This was a brilliant speech. I listened live this morning and it made me well up with pride in this man. I only hope that the cynics don’t rip into him for having the audacity to hope for world peace.

Was overwhelmed with pride and teary eyes during the speech.

What a guy we have, excluding some of the people who are around them.

great job prez obama, So nice to finally have a pres who thinks before he acts.

He understands u cant force down western values on others but show why they would want such values and do what they can to have it.

If you click the Muslim Brotherhood link up top and select “Analysis of Obama’s Speech,” you’ll get a PDF copy of the transcript of the speech. I woke as if “called” from my sleep and ran for my headset and there was Obama about a page into this speech. I had no idea this would happen. But one show, at least, set all aside for the duration. What a boost. (Do we have unconscious receptors that say, “Wake up, turn on the radio, Obama is speaking in Egypt and you can hear it”?) I hope the world takes this leader — seriously.

Fantastic speech.

It was right on.

Obama’s Cairo speech is historic. It can prove as big as predecessors calling for League of Nations, United Nations, going to China, visiting walls, all our best symbolic moments for peace. Or as tragic if, true to form, we the people don’t do our part for “the world we seek.”

Our president is doing well what a president CAN do best. He is speaking big ideas, hitting right notes, making right moves, and setting good tone. What more can we ask? Follow-through depends upon the rest of us, his fellow Americans.

For peace to stand a chance, we need capacity, and for that we need sustained funding of peace priorities. Too often, we have shown that we opt for war, that we think weapons mean jobs and military means service. Until we risk investing in peace studies and values and careers and capacities, and until we can resist the calls to war, “the world we seek” will remain a vision and a dream. It’s up to us.

Obama said: “America is not at War with Islam”

And then Pakistani newspapers have been asking the same question: “Why in the world you couldn’t find anybody else to appoint other than Richard Halbrook to this area, which is the hot-bed of Jihad and struggle about Us vs. Them)”

When are we going to learn?

I am very proud of the president’s honest speech. he brought tears on my eyes after I hear him speaks. this is going to help reduce or eradicate the fueling of hate and extremism. surely Al-qaida will not like this because it will be hard for them to convince the muslims that the US is their enemy.

Will conservative talk radio have a field Day with this speech. Stating that I told you he(The President) was a Muslim and they are the people who destroyed the World trade Center. I personally think the speech was great. It showed that Mr Obama is a true citizen of the world.

Great speech, Obama is a great statesman.

Lilya being that your such an expert in this area and all who should be in this position?

You can’t win with the Taliban, they are extremist.

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

Pakistan is a huge problem for the world, it’s spinning ou of control and they have nukes.

Robert Fisk cuts through the BS surrounding Obama’s speech today. He’s right.

“The sad truth is that so far did the US descend in moral power under George W Bush that Obama would probably have to deliver his lecture in the occupied West Bank, even Gaza, to change the deep resentment and fury that has built up among Muslims over the past eight years. This, of course, Obama will not do.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-police-state-is-the-wrong-venue-for-obamas-speech-1695487.html

[...] it’s posted, please listen to what Dawood al-Shirian has to say about the speech on NPR’s “On Point,” namely that he wished that Obama [...]

Our president stepped into the biggest mess you could ever give a man to straighten out, and this speech proves he is on the right track, showing our Muslim brothers he is a man of his word. He has my respect, and support. On the one hand he is reaching out, while the other holds fast to the rudder. I am proud to call him Mr. President.

Please Putney stop personal attacks. I am 1/4th of your age. Show some respect.

“You can’t win with the Taliban, they are extremist.”

I agree (allegedly) with you. We cannot win them.
Therefore, we should stop invading other countries and let them live their lives the way they wish.

Get it?

Robert Fisk is right; except he does not know how much Obama is in Love with Michelle and he does not want her to raise the girls by herself.

Get it? If he does not kiss some butts between remarks (ie. America has unbreakable ties with I….), you know what they can do to him.

My Mom had an unbreakable Pyrex dish, and it broke. Nothing is unbreakable forever. Morals are Morals. We are America, we have our own constitution. We should stop defending “another” country (wanna be) and their constitution in the Middle East.

I woke up this morning listening to the beginning of the President’s speech from Cairo on NPR (WBUR). Then my favorite station cut away for a station break and promos just when the failures of Palestine, and more especially Israel, were being addressed.
I turned the FM dial to seek another station which would be carrying the speech I was missing. There wasn’t any other station carrying the address live, neither AM nor FM.
While all the rest of the world listened to a magnificent speech by our President, a speech unanimously praised in all quarters of the world, a speech which will go down in history as an expession of this country’s most noble ideals, equal to those of JFK, FDR and A.Lincoln, many Americans will get Barack Obama’s words filtered through Rush Limbaugh. What a shame.

Thanks everybody for listening today. Whatever your view, this one had the feeling of history being made. Of the world feeling its connections before its divisions. It’s not something every leader can pull off, as we well know.

Wading with you in the streams of history,
Tom

Good for Obama.

Now what exactly is the “Muslim World” doing when it comes to issues of freedom of speech (Geert Wilders, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Tasleema Nasreen) and equal rights for all (persecution of Ahmaddiyas and other non-Muslims in Muslim-majority countries)?

What is the “Muslim World” promising when it comes to the faux superiority of their faith, resultant world-view and the disharmony it causes in multi-faith societies?

Or will these issues be brushed under the carpet by the “Muslim World” and their apologists laboring under liberal guilt?

So anytime I ask you a question, it’s a personal attack.
You want respect try acting your age.

You make sweeping comments and then when someone challenges you you make more sweeping comments.

I do like winding you up you always take the bait.
The world is not like your mom’s Pyrex dish. Get it?

Another speech made by a guy that never stops running for office. I wish he would have asked the moslems to show more respect to the other religions in the world.

Lilya is right on the money.

Was listening to an Pakistan story on All Things Considered today. Featuring Richard Holbrook and the Refugee camps in Swat Valley.

Suffering Pakistani people are saying, this is America’s war. They would know it better than anybody else, becuase they live in it.

And the bureaucrat from Washington, Richard Holbrook, says: “we did not do a good job in explaining the War”.

C’mon people. Isn’t this Bush’s same “PR” garbage, while we are bribing Muslim to Kill other Muslims under the leadership of a guy who has vested interest in pulling US Foreign Policy in the wrong direction.

When are we going to learn?

Tom,

Our President did good. Your radio show – good. Your moslem respresentatives – poor.

Once again, the folks chosen to speak for the Moslem world community are those who say that Islam is for peace and they don’t know about those who are dedicated to violence and killing Americans.

When specifically asked – Who and When have Moslem spokepersons actually said Islam is for peace, and condems Osama Ben Laden you get the typical radio style of foot shuffling and arm waving.

This is gettnig rather old. Why don’t you have one of the genuine, real, American haters on the air. Give them a chance to air their greivances. Don’t ask them to debate. Don’t put other voices on the air. Let the American people get a taste of just what these issues are all about and why they are prepared to kill themselves (and many Americans) in order to achieve their ends.

Some surveys indicate that only 10% of the Moslem world really hate Americans, that is only 180 million people !!

I believe you are doing a disservice to the public by putting on the air only these sappy, if well meaning, representatives.

dianna g, Pakistanis are more interested in hating their neighbors to their east, than in improving their lives. That’s why they didn’t protest when Zia-ul-Haq was busy promoting madrassas, where radical Islam was being preached, using American money – because these radical Islamists could then be used (and are still being used) to fight their proxy war.

Sure, America shares a big portion of the blame, but to absolve Pakistanis of their erroneous ways is not only disingenuous but condescending. There’s no reason to justify their promotion of radical Islam – now it’s coming back to bite them in their tush as Talibanis burn schools for girls and throw acid on young girls’ faces.

Let’s see if the “Muslim World” acknowledges this insanity and does something about it. The liberals conveniently ignore such human rights abuses.

Someone asked where is the Muslim world’s speech like Obama’s? I recall watching then President Khatami, president of Iran, being interviewed by Charlie Rose shortly after 9/11. Khatami suggested a worldwide conference to discuss why there was conflict between cultures in the world. There was no response to his recommendation. I thought his response was the most thoughtful one I saw after 9/11. Certainly a lot brighter than our response — bomb Afghanistan and then invade Iraq.

Good Job Megan

Asking about a similar speech from a head of a state from a Muslim country is actually a dumb request in the first place.

It is a loaded and synical suggestion (trap) to connect 9/11 to 1.5 millions – the same war of civilizations crap.

A US Soldier killed a 14-yr old girls family and then raped her and then killed the poor girl. Did Iraqi’s asked for an apology from the Pope, just because the soldier was Christian.

Speaking of 9/11 – Does anybody really know what in the world has happened that day, let alone blaming quarter of the world? See this TV video clip from my hometown – FOX News Ch 26. It left me speechless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM

Obama’s message to the Muslim world was that he is getting ready to throw Israel under the bus.

An honest call from an honest president to Muslims, Americans and mankind to work together towards peace for all…

Indeed : Quran 49:13 (Asad) O men! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, [15] and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another. [16] Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, all-aware.

Atif

You don’t have to be so biblical or quaranic.

Just don’t invade anybody else’s land by force or don’t take over somebody else’s house by force, and everything will be just fine.

America; Israel… are you listening?

Hi,

The speech was very good; the discussion was very good. Here is what would have made both better:

1. If Pres Obama had spoken in a democratic Muslim country –perhaps Turkey (of course that is not Arab!),

2. the program conflated Arab and Muslim –it only sought input from Arab Muslims in Egypt, Iraq, Dubai –what about the Muslims in South Asia, Indonesia, central Asia, Africa …… it would have been good to hear from Muslims in other parts of the world.

“Just don’t invade anybody else’s land by force or don’t take over somebody else’s house by force, and everything will be just fine.”

Exactly. I’ll add:

1. Just don’t destroy schools for girls.
2. Just don’t throw acid on little girls’ faces to keep them away from school.
3. Just don’t kill gays for being gay.
4. Just don’t ask non-Muslims to pay special tax and don’t treat them as second-class citizens with lesser rights.
5. Just don’t make non-Muslims wear yellow armbands, like Nazis did to Jews.
6. Just don’t kill people if they want to leave Islam.
7. Just don’t put restrictions on non-Muslims if they want to practice their faith in a Muslim-majority country.
8. Just don’t kill people if they criticize certain aspects of Islam through their writings or films.

In other words, grow up and join the modern world, instead of living in the dark ages. There’s nothing special about you just because you happened to born as a Muslim – get over yourselves and start acting in a mature and rational manner.

