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.
@ Bernard
Bernard Ross Said:
Actually, even if i were wrong, i would forget about it and concentrate on how i would get my revenge. I am very vindictive when it comes to physical violence – probably because i despise it and never engage in it, even when i can do so with guaranteed impunity. So, i guess, it will always be the other one’s fault if he hurts me physically.
Concerning Israel, the slapping is too symbolic an analogy to allow meaningful discourse. I wouldn’t have considered that Israel had slapped the world in the face if she invaded Gaza to be done once and for all with Hamas. I would have considered it justified self defense – i posted here a huge comment in an attempt to give a more technical philosophical justification of such an invasion. But i think that you would include this hypothetical scenario in the class of slapping actions that Israel should perform. We have different meanings for the term.
On the other hand, hurting physically the nonviolent dupes of Activistan would count as slapping in my book. You may always prohibit entry to Israel, no need to hurt them physically – unless of course they are not peaceful, like the ones in Mavi Marmara.
More generally, and forgetting about slapping, i am not suggesting that Israel should not take forceful action. I am just urging that such undertakings should be effected after cold-blooded thought, dispassionately. Not under the influence of a (fully justified, but potentially blinding) anger.
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
it might blemish Israels good record with the euros?
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
perhaps the euractivist would see he is a pervert of a different kind. I venture that if someone slapped your face you would consider that you were wrong about their position regarding your approach.
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
the “worry” is part of the extortion of the euros; the cycle as described. the threat of sanctions is a method of keeping the Jews in the pathological relationship. In fact, I believe it reinforces the euroview of the despised jew and encourages the euros to contiue their extortion. the euros dont talk of sanctions against anyone who repudiates them. Look how europe does not want to sanction hezbullah. The euros may bring sanctions anyway. On the other hand, perhaps their face is not slapped because the timing is not yet necessary. europe is progressing with its sanctions on imports from the west bank. Is there anywhere else where this is considered or effected? My own view is that europe will be islamicised and Israel must over time wean off any euro-dependencies.
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
The best way would be to order a massive jewish settlement of judea samaria and kick out the euractivists both official and unofficial. Everyone knows that, except for the Jews,it is a diplomatic no no to meddle in the internal affairs of another nation. Demand that they honor their prior commitments or STUF. (allow the eisnors more leeway in direct dealings with the A******s) , meddle in the internal affairs of Euronations(eg.liason and fund basque separatists, etc), interfere with euro energy supply chains.
@ Bernard
Bernard Ross Said:
It is my hunch that Israelis are not victimizing themselves in an S/M variation of international politics.
I think they are worried about the economic sanctions that Europe might (completely unjustifiably) impose.
@ Bernard
Bernard Ross Said:
The Europeans. But we have agreed on that. Our concern is what is the best way to handle the European hostility, not whether it exists – sure it does.
@ Bernard
Bernard Ross Said:
No, Bernard, my focal point is how Israel will not get hurt. And that’s why i said that there is no point in getting bad publicity without a counterbalancing benefit.
Bernard Ross Said:
I consider the anger fully justified (and i have been consistently arguing this point in other internet sites).
But i am not sure that the joy outweighs the PR blemish.
@ Bernard
Bernard Ross Said:
If it comes from a female, and it’s not too strong, it would mean to me that she wants to humiliate me – and i would love it!!!
Bernard Ross Said:
That Yamit was right all along when he insinuated that i was a pervert 😛
Yet who is trying their best to keep hezbullah off the terrorist list? What’s new pussycat?
@ phoenix
the phoenix Said:
It was not an arrow, it was a verbal terrorist bomb that hurt both innocent targets and innocent bystanders – the bystander was me, the wannabe acolyte of the wannabe professor dweller 😛
I deplore that Mr Ross has become (verbally) like the Muslim terrorists, and i deplore that you, phoenix, have assumed the role of the Europeans in that you praise Mr Ross’ verbal Muslim terrorism 😛
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
Maybe. Maybe I need a translator.
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
again, your focal point is the european,who do not need corroboration to become more hostile. I enjoyed the “spectacle” of a smart-assed euractivist getting his slap, and the surprised look on his face. a joy to behold.
