Hamas video: Settlers drink Palestinians' blood

[shira]

Hamas video: Settlers drink Palestinians' blood

(Video) Cartoon broadcast by Islamist organization's TV portrays Palestinian officer named Bahlul humiliated by IDF soldiers, shining their shoes, defending settlers and willing to arrest his own family members
Ali Waked
Published: 01.03.10, 19:03 / Israel News

VIDEO - In the backdrop of reconciliation efforts between Hamas and Fatah, Hamas' television aired a cartoon titled "Special Mission" slandering the Palestinian Authority apparatuses, which, according to the clip, serve Israel and the settlers.

The video portrays a Palestinian officer carrying out orders of IDF troops while being humiliated by them, and assitsting settlers.

The eight-minute video takes place near the security coordination HQ. Palestinian officer Bahlul (clown) is shown to be asked by his Israeli counterpart: "What is your mission?" to which he replies: "To defend the rule of law." When the Israeli officer asks what that is, the Palestinian replies: "To defend settlers."

He also notes that settler provocations will not be disturbed or responded to by the Palestinians when asked how he would react in such a case. The video portrays Bahlul as saying that should he get an order from his Israeli colleague to arrest his family members he would do it.

more...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3829076,00.html

[sakabatou]

1. *facepalm*

Not the blood libel again...

[LeftishBrit]

2. Typical nutty propaganda from Hamas...

and seriously, if you step aside to think about it, why on earth would anyone even WANT to drink someone else's blood??? Very unpleasant, and full of dangers to health.

[shira]

4. but Hamas testimony was credible enough for Goldstone

Goldstone accepted and never questioned Hamas testimony throughout his inquiry.

:eyes:

[azurnoir]

3. Well at least it's not live action

but it is offensive

[bemildred]

5. Fatah official rules out immediate reconciliation deal with Hamas

RAMALLAH, Jan. 3 (Xinhua) -- A senior official of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party on Sunday ruled out the possibility of striking a reconciliation agreement immediately with rival Islamic Hamas movement.

Meanwhile, a senior Hamas leader said that his movement ruling the Gaza Strip doesn't oppose the signing of the reconciliation pact drafted by Egypt.

Mohamed Dahlan, member of the Fatah central committee, said in a statement that he rules out any immediate reconciliation agreement with Hamas movement for the moment.

"Hamas movement is the only party that obstructs reaching an inter-Palestinian reconciliation deal," he said, adding that "it is also because that Hamas stance is controlled by regional powers."

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/04/content_12749211.htm

[bemildred]

6. Meshaal says Palestinian reconciliation deal 'close'

RIYADH — Hamas's exiled leader Khaled Meshaal said in Riyadh on Sunday that the Egyptian-led talks aimed at reconciling the Palestinian Islamist movement and its rival Fatah were close to bearing fruit.

"We have made a lot of progress in the negotiations conducted in Cairo since the beginning of last year and we are close to an agreement," Meshaal told reporters after meeting Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's top diplomat.

But he said Hamas still had reservations about the document presented by Egypt for the reconciliation of the two main Palestinian factions.

According to extracts seen by AFP, Cairo's proposals include holding legislative and presidential elections in mid-2010.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpTSRqH6zspvdqnGbJDNAS91-FuQ

[shira]

7. if the reconciliation proposal includes fair elections in 2010, there will be no deal

Neither Hamas or Fatah can willingly give up their power and allow the other party to destroy them. They hate each other almost as much as they hate those Israeli Zionists.

Folks, we've seen the first and last election in the territories!

That's simply how a thugocracy operates and it's been like this for thousands of years in much of the world.

The only way there will be 'unity' is if Gaza is ceded to Hamas and the W.Bank to the PLO.

[bemildred]

8. Blah blah blah blah blah ... nt

[shira]

9. yeah, reality bites

great substantive reply, BTW.

you convinced me.

[bemildred]

10. You said: "Folks, we've seen the first and last election in the territories!"

Now even a tool such as yourself must know there have been more than one elections in the territories.

[shira]

11. so name another free/fair election since the PA was formed, other than in 2005

I mentioned a fair election (as opposed to any election) in the title of that post. Arafat's election wins were rigged and everyone knows it, like the BS elections in Iran.

Thugocracy 101.

Do you really believe that either Hamas or Fatah will commit suicide and allow the other to rule over them? You realize how much they despise each other?

[Kurska]

12. They will both rule by the sword, that is the only way they know how.

Meanwhile the middle east's freest and fairest democracy is the one being smeared internationally by titans of human rights like Saudi Arabia.

[bemildred]

13. So you will not admit that there has been more than one election in the OPT? nt

[shaayecanaan]

15. unlikely

my general experience is that you very rarely get any sort of mea culpa out of our right-wing friends, even in the face of a blatant and obvious mistake. I am having a similar experience on another thread regarding the fourth geneva convention. Were not the stakes so utterly low it might be mildly frustrating.

I might add that the EU, the UN and the Carter Centre all had monitors at the 2001 election and that they considered the elections to be generally free and fair. But no doubt such minor considerations can be easily discounted.

[shira]

16. so you guys think other than in 2005, there was at least one other free/fair election in which...

...the ruling power had a real chance of losing? And the 2 of you wish to be taken seriously?

Of course there were other elections than in 2005, but like in Iran they were all fixed from the start. In 2001, who did Arafat 'allow' to run against him?

Lastly, what is "right-wing", and actually far RW at that, is a position on I/P that is indistinguishable from that of David Duke or Pat Buchanon. I fail to see why some who claim they are progressive are happy as pigs in shit to have such nasty, far RW positions on I/P.

As to our discussion on the 4th Geneva Convention, I find it's better to deal with reality than fiction. Part of that reality, being one of many other arguments you failed to respond to in that thread, is that the League of Nations mandate formally legalized settling in the W.Bank well before the creation of the state of Israel. That right was never revoked or terminated. That's reality (even though you prefer fiction). Therefore, how can settling become a crime against humanity while that law remains in effect?

[shaayecanaan]

19. Actually, I was mistaken...

the election I was thinking of was in 1996, which was the first election in the territories, and which Fatah won in a landslide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_general_election,_1996

The one-sided result reflected the fact that Hamas, the main opposition to Fatah, opted to boycott the election. There were other smaller third parties but they naturally suffered from a lack of name recognition (as is the case in most democracies).

As I previously related, international observers generally considered those elections to be free and fair. Israel also congratulated Fatah on its emphatic victory. Israel in fact policed the conduct of the elections in East Jerusalem, so I guess if you are contending that the elections were rigged no doubt you think that somehow Israel was in on the conspiracy.

You asked me what I meant by `right-wing` and I suppose I should provide a response.

I generally find this to be the best label for posters such as yourself. Other posters use terms such as Zionists or supporters of Israel. I dont think this is accurate as there are much more moderate and temperate posters (people along the lines of LeftishBrit) who no doubt consider themselves Zionists and supporters of Israel.

By `right-wing` I mean `right wing on this issue`. For all I know you might be a transgendered social worker living in a self-sufficient commune but for the purposes of your views on the mid-east conflict I would think that is pretty much irrelevant.

You have recently said that you support settlement activity and that you consider it legitimate and lawful. You have generally opposed any concrete steps or any substantive endeavour by Obama towards creating a two-state solution. I consider that firmly places you somewhere on the spectrum between right-wing and far right-wing.

