All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss 2

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

There are clear signs that Arab hostility towards the Jewish state is on the wane. The Abraham Accords normalized Israel’s relations with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, an Israeli Defense Minister can make a very public visit to Morocco and even Saudi Arabia allows flights to and from Israel to cross over its territory. But there remains at least one bastion of anti-Israel enmity, the United Nations, where systematic, organizational prejudice against the Jewish state reigns supreme.

The opening act: Though not representing a member state, in 1974 Yasser Arafat was issued an extraordinary invitation to address the UN General Assembly (UNGA). His speech included a call for an end to Israel. The Jews, he said, could become citizens in the PLO’s “democratic Palestine.” Extreme content notwithstanding, and the fact that he spoke soon after his PLO massacred 25 hostages in Ma’alot, mostly high school students, Arafat received a standing ovation.

Infamously, the following year, the UNGA adopted Resolution 3379 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination”. Although that travesty was officially repealed in 1991, its annulment did not mark the end of the UN’s anti-Israel obsession – far from it.

(full article online)

The UN - where anti-Israel prejudice remains supreme - opinion

In facing this undisguised institutionalized prejudice, Israel has a crucial friend in the United States.

www.jpost.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

This surreal situation is the result of a deeply embedded western fallacy. Human rights law and supra-national bodies such as the UN and ICC were created after the Holocaust out of a noble but flawed belief.

This was that the nation-state could no longer be relied upon to safeguard peace and justice, that it was by definition incapable of addressing crimes against humanity, and that therefore supra-national bodies and laws needed to be created to address those needs.

These visionaries failed to grasp that, since the world was dominated by states and regimes that were both repressive and deeply imbued with Jew-hatred and hostility to Israel, any world body or supra-national system of law would itself become an accomplice to tyranny and antisemitism.

That’s why “lawfare,” or the weaponisation of international law to wage war with better PR, has become a prime weapon against Israel, singling out the Jewish people alone for such unhinged attack.

And it’s why the UN, the world body set up to ensure that never again would crimes against humanity be repeated — a global aim which it has conspicuously failed to achieve — has itself turned into a weapon with which to commit them against the Jewish people once again.

In other words, the UNHRC has become an engine of evil.

(full article online)

New Year’s resolution? Abolish the UN Human Rights Council

A noble but flawed vision has created a global engine of evil

melaniephillips.substack.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

According to defense officials, the seizure was one of the largest in recent years and dealt a significant blow to the currency exchange.

The move follows a similar order issued by Gantz for the seizure of crypto wallets belonging to the Gazan family that runs the currency exchange just months ago. According to the Defense Ministry, the exchange ramped up its activity in May 2019, after the Israel Defense Forces assassinated Hamed Ahmed Khudari, a Gazan terrorist responsible for transferring Iranian funds to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza.

The terror-financing network was exposed in a joint operation involving IDF Intelligence, the National Headquarters on Terrorist Economic Counter-Terrorism at the Defense Ministry, the cybercrimes department of the Israel Police's Lahav 443 Major Crimes Unit, and the State Attorney's Office's Cyber Unit.

(full article online)

https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/12/31/israel-seizes-nis-2-6m-in-cryptocurrency-from-hamas/

 

[Sixties Fan]

It is easy for clueless Westerners to think that when anti-Zionist Arabs speak of "occupation" that they are only talking about the areas that Israel won in 1967.

However, UN documents show that the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab world as a whole considered all of Israel to be illegally occupied by Zionists.


Issa Nakhleh, a Palestinian Arab envoy of the Arab League who was invited to speak at the 367th meeting of the UN Special Political Committee, 12 December 1962, floated the idea that Israel illegally occupied all of Palestine:

If the situation in Palestine was the result of an armed conflict between the Jews and the Arabs, the occupation by the Jews of 80 per cent of the area was a belligerent occupation subject under international law to the law of war. It was clear from the Abandoned Areas Ordinance of June 1948 that the Jewish authorities based themselves on conquest and occupation. In that Ordinance an abandoned area was defined as any area or place which had been conquered by .Jewish armed forces, had surrendered to Jewish armed forces or had been deserted by its inhabitants. Thus the Jewish occupants would be entitled only to the rights attributable to a temporary belligerent occupation pending the settlement of the dispute by peaceful means and subject to the law of war regarding the belligerent occupation.

