Jump to content

the EU catches Israel off-guard regarding its illegal settlements


Recommended Posts

Can't read the whole article on Haaretz. Sign up or pay up .....

So Rue

Hudson Jones posted articles from these sites. Jpost.com haaretz.com and RT... I am guessing it is the RT one you consider propaganda? Or would Jpost and Haaretz be considered propaganda sites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Care I wil try explain how the law works.

The EEC can advise its member countries to boycott Israel, but only the elected legislatures of those countries can decide that. They take the policy recommendation and its only when their own elected assembly adapts that policy recommendation as a law it can be implemented by the particular nation.

According to the 4th Geneva convention boycotting Israeli settlement products would be problematic and could be tested in courts and be found in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention by the courts in each respective nation which are seperated from their legislative assemblies and so could strike down any laws these assemblies passed.

For the boycotts to be in accordance with the 4th Geneva convention it would have to be legally proven Israel took over a foreign nation. Legal occupation only applies to the occupation of a land that prior belonged to another nation. The West Bank never did.

The way the term is now used against Israel to say it occupies the West Bank is a classic example of repeating something wrong so many times it becomes blindly accepted in common parlance but it hasn't changed the law.

Israel physically is present on the West Bank yes and using the word occupation in layman's language its an occupation, but legally its not.

The UN declarations calling Israel's military presence an occupation are not legal determinations. The law ahs to recognize two sets of rights, the Palestinian one to form a nation which it does, but also the right of Israel to protect itself from terrorist attacks and that is why in international law no country will state Israel can not defend itself against terrorism or create safe and secure borders.

The EEC has tried to show its bias by telling Israel to get out of the West Bank and pull back to the pre 1967 borders, but those borders never existed. They are in fact the line that arose at the point where the Arab league nations fleed their attack on Jewish settlers in 1948. Those borders were never recognized ever by the Arab league of Nations.

Most Arab League of Nations members are still in a declared state of war with Israel and do not recognize those borders. When they state they would consider those borders, they attach to that the condition they will only recognize those borders if Israel ceases to be a Jewish state. Why don't you read the conditions attached to what the Arab League has stated. Why do you think Mr. Abbas continues to state he will never recognize a Jewish state only an Israeli non Jewish state.

See you can ignore the entire legal conflict and only pick out select parts but the courts wont' and neither will Israel. Of course its not goingt o withdraw to a border that has no legal meaning since the Arab League says the recognition of that border will not mean they recognize the right of Israel to be Jewish.

Now as for the West Bank. you know nothing of Jewish history. You just assume it belongs to Palestinians. The fact is the majority of people on the West bank are not descended from Palestinians, they are in fact descended from Arabs who displaced the actual Palestinians of the West Bank.

In today's world anyone who calls themselves a Palestinian is automatically allowed to do so as long as they can prove they are not Jewish.

As a result we have millions of non Palestinian Arabs claiming to be Palestinians which they are not and in fact trying to gain land title to land that does not rightfuly belong to them and has been stolen by them from Palestinians.

The fact is the land ownership conflicts on the West Bank are not simply between Israel and the Palestinian authority. In fact just as many are between Arabs of this area and that is why Arafat when in charge of the Palestinian Authority blew up the Land Titles office. He knew the majority of people claiming to be Palestinian did not have land titles to the land they seized and he wanted to prevent that from coming up in court partially to prevent

a minority of Palestinians from owning all the land and even worse still selling any of it legally to Jews.

The land on the West Bank has never been part of a sovereign nation and that is why the Palestinian Authority is desperately trying to create itself as a nation. Once its an actual sovereign nation then and only then can it declare itself truly legally occupied. Until then what you have is a dispute between

nations and individuals as to who should have title to the land and the dispute is not just between Jewish israeli settlers and Muslim Palestinians but between Muslim Palestinians, Muslim Arabs, Christians and Arabs, and not just Israel and the Palestinian Authority, but many Christian churches and the State of Jordan.

The Oslo accord set up a procedure to slowly turn over most of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. Israel tried to follow the Oslo accord but Arafat ripped it up stating even though he signed it, the entire world should have known he was not serious and just stalling for time.

