ALL THE MORE REASON TO EMBRACE THE LEVY REPORT
Jerusalem rejects ‘biased’ Human Rights Council finding that West Bank Jewish communities are illegal
TIMES OF ISRAEL January 31, 2013, 2:36 pm 4
JTA — A United Nations investigation into the impact of Jewish West Bank settlements on the Palestinian population said that Israel should immediately begin to withdraw all settlers from the territory.
The report issued Thursday by the UN Human Rights Council based in Geneva said that settlement violate the 1949 Geneva Conventions and that failure to withdraw could lead to a finding of war crimes at the International Criminal Court.
The Palestinians have threatened to take Israel to the ICC since the Palestinian Authority was recognized as having non-member state status in the General Assembly in November.
The Human Rights Council’s investigation began last March. Israel did not cooperate with the investigation, including barring investigators from entering the territory, saying that the council is biased against the Jewish state. The council has issued more resolutions regarding Israeli human rights violations than any country.
The report said that Israel “must, in compliance with article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, cease all settlement activities without preconditions. It must immediately initiate a process of withdrawal of all settlers from the OPT,” or Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Investigators interviewed about 50 Palestinians in Jordan in order to prepare the report. The report said that the Palestinians were prevented by the settlements from reaching their farming lands and water resources.
The report estimated that 520,000 settlers live in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem in some 250 settlements.
This, according to the report, “prevents the establishment of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state and undermines the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.”
Israel’s Foreign Ministry rejected the report, calling it “counterproductive.” The report “will only hamper efforts to find a sustainable solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict,” the ministry said in a statement.
“The only way to resolve all pending issues between Israel and the Palestinians, including the settlements issue, is through direct negotiations without pre-conditions,” the ministry said. .
“The Human Rights Council has sadly distinguished itself by its systematical, one-sided and biased approach towards Israel. This latest report is yet another unfortunate reminder of such approach,” the ministry concluded.
@ Honey Bee:
@ Bernard Ross:
@ the phoenix:
@ Michael
Honey Bee, phoenix, Bernard, Michael, i was trying to leave a comment for you but I did not know that I had to complete the equation, until Mr Belman told me.
Thank you for your support, it means a lot to me.
Just to explain my comment #36.
After the deadline for the discussion expired, the person I have been having an argument with (i cannot mention the name, Mr belman informed me) posted 5 consecutive comments. All of you that have subscribed to this thread must have seen them.
I started answering them. I had posted only 2 replies, when Mr Belman (wisely) intervened to stop the exchange between me and the aforementioned opponent (Mr Belman’s comment #35 where he tells both me and him that he will not post anything further from me or him).
At this point, i had still lots of answers to give, so i complained to Mr Belman with my comment #36.
In this comment, my question to Mr Belman as to why he let him post new allegations obviously meant that i was referring to new allegations by him AFTER THE DEADLINE OF THREAD EXPIRED.
And i was protesting that i had the same right as him, to post after the deadline.
We had a series of emails with Mr Belman trying to resolve the issue. I wanted to answer him but Mr Belman wanted to stop the conflict, so he did not want to post any further comments from me or him. He suggested that he could delete the new comments that the person I was arguing with posted AFTER the deadline, and we agreed that this was ok and that in this way i myself would not have to answer.
The emails between me and Mr Belman are to anyone’s disposal if anyone needs clarifications or corroboration about what i am saying right now.
I just want to make sure that no one gets any ideas that i was trying to silence the person I have been having the argument with, or whatever.
I was only asking for my right to reply after the deadline expired, as that person did.
Holy cow!! Did I miss a bunch, Yamit. Just went to the link you gave.
@ the phoenix: yes, don’t leave israpundit. I enjoy your friendship and contributions very much, dionisiss.
@ Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld:
How do you get the parties to the law suit to comply?
this is what was directed at me:
This is my reply:
“Thank you for your complimentary and unsolicited psychoanalysis. It still represents an ad hominem argument whereby the messenger rather than the message is attacked.”
