Only In Israel

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Now we know who ISMer really is...

Remember the troublesome, deluded human-speed bump supporter posting comments on this blog under the nick ISMer? Well I guess we finally know who he is. Apparently he runs this little unknown blog named "this much I can say is true" in which, despite the name, "true" things rarely get published. And so he wonders about me and my blog:
Since first witnesseing the situation in that village, I've wondered what goes through the heads of the soldiers that get sent there. Do they think about what they see? Do they wonder about what they're being ordered to do? Or, are they actually mindless automatons unable to see the humanity in the folks they're charged with the task of brutalizing?

Turns out, in this case, it's the latter.

As it turns, while my blogspot outpost offers the occasional nugget of insight from the human rights camp that regularly assists people in Bil'in against being wiped out in the name of "Greater Israel," there's a soldier just across the razor wire blogging about his own experiences in Bil'in, albeit from a more thuggish/racist standpoint. For an idea of what one of these guys is thinking, check out the blog, Only in Israel (an odd name since he seems to be working only in Palestine). I found this guy's regular updates facsinating. Referring to the natural mob mentality of inherent to Arab people, looking at fellow Israelis who oppose the occupation as "speed bumps," this guy is a good mouthpiece for the easily duped.

How nice.
I don't view fellow Israelis who oppose the occupation as "speed bumps". I view ISMers and other worshippers of St. Pancake Corrie who died defending a tunnel used for smuggling drugs, hookers and explosives (which were likely used against American diplomats) from Egypt to Israel as "human speed bumps". And hey, I have different definitions for every group of raving lunatics trying to prevent Israelis from having a secure way of life, for instance my personal nickname for "Women in Black" would be "Old, hairy dykes who can't get laid and whose only goal in life is to make soldiers miserable".
"Anarchists against the fence" would be "Pimple faced, sex-deprived, rich, spoiled suburbians".
No one in Bil'in is getting wiped out. They may be losing a few acres of agricultural land, which they're getting compensated for, and the transfer of trees from that land to any other land is offered, free of charge by the Israeli military.
People who have roads built on their lands in the US get the same treatment, they get compensated and the roads are built on their land, if that's what the government decided. That's how it works. This is much more important than a road. This saves lives.
You see, the problem isn't Bil'in, which except for a few rock throwers, wasn't involved in any serious activity. The problem is the village of Kharbatha, which is placed between Bil'in and Dir Qadis. The village of Kharbatha has exported many terrorist cells, the most famous of them would be the Jerusalem Sbarro bombing, the Jaffa street bombing and numerous shooting attacks at Israelis traveling on nearby roads. The only way to get in or out of Kharbatha is either via Bil'in or Dir Qadis, both villages are being fenced out by the Anti-terrorist barrier.
This is called "responsibility". You see, if the villagers haven't allowed terrorist to travel from their midst, if the citizens of Bil'in would do anything at all to make it clear that terrorists passing from their village is NOT fine with them, then 20+ Israelis wouldn't have died, and the fence wouldn't have been created.
The fence near Bil'in is a security need. The Palestinians had their choice, they chose not to deal with terrorism, now we have to do it, so that what happened to the Schijveschuurder family will not repeat itself again. Ever.
And the thing really sad is, that ISMer turned out to be more than just a minion of Huwaida and Adam and their braindead human speedbumps. He's their media coordinator, that what he does for living. Which, given his posts and the lack of facts in such kinda makes you think he might think of a career change, because dude, if that's the best you can do? ISM is going down.

15 Comments:

  • He's their media coordinator,

    LOL!!!!

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    *DEEP BREATH*

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Wow the terror supporting movement really isn't picky about who they choose to certain positions.

    Seriously though I'm still waiting for his response here (so if your reading this, please respond, I need a good laugh):

    http://onlyinisrael.blogspot.com/2005/07/little-more-non-violent-protesting.html#c112211321686652186

    By Anonymous Manker, at 11:39 AM, August 21, 2005  

  • I'm bored so I'm just gonna refute some of his crap from here:

    http://thismuchicansayistrue.blogspot.com/2005/08/lets-just-say-its-same-old-engagement.html


    "Gaza Will Still Be Occupied"

    LOL, I guess amnesia is required to be part of the TSM.

    He tries to argue that all the areas surrounding Gaza will be controlled by the IDF. This statement is a lie, one of the reasons Netanyahu resigned was exactly because Israel is giving up control.

    http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=26339

    To my sorrow, the security fence has not been completed around the
    settlement blocs, the Philadelphi Corridor will be handed over to the
    Palestinians, and worse than that, we will allow the Palestinians to open a
    sea port that will be open to the terror boats.


    Israel will no longer control the Philidelphi route or the sea port.

    The only area Israel will still control (shocker) is the entrances to Israel. But since he doesn't even recognize Israel he believes its the palestinians
    right to enter Israel whenever they want, under the reason that they wish to travel to Judea. Here's a little fact for ya, inbetween Judea and gaza is... Israel (but hey he doesn't recognize so it doesn't matter). So freedom of movement to him is being able to enter Israel whenever he wants. I guess he's got no problem with US-mexico border.

    And airspace?, they don't even have an airforce. Anyways their is no way in hell Israel will or should allow palestinian airplanes to fly over Israel. All I've got to say is, 9/11.

    "Israel’s Gaza Plans Do Not Meet Even the United States’ minimum expectations"

    But ofcourse it's perfectly fine for the PA to flaunt it's responsibilities.

