last penny that you know that too.

Evelyn B (63)
Wednesday June 24, 2015, 12:42 am
Eleonora - Note - I did say "most"! And in that "most" I was including the population of the US .... I think that the Mediterranean cultures have a far stronger sense of ties to their roots. You find it it France, too, especially in the Midi. Which perhaps is why I can empathise & understand it when I come across it in the Middle East! But although my ancestor fled the "raffles" where young men were forced into the royal armies.... a mere 240 years ago .... none of my family has ever considered that we have a right to the original family home in a village in the Tarn valley ... nor even in the village that bears our name!!

**************************************** for your other comments, including your clarification of points I obviously hadn't made clear enough!

John De Avalon (36)
Wednesday June 24, 2015, 9:48 am
Eleonora: Not so. The Holy Land is the cradle of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There were Jews in the Holy Land well over a thousand years before Islam was ever came into being.
And if it hadn't been for the Romans ...

The demographics of the Palestinian Protectorate were 60:40 (Muslims:Jews & Christians) So there was a large resident population already there.

One look at the history of the region - the Armenian Genocide, the Assyrian Genocide, the full-on ethnic cleansing of the partition of India and the threat of Arab extremists to "exterminate" all Jews, and yes the Jews had their share of extremists and hot-heads too. A united Palestine was impossible.

The wonderful Gandhi had led a non-violent campaign for Indian independence. As thanks for Indian support during WW2 the British were happy to grant India her freedom. This was a united India and Gandhi had worked tirelessly to create a government of national unity to lead it.
Unfortunately Jinnah then decided the Muslims had to have their own separate states and with the interweaving of communities, this unleashed chaos and a bloodbath - 1 million killed, 17 million displaced.
I'm incredulous that you seem to think this ethnic cleansing is somehow, well I'm not sure what you're saying ...

During and after WW2 scores of millions of people - from France to Tibet - were displaced by the aftermath of war, annexation, and persecution. It wasn't just in Palestine.
No doubt every one of them felt similarly aggrieved, as equally sure did the original inhabitants of North America, Australia, New Zealand etc. The whole world could play musical chairs. Though how pragmatic is that?

There is good and bad in every nation and people. Maybe better to look for the good and try to foster it. don't you think?

Politicians come and go. Your adopted country is living proof of that.
Nasser wanted to annihilate Israel. Sadat made peace with them.
The Muslim Brotherhood upturned Egyptian society for a time, but now they're gone.

I notice on another thread you said that President Sisi "rocks". So you obviously didn't support the Muslim Brotherhood. Are not the Muslim Brotherhood an off-shoot of Hamas?

Evelyn B (63)
Wednesday June 24, 2015, 12:40 pm
John - where on earth do you go for your information? I knew you were using biased & inaccurate sources with great confidence but .....

How can an organisation formed in 1928 be an offshoot of an organisation formed in 1988?

And yet again, you seem blind to the fact that the horrendous bloodshed in India was done by Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims ... Trains would arrive in Delhi and other main terminals so full of dead that walls of bodies had to be built in order to keep trains running - then the bodies were disposed of. They were Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs ..... I know Sikhs whose families protected their Muslims so they could leave for future Pakistan .... because otherwise the Hindus & Sikhs would have massacred them. I know Muslims who were taken under the protection of Hindu families. I know Muslim families who protected Hindus. My family was there - my father got my mother out of India as soon as he heard of how Partition was to be organised, so that she'd be safe - because he could see what was coming. And he was right. He saw some of the stations with walls of massacred bodies.

Nobody but you could interpret what I, then Eleonora, said as saying what happened in the way of ethnic cleansing was right .... But in fact, I don't believe you dare claim that's what we said. You are just prefering to sidestep what we WERE saying: in Palestine, the ethnic cleansing was related to immigrants from outside of the land that outsiders had decided should be divided.

Did you think that by combining Christian and Jew you would mislead people into thinking that the Jewish population was greater than it really was?

The Palestinians are not only Muslims. Up to 1948, they were Muslim, Christian, Druze & Jewish. Before the arrival of Islam, they followed other religions - but still indigenous people of the land. None of them were Christian before the arrival of Christ ..... but they were not all Jewish, either. Whatever the label - there are changes over time. The Jews were not Israelis before the 20th century. They were called the Hebrews at one stage, the Israelites at another ..... but not Israeli.