Is my reply unreasonable?
apparently I can be attacked, but my reasoned reply is in moderation
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Dionissis,
I gave you some advice on my comment #25 on this page….
…and I think you’re still out drinking …
Well that’s enough man! You’ve got work to do and comments to make so gheet crackin’ !!!
Bernard Ross Said:
I am DEFINITELY one of those!
🙂
@ dionissis mitropoulos: Don’t leave IP, there are members who are interested in your contribution (plus the moderation software has been fixed)
Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld Said:
I am also not a lawyer. My thought is to sue against individual national courts(Israel, us,uk,eu,and possibly UN) using the principles of estoppel(used to block or end an action) and mandamus(used to compel govts to fulfill their legal duties). the principle would be that the suit wold not be on the behalf of the state of Israel so therefore discussions of Israeli occupation, disputed territory, etc would be irrelevant to the suit. It would be purely a focused suit on the one issue which is also the one interest of global Jewry. The only relevant argument that could be raised in my opinion that woud involve the state of Israel would be for the opposition to assert that Israel is the successor representative of the “Jewish people” and has waived the rights of global Jewry. The reason that the detractors are succesful in PR, as opposed to legal endeavors, is that they are able to meld jewish rights with sovereignty and states rights of Israel. This is why the jewish people’s rights are never referred to by the detractors: they can’t win on that case, they must mix in the red herring. If the “jewish people” are legally considered a separate entity from the state of Israel, which they were and are, the picture gets clearer as to how to proceed. The best way to see it is to imagine that the state of Israel is a different nation and not the representative of the Jewish people. There are other pitfalls such as a state claiming that national interest and security compel their illegal behavior but that would have to be stated and such a statement would imply that the jewish rights are fully legal. I belive it is important for the story of jewish legal settlement rights to become exposed and transparent and that the state of Israel is a partner in obscuring these rights because it has the view that such claims would not be in Israels favor(arab enfranchisement in the west bank and the state) and most Israelis do not want to rule or transfer the arabs of the west bank. Another story needing full exposure, especially the legal precedents set, is the globally ignored, including Israel, ethnically cleansed Jews from arab lands after the advent of the GC; however, it is a separate legal issue from jewish settlement rights but it does set a precedent and basis for transfer.
@ Ted Belman:
Hooray
@ Ted Belman:
But, Mr Belman, dweller has made new allegations that i must answer.
Why did you let him post his new allegations? I need to give a few more answers to the new ones, and then i am out for good.
@ dweller
dweller Said:
You are a liar.
Of course there was an implication that i am a homosexual, in case i am male.
As you yourself said, the female identity in a man is a problem.
And, guess what, everyone in here believes the same, i.e. that it is a problem, and that gthe one having the female identity is gay.
When you talk in public, dweller, you should always keep in mind how your statement is going to be understood.
So why are you now trying to make excuses for yourself?
Dosn’t the great strong dweller (who keeps on reminding us all the time how strong he is) have the guts to say that he made a mistake?
You are a joke, dweller.
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
@ dweller:
I will not permit either of you to pursue this exchange. From now on I will bar any discussion between you.
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
It isn’t ‘pompousness’ that frosts his coffee (and which tempts him to pile-on, like every coward does when he thinks he senses weakness in an adversary)
— it’s only his HATRED that’s moving him — hatred over being told that his idea of ‘using his anger as a positive tool’ is a crock: sheer escapism from coming to grips with the judgment at the core of that anger.
Well, it IS a crock — and always WILL be — and not merely because I say so
— rather, because it IS so — irrespective of what Cinderella’s 2nd ugly stepsister likes to think s/he knows about ‘pompousness.’
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Wrong. I did not so understand.
And you will not put words in my mouth — no matter how many times you repeat them.
— I know what I was thinking and what I wasn’t.
The only stupid thing I did, Dionissis, was to assume you were made of sterner stuff. In that regard I was, it seems, quite wrong.
But this website is a lot more rough-&-tumble than you seem to realize.