    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062.htm

    Road map:

    Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.

    #
    Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.
    #
    Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.


    and most importantly

    As comprehensive security performance moves forward, IDF withdraws progressively from areas occupied since September 28, 2000 and the two sides restore the status quo that existed prior to September 28, 2000. Palestinian security forces redeploy to areas vacated by IDF.

    The IDF don't got to move until terror stops, but hey who cares, you've got to blame Israel anyway.

    And hey he should feel proud, especially since he's supporting this kind of incitement agaisnt himself.

    http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=669

    Palestinian Friday Sermon by Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris: Muslims Will Rule America and Britain, Jews Are a Virus Resembling AIDS

    Feel free to continue to support!

    "relocated Jewish settlers, further dislocating Israel’s Palestinian citizens living in those regions"

    Let's think about this statement. He is saying it's wrong for Israel to relocate Jews, into areas that he would consider "Israel proper". So where the hell do you want them to go? Dear lord, imagine if someone said it was wrong to re-locate US citizens to California or other southern states because it dislocates the US's mexican citizens.

    Yep, yet again this pro-Segregationalists policies of the TSM and palestinian supporters. Jews can only live in certain areas, but arabs are free to live where ever they want! What next? Seperate water fountains so arabs don't have to share Jew spit? Seperate bathrooms resteraunts, because it might dislocate people?

    Also I got to say, "Israel’s Palestinian citizens", I guess that shows where their loyaties lie.

    And about the money, just ignore the 3 billion given to the PA by the G8. They didn't do anything for it, and the other billions they have recieved, but you gotta make that "greedy Jew" stereotype work. I guess he really is a media coordinater?

    "All Israeli Settlements Violate International Law"

    Amazingly, or should I say Unsuprisingly this guy has refused to comment back about what I posted before about the status of those territories.

    It's also amazing he is evoking law without looking at the history. But to be a palestinian supporter you've got to be historically blind.

    Now time for a short summary of history. After the 48' war, Egypt took over Gaza and Jordan took over Judea and Samaria or also known as the "west bank". They wrote in their armistice agreements this.

    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/arm01.htm#art5

    Egyptian

    Article V

    2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.
    ------
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/arm03.htm#art6

    Jordan

    Article VI

    9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.


    As anyone can see they specifically made it so that these borders do not represent anything except which side fighters were supposed to be on. Specifically they say that these don't determine the borders.

    Now we must also look at the palestinian claims, such as in the Palestinian national charter.

    http://www.palestine-un.org/plo/pna_two.html

    Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

    Well, as you can see straight from their mouth's they did not claim the territory. Well until 1968. a year AFTER Israel captured and laid claim to the territories. Just to help the guy out, we'll ignore why only AFTER Israel captured those territories did palestinians claim it.

    And we'll look at who claimed those territories in 1969. Well in Gaza it was Egypt, Israel, and the palestinians, and in Judea & Samaria it was Israel, Jordan, and the palestinians. Now both Jordan & Egypt have given up their claims to those areas. So it means that both Israel and the palestinians still claim those areas. Israel in 67 and the palestinians 68. Thus, wait for it.... THE TERRITORY IS DISPUTED DUMBASS.

    "Israeli Settlements Take Strategic Land"

    Oh dear, this best put here

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16624

    Jewish settlements, which have been built almost without exception on uninhabited land, are not “atop” private or town wells belonging to Arabs. The PLO writer evidently refers here to a familiar propaganda charge that Israel is appropriating Arab water from aquifers under the West Bank.



    The geological facts and Israel’s actual policies, which were of no interest to the Times, are relevant. Rain water that falls on the mountains of the West Bank and percolates through porous surface rock into the aquifer far below then naturally flows downwards toward the Israeli coastline. There, as has been the case for generations, water collects, rising close to the surface in natural springs, such as Rosh Ha’ayin, inside Israel. Even in the 1950's – before Israel controlled the West Bank – it used 95 percent of the Western Aquifer’s water, and 82 percent of the Northeastern Aquifer’s water, because it was in Israel that the waters were easily accessible.


    This lie isn't really new at all about Israel having the "good" land.

    It's been around since the 1930's. Such as stated in the Peel commision report.

    http://www.mideastweb.org/peelmaps.htm

    The shortage of land is due less to purchase by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought.

    He's just recycling a lie, he really is a media coordinater or better known as Propaganda minister!

    "Israel Uprooted 800,000 Palestinian Refugees from Their Homes in 1948 and 1967:"

    As Efraim Karsh Professor and Head of the Mediterranean Studies Programme at King's College, University of London.

    Has put it best when he wrote this.

    http://netwmd.com/articles/article994.html

    The collapse and dispersion of Palestine's Arab society during the 1948 war is one of the most charged issues in the politics and historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Initially, Palestinians blamed the Arab world for having promised military support that never materialized.[1] Arab host states in turn regarded the Palestinians as having shamefully deserted their homeland. With the passage of time and the dimming of historical memory, the story of the 1948 war was gradually rewritten with Israel rather than the Arab states and the extremist and shortsighted Palestinian leadership becoming the main if not only culprit of the Palestinian dispersion.

    The guy also has a (false) quote from Ben-Gurion. I recommend that he read this to give him a real view of history.

    Well I'm too lazy to continue. It's way too much garbage to go through. But hey this ought to be enough to keep him away.

