In other words, Israel will defend themselves when they are attacked and
will take adequate steps to safeguard their security in the future. As
proven in Camp David, with their peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt
and in previous negotiations with the PLO, Israel is also more than ready
to negotiate peace but they rightfully insist on partners who will at the
very least agree to forego violence against Israeli citizens and accept
Israel's right to exist as they are - a permanent free Jewish state.

Also, sadly, the UN is a joke. (Durban II and Durban III)



The Durban Review Conference is the official name of the 2009 United Nations World Conference Against Racism (WCAR), also known as Durban II. The conference ran from Monday 20 April to Friday 24 April 2009, and took place at the United Nations Office in Geneva, Switzerland.[1] The conference was called under the mandate of United Nations General Assembly resolution 61/149 (passed in 2006) with a mandate to review the implementation of the The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action from the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance which took place in Durban, South Africa.

The conference was boycotted by Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and the United States. The Czech Republic discontinued its attendance on the first day, and twenty-three other European Union countries sent low-level delegations. The western countries had expressed concerns that the conference would be used to promote anti-Semitism and laws against blasphemy perceived as contrary to the principles of free speech,[2][3][4][5][6] and that the conference would not deal with discrimination against homosexuals.[7] European countries also criticized the meeting for focusing on the West and ignoring problems of racism and intolerance in the developing world.

Controversy surrounded the attendance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the conference due to his past statements on Israel and the Holocaust. On the first day of the conference, Ahmadinejad, the only head of state to attend, made a speech condemning Israel as "totally racist"[8] and accusing the West of using the Holocaust as a "pretext" for aggression against Palestinians.[9] The distributed English version of the speech referred to the Holocaust as an "ambiguous and dubious question". When Ahmadinejad began to speak about Israel, all the European Union delegates left the conference room, while a number of the remaining delegates applauded the Iranian President.[10] UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed dismay at both the boycotts and the speech.[11]

Durban III, a follow-up conference that took place on 22 September 2011 in New York, was boycotted by the ten aforementioned countries (including the Czech Republic), along with Austria, Bulgaria, France and the United Kingdom.

Why does Israel have a right to exist as a "Jewish State?"

And

Does Israel exist as a "Jewish State?"

"Right to Exist" Wiki:

The state of Israel is recognised by most U.N members and it is member of the U.N since 1949. However, the territorial status of Israel is still hotly disputed mostly by arab countries. The 1948 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine upon which Israel bases its 'right to exist' has been described by Prof. Joseph Massad as "a non-binding proposal that was never ratified or adopted by the Security Council, and therefore never acquired legal standing, as UN regulations require."[13] On this basis Arab leaders in the 1950s and 1960s did not acknowledge that Israel had a right to exist on Palestinian land.

After the June 1967 war, Egyptian spokesman Mohammed H. el-Zayyat stated that Cairo had accepted Israel's right to exist "within mutually agreed borders" since the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli armistice in 1949.[15] He added that this did not imply recognition of Israel.[15] In September 1967, the Arab leaders agreed "the occupied lands are Arab lands and that the burden of regaining these lands falls on all the Arab States" and they therefore adopted a hardline "three no's" position in the Khartoum Resolution: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel. But in November, Egypt accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242, which implied acceptance of Israel's right to exist. King Hussein of Jordan also acknowledged that Israel had a right to exist at this time. Meanwhile, Syria rejected Resolution 242, saying that it, "refers to Israel's right to exist and it ignores the right of the [Palestinian] refugees to return to their homes."
Upon assuming the premiership in 1977, Menachem Begin spoke as follows:

Our right to exist—have you ever heard of such a thing? Would it enter the mind of any Briton or Frenchman, Belgian or Dutchman, Hungarian or Bulgarian, Russian or American, to request for its people recognition of its right to exist? ..... Mr. Speaker: From the Knesset of Israel, I say to the world, our very existence per se is our right to exist!

As reported by the New York Times, in 1988 Yasser Arafat declared that the Palestinians accepted United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 which would guarantee "the right to exist in peace and security for all".

In 1993, there was an official exchange of letters between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Chairman Arafat, in which Arafat declared that "the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid."