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
the clear benefit for Israel and the Jews is to break the sado masochistic relationship thus allowing freedom for self determination and curtailing the eurothirst for swindling and killing jews. Eisnors slap on a macro level could be positive for both protagonists. Think about what a slap in your face would mean to you. What would it make you consider which you had heretofore not considered?
@ Bernard
Dweller said:
Bernard Ross Said:
Any chance dweller made the distinction because the barrel does less damage to a face than a butt? Maybe he meant the Colonel wasn’t vicious?
@ Bernard
Bernard Ross Said:
The more i get to know dweller, the more i am convinced that he has engaged extensively in analyzing himself.
The observation he once made, that we all play the same psychological games, only in different formats, is one that (to my mind) shows a very high degree of self-understanding.
There’s more: his perception of the habitual nature of judging is one more indication of a person who has looked inwards.
Just so that i do not keep on citing instances that hint to a successful dwellerian engagement in know thyself, i will just say this:
The metaphors that he uses when he speaks are full of a deep understanding of human psychology. And this is not a matter of language abilities, if he just wanted to use profound expressions, but without knowing what mental states they refer to, he wouldn’t be making any sense. But he does make sense, at least to me.
I conclude that he knows what he is talking about when he talks about morals and psychology.
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
Aren’t “reasons” what a dogma provides the the pontiff? from one of those online dictionaries:
some onliner dicts. say pompous OR dogmatic. I leave out dogmatic, just pompous.
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
…if the shoe fits..?
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
OK
@ Bernard
Bernard Ross Said:
Who cares about the other posters now, they are all gone. It’s just the four of us and Ms Rosenfeld.
Bring it on!!!
@ Bernard
Bernard Ross Said:
That’s unfair. He is not pontificating because he is always open to dialogue. He is not dogmatic in his arguments, he offers reasons for them.
He is not pontificating, he is just very calmly self-assured.
And he is not pompous, he intends to be gentle – as gentle as the tone of the discussion allows, different degrees of gentleness are required for different discussions.
I don’t get the feeling of wannabe-professorship from dweller, but i gladly volunteer to play the role of the adoring acolyte! 😛
@ Bernard Ross:
Bernard Ross Said:
Please do!
It breaks the monotony and spices the arguments!
😛
@ Bernard Ross:
Bernard Ross Said:
Bernard, he is not using the term for its sexual connotations, he is not trying to smear by filthy association.
He is just alluding to the psychological impetus that the expression “get-off” connotes.
He has used the term when he was inquiring about my motivation in judging Curious American. Dweller likes me, so he wouldn’t have used the term if he understood it as a slur.
@ Bernard Ross:
Bernard Ross Said:
True. I call them with the name they are referred to by the world so that we can understand who we are talking about, not because i believe that what they do counts as activism – at least, not in the normative sense of the term, which connotes strife for the accomplishment of something good.
Bernard Ross Said:
Some Europeans might change their anti-Israel stance if they become better informed.
Bernard Ross Said:
No, Bernard, i was only saying to phoenix that there was no benefit for Israel from the Colonel’s loss of temper.
Even if the Europeans cannot be won over, there is no point in offering them spectacles that (through ingenious media manipulation, to be sure) will corroborate their anti-Jew prejudices, or that will emotionally stir them towards becoming even more hostile, unless there is a clear benefit for Israel.
If the Jews stand to gain something, then they should go for it, no matter how hostile Europe will become.
Bernard Ross Said:
That’s my impression too, that it is the West (Americans included) that do not allow the conflict to be resolved.
I wouldn’t call Europeans the greatest enemy of the Jews, this is an adjective better reserved for Muslims – if we wish to stress the intensity of hatred felt.
But i would call them the most dangerous enemies of the Jews.
Bernard Ross Said:
🙂
mr ross, kudos! now THERE’s an arrow that hit the bull’s eye, if there ever was one!