Being erroneously called a woman OR a homosexual is NOTHING compared to the quite deliberate insults and forensic assaults that ROUTINELY get posted here (complete with gutter language) — and for the most part, with utter impunity.
If you can’t hold your mud in the face of that, then getting a handle on this uber-sensitivity of yours ought to be your FIRST concern.
Not so. I wasn’t pretending at all
— it was because I detected a female identity that I thought you were likely a woman; that was the stone, cold truth.
Already told you — earlier post, also in moderation (like this one will be, apparently): I didn’t consider it ‘improper’ because I wasn’t sure it was yours.
If it WAS yours — viz., if you were a woman — then there would INDEED be nothing ‘improper’ about it.
If it wasn’t yours — viz., if you’d received it courtesy of your MOTHER (or other dominant female figure in your early life) — it might well complicate your existence
— but even at that, it STILL wouldn’t be improper until & unless you engaged in homosexual activity, as that confirms & solidifies the reversal of polarity (much like the striking, or electrifying, of a magnet).
Absent the actual homosexual BEHAVIOR, there is nothing ‘improper’ in someone’s having been saddled with a reversed polarity.
— Happens to lots of people, entirely thru no fault of their own, and I have always, quite earnestly & sincerely, wished them well.
Unlike some OTHERS on this site, BTW, who routinely & viciously condemn ALL such so-afflicted folk — and in the vilest of terms — IRRESPECTIVE of their actual behavior in response to the condition.
You have it back-end-to, Dionissis (another unintended pun, seems there’s no escape from them):
— As I said above, it was BECAUSE I perceived a female identity, that I suspected you were a woman.
And my alluding , at the time, to that identity was my quiet, albeit perhaps clumsy, way of suggesting that you were a woman writing as a man.
In retrospect, though, I can’t conceive of a better way to have couched it
— given the fact that I believed (accurately or otherwise) that you intended to keep ambiguous the gender of your literary persona.
@ Ted Belman:
De Nada!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ Honey Bee:
Thank you.
@ Ted Belman:
I will be a good Bee from now on,I apologize.
@ dweller:
dWELLER , YOU SHOULD KNOW WHEN TO BACK OFF AND APOLOGIZE. BUT EVIDENTLY YOU DON’T. I AM PUTTING YOU ON MODERATION.
i AM CLOSING OFF COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD.
I have just found, in a paper by Howard Grief at http://www.acpr.org.il/pp/pp147-grief-E.pdf, the following:
“The American policy opposing Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is a fit subject for
judicial review in US Courts because it violates Jewish legal rights formerly recognized by
the United States and which still remain part of its domestic law. A legal action to overturn
this policy if it was to be adjudicated might also put an end to the American initiative to
promote a so-called “Palestinian” state which would abrogate the existing right of Jewish
settlement in all areas of the Land of Israel that fall under its illegal rule.”
The gravest
I think I’m going to have to pull out of this list entirely before long because I just can’t deal with dozens of e-mail messages a day about people’s sexual identities, hurt feelings, and controversies about apologies. It seems that someone in this forum (a newcomer) also tried to insult me earlier today, but I just leaned back in my chair and laughed. If people want to be churlish, that’s their problem. I am sorry that we are fighting with each other, or at least some of us are, when there are bigger, more important, battles to fight.
I am interested in the idea of a class-action law suit by diaspora Jews against all the nations who aren’t honoring their obligation to encourage close Jewish settlement on the land in Palestine between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. But what would we sue for? Breach of implied contract and demand to perform? Something else? Would we ask for monetary damages in lieu of performance? If so, how could those be established? (Suing the British for all the lives likely lost in the Holocaust because of their immigration obstructionism as well as Jewish lives lost in Palestine because of the British policy of arming the Arabs and taking arms away from the Jews is a delicious prospect. But . . . ?) And in what court could we sue? The only international one I know of is the ICC, and we would be sure to lose there–a loss which the Arabs would immediately seize on for PR purposes. Ideas, anyone? I can’t envision how such a law suit would work. But perhaps that’s because I’m not a lawyer.
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Fwiw dionissis, I would think that this is a MUCH BETTER use of your time.
