Obama’s legacy

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:15 am

The administration argues that it discriminates against Jews to advance the cause of peace. But this claim is completely absurd.

Why did the Obama administration decide to escalate its attacks against Israel last week? What was the purpose of the State Department’s shockingly hostile assault last Wednesday following the Israel Land’s Authority’s announcement that it is publishing tenders to build 323 apartment units in Jerusalem’s Gilo, Har Homa, Pisgat Zeev and Neveh Ya’acov neighborhoods? The statement needs to be seen to be believed.

“We are deeply concerned by reports today that the government of Israel has published tenders for 323 units in East Jerusalem settlements. This follows Monday’s announcement of plans for 770 units in the settlement of Gilo,” it began.

“We strongly oppose settlement activity, which is corrosive to the cause of peace. These steps by Israeli authorities are the latest examples of what appears to be a steady acceleration of settlement activity that is systematically undermining the prospects for a two-state solution.”

The Americans then attacked Israel for advancing plans to build in Judea and Samaria. The projects now on the table involve building apartments in the city of Ma’aleh Adumim and in Kiryat Arba and authorizing the already constructed Amona neighborhood in Ofra. The statement attacked Israel for enforcing its land laws toward non-Jews.

“We are also concerned about recent increased demolitions of Palestinian structures in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which reportedly have left dozens of Palestinians homeless, including children....”

Finally, it concluded, “This is part of an ongoing process of land seizures, settlement expansion, legalizations of outposts, and denial of Palestinian development that risk entrenching a one-state reality of perpetual occupation and conflict. We remain troubled that Israel continues this pattern of provocative and counter-productive action, which raises serious questions about Israel’s ultimate commitment to a peaceful, negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.”

Elliott Abrams, who was president George W.

Bush’s adviser on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, expressed shock at the statement’s hostility. In written commentary, Abrams hypothesized that the statement was directed toward the Europeans.

He offered that it was likely meant to signal to them that they are free to attack Israel as harshly as they wish.

Maybe. But after seven-and-a-half years of the Obama presidency, the Europeans need no such reassurance. They know that the White House has their back when it comes to Israel-bashing. A more likely explanation lies elsewhere. To understand it though, it is important to recognize that the positions expressed in last week’s statement weren’t altogether new.

In January, then-defense minister Moshe Ya’alon announced the inclusion of a 10-acre plot of land adjacent to Route 60 south of Jerusalem within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Gush Etzion Regional Council. The plot in question was lawfully purchased eight years ago from the Presbyterian Church by the late Irving Moskowitz and his wife, Cherna Moskowitz.

The State Department reacted with rage to Ya’alon’s announcement. Condemning the decision, spokesman John Kirby called settlements, “illegitimate and counterproductive to the cause of peace.” Kirby continued, “Actions such as this decision clearly undermine the possibility of a twostate solution.”

Irving Moskowitz, who passed away in June, and his widow, Cherna Moskowitz, are Americans, not Israelis. The American couple privately purchased the 10-acre plot, along with eight buildings located on the plot from the Presbyterian Church – a private entity. The sale took place not in the US, but in foreign territory.

US law does not bar US citizens from buying land in Judea and Samaria. In fact, in other cases, the administration actually encourages US citizens to purchase and develop land in the areas. For instance, the father of the Palestinian settlement of Rawabi in the Binyamin district is Bashar al-Masri.

Masri is a US citizen.

Far from condemning Masri, or the Palestinian Authority which is expanding Rawabi with him, the US government is funding Rawabi. The administration upholds Masri as a hero.

Legally, there is no difference whatsoever between the Moskowitzes and Masri. The only difference between them is their religion. The Moskowitzes are Jews. Masri is a Muslim.

And while the State Department condemned the lawful purchase of land by the Moskowitzes, and Israel’s incorporation of that land, in accordance with their wishes, within the boundaries of Gush Etzion, the administration celebrates land purchase, appropriation and development of Rawabi by Masri.

There is a name for this type of behavior. It is called discrimination. It is also called anti-Semitism.

Last week’s State Department condemnation was no different.

To understand why this is the case it is important to bear in mind that a few weeks before last Wednesday’s announcements about construction tenders in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods, Israel Lands Authority announced it is issuing tenders for 600 apartments in Jerusalem for Arabs-only in Beit Safafa and additional housing for Arabs-only in Beit Hanina.

Whereas the State Department harshly condemned last week’s announcement, it said nothing about the previous ones. In other words, it distinguishes between building for Jews and building for non-Jews. It seeks to trample Jewish civil rights while championing those of Arabs. Indeed, it defends Arab lawlessness.

This too is a policy predicated on bigotry, on anti-Semitism. There is one more component to Obama’s actions, which, like his anti-Jewish rationale, has spanned the length of his presidency.

In 2010, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton shocked Israeli society by screaming at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the telephone for 45 minutes. Clinton upbraided Netanyahu for a decision by a Jerusalem municipal planning board’s to approve a stage in the planning process toward building apartments in Ramat Shlomo, an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem.

Israelis – and many Americans – were shocked by her behavior, because no previous administration had ever treated neighborhoods in Jerusalem as controversial. Everyone, including Obama, acknowledged that like the major population centers in Judea and Samaria, these neighborhoods will remain part of Israel in perpetuity.

Yet suddenly in 2010, Clinton and Obama began castigating them as “illegitimate settlements.” In other words, they expanded the meaning of “settlement” to include all Jewish communities located in areas that had been under Jordanian occupation between 1949 and 1967.

Last week’s State Department’s statement made clear, yet again, that it is official US policy to view Gilo, a neighborhood of 40,000 people, and Ma’aleh Adumim, a city of 40,000 people, as indistinguishable from a few mobile homes in the middle of nowhere with a dozen 20-somethings camped out in them. For the past seven years, the US has viewed these residential areas all as equally evil, equally “corrosive” and equally “illegitimate,” despite the fact that their only shared quality is that they all house Jews. To be clear, none of this has any connection to international law. This is why the administration prefers the meaningless term “illegitimate” to the term “illegal.”

The administration argues that it discriminates against Jews to advance the cause of peace. But as Abrams made clear, this claim is completely absurd. Again, the Obama administration itself acknowledges that these areas will remain part of Israel under any possible peace deal.

Then there is the awkward issue of the Palestinians.

The Americans reject Jewish civil rights and blame Israel’s respect for those rights for the absence of peace at the same time that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is spewing blood libels about Jews at the European Parliament and suing Great Britain for the Balfour Declaration.

In other words, they are accusing Israel of destroying prospects for peace when it is clear to everyone – including Obama’s own negotiators – that the only side unwilling to make peace is the Palestinians.

Some argue that the administration’s condemnations are geared toward setting the conditions for a UN Security Council resolution against the settlements.

Obama, they warn, intends to enable such a decision to pass after the presidential election in November.

But these condemnations can just as easily make it politically difficult for Obama to carry out his plan. By condemning Israel in such an openly bigoted manner, Obama opens himself up to denunciations by Israel’s many friends in Congress, and indeed, in presidential politics. These allies can easily demand that Democratic nominee Clinton reject his anti-Semitic policies. In doing so, they will ensure that even if an anti-Israel resolution passes in November, it will be forgotten the moment Obama leaves office.