    By Anonymous Manker, at 2:14 PM, August 21, 2005  

  • Dear Blogger Friends,

    As always, you are wrong. This time, instead of misrepresenting international law, lying about the location of the Wall or rationalizing the beating of peaceful protesters, now you have incorrectly identified me. I am not the current ISM Media Coordinator, nor do I maintain my own blog where I write about you (not worth the time).

    A few other points:

    Manker, thanks, you've really helped out the ISM a great deal. The old website crashed last winter (due to technical problems, not because of hacking). We thought we had lost the content, but we learned from you that we can recover it through archive.org, and we've started to recover it. We were afraid we had lost hundreds of historical reports and photos from the last four years proving the inhumanity and illegality of Israeli military and settler actions, but you showed us how to find them. Some day they will be used in historical studies of the occupation's abuses and also in war crimes trials.

    Interesting indeed that Lazer, your bete noire, is quoted frequently in Yedioth Aharanoth and was featured in a long story in Ha'aretz called "Gandhi Redux" by Meron Rapaport a few months back. And the Palestinian leaders in Bil'in are regularly featured in the Israeli press and newspapers like the International Herald Tribune: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/11/opinion/edkhatib.php

    But hey, you guys have this really neat blog...

    Let's see, and a few weeks back a Ha'aretz investigative report revealed that the Israeli Border Police at Bil'in demonstrations regularly lied about the violence at demos: http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20050728014701291&mode=print

    Manker, regarding international law, your interpretation of international law is completely in line with about six other Israeli lawyers, most of whom are associated with Dori Gold. Unfortunately, the rest of Israel and the world's international lawyers and experts find your interpretation of international law, including the Geneva Conventions, to be laughable. That is why the International Court of Justice, B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and all world's governments (with the exception of Israel and Micronesia) all disagree with the positions you put forth.

    And Manker, gee, Efraim Karsh is really a respected scholar. I think he might know those six Israel lawyers I mentioned. Could they all be on the same payroll ?

    Essentially with time I realized it is not worth the energy to follow-up and post regularly on this blog because very few people actually read this blog. You will notice that only 1-2 people bother to post comments for each new story.

    Excuse me for wrapping it up, but I'm tired. I've had an exhausting week of weeping over the expulsion of violent, racist, right-wing settlers from Gaza and the West Bank by other Jews. I'm sure you understand.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:45 AM, August 24, 2005  

  • Manker, thanks, you've really helped out the ISM a great deal.

    No problem

    The old website crashed last winter (due to technical problems, not because of hacking).

    But your not trying to allude that I did it, right?

    We thought we had lost the content, but we learned from you that we can recover it through archive.org, and we've started to recover it. We were afraid we had lost hundreds of historical reports and photos from the last four years proving the inhumanity and illegality of Israeli military and settler actions, but you showed us how to find them.

    I guess you mean stuff like this?

    http://www.honestreporting.com/images/photogs.jpg

    Some day they will be used in historical studies of the occupation's abuses and also in war crimes trials.

    I think they'll go under the title of 'Goebbels style propaganda'. And it'll teach about how if you want to keep a lie alive, you've got to keep creating more lies to hold it up.

    Interesting indeed that Lazer, your bete noire, is quoted frequently in Yedioth Aharanoth

    That was actually the first time I saw him quoted.

    and was featured in a long story in Ha'aretz called "Gandhi Redux" by Meron Rapaport a few months back.

    I guess with all his publicity he can start off his new fashion line of pink glasses.

    And the Palestinian leaders in Bil'in are regularly featured in the Israeli press and newspapers like the International Herald Tribune: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/11/opinion/edkhatib.php

    Ok, what your expecting me to have a hissy fit that they gave a guy a column to put into an editorial?

    But hey, you guys have this really neat blog...

    Ya, we all can't be successful like you. Just call your parents and have them buy you a nice blog, a college education at some liberal arts college with a degree that in something worthless, wire money whenever your diesel jeans get a rip, or your sony camera gets a smudge, and immediately have them buy you a new one. And start doing protests for a "human rights" cause because you feel guilty for your families success.

    Some of us have to work and do other things outside reading blogs like refuting shmucks on occasion and then going off to the rest of my day.

    Let's see, and a few weeks back a Ha'aretz investigative report revealed that the Israeli Border Police at Bil'in demonstrations regularly lied about the violence at demos: http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20050728014701291&mode=print

    Yet why don't you directly link to that site. Instead of using some middle page for the communists revolution.

    And I do believe I read that article, it was actually a he said she said style one. One group said that they had proof that the Border police lied, the Border police also said that they had video evidence to prove them wrong.

    Manker, regarding international law, your interpretation of international law is completely in line with about six other Israeli lawyers, most of whom are associated with Dori Gold.

    And I'm sure that those other lawyers are completely free from connection with the PA, the Saudi's, or any group that has an Anti-Israel stance.

    Unfortunately, the rest of Israel and the world's international lawyers and experts find your interpretation of international law, including the Geneva Conventions, to be laughable.

    Yet where's the beef, put simply where is your proof. Peoples opinion does not equal law. Well except during the times in Europe where they all decided they didn't want Jews.

    And you have still yet to explain about the Palestinian National Charter (from 1964), and their explicit statement of non-ownership to those areas, well until 1968 that is. So why are you dodging this? Please explain how this territory all of sudden becomes their ownership when they say, and I quote (directly from the Palestinians own UN website)

    This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

    Please explain why after the fact that Israel has taken territory in a defensive war, and claimed that territory well before the Palestinians. Their claim directly A YEAR after Israel's claim supercedes all?