Arafat openly stated he bargained in bad faith, deliberately violated the Oslo accords and would never settle for anything but a Muslim caliphate he ran in all of Jordan, Israel and the West Bank and to this day Mr. Abbas states he will never recognize a Jewish state.

So when Europe states it wants to boycott Israeli goods it can suggest that but boycotts can only be done when a country occupies a foreign country and takes that foreign country's goods and tries to sell them. The West Bank is not a foreign nation. More importantly if the EEC boycotts Israeli West Bank goods, what is to stop Israel from saying to the EEC we will not allow non Jewish West Bank goods to come through our sea ports, and placed on our ships delivering them to Europe which is what they do now?

Further for the boycott not to violate international law there would have to be shown a clear law from Israel that says there is no legal difference in Israel between the settlements and Israel pre-1967.

Of course Israel would never agree to that. If it did, it would be absorbing a majority of Muslims which would make the state's Jewish makeup endangered. That is precisely why the IDF stays out of designated areas left to the Palestinians of the West Bank.

That is precisely why it has its army administer the West Bank. It does not recognize it as a part of Israel but as a problem zone that is under dispute.

For someone to try argue there is no differentiation between Israel ‘proper’ and the settlements is sheer ignorance of Israeli laws which have clearly delineated the two.

Now I doubt you understood a thing I say nor do you care.

But I will tell you this. Many EEC nations have not and will not follow the boycott.

I also state the campaign to boycott Israel is at least 7 years old and not new.

I would also state the EEC takes in goods from occupied nations and has only ear marked Israel for this treatment.

Go find out how the EEC treated Indonesia when it invaded East Timor or China when it occupied Tibet.

Where were you present arm chair critics when the EEC took in oil from Nigeria as that nation committed genocide in

Biafra? You think the EEC had any problems accepting oil from Libya when it invaded Chad and Dahomey and Niger?

You think it ceased doing trade with Morrocco when it invaded the then Spanish Sahara illegaly and seized it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes in fact H Jones suggested it was new and caught Israel off guard. Stop trying to misrepresent why he started this thread.

You also totally missed the point I made. Of course the article I quoted was last year. The point was the latest call for boycott was not new. You missed that.

Then you compound missing that point by stating it and I quote "looks new" to you. Well of course it would if you don't bother to go find out just how long the EEC has been imposing or call on continuing boycotts and sanctions against Israel. The fact you are not aware they have been going on since 1967 does not mean they are new.

You want to cheer on this H Jones misinformation be my guest. It depends on people like you being ignorant of the actual facts.

Also you can select all the articles you want they don't address the issue that these initiatives are not new and so could not have caught Israel off guard. In fact Netanyahu was warned of this announcement by the EEC before he went on his visit to the EEC when these were announced.

The EEC did not spring anything on anyone. Its not how diplomacy works. They would have advised Netanyahu of these prior to his visit deliberately. They are away to pressure Netanyahu before he steps foot on European soil. They are used to set the tone for discussions. Their timing is not a surprise. Its a deliberate negotiations tactic.

Go on check the date out on this and tell me how the above thread starter's suggestion this announcement caught Israel off guard and is a new approach:

http://www.crethiplethi.com/the-eu-at-war-with-israel-the-prospect-of-an-irish-led-eu-wide-boycott/israel/2012/

You are correct, that the "call for boycott" is not new, but you seem to be talking beside me as I never claimed that the call to boycott was new. The actual policy is new, as far as I know this is the first time that the EU has moved from mere words to action. If you can show me an EU action (eg: boycott, sanction, etc...) then I would appreciate knowing that.

Edited by carepov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. You are wrong.

This is the first time EU has applied sanctions on the illegal Jewish settlements.

You can keep repeating otherwise, but unless you show proof that these sanctions are nothing new and they have been done in the past, you're just being Rue.

Absolute nonsense. Pretending history does not exist won't make it go away. This is not the first time nor will it be the last.

Lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care I wil try explain how the law works.

...