Given the fact that the US public does not share Obama’s hostility toward the Jewish state, prudence would recommend that he advance his bigoted aims as quietly as possible. So what is he up to? Since the Europeans don’t need a US condemnation to act, and anti-Israel resolutions at the UN are best advanced through quiet diplomacy, not public condemnations of a popular ally, the only remaining option is that Obama’s actual target audience is the US itself. With three months until the election, Obama is focused on legacy building.

Last week’s statement demonstrates that shaping the US’s future policy toward Israel is a major component of the legacy he is building. And what is the shape he is giving to that policy through his actions? By openly employing anti-Jewish policy rationales, Obama shows that the legacy he intends to pass on to his successors is a US policy toward Israel based neither on US interests nor on American values. Rather, it is predicated on unabashed anti-Jewish discrimination.

In other words, Obama’s presidential legacy is the promotion of anti-Semitism as the guiding principle shaping and informing US Israel policy.

This is, to be sure, a stunning – indeed shocking – conclusion. It points to the depth of Obama’s hostility to Jewish national and civil rights. But as his administration’s statements make clear, the conclusion that anti-Semitism is the guiding principle of his policies is unavoidable.

Those running to succeed Obama should be urged to denounce his bigotry and renounce his legacy. By the same token, the Israeli pro-Palestinian Left and the American pro-Obama Left should be urged to distance themselves from him.

As long as they refuse to do so, as long as they continue to support Obama, they make clear that for them, anti-Jewish bigotry is no big deal. As far as they are concerned, Jewish rights should only be respected when doing so advances their political goals.

This means that Obama’s supporters can no longer claim to be liberals. Now that we understand that anti-Jewish bigotry, and the rejection of Jewish civil rights, is the rationale informing Obama’s policy toward the Jewish state, it is clear that it is no longer possible to be both a liberal and an Obama supporter.

This is his legacy. And this is their choice.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Obamas-legacy-463295

Any Obama is clueless on this?

Se next post

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:16 am

"It is forbidden in Islam to make peace with the Jews"

Hezbollah's Al Manar quotes Sheikh Ali Damoh who stressed in his Friday sermon that there is no justification to communicate or normalize relations or have peace with the "Zionist enemy."

Damoh said thar every Muslim Scholar, both Sunnis and Shiite, in the past and the present, have all stated the inadmissibility of peace with the Jews as long as Jews control an inch of Muslim countries. He quoted Muslim scholars from Palestine, Iraq , Al-Azhar in Egypt, Iran, Pakistan and Indian Muslim scholars.

He gave examples of historic fatwas against any agreement with Jews, starting with thr first conference of Palestine Muslim scholars in 1935 down to an advisory opinion of the chairman of the Central Association of Muslim Scholars in India, an Iraqi fatwa in 1937, an Egyptian fatwa prohibiting reconciliation with the Jews and the necessity of jihad in 1956, a fatwa of the Islamic International Conference of scholars in Pakistan in 1968, and an advisory opinion of the Fatwa Committee at Al-Azhar in 1979, forbidding conceding any part of Palestine, signed by more than sixty Muslim scholars.

Apparently, no one told these Muslim scholars that the "occupation" from 1967 and the settlements" are sthe only problems, and if only Israel withdraw to its 1949 armistice lines, there would be peace. Perhaps we need to send Peace Now and J-Street and the EU and the UN to explain the issues to these guys. They clearly don't understand the real issue.

It must be that they are misinterpreting Islam.

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:22 am

Muslims countries?
So it has nothing to do with whether the people there are Palestinian Saudi's or Pakistanis. They base a claim to a land that was conquered by Arab Muslim centuries ago, retaken later by the Crusaders and then back to Muslim conquerers again. To then the British and now recently Israel from defensive conflicts.

So if the bases for the claim to own land can only come from the belief a land is owned through being conquered, as these clerics are claiming. As a claim it is endorsed by a fictional deity is not legl as it has no evidence or bases. Then Israel by the methodology of the Muslim clerics themselves are justfiying the right of Israel to be there through land aquisitions through conflicts.

That is all besides the point, yet again it shows it has nothing to do with settlements, it shows they are unwill to allow Jews to have self determination and they are doing this because of religious beliefs.

This is why Obama's foreign policy has been even worse than Bush
In a few years when Iran has nukes, people will look back on Obama and because of his naive stupidity will end up being labelled one of the worst in history. After all the good he did within the US, will count for nothing.

by Ben Reilly Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:01 am

The Obama administration is trying to foster a peace in which the Israelis are not counted as more valuable than those who were displaced by the British. That's the only realistic way forward, and there probably will be a lot of friction over that. But if there's any nation that deeply needs to go through some contentious honesty, it's Israel.

For far too long, Israel has been the tail wagging the dog, confident that its powerful allies will make over its oversteps into some sort of scenario that honors its so-called sacred birthright. Let's face it, Israel has been acting recklessly in the assurance that its more powerful allies will protect it.

It's time for Israel to become a responsible, rational state on its own right. The status quo can only hold for so long before the atrocities it has commited will be repaid, and more, given the irrational vitriol of its enemies.

I for one am sick of my nation being the one held to account when these two parties can't live with one another. Let's see them act like accountable grown-ups for once, and if that means they have to experience total war before they learn to value human life, maybe that's what is needed at this point.

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:11 am

Ben Reilly wrote:The Obama administration is trying to foster a peace in which the Israelis are not counted as more valuable than those who were displaced by the British. That's the only realistic way forward, and there probably will be a lot of friction over that. But if there's any nation that deeply needs to go through some contentious honesty, it's Israel.

For far too long, Israel has been the tail wagging the dog, confident that its powerful allies will make over its oversteps into some sort of scenario that honors its so-called sacred birthright. Let's face it, Israel has been acting recklessly in the assurance that its more powerful allies will protect it.

It's time for Israel to become a responsible, rational state on its own right. The status quo can only hold for so long before the atrocities it has commited will be repaid, and more, given the irrational vitriol of its enemies.

I for one am sick of my nation being the one held to account when these two parties can't live with one another. Let's see them act like accountable grown-ups for once, and if that means they have to experience total war before they learn to value human life, maybe that's what is needed at this point.

You mean foster peace by lies and discrmination?

Did you read the article?

Clearly not

Then you end with the biggest load of nonsense yet

By blaming Israel and no responsibility for the Palestinian authorities, even though they have have spurned statehood 3 times

You then ignore all the evidence and place the emphasis on Israel when the Palestinian authorities do not accept Israel's existance.

So Israel should have to suck it up, based on the fact they are being pushed and with prejudice and nothing on the Palestinian athorities.

You sum up everything that is wrong with the left

I am sick of your blatant hate of Jews

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 1:29 pm

*********************************
If your anti-USA - 'I Hate Obama', blogger has such angst about my country; then FFS quick sucking our tit and quit asking for more $$$$ and become self-sufficient as Israel should be!
Rather unique to be the rabid dog and print up such utter BS and then keep asking for more aid from the very nation that sustain your sorry ass!