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
they have their purpose and the game of humoring their serial libels should not be played. They are not “activists” they are existential enemies who support on every level those who are swindling and killing Jews. I do not see them activating in Saudi Arabia, Sudan or North Korea or in Syria. the European culture will not change vs the Jews in this recycling drama and trying to convince them otherwise goes against their cultural nature and is futile. Your argument focuses on the importance of winning over this “community”. Jews are becoming afraid agian to live under their european masters and only fake lip service is being performed by the hypocrites. I beleive that Europe is the greatest enemy of the Jews and that the other conflicts with the arabs would be resolved without their meddling. It is the Europeans who have been the cause at the beginning to this moment including the fermenting of arab jew conflicts. IN the past century alone their intentional conflict boundaries and incitement of the arabs agianst the Jews. Now, they continue to fund this incitement and encourage the hezbullahs and Hamas murderers of Jews. They need to be kept out of the ME.
dweller Said:
Is there a particular reason why you feel it is necessary to characterize my statement with this sexual term. Does it say more about you than me, as you like to say? I have already stated that I believe it to be positive, so what is your purpose? Is it your purpose to initiate a mud slinging contest whereby I now elaborate on what you “get off” on? I have avoided characterizing many of your comments so as to focus on arguments rather than mudslinging. Rest assured that you “get off” on this site with your pompous pontifications and self enamored postures resembling a wannabe professor surrounded by adoring acolytes. I avoid such characterizations because it accomplishes little in terms of the other posters. However, if you feel this approach is necessary perhaps we should designate an email thread for insults separate from discussion. I invite no psychoanalysis from you and feel certain that you would gain more from self analysis.
dweller Said:
thank you for this very important and relevant correction. I used the term “butt” as a verb. Is this an example of anal retention or anal compulsion or just you showing how clever you are? A psychoanalytic expert like yourself would know.
dweller Said:
If you mean that Eisnor came off as hateful and vicious, then kudos. the 2000 year jew swindlers and slaughterers, who are now supporting the overt jew swindlers and slaughterers, deserve much more than this. What will it take for this sick culture to cease their swindles, slaughters, blood libels, and harassment of Jews? they never seem to miss an opportunity to harass the Jews. Their hiatus from jew killing is a fraud as they knowingly and intentionally support AT THIS VERY MOMENT those who seek to kill and swindle Jews. Eisnor allowed the fraud to experience the wisdom of geraldine “what you see is what you get”. It is only fitting that the perennial nazis should get nazi treatment.
My view is that there is a sado masochistic relationship between the Jews and the european christian culture which keeps playing out on a serial basis. I do not believe this pathology is over. I believe it is currently in operation whereby the europeans are recovering from their last pogrom and that the tempo of their covert and clandestine jew hatred is entering an overt stage as in past cycles. The accommodating and appeasing Jew encourages and reinforces this pathological behavior from the european socio cultural psyche. I believe that it is important for the Jew to cease participating in this pathology by repudiating every double standard and asserting himself in unilateral behavior. The physical expression of anger can be cathartic for the Jew on a macro level and demonstrate that games will not be played as usual. A slap in the face is an appropriate reaction to inappropriate behavior. It is a strong and appropriate symbol in the western culture. It is never accompanied with explanations and rationalizations. Slaps in the face are the appropriate symbolic reaction to the repeated insults currently being visited on the Jewish people by the european behavior. He who slaps also demonstrates that he is not interested in the slapee’s thoughts or opinions, it is irrelevant. Did I “get off” on Eisnor butting the enemy, I sure did and I would like to see more of it as a modus operandi in dealing with the swindling scum.
dear Ted, reply 24 to Dweller in moderation. I thinks your moderation and spam software need revision. If this is a real forum then one quotes other posters, and links, and a post can be lengthy. I understand that these factors trigger moderation. also, repeat posting by one person is only natural in this circumstance of an ongoing discussion and should not trigger moderation software or spam filters. I have sometimes been moderated for one sentence with no apparent reason. Your forum is more than an opinion board.
dweller Said:
wasn’t there anything in writing in joining which expressed the acceptance and isn’t this true of the UN charter(inc art 80)? If so then isn’t the act of becoming a member an acceptance of its charter?
dweller Said:
Is this necessary to demonstrate the obligation?
dweller Said:
Isn’t this exactly what they did by joining the LON and UN?