And the sooner the Islamic world grows up, sooner the liberals can stop walking on eggshells when it comes to Islam, and sooner certain taboos about criticizing Islam will fall away, and sooner liberals will stop their self-censoring because of the fear of being labeled as an “Islamophobe” by their fellow-liberals. Otherwise, there’s no end to the condescending/patronizing manner in which (white) liberals treat Muslims, instead of treating them as equals and asking them to take responsibility as world citizens.

Megan A.,

If you’re looking for the reason for conflicts between cultures, you can find the answer in Abrahamic religions and their injunction of “One True God” (TM) (and by implication that all other religions’ Gods are false) and the God-given mandate to convert others, or kill them. That’s the reason why Shias and Sunnis today are blowing up and killing each other (and not so long ago, Protestants and Catholics did the same) – it’s all for the great cause of One True God and their true religion. The two major Abrahamic religions (Islam and Christianity) are nothing but deep intolerance in the guise of religion, and its followers suffering from superiority complex who never learned the important lesson of live-and-let-live.

Obama Said in a Corporate Boardroom in Cairo:
“Israel, You are Fired!!!”

Does anybody know…. Why we cannot get Al-jazeera TV in the US? Speaking of Openness?!?!?!?!

More than one guests who were on OnPoint, mentioned passionately that Al-Jazeera from Qatar is one of the best and most objective source of news in the Middle East.

Thank you His Highness Shaikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, the Amir of Qatar for Founding Al-jazeera.

Has anybody seen pictures of the refugees from the swat valley in Pakistan? has anybody seen 20000 people displaces and forced to flee out of their villages?

Folks, 2 and a half million. 2,500,000 with rags in their backs had to leave and live in muddy tents.

Why, why, why? Why are we doing this to them?

There is no logic. There is no justification to provoke people to attack each other at the other end of the world.

hamas’s little sister is at it again .Did you experience any Honor killings with your “big brothers”?

About the speech:

If you want to please everybody, you will end up pleasing no one!

But the speech was well constructed, nice job!!

Some of you are looking for the US government as the villains here. The Pakistani government has taken billions of aid and has from the US and it has basically done what it has wanted with it. They financed and support militants in Kashmir and also funded the madrases. They played both sides. The issues and problems of Pakistan are huge as large parts of this country are governable. To blame the refugees from the swat valley on the US is fool hardy and an over simplification of something that has been building for years. The Pakistani military is not trained to fight an insurgency. They are trained to fight the Indian military. The other problem is that inside the Pakistani military you have some who support the Taliban. This is a hornets nest and we in the west are not in control. The scary thing is neither is the Pakistani government.

Lilya, your not worth comments anymore.

“Has anybody seen pictures of the refugees from the swat valley in Pakistan? has anybody seen 20000 people displaces and forced to flee out of their villages?

Why, why, why? Why are we doing this to them?”

dianne g., please help me here – I’m having a hard time understanding why is America responsible for this, and who are this “we” you mention above? How about looking at the facts objectively and seeing what Pakistani military did over the past decade to promote radical Islam/Taliban within its borders and in Afghanistan? I hope you caught the news of Pakistan releasing Hafiz Mohammad Saeed – leader of a militant group suspected of masterminding the Mumbai attacks in November 2008. With (Pakistani government having) friends like these, who needs external enemies?

The issues and problems of Pakistan are huge as large parts of this country are governable.

Should read:

The issues and problems of Pakistan are huge as large parts of this country are “not” governable.

Since parts of Pakistan are ungovernable, the government of Pakistan is not sovereign.

How long does the government of Pakistan have to reclaim the whole of its nation before the borders are redrawn to include the Taliban controlled region of Pakganistan?

maybe hamas ’s “blond little sister” will be at least concerned for the horses:

Gaza gunmen use booby-trapped horses against IDF

Army continues to investigate foiled terror attack south of Karni crossing. Initial probe reveals cell believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda arrived with trucks, horses loaded with explosive devices, may have planned to kidnap soldier

Hanan Greenberg Published: 06.08.09, Israel

An Israel Defense Forces’ investigation into a major terror attack thwarted Monday morning south of the Karni crossing in the Gaza Strip revealed that the gunmen, believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda, arrived at the crossing with several trucks and at least five horses loaded with explosive devices and mines.

According to the army, it is possible that the gunmen had planned to kidnap a soldier.

A new organization called “the army of Allah’s supporters” claimed responsibility for the foiled terror attack. The organization said it would release details about the attack later in the day

About 10 to 12 terrorists took the horses off the truck and began planting the devices near the fence. At this stage, they were spotted by an IDF force and began firing at soldiers from Golani’s 13th Regiment.

The troops fired back, and the terrorists tried to escape and return the horses into the truck. At least four gunmen were killed in the battle.

The force chose not to enter the Strip for fear of an abduction trap, and the army sent warplanes and tanks to the area instead.

IDF force in scene of attack (Photo: AP)

Meanwhile, the IDF continues to investigate the foiled terror attack. The initial probe revealed that the cell had prepared for the attack for a long time. A senior military source told Ynet that complicated and combined attack had been thwarted and that it was safe to assume that the terrorists had planned a kidnapping as well.

The cell’s goal was undoubtedly to target soldiers near the border fence. The terrorists were first spotted some hundreds of meters from the border fence, after opening fire at a Golani force on the Israeli side of the border.

Truck hit by IDF fire (Photo: AFP)

Immediately after the first shots were fired, additional IDF forces were dispatched to the area and fired massively at the cell. At this stage, some of the cell members began escaping on cars and a truck, which they may have been planning to use for the abduction.

Mortar shells were fired from the Palestinian territory in order to help some of the terrorists to escape. This activity points to the fact that another cell was engaged in covering for the cell. The goal may have been to attract some of the forces into the Strip or set a trap for them should they enter the Palestinian territory.

IDF sources noted that the investigation into the incident was still at its early stages, but that it was already clear that the soldiers’ activity – as well as the warplanes and tanks which fired at the cars the terrorists escaped in – helped foil a well-planned terror attack.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak praised the soldiers’ activity on Monday afternoon. Speaking at a Labor faction meeting, Barak said that “in an operational, purposeful and efficient activity the IDF thwarted an operation aimed at carrying out a major attack on the fence… The results speak for themselves and testify to the alertness of the forces along the Gaza border.”

IDF is about as creditable as fox news is balances.

IDF census all news coming from gaza along with pre-appoving whats news gets out, fails to work with independent inquiries on what happen, and lied countless times.

I believe Glen Beak before i ever believe anything i heard from the IDF. The joke goes on about the IDF being fair and impartial and if u believe that than maybe u should stop taking those meds.

also,
that investigation of war crimes is coming out in sept so far 6 out of 9 cases were found to be faulted on the IDF against UN building

obama speech was as close to fair than anything in the past 8 years for both sides and as best as it would be towards arabs/muslims.

hahahahah because everything that comes out of hamas is the pure truth hahahahahaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys#IIfAj_eg2EE

Has anyone questioned why Obama chose to speak to the Muslim world “dafka” on the 4th of June? Was this a subliminal message regarding to which “lines” he intends to push?

yes r.m. hamas is equally as bad as the IDF, but i was talking about the UN so not sure where hamas came into it. maybe in your twisted mind u think all people in gaza is hamas.

R.M. just for u

UN=The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achieving world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue.

There are currently 192 member states, including nearly every recognized independent state in the world. From its headquarters on international territory in New York City, the UN and its specialized agencies decide on substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout the year. The organization is divided into administrative bodies, primarily:

since u seem not to understand what it is.

since u seem not to understand what it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxyPBQirBH0&NR=1

too bad no one believes u,

update on settlements after obamas speech.

By Heather Sharp
BBC News, Jerusalem

The hills stretch out, barren and hazy, towards the Dead Sea. But as Danny Halamish gazes out from his caravan, he imagines gleaming towns.

“I’m here to claim this land on behalf of the Jewish people,” he says.

“We are at the forefront of Zionism… In past generations there were similar places that are now major cities. This region will eventually also become a big populated area.”

The father of two shows me around the cramped mobile home he has lived in for much of his seven years in Ma’ale Rehavam.

The cluster of about 10 such dwellings perched on the unforgiving West Bank hills is one of about 100 sites known as outposts, which have hit the headlines as US President Barack Obama has increased pressure on Israel to end settlement activity.

Danny Halamish believes God gave the land to the Jewish people

At least 280,000 Jews live in settlements (with a further 180,000 living in East Jerusalem), established in the occupied West Bank with government backing, in contravention of international law.

But the outposts are unofficial, illegal even under Israeli law.

Both settlements and outposts break up the contiguity of the land which Palestinians want for their own state – as do the roads linking them and military exclusion zones.

Rights groups say about 30% of the land they cover is privately owned by Palestinians.

Piles of debris

Half an hour’s drive away, past the red-roofs of the settlement of Kochav Hashahar, the bulldozers have just left.

Figures move among piles of debris.

Two weeks ago, the same day as the tiny cluster of wooden shacks was destroyed, the 40 or so residents of the Maoz Ester outpost began rebuilding.

Now, again, they are pulling their religious books from the wreckage and vowing to rebuild.

Maoz Ester’s residents say they will rebuild each time it is destroyed

Left-wingers such as Dror Etkes of the Israeli rights group Yesh Din say that in this cat and mouse game of destructions and rebuilding, the authorities are “cooperating perfectly with what the settlers want them to do”.

By focusing on a handful of “dummy outposts”, he says, they are distracting attention from wider government-sanctioned construction in existing settlements and of related infrastructure.

Left wingers say the building is a continued effort to grab strategically important land.

The government says it is merely keeping pace with settler population growth.

Former US President George Bush apparently turned a blind eye to such “natural growth,” but Mr Obama has explicitly called for it to stop.

Under the 2003 Road Map – a staged peace plan agreed under Mr Bush – Israel pledged to remove all outposts and freeze settlement activity.

Israeli police remove outpost
New support for West Bank outpost
Challenge of Israeli settlements
Obstacles to peace: Borders and settlements

——————————————————————————–

Detailed Peace Now map of outposts and settlements [2.5MB]
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Download the reader here
The first phase was the immediate removal of outposts established since 2001.

Israel says there were 26 of these, of which 4 have been removed.

Government support

The Israeli organisation Peace Now says there are close to 50, and the few evacuations that have taken place have been partial or the settlers have returned.

Ma’ale Rehavam, Mr Halamish’s home, is among the 26, but he thinks the residents will “probably not” be evicted.

He disputes that the outposts are illegal, saying government policy has been changeable and contradictory over the years.

Indeed, as foreign minister in 1998, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Israelis should “run and grab as many hilltops as they can”.

And a 2005 government commission found state funds had been funnelled extensively to the outposts – Mr Halamish says Ma’ale Rehavam’s power lines, water supply and access road were “partially built by the government”.