Rue, basically, the only thing that I've said is:

-I try to be objective, but if anything I am anti-Arab

-The EU policy is new

I never enen said that I agreed with the new policy and frankly your assumptions about my knowledge and positions are wrong. Please stop assuming that you know my opinions, I find this insulting.

Edited by carepov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct, that call for boycott is not new, you seem to be talking beside be as I never claimed that the call to boycott is new. The actual policy is new, as far as I know this is the first time that the EU has moved from mere words to action. If you can show me an EU action (eg: boycott, sanction, etc...) then I would appreciate knowing that.

Read this comment:

"This is the first time such an official, explicit directive has been published by the European Union bodies, » the senior official said. « Until today there were understandings and quiet agreements that the Union does not work beyond the Green Line [the pre-1967-war border]; now this has become a formal, binding policy. "

The above comes from:

http://www.eccpalestine.org/eu-future-agreements-with-israel-wont-apply-to-territories/

It summarizes the entire issue. " Understandings " and "quite agreements " as to boycotting goods beyond the pre 1967 Israel borders has been in effect by European countries since 1967. Saying the latest directive makes it new let alone a formal binding policy is double bullshit. It merely restates an old policy.

I again ask you and everyone else to try understand the EEC has no legal binding authority over any nation and individual European nations already have and can boycott Israeli goods which they do.

Classic case, Pepsi Cola. To gain access to Arab markets it had to agree to not sell Pepsi products in Israel.

The reality is trade is not decided by nations but by large multi nationals.

When Coke was told the same thing, they told the Arab League to shove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the actual European Law that says boycotting Israel goods from the West Bank is legal but remember its not binding on European nations:

"The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaign National Committee (BNC) welcomes the long overdue ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union that Israeli products originating from Israel's colonial settlements built on Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) do not qualify for preferential customs treatment under the EC-Israel trade agreement [1]. According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, all Israeli colonies are illegal and constitute war crimes. The BNC calls on all 27 member states of the European Union to implement the court's findings in full and without delay, as a first step towards a full ban on Israeli colonies' products. We also urge the citizens and civil society groups of European Union member states to pressure their respective governments and the EU leadership to abide by this landmark decision and enforce its implementation."

This is precisely why the last sentence was added. Please read it.

The above quote is from: http://azvsas.blogspot.ca/2010/03/european-court-of-justice-ruling-blow.html

The Court of Justice of the European Union is only an advisory body and its not the final court of law for that matter when determing the 4th geneva Convention.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read this comment:

"This is the first time such an official, explicit directive has been published by the European Union bodies, » the senior official said. « Until today there were understandings and quiet agreements that the Union does not work beyond the Green Line [the pre-1967-war border]; now this has become a formal, binding policy. "

The above comes from:

http://www.eccpalestine.org/eu-future-agreements-with-israel-wont-apply-to-territories/

It summarizes the entire issue. " Understandings " and "quite agreements " as to boycotting goods beyond the pre 1967 Israel borders has been in effect by European countries since 1967. Saying the latest directive makes it new let alone a formal binding policy is double bullshit. It merely restates an old policy.

I again ask you and everyone else to try understand the EEC has no legal binding authority over any nation and individual European nations already have and can boycott Israeli goods which they do.

Classic case, Pepsi Cola. To gain access to Arab markets it had to agree to not sell Pepsi products in Israel.

The reality is trade is not decided by nations but by large multi nationals.

When Coke was told the same thing, they told the Arab League to shove it.

Rue,

The link that you provided has proven what I've been saying all along, the EU policy is NEW. (emphasis mine)

"A senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the new ruling, which was published on June 30, as an « earthquake. »

« This is the first time such an official, explicit directive has been published by the European Union bodies, » the senior official said. « Until today there were understandings and quiet agreements that the Union does not work beyond the Green Line [the pre-1967-war border]; now this has become a formal, binding policy. »

The official noted that the significance of the regulation is both practical and political: From now on, if the Israeli government wants to sign agreements with the European Union or one of its member states, it will have to recognize in writing that the West Bank settlements are not part of Israel.