I previously responded to your inane suggestion that the League of Nations mandate authorises settlement activity. That document authorised the British mandate (and no one else) to resettle Jews in Palestine. The British mandate is dead and so is the League of Nations. The provision is therefore no longer of any effect.

[bemildred]

20. That's the one I was thinking of. nt

[shira]

21. well, if you look at the '96 election like that then I'm wrong

The reason there was no real threat to Arafat, however, is b/c Arafat wouldn't allow it. Thugs don't like giving up power fairly, and of course once he ran against people he knew he could defeat, he didn't mind a fair election. Regardless, it appears you think for some odd reason that elections in autocracies are every bit as free and fair as in democracies. Worse, you probably believe the PA is every bit as democratic as Israel.

As to "rightwing", I'll clarify what I see. I don't see any difference in some progressive opinion here at DU from that of David Duke - think Duke without the Jew references. Same demonization as Duke or Buchanon, same hyperbole, Israel is always wrong, Hamas is always given the benefit of the doubt, Duke/Buchanon could care less about Palestinian refugees outside of Israel, they could care less about Israeli casualties, or Palestinian for that matter if caused by Hamas, etc. ad-infinitum. On all matters I/P, some
'progressives' here (well, progressive on everything else but Israel) hold views that are really very far out, disgusting right-wing views.

As for myself, I don't support settlement activity like any RW'er (moderate or far RW). I just don't see the point of stopping activity in blocs that will be swapped in a future deal. Even if they're not swapped and become part of Palestine, what harm is really being done? Those Israelis would have to accept living in a future Palestine, so? You're not aware that the vast majority of leftists in Israel have the same view? Did you know that Larry Derfner is one Israeli who holds these views? He's not a rightwinger.

As for the Palestine Mandate, you are clearly wrong and here's Eugene Rostow explaining...

The Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is conferred by the same provisions of the Mandate under which Jews settled in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem before the State of Israel was created. The Mandate for Palestine differs in one important respect from the other League of Nations mandates, which were trusts for the benefit of the indigenous population.

The Palestine Mandate, recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country," is dedicated to "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."

The Mandate qualifies the Jewish right of settlement and political development in Palestine in only one respect. Article 25 gave Great Britain and the League Council discretion to "postpone" or "withhold" the Jewish people's right of settlement in the Trans-Jordanian province of Palestine -now the Kingdom of Jordan-if they decided that local conditions made such action desirable. With the divided support of the council, the British took that step in 1922.

The Mandate does not, however, permit even a temporary suspension of the Jewish right of settlement in the parts of the Mandate west of the Jordan River. The Armistice Lines of 1949, which are part of the West Bank boundary, represent nothing but the position of the contending armies when the final cease-fire was achieved in the War of Independence. And the Armistice Agreements specifically provide, except in the case of Lebanon, that the demarcation lines can be changed by agreement when the parties move from armistice to peace. Resolution 242 is based on that provision of the Armistice Agreements and states certain criteria that would justify changes in the demarcation lines when the parties make peace.

Many believe that the Palestine Mandate was somehow terminated in 1947, when the British government resigned as the mandatory power. This is incorrect. A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose. Thus in the case of the Mandate for German South West Africa, the International Court of justice found the South African government to be derelict in its duties as the mandatory power, and it was deemed to have resigned. Decades of struggle and diplomacy then resulted in the creation of the new state of Namibia, which has just come into being. In Palestine the British Mandate ceased to be operative as to the territories of Israel and Jordan when those states were created and recognized by the international community. But its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank in 1951, but that annexation was never generally recognized, even by the Arab states, and now Jordan has abandoned all its claims to the territory.

The State Department has never denied that under the Mandate "the Jewish people" have the right to settle in the area. Instead, it said that Jewish settlements in the West Bank violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which deals with the protection of civilians in wartime. Where the territory of one contracting party is occupied by another contracting party, the Convention prohibits many of the inhumane practices of the Nazis and the Soviets before and during the Second World War-the mass transfer of people into or out of occupied territories for purposes of extermination, slave labor, or colonization, for example.

Article 49 provides that the occupying power "shall not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." But the Jewish settlers in the West Bank are volunteers. They have not been "deported" or "transferred" by the government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population the Geneva Convention was designed to prevent. Furthermore, the Convention applies only to acts by one signatory "carried out on the territory of another." The West Bank is not the territory of a signatory power, but an unallocated part of the British Mandate. It is hard, therefore, to see how even the most literal-minded reading of the Convention could make it apply to Jewish settlement in territories of the British Mandate west of the Jordan River. Even if the Convention could be construed to prevent settlements during the period of occupation, however, it could do no more than suspend, not terminate, the rights conferred by the Mandate. Those rights can be ended only by the establishment and recognition of a new state or the incorporation of the territories into an old one.

more...
http://www.bjeny.org/254.htm

[shaayecanaan]

22. I think you`re wrong either way...

but I digress.

The fact that you are diametrically opposed to other right-wing people does not necessarily mean that you are not right wing. A right wing Ustase Croatian would no doubt consider himself in diametrical opposition to a right-wing ultranationalist Serb. In a similar way, the crypto-Kahanists on this board are wrong to presume that they are not right wing simply because they imagine themselves to be diameterically opposed to anti-semites.

Even if they're not swapped and become part of Palestine, what harm is really being done?

The problem is that large parts of the land that became those settlements were previously private property belonging to Palestinians. Any peace process will need to address the issues of what extent land can be returned to its legitimate owners, or alternatively what compensation will need to be paid.

As for the Palestine Mandate, you are clearly wrong and here's Eugene Rostow explaining...

No, Im clearly right, and Eugene Rostow was by then clearly senile, having lost most of his remaining marbles during the Reagan years when his politics turned sharply to the right.

Having said that, there are probably a few problems that I can identify with Mr Rostow`s logic. Perhaps you can pass them on to your friends and they can serve up a slightly more polished plate of bollocks next time.

To whom it may concern,

Firstly, there is absolutely no language in the League of Nations Palestine mandate that creates a trust. If there was, and if Britain was indeed the `trustee` under that trust, who is the trustee now and by what authority are they alleged to now be the trustee of that trust?

Secondly, Mr Rostow also alleges that the situation in German South West Africa was a similar trust. If that is the case, who is presently the trustee of that trust and by what authority do they administer that trust? Alternatively, if Mr Rostow concedes that the `trust` in Namibia ended when South Africa`s mandate was terminated, does that also mean that any such `trust` ended in Palestine when Britain voluntarily ended its mandate?

Thirdly, since Mr Rostow made his argument, the ICJ has specifically said that the settlements are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Is the ICJ a valid authority or not?

Fourthly, if one accepted Rostow`s argument, Jews would not only have a right to set up settlements in the present-day West Bank over the objections of Palestinians, but they would also have the right to set up settlements in Jordan over the objections of the Jordanians, as present-day Jordan was also part of mandatory Palestine. Is this what you contend?

Fifthly, even if the fact of the cessation of both the British mandate and the League of Nations were not taken to be sufficient revocation of the Palestine mandate, the United Nations (the successor organ to the League of Nations) in 1947 agreed to partition of mandatory Palestine, with the creation of respectively Arab and Jewish states. Would not the 1947 partition of Palestine supersede the Palestine mandate even if the latter was then in force?