dweller Said:
I agree but I go a step further as there appears to be no emphasis or focus on legal jewish settlement rights or the obligations of the international community. these issues have practically speaking become totally obscured and intentionally ignored. this is why I say that it becomes important to completely exclude GC from ones arguments because these become the only points of discussion. Energy is wasted and distractions created by discussing that which is irrelevant.
that which is irrelevant becomes a talking point. this is not a matter of speculation, this is what has happened.
dweller Said:
My focus is not to convince the opposition as I believe their motives are disingenuous but rather to convince Jews and onlookers, the 3rd party which you often allude to here. It needs to be shown that the very mention of the GC in order to illegitimize Jewish settlement west of the JOrdan river is ludicrous, worthy of derision,the highest level of hypocrisy on the part of those who subscribed to those rights, a continuation of anti semitic double standards, a con and a swindle by those “usual suspects” who have been swindling and slaughtering Jews for 2000 years. It is important that the sado-masochistic game of victim jew and his serial swindler and slaughterer be discontinued.
dweller Said:
I agree with this statment in terms of its likely outcome(not necessarily legal outcome). However, the relative silence has been surrounding Jewish LEGAL settlement rights as opposed to discussions of the Geneva conventions. It is my opinion, that unlike in a court of law where one seeks to elaborate on any possible point no matter how farfetched for a defense,that in the court of public opinion discussion of the GC is an irrelevant distraction, the epitome of the red herring.
dweller Said:
I have never heard an opponent to the argument of legal jewish settlement respond to this “implicit obligation”. What I hear instead, ad infinitem, is arguments based on the GC. Discussion of the GC allows the opposition to focus solely on the GC, which is what they do. Your arguments assume that the opponent is not disingenuous whereas the detractors intentionally avoid the arguments of jewish settlement in the same way that they have ignored the ethnic cleansing of jews from arab countries under the auspices of the much touted geneva conventions which never apply to Jews. I have already come to the conclusion that the detractors ignore Jewish rights intentionally and are disingenuous. Therefore, it is not my interest to play their game of distraction. by focusing on Jewish settlement rights and the obligations of those who subscribed to san remo, LON mandate and UN charter the argument is more likely to be limited to those issues whereas right now these issues are at the end of any discussions if they exist at all. In order to reverse this trend it is necessary to clearly state the in-applicability of the GC rather than argue its parts. Again red herring = distraction
dweller Said:
grant me the courage to change those things that i can
the serenity to accept those things which i cannot
and the WISDOM to know the difference between the two.
if you want to further ‘dwellerize’ my comment(s) and have the last word, so you’d feel better (shrug..eyeroll)
go for it!
🙂
@ dweller:
dweller Said:
dweller, believe it or not, two days ago i was thinking along the same lines. I was trying to determine what is that which makes moral acts moral. I was drawn to the thought that we shouldn’t be only concerned with the consequences towards others of any particular act, but mostly with what sort of consequences they have on the one performing the act. I can give my rationale some other time, but my thinking was very much in tune with what you said above: we are supposed to concentrate on what sort of persons we become through our actions, or what sort of persons we are revealed to be through our responses to others’ actions.
Consequentialist virtue ethics musings, resonating very much with your comment(s).
@ dweller:
dweller Said:
I love to see things in terms of black and white, it’s so easy!
Hoo hah! 😛
@ the phoenix:
the phoenix Said:
Phoenix, any decisive action of Israel should be done so as to confer a benefit. The message that came out of the riffle smack did not make world opinion more fearful towards the Jews, most people just saw it in the news and found one more excuse to bash Israel. There is nothing scary in seeing an activist get a blow in the face.
Even the activists themselves have not been scared, they expect they might get hurt lightly, some of them probably want to get hurt, God knows what psychological need the satisfy in this way. And they definitely want the publicity that an injury generates, not just because of their purpose of delegitimizing Israel in the eyes of the world by presenting Israelis as barbarians, but also because they earn their honor badges within their own community:
I bet you the smacked activist got himself a new girlfriend after that – and she must have been the activist Queen of his posse or, at least, one of the high-ranking Princesses.