US Aid to Israel Is ‘Too Much’ Say 61.9% of Americans
Yet additional secret U.S. aid may have ballooned to $1.9-$13.2 billion annually
by Grant Smith, April 06, 2016
http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2016/04/05/us-aid-israel-much-say-61-9-americans/

And what the ingrates requested {Oh, yes indeed ...Israel demands money each year from the USA} the Israel request came in at 5 million dollars in AID. LMAO
Obama’s legacy Top-10-US-foreign-aid-destination1-300x179

Obama’s legacy Top-10-US-foreign-aid-destination1-300x179

They weren't handed over what they requested ...no, indeed they were given less but still they remain our nations #1 hand out for FOREIGN AID and you whine and post such bilge about the putrid lies as if it's factual. FFS

2014 allocated 3,100 million but spent 5,086.193
2015 allocated 3,100 million but spent 4,810,495
2016 allocated 3,100 million ________________ would you like to bet that we'll go over that figure again?
http://beta.foreignassistance.gov/explore#

Oh, little man Didgey-dooer ...you really post some very immature sounding rants and expect the Americans to just roll over and accept your bilge as handed down from the WORD OF GOD via that hugely biased blogger you follow so faithfully like a well trained lap dog! Evil or Very Mad

Didge-dooer ranted >
You then ignore all the evidence and place the emphasis on Israel when the Palestinian authorities do not accept Israel's existance.
So Israel should have to suck it up, based on the fact they are being pushed and with prejudice and nothing on the Palestinian athorities.
You sum up everything that is wrong with the left
I am sick of your blatant hate of Jews

Perhaps your angst wouldn't sound so FAKE & HOLLOW if the great nation would stop sucking at our tit with one side of it's face while stabbing us in the back with their other side of their behavior!
Now that says a lot more about the morality and method for what promotes the Israel mindset then any of your unsubstantiated 'Americans Hate Jews Utter BS'!

by Andy Sat Aug 06, 2016 1:50 pm

Didge is anti most things,USA,Lefties,Muslims, Jews.
Is suspect he dislikes himself as well.

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 2:16 pm

Handy Andy wrote:Didge is anti most things,USA,Lefties,Muslims, Jews.
Is suspect he dislikes himself as well.

Quite interesting ...one just never knows who will show up and post under his avatar/nick name 'Jekyll or Hyde'; sure wish there was a flag or a caution light he'd use to alert all of us as too his specific mood(s), they swing & shift so quickly ...one just never knows! Obama’s legacy 2190311264

But going off on a 'Anti-Semitic Rant' against the forum owner is just insanity at best!

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 2:31 pm

BTW - Didgey-dooer ...you might want to clean up your own Backyard before you keep pointing fingers at other nations; especially other nations that are pouring MILLIONS of free Cash into that free loading/ungrateful nation of Israel.
Seems that you have those special glasses on that keep you locked into your 'Anti-American Blogger' rants but have over looked this >

Latest News
Anti-Semitic incidents rise in Britain: What can be done?

Reported incidents that included verbal abuse and graffiti rose by 11 percent.
By Roya Sabri, Staff August 4, 2016
While anti-Muslim sentiment has garnered many headlines in Europe and the United States in recent months, a recent release shows that the number of anti-Semitic incidents reported in Britain rose by 11 percent in 2016, continuing a trend of increased reports since 2013. ...
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0804/Anti-Semitic-incidents-rise-in-Britain-What-can-be-done

by 'Wolfie Sat Aug 06, 2016 4:34 pm

YOUR bias is clearly showing through here, Didge...

ALL that the OP ends up showing us is one Zionist apologist blogger writing an opinion piece in one also obviously biased Zionist website..

AND it reads more like an electoral message from some old conervative/fundi' Jew, more than anything else, to convince his fan club to vote against the Democrats, on the spurious and laughable grounds that they are becoming more and more anti-Israel..

Pathetic political opportunism on that author's part, no less. Obama’s legacy 3893789544

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 4:48 pm

Handy Andy wrote:Didge is anti most things,USA,Lefties,Muslims, Jews.
Is suspect he dislikes himself as well.

Please back this up with evidence?

If not then how silly are you going to look Andy?

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 4:51 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

YOUR bias is clearly showing through here, Didge...

ALL that the OP ends up showing us is one Zionist apologist blogger writing an opinion piece in one also obviously biased Zionist website..

AND it reads more like an electoral message from some old conervative/fundi' Jew, more than anything else, to convince his fan club to vote against the Democrats, on the spurious and laughable grounds that they are becoming more and more anti-Israel..

Pathetic political opportunism on that author's part, no less.

So here we go again, now going off the writer and source failing to argue the points based on the blatant discrimination.

So address the points, for example:

In January, then-defense minister Moshe Ya’alon announced the inclusion of a 10-acre plot of land adjacent to Route 60 south of Jerusalem within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Gush Etzion Regional Council. The plot in question was lawfully purchased eight years ago from the Presbyterian Church by the late Irving Moskowitz and his wife, Cherna Moskowitz.

The State Department reacted with rage to Ya’alon’s announcement. Condemning the decision, spokesman John Kirby called settlements, “illegitimate and counterproductive to the cause of peace.” Kirby continued, “Actions such as this decision clearly undermine the possibility of a twostate solution.”

Irving Moskowitz, who passed away in June, and his widow, Cherna Moskowitz, are Americans, not Israelis. The American couple privately purchased the 10-acre plot, along with eight buildings located on the plot from the Presbyterian Church – a private entity. The sale took place not in the US, but in foreign territory.

US law does not bar US citizens from buying land in Judea and Samaria. In fact, in other cases, the administration actually encourages US citizens to purchase and develop land in the areas. For instance, the father of the Palestinian settlement of Rawabi in the Binyamin district is Bashar al-Masri.

Masri is a US citizen.

Far from condemning Masri, or the Palestinian Authority which is expanding Rawabi with him, the US government is funding Rawabi. The administration upholds Masri as a hero.

Legally, there is no difference whatsoever between the Moskowitzes and Masri. The only difference between them is their religion. The Moskowitzes are Jews. Masri is a Muslim.

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 4:51 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
Handy Andy wrote:Didge is anti most things,USA,Lefties,Muslims, Jews.
Is suspect he dislikes himself as well.
Quite interesting ...one just never knows who will show up and post under his avatar/nick name 'Jekyll or Hyde'; sure wish there was a flag or a caution light he'd use to alert all of us as too his specific mood(s), they swing & shift so quickly ...one just never knows!
But going off on a 'Anti-Semitic Rant' against the forum owner is just insanity at best!

Reported

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:02 pm

Can't refute the posted 'BUBBLE BUSTING' lies about your own 'JEW HATERS/OBAMA HATERS CLUB' but you'll whine about your feeling getting hurt!
Awwwww

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:08 pm

Didge wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

YOUR bias is clearly showing through here, Didge...

ALL that the OP ends up showing us is one Zionist apologist blogger writing an opinion piece in one also obviously biased Zionist website..

AND it reads more like an electoral message from some old conervative/fundi' Jew, more than anything else, to convince his fan club to vote against the Democrats, on the spurious and laughable grounds that they are becoming more and more anti-Israel..

Pathetic political opportunism on that author's part, no less.

So here we go again, now going off the writer and source failing to argue the points based on the blatant discrimination.