He says the military post some soldiers at the outpost.

The outposters are armed – Mr Halamish spent a few months in jail for assault for firing what he says were “warning shots” at some Palestinians who tried to “invade” the unfenced community.

He says the security forces “always take the Arab’s side”.

But the human rights group B’tselem accuse the Israeli authorities of “leniency” towards settlers, who they say commit “substantial violence” against West Bank Palestinians.

Amona experience

Further north, Amona, at the end of a winding road up a rocky hill, was the scene of the last major battle over a closure of an outpost, when nine houses were destroyed in 2006.

The clashes between thousands of settlers and police were described as “unprecedented” and loom large over any plans for future evacuations of outposts.

Resident Yehoyada Nizri, 33, a father of six, says all but one of the families evicted three years ago have returned.

Mr Nizri says most of the families whose homes were destroyed in 2006 have returned

Mr Nizra and Mr Halamish both believe God gave the land to the Jews rendering all other claims to it irrelevant.

They talk passionately about their sense of connection to the land, and believe the God is still on their side.

As for the Palestinians, “eventually they will not live here” says Mr Halamish.

Where will they go?

“That you will have to ask them.”

“Uganda,” half-jokes Mr Nizra, in reference to the early Zionist idea of creating a Jewish state in the African nation, “they could live very well over there.”

And then he turns serious.

“I’m very sad for them. Truly I am. I have no problem with them,” Mr Nizra says.

“But this land was given to us, almost 4,000 years ago. It belongs to the Jewish people, and not to anyone else.”

“god gave them land” what a joke as much like your youtube videos and posting

Gobledigook Newspeak . Nazis also had plenty of propaganda .

I know the truth hurts …

????

again lay off the meds, u seem to know alot about nazi’s something u arent telling use?

“truth hurts” is that why u hate the bbc so bad it all makes since now. anything that does not agree with your twisted view is wrong. i mean your view compare to the U.N. HRW, the world must be right what a tool. than u paste videos and news sources from sites or groups so biased it makes me laugh at how sad it is.

Do u even have a view on obama speech or do u enjoy trolling around?

maybe one day u can have a actual intelligent thought and post it until than have fun trolling.

I know its hard to lose your cool…..calm down …

Poor Mike,

Probably you have a job and hobbies and family to take care of. These guys have nothing else to do, except to protect Israel and defend its actions until the cows come home. The cows are on the other side of the highway.

There is no way, these people will admit that they are denying The Truth. We are wasting our times.

strange how BBC is mute on this one also :
PA: Teen ‘collaborator’ executed

Horror in West Bank: Palestinian teenager hanged after being tortured by family members; relatives confess to crime, say boy was executed over suspicions that he collaborated with Israel

Ali Waked Published: 06.11.09

No mercy in Palestinian Authority: A 15-year-old boy from a village near the West Bank town of Qalqiliya was tortured and executed by family members who suspected him of collaborating with Israel.

A spokesman for Palestinian security forces in the West Bank, Adnan al-Damairi, said the boy was found dead at a family storeroom.

At first, Palestinian officials believed the boy was murdered as result of a criminally motivated domestic dispute, yet a probe conducted by Palestinian police forces revealed the horrifying truth.

Officials said the victim, Raed Sualha, was tortured before he was hanged by his relatives, who suspected that he collaborated with Israeli security forces.

The Palestinian spokesman said that the main suspect in the crime was detained, and that other relatives suspected of aiding the chief murderer were also arrested.

The detained relatives confessed to murdering the boy over their collaboration suspicions. Al-Damairi expressed his puzzlement over the crime, noting that the boy was a minor. He said the suspects will be brought to justice and are expected to be received appropriate punishment, while the probe into the execution continues

If they can do that to a family member ,imagine what they can do to others …

Yes, R.M. is right.

Just because something ALLEGEDLY has happened, or whatever, Israel has the right to occupy their land and destroy their buildings and should blockade the commerce and starve them to death.

Good Going R.M., the lying loser

I wonder what else you are going to come up next.

Gaza: No right to life With the lack of medical services in Gaza, critically ill patients must travel into Israel for treatment. Many are asked to collaborate with Israeli intelligence services before they receive aid. It has been alleged that if they refuse to become informers they are refused medical treatment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jun/11/gaza-israel

YOU POOR CHILD ….YOU THINK YOU BOTHER PEOPLE BY CALLING THEM NAMES …YOU JUST SHOW WHAT A INMATURE FOOL YOU ARE ….

The Palestinian people must be freed from the evil Hamas cancer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/20/hamas-killings-gaza-human-rights

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/10/gaza.reprisal.killings/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/06/gaza.un.aid/index.html

nice story r.m. i love how u provided a source, again no one believe the crap u spew. I mean not like IDF soldiers shoot gas canisters close range to try and kill peaceful protesters(wait they do americans as well) not like IDF soldiers terrorize pallys both in the west bank and gaza(wait they do) even video footage to boot. Israel horrible treatment to all pally’s is what makes people wish to support hamas and trying to limit the growth of pally’s yet allowing it on the Jewish side is also another big factor.

R.M. i still didnt hear about what u thought about obama speech, (wait u dont) thats why your a troll u go on threads not to give your views but attack with sources not worth the paper it was written

Fred i think some in hamas are loons and murders, just as i think so of some of Israeli politicians and leaders along with the IDF are just as bad. reasoning that hamas must change but not israel will not solve the problem

mandatory drafting doesnt sound very democratic.

Lilya r.m. is a troll he feeds on discourse and love to inflame people. one would think that he realize not providing his sources and providing ones so biased that its laughable wont prove his point.

Luckily U.S. opinions are changing to have a fairer few of the region and the lies that been held as trues for so many years are coming to light. not just from people outside israel but within, scholars, historians(left, right) all except the politicians who have a twisted view of the world, as hamas does, and your lovely troll r.m.

Lilya dont feed the troll

Lilya r.m. is a troll he feeds on discourse and…

FYI

Discourse (L. discursus, “running to and from”) means either “written or spoken communication or debate” or “a formal discussion or debate.”[1] The term is often used in semantics and discourse analysis.

BTW – I’m not seconding mike/lilya (no offense intended) just pointing out the misuse of a word.

Haven’t taken a survey of all of R.M.’ s postings but it seems that R.M. does not fits the description of a troll, unless my view is too narrow, though what R.M. is responding to is often so off-base that it’s hard not to sound extreme by refuting it.

Fred,

that may be the difference of your views and mine

just a examples the first thing he said on the thread

“hamas’s little sister is at it again .Did you experience any Honor killings with your “big brothers”?

maybe your view is far narrower than mine but the above had nothing to do with obama speech, or anything in the context of these thread only to inflame and excite the thread with no substances supporting most of his claims least objectable.

Fred though i dont agree with u on the actions of israel, as i cant speak for lilya, but my info comes from facts, news, historians, history where i see others come from emotion, bibical dogma, and the victum has before the oppessor so its okay now. And use of intemidations, name calling and scare tatics, to silence debate.

but the def for internet troll is : someone who posts controversial infalmmatory, irrelevant or off-topic meassages in an online communitiy, such as an online discussion forum or chat room with the primary intent of provoking others users into an emotional response or generally disrupt normal on-topic dicussion

R.M. fits this if u feel im in error all u need to do is read up and see what he posted. as none of his comments so far said anything about obamas speech for or against. Fred if u like u can read the history of the israeli, arab conflict from the prior thread i posted the website to read from the writers is a jewish histortian.

again R.M. is a internet troll so dont feed the beast

Mike, is Lilya and internet troll?

yes on some things she qualifies under the term, but it all depends on what troll u like correct?

but least in her defense she tries to express her views to help solve problems u can agree or disagree on if they can work of the creditability of it but can u say the same in defense of r.m.?

if u like

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105310088

All Things Considered, June 12, 2009 · As President Obama calls on Israel to stop expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank, support for the settlers remains strong among evangelical Christian groups across America. They are raising millions of dollars for the settlements, which critics view as a major obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

On a recent afternoon in a Jewish settlement in the heart of the West Bank city of Hebron, a group of visiting American Christians peruses a display case of olive wood crosses amid the blaring music of Jewish Bible verses set to song. Several of the visitors wear pins of interlocking Israeli and American flags. It’s a sign, they say, of their commitment to the Jewish state.

Christian support — through tourism and donations — brings in millions of dollars, leading anti-occupation groups to accuse the U.S. of sending mixed signals. While successive U.S. administrations have called Jewish settlements a stumbling block to peace, the American government allows U.S. citizens to directly fund them.

David Wilder, a spokesman for the Jewish settlers in Hebron, says the support is important.

“There are many people who are not Jewish, who very much love the state of Israel, they love the land of Israel, they understand the necessity for the Jews to be here, and they express that love in different ways. One of those is financially,” he says.

Grass-Roots Support Among U.S. Christians

Much of the support comes from fundamentalist Christians, who believe in biblical prophecies that Jews will inherit the land of Israel. Ardent followers also embrace literal interpretations of the Bible that a thriving state of Israel is a prerequisite for an apocalyptic end-time and the return of Jesus to earth. Often led by the charismatic leaders of megachurches, these grass-roots groups across the U.S. raise millions of dollars each year.

An estimated 250,000 Jewish settlers are living on territory captured by Israel in 1967. They claim they have a right to be on the land, while Palestinians consider the West Bank part of a future Palestinian state.

Sondra Oster Baras is the director of Israel’s branch of the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities — a liaison office for donors wanting to give to the settlements. At her office in the Karnei Shomron settlement, she sits amid posters and pamphlets that call for Jews to settle Judea and Samaria, the biblical name for the West Bank.

She estimates that more than half of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank receive direct or indirect funding from Christian communities.

Baras says donors can choose among several programs, including one called “adopt a settler,” in which money goes toward the daily needs of the settlers: helping build new schools, health facilities and synagogues.

“Our major donors are themselves organizations or ministries or churches. They themselves have raised those monies in small amounts — $5, $20 from a line of people — and put it together, so it’s very much grass-roots,” she says.

The Palestinian Perspective

Palestinians in Hebron say that they are outraged by the support these American groups give.

Because 650 Jewish settlers live in the heart of Hebron, Israel has erected checkpoints and closed off roads to the thousands of Palestinians in the city.

Huda Abar Khud has watched Christians pass by her Hebron neighborhood as they make their way to the Jewish settlers.

“If they knew the impact and how it affects people’s lives here, innocent people’s lives here, I think they might change the way they support these settlements,” she says.

Settler: Jewish Communities Will Remain

For their part, settler organizations are now worried that the money could begin to dry up.

Wilder says he fears Obama’s strong stance against the settlement movement will affect fundraising.