    That is why the International Court of Justice, B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and all world's governments

    Lets see a bunch of political groups disagree with me. The horror, the horror. The ICJ as I stated before is simply a wing of the UN, which has recently shown it's bias by funding shirts for the recent PA propaganda campaign. B'tselem, AI, and HRW are ideological groups trying to hide under the viel of human rights. Also most unsurpising of all, is that these groups refuse to tell how they compile their reports and show the data used. Until this transperancy occurs, these groups continue to move themselves into Palestinian cheerleaders, rather than defenders of human rights.

    (with the exception of Israel and Micronesia)

    I'd assume that their would be some more countries in that lists.

    all disagree with the positions you put forth.

    The only countries that I know, that disagree with my position is the Arab league and most Islamic countries. Considering that the majority of those nations are in some way or another run by despots, it shows a lot that you are in agreement and in league with dictators. I know you must feel so proud.

    And Manker, gee, Efraim Karsh is really a respected scholar. I think he might know those six Israel lawyers I mentioned. Could they all be on the same payroll ?

    I don't know, but instead of dodging what he has written, why not actually try to disprove it?

    You do realise that egotistical self-rightousness does not replace facts, and honestly as a professor who is currently head of King's College History department of mediterranean studies, I'd take his word (and research [with citations]) a little more seriously than you.

    Essentially with time I realized it is not worth the energy to follow-up and post regularly on this blog because very few people actually read this blog. You will notice that only 1-2 people bother to post comments for each new story.

    And what a shame it is that you don't come more often. The laughs that you give me, and the snobbiness that you display each time, reinforce exactly all the stereotypes about you guys.

    Excuse me for wrapping it up, but I'm tired. I've had an exhausting week of weeping over the expulsion of violent, racist, right-wing settlers from Gaza and the West Bank by other Jews. I'm sure you understand.

    Of course, because who cares that their rights to freedom of speech and assembly were violated with complete disregard. And of course with the blessing of AI and HRW which did not even feel the need to mention it, and B'stelem which did complain about it, but only directly after the vote for disengagement was completed, ensuring that their position would not influence the vote. I guess certain people have more human rights than others.

    And one final note, yet again, you done what you have always done before. Nothing, you have not refuted a single point made. You just acted as if you are the ultimate authority and that your word is law.

    I'm still waiting for a response to previous comments, and the statement made in the comment above yours in this topic.

    *As stated above you have yet to give any explanation on why the territory is not disputed especially considering the admittance in the Palestinian national charter article 24. And the specific clauses in the Egyptian and Jordanian Armistice agreements?

    *Why the TSM tells people to not ride Israeli busses?

    *Why is the claim that gaza will have no control over ports when Netanyahu himself stated that they will and resigned over it.

    *The PA's responsibilities to fight terror, and why they can always flaunt and ignore, but anything Israel does that isn't to the period is claimed as the end of times.

    *Why Israel cannot move Israeli citizens to areas such as the Galilee and the Negev? Why is it Israeli's cannot live anywhere in Israel when your groups specifically says that is Israeli territory without doubt? I guess it's because you don't view it as Israeli territory.

    *Any proof to say that Israel took all the "good land", instead of the statement that it was hardwork that made the land valuable.

    *And finally where's your counter to Efraim Karsh.

    and his citations

    http://netwmd.com/articles/article994.html#_ftn1

    I'm waiting for a response to all of these. And logical facilies, dodging questions, and simply acting as if your the ultimate source when it comes to mid east politics and history does not count.

    By Anonymous Manker, at 12:29 PM, August 24, 2005  

  • The excerpts from treaties Manker pulls out and which I am not going to review are not relevant. International law, common sense and morality are very clear on these issues.

    The Gaza Strip and West Bank (including East Jerusalem) are occupied territory, not disputed territory. All people have a right to self-determination. Just because Israel claims another people's land, this does not make it Israel's land. There is no dispute about this. If the US claims Iraq there is no legal dispute. It is not ours. The French claimed Algeria, but it was not there's. The British claimed India, Iraq claimed Kuwait, etc.. Colonialism and the acquisition of land by warfare are not accepted by international law. The transfer of a civilian population onto occupied land is not permissable, etc., etc.. It is simple self-deception and distortion to claim otherwise.

    The ICJ outlines international law on Israel's occupation and settlements:

    http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm

    78. The Court would observe that, under customary international law as reflected (see
    paragraph 89 below) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on
    Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter “the Hague
    Regulations of 1907”), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the
    authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority
    has been established and can be exercised.
    The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former
    eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed
    conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore
    occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these
    territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All
    these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to
    have the status of occupying Power.