Sixthly, the mandate specifically precluded any action that would prejudice the civil or political interests of the Palestinians. Does that mean that the approximately 83% of present day Israel that was stolen from Palestinians would need to be repatriated to them if the Palestine mandate is still legally enforceable? Does that also mean that the settlements, which clearly prejudice the interests of Palestinians, would not be allowed even under the old mandate?

Seventhly, do you think Ive expended far too much time already refuting ridiculous arguments from someone who is probably going to find equally spurious grounds for evading the standing $50 bet that expires on 6 June 2010?

From your biggest Arab fan,
Shaaye Canaan

[shira]

23. I think you don't read very well and no amount of evidence or fact would be enough for you

1. I'm amused that you believe I'm still rightwing. Rightwing on what, just Israel or probably most everything else? I've considered myself a liberal ever since I became interested in politics. Do you realize MOST Israelis on the left, and even the far left, have the same views as I do on settlements, the status of Jerusalem, and Obama's efforts on I/P? Why do you think I'm more "rightwing" than they are? Or do you just believe any zionist not as radically far left and clownish as Levy, Hass, Finkelstein, and Avnery are rightwing by default - because that seems to be the case?

2. I personally think your views on I/P (as I'm not aware of your views on anything else) are closer to far rightwing than left. If you take any article that Pat Buchanon has written, for example, and erase all "Jew" or jewish religious references, what then distiguishes your POV on I/P from his? How do you disagree with him if you tone down or take away all the Jew rhetoric from his drivel? Can you provide examples? Are you up to the challenge? Let's at least agree his views on I/P are extremely far rightwing. So how are you really different than him if you take away the obviously bigoted references in his articles? For that matter, how is his crap that much different than what passes for your view of "progressive" discussion on I/P?

3. As for settlement land being mostly the private property of Palestinians, that's certainly debatable. Where's your evidence for this, because AFAIK almost all of that land is either Jewish private property from before 1948 or state/mandate land that isn't the private property of anyone.

4. Now onto to your reading comprehension problem WRT Rostow...

a. "The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose." Missed that part, didn't you?

b. "The Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is conferred by the same provisions of the Mandate under which Jews settled in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem before the State of Israel was created." So can we at least agree Jews can legally settle in Haifa and Tel Aviv? If so, why do you believe it's been legal for Jews to settle there but not beyond the armistice lines after 1948? Do you think anything beyond the 1947 partition plan is forbidden WRT Jewish settlement?

c. What do the armistice lines of 1948, in your view, represent? They're certainly not borders. As Rostow states, and to which you have no good reply...

"The Armistice Lines of 1949, which are part of the West Bank boundary, represent nothing but the position of the contending armies when the final cease-fire was achieved in the War of Independence. And the Armistice Agreements specifically provide, except in the case of Lebanon, that the demarcation lines can be changed by agreement when the parties move from armistice to peace. Resolution 242 is based on that provision of the Armistice Agreements and states certain criteria that would justify changes in the demarcation lines when the parties make peace."

d. You missed this part too..."The West Bank is not the territory of a signatory power, but an unallocated part of the British Mandate." How do you wrestle with that? It doesn't belong to Jordan, and PA leadership never agreed to take it in 1947, 2000, or 2008. What rules then apply to the W.Bank if not the original Mandate laws? If PA leadership in 1947 agreed to the partition plan, that would have superceded the Mandate (or at least Israel would have also agreed that it superceded the mandate).

5. As for the $50 bet, Israel is about to answer the Goldstone Report officially - within the next few weeks I believe. Let's see if they include in their response a list of Palestinian casualties (combatants vs. civilians). If by June, they don't I'll be happy to donate to that very respectable Palestinian charity.

[shaayecanaan]

24. I think I read you impeccably well...

and I`ve refuted each of the points you posted.

I'm amused that you believe I'm still rightwing. Rightwing on what, just Israel or probably most everything else?

I answered this above. By right wing, I mean right wing on this issue.

I suspect most Israelis hold right wing views on the Palestinians, and vice versa, in the same way that most Croats and Serbs, and Tamils and Sinhalese hold right wing views about each other.

Of course, holding left wing views on some issues in no way precludes holding right wing views on others. The Nazis instituted mandatory annual leave for employees, passed the first animal protection law and led many other policy initiatives that could be considered left of centre. Obviously their views in other areas were not so left wing.

In the same way, the fact that Israelis are pioneers in solar power, or that they are the verge of some major breakthrough in the treatment of cancer I dare say matters nought to the Palestinians.

How do you disagree with him if you tone down or take away all the Jew rhetoric from his drivel?

I have not read David Duke or Pat Buchanon, nor would I care to. However my impression would be that if you took all the `Jew rhetoric` out of David Duke`s writings there would not be a great deal left.

However, personally, I am not a fan of the school of logic that goes along the lines of:-

1. Mr A is a racist
2. Mr A says that 2 + 2 = 4
3. You also agree that 2 + 2 = 4
4. Therefore you are also a racist

As for settlement land being mostly the private property of Palestinians, that's certainly debatable. Where's your evidence for this, because AFAIK almost all of that land is either Jewish private property from before 1948 or state/mandate land that isn't the private property of anyone.

A report issued Wednesday by Peace Now claims that 32 percent of land held for settlement and outpost use is private Palestinian property, as is 24 percent of the land on which the settlements are actually built.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/837695.html

"The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose." Missed that part, didn't you?

As Ive said earlier, theres no evidence that the mandate established a trust. But just to humour you Ill pose the question:- How did the responsible authority otherwise arrange for the fulfillment of its purpose?

c. What do the armistice lines of 1948, in your view, represent? They're certainly not borders. As Rostow states, and to which you have no good reply...

I`ll turn this question around:- do you think the Palestinians have any claim to Israeli territory beyond the green line? If not, you clearly think the borders limit the Palestinians. Why not then the Israelis?

"The Armistice Lines of 1949, which are part of the West Bank boundary, represent nothing but the position of the contending armies when the final cease-fire was achieved in the War of Independence.

I should emphasise at this point that many borders between states in the world are really only armistice lines, governed only by ceasefire arrangements rather than treaties. Even some quite old boundaries between states in South America and Asia were settled only with armistice agreements - some are not even documented at all. International law refers to these boundaries as `status quo boundaries`.

The West Bank is not the territory of a signatory power, but an unallocated part of the British Mandate." How do you wrestle with that? It doesn't belong to Jordan, and PA leadership never agreed to take it in 1947, 2000, or 2008. What rules then apply to the W.Bank if not the original Mandate laws?

Virtually all countries of the world other than Britain did not recognise the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan. The international community refused to recognise the annexation as they regarded the West Bank as properly the territory of the Palestinian state created by the 1947 partition.

Similarly, the international community has not regarded the occupation of the WB and the annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel for the exact same reason - they regard this territory as being properly possessed by a Palestinian state.

PA leadership never agreed to take it in 1947, 2000, or 2008.

It doesnt matter. Somalia exists even though no Somali government ever agreed to the border that now separates Somalia from Ethiopia. Somalia exists even though for most of its history it has had no effective government.

The PA leadership never agreed to the British mandate of Palestine, nor the League of Nations mandate either. Did that similarly make them `ineffective` or do standards of logical consistency not apply in this netherworld of yours?