“I know that there are many people that I know, friends that I have who are not Jewish, are very, very, very concerned about Obama’s policies, and we’re all in the same boat. People are very concerned about it,” he says.

Wilder says the Obama administration knows what is happening and could make it more difficult for Christians to directly fund Jewish settlements.

“Today, there are no secrets,” he says. “In the United States, the people in the administrations there know who is helping whom, and how much money is coming over, and what kind of support is being given here and there and everywhere else. The question is, what is the counter to that?”

But no one in the settlements has begun pinching pennies yet. And no matter what happens, Wilder says, the settlements will remain — and he hopes so will Christian support of them.

“Administrations come and administrations go, and the evangelists stay. There have been presidents that have come and gone, and prime ministers that have come and gone, and Hebron is still here. And Hebron is going to stay here,” Wilder says.

Won’t the settlements help to integrate the insular Palestinian neighborhoods in Israel’s west bank?

June 13, 2007 by Ricki Hollander

The Debate About Israeli Settlements

Settlements established by Israel in territories captured in the 1967 war have become a matter of great controversy among pro- and anti-settlement advocates who debate the legality of such communities.

Opponents of the settlement policy claim that it’s a Jewish land grab — a form of expanding Israel’s territory by colonizing Arab land.

Proponents argue that both legally and morally, Jews have every right to purchase property and live on land that was historically inhabited by Jews, on which they were granted the right to settle under the British Mandate, and which has never been legally Palestinian.

Opponents believe that peace can only be achieved between Israel and her Arab neighbors by creating a neighboring Palestinian state on all the land Israel won in the 1967 war, without the presence of any Jewish communities. They believe that the presence of Jews on the land the Palestinians want for a state constitutes an obstacle to peace.

Proponents of the settlements believe the real obstacle to peace is the continued rejection by Palestinian leaders of Israel’s right to exist. They—as well as many others–believe that Israel’s pre-1967 borders were indefensible. The settlements are believed to create a secure buffer zone between the Israeli state and those who want to destroy it.

Although built-up Jewish settlements account for less than 3% of the land in the West Bank, settlement opponents argue that the land controlled by Israeli authorities amounts to far more than that, and as a result, Arab residents are greatly inconvenienced.

Proponents maintain that inconveniencing measures— including military controls, checkpoints on roads leading to the settlements and the clearing of olive groves used for ambushes—exist solely for security reasons to protect settlers and visitors from Arab terrorist attacks (which have claimed the lives of hundreds of Israelis since the 1993 Declarations of Principles that was to serve as the blueprint for peace).

Israeli settlements were constructed after 1967 for security and/or ideological reasons and were supported by both the Israeli Labor and Likud parties. In many places, historic Jewish communities were re-established after having been destroyed by Arab fighters and prohibited to Jews during the Jordanian occupation of 1948-67. For example, Kfar Etzion, one of several Jewish communities in the area destroyed in 1948, was the first Jewish settlement re-established in the territories won by Israel in the 1967 war.

Since 1967, Israeli leaders have repeatedly expressed willingness to relinquish territories won during the 1967 war and dismantle settlements built there in exchange for peace. Indeed, in April of 1982, Israel dismantled or transferred settlements in the Sinai to Egypt and in the summer of 2005, Israel withdrew its entire military and civilian presence from the Gaza Strip, dismantling all the settlements constructed there, transferring thriving greenhouses to the Palestinians, and expelling Israeli residents from their homes in the hopes of establishing peace with the Palestinians.

Instead, Palestinian militants—with the support of their Hamas-led government—have used the evacuated territory to launch rockets into Israel’s pre-1967 borders, shelling residents of Sderot and other neighboring communities and causing death, injuries and damage within Israel. Since Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the territory has also become the site of deadly internecine violence among Palestinian factions, kidnapping of journalists, vandalism, looting and general mayhem. Far from bringing peace to the Gaza Strip, the withdrawal has resulted in less secure borders for Israel.

History

As a result of the 1967 war, Israel gained control of the West Bank (from Jordan), the Gaza Strip (from Egypt) and the Golan Heights (from Syria).

I. West Bank
Judea and Samaria, home to Jewish communities over thousands of years, was renamed the “West Bank” and annexed by Jordan in 1950. (This annexation was recognized by only two countries—Great Britain and Pakistan.) Iraqis, Syrians and Jordanians, and others built settlements on the land. Jews, however, were barred from living or buying property in the territories under Jordan’s regime.

In July 1967, Israeli cabinet minister Yigal Allon of the left-wing Mapai (Labor) party, a member of the inner war cabinet, drew up a peace plan with a proposal to reallocate the West Bank territories between Jordan and Israel. According to the Allon Plan, Israel would relinquish heavily Arab-populated areas in the West Bank to Jordanian political control, while fortifying its vulnerable border with Jordan by retaining military control over a Strip along the Jordan River, through the Jordan Valley to the eastern hills of the West Bank. The territory retained (comprising less than half of the West Bank) was to include a corridor from the Dead Sea to Jerusalem and west of Ramallah to protect a Greater Jerusalem. The Labor government also approved and supported construction of settlements in the Gush Etzion (Etzion Bloc) located south of Jerusalem, the site of Jewish communities destroyed by Arab armies in 1948.

Adhering to the Allon proposal, the Israeli Labor government sponsored the construction of settlements in strategic locations along the Jordan Valley, and in Gush Etzion, an area purchased by Jews long before the State of Israel was established. At the same time, the government resisted construction between the towns of Nablus and Hebron.

In March 1974, following the Yom Kippur War, Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful), an ideological, religious-nationalist group originally associated with the National Religious Party (NRP), was formed to initiate settlement in the biblical Land of Israel, “Eretz Yisrael.” Some of the members had already been active in 1968, attempting to resettle Hebron (see below) and in 1973, attempting to establish a settlement at the biblical site of Elon Moreh.

The group organized protests against the government for thwarting their attempts to settle the territories, and conducted tours and hikes of the territories to educate the Israeli public about the heartland of biblical Eretz Yisrael and to convince them of the need to resettle the territories.

Seven failed attempts were made by Gush Emunim to settle the Nablus (Shechem) area in Samaria. (Each time, the army evacuated them.) On the eighth try, however, the government’s resistance was broken and settlers established a temporary community at the Kadum military base, which later became known as Kedumim. Over the next few years, several military posts and settlements were built in the area.

Between 1967-77, successive Labor governments supported the construction of over 25 communities in Judea and Samaria. After Likud came into power in 1977, dozens more settlements were built.in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. Many settlements were built on the sites of previous Jewish communities or in places with biblical significance. Many began as military or Nahal (military combat service combined with civilian service) camps which eventually became civilian settlements.

Peace Now, an Israeli organization vehemently opposed to the settlements, claimed in an October 2006 report that Israeli settlements are situated mostly on “private Palestinian land” based on Arab claims disputed by the Israeli government and by others who question the credibility of the organization’s information. For example, the organization stated that almost 90% of the settlement town of Ma’ale Adumim was built on private Palestinian land–a claim it was subsequently forced to admit was wrong.

There are currently ~245,000 people living in 121 settlements in the West Bank

II. Hebron
Hebron, site of the Cave (Tomb) of the Patriarchs, is one of Judaism’s four holy cities (the others are Jerusalem, Safed, and Tiberias). For millennia, Hebron was inhabited by Jews. In 1929, Arab rioters massacred their Jewish neighbors as British soldiers stood by, and put an end to the Jewish community. In 1931, 35 families resettled in Hebron until further Arab riots in 1936 led to their evacuation. After Jordan occupied Hebron in 1948, Jews were barred from living there and from praying at the Cave of the Patriarchs.

In April 1968, the eve of Passover, Rabbi Moshe Levinger and a group of his followers checked into the Park Hotel in Hebron in an attempt to re-establish the Jewish community there. They were opposed by both the local Arabs and the Israeli military. The settlers persisted and were eventually moved to Israeli military headquarters overlooking Hebron. In 1970, the government agreed to establish the adjacent town of Kiryat Arba, and the first housing units were erected in 1972. In 1979, settlers established the Committee of the Jewish Community of Hebron and moved into the former Jewish areas of Beit Hadassah and the Avraham Avinu synagogue. Israeli settlers, soldiers and visitors who came to the Cave of the Patriarchs were frequently subject to Arab violence. In 1976, Arabs destroyed the synagogue at the Cave of the Patriarchs and burned Torah scrolls. In May 1980, six Yeshiva students were killed and 20 wounded by Palestinian terrorists as they returned from prayers at the Tomb of the Patriarchs and in 1983, another yeshiva student was gunned down in the center of Hebron. Each murder and act of violence prompted the settlers to expand their presence in Hebron. By 1984, the Hebron Jewish community consisted of several enclaves.

Hebron was the scene of even more violence during the first intifada and after the Oslo Agreements. Jewish settlers were the victims of stabbings, firebombings and shootings. In 1994, a Jewish settler killed 29 Muslim worshippers at the Cave of the Patriarchs and wounded 150 before being beaten to death. The violence continued during the second intifada with Palestinian suicide bombings, shootings and stabbings. Twelve security personnel—including civilian guards, border policemen and soldiers—were ambushed and killed as they accompanied worshippers returning from prayers at the Cave of the Patriarch, and a Jewish infant was targeted and shot dead by a Palestinian gunman. Settlers have been accused of stone throwing, verbal harrassment, and vandalism against Palestinians in the area.

A Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH) was established by the UN in 1997. In 2002, two TIPH members were shot and killed just outside Hebron by Palestinian gunmen. And in 2006, TIPH temporarily withdrew from Hebron after its headquarters were attacked and destroyed by Muslims angered about cartoons of Mohammed published in a Danish magazine.

Because a Jewish presence in Hebron has long sparked a violent Arab response, there is debate both inside and outside Israel, about whether Jews should be permitted to live there. Opponents believe a Jewish presence irritates the local Arabs and requires military support that intrudes on Arab residents’ lives, while proponents believe Jews should not relinquish their right to live and pray in their holy city by giving in to violence.

The Jewish community in Hebron currently numbers ~600 and Kiryat Arba’s population is ~7,000.

III. Golan Heights
From 1967-77, successive Labor governments sponsored the building of settlements in the Golan Heights for security reasons.

The Golan Heights, at an elevation of ~2000 feet and fortified by Syria with a dense network of fortifications, trenches, concrete behind mine fields, had served as a strategic fortress from which to shell Israel’s agricultural heartland. The capture of this area now provided Israel a defensible border with Syria.

The first two kibbutzim to be established in the Golan were Merom Golan and Mevo Chama at either end. Between 1967 and 1977, 20 additional kibbutzim and moshavim were constructed in the Golan Heights. Additional settlements were built between 1978 and 1987 with the support of Likud governments.