    87. The Court first recalls that, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations
    Charter:
    “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use
    of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in
    any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
    - 36 -
    On 24 October 1970, the General Assembly adopted resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration
    on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States”
    (hereinafter “resolution 2625 (XXV)”), in which it emphasized that “No territorial acquisition
    resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” As the Court stated in its
    Judgment in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua
    (Nicaragua v. United States of America), the principles as to the use of force incorporated in the
    Charter reflect customary international law (see I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 98-101, paras. 187-190);
    the same is true of its corollary entailing the illegality of territorial acquisition resulting from the
    threat or use of force.
    88. The Court also notes that the principle of self-determination of peoples has been
    enshrined in the United Nations Charter and reaffirmed by the General Assembly in
    resolution 2625 (XXV) cited above, pursuant to which “Every State has the duty to refrain from
    any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to [in that resolution] . . . of their right to
    self-determination.” Article 1 common to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
    Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reaffirms the right of
    all peoples to self-determination, and lays upon the States parties the obligation to promote the
    realization of that right and to respect it, in conformity with the provisions of the United Nations
    Charter.
    The Court would recall that in 1971 it emphasized that current developments in
    “international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the
    United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all [such territories]”. The
    Court went on to state that “These developments leave little doubt that the ultimate objective of the
    sacred trust” referred to in Article 22, paragraph 1, of the Covenant of the League of Nations “was
    the self-determination . . . of the peoples concerned” (Legal Consequences for States of the
    Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security
    Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 31, paras. 52-53). The
    Court has referred to this principle on a number of occasions in its jurisprudence (ibid.; see also
    Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 68, para. 162). The Court indeed made
    it clear that the right of peoples to self-determination is today a right erga omnes (see East Timor
    (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 102, para. 29).
    89. As regards international humanitarian law, the Court would first note that Israel is not a
    party to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, to which the Hague Regulations are annexed. The
    Court observes that, in the words of the Convention, those Regulations were prepared “to revise the
    general laws and customs of war” existing at that time. Since then, however, the International
    Military Tribunal of Nuremberg has found that the “rules laid down in the Convention were
    recognised by all civilised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs
    of war” (Judgment of the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg, 30 September and
    1 October 1946, p. 65). The Court itself reached the same conclusion when examining the rights
    and duties of belligerents in their conduct of military operations (Legality of the Threat or Use of
    Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I), p. 256, para. 75). The Court
    considers that the provisions of the Hague Regulations have become part of customary law, as is in
    fact recognized by all the participants in the proceedings before the Court.

    100. The Court would note finally that the Supreme Court of Israel, in a judgment dated
    30 May 2004, also found that:
    “The military operations of the [Israeli Defence Forces] in Rafah, to the extent
    they affect civilians, are governed by Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and
    Customs of War on Land 1907 . . . and the Geneva Convention Relative to the
    Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949.”
    101. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is
    applicable in any occupied territory in the event of an armed conflict arising between two or more
    High Contracting Parties. Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the 1967 armed
    conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is applicable in the
    Palestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during
    that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior
    status of those territories.
    *

    119. The Court notes that the route of the wall as fixed by the Israeli Government includes
    within the “Closed Area” (see paragraph 85 above) some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the
    Occupied Palestinian Territory. Moreover, it is apparent from an examination of the map
    mentioned in paragraph 80 above that the wall’s sinuous route has been traced in such a way as to
    include within that area the great majority of the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian
    Territory (including East Jerusalem).
    120. As regards these settlements, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth
    Geneva Convention provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own
    civilian population into the territory it occupies.” That provision prohibits not only deportations or
    forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any
    measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its
    own population into the occupied territory.
    In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has
    conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the
    Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.
    The Security Council has thus taken the view that such policy and practices “have no legal
    validity”. It has also called upon “Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously” by the
    Fourth Geneva Convention and:
    “to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would
    result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the
    demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including
    Jerusalem and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the
    occupied Arab territories” (resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979).
    - 47 -
    The Council reaffirmed its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 and 465 (1980) of
    1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case it described “Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts
    of its population and new immigrants in [the occupied] territories” as a “flagrant violation” of the
    Fourth Geneva Convention.
    The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
    (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

    * * *

    ISM may in the past have had something o the website about not using Israeli buses. I am not familiar with this. In any case, the website was damaged due to internal technical problems. Nothing was hidden. Important current information is on the website. There is nothing on the website about Israeli bus use. In reality ISMers use and have always used Israeli buses (I have among many thers). Nonetheless, whether in Israel or in Palestine, it makes sense to avoid unnecessary risks. ISMers take risks, but they are calculated risks focused around our goal of supporting Palestinian non-violent resistance to end the Israeli occupation. Israel's military occupation is the root cause of the violence.

    Manker is kidding himself/herself if he/she believes that peace can be achieved without Israel returning the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. So, yes, peace and Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories are directly related. A belief that Israel can hold onto some occupied land and have peace is self-delusion, as events of the last 38 years have demonstrated. The creation of such an elaborate facade of self-deception based on false legal and historical arguments and the immoral theft of another people's land is quite an amazing feat.

    The counters to Efraim Karsh are quite obviously the body of work by Benny Morris, Illan Pappe, Tom Segev, Avi Schlaim, Walid Khalidi, etc., all respected historians, most of them Israeli.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:22 PM, August 27, 2005  

  • A few more points:

    Rachel Corrie died defending the home of a Palestinian pharmacist and his family. There were no tunnels in the Nasrallah home. Even the Israeli army has never claimed there was a tunnel in the Nasrallah home. The Israeli army has destroyed more than 1500 homes in Rafah, and only claimed to find a small number of tunnels (I think it's something like 40, but I've forgotten). Obviously there were no tunnels in the vast majority of the homes demolished including the one Rachel Corrie was defending.

    Furthermore, numerous groups and individuals have pointed out that there are a multiplicity of other possible ways to counter tunneling that Israel could use other than home demolition. Israel has typically chosen the most damaging and brutal option (Can anyone say Ariel Sharon ?), destroying the homes of 15,000 residents of Rafah.