In the Prime Minister’s Office and Foreign Ministry there is great tension and anxiety over the new regulation and its implications for Israeli-EU relations. The efforts of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin to stop the move have all failed."

How significant is the new policy? I tend to agree with the NYT opinion that the significance has been over-dramatized by both sides, but it is significant.

Anyways, if we can't even move past the argument of "Is this policy new?" than I can't imagine discussing more in-depth questions like: "what is the significance of this policy?", or never mind questions such as "is it in Israeli's best long-term interests to continue to expand the West Bank settlements?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care I am actually trying to make a crucial point. The call to declare boycotts on Israeli goods from the West Bank is not new. The posts saying it is quote an "anonymous source" and that should be your first tip off its from someone in an opposition party and not anyone from the actual civil service or government or most likely the same EEC press office that released the story in the first place.

Anonymous sources are highly unreliable. Now let's deal with the real issue. It is just one of a long string of memorandums the EEC has issued on boycotting Israeli goods and demanding they recognize a Palestinian state without coupling it with telling the Palestinian Authority they must recognize the Jewish state and denounce terror.No its not new. Its been continuing since 1967.

Its been done so many times its like the boy crying wolf and quoting a subjective opinion as to its impact on Israel from someone who is anonymous and ahs no basis other than his subjective political opinion does not establish your allegation. In fact the last sentence of that post did though in confirming it is not legally binding.

So let's go to the next question does the LATEST memorandum policy directive from the EEC change any law? No it can't and that is why the anonymous source can only use references like "practical" or "poltical" when describing the policy and that is why I have taken so much time to respond. Anyone can come on this forum and quote self serving opinion statements-it doesn't make them valid let alone accurate-it just reflects their political bias and coming from a site whose sole agenda is to delegitimize Israel's right to exist why are you so surprised? read back H Jones continuous streams of posts. They have nothing to do with asking for peace and mutual recognition.They call for the destruction of Israel and a standard for Palestinians Israelis should not have.

Go on find me one article or comment from the h Jones source that says it is unreasonable for Mr. Abbas to say he will never recognize Israel unless it strips itself of its jewish identity. Go on find one post that says it is unfair to ask Israel to sit down and discuss peace with terrorists whose charters call for its destruction.

How is it the same EEC that did not ask Britain to sit down with the IRA until the IRA denounced terror and turned in its weapons expects Israel to sit with Hamas and Mr. Abbas when Hamas will never recognize a Jewish state and is in a declared state of war with Israel and Mr. Abbas in one breath says he is against terror, but openly welcomes and receives support from Fatash Hawks?

Practical? You want to use that word? How would it be practical for Israel to agree to borders that would allow terrorists to be situated inches from Israeli Jews. Does that sound practical to you?

The anonymous source you quote can't use the word legally binding because as I have told you it has no legal authority and that is a crucial difference. Political rhetoric is only that. Its showmanship or pr sound bites to placate a Muslim audience in European constituencies. Its cynical politics at best because the EEC knows damn well it can issue as many tough sounding memorandums as it wants to its members but there is no legal effect. Each country must choose to take that advisory and turn it into a law and since 1967 every EEC member has had that opportunity and none has.

The EEC member nations have had since 1967 when they first started issuing bias statements against Israel ignoring terror attacks against the Israeli state,to adapt laws boycotting Israeli goods.They never have. Ask yourself why. You really think there is any difference between the EEC stance from 1967 to date?

It has not changed. The memorandums calling on boycotts and sanctions and punishment of Israel go on all the time.

However not even the most bias of nations against Israel, France, Britain, Belgium, Ireland and Italy have ever implemented any domestic laws boycotting imports from Israel.

The EEC is big on sound bites but while it criticizes Israel in the media with sound bites to placate its Muslim constituencies, it continues to trade with Israel because of the huge amount of money involved in the exchanges none of its anti Israel member nations are willing to do without.

The EEC has a history of saying one thing and doing another and to think yet another bark at Israel changes anything is naive.

Ask yourself who do you think sends out "anonymous" tips saying the PM of Israel is anxious. Its the same EEC pr spokesperson sending out the original memo or someone with an anti Israeli bias. Its classic propoganda repeated to try give the EEC memorandum more importance than it has.