What rules then apply to the W.Bank if not the original Mandate laws?

See above. Somalia exists even though it has no effective government and no effective laws. The fact that there are no effective laws does not abrogate the existence of a state.

If PA leadership in 1947 agreed to the partition plan, that would have superceded the Mandate

So you`re saying that the 1947 partition was in fact ineffective? And you`re saying that the fact that Palestine disagreed with that partition made it ineffective?

And I hate to break this to you, but Israel has also established settlements on Syrian territory in the Golan Heights - territory that was clearly the possession of a signatory power, and which was obviously not part of mandatory Palestine. Obviously you re going to have to come up with an entirely new spiel to try and justify those.

[shira]

25. here's clear evidence the Pal'n Mandate established a trust, which you are denying

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_mandate
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm

You'll find Rostow was right. Just search for "trusts" within both articles. If you're interested in moving on after catching up, let me know.

[shaayecanaan]

26. You certainly do link to some interesting websites...

It seems that these guys not only oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, they seem to oppose the fact that a Jordanian one was created as well. I don`t mean to harp on but it is this sort of enthusiasm of yours for rather fringe, Greater Israel viewpoints that tends to make me question your political direction, if you know what I mean.

Recalling our earlier discussion, you once stated that you held similar views to LeftishBrit or Donald Rankin, but that your views had shifted since. Do you think that your views have shifted to the left or the right?

As to your argument about trusts - again your argument is based on a misreading. All of the former mandates of the League of Nations were converted into trust territories, notably except for Palestine. This change reflected the fact that the said territories were no longer to be considered colonial possessions; instead they would be only administered by the colonial powers, under the nominal sovereignty of the United Nations acting ostensibly on behalf of the residents of the affected territory, and not just one ethnic constituency within the affected territory. This trust territory status was designed to be temporary and its main aim was to attain full independence for each of the affected areas as soon as possible.

Of course, it is worth noting that Palestine was never converted into a trust territory, as the UN ruled instead to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. As the partition resolution itself provided:-

1. The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.

Of course this resolution, including the provision for termination and withdrawal of the Mandate was accepted by the Jewish leadership of the time. The view that there was therefore no provision for termination of the mandate is bollocks.

It is also worth noting that the principal author of the Palestine mandate, Lord Balfour, never conceived of the mandate as a trust or as anything else other than a voluntary limitation observed by the British in their administration of Palestine:-

The Mandates were not the creation of the League, and they could not in substance be altered by the League. The League's duties were confined to seeing that the specific and detailed terms of the mandates were in accordance with the decisions taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, and that in carrying out these mandates the Mandatory Powers should be under the supervision, not under the control, of the League. A mandate was a self-imposed limitation by the conquerors on the sovereignty which they exercised over the conquered territory

Notwithstanding all this, I have made the point that even if the Palestine mandate somehow survived and was in force to the present day, your argument would still face severe difficulties not limited to the following:-

1. The settlements are clearly prejudicial to the interests of the Arab residents of Palestine and therefore would be in breach of the terms of the mandate even if it was in force.

2. The mandate would not cover the settlements which Israel has established in Syrian territory contrary to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

3. There is clearly absolutely no authority for Israel to act as the mandatory power, as it neither sought nor obtained authority to do so from either the Trusteeship Council nor any other competent authority.

Again, this is your argument and you`re going to have to do better than the stupid little throwaway sentences and cryptic remarks that right-wing posters such as yourself on this board typically rely on in lieu of actual argument. If you contend that Israel exercises power as the mandatory administrator of Palestine, you need to actually specify the authority by which they do so.

I note you did not reply to the other arguments in my post and so I presume you are unable to make any substantive response.

[shira]

27. just interested in the facts within such articles, not the opinions

1. I think sometimes you get fact confused for opinion and believe that because I bring up certain facts, I'm automatically rightwing by default. I believe Carlo Strenger put it best - after the 2000-01 CD and Taba failures, part of the Israeli left broke off with the other part. One part he labels the SLES or irrational self-righteous left...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/28/israel-free-speech-middle-east

I don't think it's fair to label the leftist opposition to those in SLES as "rightwing" or more conservative. Those like Anery, Hass, Levy, etc... are not really leftwingers (or better, liberals) as much as they are radicals. And it's not fair to label anyone not as "left" as them rightwing by fiat. Just the same, I'm not sure Pat Buchanon or David Duke's views are as much rightwing as they are radical. But if/when you ever have the time, you should google their writings on the topic and you'll find that once the bigoted parts are omitted, both your views are indistinguishable. Ergo, "meet the new left, same as the old right".


2. As to answering the other parts of your post, I decided to focus on one aspect rather than all at the same time, thinking we could work that out first before moving on. It also saves time and effort, IMO.


3. UNGAR 181 (the partition plan) was never implemented in any form, so your quote about the Palestine Mandate ending as of 1948 is rubbish. UNGAR 181 was only contingent on both parties agreeing to it. And I was actually wrong, as the Jews never agreed to it either (ex. internationalizing Jerusalem). So again, you're left with Rostow's unrefuted statement that nothing, including UNGAR 181, led to the expiration of the original Palestine Mandate.


4. George Mitchell just recently stated a week ago that E.Jerusalem settlement is not illegal....

Jerusalem

George Mitchell: ...Israel annexed Jerusalem in 1980....for the Israelis, what they're building in, is in part of Israel. Now, the others don't see it that way. So you have these widely divergent perspectives on the subject. ...The Israelis are not going to stop settlements in or construction in East Jerusalem. They don't regard that as a settlement because they think it's part of Israel....

Charlie Rose: So you're going to let them go ahead even though no one recognized the annexation.

George Mitchell: When you say let them go ahead, it's what they regard as their country. They don't regard -- they don't say they're letting us go ahead when we build in Manhattan or in the Bronx or --

Charlie Rose: But don't the international rules have something to do with what somebody can do to define as their country?

George Mitchell: There are disputed legal issues. .. And we could spend the next 14 years arguing over disputed legal issues or we can try to get a negotiation to resolve them in a manner that meets the aspirations of both societies.

http://www.meforum.org/blog/obama-mideast-monitor/2010/01/interesting-george-mitchell-interview

I agree with George Mitchell. How about you?


5. Since I'm focusing on one or 2 particular aspects, it's only fair I respond to your concerns. So if there is one thing you'd like me to address that I haven't already, let me know.

[shaayecanaan]

28. and I only read Mein Kampf for the baseball scores...

just interested in the facts within such articles, not the opinions

You actually got a laugh out of me with that one. No doubt you also read Playboy for the informative articles.

You should probably realise that everything I`m writing is boilerplate orthodoxy. I would say that 99% of credible international jurists would agree with me in saying that the settlements are illegal according to the 4th Geneva convention. The only reason that there seems to be a cacophony of views on the issue is that, just like global warming, opinions on the fringe get disproportionate attention.

I dare say you would struggle to get even one of your right-wing colleagues to agree with you that the partition resolution is of no effect, particularly as Balfour himself was explicit that the Palestine Mandate did not authorise the establishment of a Jewish state.

And to say that Mitchell stated that settlements in East Jerusalem were legal on the basis of the quote you provided is frankly absurd.