    Furthermore soldier/blogger, in Bil'in the wall is being built up to four kilometers from the Green Line, annexing Bil'in's farmland. The purpose of the Wall's route is to take Palestinian land for the settlement of Modi'in Illit. More land theft is illegal and immoral and not for security. Again, this is why the world condemns Israeli actions. And these are the actions that you ae defending as a soldier. You are defending land theft for the construction of illegal Israeli settlements.

    The only truly moral thing you can do is refuse to serve and join the protesters.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:47 PM, August 27, 2005  

  • Sigh, I wonder why I even take the time

    The excerpts from treaties Manker pulls out and which I am not going to review are not relevant.

    Why? Explain, this was literally written in their consititution. This was not a treaty between Israel and the palestinians.They did not (and still do not) recognize Israel's right to exists. It was an open declaration of their perceived rights and claims. They literally said that they did not have any claims to those areas, well until 1968.

    This is literally if the US had written in it's contitustion that it did not claim territory west of the mississipi river. And then went off and did manifest destiny anyways.


    You are simply dodging the arguement by attaining some phantom moral ground.

    International law, common sense and morality are very clear on these issues.

    Of course non of them agree with you.

    The Gaza Strip and West Bank (including East Jerusalem) are occupied territory, not disputed territory. All people have a right to self-determination.

    You have still yet in any form to prove what you are saying is true. You are simply disregarding 'inconvient' facts and then go off on a moral superiority tirade each time.

    There is no dispute about this.

    Actually their quite is.

    If the US claims Iraq there is no legal dispute. It is not ours. The French claimed Algeria, but it was not there's. The British claimed India, Iraq claimed Kuwait, etc..

    False analogies all around.

    The US has never had a connection with Iraq. Most americans do not even come from a middle eastern ancestory.

    The French and British are both yet again false analogies. These were places completely foriegn to them. These are literally places they had no connection too, and did not even purchase any of the areas. They just simply waltzed in.

    Colonialism and the acquisition of land by warfare are not accepted by international law.

    Except in cases of defensive wars

    The transfer of a civilian population onto occupied land is not permissable, etc., etc.

    Yet it's perfectly acceptable to demand that a group of people who under any other circumstances would never be considered refugees to come to a place they have never seen. Yet for Israel to do the same (Yes a right of return for Jews who were chased out in the arab riots.). The hypocracy of it all.

    It is simple self-deception and distortion to claim otherwise.

    Yet again a logical fallicy. You are trying to make yourself into an expert (LOL, not even close kid), and simply trying to say this. "If you don't agree with me, you're stupid."


    The ICJ outlines international law on Israel's occupation and settlements:

    I've already pointed out that this organization

    1. Holds no authority

    2. Is a wing of the UN

    (Therefore)

    3. Cannot be taken seriously as the UN is the host to a slew of pro-palestinian groups such as the "Inalienable rights" thing.

    Therefore their statements contain, no value, if I were to pull stuff from the ZOA, you wouldn't take the time to look. So I'll return the favor.

    Nonetheless, whether in Israel or in Palestine, it makes sense to avoid unnecessary risks.

    I think the bolded section speaks VOLUMES for itself.

    Israel's military occupation is the root cause of the violence.

    Ofcourse, well just ignore all those terror attacks and the arab riots of the 1920'-30's.

    The fact that during 194-1967 their was a whole slew of terror attacks, such as the eilat bus attacks.

    The fact that three major wars were fought even before Israel had control over Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and Jerusalem.

    And that the major precursors for the 1956 and 67 war were because of terror attacks. Such as how Israel destroyed terror bases in 1956 in gaza and such as how syria's constant support for terror lead to the 67 war such as the attempted attack on Israel's filteration system.


    Manker is kidding himself/herself if he/she believes that peace can be achieved without Israel returning the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. So, yes, peace and Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories are directly related. A belief that Israel can hold onto some occupied land and have peace is self-delusion, as events of the last 38 years have demonstrated. The creation of such an elaborate facade of self-deception based on false legal and historical arguments and the immoral theft of another people's land is quite an amazing feat.


    Regergitate some propaganda over and over again. Check

    Use previously used logical fallicy. Check.

    Accuse the person of being evil and stupid if they don't agree with you. Check.

    I see how the ISM works now.

    The counters to Efraim Karsh are quite obviously the body of work by Benny Morris, Illan Pappe, Tom Segev, Avi Schlaim, Walid Khalidi, etc., all respected historians, most of them Israeli.


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Ilan pappe! This guy was caught lying and even called a dingbat by morris.

    That says quite a bit.

    Karsh really did put it best when he wrote this.

    So successful has this effort been that what began as propaganda has become received dogma. It is striking to see how popularity has widely come to be equated with veracity, as if the most commonly held position must by definition be the correct one. I personally learned this when some critics rejected my exposure of the New Historians methods2 not on scholarly grounds but because my work ran counter to the popular view. Thus Joel Beinin of Stanford University questioned my conclusions on the grounds that "many of the arguments of the `new historians' are widely accepted today in liberal Israeli intellectual circles."3 Of course, fashion and popularity cannot authenticate incorrect historical facts and argument. For this reason, it is important to return to the heart of the matter and reexamine the factual basis underlying the anti-Israel indictment.

    The fact is not that he's wrong because of his facts. It's because it's not what everyone agree's to.