This was echoed as definite international law a year later by the Jordanian delegate to the UN at the 411th meeting of the Special Political Committee, Monday, 18 November 1963:

14. In paragraph 166 of volume II of his book International Law,.Y L. Oppenheim, the leading authority on international law, said that it had taken the whole of the nineteenth century to develop the rules regarding occupation. Those rules, which were universally recognized, were based on the principle that, although the occupant in no wise acquired sovereignty over a territory through the mere fact of having occupied it, he exercised for the time being military authority over it and he must use that authority for the ultimate benefit of the inhabitants.

15. It was thus clear that Israel had no sovereignty over the area it occupied in Palestine and· that its position there was simply and purely that of a military occupant. As such it was not entitled to oppose such action as the United Nations might take to protect the properties of the refugees.

16, Although some might contend that Israel at least had sovereignty within the borders allotted to it by the General Assembly under the Partition Plan that was not so under the rules of international law. Israel had acquired no sovereignty whatever over the territory it now occupied, because the legitimate owners had not ceded that territory to it and because the United Nations itself did not possess the power to cede the territory of one people to another or to transfer sovereignty over it. Now did recognition of one States by any number of Member or non-member States confer sovereignty on it under international law. Israel could acquire sovereignty only if the territory which it occupied was ceded to it by the legitimate sovereign, namely the Arabs of Palestine.

Jordan's 1962 argument is that the UN had no right to recognize Israel as a state, ever, because the entire territory belong to the fictitious Palestinian Arab nation first, and it then puts forth the argument that unless the Arabs of Palestine agree to it, Israel can never become a state.

When Palestinians say that they want to end the "occupation," they are usually very careful not to say anything about 1967. To them, "occupation" means the entire State of Israel, and most Westerners are too clueless to ask them that question directly.

(full article online)

Before 1967, Arabs explicitly said ALL of Israel was occupied Palestinian territory at the UN

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Pseudo-journalist CJ Werleman - who we have already proven is an lying antisemite - is at it again,

From Turkey's TRTWorld:

The Zionist state has been pumping billions of dollars into US-based groups to portray Muslims as a community of terrorists.

Billions!

-------

The International Project of Terrorism is not an Israeli group. It is also not an anti-Muslim group, from everything I can see. It exposes antisemitism and terror ties in some Muslim groups, I have never seen it say any blanket anti-Muslim statement.

Anyway, that is "thousands" of dollars, and not from Israel. Next?

--------

The book isn't online, so I have no idea what conference this is, but even here Werleman doesn't claim that the supposedly anti-Islamic conference was funded by Israel, just that it was "Zionist-funded." Strike two.
His next two examples likewise say that Zionist groups are funding anti-Islamic groups. Nothing about Israel, and if anyone wants to bother to check if these groups are really Islamophobic, feel free. I've never seen anti-Muslim statements from Campus Watch or Daniel Pipes or the others.

Strike two. Next?

----

I couldn't find PJTN listed as an Islamophobic group on the SPLC website. Werleman doesn't want you to know that the PJTN strongly protested, and the SPLC removed them from their Islamophobic list!

So the only "evidence" that Israel gives "billions" to "Islamophobic hate groups" is a single $40,000 contribution to a Zionist Christian group that isn't a hate group.

Werleman strikes out, and proves yet again that he is a serial liar. I don't expect him to recant - his lies are deliberate - but perhaps Turkey's media mouthpiece has at least a modicum of journalistic ethics.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is easy for clueless Westerners to think that when anti-Zionist Arabs speak of "occupation" that they are only talking about the areas that Israel won in 1967.

However, UN documents show that the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab world as a whole considered all of Israel to be illegally occupied by Zionists.


Issa Nakhleh, a Palestinian Arab envoy of the Arab League who was invited to speak at the 367th meeting of the UN Special Political Committee, 12 December 1962, floated the idea that Israel illegally occupied all of Palestine:


This was echoed as definite international law a year later by the Jordanian delegate to the UN at the 411th meeting of the Special Political Committee, Monday, 18 November 1963:




Jordan's 1962 argument is that the UN had no right to recognize Israel as a state, ever, because the entire territory belong to the fictitious Palestinian Arab nation first, and it then puts forth the argument that unless the Arabs of Palestine agree to it, Israel can never become a state.

When Palestinians say that they want to end the "occupation," they are usually very careful not to say anything about 1967. To them, "occupation" means the entire State of Israel, and most Westerners are too clueless to ask them that question directly.