I specifically put to you in my previous post three flaws in your argument that persist even if the Palestine mandate were still in force. You have again failed to respond to them.

I would take this opportunity to refer you back to my original post:-

You cannot choose your own referee. And the referee`s decision is final.

I would suggest that you take a hard look at your arguments, and ask yourself whether in all seriousness you would expect a credible tribunal to be impressed with arguments that have been lifted from far right wing, Kahanist websites.

And I have previously addressed your argument vis-a-vis David Duke and so forth. The fact that you imagine yourself to be in diametrical opposition to them does not make you any less right wing or any less an ultranationalist. It merely means that you are an ultranationalist of a different stripe.

[shira]

29. I could also quote from Julius Stone, Stephen Schwebel of the ICC, etc...

none of whom are RW, but nevertheless argue that the settlements - even in the Golan - are legal - and that if they weren't, UNSCR 242 would make that very clear. And I'll remind you again that arguing the legality of the settlements is not the same as arguing the moral issue, whether they should expand, etc.

I agree with you, however, about not being able to choose your own referee - as I don't see Israel being allowed a referee as impartial and fair as Julius Stone or Stephen Schwebel. A judge not as radical as Avnery, Hass, Levy, Goldstone, Richard Falk, etc... would be labeled too biased and pro-zionist.

As for Duke and Buchanon, google their articles sometimes. Check out their website on I/P issues. They post so-called "progressive pro-Palestinian" articles on their websites, adopting those views as if they were their own. Their own writings reflect the same ideas. Their comments sections reflect the same anger and hostility as the comments on Guardian's CiF.

Take a look at Rabin's last speech before his assassination and his views on final peace deal...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x291767#291811

Anyone taking on those views NOW would be considered rightwing by you, correct? Was Rabin a rightwinger on I/P? Just to satisfy your curiousity on rightwing/leftwing, feel free to ask me for my honest opinions on anything I/P. Try to keep opinion separated from fact, however, if you do this. Asking me whether I believe the settlements are legal is not the same as whether I believe they are just, or that they should be expanded.

[shaayecanaan]

30. And that is about it, isnt it?

Julius Stone (who held right wing views on the IP conflict) was actually the other person I had in mind when I tried to think of people who held a heterodox view on the settlements. As far as I know he is the only significant international jurist to hold that they are legal.

I can see you`ve relied on a Wikipedia footnote to allege that Stephen Schwebel is in the same camp. However, upon actually reading the link provided this is a mischaracterisation. It appears that while he considers that changes to the 1949 armistice lines might be lawful, it is unlikely that he would consider settlements deep inside Palestinian territory (such as Ariel) to be legal:-

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZWJTqMjA5OkC&pg=PA521&lpg=PA521&dq=Stephen+schwebel+occupation+annexation&source=bl&ots=XZkDRBwigZ&sig=dLVvG7n5bbDsvssSdpmeYm4LkOQ&hl=ja&ei=L8ZNS-TnONCLkAXvoaikDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I will probably take the issue up on the discussion page of that Wikipedia article when I have the time. Suffice to say, the list of international jurists who believe that the settlements are illegal would be substantially longer.

I think Ive responded to your point about David Duke sufficiently. Many racists try to piggyback on progressive concerns to further their ideology. Anti-Japanese racists try to use the whaling issue to inflame passions against Japan. Anti-Muslim racists often quote from feminist articles about female genital mutilation to bolster their claims against Muslims. And of course, right wing people such as yourself claim to be simply fighting anti-Semitism while in reality arguing for the legality of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

Does that make feminists anti-Islamic or whaling activists anti-Japanese?

For fun, I did a quick search on Free Republic using the tag `Palestine`. The results give me the impression that the punters on that website (generally considered to be a fairly right wing lot) would whole-heartedly agree with you on the legality of Israeli settlements. In all seriousness, perhaps you would be much happier over there?

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/palestine/index?tab=articles

[shira]

31. but you probably think Rabin held rightwing views on I/P...

1. Here's Rabin before he was assassinated...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x291767#291811

To you, he's rightwing.

Ehud Barak (labor party) offered significantly more than Rabin just 5 years later, but he's not considered leftwing either. Do you know how ridiculous it is to label Rabin or Barak as something other than leftwing?

2. Rostow, Stone, and Schwebel were all liberals but of course on I/P, they're rightwing to you.

3. Our very own Pelsar here writes that he has always voted leftwing and considers himself a product of the left (who opposes the Israeli right), but that's not good enough for you. So he's rightwing.

4. Petra Marqardt Bigman posts at the Guardian and JPost and here's a look at her articles...

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/warpedmirror/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/petramarquardtbigman

Petra has voted Meretz just about every election (always left), but to you she's a rightwinger because of her views.

5. IsraeliNurse describes herself as "far left" when she lived in Israel and here is a sample of her writings...
http://cifwatch.com/author/cwtenthauthor/

To you, she's really rightwing.

6. AKUS has lived in Israel and also says he voted Meretz all the time....
http://cifwatch.com/2010/01/13/who-gets-banned-on-comment-is-free/

That's just one recent article from AKUS, and you'll find more at CiF Watch. His views are very similar to Pelsar, Petra, and IsraeliNurse.

==============

I could go on but here's the point.

On I/P issues, I'm more likely to defer to RATIONAL leftwingers who actually have lived or currently live in Israel (over any leftwingers who have not lived there). I mentioned Carlo Strenger (yet another leftwinger you'd label as rightwing) who coined the term "SLES" or self-righteous-left-explanatory-syndrome.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/28/israel-free-speech-middle-east

Israeli leftists who count as being "SLES" would include, for example, Levy, Avnery, Hass, Derfner, Shlaim, Pappe, etc. They are NOT liberals, they are RADICALS. You, however, probably think they are they're progressives, and ANYONE not as radical as they are can be labeled rightwing, ultra-nationalist, etc.

Give those links above a look and then try convincing me all those people above are really rightwing on i/P, irregardless whether they voted or continue to vote for a party like Meretz. If you can honestly say all those people above are rightwingers, then I'm a rightwinger too because, honestly, I can't find very much at all that I disagree with in their writings (in fact, nothing comes to mind now). I call these people the SANE Israeli left, maybe you'll say that at best they're a little left of center. Whatever, humor me and let me know what you think.

==============

As for Pat Buchanon, I googled an article of his and it's titled "A win, but at what cost". Check it out. Why isn't that article up on the boards here and touted as "progressive", according your view? What's the difference between that article and any other you recognize as "progressive" on I/P? There are plenty more where that came from, if you want a bigger sample size of that degenerate's writings. Let me know.

==============

Buchanon has a reason to oppose the SANE majority of Israel's left (the question is why do you and others here oppose the vast majority of Israeli leftists - when you should be working WITH them and not against them? You can argue that Israel's left is too rightwing for your tastes, as if their leftwing is a bit retarded and they don't know how to be proper leftists - but you don't just get to dismiss arguments, viewpoints, and facts by automatically labelling them "rightwing". That's a nice way of avoiding any rational discussion (label or demonize the other so you don't have to honestly take on their arguments) but it's transparent and I think you're smarter than that and don't need to resort to such tactics.

[shaayecanaan]

32. Abraham Lincoln considered blacks to be inferior and opposed interacial marriage...

he would be considered a troglodyte by today`s standards but was obviously comparatively enlightened for his time. I would put Rabin in the same category.