    This is the difference between you and me.

    You history is distorted by your politics and will to do whatever is politically fashionable.

    My politics are distorted by the history of the events. Whether it is politically fashionable or correct, I could care less.

    By Anonymous Manker, at 12:23 AM, September 04, 2005  

  • ISMer, I would honestly like to have YOUR suggestion to solving the tunnel problem without bulldozing their sources. Really, go ahead and try to make up a different solution.
    As for the Settlements being illegal, you KNOW it's bullcrap. Most of the settlements were built on land legally purchased from Palestinians. The outposts that haven't are called illegal and are being evacuated routinely.
    The fact is, while the Geneva convention forbids a country to transfer it's population to an occupied territory it has no relevance to this case.
    The settlers weren't "transfered". They moved there of their own free will.

    The goal of that clause is clear too. It's goal is to prevent countries driving out large ethnic minorities into their home countries during the war (IE czech driving the germans out of sudetland in the aftermath of WW2). You know that is the true meaning and intention of it. And yet the ISM and the Israel haters in general continue to distort the truth.
    The settlements are perfectly legal according to the Geneva convention.

    By Blogger OnlyInIsrael, at 3:16 AM, September 04, 2005  

  • The Geneva Convention clause on transfer of population applies exactly to Israel and the Occupied Territories. It is self-deceiving to claim otherwise.

    1) Anyone can buy land in live in the United States, for example, right ? So Israeli settlers can buy land in the Occupied Territories right ? Nothing wrong with it.

    Wrong. People buy land according to US law and terms regulated by the US government, as in all sovereign countries. Sovereign countries generally establish laws that prevent foreign countries or other groups from taking control of their citizens' land and property. In any case, as sovereign governments they establish laws based on the perceived interest of their citizens.

    Palestinians have not been allowed to establish such laws regarding land purchase or to regulate land purchase. Instead, as B'Tselem explains, Israel imposes a hodge-podge of past laws and military laws, and exploits them to Israel's advantage.

    http://www.btselem.org/English/Settlements/

    "Especially conspicuous is the Israel’s manipulative use of the law to create a semblance of legality for the settlement enterprise. So long as the Jordanian law assisted Israel in advancing its goals, it seized the argument that international law requires that an occupying state apply the law in effect in the territory prior to occupation, construing international law in a cynical and tendentious way. When Jordanian law was unfavorable for Israel, it did not hesitate to revoke it though military legislation and develop new rules it meet its ends. In doing so, Israel tramples on international agreements to which it is party that are intended to reduce human rights violations and protect people under occupation."

    Within Israel, Israeli law for example (which is discriminatory against non-Jewish citizens) severely restricts the rights of Israel's Palestinian citizens to buy and own land. While Israeli law is a bad model because of the discrimintaion based on religion, it is an example that all nations' establish laws and regulate land purchase. Palestinians have not been given this right. Instead Israel has imposed a regime which allows Israelis to purchase and steal. This is theft and exploitation under the guise of legality.

    2) Most land for settlements was "built on land legally purchased".

    Again, according to whose laws were they legally purchased ? According to Israeli government occupation laws which discriminate against Palestinains.

    Additionally, however, I personally know many, many Palestinians whose land was taken from them by force by the Israeli military or settlers, not bought, and many others who says that land sale documents are false, forged, etc.. In fact, Israeli settlers have a whole industry and well-established practices for forging land sale documents for Palestinian land.

    3) Irrespective of points 1) and 2), the Israeli government has had a clear policy of encouraging settlers to move into the Occupied Territories, a government policy of transferring its population. Subsidies, support and assistance were given by the Israeli government that encouraged and supported Israeli settlers to move to the Occupied Territories. As you know, many settlers actually live in the OT simply because it is cheaper for them due to extensive government subsidies, ie, government policy. The quality of life established in the settlements is often higher than in Israel due to extensive government subsidies. Settlement has been government policy. The government established policies to transfer its population onto occupied Palestinian land in clear violation of international law.

    4) Finally, for all these reasons, all Israeli settlements, not just the "illegal outposts", are illegal according to international law. Israeli law, which says some settlements are legal and some illegal, does not comply with basic standards of morality or justice.

    If you are truly unaware of these issues, you should read more of the reports on the B'Tselem webpage above.


    HOME DEMOLITION

    Below is information from Human Rights Watch regarding alternatives to Home Demolition. There are more details on these alternatives to wholesale home demolition in their report, "Razing Rafah", which you can find through the report below. I could cut and paste this, but it's a huge amount of information. Look at the full report.

    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/19/isrlpa10036.htm

    "Our detailed investigation and analysis of the Rafah border zone—presented in the recent Human Rights Watch report Razing Rafah—found that the IDF has used general security concerns to justify measures that go far beyond what international law allows and what the security of its forces requires. Since 2000, the IDF has continually destroyed homes to expand the buffer zone, which is now 300 meters wide in some areas. In 2003, the IDF completed construction of an eight-meter-high metal wall in the already cleared “buffer zone” to protect its troops patrolling the border. Despite this additional protection, the rate of home demolitions in Rafah tripled in 2003 in comparison with the previous two years.

    The trench presented in the current plan is reportedly justified as necessary to block the smuggling of arms from Egypt. It is known that Palestinian armed groups use tunnels to smuggle arms for use in attacks against the Israeli military and civilians (although our research found that the IDF has exaggerated the number of actual tunnels, as opposed to exit shafts, as a pretext to justify further home demolitions and illegally expand the “buffer zone”).