There are now 33 settlements in the Golan, including kibbutzim, moshavim and the town of Katzrin, with a population numbering ~18,000.

In 1981, Israel ended its military rule of the Golan Heights, with the passage by Knesset of “The Golan Heights Law,” applying “the law, jurisdiction, and administration of the state….to the Golan Heights.” The Golan’s Druze residents were offered full Israeli citizenship, but most have not accepted.

IV. Sinai and the Gaza Strip
Under the 1949 armistice agreements, Egypt gained control of the Gaza Strip (part of the British Mandate and partially occupied by Israel during the 1948 war). Arab refugees from Jaffa and southern Israel moved to this small strip of land, but were kept by Egypt in squalid refugee camps. During the 1950’s, the Egyptians used the Gaza Strip as a staging site for terror attacks by Fedayeen inside southern Israel.

In the 1956 war, prompted by Egypt’s blockade of the Straits of Tiran, the Israeli army captured Sinai and the Gaza Strip but withdrew after an agreement placed UN peacekeepers in the Sinai. As a result of the 1967 war triggered by Egypt which expelled the peacekeepers and used their position in Sinai to again close the Straits of Tiran, Israel was once again in control of the Sinai and Gaza Strip. This time, however, Israel’s leaders—including Yigal Allon—believed that settlements should be established in order to create a security buffer against Egyptian aggression.

Military installations, early warning stations, and 15 settlements, including the town of Yamit, were established by the Labor government in the Sinai.

In 1979, Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin, signed a peace treaty with Egypt, agreeing to withdraw from the Sinai and dismantle the settlements in exchange for peace. Israel also relinquished the Alma Oil Field, valued at $100 billion, which it had discovered and developed, thereby giving up the opportunity to become self-sufficient in providing for the country’s energy needs.

In April 1982, over 170 military installations and early warning stations were dismantled and the settlements were forcibly evacuated by the Israeli army, overseen by General Ariel Sharon. By that time, Sinai was home to 7,000 Israeli residents. Most of the settlements were demolished. Neot Sinai, with its cultivated gardens, was given intact to Egypt. In 1988, the resort town of Taba, developed by the Israelis, was handed over to Egypt as well.

Jews had long lived in Gaza before World War I. Kfar Darom was a Jewish-owned citrus grove in the 1930’s. The Jewish National Fund bought the land from its Jewish owner and established a kibbutz there in the 1940’s. During the 1948 war, Kfar Darom came under Egyptian attack and siege but managed to serve as a stronghold against the Egyptian onslaught before being evacuated. In 1970, Kfar Darom was re-established on the same site, supported by Israel’s Labor government. Twenty more settlements were established in the Gaza Strip in the late 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. Some of the families evacuated from the Sinai settlements were resettled in Gaza settlements, such as Elei Sinai. The settlers transformed the Gaza dunes into lush oases of green. The presence of such settlements near squalid Palestinian refugee camps sparked envy and resentment among the local Arab populace.

In 2005, the Israeli government forcibly evacuated and dismantled the Gaza Strip settlements, together with 4 additional settlements in Northern Samaria, and withdrew its military presence from Gaza. The thriving greenhouses that the settlers had built and maintained were transferred to the Palestinians.

Debate over Legality of Settlements

There is debate in the international community over whether or not the Israeli settlements are legal under international law. Many of the arguments are based on various false or questionable assumptions and claims.

Those who maintain that the settlements are illegal rely on Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, which states:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or to that of any other country…are prohibited…

and in the sixth paragraph:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

They interpret this as applicable to Israel’s settlement of the West Bank and Gaza, understanding Israel to have become a “belligerent occupant” of this territory through entry by its armed forces. They also argue that settlement policy leads to the violation of Palestinian rights under international humanitarian law–specifically, their right to self-determination, equality, property, freedom of movement, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.

Those who maintain that settlements are legal interpret Article 49 (6) of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention as inapplicable to Israel’s settlements.

For example, the late Professor Julius Stone—considered one of the premier legal theorists —maintained that the effort to designate Israeli settlements as illegal was a “subversion. . . of basic international law principles.”

Among the 27 books he authored was Israel and Palestine: An Assault on the Law of Nations which dealt with the legal aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In it, Stone set forth the central principles of international law upon which Israel’s right to settle the West Bank is based and discussed the inapplicability of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the case of Israeli settlement.

Stone drew upon the writings of Professor Stephen Schwebel, former judge on the Hague’s International Court of Justice (1981-2000), who distinguished between territory acquired in an “aggressive conquest” (such as Japanese conquests during the 1930s and Nazi conquests during World War II) and territory taken in a war of self-defense (for example, Israel’s capture of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 war). He also distinguished between the taking of territory that is legally held by another nation (such as the Japanese occupation of Chinese territory and the Nazi Germany occupation of France, Holland, Belgium and other European lands) as opposed to the taking of territory illegally held. The latter applies to the West Bank and Gaza, which were not considered the legal territories of any High Contracting Party when Israel won control of them. The West Bank and Gaza were never the territory of a High Contracting Party; the occupation after 1948 by Jordan and Egypt was illegal and neither country ever had lawful or recognized sovereignty. The last legal sovereignty over the territories was that of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate which encouraged Jewish settlement of the land.

Regarding Israel’s acquisition of territories in the 1967 war, Schwebel wrote:

Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title. (”What Weight to Conquest,” American Journal of International Law, 64 (1970))

Proponents of the view that settlements are legal further argue that Article 49 was intended to outlaw the Nazi practice of forcibly transporting populations into or out of occupied territories to death and work camps and thus cannot be applied to Israel because Israelis were neither forcibly transferred, nor were they intended to (nor do they) displace Arab residents of the territories. Arabs continue to live in these territories and their population continues to grow.

Those who believe settlements are legal also maintain that it is not the existence of settlements that have an impact on Palestinians’ standard of living, right to self-determination, equality, property, and freedom of movement. Rather, the impact upon their freedom of movement and standard of living is directly a result of the threat they pose to their Israeli neighbors and their governance by the Palestinian Authority.

The U.S. government, as well as others, have long held the view that the settlements are not illegal and that the extent of Israeli withdrawal from the territories is subject to negotiation.

The Carter administration held that settlements were illegal, relying on the opinion of its legal advisor Herbert Hansell. ( It is noteworthy that in supporting this view, Hansell quoted from a more general, earlier work by Professor Julius Stone – his 1959 analysis entitled “Legal Controls of International Conflict”–thus misrepresenting Stone’s opinion, which was that Israeli settlements are legal under international law.)

The Reagan administration and subsequent U.S. administrations reversed Carter’s position, with the opinion that while it disapproved on political grounds of building new settlements in the disputed territories before negotiations, settlements are not illegal.

Former U.S. Undersecretary of State Eugene Rostow wrote several articles explaining why settlements are legal and arguing that United Nations Resolution 242 stipulates that Israel withdraw from some of the disputed territory, but not necessarily all. It should be remembered that Rostow was one of the drafters of Resolution 242, the very resolution relied upon by Palestinians and their supporters to demand Israel’s complete withdrawal from all of the West Bank and Gaza and the dismantlement of all of the Jewish settlements.

Proponents of the view that settlements are illegal often cite numerous U.N. resolutions criticizing Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza.

Those who maintain settlements are legal indicate that U.N. General Assembly Resolutions carry no legal weight, even if one ignores the U.N.’s history of bias against Israel, evidenced by the infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution and the partisan, anti-Israel indictments by special U.N. bodies set up exclusively to report on Israel’s practices.

The United States routinely abstains or votes against Security Council resolutions unfairly condemning Israel for building settlements. One exception–under former President Carter, the United States initially voted for U.N. Security Council Resolution 465 which was passed on March 1, 1980. This resolution stating that Israeli settlements in the territories have no “legal validity” is often quoted to bolster the “illegality of settlements” argument. However, the American vote for this resolution was subsequently retracted, with the United States claiming that it had intended to abstain and blaming a communications failure as responsible for the vote.

Finally, those who maintain settlements are legal indicate that although Article 25 of the U.N. Charter says: “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter,” this cannot invalidate Article 80 which says that:

nothing in the [U.N.] Charter shall be construed . . . to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments.

This would include the British Mandate’s granting the right to the Jewish people to settle in the whole of the Mandated territory. Article 6 of the Mandate encouraged “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use.”

haha keep trying

The United Nations Security Council (Resolution 446 Resolution 465 and Resolution 484, among others), the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention,[16] and the International Committee of the Red Cross,[17] have each resolved that the territories discussed in this article are occupied and that the Fourth Geneva Convention provisions regarding occupied territories apply. In its advisory opinion on the separation barrier, the International Court of Justice described the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as occupied, though without considering arguments for or against the applicability of the term.[18]

The Israeli High Court of Justice determined in the 1979 Elon Moreh case that only the military commander of an area may requisition land according to article 52 of the regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention. Military necessity had been an after-thought in planning portions of the Elon Moreh settlement. That situation did not fulfill the precise strictures laid down in the articles of the Hague Convention, so the Court ruled the requisition order had been invalid and illegal.[19] Various Israeli Cabinets have made political statements and many of Israel’s citizens and supporters dispute that the territories are occupied and claim that use of the term “occupied” in relation to Israel’s control of the areas has no basis in international law or history, and that it prejudges the outcome of any future or ongoing negotiations. They argue it is more accurate to refer to the territories as “disputed” rather than “occupied” although they agree to apply the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention pending resolution of the dispute. Yoram Dinstein, has dismissed the theory as being “based on dubious legal grounds”. Dinstein is Professor Emeritus at Tel Aviv The United Nations Security Council (Resolution 446 Resolution 465 and Resolution 484, among others), the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention,[16] and the International Committee of the Red Cross,[17] have each resolved that the territories discussed in this article are occupied and that the Fourth Geneva Convention provisions regarding occupied territories apply. In its advisory opinion on the separation barrier, the International Court of Justice described the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as occupied, though without considering arguments for or against the applicability of the term.[18]

The Israeli High Court of Justice determined in the 1979 Elon Moreh case that only the military commander of an area may requisition land according to article 52 of the regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention. Military necessity had been an after-thought in planning portions of the Elon Moreh settlement. That situation did not fulfill the precise strictures laid down in the articles of the Hague Convention, so the Court ruled the requisition order had been invalid and illegal.[19] Various Israeli Cabinets have made political statements and many of Israel’s citizens and supporters dispute that the territories are occupied and claim that use of the term “occupied” in relation to Israel’s control of the areas has no basis in international law or history, and that it prejudges the outcome of any future or ongoing negotiations. They argue it is more accurate to refer to the territories as “disputed” rather than “occupied” although they agree to apply the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention pending resolution of the dispute. Yoram Dinstein, has dismissed the theory as being “based on dubious legal grounds”. Dinstein is Professor Emeritus at Tel Aviv The United Nations Security Council (Resolution 446 Resolution 465 and Resolution 484, among others), the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention,[16] and the International Committee of the Red Cross,[17] have each resolved that the territories discussed in this article are occupied and that the Fourth Geneva Convention provisions regarding occupied territories apply. In its advisory opinion on the separation barrier, the International Court of Justice described the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as occupied, though without considering arguments for or against the applicability of the term.[18]