In 2009 Prime Minister Ehud Olmert demanded the Palestinian Authority's acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, which the Palestinian Authority rejected.

The Knesset plenum gave initial approval in May 2009 to a bill criminalising the public denial of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, with a penalty of up to a year in prison.

(Seriously? A year in prison?)

According to the linguist Noam Chomsky, the term "right to exist" is unique to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: "No state has a right to exist, and no one demands such a right....In an effort to prevent negotiations and a diplomatic settlement, the U.S. and Israel insisted on raising the barrier to something that nobody's going to accept....[Palestinians are] not going to accept...the legitimacy of their dispossession."

John V. Whitbeck argued that Israel's insistence on a right to exist forces Palestinians to provide a moral justification for their own suffering.

Journalist and author Alan Hart has argued that there is no legitimacy to Israel’s claim to a “right to exist” in International law. He reasons that Israel therefore insists the Palestinians must first recognise its 'right to exist' on Palestinian territory because according to International law, neither the British Balfour declaration, nor the vitiated UN resolution of 1947 granted that legitimacy and only the dispossessed Palestinians can give Israel it.

"Israel has no right to exist unless it was recognized and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state."

Note:
So Israel wants Palestinians to recognize their "right to exist as a Jewish State" because otherwise, what Israel is doing is illegal and against international law.

Israel wants the Palestinians to willingly give up their rights to their land and give permission to Israel to defend (and invade) the Palestine.

Do you really expect them to do that? ......and If so, why should they?

Right to exist:

Kurdistan
Representatives of the Kurdish people regularly assert their right to exist as a nation.[

Northern Ireland
The constitution of the Irish free state claimed the national territory consisted of the whole of the Island, denying Northern Ireland's right to exist.

Palestine

In 1947, the United Nations affirmed the right of an "Arab State" and a "Jewish State" to exist within Palestine in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.

The Jewish Agency, precursor to the Israeli government, agreed to the plan, but several Arab states rejected it and attacked Israel after its May 14, 1948 declaration of independence, escalating a civil war into the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

The legal and territorial status of Israel and Palestine is still hotly disputed in the region and within the international community. As of November 2012, 131 (67.9%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations have recognised the State of Palestine along with a total population of over 5.2 billion people, equaling 75% of the world's population.

In June 2009 Barack Obama said "Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's."

Oh yes, there are innumerable examples of Arabs and Palestinians
denying that Israel has any right to have their own government or
to live peacefully no matter what the borders are.

The example above is just one instance.

The Jewish Agency, precursor to the Israeli government, agreed to the plan, but several Arab states rejected it and attacked Israel after its May 14, 1948 declaration of independence, escalating a civil war into the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

This is really the heart of the conflict.

The Israelis readily accept a 2-state solution and have offered
very explicit and generous options for this to come about. For
example in the Oslo accords and also the Camp David offer.

Arafat of course refused to forego violence in launched Intifadas
and stupidly turned down the extremely generous Camp David offer
and there was a good reason. The reason is of course that Pals are
ideologically opposed to the State of Israel. And have no intention
of accepting Israel in any case.

So, Palestinians preach hate and kill themselves trying to repeatedly
destroy Israel and live in a Palestinian self-created hell of bigotry,
hate and hopelessness.

Then why does Israel belong to it? Why didn't it rescind its membership? If it is such a joke, why do so many countries belong to it? One can only suspect they don't yet get the joke. Maybe Israel should tell them why its a joke and the other countries will "get it" and disband the UN altogether. It and its agencies could then be "wiped from the pages of History" as the League of Nations was. I'm sure it would make Israel happy. Would that be better for all concerned?

If Israel is/was serious about peace, why doesn't/didn't it :

1) sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow IAEA inspections (like Iran did and does) of places like Dimona? (a 174-6 call by theUN to do that has been ignored by Israel - why?…I note that Israel, India, Pakistan and N. Korea refuse to sign the NPT.)