So address the points, for example:

In January, then-defense minister Moshe Ya’alon announced the inclusion of a 10-acre plot of land adjacent to Route 60 south of Jerusalem within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Gush Etzion Regional Council. The plot in question was lawfully purchased eight years ago from the Presbyterian Church by the late Irving Moskowitz and his wife, Cherna Moskowitz.

The State Department reacted with rage to Ya’alon’s announcement. Condemning the decision, spokesman John Kirby called settlements, “illegitimate and counterproductive to the cause of peace.” Kirby continued, “Actions such as this decision clearly undermine the possibility of a twostate solution.”

Irving Moskowitz, who passed away in June, and his widow, Cherna Moskowitz, are Americans, not Israelis. The American couple privately purchased the 10-acre plot, along with eight buildings located on the plot from the Presbyterian Church – a private entity. The sale took place not in the US, but in foreign territory.

US law does not bar US citizens from buying land in Judea and Samaria. In fact, in other cases, the administration actually encourages US citizens to purchase and develop land in the areas. For instance, the father of the Palestinian settlement of Rawabi in the Binyamin district is Bashar al-Masri.

Masri is a US citizen.

Far from condemning Masri, or the Palestinian Authority which is expanding Rawabi with him, the US government is funding Rawabi. The administration upholds Masri as a hero.

Legally, there is no difference whatsoever between the Moskowitzes and Masri. The only difference between them is their religion. The Moskowitzes are Jews. Masri is a Muslim.

So back to the point.
Are people claiming the above is equality now?

Imagine if the US stated that foreign Muslims ahould not buy property or land in the UK as it was preventing peace in the Middle East?
That would be discrimination.

by Original Quill Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:15 pm

didge wrote:Did you read the article?

Clearly not

It is equally clear that you did not read it, didge. You just did a c&p of an article chosen for its headline. You have neither quoted from it, nor highlighted portions. You have no idea of its contents.

didge wrote:By blaming Israel and no responsibility for the Palestinian authorities, even though they have have spurned statehood 3 times

You then ignore all the evidence and place the emphasis on Israel when the Palestinian authorities do not accept Israel's existance.

It is also clear you did not hear Ben. He referenced a peace where “…the Israelis are not counted as more valuable than those who were displaced by the British.” That would include the offerings (of statehood) you mention.

The question is not whether the Palestinians have been offered anything, but whether they have been given parity., and not the more generous share Even then, when the offering gets close to parity—as with the two-state solution—it is Mr. Netanyahu who spurns the deal.

It's called 'not negotiating in good faith'.

by Ben Reilly Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:17 pm

Didge wrote:So back to the point.
Are people claiming the above is equality now?

Imagine if the US stated that foreign Muslims ahould not buy property or land in the UK as it was preventing peace in the Middle East?
That would be discrimination.

First of all, I can see nothing that actually says the U.S. State Department disallowed the Moskowitzes from purchasing the property -- they've purchased other properties in Israel while Obama was in office.

Secondly, Moskowitz was an unapologetic Zionist who stated many times that his goal was to make Jews the majority and Arabs the minority in neighborhoods of East Jerusalem that are currently predominantly Arab -- so he wasn't exactly the most fair-minded person, was he?

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:21 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:So back to the point.
Are people claiming the above is equality now?

Imagine if the US stated that foreign Muslims ahould not buy property or land in the UK as it was preventing peace in the Middle East?
That would be discrimination.

First of all, I can see nothing that actually says the U.S. State Department disallowed the Moskowitzes from purchasing the property -- they've purchased other properties in Israel while Obama was in office.

Secondly, Moskowitz was an unapologetic Zionist who stated many times that his goal was to make Jews the majority and Arabs the minority in neighborhoods of East Jerusalem that are currently predominantly Arab -- so he wasn't exactly the most fair-minded person, was he?

Goal post move alert, did they discriminate agaisnt one condeming them, whilst helping and supporting another, when both are American citizens?
The only difference being their religious or cultural identity?

You then invoke Zionism again as if it is a dirty word to again allow justification for discrimination.

That is blatant prejudice.

If you want to speak out on his views that is abolsutely no problem, but to discriminate against him based on his religious and ethnic idenity is blatantt antisemitism

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:24 pm

The “Mandate for Palestine” is Valid to This Day

The Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations. Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine” of the League of Nations.
This Mandate granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a right unaltered in international law and valid to this day. Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), Gaza and the whole of Jerusalem are legal.

The International Court of Justice reaffirmed the meaning and validity of Article 80 in three separate cases:

ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 11, 1950: in the “question concerning the International States of South West Africa.”³³
ICJ Advisory Opinion of June 21, 1971: “When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d’etre [French: “reason for being”] and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. ... The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League [of Nations].”
ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 9, 2004: regarding the “legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.”³⁵

In other words, neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that has never been amended.

All of western Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including the West Bank and Gaza, remains open to Jewish settlement under international law.
Professor Eugene Rostow concurred with the ICJ’s opinion as to the “sacredness” of trusts such as the “Mandate for Palestine”:

“‘A trust’ – as in Article 80 of the UN Charter – does not end because the trustee dies ... the Jewish right of settlement in the whole of western Palestine – the area west of the Jordan – survived the British withdrawal in 1948. ... They are parts of the mandate territory, now legally occupied by Israel with the consent of the Security Council.”³⁶

The British Mandate left intact the Jewish right to settle in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Explains Professor Rostow:

“This right is protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, which provides that unless a trusteeship agreement is agreed upon (which was not done for the Palestine Mandate), nothing in the chapter shall be construed in and 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.

“The Mandates of the League of Nations have a special status in international law. They are considered to be trusts, indeed ‘sacred trusts.’
“Under international law, neither Jordan nor the Palestinian Arab ‘people’ of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have a substantial claim to the sovereign possession of the occupied territories.”

It is interesting to learn how Article 80 made its way into the UN Charter. Professor Rostow recalls:

“I am indebted to my learned friend Dr. Paul Riebenfeld, who has for many years been my mentor on the history of Zionism, for reminding me of some of the circumstances which led to the adoption of Article 80 of the Charter. Strong Jewish delegations representing differing political tendencies within Jewry attended the San Francisco Conference in 1945. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Peter Bergson, Eliahu Elath, Professors Ben-Zion Netanayu and A. S. Yehuda, and Harry Selden were among the Jewish representatives. Their mission was to protect the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine under the mandate against erosion in a world of ambitious states. Article 80 was the result of their efforts.”³⁷

^{http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm}

by Ben Reilly Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:31 pm

Didge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:So back to the point.
Are people claiming the above is equality now?

Imagine if the US stated that foreign Muslims ahould not buy property or land in the UK as it was preventing peace in the Middle East?
That would be discrimination.

First of all, I can see nothing that actually says the U.S. State Department disallowed the Moskowitzes from purchasing the property -- they've purchased other properties in Israel while Obama was in office.

Secondly, Moskowitz was an unapologetic Zionist who stated many times that his goal was to make Jews the majority and Arabs the minority in neighborhoods of East Jerusalem that are currently predominantly Arab -- so he wasn't exactly the most fair-minded person, was he?

Goal post move alert, did they discriminate agaisnt one condeming them, whilst helping and supporting another, when both are American citizens?
The only difference being their religious or cultural identity?

You then invoke Zionism again as if it is a dirty word to again allow justification for discrimination.

That is blatant prejudice.