The Israeli High Court of Justice determined in the 1979 Elon Moreh case that only the military commander of an area may requisition land according to article 52 of the regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention. Military necessity had been an after-thought in planning portions of the Elon Moreh settlement. That situation did not fulfill the precise strictures laid down in the articles of the Hague Convention, so the Court ruled the requisition order had been invalid and illegal.[19] Various Israeli Cabinets have made political statements and many of Israel’s citizens and supporters dispute that the territories are occupied and claim that use of the term “occupied” in relation to Israel’s control of the areas has no basis in international law or history, and that it prejudges the outcome of any future or ongoing negotiations. They argue it is more accurate to refer to the territories as “disputed” rather than “occupied” although they agree to apply the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention pending resolution of the dispute. Yoram Dinstein, has dismissed the theory as being “based on dubious legal grounds”. Dinstein is Professor Emeritus at Tel Aviv University where he formerly held the posts of President, Rector and Dean of Law.[20] Many Israeli government websites do refer to the areas as being “occupied territories”.[

Read cafefully

In recent decades the government of Israel has argued before the Supreme Court of Israel that its authority in the territories is based on the international law of "belligerent occupation", in particular the Hague Conventions. The court has confirmed this interpretation many times, for example in its 2004 and 2005 rulings on the separation fence.[22][23] According to the BBC, “Israel argues that the international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the Palestinian territories because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place.”[24]

Soon after the 1967 war, Israel issued a military order stating that the Geneva Conventions applied to the recently-occupied territories [3], but this order was rescinded a few months later [4]. For a number of years, Israel argued on various grounds that the Geneva Conventions do not apply. One is the Missing Reversioner theory[25] which argued that the Geneva Conventions apply only to the sovereign territory of a High Contracting Party, and therefore do not apply since Jordan never exercised sovereignty over the region [26]. In 1986, the International Court of Justice ruled that portions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 merely declare existing customary international law.[27] In 1993, the UN Security Council adopted a binding Chapter VII resolution establishing an International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The resolution approved a Statute which said that the problem of adherence of some but not all States to the Geneva Conventions does not arise, since beyond any doubt the Convention is declarative of customary international law.[28] The subsequent interpretation of the International Court of Justice does not support Israel’s view on the applicability of the Geneva Conventions.[18]

In its June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Gaza disengagement, the Israeli High Court determined that “Judea and Samaria” [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel:

and some more

The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been “annexed” to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereinafter – The Hague Regulations). These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention).[29][30]

In two cases decided shortly after independence (the Shimshon and Stampfer cases) the Israeli Supreme Court held that the fundamental rules of international law accepted as binding by all “civilized” nations were incorporated in the domestic legal system of Israel. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal determined that the articles annexed to the Hague IV Convention of 1907 were customary law that had been recognized by all civilized nations. [31] In the past, the Israeli Supreme Court has argued that the Geneva Convention insofar it is not supported by domestic legislation “does not bind this Court, its enforcement being a matter for the states which are parties to the Convention”. They ruled that “Conventional international law does not become part of Israeli law through automatic incorporation, but only if it is adopted or combined with Israeli law by enactment of primary or subsidiary legislation from which it derives its force”. However, in the same decision the Court ruled that the Hague IV Convention rules governing belligerent occupation did apply, since those were recognized as customary international law.[32] The Court has not ruled on the status of the Geneva Conventions since the Security Council determined they were customary international law, because the government of Israel has declared it complies with their international humanitarian law provisions. Al Haq, a West Bank affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists, has asserted that “As noted in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, ‘a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty’. As such, Israeli reliance on local law does not justify its violations of its international legal obligations”.[33] Further, the Palestinian mission to the U.N. has argued

it is of no relevance whether a State has a monist or a dualist approach to the incorporation of international law into domestic law. A position dependent upon such considerations contradicts Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 which states that: “a state is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purposes of a treaty when it has undertaken an act expressing its consent thereto.” The Treaty, which is substantially a codification of customary international law, also provides that a State “may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty” (Art. 27).[34]

fred no, cause there is no integration when its preventing people to access there land. that 3 percent is also false stated by npr at least 7 to 8 percent not including barriers which take additional land from the pallys

In closing

Despite Israeli entreaties that the settlements in the areas occupied during the 1967 War did not constitute a serious violation of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries disagreed. By a vote of 120 to 7, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was given subject matter jurisdiction over occupying powers that transfer, either directly or indirectly, parts of their own civilian population into the territory that they occupy. Israel understood that going forward those practices constitute a serious crime of concern to the international community as a whole.[35]. Currently the Rome Statute of the ICC has 139 Signatories and 108 Ratifications. Many of those States have vested universal jurisdiction in their own national courts for crimes defined in the Statute.[36] For example, Section 4.1 of The Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c. 24 stipulates that crimes defined by the Rome Statute are violations of customary international law and are indictable offenses within Canada. A complaint was recently filed in the Superior Court of Montreal against two Canadian businesses accusing them of offenses under the statute. The complaint dealt with construction of settlements for Israeli citizens on Palestinian land near the village of Bil’in.[37]

The Palestinian National Authority accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC, and the only relevant factor is whether alleged violations occurred in the territory of a signatory.[38] Many of the ICC member states already recognize the State of Palestine. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki presented the ICC prosecutor with documentary evidence which shows that 67 states in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe have legally recognized the State of Palestine.[39]

funny how u try to uses pieces of information to validate your claims yet leave out the whole. cleverer if u was not such a fool nor people were able to counter such crap.

i mean not like there’s U.N. resolutions against israel or majority agreement against Israeli illegals acts, settlements, walls and the likes. (Wait there is)

again your argument is laughable but nice try cheers troll

how about helping

Jews of Color & Arab Descent
Welcome!
Monday, September 29, 2008

About Us: We are a network of Mizrahi Jews (Jews of Arab and African descent), Jews from the global South, and Jews of Color living in Western countries. The IJAZ Network is committed to challenging the white racism within Jewish communities and the privileging of Ashkenazi Jewish traditions, history and culture.

As such, the JoC-Mizrahi Network seeks to promote the voices, cultural work, writing and activism of Jews of Color, Jews from the global South and Mizrahi Jews. IJAZ is committed to confronting the role of white anti-Zionist Jewish activists and activism in undermining alliances between Mizrahi Jews and Palestinians in their struggles against Zionism.

Purpose and goals: Some of the project ideas have included:

* Increase visibility of the voices, cultural work, writing and activism of Jews of Color, Jews from the global South and Mizrahi Jews

* Support the building of joint Mizrahi-Palestinian struggles against Zionist colonialism and racism

* Support the inclusion of Mizrahi anti-Zionist voices and perspectives in anti-imperialist movements

Current projects: Building of off interest from our Mizrahi Jewish organizers in Israel, there is interest in an international digital storytelling project to capture the histories and perspectives of Mizrahi anti-Zionists, anti-Zionist Jews of Color and anti-Zionist Jews from the global South.

Past projects: Mizrahim and Jews of Color Discussion On Sunday, July 27th, 2008, two IJSN (now IJAN) participants hosted a Mizrahi and Jew of Color event in San Francisco, CA that was attended by about 20 Mizrahi, JOC, and allied participants.

The speaker panel was composed of Reuven Abarjel, Arab Jewish co-founder of Israel’s Black Panther party and activist working in Mizrahi, prison and anti-occupation struggles and Marcelle Edery, Arab Jewish feminist activist and organizer of the Single Mother’s Tent to secure rights for single Jewish and Palestinian women in Israel. Both were in town for the first IJSN international meeting.

Reuven and Marcelle screened informational films about Jews of Mizrahi descent and the structural racism they encounter within the state of Israel, especially highlighted in the cases of Iraqi children being “treated” for ringworm with radiation.

The ensuing discussion treated the questions of the potential for joint Palestinian and Mizrahi struggles, connections to racism against Jews of Color in the U.S. and the implications for local organizing and strategy.

or

Open Letter Condemning Zionist Attacks at UC Berkeley
Bay Area IJAN Stands in Solidarity with Palestinian Students Confronting Zionism
Tuesday, December 02, 2008

On November 13, 2008, three Palestinian students at the University of California, Berkeley, were attacked by members of the Zionist Freedom Alliance, an off-campus organization participating in an “Israeli Liberation Week” concert organized by the student group Tikvah. These students hung two Palestinian flags off the balcony of a nearby building to protest the message of the event. According to testimony, three members of ZFA approached the dissenting students, physically assaulting them and invoking ethnic slurs. When the campus police arrived, they failed to charge all of the attacking students (only one was issued a citation), and subjected the victims of the attack to humiliation and harrassment. The administration and media have largely portrayed the incident as a “clash” or “conflict” between two groups of students, rather than addressing it as an assault. More information is available from IndyBay, the Daily Californian (note strong bias), and Dina Omar’s statement.

The Bay Area chapter of IJAN wrote an open letter to support the students who were attacked and to contextualize the violence within the structural violence of Zionism, racism, and colonialism.

Other Palestine-solidarity and anti-racist organizations are invited to sign onto the letter — please email bay.ijsn@gmail.com for more information. The full text of the letter is below.

To Whom It May Concern:

We write to condemn the recent racist attacks on three Palestinian students at UC Berkeley, perpetrated by a current student, a former student, and a community member, all affiliated with the Zionist Freedom Alliance. We also are concerned at the administration’s inadequate response. We support the Palestinian students who sought not only to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, but also to challenge the racism that enabled these attacks to occur in the first place.

While campus and other media have portrayed the situation as a “Violent Conflict Between Jewish and Palestinian Students” (Daily Cal, November 14), the statement of Dina Omar (one of the women attacked) clearly articulates that the ZFA representatives were unprovoked aggressors who attacked Palestinian students on the basis of their ethnicity, making racial slurs and inflicting serious physical injury.

As Omar states, the original Daily Cal article and the administration have attempted “to equate and compare two unequal parties,” though “this incident was by no means a ‘fight.’” Furthermore, she documents the police and administration’s failure to pursue or charge the aggressors (only one was issued a citation), while subjecting the victims of this violence to harassment and humiliation. She charges, “The university places blame on the recipients of the violence.”