2) Recognize decisions of the ICJ and join the ICC. These international courts are recognized by almost the entire international community and are composed of renowned judicial authorities from all over the world. There are 195 recognized independent states worldwide, and 194 have signed on to the ICJ including Israel. (The only thing that stands in the way of enforcement of its decisions has been the US veto in the Security Council.) What makes either of these bodies a "Kangaroo court"? Does Israel fear the binding decisions of the ICC as much as the US does? (which is why the US "unsigned" its membership in a court it helped to create)

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CICCFS_US_Opposition_to_ICC_11Dec06_final.pdf

3) Seriously consider other, more peaceful homelands that were OFFERED to them? For instance, there was a Jewish homeland PRIOR to 1948, created in 1934 and still in existence and thriving today. What made it more important to take part of Palestine by force instead of settling there? It is not credible that the Zionists were unaware of the existence of Birobidzhan.

http://www.eao.ru/eng/?p=360

The Israeli nuclear program pre-dated the NPT but was undeclared
and Israel felt the best approach to the situation was simply to
not sign on the NPT as they did not wish to either proclaim or to
deny their nuclear activities. So they never signed on initially
and that is the way it remains today.

The US unsigned its membership in the court because it became
overrun by the Kangaroos. The ICJ has all sorts of problems making
it arguably even more of a joke than the UN.

The International Court has been criticized with respect to its rulings, its procedures, and its authority. As with United Nations criticisms as a whole, many of these criticisms refer more to the general authority assigned to the body by member states through its charter than to specific problems with the composition of judges or their rulings. Major criticisms include:

"Compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision, and, as such, instances of aggression tend to be automatically escalated to and adjudicated by the Security Council. According to the sovereignty principle of international law, no nation is superior nor inferior against another. Therefore there is no entity that could force the states into practice of the law or punish the states in case any violation of international law occurs. Therefore, due to the absence of binding force, although there are 191 member states of the ICJ, the members do not necessarily have to accept the jurisdiction. Moreover, the membership of the UN and ICJ does not give the automatic jurisdiction over the member states, but it's the consent of each states to follow the jurisdiction that matters.
Organizations, private enterprises, and individuals cannot have their cases taken to the International Court, such as to appeal a national supreme court's ruling. U.N. agencies likewise cannot bring up a case except in advisory opinions (a process initiated by the court and non-binding). Only the states can bring the cases and become the defendants of the cases. This also means that the potential victims of crimes against humanity, such as minor ethnic groups or indigenous peoples.
Other existing international thematic courts, such as the ICC, are not under the umbrella of the International Court. Unlike ICJ, international thematic courts like ICC work independently from United Nations. Such dualistic structure between various international courts sometimes makes it hard for the courts to engage in effective and collective jurisdiction.
The International Court does not enjoy a full separation of powers, with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement of even cases to which they consented in advance to be bound.[29] Because the jurisdiction does not have binding force itself, in many cases the instances of aggression are adjudicated by Security Council by adopting a resolution, etc.. Therefore it is very likely for the member states of Security Council to avoid the responsibility brought up by International Court of Justice, as shown in the example of Nicaragua v. United States

Birobidzhan? That was a place in the middle of nowhere where the
old Soviet Union sent the Jews to get them out of the way. It was
never anything but a semi-Siberian gulag. Of course Stalin killed
a lot of them in purges and there are a few Jews who remain but
there were never many Jews there and they were persecuted badly.
Doesn't really compare to the Jews historical ties to their home
country where they originated and where they ruled thousands of
years before Christ.



The Israelis have shown again and again that they will make peace
whenever possible. They accept a 2-state solution and have offered
very explicit and generous options for this to come about. For
example in the Oslo accords and also the Camp David offer. They
left Gaza giving the Palestinians a wonderful opportunity to show
how they would live side by side in peace if they so choose and I
guess it was really fabulous how Hamas took advantage of that
opportunity.



Arafat of course refused to forego violence in launched Intifadas
and stupidly turned down the extremely generous Camp David offer
and there was a good reason. The reason is of course that Pals are
ideologically opposed to the State of Israel. And have no intention
of accepting Israel in any case.

This is really the heart of the conflict.

There are innumerable examples of Arabs and Palestinians
denying that Israel has any right to have their own government or
to live peacefully no matter what the borders are.

So, Palestinians preach hate and kill themselves trying to repeatedly
destroy Israel and live in a Palestinian self-created hell of bigotry,
hate and hopelessness.