If you want to speak out on his views that is abolsutely no problem, but to discriminate against him based on his religious and ethnic idenity is blatantt antisemitism

This is what you don't seem to understand -- criticizing Jews, especially those who on the basis of an anti-Arab agenda try to drive Arabs out of areas they are legally entitled to be, is not antisemitic. Not when I do it, not when the U.S. government does it.

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:37 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

Goal post move alert, did they discriminate agaisnt one condeming them, whilst helping and supporting another, when both are American citizens?
The only difference being their religious or cultural identity?

You then invoke Zionism again as if it is a dirty word to again allow justification for discrimination.

That is blatant prejudice.

If you want to speak out on his views that is abolsutely no problem, but to discriminate against him based on his religious and ethnic idenity is blatantt antisemitism

This is what you don't seem to understand -- criticizing Jews, especially those who on the basis of an anti-Arab agenda try to drive Arabs out of areas they are legally entitled to be, is not antisemitic. Not when I do it, not when the U.S. government does it.

Then you simply hav difficulty grasping the meaning of words.

The State Department reacted with rage to Ya’alon’s announcement. Condemning the decision, spokesman John Kirby called settlements, “illegitimate and counterproductive to the cause of peace.” Kirby continued, “Actions such as this decision clearly undermine the possibility of a twostate solution.”

So the US state department is making things up as its not illigitmate or illegal based on the British Mandate for Palestine.
If you wish to nulify the Mandate system set up under the League of Nations, this would mean also doing so for the Mandate for Syria, the Mandate for Mesopotamia, ect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_mandate

This would then nulify any right to any of the countries formed, including Jordan, which was formed out of the British Mandate for palestine.

By claiming illigimate based on a falsehood, is denying Jews buying land and property but not Muslims, when both are American citizens

That is blatant antisemitism

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:42 pm

Didge wrote:The “Mandate for Palestine” is Valid to This Day

The Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations. Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine” of the League of Nations.
This Mandate granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a right unaltered in international law and valid to this day. Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), Gaza and the whole of Jerusalem are legal.

The International Court of Justice reaffirmed the meaning and validity of Article 80 in three separate cases:

ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 11, 1950: in the “question concerning the International States of South West Africa.”³³
ICJ Advisory Opinion of June 21, 1971: “When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d’etre [French: “reason for being”] and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. ... The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League [of Nations].”
ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 9, 2004: regarding the “legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.”³⁵

In other words, neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that has never been amended.

All of western Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including the West Bank and Gaza, remains open to Jewish settlement under international law.
Professor Eugene Rostow concurred with the ICJ’s opinion as to the “sacredness” of trusts such as the “Mandate for Palestine”:

“‘A trust’ – as in Article 80 of the UN Charter – does not end because the trustee dies ... the Jewish right of settlement in the whole of western Palestine – the area west of the Jordan – survived the British withdrawal in 1948. ... They are parts of the mandate territory, now legally occupied by Israel with the consent of the Security Council.”³⁶

The British Mandate left intact the Jewish right to settle in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Explains Professor Rostow:

“This right is protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, which provides that unless a trusteeship agreement is agreed upon (which was not done for the Palestine Mandate), nothing in the chapter shall be construed in and 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.

“The Mandates of the League of Nations have a special status in international law. They are considered to be trusts, indeed ‘sacred trusts.’
“Under international law, neither Jordan nor the Palestinian Arab ‘people’ of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have a substantial claim to the sovereign possession of the occupied territories.”

It is interesting to learn how Article 80 made its way into the UN Charter. Professor Rostow recalls:

“I am indebted to my learned friend Dr. Paul Riebenfeld, who has for many years been my mentor on the history of Zionism, for reminding me of some of the circumstances which led to the adoption of Article 80 of the Charter. Strong Jewish delegations representing differing political tendencies within Jewry attended the San Francisco Conference in 1945. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Peter Bergson, Eliahu Elath, Professors Ben-Zion Netanayu and A. S. Yehuda, and Harry Selden were among the Jewish representatives. Their mission was to protect the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine under the mandate against erosion in a world of ambitious states. Article 80 was the result of their efforts.”³⁷

^{http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm}

You need to read this again..

And watch

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:53 pm

Original Quill wrote:
didge wrote:Did you read the article?

Clearly not

It is equally clear that you did not read it, didge. You just did a c&p of an article chosen for its headline. You have neither quoted from it, nor highlighted portions. You have no idea of its contents.

didge wrote:By blaming Israel and no responsibility for the Palestinian authorities, even though they have have spurned statehood 3 times

You then ignore all the evidence and place the emphasis on Israel when the Palestinian authorities do not accept Israel's existance.

It is also clear you did not hear Ben. He referenced a peace where “…the Israelis are not counted as more valuable than those who were displaced by the British.” That would include the offerings (of statehood) you mention.

The question is not whether the Palestinians have been offered anything, but whether they have been given parity., and not the more generous share Even then, when the offering gets close to parity—as with the two-state solution—it is Mr. Netanyahu who spurns the deal.

It's called 'not negotiating in good faith'.

Then you simple cannot read

Ben stated:

It's time for Israel to become a responsible, rational state on its own right. The status quo can only hold for so long before the atrocities it has commited will be repaid, and more, given the irrational vitriol of its enemies.

In 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza and its settlements.
This did not stop the violence and instead escalated the violence from Gaza itself.
Again people are placing only the emphasis on Israel, blatantly ignoring that the Palestinians continue to refuse to recognise the right of Israel to exist. Peace requires both parties to come to an agreement, where what Ben and Obama are trying to do is place pressure only on Israel which then allows the Palestinian authorities to not have to even come to terms with Israel and continue to not recognise their right to self determination. The Palestinian authorities have 3 times spurned statehood, simply because they refuse to recognise the the existance of Israel.

Again it requires both to be in agrement and for Obama to do this shows he also is clueless on islamism and also is that dumb to think this conflict is casuing other islamic extremism, failing to see half a million are dead in Syria, based on a dictator and Islamic extremism between them.

Again you cannot condemn an American jew buying property and supprt a Muslim American within the same land based of their religious and ethnic identity.
That is blatant racism, as how many Jews live now in Gaza?
How many will be allowed to live in a future Palestinian West Bank?

None, but hey lets forget all these facts shall we?

That is prejudice.

To claim it is settlements that is stopping peace is as seen false, as it simply only increased violence from Gaza

by Original Quill Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:04 pm

CNN wrote:Israel's PM Netanyahu: No Palestinian state on my watch

(CNN)The prospect of a Palestinian state is nil so long as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stays in office, Netanyahu said in a Monday interview.

Asked by an interviewer with the Israeli news site, NRG, if it was true that a Palestinian nation would never be formed while he's prime minister, Netanyahu replied, "Indeed."

His interview with NRG came as he courted conservative supporters a day before Israelis head to the polls for national elections.

"Anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state, anyone who is going to evacuate territories today, is simply giving a base for attacks to the radical Islam against Israel," he said. "This is the true reality that was created here in the last few years."

Netanyahu went on to say that any opponents on the left who might argue otherwise are "sticking their head in the sand, time and time again."

He further said a strong government led by his Likud Party is necessary to beat back international pressure to divide Jerusalem and return Israel to its pre-1967 borders, according to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency report on the NRG interview.