Our very own Pelsar here writes that he has always voted leftwing and considers himself a product of the left (who opposes the Israeli right), but that's not good enough for you. So he's rightwing.

As far as I know he hasn`t spent his energies arguing that the settlements are a legitimate and lawful enterprise. I would therefore not hasten to label him as I label you.

Rostow, Stone, and Schwebel were all liberals but of course on I/P, they're rightwing to you.

I never said anything to that effect regarding Schwebel.

Regarding Rostow:-

In 1966 President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Rostow as his under-secretary of state. Like his brother, Walt Rostow, who served as national security adviser, Rostow was a strong supporter of Johnson's policy in Vietnam. He lost office under President Richard Nixon and returned to Yale Law School.

Rostow's views moved sharply to the right during this period and he attacked attempts by President Nixon to negotiate with the Soviet Union. He returned to public office when President Ronald Reagan made him head of the Arms Control Agency (1991-93).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USArostow.htm

Stone was a more complex character. I would compare him to Zbigniew Brezsinski in the sense that Breszinski was generally a pragmatist and realist on all things, except to the extent that they involved Poland. Where Poland was at issue he was a passionate, white-hot crusader and anything but realistic or pragmatic, and unfortunately this was to the considerable detriment to the interests of the United States inasmuch as detente with the Soviet Union was concerned.

Similarly, where Israel was concerned Julius Stone was an advocate, not an analyst. He adopted as an article of faith the premise that everything Israel did was right and just and attempted to justify it to the point of incredulity and beyond, rather like yourself in fact. If you`d care to read more about him there is an excellent article on his middle east views hosted on AustLII:-

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNDAULawRw/2008/4.pdf

His views on Israel were bullishly right wing, and this was to the detriment his work in this regard which is generally seen as being of far lower calibre than his other writings.

[shira]

33. so Rabin in 1995 wasn't really leftwing?

And by going significantly further just 5 years later, neither was Ehud Barak with his offer that was far more generous than Rabin's?

Why are you finding it hard to believe that some people can see settlements as LEGAL but also wrong/immoral?

George Mitchell will not say they're illegal. If they're really illegal, why doesn't he just say so? And by not saying so, does that make George Mitchell rightwing?

[pelsar]

39. Pelsar speaks...am i right or am i left?

my voting record...meretz all the way (and their variations) for their integrity, quality politicians and beliefs (once i voted labor and regretted it).

the settlements: illegal or legal?.....moral or immoral?....both of those require judgement calls that also relate to cultures. In case it has slipped by, the arab culture and israeli, western culture do not agree on many issues of legal, moral and justice. i.e that discussion in my eyes is no more than an intellectual exercise.

The are simply one of many aspects of the conflict.....for some they are major (Palestenians) for me, and many israelis,, since the gaza pullout, i see them as less the impediment -leaving gaza did not put us one inch close to peace...but it did clarify things: i see an unstable or hamas/jihad led govt as more of a problem...... Yes they are are a moral problem for israelis, but again, its that moral problem (which includes supporting a corrupt PA govt) vs the possibility of a gaza repeat in the westbank.....a real possibility with no "revert button" and far more dangerous with its immoral consequences.

other than that, im define myself as liberal (before it was hijacked by the progressives in the west). to clarify: i believe in the moral superiority of the western democratic govts with civil rights as its base over the various dictatorships and their variations that one finds in the other parts of the world...and those non western govts should never be given a pass (i.e. they are all declared illegal)...and the pressure should be continuous and constant inorder to induce change within those govts...i.e. as far as the I/P conflict goes, before the Palestinians are sentenced to years of various dictatorship style living, as per gaza and iran, the governing style should be changed to be a stable democratic one.....and then the conflict will be easy to solve as the real will of the Palestinians will be shown via the ballot box and not through their politicians (both within the westbank and out) preferences. Democratic nations rarely go to war with each other, as a matter of history.

civil rights is simply more important than land ownership, tribalism or nationalism.....the problem in the I/P conflict is not land ownership, its the lack of democratic values.

[shira]

40. Pelsar, can you briefly explain...

...how, as a longtime Meretz supporter, you have come to tolerate Sharon or Netanyahu as your PM.

I think many here believe that if you aren't demonizing those guys, you must be "rightwing".

[pelsar]

43. its not hard.....

for several reasons....first and foremost, whether i agree or disagree with them, there is no doubt that their beliefs are sincere. Unlike other politicians in the west, our politicians for the most part have put their lives on the line*, and have their kids and grandkids lives on the line presently....and will pay for their mistakes....hence beyond the usual selfish political reasons that politicians do what they do, its pretty clear that there is also sincerity within their viewpoints, and that is to be respected..... Furthermore there are many social issues where the left and right work together, where the values coincide, hence demonization of one side for one set of issues, is not a bright idea for a working community

also and equally important: peace will come from the israeli right...not the left:

only Begin could have given back the sinai
and only Sharon could have left gaza...
Eitan (rw general) used the army as an integrator to help the most problem kids in the society

Rabin, known as a security person, on the left was barely able to get olso through.....
_______

The israeli society isn't as polarized as others in the west....us on the left and on the right, work together as civilians, go to the army together and have a lot more at stake than other countries...hence we don't need to demonize the other (exceptions of extremists will be noted ).

*olmert is the noted exception as a "slick, dirty politician" ......

[LeftishBrit]

44. I wonder whether one difference may be...

that in Israel 'left' and 'right' may be less associated with economic issues than in many other countries? In many countries 'right-wing' may mean hawkish, may mean socially conservative, but most of all means 'Fuck the poor! Fuck the ill, elderly, disabled, or those who need any sort of help!" - which naturally arouses great resentment among those who are poor, in need of assistance, or emphathize with those in these categories. I get the impression that this imay be less true in Israel than elsewhere.

For the rest, I have never judged a politician mainly on the basis of whether I think that they hold their views *sincerely* or not. I think that the sincere fanatic who pursues his/her views relentlessly is often more dangerous than the unprincipled weathercock. At the extreme, there are few more sincere political activists than suicide bombers! At a less extreme but still dangerous level, the politician who genuinely and strongly believes that we should not help poor or 'weak' people because it makes society 'soft' is probably going to be harder to budge than the one who panders to big business, but may soften their policies if they think they might lose an election if they don't.

'also and equally important: peace will come from the israeli right...not the left:

only Begin could have given back the sinai
and only Sharon could have left gaza...'

Interesting point similar to the American 'only Nixon could go to China'.) Sadly, perhaps only the right can, but only the left want to! Perhaps it's the same on the Palestinian side: perhaps only Hamas could get concessions to Israel accepted, and they are most unlikely to want to.

I have more hopes of the left than of the right on such issues - but we shall see.

[pelsar]

45. in isael and probably elsewhere as well..

its the left that brings up the subject...gets it "talked about'...clears the way for its acceptance...and then its the right or center that implements it. Once the right (or center right) agrees, they have the left with them. (the classic of nixon and china)

When i talk about sincerity or integrity i'm not talking about the extremes....they don't count in my world as nothing more than dangerous nuisances that are an integrated part of a democracy. Politicians in my view, be they right or left "get points" if their policies affect them personally, their families etc (as in all israeli security issues). For me that translates to a point of view that has some validity and must be looked at an respected as such.

political viewpoints or politicians that propose polices that dont affect them at all...i get suspicious of, unless they have a track record that i can look at. The advantage of a small country is that policies affect us rather quickly and personally.