According to International law, neither the British Balfour declaration, nor the vitiated UN resolution of 1947 granted that legitimacy and only the dispossessed Palestinians can give Israel it.

"Israel has no right to exist unless it was recognized and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state."

Note:
So Israel wants Palestinians to recognize their "right to exist as a Jewish State" because otherwise, what Israel is doing is illegal and against international law.

Israel wants the Palestinians to willingly give up their rights to their land and give permission to Israel to defend (and invade) the Palestine.

Do you really expect them to do that? ......and If so, why should they?

yep,especially when you consider the way Russians traditionally treated their Jews!

and,of course every Jew in Europe would have gladly gone into Exile in the USSR!
Holy Cow!
and I bet the USSR would have been delighted to pick up another six million Mouths to feed while they were starving themselves!

Besides,it is a matter of record what the Soviets did to Jewish Refugee-Ships!

Please cite that "International Law".

"Although Jews have, over the eighteen centuries since the Roman Exile, maintained a constant presence (albeit small) in the Land of Israel, the modern concept of Zionism - which led to the formation of the State of Israel - has its roots in nineteenth century Europe. There, Jews experienced the political and scientific renaissance known as the Emancipation, which gave Jews the chance to break their general isolation from the day-to-day affairs of the countries in which they resided. Many Jews adopted the ethno-nationalist political ideology that was developing in Europe at the time and set up moshavim - communities which were financed largely by Baron Edmund de Rothschild of Paris - and socialist communes (called kibbutzim) in Israel, their ancient homeland. The first wave of Jews who were so inclined arrived in Israel (then known as Palestine) in 1882, in what is known as the First Aliyah ("going up:" the way Jews describe their immigration to the Holy Land)."


"The Jewish claim to Palestine was also strengthened by the rapidly increasing Jewish population in this region. Under the leadership of future Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion, large tracts of land were purchased from Arabs, many of whom resided abroad. Alarmed at their ever-shrinking majority, the Arabs in Palestine began to take defensive measures. Palestinian Arab nationalist organizations were set up, including the Higher Arab Council, which attempted to influence British policy and to counter the activities of the Zionists. Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, tried to garner foreign support for the cessation of Zionist activity and for the conclusion of the British mandate. The British, in an effort to win Arab support, issued several "White Papers," which restricted Jewish immigration. Palestinian Jews, however, fought the White Papers by helping European Jews immigrate to Palestine illegally."


So happy you agree with these statements. I really am. You agree that Israel is founded with an illegal population. You agree that the land was known as Palestine not Israel. That the only basis they have to 'claim' the area is "ancient homeland". That buying land, buying / building homes and flooding an area with illegals is acceptable to get what you want.

So if the Cherokee, Cheyenne, Seminole, Navajo, Hopi, Sioux, Pawnee, Shoshone, Apache, Crow, Blackfoot, Choctaw all buy up lands and build on them, move all their peoples off the reserves into their'ancient homeland' they can also claim nationhood based on a claim of "ancient homeland"? I somehow doubt very much that the US would be as quick to recognize them, as quick to give financial, military assistance and as quick to defend their claim of "right to exist" before the UN or before anyone for that matter. Before coming out with the fact that the Amer-Indians lost it by war etc so was Israel lost to the Jews. What gives the people in what is now called Israel more rights than another other native peoples anywhere else? Nothing!!

Sorry but the mere claim of land belonging because it is "ancient homeland" just doesn't cut it. I rather tend to think that the US was so quick to recognize Israel for 1) guilt over refusing Jews to escape to US during war and 2) the buddy system since it is an American Officer, Col. David Daniel Marcus, who was the first General of the fledgling Israeli forces with the knowledge and approval of the Pentagon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Marcus

The Palestinians are not like American Indians. They did not have
nations and regions they governed in the Mideast. Palestinians also
are not native peoples but immigrants from all over the Mideast.

The issue is simply bigotry and antisemitism.

Arabs did not want Jews there - even when they bought land legally and
left their neighbors alone. It was then and is now discrimination.

It is not about borders. Many Palestinians don't accept Israel with
any border - because they are Jewish.