In 1922, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, Jews only constituted 11% of the population of Palestine. Christians & other non-Muslims constituted 10.9%. Muslims constituted 78%.
By 1945, the massive immigration of Jews had brought their proportion up to 31.4% ... the propostion of Christians & others dropped to 8.5%.

Unlike the displaced in the Subcontinent - Palestinians were forced to flee abroad. They were forced to flee to countries already having difficulty framing their own national identities. They were cut off from their own roots. Most were not fleeing towards a new nation (such as Pakistan) being created as a home for Muslims .... or to another part of Former India that was keeping a more Hindu indentity (or Sikh, depending on location). They were just fleeing ..... and at first, they fully expected to be able to return home once the world recognised the wrongs being done to them. But the world was so stifled by guilt over the Holocaust that they closed their eyes to what was happening to the Palestinians. And those who had actively supported the allocation of 55% of the land to less than 35% of the population weren't very keen to face the wrongs they had endorsed.

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Wednesday June 24, 2015, 4:53 pm

John – you say: “Eleonora: Not so.” Not so … what?

“There were Jews in the Holy Land well over a thousand years before Islam was ever came into being.”

Did I say anything different? And why so pointedly Islam, why do you skip Christianity? “Those having the connection to the “holy land” have always lived there – the Haredim, the Christians, the Muslims and others.” - such was my statement to you further up. In case you don’t “know” – the Haredim (or Sephardic Jews) would be what is called in private in Israel the “oriental Jews” (a rather derogatory description) – in other words: the real Semitic Jews.

It always amazes me how history can be viewed so one-sided and more so that it always starts with “the Jews have always been there” and thereby totally omitting the fact that back in those days the Israelites invaded that unholy land, massacred and/or expelled the residing people and conquered the land by committing ethnic cleansing on the natives.

Didn’t God order (Deuteronomy 7:1-2): “When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.” Any resemblance to what the Zionist did to the indigenous people in 1947/48 and goes on until today is sheer coincidence …

We also read:
"Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land."

The present-day Palestinians' ancestral heritage
"But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

Strange that the Ashkenazim are not mentioned anywhere … yet they are the ones who rule this piece of land today claiming that God has given it to them!

Even stranger is the fact that the UN has officially partitioned Palestine … a land that according to the Zionists never existed …

“I'm incredulous that you seem to think this ethnic cleansing is somehow, well I'm not sure what you're saying ... “ Going by your last paragraph in your answer of Wednesday June 24, 2015, 9:48 am you have read some of my comments in other articles. Quite obvious you have read over those where I spoke out against ethnic cleansing in general and in particular (?) otherwise you wouldn’t make such a comment.

Evelyn has answered in-depth your point re India so there’s no need for me to dwell on it too.

Your comparison “During and after WW2 scores of millions of people - from France to Tibet - were displaced by the aftermath of war, annexation, and persecution. It wasn't just in Palestine.” simply doesn’t hold even if you repeat it a third time. The Palestinians were not displaced – they were systematically driven from their land; some at gunpoint and loaded onto trucks by the Zionists, some scared into fleeing via massacres.

Let me just repeat what I’ve said before: “nowhere in history has land been taken away from the indigenous people and given by a body (without having the legal right to do so, see my comment to Stephen) to a group of people without any connection to that land and against the declare will of its people. Pakistan came not into being by ethnic cleansing of its indigenous people and transferring instead colonialists from Europe into Pakistan-to-be.”

Such was not the case in any of the examples you’re citing … thus again … the comparison is more than just a little bit flawed.

“The whole world could play musical chairs. Though how pragmatic is that?” We have said this umpteen time too. IF the world would go by something which took place 2’000 years ago and, hence, dispossess and kick out the people who live there now (since some thousands of years too) then the whole world would be on the move. So … again … why is it then right for the Zionists? Explicitly Zionists as those who adhere to the teachings of Judaism are the ones caught in the middle and abused for ulterior motives of the Zionists.

But even if we would do that … then the Israelis of today would have to be part of the musical chair and move out too – see my comment at the beginning of this answer – as they were NOT the original inhabitants but simply invaders who “plopped themselves in the living room” (© Barbara D.) of the people who lived there.