The incident was just a PR disaster for Israel, with no one getting scared of Jews.
Here is where we need to look to find the minutes of the League of Nations at the time of approval of the Mandate for Palestine:
League of Nations Archives, Palais des Nations, CH-1211, Geneva 10, Switzerland
I am, alas, in California–a bit far from Geneva. Do we have anybody over there who can research the League of Nations Archives to find something in writing? Salomon Benzimra says that the Covenant of the League, Article 5, required agreement of all League members. Article 5 is easy enough to find. It is here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp
“ARTICLE 5.
Except where otherwise expressly provided in this Covenant or by the terms of the present Treaty, decisions at any meeting of the Assembly or of the Council shall require the agreement of all the Members of the League represented at the meeting.
All matters of procedure at meetings of the Assembly or of the Council, including the appointment of Committees to investigate particular matters, shall be regulated by the Assembly or by the Council and may be decided by a majority of the Members of the League represented at the meeting.
The first meeting of the Assembly and the first meeting of the Council shall be summoned by the President of the United States of America.”
Of course that last bit about the President of the U.S. probably didn’t happen, since, as we know, the United States didn’t join the League of Nations. I also wonder what was supposed to happen if some of the members of the League didn’t make it to a meeting at which something important was to be discussed.
@ the phoenix:
You say that you “see,” phoenix, but I don’t think you do.
What “track record” does he have? (What are you talking about, phoenix?)
Nor could I care less either.
But it tells me (among other things) that this isn’t somebody who takes his positions (right ones OR wrong ones) because they’re easy.
Judeophobes, antisemites, judeopaths, etc. typically DO say the things they say because it’s EASY to say them — not because they’ve ever given any of their narrishkeit any serious thought.
Frankly, I seriously doubt that ANY of us on this board have much of a clue — as yet — as to what we’re dealing with in Curio.
With all due respect, phoenix — if I genuinely believed that Curio was an ‘arsonist’ (I don’t believe that, but if I DID), then for my personal well-being
— I’d concern myself a whole lot less with HIS pyro inclinations than with my OWN susceptibility toward easy inflammation. . . .
I’d be — at the very least — eager & determined to find out how I’d managed to find myself so very easily set on fire by other people, of whatever stripe.
It would be dangerous for anyone to rely on ANYBODY else as a “source of knowledge &” info. Even friends can steer you wrong. You should ALWAYS check things out for yourself, phoenix.
— That should go without saying, even if you do think Curio is an ‘antisemite’ (which I don’t; not yet).
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
English may not be your mother tongue, but your command of the language, I daresay, is way too good for you to be assuming — at this juncture — that the imperative mode is limited to the giving of orders.
dweller Said:
i see.
dweller, when an arsonist with a KNOWN TRACK RECORD is coming towards my house [with a clear intent to torch it], i REALLY don’t care how misguided he may be, whether he still has issues with his mother, or anyother other b.s. psychobabble.
furthermore,
i couldn’t care less if he has a ph.d.
he is still an arsonist and as such i say shoot the bastard! (in the case of the american, that should be taken as a figure of speech)
your point that he ‘knows a lot of stuff that most posters don’t know’ is not only irrelevant but also dangerous.
you imply (you have said so elsewhere) that on an open forum we speak to the multitude and not just the person to whom we address.
i think it would be ESPECIALLY dangerous for anyone to have an antisemite such as the american used as a source of knowledge and information.
@ Bernard Ross:
Only if you knew what had preceded it, Bernard. (Rifle barrel to the face, BTW, not rifle butt.)
For those who didn’t know what had preceded it (and much of the media carefully & conveniently excised it), the ‘message’ was quite different: hateful & vicious — the classic, stereotypical “Zionist Nazi.”
In any case, Bernard, we both know that what you mean is that you got-off on it.
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Isn’t that pretty much the menu which the lamestream media sets before the people where Israel is concerned?
— Reading & listening to the drive-bys, one doesn’t get the idea that they think of Israel as something like the Sweetheart-of-the-Rodeo. . . .
Of course, I can’t speak for the picture as presented in Southern Europe, but stateside that’s essentially what they serve us — a bellyful of it, come rain or come shine — and frankly, given the standard bill-of-fare in these parts, I’m somewhat surprised that what Curio comes up with isn’t a lot worse [!]