With respect to the USSR, such tradition is more propaganda than truth. Jews have always figured prominently in the Communist Party (and its still arguable that the majority maintain their communist heritage). Many of the USSR's Politburo were Jewish and/or had Jewish wives, even Stalin.

Historically speaking, other Soviet ethnic groups had more to fear from the Jews than Jews had to fear from other ethnicities. The Soviet Secret Police was predominantly Jewish.:

"An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the "bloodthirsty dwarf."
 
Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book "Stalin: Court of the Red Star", Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.
 
Stalin's close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the "first Stalinist" and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao's terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.
 
Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We'll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD's special department and the organization's chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.
 
In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a "carnival of mass murder," "fantasy of purges", and "essianism of evil." Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.htm

Hmm…10,000,000 Russians murdered by a Jew… No wonder that didn't make it into Israel's history books…I suppose it's not the kind of Jewish holocaust they'd want to publicize, I guess because it makes Hitler look like kind of a piker by comparison.



I don't know how many left Europe. Of the thousand or so that left the west to settle in Birobidzhan; the largest percentage was from the USA.



The Russians starved Ukrainians mostly, and millions starved to death as the bounty of the Ukrainian harvest was shipped east to feed people in the other Soviet Republics. In fact Stalin's mass murder of the Ukrainians exceeded the number of Jews killed by Hitler's minions by a pretty good margin, but hey, according to Stalin, it was just a statistic.:

"The famine seemed to represent a means used by Stalin to impose a 'final solution' on the most pressing nationality problem in the Soviet Union. According to internationally accepted definitions [such as the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide], this constitutes an act of genocide" (Mace, 1984b, p 37). In the same article, Mace calculates the number of victims as "almost 7.5 million Ukrainians" (Mace, 1984b, p 39)."

http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/bilinsky.html

Considering all the people Stalin killed, he had plenty of room for six million Jews to immigrate, but apparently he already had plenty. He favoured their going to Palestine and supplied the weaponry through Czekoslovakia to help them found their Jewish State.

Between His Jewish women, and giving jobs to so many in the Soviet Secret Police and Politburo, creating a homeland for them and helping them shoot & bomb their way into creating a new one, I'd say that Stalin had a "soft spot" for the Jewish people, wouldn't you?

I do think it was rather tacky of you to joke about the genocide of over 7 million people in another holocaust as though it never even happened.



I'm only aware of one…the Struma…Were there others sunk by the Soviets?

It's a matter of record how Jewish refugee ships were treated generally.:

"the S.S. St. Louis, a German-flagged passenger-liner loaded with Jewish refugees, which had set sail from Hamburg, Germany, was refused entry into the U.S. (it has been suggested, but no proof has been found, that it was at the request of U.S. Zionists, who wanted it sent to Palestine, which the British refused to allow), at which point the St. Louis began a long and fruitless search for a country that would allow it a landing."

http://www.bidstrup.com/zionism.htm

Were American Zionists responsible for the eventual deaths of those refugees in nazi camps? I guess we may never know, but there seems to be evidence suggesting it.

It may not be a matter of record how Britain treated the refugee ships (since they blamed it on the arabs):

http://europenews.dk/en/node/44096

It is a matter of record How the Zionists treated them.:


On Nov. 25, 1940 the "Patra," exploded and sank off the coast of Palestine killing 252 people.
The Zionist "Haganah" claimed the passengers committed suicide to protest British refusal to let them land. It eventually admitted that rather than let the passengers go to Mauritius, it blew up the vessel for its propaganda value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_disaster

It's also a matter of record how Israel treats mercy ships Like the Mavi Marmara:

http://us.shalomlife.com/news/12880/refugee-ships-should-not-be-allowed-to-enter-israel/

You make it sound like many Palestinians had no roots in Palestine at all. I would contend that many native Palestinians are the descendents and living remnant of G-d's "Chosen People."