I had to smile about your remark about Pres Sissi – yes, he “rocks” in a way. If only he would truly want to rock the boat and make order. Unfortunately, as have especially the events of the last few days shown, such is not the case. The reasons are guess work so I stay away from it; after all this is my country of residence and I don’t know all the in’s and out’s.

“So you obviously didn't support the Muslim Brotherhood.” Again surprise … you must have read very selectively my comments in order to avoid reading my ranting against those bearded retards. I’d rather be dead than supporting such criminals who use religion as a fig leave for their personal power hunger and greed.

Besides – as long as the Muslim Brotherhood have the unwavering support of the US and the EU as we have seen in the last few days they don’t really need mine …

John De Avalon (36)
Thursday June 25, 2015, 7:13 am
Evelyn: A million dead and 17 million displaced, that is what I said. Dead and displaced on all sides.

It was Jinnah who called for the partition of India. If you want to break it down, as you seem to do, it was the Muslims, not the Hindus, who demanded partition. Though no doubt there was mutuality in this respect, just as Jews and Arabs in the Palestine Protectorate could not, would not live together.

And what's this?! The Jews in the Palestinian Protectorate made up over 32% of the population, the Muslims in India over 24%. So the Muslims of India had a much lesser claim.

Well it seemed to me that the claim was that, somehow, the ethnic cleansing in India was 'second division' compared to that which took place in the Palestinian Protectorate. It would seem to me that it's no different at all.

You are being pedantic. Offshoot, sister organisation, term it what you will.. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, same difference.

John De Avalon (36)
Thursday June 25, 2015, 7:26 am
Eleonora: Yes, well, at least he has made it safer for the women of Egypt to walk the streets. Or at least I heard he has, I hope that is the case.

And as for those other gentlemen ... I'm just trying to imagine Evelyn's reaction if Israel decided to do the same.

The whole business is mad.

Why can't we all just live in peace?

Evelyn B (63)
Thursday June 25, 2015, 10:07 am
Your "replies" are not even clear and coherent, John -

The only part that comes through clearly is
The whole business is mad.

Why can't we all just live in peace?

I wonder whether you mean this 100% - or whether you actually include many unstated conditions here (ones you have stated elsewhere, that put the onus on the Palestinians).

For to live in peace, there has to be sincere genuine will on both sides to work out reconciliation, and that includes honest recognition of wrongs done (even if - as in South Africa - it does not include repentance). And I would 100% agree to the cry "why can't we all live in peace"

As for the beardies - I have no time for any movements or groups who manipulate religion for political and personal power games. Be they MB, Hamas, or Zionists.

Curious that you allow yourself to manipulate what we say, to misreport facts and then complain "pedantic" when your picture turns out to be historically impossible.

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Thursday June 25, 2015, 5:37 pm

Hi John - well, I never had a problem walking in the streets of Cairo; not by day and not by night. The occasional catcall(er) which went out of line and which I put immediately back in his place! No problem there for me. Yes, he has implemented firm laws against sexual harassers - some got up to 10 years in prison incl. having given the death sentence to 5 rapists (as we have since ever in the law if the rape was specially heinous and/or resulted in the death of the victim). And lo and behold what happened?? An outcry from foreign NGO's, Governments and whoever felt has the right to interfere in the internal jurisdiction of Egypt. Damn if you do and damn if you don't!

As for your question: "Why can't we all just leave in peace?" You may or may not have had a look at my profile were I said when I joined C2 (and nothing has changed since):

"It’s not that hard to hold out your hand, and it’s not that hard for another person to shake it. When you pare away the differences of religion, language, and philosophy, we are all alike, all of us on the planet, in how we love, how we dream, how we hate. Understanding both sides means you take on the heaviest burden of all - empathy. Why is it that peace, love and life are so fragile, while fighting is perennial, hatred is omnipresent and death so permanent?"

Because despite all our progress, "evolution" and enlightenment we're still the good ol' monkeys ... just that we're not anymore sitting on the trees but came down, walk upright and have cars, mobile phones and computers. But we're still the same power hungry, greedy, selfish kind of species as when we started walking on two legs (even much worse) and have the audacity to call ourselves "human" and those who we think are not up to standard (!!) we dare to call "animals".

Stay safe and let's work for peace - otherwise we'll never achieve it!

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.