Both the initial violence and the collusion of the Administration and police with this hate crime are unacceptable. Far from being an isolated dispute between two parties, this attack, and the administration’s response, can be seen as part of the historical and systematic patterns of Zionism and racism. As a colonial ideology and movement that began colonizing Palestine over a century ago (well before the official creation of the state of Israel), Zionism has consistently denied the existence of the land’s indigenous people, and simultaneously employed various forms of violence to expel or eradicate them, including massacres, demolition of homes and building of settlements, restrictions to resources and freedom of movement, and a series of apartheid-like laws.

The Zionist Freedom Alliance, which deceptively cloaks itself in the language of “social justice” and appropriates political tools such as hip-hop, is far from a liberatory organization. Rather, the ZFA is a project of Magshimey Herut, a group that works in conjunction with the World Zionist Organization (WZO), the Jewish Agency for Israel and the Jewish National Fund—all quasi- governmental organizations that were founded with the explicit purpose of colonizing Palestine to create an exclusively Jewish State. They exist to secure political and economic support for the continued expansion of Israeli apartheid, justify the violence of the State of Israel, and persecute dissenters as anti-Semitic. It is not, therefore, surprising that they would fund the Zionist Freedom Alliance, whose violence is an extension of the Israeli state violence that these organizations actively fund and support.

Still, while the recent attacks and right-wing organizations like the ZFA may present a particularly violent example of Zionism, we remind the community that they are not merely “bad apples.” All organizations that promote a Zionist relationship to Israel—including those that merely support an end to occupation in Gaza and the West Bank, or that promote a US-brokered “peace agreement,” or that use a “human rights” framework to depoliticize this deeply political issue—are complicit in the violence wrought by 60+ years of illegal and apartheid-like occupation of Palestine.

Despite the predominance of these voices within public discourse, we assert that Zionism and Judaism need not go hand in hand. As Jews committed to social justice and freedom for all people, we stand against all forms of racism, including Zionism, an ideology of Jewish supremacy against Palestinians. Jewish histories of persecution compel us to oppose persecution of all people. For us, “Never again!” means never again for all people.

The International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network joins a long struggle for securing the rights of the Palestinian people. We participate in this movement understanding that it is integral to the vibrant movements of our time—the movements for indigenous land rights, immigrant and refugee rights, economic and racial justice, the rights of women and children, and labor rights. For us, there is no safety or self-determination found in the persecution of others, but only in joining struggles for liberation, justice and peace. In sharp contrast to the language the Zionist Freedom Alliance has co-opted, it stands out as a minority against this growing voice demanding collective liberation.

We expect UC Berkeley to foster an educational environment free of violence and intimidation. We stand in solidarity with students, faculty, and organizations like Students for Justice in Palestine that seeks to challenge structures and ideologies of violence, racism, and colonial occupation.

We demand that the UC Berkeley Administration and ASUC:

1. revoke the funding that was allocated towards the ZFA event;
2. forbid future ZFA organizing and activities on campus;
3. investigate the assault as a hate crime, rather than assault and battery;
4. support organizing for Palestinian rights and publicly reject the conflation of challenging Israel, organizing for Palestinian rights or anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism; and
5. issue a formal statement making this support and distinction clear, including an apology for its handling of the situation.

As the death toll of war and occupation reaches new heights, funding for education reaches an all-time low, and the number of Californian youth locked up in prisons rivals the number of young people granted access to higher education, it is crucial for UC Berkeley to speak up against racism and violence. Now is the time to help create an educational environment in which all of our students can safely flourish and learn. We trust that UC Berkeley will stand by its convictions, history and stated commitment of supporting justice.

Respectfully Yours,
The International Anti-Zionist Jewish Network, Bay Area
International anti-Zionist Jewish Network, International Coordinating Team

The following organizations support this statement (check back for updates):
Global Women’s Strike
http://www.ijsn.net/244/

dont forget,

Enormous resources have been marshaled by conservative and Zionist organizations in an attempt to silence criticism of the Canadian government’s unwavering support for Israel. The first few months of 2009 have seen a concerted campaign to shut down Palestine advocacy in Canada. Such examples include:

cutting funding to the Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) due to the organization’s outspoken criticism of the government during the war in Gaza;
banning posters for the annual Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) in several Ontario university campuses; and
a smear campaign against the Ontario branch of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) for daring to discuss the issue of an academic boycott of Israel.

This is not an exhaustive list. The Canadian government also banned George Galloway, who was scheduled to speak about his trip to Gaza, in the same period. Artist Reena Katz was recently “disassociated” from the Koffler Centre of the Arts in Toronto, which was exhibiting her artistic work. Koffler “disassociated” with Katz for her activities with Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW): her exhibit was on the Toronto Jewish Community, not related to Palestine at all.

Palestine advocates have always had to live with harassment, false accusations, and smears. All these vastly intensified after the latest Israeli assault against the captive people of Gaza that left over 1400 people dead, including 430 children, and thousands of homes and public infrastructure destroyed in an already devastated and besieged area. This direct response to a growing international solidarity movement in support of Palestinian human rights is an attempt to demonize the movement and curtail its ability to do public organizing and campaigning.

This article answers the false accusations made against Palestine advocates, documents three cases of harassment and violation of free expression (CAF, IAW, and CUPE), and argues that free expression for Palestine advocates is an issue that should be taken up by all who are concerned about free expression.

Defending Israeli War Crimes
Israeli state arguments in defense of war crimes against the Palestinian people are becoming less convincing by the day, as open racism becomes acceptable in Israeli politics (demonstrated by the electoral victories of Lieberman and Netanyahu) and as Israel’s treatment of Palestinians becomes more brutal. Supporters of Israel increasingly resort to the argument that attacking Israel is ‘anti-Semitic.’ They have coined the term “the new anti-Semitism” – defined as any criticism of Israeli policies (see, for examples, Phyllis Chesler, The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About it (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003) and Alan Dershowitz, The Case for Israel (New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2003). Accusations of anti-Semitism against those critical of Israeli policies aims at either silencing them or forcing them to spend their time and energy defending themselves against allegations rather than writing or organizing. The accusation of anti-Semitism leveled against all who criticize Israel contradicts claims that Israel is a state like any other. If both of these claims are true, criticizing Israel should not be different from criticizing any other state, and should be protected by free expression, as should discussion of Palestinian human rights. If even discussing the Palestinian situation is a form of anti-Semitism, then Palestinians cannot have full human rights.

Israel’s supporters claim that Israel and Canada are western societies that embody ‘freedom.’ While exalting these societies for their freedom, these same supporters shut down freedom for those who speak out against Israel’s crimes.

Another offered reason for silencing Palestine advocacy is that calling Israel an Apartheid state is offensive. It certainly is offensive, to Zionists as it would also offend white South Africans who believed in the apartheid system to be challenged, but would this mean that all events that challenge supporters of apartheid should be shut down? Do we shut down pro-choice events because they offend anti-choicers? Since when is the measure for allowing events who they offend? There are many pro-Israel events that take place every day on Canadian campuses – even at times soldiers who participated in war crimes are paraded like heroes, sometimes in front of students whose homes have been bombed by these same soldiers. This is offensive, but nothing has ever been banned because Palestinians find it offensive.

The campaign of repression against pro-Palestine groups is not simply an attack on Arab-Canadians, or even just their allies. They are attacks on the progressive movement as a whole. They are aimed at limiting our collective ability to criticize government policies, whether on supporting Israel, the war in Afghanistan, or the case of Omar Khadr. They are also aimed at creating migrant communities that are silenced into obedience, using the threat of cuts to government funding. The examples below point to an increasing trend that is clearly coordinated across sectors to silence those speaking for Palestinian human rights.

Community Organizations Penalized for Palestine Solidarity

On 17 February 2009, several media outlets announced that Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was poised to slash federal funding to Canada’s largest Arab community organization, the Canadian Arab Federation (CAF). A month later, Kenney followed through on his threats by formally cutting funding for CAF programs that help newcomers (these programs help all newcomers – not only Arabs). Two programs were cut, one that teaches English to newcomers and the second helps them search for jobs once they come to Canada.

The media has portrayed the cuts to CAF funding as a response to its president calling Kenney a ‘professional whore’ for supporting Israel in its war on Gaza (the President of CAF was actually quoting Professor Norman Finkelstein, a well-known critic of Israel). But Kenney himself has clarified on several occasions that funding cuts had nothing to do with the comments made about him. On 7 March 2009, Kenney admitted there was no connection between the insult and the decision to cut funding to CAF and stated:

“When I first became Minister over 2 years ago, one of the very first things I said to my bureaucrats on the very first day in my Department of Multiculturalism was that we would not be funding groups that promote extremism, defend or apologize for terrorism or terrorist organizations and promote hatred, and as I mentioned specifically two groups: the Canadian Arab Federation and the Canadian Islamic Congress” (Jason Kenney interview from AM 770 – Alberta).

Here we have a government minister clearly and openly declaring that he is targeting groups because he perceives them as being ‘extremist.’ Beyond cutting funding, Kenney explained that a ‘change in leadership’ would restore the funding, as reported in the National Post on 14 March 2009:

“Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says the Canadian Arab Federation will have to change its leadership and adopt a more moderate stance or risk losing federal funding…Mr. Kenney said taxpayers should not be footing the bill for an organization whose leader ‘promotes hateful and extremist views.’ Mr. Kenney said there are many moderate organizations that could do the job… He suggested the decision could be reversed if more moderate leaders were in place.”

The irony to Canadian-Arabs is startling, especially when you consider that many of them have ended up in Canada fleeing repressive governments that stifle criticism. Here you have a government minister interfering in a community’s choice of leaders, telling the community to change its leadership to restore funding because this leadership is not to his liking. After such extreme action, the Minister tells the community he is doing this because they are not ‘moderate.’

In explaining his case for the cuts, Kenney said on February 26th 2009:

“But my point [in weighing whether to continue funding the CAF], is whether an organization … that distributes videos produced by Hamas and Islamic Jihad that glorifies terrorism [and] indoctrinates children into the cult of anti-Semitic hatred… is not an organization, in my opinion, that should be receiving taxpayer subsidies…I’m simply saying, when we make funding decisions we should take into account the character of the organization and its leadership. And if they’re promoting extremism, or [in the case of the CAF], implicitly promoting anti-Semitism, I think that should be a consideration” (Minister Jason Kenney in an interview with Canadian Jewish News).

The Canadian Arab Federation has been a vocal critic of the Harper government’s uncritical support for Israel. This began in July 2006 when CAF criticized Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative government for calling Israel’s invasion and devastation of Lebanon a “measured response.”