"In recent years, archaeological and genetic evidence seems to be increasingly showing that mass expulsions of the Jewish population of Palestine by the Romans never actually occurred, at least not in anything like the numbers that the Zionists would have us believe. Historians and anthropologists now accept that, at most, the Romans displaced no more than about ten percent of the Hebrew population of the Jewish Kingdom, because the logistical effort involved would simply have been impossible to undertake with the technology available at the time. Doubtless, some were forced out, and others fled, but the vast bulk of the Jewish population never left - it is now known beyond doubt that they became the ancestors of most of the 700,000 Palestinians that already inhabited Palestine at the beginning of the Zionist exodus at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Modern genetic evidence now seems to indicate that the overwhelming majority (approximately 95 percent) of the Jews of the Diaspora are, in fact, primarily decendants of native converts of a proselytizing Judaism. Their ancestry is not of Palestine, but rather primarily of the lands of Europe and North Africa. Judaism in the early years of the Diaspora was a proselytizing religion, and also logistically it would have been impossible for the Romans to expel most, or even very much, of the large population of Judea. And as it turns out, most of the Sephardic Jews are decendants of Berbers from what is now Morocco, and other indigenous tribes of North Africa, and most of the Ashkenazi are now known to be primarily the descendants of Slavic tribes of Eastern Europe, mostly the Khazars, whose origins are in southern Eastern Europe, and who fled to what is now Poland after Ghengis Kahn brought about an end to Khazaria and enslaved many of its inhabitants. Historians have long understood this, so this news is hardly a surprise to gentile historians of those regions and the secular historians of Israel.(Koestler) But it certainly must come as quite a shock to those who have listened to and accepted generations propaganda, mostly of modern Zionist origin.

And ironically, the Palestinians, who are so persecuted by Israel today, are, in fact, primarily the descendants of the vast majority of Jews who were left behind in Palestine, most of whom converted to Islam when that religion swept through in the seventh and eighth centuries - and are therefore more closely related to (and far more frequently descendants of) the original Jewish inhabitants of Palestine than are the recent Zionist arrivals who so bitterly persecute them as "squatters." So, ironically, most Jews are not actually Semites, and most Palestinians are - raising the very real and ironic question of just who are the real antisemites, and just what is real antisemitism?(Ilani, Sand)"

Until the Zionist "push" for Israel, the Jews, Christians and muslims of Palestine got along just fine, so the claim of bigotry and antisemitism, if valid arises as a reaction to the Zionist invasion by immigrant Jews whose claim to the land is based on an adpted religion and not an ethnic/hereditary claim from thousands of years ago. That claim more rightly belongs to the native Palestinians. This raises an interesting question…Are anti-semitic Zionists killing G-d's true Chosen People? If so, I think they'll have more to fear from G-d than the Palestinians!



Very true (but not in the way you think).:

"The Jews already living in Palestine did not exactly embrace this Zionist invasion with open arms. The Orthodox, led by the Lurians of the Sephardic settlements in Galilee, and the charismatic Orthodox rejectionist, Rabbi Yeshayahu Margolis, established the Edah Haredis, an organization of Hassidic Jews specifically to oppose Zionism and practice a devout, introspective form of Judaism, cut off from the secular profanities of the Zionist movement. They argued that Israel was far too sacred a place to be profaned by secular Jews, and that it was a place reserved by God only for those who came there to live lives of prayer and study. Coming to Palestine for any other reason, the Haredim claimed, would only invoke God's wrath, and would lead to suffering and death."

In light of this, it doesn't seem to me that the Jews living in pre-Israel Palestine were subject to much "antisemitism and bigotry." If they were, it probably came from the Zionists.

It looks to me like the Native Americans and the native Palestinians have a lot in common. The story appears to be about the same; all we have to do is substitute "Zionists" with "European colonists" and "Palestinian" with "American Indian."

most quotes from:
http://www.bidstrup.com/zionism.htm

With your laughing face, and quotations around 'International law' It appears that you don't believe there is any such thing as International Law.

International laws are accomplished by treaties.

First: International Law:
International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and nations. It serves as the indispensable framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations. International law differs from national legal systems in that it primarily concerns nations rather than private citizens. National law may become international law when treaties delegate national jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court. Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions may require national law to conform.