"I do not give in," Netanyahu told NRG. "We stood fast against huge pressure, and we will continue to do so."
Following Netanyahu's interview, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who is also a member of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said the Israeli Prime Minister's stance is nothing new.

"Netanyahu has done everything possible to bury the two-state solution," he said. "Netanyahu's statement at the illegal settlement of Har Homa is a response to all those governments who tried to block Palestinian diplomatic initiatives. He couldn't have done that without counting on full impunity from the international community. Now the world must learn its lesson and understand that impunity won't bring peace, only justice will."

Nuff said.

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:11 pm

Original Quill wrote:
CNN wrote:Israel's PM Netanyahu: No Palestinian state on my watch

(CNN)The prospect of a Palestinian state is nil so long as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stays in office, Netanyahu said in a Monday interview.

Asked by an interviewer with the Israeli news site, NRG, if it was true that a Palestinian nation would never be formed while he's prime minister, Netanyahu replied, "Indeed."

His interview with NRG came as he courted conservative supporters a day before Israelis head to the polls for national elections.

"Anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state, anyone who is going to evacuate territories today, is simply giving a base for attacks to the radical Islam against Israel," he said. "This is the true reality that was created here in the last few years."

Netanyahu went on to say that any opponents on the left who might argue otherwise are "sticking their head in the sand, time and time again."

He further said a strong government led by his Likud Party is necessary to beat back international pressure to divide Jerusalem and return Israel to its pre-1967 borders, according to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency report on the NRG interview.

"I do not give in," Netanyahu told NRG. "We stood fast against huge pressure, and we will continue to do so."
Following Netanyahu's interview, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who is also a member of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said the Israeli Prime Minister's stance is nothing new.

"Netanyahu has done everything possible to bury the two-state solution," he said. "Netanyahu's statement at the illegal settlement of Har Homa is a response to all those governments who tried to block Palestinian diplomatic initiatives. He couldn't have done that without counting on full impunity from the international community. Now the world must learn its lesson and understand that impunity won't bring peace, only justice will."

Nuff said.

And has since retracted this

So not enough said and again it fails to address every single point I made

I can do the above where its far worse

"It is forbidden in Islam to make peace with the Jews"

Hezbollah's Al Manar quotes Sheikh Ali Damoh who stressed in his Friday sermon that there is no justification to communicate or normalize relations or have peace with the "Zionist enemy."

Damoh said thar every Muslim Scholar, both Sunnis and Shiite, in the past and the present, have all stated the inadmissibility of peace with the Jews as long as Jews control an inch of Muslim countries. He quoted Muslim scholars from Palestine, Iraq , Al-Azhar in Egypt, Iran, Pakistan and Indian Muslim scholars.

He gave examples of historic fatwas against any agreement with Jews, starting with thr first conference of Palestine Muslim scholars in 1935 down to an advisory opinion of the chairman of the Central Association of Muslim Scholars in India, an Iraqi fatwa in 1937, an Egyptian fatwa prohibiting reconciliation with the Jews and the necessity of jihad in 1956, a fatwa of the Islamic International Conference of scholars in Pakistan in 1968, and an advisory opinion of the Fatwa Committee at Al-Azhar in 1979, forbidding conceding any part of Palestine, signed by more than sixty Muslim scholars.

Apparently, no one told these Muslim scholars that the "occupation" from 1967 and the settlements" are sthe only problems, and if only Israel withdraw to its 1949 armistice lines, there would be peace. Perhaps we need to send Peace Now and J-Street and the EU and the UN to explain the issues to these guys. They clearly don't understand the real issue.

It must be that they are misinterpreting Islam.

Enough said

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:18 pm

I often hear people say “I am left-wing on most issues, but I am right-wing on Israel” to indicate that they oppose the hateful and uninformed anti-Israel rhetoric that is too often repeated by people who define themselves as left-wing.

No, no, no, no, no, no!

By saying that, you are saying that failing to be hateful towards Israel is right-wing. How on earth is that? Is it right-wing to not be racist or to not be homophobic?

How can it be right-wing to be fair towards the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, the only LGBT-friendly country in the Middle East, the only country in the Middle East that aims for gender equality, and the only country in the Middle East that respects human rights?

How can it be right-wing to recognize the Jews’ right to self-determination?

Being fair towards Israel is neither right-wing nor left-wing, but it is morally correct, just as it is morally correct to support peace, democracy, human rights, prosperity, and self-determination in every part of the Middle East.

So just say, “I am left-wing on most issues, and I am a moral person, which is why I refuse to demonize Israel”.

And if someone questions your left-wing credentials, ask them how they can reconcile being left-wing or even being human with hating Israel. How can they wake up in the morning and look at themselves in the mirror knowing that they are haters? How can they live with themselves twenty four hours of every day knowing that they deny self-determination to one people but not to others?

So whether you are a social democrat, a conservative, or a centrist, if you are fair towards Israel then be loud and be proud about who you are. You deserve it.

Obama’s legacy Fred-Maroun-medium

Fred Maroun Fred Maroun is a Canadian of Arab origin who lived in Lebanon until 1984, including during 10 years of civil war. Fred supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and he supports a liberal and democratic Middle East where all religions and nationalities, including Palestinians, can co-exist in peace with each other and with Israel, and where human rights are respected. Fred is an atheist, a social liberal, and an advocate of equal rights for LGBT people everywhere.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-my-friend-you-are-not-right-wing-on-israe

by Original Quill Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:28 pm

didge wrote:And [Netanyahu] has since retracted this

Once the cat is out of the bag, it's impossible to put it back in.

When Netanyahu admitted he was opposing a two-state solution, it was on the eve of an election in Israel. Per force he was telling the truth in order to assure voters that he was a dedicated anti-Palestinian prime minister.

After the heat of the election was off, Netanyahu returned to the lie he was perpetrating on the world. That's not a retraction; it's an inconvenience called getting caught with your pants down.

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:31 pm

Original Quill wrote:
didge wrote:And [Netanyahu] has since retracted this

Once the cat is out of the bag, it's impossible to put it back in.

When Netanyahu admitted he was opposing a two-state solution, it was on the eve of an election in Israel. Per force he was telling the truth in order to assure voters that he was a dedicated anti-Palestinian prime minister.

After the heat of the election was off, he returned to the lie he was perpetrating on the world. That's not a retraction; it's an inconvenience called getting caught with your pants down.

Flawed argument and again ignoring all my points

Netanyahu is not immortal or will remain in power for ever.

Also again as stated he has asked to meet the Palestinian authorities in person, they refuse

You of course ignore all this and only look to blame one side

Again it takes both parties to reach an agreement, you are againg poorly offering up hot air

So you are ignoring all the points made

In 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza and its settlements.
This did not stop the violence and instead escalated the violence from Gaza itself.
Again people are placing only the emphasis on Israel, blatantly ignoring that the Palestinians continue to refuse to recognise the right of Israel to exist. Peace requires both parties to come to an agreement, where what Ben and Obama are trying to do is place pressure only on Israel which then allows the Palestinian authorities to not have to even come to terms with Israel and continue to not recognise their right to self determination. The Palestinian authorities have 3 times spurned statehood, simply because they refuse to recognise the the existance of Israel.