The leak of that story clearly came from the EEC. Look at the timing of when it was released-at the exact same time Netanyahu was travelling in Europe to meet the EEC. Its a classic case of setting down a negative sound bite to try intimidate Netanyahu as he arrived to meet with the EEC.

If you knew anything about Israelis let alone Israeli politics or the psychological profile of Netanyahu its current PM, it's that if you threaten them they do anything but get anxious. Its not the way the Israeli psyche works. They become resolute. They entrench and go into siege stance. If Israelis fretted everytime a negative sound bite came out about them from the EEC or any one else for that matter you think they would have survived this long? Please. What they do is become even more resolute, more quiet, more calm and more focused and determined not to be bullied by the EEC.

You really think Netanyahu is the kind of politician who frets? He has told Sarkozy, Obama and Merkel to kiss his Zionist buttox. the He is no faint of heart diplomat and its why he chose for his Foreign Minister, Lieberman, someone far more insensitive and miserable than he. Its also why he brought Tzipi Levni back in his cabinet as Justice Minister. She plays good guy to his bad.

Netanyahu is a classic Israeli Colonel. They are the last line of authority on the actual ground in a war.They did not sit at a desk planning the war they are on the ground leading it.They are hands on. You don't intimidate people like that.They fight.

They also know all about posturing. They play it as well as anyone.

The EEC tactic is no different than the Wind having a contest with the SDun to try remove Netanyahu's coat. It blows and blows and he just holds tighter. The EEC would have a better result if it tried to shine down with the Sun's warmth. That's the only way to remove Netanyahu's coat.

The UN and Europe have been blowing on Israel since its existence. Countries that have had clout and moved Israel off fixed points of negotiation, i.e. the United States and Holland have been able to do so because they do not qualify their support for Israel's existence. Obama failed using Zbigniew Brezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor as his advisor on the Middle East and its why he brought in Sen. Kerry. Brezinski is a rigid anti Russian anti Israel pro Iranian politician who views Russia as the no.1 enemy of the world not Islam. Kerry sees the only way to achieve peace in the Middle East as giving Palestinians and Israelis mutual financial reasons to work together. I prefer Kery's method and the EEC are asses. If they want peace create progams where Palestinians and Israelis must work together for their mutual benefit when trading with Euorpe. The EEC does not. Instead it pretends to support only the Palestinians on the West Bank placating its Muslim constituents and oil souces but at the same time engaging in not so secret trading with Israel.

Please understand the EEC has continuouslly called for sanctions against Israel. Its a broken record and if anything it just makes them entrench further into their positions.

Now if you really think the EEC or any of its member nations will not trade with Israelunless it states no part of the West Bank belongs to Israel you need to go back and understand the EEC have already tried that. They tried it in 1982. They tried it during the oil boycotts against Europe in 1967.

They have tried it again and again. They can't get all their nations to boycott Israel, they can't get all their nations and to date any nation to pass a law demanding this.

Most importantly Where do you think the EEC gets off trying to dictate to Israel anything> If the EEC dictated to Canada it would not trade with Canada unless we recognize Hezbollah like they do what would you say?

You really think the EEC can use trade agreements to pressure Israeli policies that would endanger its security. You really think Israel would return to unsafe borders exposing them to terror attacks because the EEC won't trade with them?

Come on.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care here is an article explaining why the EEC's continued attempts to pressure Israel have failed and why

the writer prefers the approach nowbeing taken by Kerry in support of the arguements I am making.

This article indirectly proves the point I am making and that is the EEC approach to Israel as seen in this

latest memorandum is not new, its just the same old...

http://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/opinion-europe-doomed-stance-palestine-145804872.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care if you actually want to know what the current Israeli government thinks of the EEC's latest directive

here is an actual source from Israel, not some "anonymous" source, please read it and tell me do you think

this man sounds anxious?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/opinion/global/Lapid-europes-stance-on-settlements-is-a-blunder.html?_r=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care if you actually want to know what the current Israeli government thinks of the EEC's latest directive

here is an actual source from Israel, not some "anonymous" source, please read it and tell me do you think

this man sounds anxious?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/opinion/global/Lapid-europes-stance-on-settlements-is-a-blunder.html?_r=0

Thank you that was a good read. He does not sound anxious. He does verify that the EU directives are new and have some significance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you that was a good read. He does not sound anxious. He does verify that the EU directives are new and have some significance.