Abandonment of Right of Conquest:
The completion of colonial conquest of much of the world (see the Scramble for Africa), the devastation of World War I and World War II, and the alignment of both the United States and the Soviet Union with the principle of self-determination led to the abandonment of the right of conquest in formal international law. The 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, the post-1945 Nuremberg Trials, the UN Charter, and the UN role in decolonization saw the progressive dismantling of this principle. Simultaneously, the UN Charter's guarantee of the "territorial integrity" of member states effectively froze out claims against prior conquests from this process.

The Laws:
The 1928 Kellogg–Briand Pact was concluded outside the League of Nations, and remains a binding treaty under international law. One month following its conclusion, a similar agreement, General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, was concluded in Geneva, which obliged its signatory parties to establish conciliation commissions in any case of dispute.

The Kellogg–Briand Pact (officially the Pact of Paris) was a 1928 international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them".[1] Parties failing to abide by this promise "should be denied the benefits furnished by this treaty". It was signed by Germany, France and the United States on August 27, 1928, and by most other nations soon after. Sponsored by France and the U.S. the Pact renounced the use of war, promoted peaceful settlement of disputes, and called for collective force to prevent aggression. Its provisions were incorporated into the UN Charter and other treaties and it became a stepping stone to a more activist American policy.[2] It is named after its authors: United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand.

In the United States, the Senate approved the treaty overwhelmingly, 85–1, with only Wisconsin Republican John J. Blaine voting against.[6] While the U.S. Senate did not add any reservation to the treaty, it did pass a measure "interpreting" the treaty which included the statement that the treaty must not infringe upon America's right of self defense and that the United States was not obliged to enforce the treaty by taking action against those who violated it.

General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes"
General multilateral convention concluded in Geneva on September 26, 1928. It went into effect on August 16, 1929 and was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on the same day.

This act provided a framework for disputes between parties, including the establishment of a conciliation commission, an arbitration tribunal, and the opportunity to take failed disputes to the Permanent Court of International Justice.

Bravo JustDukkyMkII

The European Ashkenazi "Jews" are the ones who have been persecuting the Semitic people for centuries....and the leaders know they are not "God's chosen people" or "real Jews." (They don't believe in Judaism or practice it, they just pretend. To them it is a joke.) It is not about Judaism, and never has been. It is about skin color and bloodlines. It is about bigotry and racial prejudice against the darker skinned people.

But they will equally turn on their own people who will not comply to their aggressive agenda. Germans and Ashkenazi's alike who would not comply were placed into concentration camps in World War II right along with Semitic Jews.

The aggressive war-like nature of the Zionist Askenazi's is completely opposite of what Judaism is all about. They are traitors to Judaism and they are not really "Jews."

Israel wants recognition as a "Jewish State" to include all of Palestine. Yes, they want an alleged "peaceful solution" and one that agrees with international law so they will not loose their International benefits. But their "peaceful solution" includes their demand that Palestine recognize them (legally) as a Jewish State. The Palestinians can't do this. It would be the same as just handing over control to them... the Ashkenazi's

But since the "Right of conquest" is no longer legal, the only excuse they can use (Legally) is that they are defending themselves. They label their 'invasions' as "preemptive strikes." But in truth, these preemptive strikes are ACTS OF WAR for the purpose of conquest (and control)-- which is illegal according to International Law.

America, being infiltrated by Zionists within our own government, is doing the exact same thing. I suspect they are behind many acts of terrorism that turn the blame on the target enemy so they can create an enemy that they have to "defend themselves" against.

That is their M.O. Same old thing. Very predictable. You can recognize them by their deeds and their M.O. is always the same.

Problem, reaction solution.

And now the PRIMARY GOAL is to create masses amounts of world wide debt so the banksters will be in control.

Obama's mission is to get rid of the debt ceiling completely and he will do this before the end of this year. GUARANTEED.

This is going to happen soon. Once the debt ceiling is lifted, and it will be, we will go the way of Greece. This country will be at the mercy of the Bankers (The Rothschild and J.P. Morgan family dynasties).

All the blah blah blah argument and talk going on about the fiscal cliff is bull crap nonsense. There is no way they can avert the fiscal cliff unless we just say to the Banksters.... we are not going to pay you. In other words, default on the National debt. It is an illegal debt anyway. It is usury.

Congress should be our printing money, not the FED.