    However, our investigation found that the IDF has failed to explore well-established methods to detect and destroy tunnels—like seismic sensors, electromagnetic induction and ground-penetrating radar. Such techniques, which have been used successfully along the Korean demilitarized zone and the U.S.-Mexican border, would obviate or sharply reduce the need for IDF incursions into Rafah that have resulted in many destroyed homes and frequent loss of life. Before insisting on a trench, the IDF should be required to demonstrate to you and the public that these non-lethal and much less destructive alternatives have been tried and found wanting. When Human Rights Watch met with senior IDF officials in October, they provided no such evidence, only blanket and unsupported summary claims."

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:40 PM, September 07, 2005  

  • My response immediately above is to Only In Israel, re his false claims about "transfer" of population and his misunderstanding of international law. All settlements are illegal under international law, specifically the Geneva Conventions.

    Manker on the other hand still claims that the "Occupied Territories" are not occupied, but are disputed. I gave him the text of the International Court of Justice decision (the world's highest legal body) refuting his view. Manker responded that the ICJ: "1. Holds no authority 2. Is a wing of the UN
    (Therefore) 3. Cannot be taken seriously as the UN is the host to a slew of pro-palestinian groups such as the "Inalienable rights" thing."

    So, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'TSelem (Israeli) all take the same position and make the same arguments as the ICJ, that the territories are occupied. Manker will then, I suppose, reject those organizations on some basis.

    So, virtually all the world's governments, with the exception of Israel and Micronesia, take the position that the territories are occupied based on the same arguments as the ICJ. Manker will then deny that, claiming it is only arab governments. That is factually dead wrong. And I guess if necessary I can go find government positions, and certainly UN Security Council and UN GA votes will prove the world governments' positions, that the territories are occupied. But somehow Manker will still assert that he and six other Israeli lawyers are right and the whole rest of the world is wrong.

    To that, I will add that the Israeli Supreme Court also says that the territories are occupied:

    http://www.palestinemonitor.org/new_web/absence_occupation_press.htm

    "As early as 1979, the Israeli Supreme Court stated: “This is a situation of belligerency and the status of [Israel] with respect to the occupied territory is that of an Occupying Power.”[ix] In 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court held yet again that the West Bank and Gaza Strip “are subject to a belligerent occupation by the State of Israel.”[x] In June, 2004, the Israeli Supreme Court reaffirmed that “since 1967, Israel has been holding [the West Bank] in belligerent occupation.”[xi]"

    [ix] 606 Il. H.C. 78, Ayub, et al. v. Minister of Defense, et al. (The Beth Case); 610 Il. H.C. 78, Matawa et al. v. Minister of Defense, et al. (The Bekaot Case), reprinted in Antoine Bouvier and Marco Sassoli, How Does Law Protect in War? Cases, Documents and Teaching Materials on Contemporary Practice in International Humanitarian Law, International Committee of the Red Cross, pps. 812-817, Geneva, 1999, hereinafter “ICRC 1999.”

    [x] Adjuri v. IDF Commander, 7015 Il. H.C. 02, 7019 Il. H.C. 02 (2002).

    [xi] Beit Sourik Village Council v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank, 2056 Il. H.C. 04 at ¶ 1 (2004).

    So, Manker will probably say that the Israeli Supreme Court is wrong too I guess.

    Manker, at some point you need to concede that you and the six Israeli right-wing lawyers are incorrect. Your arguments do not hold up according to common sense and to rest of the world. You are not deceiving anyone but yourself and some of our friends. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip are occupied territory according to international law.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:23 PM, September 07, 2005  

  • Sorry. Have not gone by "Nick ISMer" before. Keep up the good work. You're seizing some prime land there in the West Bank.

    Signed,

    Your Pal Across the razor wire in Bil'in.

    thismuchicansayistrue.blogspot.com

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:26 AM, September 19, 2005  

  • I really liked your page and it is related to gold skagen watch, until next time!

    By Blogger Bloggy, at 9:47 AM, October 10, 2005  

  • Hey nice info you posted.
    I just browsing through some blogs and came across yours!

    Excellent blog, good to see someone actually uses em for quality posts.

    Your site kept me on for a few minutes unlike the rest :)

    Keep up the good work!

    Thanks!.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:36 AM, October 20, 2005  

  • The ISM was founded by a Kapo-type Jew. It is a sick organization that attracts those who don't have a decent avocation or direction in life. The anti-Semites herald the Jews who blame, assault, criticize other Jews. Those who join the ISM are in a perpetual state of delusion thinking that they are advancing humanity. Wrong! They are advancing the murderous activities of the Palestinian Arab serial killers determined to harm the innocent citizens of Israel. The ISM members is nothing more than the filthy humanists who would not venture into Somalia, Iraq, Chechnya, Sudan or Nigeria because the cowards are afraid of those dangerous places.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:54 AM, October 31, 2005  

  • If I were you I would remove the dirty ISM link. I don't blame the anti-Semites like Andrew. They are who they are. They will always be full of anti-Semitic puss. I blame the stupid Jewish liberalism and the government of Israel which has not outlawed that vile organization. The cowardly Andrew types would not go to Iraq as they may be kidnapped and decapitated there. They can only harrass the Jews and than complain that their laptops were confiscated at the border. Sick creatures they are!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:35 AM, November 01, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home