I don’t think of what I do as specific to ‘handling Jew-hatred.’
— I treat everybody & every issue essentially the same way. And I trust my hunches, wherever they lead. (Except when my ego gets in the way, and I FORGET to.)
Then too, I’m still unpersuaded that Curio is about Jew-hatred anyway. Pathology is (to paraphrase Herr-Doktor Freud from an unrelated context) — in its nature, polymorphous & perverse.
This is to say, our correspondent may well be dealing with any number of problems that could lead him to discuss Israel matters (in addition to any number of other ones) the way he does. It simply doesn’t follow that his particular pathology is necessarily judenhass itself.
Whatever it is, it’s undeniable that while he certainly is mistaken about many matters relating to Israel — he ALSO knows a lot of stuff about it that most regular posters on this site DON’T know. And that presumes a certain investment of time, treasure & attention.
@ Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld:
I have never YET been able to find any dated document, or any explicit record of the specific act, memorializing any vote taken by the full ASSEMBLY (i.e., the full League membership) — or by individual Assembly member-nations — to approve the Mandate[s]. If you manage to unearth such a creature before I do, I would dearly love to be able to lay hands on it.
— Can you imagine what a treat it would be to have something in writing wherein the govts of Egypt [joined League, 1937] and Iraq [joined 1932] signed on to the Palestine Mandate? —hoo hah!
I get giddy just contemplating it.
So far as I’m aware (and much to my chagrin), the only act & date which appears in all this is that which was taken by the Council, as noted above, on 24 July 1922.
@ Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld:
Salomon is a friend, and I too value his opinion. (He posts here from time-to-time, BTW.)
But this is a confusing matter, Marjorie, and I’m not sure we’re going to get clarity on it very easily.
The “51” or “52” matter has been a bone of contention for some time, and is of lesser concern to me at this point than the assertion that the full “Assembly” ratified or approved or confirmed [the terms are synonymous] the Mandates.
This would’ve been ratification, and it was indeed unanimous on the part of the Supreme Council — viz., all the rotating member-nations plus all the permanent ones (the victorious Principal Allied Powers of the then-recent GreatWar, minus non-member USA) — and the date to which Salomon refers (actually July 24, 1922) is the one which is always cited.
And as I noted above, the ratification was understood to be offered on BEHALF of the full complement of the Assembly.
But this was because, since the Mandate system was an integral part of the League — and since both the League and the Mandates were the CREATION of the Principal Allied Powers (the “Mandator” in each case), it was the Powers which dictated that membership in the League required (viz., presumed) legal acceptance of all the Mandates.
Applying for membership and joining, whether originally or subsequently, meant therefore that the given nation’s govt accepted the lawfulness of all the Mandates. That was part of the deal.
If you didn’t accept that, you couldn’t join.
So, if you joined, you were presumed to accept the Mandates.
Don’t know, however, that this necessarily means they actually signed on the dotted line about each specific Mandate; as in something which read, ‘We agree to the Mandating of Palestine, and that the Mandatory be assigned to HMG of the UK’; or ‘we agree to the Mandating of Syria, and that the Mandatory be assigned to the French Republic, etc.’
Bernard Ross Said:
mr ross…..NOW you’re talking!
i believe that the response to ALL external AND INTERNAL enemies must be totally and completely disproportionate. and only THUS! can “peace” be enjoyed.
the fact that lt. col. eisner was taunted for a long period by that antisemitic bastard, of course went unreported…like a hunter having its prey in the telescope ccross hairs…the ‘journalists’ had their ‘gotcha!’ moment…. (kind of reminds me of curious american)
this kind of benevolent and restrained behaviour must stop. at the very LEAST the antisemite european should have had his knee caps shot as a lifelong reminder : do not mess with the jews.
@ Bernard Ross:
Yes, granted; that is INDEED a lie.
But this doesn’t mean you can ignore it.
As I noted [earlier], qui tacet consentire: “Silence gives consent.”
That silence is how we came to such a pass as the present one, in which the truth has become inconceivable to these people.