Again it requires both to be in agrement and for Obama to do this shows he also is clueless on islamism and also is that dumb to think this conflict is casuing other islamic extremism, failing to see half a million are dead in Syria, based on a dictator and Islamic extremism between them.

Again you cannot condemn an American jew buying property and supprt a Muslim American within the same land based of their religious and ethnic identity.
That is blatant racism, as how many Jews live now in Gaza?
How many will be allowed to live in a future Palestinian West Bank?

None, but hey lets forget all these facts shall we?

That is prejudice.

To claim it is settlements that is stopping peace is as seen false, as it simply only increased violence from Gaza

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:34 pm

Right I really have to go, but if you poorly attempt to avoid all the points going off a flawed view point once made and since changed.
Then the you are out of this debate

Take that anyway you want

You do not get to avoid points raised

So have a good evening and if you fail to address the countless poinst and legality raised, which you have been very quite on.

Then this still stands as antisemitism by a US President

Laters

by Original Quill Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:38 pm

didge wrote:Netanyahu is not immortal or will remain in power for ever.

Isn’t this a tacit admission that you, too, cannot abide by Natanyahu’s word?

didge wrote:Also again as stated he has asked to meet the Palestinian authorities in person, they refuse

If you don’t trust Netanyahu, why should the Palestinians? Apparently, he is a bad faith negotiator.

by Guest Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:45 pm

You out of the debate

I responded and reasoned why it is racism, based off two American citizens, one Jewish the other Muslim

The “Mandate for Palestine” is Valid to This Day

The Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations. Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine” of the League of Nations.
This Mandate granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a right unaltered in international law and valid to this day. Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), Gaza and the whole of Jerusalem are legal.

The International Court of Justice reaffirmed the meaning and validity of Article 80 in three separate cases:

ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 11, 1950: in the “question concerning the International States of South West Africa.”³³

ICJ Advisory Opinion of June 21, 1971: “When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d’etre [French: “reason for being”] and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. ... The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League [of Nations].”

ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 9, 2004: regarding the “legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.”³⁵

In other words, neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that has never been amended.

All of western Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including the West Bank and Gaza, remains open to Jewish settlement under international law.
Professor Eugene Rostow concurred with the ICJ’s opinion as to the “sacredness” of trusts such as the “Mandate for Palestine”:

“‘A trust’ – as in Article 80 of the UN Charter – does not end because the trustee dies ... the Jewish right of settlement in the whole of western Palestine – the area west of the Jordan – survived the British withdrawal in 1948. ... They are parts of the mandate territory, now legally occupied by Israel with the consent of the Security Council.”³⁶

The British Mandate left intact the Jewish right to settle in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Explains Professor Rostow:

“This right is protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, which provides that unless a trusteeship agreement is agreed upon (which was not done for the Palestine Mandate), nothing in the chapter shall be construed in and 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.

“The Mandates of the League of Nations have a special status in international law. They are considered to be trusts, indeed ‘sacred trusts.’
“Under international law, neither Jordan nor the Palestinian Arab ‘people’ of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have a substantial claim to the sovereign possession of the occupied territories.”

It is interesting to learn how Article 80 made its way into the UN Charter. Professor Rostow recalls:

“I am indebted to my learned friend Dr. Paul Riebenfeld, who has for many years been my mentor on the history of Zionism, for reminding me of some of the circumstances which led to the adoption of Article 80 of the Charter. Strong Jewish delegations representing differing political tendencies within Jewry attended the San Francisco Conference in 1945. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Peter Bergson, Eliahu Elath, Professors Ben-Zion Netanayu and A. S. Yehuda, and Harry Selden were among the Jewish representatives. Their mission was to protect the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine under the mandate against erosion in a world of ambitious states. Article 80 was the result of their efforts.”³⁷

^{http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm}

Then you simply hav difficulty grasping the meaning of words.

The State Department reacted with rage to Ya’alon’s announcement. Condemning the decision, spokesman John Kirby called settlements, “illegitimate and counterproductive to the cause of peace.” Kirby continued, “Actions such as this decision clearly undermine the possibility of a twostate solution.”

So the US state department is making things up as its not illigitmate or illegal based on the British Mandate for Palestine.
If you wish to nulify the Mandate system set up under the League of Nations, this would mean also doing so for the Mandate for Syria, the Mandate for Mesopotamia, ect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_mandate

This would then nulify any right to any of the countries formed, including Jordan, which was formed out of the British Mandate for palestine.

By claiming illigimate based on a falsehood, is denying Jews buying land and property but not Muslims, when both are American citizens
The US state department condemn an American Jew for purchasing land, they supported an American Muslim buying land in the same area. This American buying such land would not even by the Genva convention be classed as a settlement

So That is blatant antisemitism by the US state deparment on its own citizens

by JulesV Sun Aug 07, 2016 12:22 am

His abiding legacy is that a man of colour took on the onerous task of POTUS (How well or how badly he did it is a secondary matter). He showed that all colours are part of the HUEman race. Deliberate mis-spelling there.

Now let's get the first woman in the white house, it's long overdue, and not just for tokenism but because she's the best of the current pick. Most experienced etc. clappy

by Guest Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:12 am

The only thing people need learn from this is how hypocritical some of the left are.

They berate some people in the Uk over immigration claiming racism, when for many, it has nothing to do with racism but the ability to cope with the infrustructure.

When American Jews and Muslims want to buy land in Jerusalem, the Muslim is supported and encouraged. The Jew is condemned and that Multiculturalism is exempt for Palestinian Arab Muslims and that the left encourage racial discrimination

Abbas has vowed a future Palestinina state will be free of Jews and the left are silent on this and even claim for Jews to live there will not help bring about peace.

Hypocrisy at its worse, the regressives allow for racial discrimination and bow down to the fear of violence threatened by the Palestinian authorities

Why are they not calling the Palestian authorities racist for not being able to live side by side in peace with the Jews, as Israeli's does with Arabs in Israel.?

Trump wants to stop all Muslim immigration to the US

Obama is against all Jewish immigration to Jersualem and the West Bank, the historical and cultural home of the Jews?

You tell me what is the difference?

by Guest Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:39 am

Trump wants to stop all ILLEGAL REFUGEE's Muslim immigration to the US

~~Obama is against all Jewish immigration to Jersualem and the West Bank, the historical and cultural home of the Jews?~~ You've ZERO quoted/documented proof of this BS, just fabricated 'hate rhetoric' that you make up from the 'ANTI - American' crap you read!

You tell me what is the difference? Hmmm, seems you set standards for member's to post according to a BAR that you fail grossly to meet ...that is the difference!

BTW - I'm far from any fan of our 'Cheeto-Jesus' but you could at least try to quote his bloviating correctly; lord knows the man is a mental midget but that's not what I've been hearing him scream about --- he's anti-any ILLEGALS {Jews/Mexican/Asian/Muslim/Italian/African/Chinese/Japanese anyone that isn't orange like him} Obama’s legacy 202592697

by Guest Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:44 am

4EVER2 wrote:
Trump wants to stop all ILLEGAL REFUGEE's Muslim immigration to the US

Obama is against all Jewish immigration to Jersualem and the West Bank, the historical and cultural home of the Jews? You've ZERO quoted/documented proof of this BS, just fabricated 'hate rhetoric' that you make up from the 'ANTI - American' crap you read!