Not new but may have practical significance in the future. Anyways we are arguing semantics and I was not

trying to with you but trying to make the point that the EEC has been trying different ways to force Israel through economic measures to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank.

Its stupid to think they could.

Even people like me who want them to and consider it an obstacle to peace know for them to withdraw it can not happen in a vacuum. There has to be a demilitarization of terror cells on the West Bank which at this point may be impossible. There then has to be a very complicated arbitration process where land title issues not just between Israel and the Palestinian authority but individual Palestinians against other Palestinians, individual Israelis both Muslim and Jewish, Israelis and Palestinians on an individual level, and interaction with a wide range of Christian churches who all equally have the right to be made parties to the process.

The EEC has zero rights. It created the mess with its initial meddling, lies and creations of puppet kingdoms in Syria,Lebanon,Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

There are at least 4 layers of law, international, federal, municipal and individual civil, not to mention Canon Law (laws of the Christian churches,which Israel recognizes and the Palestinian Authority does not).

Not only will the Palestinian Authority refuse to recognize a Jewish state, it does not recognize the right to land title Christian Churches have on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem while Israel does and that is never mentioned by H Jones because that site's agenda is to reduce it all to a Jew v.s. Palestinian dispute. There are far more parties and groups involved.

There is also a right for Jordan to be involved because whatever borders are established they have to take into consideration not just Israeli security concerns but Jordanian security concerns. There is also the issue of the ultra orthodox Jews on the West Bank and what happens to them. The PA does not want them-it has openly stated it would remove them forcefully to Europe. These are the kinds of issues H Jones is not ever going to mention.

In an ideal world Palestinians, Israelis and Jordanians would peacefully live side by side, have a free trade market and common united trade market tarrif for all three nations, and so people of all 3 nations could move freely using one passport as well as having their own individual nation passport.

They would share intelligence on illegal drugs and crimes in regards to children, etc.

For all that to happen it requires more than the EEC pretending they can just bark out a one sided criticism and Israel will just poof react. This patronizing tone simply echoes a collective European inability to deal with Jews as a collective and most importantly a political equal. The European psyche has never been able to accept Jews as a people of equal standing. To Europe they just do not get Jews are not another one of their step and fetch it minorities they can patronize.

I again state to you I prefer the Yank's approach which is to explain the mutual benefits to all parties involved in a peace relationship. Europe is the no.1 donator to the Palestinian Authority and so treats it like its personal colony which is why it is so ironic it accuses Israel of being an American colony which it has repeatedly.

The EEC has always tried to prove to the US it disagrees with them and propping the PA against Israel is seen as a way of showing the US they are not going to let the US dictate policy in that area.

The reality though is the US always does, because when push comes to shove, the EEC cowers while the Yanks are sent in to deal on the ground with chaos and anarchy.

I exempt Britain from that last statement as well as Holland and Poland who all have sent people in on the ground,

The French can kiss my ass. They send in troops to rid Mali of Al Quaeda and in the next breath support them in Syria after years of backing Assad. France blows with the wind. It sold and built Israel's nuclear reactor and government offices, post office and telecommunications and entered an alliance with Israel and Britain of the Suez Canal war and then when it realized there was no business left to do with Israel denounced Israel and suddenly because a close ally of the Arab League of Nations.

France is the biggest slut on the planet. All nations flip and flop with alliances to pursue their best interests but the French have a way of trying to suggest they are cultured when they perform their blow jobs.

From where I sit the gargling noise from them with Yasir Arafat and allowing him to exploit his people and steal all their foreign aid and keep it in their banks while hosting him in a villa as he shipped off his heroin to the US speaks for itself.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Wow. I very much admire your passion Rue, and thank you for no longer pre-judging my opinions within your posts.