We should do what Iceland did. PUT THE BANKSTERS IN JAIL.

Right on.



Best to leave it at that.



1. There is no such thing as pre-Israel Palestine.
2. But certainly the antisemitism did not come from the Zionists!



MYTH

“Jews who lived in Islamic countries were well-treated by the Arabs.” top

FACT

While Jewish communities in Islamic countries fared better overall than those in Christian lands in Europe, Jews were no strangers to persecution and humiliation among the Arabs. As Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis has written: “The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam.”17

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, traveled to Medina in 622 A.D. to attract followers to his new faith. When the Jews of Medina refused to recognize Muhammad as their Prophet, two of the major Jewish tribes were expelled. In 627, Muhammad’s followers killed between 600 and 900 of the men, and divided the surviving Jewish women and children amongst themselves.18

The Muslim attitude toward Jews is reflected in various verses throughout the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic faith. “They [the Children of Israel] were consigned to humiliation and wretchedness. They brought the wrath of God upon themselves, and this because they used to deny God’s signs and kill His Prophets unjustly and because they disobeyed and were transgressors” (Sura 2:61). According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels (2:97-98).

Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews. In the ninth century, Baghdad’s Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi Germany.19

At various times, Jews in Muslim lands lived in relative peace and thrived culturally and economically. The position of the Jews was never secure, however, and changes in the political or social climate would often lead to persecution, violence and death.

When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, anti-Semitism would surface, often with devastating results. On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in “an offensive manner.” The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.20

Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by the Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830; and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.21

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854­-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran’s prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).22

The situation of Jews in Arab lands reached a low point in the 19th century. Jews in most of North Africa (including Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Morocco) were forced to live in ghettos. In Morocco, which contained the largest Jewish community in the Islamic Diaspora, Jews were made to walk barefoot or wear shoes of straw when outside the ghetto. Even Muslim children participated in the degradation of Jews, by throwing stones at them or harassing them in other ways. The frequency of anti-Jewish violence increased, and many Jews were executed on charges of apostasy. Ritual murder accusations against the Jews became commonplace in the Ottoman Empire.23

As distinguished Orientalist G.E. von Grunebaum has written:

It would not be difficult to put together the names of a very sizeable number Jewish subjects or citizens of the Islamic area who have attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment; and the same could be done for Christians. But it would again not be difficult to compile a lengthy list of persecutions, arbitrary confiscations, attempted forced conversions, or pogroms.24

The danger for Jews became even greater as a showdown approached in the UN. The Syrian delegate, Faris el-Khouri, warned: “Unless the Palestine problem is settled, we shall have difficulty in protecting and safeguarding the Jews in the Arab world.”25

More than a thousand Jews were killed in anti-Jewish rioting during the 1940’s in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen.26 This helped trigger the mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries.

MYTH

“As ‘People of the Book,’ Jews and Christians are protected under Islamic law.” top

FACT

This argument is rooted in the traditional concept of the “dhimma” (“writ of protection”), which was extended by Muslim conquerors to Christians and Jews in exchange for their subordination to the Muslims. Yet, as French authority Jacques Ellul has observed: “One must ask:‘protected against whom?’ When this ‘stranger’ lives in Islamic countries, the answer can only be: against the Muslims themselves.”27

Peoples subjected to Muslim rule usually had a choice between death and conversion, but Jews and Christians, who adhered to the Scriptures, were usually allowed, as dhimmis, to practice their faith. This “protection” did little, however, to insure that Jews and Christians were treated well by the Muslims. On the contrary, an integral aspect of the dhimma was that, being an infidel, he had to acknowledge openly the superiority of the true believer — the Muslim.

In the early years of the Islamic conquest, the “tribute” (or jizya), paid as a yearly poll tax, symbolized the subordination of the dhimmi.28

Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi. Dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Muslims, or to touch a Muslim woman (though a Muslim man could take a non-Muslim as a wife).

Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were forced to wear distinctive clothing and were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices — as that might offend Muslims. The dhimmi also had to show public deference toward Muslims; for example, always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim.29

By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Muslim lands had not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice Consul in Mosul, wrote in 1909:

The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.30

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFtreatment.html