You tell me what is the difference? Hmmm, seems you set standards for member's to post according to a BAR that you fail grossly to meet ...that is the difference!
BTW - I'm far from any fan of our 'Cheeto-Jesus' but you could at least try to quote his bloviating correctly; lord knows the man is a mental midget but that's not what I've been hearing him scream about --- he's anti-any ILLEGALS {Jews/Mexican/Asian/Muslim/Italian/African/Chinese/Japanese anyone that isn't orange like him}

Then you expose your complete and utter ignorance as per usual
I have not fabricated anything.
An american citizen that emigrates to Jerusalem, is an immigrant.
Condemning that is exactly the same as Trump on Muslims to the US
Thank you for just proving you fail to see they are exactly the same#The American Muslim is eoncouraged and even supported with money. The American Jews is condemned claiming a settlement which has no bases by the Geneva convention on what a settlement is.
Obama is no better than Trump and both are inherantly racist

by Ben Reilly Sun Aug 07, 2016 5:44 am

Obama is no better than Trump? They may as well be different species, Obama is so much better. I'll thank you not to demean the best American president the world has seen in half a century, bud.

by Guest Sun Aug 07, 2016 6:32 am

Ben Reilly wrote:Obama is no better than Trump? They may as well be different species, Obama is so much better. I'll thank you not to demean the best American president the world has seen in half a century, bud.

You just proved you are no better as well

So as long as one is better, that excuses prejudice and discrimination then according to the regressive world of Ben.

wow

by Ben Reilly Sun Aug 07, 2016 6:34 am

It's a fucking metaphor, Dim ...

by Guest Sun Aug 07, 2016 6:39 am

Ben Reilly wrote:It's a fucking metaphor, Dim ...

No you fail to see how you fuel and feed racism by such a statement

If a far right had said Trump and Obama were different species, they would have been banned here and condemned everywhere else

The fact you do the same shows you feed into that same stupidity that causes racism in the first place

Shame on you

by eddie Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:30 am

Didge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:It's a fucking metaphor, Dim ...

No you fail to see how you fuel and feed racism by such a statement

If a far right had said Trump and Obama were different species, they would have been banned here and condemned everywhere else

The fact you do the same shows you feed into that same stupidity that causes racism in the first place

Shame on you

What are you on about? You're not making much sense.

by Guest Sun Aug 07, 2016 4:34 pm

eddie wrote:
Didge wrote:

No you fail to see how you fuel and feed racism by such a statement

If a far right had said Trump and Obama were different species, they would have been banned here and condemned everywhere else

The fact you do the same shows you feed into that same stupidity that causes racism in the first place

Shame on you

What are you on about? You're not making much sense.

Not surpised you do not

Ben certainly does and knows why it was poor

by JulesV Sun Aug 07, 2016 5:41 pm

Didge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:It's a fucking metaphor, Dim ...

No you fail to see how you fuel and feed racism by such a statement

If a far right had said Trump and Obama were different species, they would have been banned here and condemned everywhere else

The fact you do the same shows you feed into that same stupidity that causes racism in the first place

Shame on you

"different species" - that was obviously just a figure of speech!!! ie they are not even in the same league,
and it's true - the bloviating bigot with the bad hairstyle is in a league of his own. : Obama’s legacy 2984306523

by Guest Sun Aug 07, 2016 5:44 pm

Jules wrote:
Didge wrote:

No you fail to see how you fuel and feed racism by such a statement

If a far right had said Trump and Obama were different species, they would have been banned here and condemned everywhere else

The fact you do the same shows you feed into that same stupidity that causes racism in the first place

Shame on you

"different species" - that was obviously just a figure of speech!!! ie they are not even in the same league,
and it's truE - the bloviating bigot with the bad hairstyle is in a league of his own. :

But you still fail to grasp the point why the left think its acceptable they can say and would not be for the far right.
Can you think why?
Both are biologically from the same human race and species

by Ben Reilly Sun Aug 07, 2016 5:45 pm

It's okay, it's just Didge being Didge. I'm convinced he's a robot from another planet sent to observe our species, but has overrode his programming and now thinks he's here to be the boss of everybody.

by Guest Sun Aug 07, 2016 5:49 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:It's okay, it's just Didge being Didge. I'm convinced he's a robot from another planet sent to observe our species, but has overrode his programming and now thinks he's here to be the boss of everybody.

No its didge proving some of the left are completely hypocritical
Such a poor view feeds into the racist narative and you simply fail to grasp why.

Like I said if someone on here state Obama was a different species to the rest of us, would you accept that?
What makes you think one hateful view is acceptable over another?
Again you have not got a clue about treating people equally under the law have you?

by Ben Reilly Sun Aug 07, 2016 5:53 pm

Didge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:It's okay, it's just Didge being Didge. I'm convinced he's a robot from another planet sent to observe our species, but has overrode his programming and now thinks he's here to be the boss of everybody.

No its didge proving some of the left are completely hypocritical
Such a poor view feeds into the racist narative and you simply fail to grasp why.

Like I said if someone on here state Obama was a different species to the rest of us, would you accept that?
What makes you think one hateful view is acceptable over another?
Again you have not got a clue about treating people equally under the law have you?

Did they forget to install your context software? Poor robot.

by Guest Sun Aug 07, 2016 5:54 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

No its didge proving some of the left are completely hypocritical
Such a poor view feeds into the racist narative and you simply fail to grasp why.

Like I said if someone on here state Obama was a different species to the rest of us, would you accept that?
What makes you think one hateful view is acceptable over another?
Again you have not got a clue about treating people equally under the law have you?

Did they forget to install your context software? Poor robot.

No, you just forgot to install the equality software within yourself, as its clearly either malfuntion or has failed to upload

by Ben Reilly Sun Aug 07, 2016 6:01 pm

Didge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

No its didge proving some of the left are completely hypocritical
Such a poor view feeds into the racist narative and you simply fail to grasp why.

Like I said if someone on here state Obama was a different species to the rest of us, would you accept that?
What makes you think one hateful view is acceptable over another?
Again you have not got a clue about treating people equally under the law have you?

Did they forget to install your context software? Poor robot.

No, you just forgot to install the equality software within yourself, as its clearly either malfuntion or has failed to upload

Hmmm. Maybe instead of the extraterrestrial robot thing, you're actually on a long and elaborate troll. Or perhaps an avant garde art project.

by Guest Sun Aug 07, 2016 6:05 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

No, you just forgot to install the equality software within yourself, as its clearly either malfuntion or has failed to upload

Hmmm. Maybe instead of the extraterrestrial robot thing, you're actually on a long and elaborate troll. Or perhaps an avant garde art project.

So when unable to disprove my point you instead now accuse me of further unfounded slants.

Which furthers backs up my reasoning on you not upholding liberal values

by Guest Sun Aug 07, 2016 6:09 pm

I will dumb this down for you to understand

I really am not concerned whether you are critical of trump or think and call him an idiot. Where I would no doubt agree with you

What you did though was go off something that is discrimination based on what we are as a species. If again a racist had done this to Obama on here, you would have banned them.

That is why you are being hypocritical, as its based off what you were being prejudiced about him on.

by Sponsored content