I 100% agree that there is not enough criticism of Palestinian and Arab leadership, and much of the disproportionate criticism has and is coming from EU countries. And, yes France does look like the worst offender.

The international community must insist that Palestinians/Arabs recognize Israel, and at least make an effort to stop terrorism and anti-Semitism.

To save us all time, perhaps you could stop repeating points related to the above, this will cut down your word count by about 75%.

Did you agree with the Israeli decision of withdrawing from Gaza?

Do you think that it is in Israel's best interest to continue to expand West Bank settlements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am guessing it is the RT one you consider propaganda? Or would Jpost and Haaretz be considered propaganda sites?

Haaretz is in my opinion close to being a propaganda vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Economic pressure was one of the reasons Apartheid South Africa was brought down. Things are moving in the right direction:

Dutch water giant cuts ties with Israeli counterpart due to settlements

The Netherlands’ largest supplier of drinking water said Tuesday it was severing ties with Israeli national water company Mekorot because of the “political context” of Israel’s West Bank settlements.

In the Dutch media and the parliamentary debate, Mekorot was mentioned as a company that drills for water in the West Bank. It was also accused of discriminating against Palestinians in supplying water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pathetic "Hudson Jones".

You would try revive this post with negative crap about water today because of course:

http://altahrir.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/israel-jordan-palestinians-sign-historic-water-agreement/

Does your office ever give it a rest?

Are you that afraid of peace and cooperation coming about over water you have to try spin such bs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pressure from the world has worked! The Prawer Plan has been cancelled. At least for the time being.

However, this does not mean the Bedouin communities in the Negev will be treated as equal citizens, or hooked up to the basic services they require, or have their ancestral land claims will be recognized. Dozens of Bedouin villages remain unrecognized by the Israeli government, lacking basic infrastructure such as water, sewage, and electricity, and Bedouins continue to be forbidden from building, buying or selling a home, receiving full government services, or running for or voting in local government elections. Many Bedouin homes and villages are still slated for demolition (the village of Al-Araqib has already been demolished over 60 times).

Edited by Hudson Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You started off allegedly talking about illegal settlements, then switched to water, now Beduins.

It seems you and your colleague Bud will use any thread or any post as a pretext to simply engage

in anti Israel bashing.

The situation with Beduins has nothing to do with illegal settlements or the water issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You started off allegedly talking about illegal settlements, then switched to water, now Beduins.

It seems you and your colleague Bud will use any thread or any post as a pretext to simply engage

in anti Israel bashing.

The situation with Beduins has nothing to do with illegal settlements or the water issue.

It is either "anti-semitic" or "Israel bashing". That's a familiar response by the Israeli apologists when any criticism of Israel is made.

If I wanted to start a thread for every human rights violation that Israel does, then I'd be sitting here all day. Since there was no thread about the proposed plan to transfer the Bedouins, I added the good news that it was cancelled in here, since this is a thread that shows how Israel continuously discriminates against the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and the non-Jews in Israel.

I'm glad that both the internal and global pressure forced the racist regime to back down from the plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's because your group (CJPME) is perceived by more than just l'il ol' us as an anti-Israeli front for the Muslim Brotherhood. Your group's lack of interest in 'justice' elsewhere other than delegitimizing Israel is VERY telling. CJPME's support for Morsi, for example, opened a few eye balls. Not just ours. Nor apparently Elizabeth May's...lol. She wasn't going to play along...was she???

Anyways...it's good to see that more than just a few posters at MLW have your lot figured out.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's because your group (CJPME) is perceived by more than just l'il ol' us as an anti-Israeli front for the Muslim Brotherhood. Your group's lack of interest in 'justice' elsewhere other than delegitimizing Israel is VERY telling. CJPME's support for Morsi, for example, opened a few eye balls. Not just ours. Nor apparently Elizabeth May's...lol. She wasn't going to play along...was she???

Anyways...it's good to see that more than just a few posters at MLW have your lot figured out.

:)

What jibberish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,766
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CouchPotato
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...