Why continue in this war of attrition?
Once again, fwiw, I think you are very intelligent and witty as evidenced by your posts.
I have left a comment earlier addressed to you and devolin on another thread.
I shall repost it here:
Go out and have a glass of ouzo!
Yassou! L’chaim!
🙂
@ dweller
dweller Said:
You assume wrong. You stink sh!t dweller.
Why should i go close to sh!t? 😛
Just to recap.
Dweller made a comment that both he and everybody else understood that it was referring to me as gay.
Dweller realized that he had done a very stioupid thing after i started protesting.
But dweller’s ego is too big to acknowledge mistakes that show him in an unflattering light.
So he pretended that he thought that i was a woman, and said that that’s why he talked about my female identity.
But then, why did he consider my female identity improper? Since he thought i was a woman, my female identity was perfectly proper.
I asked him this question a trillion times in this thread, and yet he evaded it.
I think that he did not answer it on purpose, because it exposes him as liar all along (if he cannot answer it it means that he meant i was gay, when he first referred to a female identity in me).
An alternative explanation is that he is so much in love with me, and so sexually stimulated, that he can’t think clearly. Could be, who knows 😛
dweller Said:
You are a fraud!!!
Here is post #4 (the #3 you mentioned is mine, yours is #4)
dweller Said:
You said nothing about why you thought that my female identity is improper, despite the fact that you thought i was a woman.
Your post refers only to gays.
But i did not ask you that.
So, after all, you found a way of evading the question.
You claimed that you answered it, but you have not.
Isn’t this what i have been predicting all along?
You are such a fraud! 😛
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Post #3, this page.
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Not so. Check out my first few posts of the past 3 or so hours. They were from some pages back, and I started taking them on, but you promptly assumed I was avoiding yours. Untrue; you simply allowed me no space.
I have to leave. The place is closing.
@ dweller
Dweller you have not answered the question in bold anywhere.
I went through the comments, you have not addressed it, and yet you claim you did.
You are such a fraud! 😛
dweller Said:
dweller i told you i don’t care if you are gay.
Can you answer the question in bold, please?
dweller Said:
You simply figured that you could wear me out by (masterfully, i admit) angering me, and dragging me into new issues.
Dweller, you are evil 😛
Answer the question in bold, please. It proves you are a liar.
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
I keep bringing it up? — how, where? — only here, in direct response to your specific comments.
It’s YOU (rightly or wrongly) who have kept raising the subject at all.
dweller Said:
No, you started by not addressing them, expecting that i would take the bait (which i stupidly did, because i am not even remotely as malicious as you are to have trained myself in your type of warfare) and knowing that in this way you could avoid answering all the important issues that i raised.
Congratulations.
Answer the question in bold, please.
dweller Said:
No you haven’t addressed it.
Where did you address it?
You are lying again.
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
I ‘avoid’ NOTHING.
— I sat down today to address specifically what you’d written the other day, but as soon as I posted my first response, you started in promptly spitting back new accusations. What was I to do? — ignore those?
I simply figured that as long as we were in real time already, that your new posts would probably summarize in large part the earlier ones, and that this would enable me to address both sets of remarks at the same time.
You can choose to see everything I say or do in the most garish light, Dionissis
— but at some point you’ll have to slow down and let yourself become rational again.
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Agreed — but how does my “hardy” observation constitute ‘blaming’ you for anything?
‘Blame’ (for your perceived harm) was nowhere on my mind when I wrote that.
dweller Said:
@ dweller:
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/42504/comment-page-4#comment-137605
Bullshit then and sill Bullshit today. You are a fraud and an ignoramus. Souls like G-d must be gender neutral.
Adam was androgynous.
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
“Competitors” for what?
I’ve never been in ‘competition’ for anything here, Dionissis.
There is (at least) one true power tripper on this board, but I am not he (or she) — and never have been.
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
I believe I’ve now addressed this.
If you don’t think I have, or not adequately, I’ll try again.