Which is why hamas doesnt really 'scare me"......outside of being fanatics....they may cause the gazans to come around, as they have had their affect on the westbankers, who now fear hamas more than israel.

[shaayecanaan]

48. There are no other issues

if Israel is anything like Lebanon in that regard, and I believe that it is.

People follow the news obsessively in the ME, and usually what they are wanting to find out is who is killing who. Its easy to fill column inches in that regard in Lebanon as there is always someone killing someone else. Everything else gets sidelined, I find.

My guess is that Israeli pollies dont cry "Fuck the poor" becuase they're pretty much fucked anyway. And I dont see any pollie in Lebanon or Israel getting elected because of their environmental policies or whatever. You only have to look at any major waterway in Lebanon or Israel to know that not much gets done in that regard.

[LeftishBrit]

34. Right and left...

(1)I do not think that being pro-Israel (or pro-Palestinian) makes a person right-wing or left-wing. I think that some people who are pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian are prepared to support right-wing people, sites and viewpoints if they support 'their' side.

(2) I don't think that most of the people that you mentioned are right-wing, though I admit that I am not familiar with all of them. Certainly I don't think that Pelsar is RW, and I don't think that many people on the board think so, even those who are strongly pro-Palestinian and disagree with many of his viewpoints.

(3) I do think that the 'mythsandfacts' site *is* right-wing, or at least is prepared to accept some very right-wing viewpoints if they appear to justify the pro-Israel cause. For example:

They have a very gung-ho negative view of Palestinians. For example, they provide illustrations of the use of child combatants and of internecine Palestinian violence, and imply that this is ALL that Palestinian culture consists of. (Very similar, of course, to sites that demonize Israelis and Zionists by e.g. showing settler violence or Palestinians killed by Israeli bombs, and implying that this is ALL there is to Israel.)

They claim that Palestine cannot be allowed to become a state until it is a full democracy, because only democracies value peace. This is a very false argument, which I suspect is being used as an excuse not to give Palestine statehood. While I strongly believe that democracy is the best political system, there are plenty of examples of democratic countries starting wars (e.g. the invasion of Iraq!) and on the other hand, it is a hard truth that sometimes a dictatorship or imperialist rule maintains peace between groups that then go to war once the dictatorship has ended (e.g. former Yugoslavia). This is not defending imperialism or dictatorship; simply pointing out that there is no necessary relationship between democracy and peacefulness.

They are obsessed with the evils of the EU, and in particular with the danger that Turkey might be allowed to be a member. Turkey is not a member, and I have certain reservations about its becoming so (e.g. I would want to be sure that they did not use their membership as a platform to blackmail other EU countries into supporting their suppression of free speech over the Armenian genocide.) However, the grounds used on this site are that Turkey is 'Islamist' and that, horror of horrors, if allowed to enter the EU, there would be 'more mosque-going Muslims than church-going Christians'. (I don't know whether this is in fact true, and tend to doubt it.) Now, Turkey is not 'Islamist'. In fact, it's a Muslim-majority country that stands out against theocratic attitudes, and in favour of mosque-state separation. The current government is a little less strongly secular than some - but still very non-theocratic. I would have thought that those who support building up 'moderate' Muslims as a bulwark against extremism would be pro-Turkish, and many are in fact; but it's clear from all this that the site simply doesn't like Muslims.

Their dislike of Europe, however, is not limited to its rather weak links with Turkey, or to Muslims within Europe. They post an article which is typical gung-ho right-wing stuff objecting to Europaeans not being sufficiently grateful to America for 'saving' them 65 years ago, and daring not to support Bush enough over Iraq:

http://www.mefacts.com/cached.asp?x_id=11852

(4) You frequently quote this one article by Strenger, but let us note that he is strongly against the right-wing viewpoints that occur in some of the sites that you quote. He also published an article "I Accuse" about the attack on Israeli left-winger Sternhell, pointing a finger at, among others, websites that accuse people like Sternhell (anti-occupation peace-campers) of being antisemitic; self-hating Jews; a danger to Israel, etc.

(5) I think that one has to draw a distinction between the Israeli/pro-Israeli far left (people like Larry Derfner, etc. - or like me) and Jewish and mostly-ex-Israeli anti-Zionists like Tony Judt or Ilan Pappe. I don't think that one-staters are evil or automatically antisemitic, but I do think they are unrealistic. In any case, there's a difference between someone who has left, or never lived in, Israel and now opposes it, and an Israeli who seeks to reform his/her country from within).

(6) I also consider myself as 'far-left pro-Palestinian' as well as 'far-left pro-Israeli' (far left in both cases in the sense of 'extreme peacenik', rather than as a supporter of armed revolution). Thus I like Ray Hanania for the same reasons as I like Larry Derfner or Seth Freedman. I realize that I'm in a small minority with regard to *all* these people. However, it puzzles me that you expect Palestinians to support Hanania, while yourself rejecting his Israeli counterparts. I think that 'radicalism' in the strict sense of 'supporting radical change from the status quo' is what *is* necessary on all sides if peace is to be achieved. A fair and peaceful two-state solution *would* be very radical in view of the present situation, but it will also be very necessary.

(7) I do not think that everyone a bit to the right of Derfner is 'right-wing' any more than I think that anyone a bit less pacifist than Hanania is 'pro-terrorism'. However, I do think that some of the people and sites that you use to justify pro-Israel viewpoints *are* right-wing, and that you don't always select sufficiently.

(8) As I've been debating with you, I am focusing here on the pro-Israeli right and the dangers of accepting them as allies. However, none of this justifies the acceptance of 'pro-Palestinian' (actually, often not pro-Palestinian but xenophobic-isolationist) right-wing allies. Right-wing 'conspiracy' sites like WakeUpFromYourSlumber, WhatReally(Never)Happened and the sites of Alex Jones have sometimes been treated as valid by people who claim to be progressive. Left-wingers have at times treated IfAmericansKnew as a reliable site; and the first time that I heard of the far-right (including antisemitic) Illinois politician Andy Martin was when someone on DU quoted him sympathetically on the topic of Israel. If there is one thing of that nature that really makes me see red, and which happens too often, it is when so-called progressives claim that other countries are fighting 'wars for Israel' and that Israel and/or its supporters got America and Britain into Iraq. I think that should be banned on any progressive site such as DU!

(9) For both pro-Israelis and pro-Palestinians - if a source is Right, and especially if it's Far Right, it is almost certainly Wrong!

[shira]

35. is there some test so we can know whether someone is left/right on I/P?

And what makes you think I'm not against some of the RW viewpoints on those websites, just as Strenger is? The only reason I brought up MythsAndFacts was because I googled Palestine Mandate, Trust, and Settlements and found what they presented (factually speaking) to be sound.

Additionally, I see a WORLD of difference between the views of Hanania and Seth Freedman as I can easily distinguish between their writings (the latter is for one state and he demonizes, exaggerates, lies by omission - the former doesn't). While both are critical of Israel, it's like comparing the criticisms of Strenger vs. Gideon Levy. I think it's ludicrous to lump Hanania and Strenger together with the Seth Freedmans, Levys, or Mustafa Barghoutis. Or with the lowlifes who post hateful vitriol at CiF (see the recent activity at CiF Watch) and BTW, what's a "liberal" site like Guardian's CiF doing attracting such scum and tolerating their views (deleting rather than banning outrageously antisemitic remarks)? It's the sane left vs. the irrational (liberals vs. radicals).