Depends on how you go about it, Bernard.
For example, upon being confronted with the FGC claims, you could begin by saying that the Convention is inapplicable here, inasmuch as it is clearly subordinate to San Remo & the Mandate, etc, which plainly earmark the land for the Jewish restoration.
After laying out those true bases for consideration — to which the opposition is thereby placed on notice that it will have to respond — you could then, briefly, point out that even on its own terms, the FGC was never intended for the postwar Palestine Conflict, and why. Then return promptly to your primary point re the actual controlling international instruments — to reassert the proper place of focus & keep the matter on-track.
This sample scenario does two things:
1. It leaves no falsehood (even an irrelevant one) unchallenged; it lays down a marker.
2. It acknowledges the presence of the opponent — doesn’t merely dismiss him (as ignoring his [admittedly, specious] argument would do) — and thereby creates an implicit obligation on the part of the opponent to reciprocate your responsiveness. [‘I answered your claims; you answer mine.’]
Now the onus is on the adversary to address the Mandate, or explain why he won’t.
Among other things, it’s an opportunity to show the opposition that it hasn’t thought this through. As Dionissis noted:
“…and even if we were to grant that transfer’ refers to indirect transfer of population too, still the settlers born in the territories cannot be removed legally, because there is no sense of the term ‘transfer’ (no matter how biased) that can apply to people who have been born in the territories, and therefore have not been transferred there (directly or indirectly or whatever).”
Again, though, I wouldn’t leave it at that.
Having made the point, I’d return instantly to the controlling matter of the Mandate — which makes it inescapably clear that not merely is the ‘occupation’ NOT ‘illegal,’ but moreover, that it ISN’T, in point of fact, an occupation at all.
It all comes down to a matter of emphasis, focus.
@ Bernard Ross:
Bernard Ross Said:
Bernard you touched upon many great issues and i wish i had the time to take them up with you before the comments close. Right now, i am registered on some online analytic Philosophy courses at the university of Edinburgh and things are really busy with videos and readings and quizzes. I hope i’ll find the time to reply, but even if i don’t, i have bookmarked this comment section so we will certainly talk in the future about everything you said. It would be unjust to the seriousness of the issue to answer perfunctorily, without giving my detailed grasp of it.
Just to clarify what variety of Jew-hatred i had in mind: nonviolent Christian anti-Semitism, which happens to be unconscious, and where the hater is engaging his objects of hate (instead of avoiding them).
You will agree that this is a limited a case, that it does not really matter to decide how to deal with it.
Anyway, it was dweller’s implicit point (“implicit” in that dweller never said anything to that effect, he actually decried any connection of theology to the whole thing) that the person i have in mind has already come a long way away from more virulent forms of anti-Semitism, and seeing things with dweller’s perspective in this case makes sense (though i doubt i would have restrained myself even in this case, had it not been for dweller’s request – request? it sounded like an order! Here is a genuine Nazi analogy, dweller the Nazi :P).
Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld Said:
The ongoing decades long $64,000.00 question
@ dweller:
This from Salomon Benzimra of Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights (http://www.cilr.org/). Salomon Benzimra is the author of The Jewish People’s Rights to the Land of Israel, and I value his opinion:
“The Council of the League confirmed the Mandate on July 22, 1922. These were the members of the Supreme Council (permanent members of the League) plus the rotating members at the time. I don’t know, from the top of my head, if the total number was 8 or another similar number in 1922 but, at the creation of the League, the non-permanent members were four: Brazil, Greece, Spain and Belgium.”
“But the Mandate (even though its provisions were already applied in practice) entered only into force after the Treaty of Lausanne was signed in 1923, and the Mandate for Palestine (together with the Mandates for Syria and Iraq) were all approved by the full Assembly of the League of Nations (52 member states in Sept. 1923, as you correctly pointed) because the Covenant of the League demanded that all decisions had to be taken unanimously , as per Article 5 of the Covenant (contrary to the procedures used today at the UN).”