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Gender ambivalence caused by defective potty training is usually a major cause or was it the Sun Spot Theory? Confusing, there are so many dysfunctional people blaming their dysfunction on everyone and everything other than their own self induced dementia, and in dwellers case I suspect his dementia is mostly based on fear of physical pain and death (Hobbes- “Leviathan”).
dweller has never been able to overcome this image
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
A lie is a deliberate falsification of something believed by the ‘liar’ to be otherwise.
I did not lie.
Perhaps not, in your own view. That was, nonetheless — accurately or otherwise — my perception.
I can recall making some oblique comment to someone — not yourself — a while back (a light-hearted question about somebody else’s perception of your gender).
I began with the assumption that you were a guy. Eventually though, there were some clues that made me reconsider my original assumption. I’ve already alluded to a few.
“Exit”? — what are you talking about?
The thread may be going away shortly, but YoursTruly is not — and neither (I assume) are you.
dweller Said:
But professor dweller is not sick!
Or at least he is less sick than the rest of you.
Meanwhile, he goes on with his moral theorizing, but refuses to answer the single question that i am asking him to answer, the one in bold letters.
No matter how much BS he is capable of spouting, this cannot be answered, even by dweller the master obfuscator.
By the way, i think i now know his MO.
He tries to anger people, so that he can later look down upon them for becoming victims of their anger, and dominate them by giving them moral advise.
He may be strong enough not to lose his temper, but he is definitely a whore at heart.
And, if Yamit is right, dweller wants to sleep with me. I refuse 😛
@ dweller:
You are still evading an answer to my question in bold letters.
Probably you hope that the thread expires so that you will have an excuse not to answer it.
It’s the third or fourth time that i’m asking you to answer it.
You are such an evasive whore!
dweller Said:
You are trying to make the best use of time, as you claimed, and that’s why you are not addressing the points i asked you to address. But you thought of answering to Yamit?
Nothing tense has developed between you and Yamit today, why didn’t you just concentrate on the one who protests for the last three days? (that’s me)
I think Yamit was right after all, you are gay and you can’t sleep at nights because of thinking of me. How do you imagine me?
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Irony over your command of yourself.
The word whore in that context struck a distinctly discordant note in the midst of everything else you’d written about this (that I’d read thus far).
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Female identity in a male body doesn’t necessarily betoken homosexuality — that requires behavior.
Lots of people come to maturity with the gender identity of the parent of opposite sex; so their polarities are reversed. There is no blame on them for that.
In a real sense it was foisted upon them by the weaknesses of their home influences during the pediatric, infantile & gestational (viz., prenatal) periods of their development.
But in the absence of actual homosexual behavior (which confirms the polarity) reversal, there is no homosexuality.
What’s more, if such persons learn the process of regular periodic withdrawal from their thoughtstream, they can allow the return of their polarity to where it was before it was reversed
— such that the opposite sex parent’s identity is released in a way that allows the person’s direct gender identity to re-emerge & assert itself entirely on its own.
You ARE sick.
Most people are.
And NOTHING makes any of them — including yourself — QUITE as sick as their own anger.
Nothing.
dweller Said:
Not only i won’t sue you, i won’t even spit on you from now on.
You evade the question in bold letters that proves what a liar you are when you claim that you didn’t know i am not a woman.
dweller Said:
Instead of theorizing, can you just answer my question in bold letters? And after that, maybe you could address the specific points i posted yesterday?
It has become quite clear that you are just trying to obscure through this BS moral-advising of yours.
The cats who live in the street are starving, i need to go for a while to feed them.
Bad new Aprodite has been called back to the moutain, funs over.
comment #49 in moderation (and it was an important one)
dweller Said:
Well then, if you don’t know if you are wrong, and the other one screams, maybe you could say a tentative “sorry”.
But the great dweller cannot have it, he needs too much hoaxing to condescend to descend from the moral heights his conscience occupies.
Meanwhile, he might have f@cked you big time for three consecutive days.
But his conscience is clear, he is still hardy, and he is not gay – on the last one he insists.
F@ck you, too, dweller.