[shaayecanaan]

36. A few hopefully helpful remarks...

1) If you are unable to find anything to support your arguments other than `facts` lifted from far right wing websites, its a fair bet that the views you are espousing are in fact right wing. You are welcome to try and find left wing sources that say that the settlements are legal, but I reckon upon it being a long and fruitless search.

2) You hold in high regard people such as Strenger and Hanania. Hanania certainly considers that the settlements are illegal. Strenger has given fairly firm hints in his writings that he feels the same way:-

I accuse those in the Israeli right who turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to those among them who say that the law does not apply to them; to the settlers who break Israeli and international law and moral values on a daily basis

Again, if you think these people represent the sane middle ground, you would have to admit that you are currently standing to the right of it.

3) In a more positive light, you are now saying that while you regard the settlements as legal, you consider them immoral. That doesnt really address the critical issue - either the land properly belongs to the Israelis or it properly belongs to the Palestinians - but I nevertheless regard it as a positive step.

4)

George Mitchell will not say they're illegal. If they're really illegal, why doesn't he just say so? And by not saying so, does that make George Mitchell rightwing?

George Mitchell will not say that the Israelis have nuclear weapons. If they really have nuclear weapons, why doesn`t he say so?

I imagine in both cases it is because the man has (American) politics to think of.

In any event, I think this thread has progressed about as far as it is going to, besides which Im still in Asia and Im probably going to be unable to post for a week or so. Thank you for the discussion and your contributions.

[shira]

37. a few remarks

1. On the legality of settlements, I really don't have to go any further than UNSCR 242 and the explanations given by Arthur Goldberg and Lord Caradon on "territories". Are you familiar with what they wrote about the armistice lines? Those two cannot be considered rightwing.

2. As for Strenger and Hanania, I think the better question is do you hold them in as high regard as I do? Or are they too easy on Israel and not as critical as they should be?

3. I still think it's ridiculous for you to hang the "rightwing" label on Rabin or Barak. Makes me believe I was right about you WRT labeling anyone "rightwing" who is not as radical as Levy, Hass, Pappe, Sand, Judt, and Avnery.

4. The settlements well outside the green line and far into the W.Bank serve no purpose whatsoever, and in my view are immoral and stupid. Those hugging the green line are the reality - what is, is. I'm proud of the Israeli govt. for deciding at Oslo 15 years ago to not start new settlements on new ground, but rather to build only within existing ones (those around the green line, not the others). That was a decision they made independently as it was not a requirement under Oslo. I think relocating hundreds of thousands of settlers now is insane and do not see the harm in land swaps. Nutter settlers who cause trouble should be expelled from the territories or jailed. Lastly, I don't consider Jerusalem a settlement.

[bemildred]

38. UNSCR 242 says nothing about settlements, there being none at the time.

In that context "withdrawal" means military withdrawal, there is no right implied to move your population into the occupied territory. None of the sources you refer to intends or implies any justification of settlements in the territories taken in 1967, there being no such issue at the time.

[shira]

41. their statements explaining UNSCR 242 reveals their thoughts on the legality of settlements

[bemildred]

42. Their thoughts (go read them yourself) are not about settlements.

One can coherently argue that they left out "the" and "all" to avoid demanding an immediate or complete military withdrawal from the recently overrun territories. One cannot coherently argue that they did so to justify at some future date the then non-existent Israeli settlements on the occupied land.

[shira]

46. you're right...I'm wrong about Goldberg and Caradon.

I trusted an article that mentioned Goldberg, Caradon, Rostow all agreeing that settlements were legal, and of the 3 only Rostow did.

The good thing is that I emailed the author and he was very thankful to be corrected.

[bemildred]

47. Aw dang, now you went and made me and Shaayecaanan wrong. nt

[pelsar]

49. i disagree...but its a point of interest to me....and not a false argument.

They claim that Palestine cannot be allowed to become a state until it is a full democracy, because only democracies value peace. This is a very false argument, which I suspect is being used as an excuse not to give Palestine statehood.

here is as i see it:
making a democracy is hardly a sure thing....the examples of success and failures are everywhere..be it japan and germany, former Yugoslavia, iraq...

And we've seen gaza, once israel left, with a weak PA, hamas simply took it over, (and their plans are clear as day for the westbank)

The idea of repeating the gaza experience, which was a failure to both israel and the gazans...(even Amir Hass has even admitted that the gazans are now afraid to even speak out)....is something i don't get. Hamas even attacked the egyptians....


If israel were to pack up and leave now (the westbank)....do you really believe the PA would be able to hold off hamas?....as i see it, it would be a repeat of gaza, with Hamas taking over. Hamas is not good for people, neither those under them, nor in the region, and they do not 'speak" for the Palestinian people...and for those who believe they do, since they are a theocratic dictatorship, generation 2 or 3 will have little choice but to keep on living under their rule (see iran for example). Is that occupation a better occupation that israel has right now?

do you really want to risk a repeat of the rockets on israeli cities from the westbank?...Granted reading the future is an impossibility but what is wrong with first at least putting the odds in the favor of peace?

the better chance is having a real democracy in the westbank, not the pseudo one they have now. The concept that land ownership (nationalism) is more important that creating a democracy, strikes me as the point where the far left meets the right (conservatives usually favor nationalism over civil rights). Do we have the "right" to enforce a democracy?..given the aid the Palestinians get from the worlds democracies, i say yes.

there is no "undo".....here, ask the residents of gaza.

[LeftishBrit]

50. I think that there are two different issues here...

one is whether a country is a democracy; the other is whether it is in a state of civil war, or in danger of becoming so.

I can see that in this case the danger of civil war is a real one, and that Israelis do not want to get caught in the consequences of a civil war on their border complicating the other problems between Israel and Palestine.

But I think that, though war and especially civil war generally preclude effective democracy, democracy does not really guarantee freedom from war. Leaders in democracies are dependent on the wishes of their people, but this can go either way: leaders may avoid going to war because of the likely anger of their people (probably a factor in France and Germany *not* going into Iraq); they may go to war against their people's wishes and get re-elected anyway (Blair re Iraq); or they may go to war because they think their people want it (Thatcher probably went to war with Argentina, because she thought, doubtless rightly, that this would help her get re-elected.) Russia and Georgia are democracies at least on paper; it didn't prevent a war.

'Do we have the "right" to enforce a democracy?..given the aid the Palestinians get from the worlds democracies, i say yes.'

The question here - and not just with regard to Palestine - is: who is 'we' (America? The UN? The EU? NATO?) and *how* do 'we' enforce it? Trying to enforce democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan has not worked out very well.

[bemildred]

18. Correct as usual.

But as you say, the stakes are very low. Which reminds me of the chestnut about academic disputes:

"Q: Why are academic disputes so bitter? A: Because the stakes are so low."

[proteus_lives]

14. Hamas loves the classics.

More Thuggery from some of the world's worst thugs.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. They aren't the only ones.

We have seen that as of recent.