Dweller, if you count the members of the League of Nations as of 29 September 1923 (which you can do at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_League_of_Nations, scrolling down until you get to the list), realizing that only Argentina and Japan had dropped out by 29 September 1923, I believe you will get 52. If you want to say “approved” rather than “ratified,” that’s o.k. with me. But it was the full membership of the League of Nations that approved the Mandate for Palestine. And Howard Grief as well as Salomon Benzimra says there were 52 of these member states. Twenty-two of these states are in Europe, and most of them are now in the European Union (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states). Japan was a signatory of the San Remo Resolution.
All these states should be reminded of their obligations under these legal instruments. The U.N. should also be reminded of Article 80 in its own Charter. Why the government of Israel isn’t doing this I don’t know.
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
I have been thinking about this statement an conclude that although it may be a proper way it handle certain varieties of Jew hatred, in general it is not a good way. For centuries in Europe the jew has been a despised victim; whatever positive contributions he made were covered up or ignored. accompanying this despised victim hood was the aura of the dishonest and wily Jew. being a victim was never positive. The first real respite in despised victimhood came when the world was greeted with the outcome of the 1967 war. The jews coasted on this apparent goodwill for a while and now the cycle has again changed to where the jew is again wily, cunning and dishonest in swindling the arab out of his land. I believe that a great contributor to this behavior on the part of those habituated with it is the type of message sent by the actions and stance of Israel. I was very positive about the rifle butt to the face delivered by Lt. Eisnor, it sent a clear message. The video showed that the euro was in shock and surprise because he had expected that the Jews could be relied upon to be mature and proportionate and thus allow him to continue without risk. the same is true for the arabs: they are spared the proper reaction to their behavior by the mature and proportionate Israel, winning no points and encouraging jew hatred. the world has become reliant on the Jews continuing to play the game of being the victim and therefore the world despises them. the jew keeps seeking the respect from his master which will not be given and will only be despised. Clear messages must be sent by the stance and action of Israel regarding the worlds double standards. current messages are unclear and encourage exploitation. the world fears North Korea more than it despises them but the world despises Israel more than it fears or respects it. The enemies, and their supporters, should be put into a state of fear.
@ dweller:
dweller Said:
Give me Honey Bee as the teacher, and i will be the most disciplined student!
You have a point: open-mindedness is an important virtue.
@ dweller:
Concerning Curious American: his latest was something along the lines that, though Israel is not to be blamed, she was the cause of Arab Islamic “psychosis”.
This is a serious misunderstanding of what counts as a cause. It is like saying that, although the girl was not blameworthy, it was her presence that caused the rapists bout of psychotic behavior. But, surely, the cause (in any proper sense of the term) must have been the warped psychology of the rapist, and the girl was just instrumental to the expression of this psychotic predisposition.
But why is he so much preoccupied with talking about things that make Israel look bad? It is this constant selection of anti-Israel themes that gives us an opening to his true mind.
I love your patience, and i don’t believe you don’t know what’s going on in his mind with regards to Israel. I think you are just handling it in more mature and benevolent terms than the rest of us – maybe even suggesting with your actions and stance the proper way to handle Jew-hatred of a certain variety.
@ Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld:
Yes; they forced the issue, played “double-or-nothing”
— and lost.
The trouble is that the world keeps (effectively) reassuring them that any war they wage against the Jewish state will always be a “limited liability” conflict:
That is, anything they can win (or be conceded) they get to keep
— and anything they lose in a war they will always be able to receive ‘back,’ if they only persist in demanding it.
But the truth in geopolitics, from time-out-of-mind, has always been that he who resorts to arms implicitly accepts the VERDICT of arms.
When you lose — you LOSE.
No. Common error:
Actually, the Mandates weren’t ratified by the full 51-nation League Assembly
— but rather by the full League COUNCIL (eight nations at the time, if I recall correctly), acting on BEHALF of the League Assembly.
The 52nd nation was USA, which — as non-signatory to the Treaty of Versailles, and non-member of the League — DID sign on to the Mandate directly, via the 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestinewhich you cite.
@ the phoenix:
Why the hurry to know? — these things always require time.
As I noted earlier:
“…most people have to PROCESS significant challenges, even when they do accept them — and that takes space…”
There’s an important discipline to be found in maintaining an open mind.