(full article online)

Before 1967, Arabs explicitly said ALL of Israel was occupied Palestinian territory at the UN

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Interesting that nobody has ever refuted this. Every time it comes up, everyone starts dancing.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Interesting that nobody has ever refuted this. Every time it comes up, everyone starts dancing.

English Comprehension classes. Highly recommended

 

[P F Tinmore]

English Comprehension classes. Highly recommended

 

[Sixties Fan]

Make clear to us what it is that you understood from that article in order to post what you did.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Make clear to us what it is that you understood from that article in order to post what you did.

16, Although some might contend that Israel at least had sovereignty within the borders allotted to it by the General Assembly under the Partition Plan that was not so under the rules of international law. Israel had acquired no sovereignty whatever over the territory it now occupied, because the legitimate owners had not ceded that territory to it and because the United Nations itself did not possess the power to cede the territory of one people to another or to transfer sovereignty over it.

Israel is the 1948 occupation of Palestine.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Israel is the 1948 occupation of Palestine.

TransJordan occupied 78% of the Mandate, Mandate - not a make believe country you like to think exists.

And look at what has never happened. Arabs/Muslims/Christians have never cared that the Hashemites got that amount of land without it being theirs.

Some BDS movement

And since there has never been a country called Palestine, only a region, and the Jews have always been seen as the indigenous people of the land, by Christianity and Islam......

Guess what? The Jews and Israel are not occupying any other people's land. IT is their land, they are sovereign of it, you like it or not.

And since you do not like Jews in general, Christian illness you suffer from, you will never accept that Jews legally what is only, I repeat ONLY 20% or their rightful 100% of the Mandate for Palestine, which was really a Mandate for Israel.

But since bum Christians and Muslims hate Jews, 80% got stolen from them.

And to this day Jews do not boycott those bums, nor do they try to make those bum thieves go back to Arabia where they belong.


Am Israel Chai
The People of Israel Live

 

[P F Tinmore]

TransJordan occupied 78% of the Mandate, Mandate - not a make believe country you like to think exists.

The Mandate had no land, no borders, and no sovereignty. What was it that Transjordan occupied?

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Mandate had no land, no borders, and no sovereignty. What was it that Transjordan occupied?

You are NOT given the permission to rewrite the history of the Land and the History of the Mandate for Palestine.

I was talking about the Hashemites OCCUPYING a land which was never theirs as they had just moved into it. That land is part of the Jewish homeland in the Mandate for Palestine/Israel.

Stop fooling yourself about land, borders or sovereignty. You have absolutely no knowledge about any of that. Just incredibly deep hatred of Jews and the need to delegitimize them as human being and the rightful sovereign people of their indigenous Homeland.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Stop fooling yourself about land, borders or sovereignty. You have absolutely no knowledge about any of that.

The Allied Powers agreed to not annex the territories of the new states in the region. Therefore they had no territory or sovereignty. Those were in the hands of the inhabitants of their respective new states.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Allied Powers agreed to not annex the territories of the new states in the region. Therefore they had no territory or sovereignty. Those were in the hands of the inhabitants of their respective new states.

Give a link. And go discuss this in the right thread, not here.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Give a link. And go discuss this in the right thread, not here.

You are the one who brought up this topic for discussion. Move it if you like.

Two governing principles formed the core of the mandate system: non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a "sacred trust of civilisation" to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.

Mandate for Palestine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[BothWings]

Do you live in the U.S.? Native Americans lost this land to Europeans a long time ago. In another 1000 years or so, should Native Americans create a new Native American State within the former U.S. with the help of an apologist western military alliance, and put Europeans on reservations and call them dissidents and terrorists for wanting to expand? Neither map, real or hypothetical...is or would be pleasant to look at. And after 1000 years, perhaps some statutes of limitation should apply. Maybe even before that. I'm sad about what Europeans did to the Native American here on their former lands. Someday all these displaced tribes of the world will run out of quasi-Zionist excuses. We will all be the same. I don't advocate this behavior. You can't just go justly take something and alienate others who live there now because your great great great great great great great great great great grandparents once lived there. If the displaced Jews of past millennia didn't get justice after the first few centuries, a statute of limitations should take over. And I say that as 1/4 Russian Jewish (yeah, just recently found that out). Even if I was a half, I wouldn't consider myself having a right to lands my ancestors were ousted from 500 years ago. What's done is done. Jews are people of the world. They have spread far and wide and I respect them and consider myself a "cousin" in a way. But reclaiming lands left so long ago as a new nation...I do not advocate that.