Because CAF has helped to organize demonstrations against Israel’s war in Gaza and Lebanon, Kenney is falsely accusing the organization of being “anti-Semitic” and cutting funding on that basis. There has been no formal investigation on any front, no due process to accuse CAF or its leadership of anti-Semitism. Yet based on Kenney’s personal opinions and political biases he can declare what he wants to the media, including statements smearing people and decisions harming entire communities of newcomers, without substantiation or accountability.

While present at a conference against the “new anti-Semitism” in London England on February 18, 2009, Minister Kenney said:

“These [Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) and CAF] and other organizations are free within the confines of our law and consistent with our traditions of freedom of expression, to speak their mind, but they should not expect to receive resources from the state, support from taxpayers or any other form of official respect from the government or the organs of our State (italics added). And I would encourage all other governments to take a similar approach to organizations that either excuse violence against Jews or express essentially anti-Semitic sentiments.”

Minister Kenney’s use of the phrase “our state” suggests he is speaking of a state that Arabs and Muslims do not belong to. This in turn suggests a political test for belonging to what Kenney calls “our state.” The message seems to be that Arab-Canadians and anyone else who dares to criticize Israel can do so, but that makes them anti-Semitic, ‘immoderate,’ and unworthy of state funding.

CAF has decided to challenge Minister Kenney’s decision to cut the funding in the courts. On Monday March 30, 2009 CAF asked Justice Kelen of the Federal Court for an interim order so that it could continue to receive the funds it needs to operate its English language training program until its challenge to the cancellation of this funding is heard by the Court. The Court did not issue this order because it concluded that the harm caused by the immediate loss of funding could be recovered later in damages if the CAF ultimately wins its case in court. Interestingly, Minister Kenney chose not to present evidence through government counsel to counter CAF’s allegations that the cut in funding was inappropriate and motivated by Kenney’s political beliefs. Government counsel did not try in court to defend Minister Kenney’s strong allegations that CAF is anti-Semitic and promotes terror.

The courts did find that the evidence reveals that Minister Kenney probably breached his legal duty to act fairly to the Canadian Arab Federation. Justice Kelen made it clear that it would be inappropriate for the Minister to cut CAF’s funding because its President had called the Minister a name (as noted above this was never the issue). Justice Kelen said:

“Being a target of public criticism is part of holding public office. If the Minister decided to cancel English as a Second Language funding contract for the Canadian Arab community simply because he was called a name… his decision should not stand. It was not unexpected that the Arab community would be repulsed by Israel’s invasion of Gaza … the Arab community was upset that the Canadian government did not strongly protest this attack. Many reputable Canadian Jews were similarly opposed to… [the] attack.”

Mohamed Boudjenane, CAF’s Executive Director said: “Cleary this was a political decision in an attempt to silence CAF, however, we will continue our court case to clear our name and repair the damage done to the Canadian Arab Federation and the Arab Canadian community at large.” CAF is also leading a broad-based campaign to defend freedom of expression in various sectors.

University Campuses and Palestine Solidarity

There is a similar pattern of unsubstantiated accusations against Palestine advocacy groups on campuses. University campuses have long been seen as a space for critical debate and the building of solidarity with international struggles. Despite the fact that the production of knowledge in North American universities is increasingly linked to the interests of the state and the corporate sector, campuses provide an important space to organize in support of marginalized and oppressed groups. Indeed, it has become increasingly difficult to find such views off-campus within the corporate-controlled media or a political system dominated by various shades of conservatism.

The university has consequently become a contested ground. After a long hiatus during the Oslo ‘peace’ process years (1993-2000), a vibrant student-movement in support of Palestinian self-determination was re-ignited on university campuses across North America with the beginning of the second Palestinian Intifada in 2000. The movement grew as Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights intensified, particularly following the re-invasion of the Occupied Territories by Israeli troops in March-April 2002. Much of the solidarity movement modeled itself on the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa; in a short time petitions were circulating calling for divestment from Israel. By the time the anti-war in Iraq movement began in 2003, many students were equipped with a variety of skills – from organizing large scale demonstrations, public meetings, street-theater to more confrontational direct action tactics – acquired in their Palestine organizing.

This new anti-apartheid movement is extremely troubling for supporters of Israel, due especially to the comparisons that began to be openly made with apartheid South Africa. The memory of the struggle against apartheid South Africa is very much alive in the public consciousness. Broader layers of the population are beginning to understand the mass expulsion of three-quarters of the Palestinian people in 1948 that lay at the heart of the ‘Palestine Question.’ These comparisons damaged the progressive veneer that for many years had built the illusion of a ‘left-Zionism.’

As the Intifada continued the analysis of Israel as an apartheid state was developed further on campuses and was finally cemented with an action plan when the call for Boycotts, Divestments, Sanctions came from Palestine signed by over 170 civil society organizations in 2005.

In order to quash this movement, university administrations began to target student activist groups through repressive and bureaucratic means (establishing codes of conduct is just one example of these measures). Student activists were harassed and public spaces for student demonstrations and teach-ins were labeled “private property” (even though this is the property of a public university) making it “illegal” (in some cases overnight) to hold events. Student organizers have also noticed a pattern of harassment when it comes to room bookings. The same organization will put in a booking for multiple events on campaigns around Venezuela, Bolivia, Indigenous solidarity, among others. Yet, the only room bookings that will be delayed and speakers biographies questioned are those related to Palestine. The students’ ability to organize, and indeed their freedom of assembly, is dependent upon access to space. When university administrations are colluding with off-campus pro-Israel organizations to deny space, it is not only the freedom of expression of students doing Palestine solidarity work that is being curtailed, but that of all students and progressives on campuses. This was surely the case at the University of Toronto (see Liisa Schofield’s Bullet #188). These actions by university administrators resonate with a view of students as customers paying for a service, rather than as active participants in the politics that shape the world around them.

Another administrative measure is the charging of security fees. The rule seems to be the more critical of Canadian foreign policy the speaker, the higher the security fees. The procedures for assessing security fees is not transparent. Though Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) activists have asked repeatedly from both administrative and security bodies on campuses to let them know what the procedures and guidelines are for assessing ‘security risks’ there is never a straight answer, no guidelines, no written documents. It could simply be based on racial profiling – for example a speaking event for Tariq Ali, a UK-based author of about a dozen books, organized by OPIRG Toronto and the CUPE 3903 International Solidarity Committee was charged fees for the University of Toronto security personnel to be there. The organizers didn’t request security yet received a bill following the event. This also took place when Students Against Israeli Apartheid organized a talk with long-time South African anti-apartheid and Palestine activist, Salim Vally, in which Vally compared South African Apartheid policies to Israeli policies. These charges are a de facto suppression of free expression since they represent prohibitive costs for activist groups operating without any resources.

Politicians Attack IAW

Since its inception at the University of Toronto in 2005, Israeli Apartheid Week has garnered wide-spread media attention and smear campaigns from various Zionist organizations. This year however, the attack was much more extreme. Beyond the usual B’nai Brith fear-mongering and full page ads urging universities to shut the week down, the novel element was the intensity of attacks by political figures.

Minister Kenney for example, on the March 6, 2009 stated:

“Like many Canadians, I am deeply concerned about the activities associated with ‘Israeli Apartheid Week’… It is disconcerting that university student groups would promote these gatherings in a manner that demonstrates a complete disregard for the safety and security of Jewish students and professors and the general well-being of campus life… I call on all Canadians to reject anti-Semitism.”

Minister Kenney again seems to stop short of directly calling IAW anti-Semitic, but as he does against CAF, he makes the case by innuendo. Kenney’s “concern” is not accompanied by knowledge: he did not attend a single lecture of IAW and refers to the week without any reference to anything organizers have said or done.

On March 3, 2009, Conservative MP Paul Calandra (Oak Ridge – Markham) declared:

“Mr. Speaker, Jewish students across the country are under siege as anti-Semites unveil their plans for Israel Apartheid Week. Liberal MPs have been quoted in the media and even today in the immigration committee saying that anti-Semitic organizations like the Canadian Arab Federation should receive taxpayer support. Will the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism explain why the government believes that Israel Apartheid Week is anti-Semitic?”

Calandra makes more direct, but no more informed, accusations in this little declaration. Beyond the smears, the disrespect for free expression is striking.

But the surprise of the week was when the head of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff issued a public statement about Israeli Apartheid Week (an annotated version of his statement is available here). One has to look at the situation from some distance to view it with some humour, as Canada plunges into a recession and workers across the country are losing jobs – politicians are busy speaking against a week of lectures on university campuses because this week happens to call Israel an apartheid state. Ignatieff wrote in his public statement that: “Labelling Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself” because international law defines apartheid as a crime against humanity. But Israeli Apartheid Week is not the only place in the world where Israel has been called an apartheid state: South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has been saying it for several years now and Ronnie Kasrils of the African National Congress has participated in Israeli Apartheid Week as a keynote speaker. These two South Africans certainly know more about apartheid being a crime against humanity than Ignatieff does. But the issue isn’t really if Israel is an apartheid state or not – it’s that university students have every right to organize lectures, film screenings and debates about the issue!

Ignatieff, fearing not to appear liberal enough, contends in the same statement that “criticism of Israel is legitimate” but that “attempting to describe its very existence as a crime against humanity is not.” Yet, there are very specific political, legal and moral arguments about whether Israel is an apartheid state or not. There are academic books on the matter such as Uri Davis’s Apartheid Israel, as but one exapmple. Will those books that describe Israel as an apartheid state be banned? This is all still unclear. What is clear is that Israeli Apartheid week has hit a nerve among supporters of Israel. But if the analysis of Israel as an Apartheid state is wrong, why such fear? Why all the effort to shut the week down? If the facts are on Israel’s side, then Israel’s supporters should be able to win the debate on the merits, on the facts and arguments. No one is stopping Zionist organizations from organizing ‘Israel is great’ weeks. Why spend such effort trying to stop pro-Palestinian voices from putting forth arguments?

One of the most objectionable accusations against IAW was the allegation that calling Israel an apartheid state makes Jewish students unsafe. But many Jewish students helped to organize IAW: are they less Jewish because they are not Zionist? Will Ignatieff and Kenney enter the business of deciding who is Jewish now, as well as deciding what is legitimate and illegitimate to say?

Banning Posters

On February 9, 2009 Carleton University became the first to ban the IAW poster. The posters were taken down at the request of Carleton’s Equity Services, under the rationale that the posters “could be seen to incite others to infringe rights protected in the Ontario Human Rights code” and are “insensitive to the norms of civil discourse in a free and democratic society.”

The poster was created by noted cartoonist Carlos Latuff and depicts a child being killed by aerial bombardment. This occurred over 430 times in Israel’s latest attack on Gaza according to United Nations reports. How this image that portrays a factual situation “incites others to infringe on rights” is unclear and left unexplained by the university administration. One wonders if the poster was a photograph of a Palestinian child killed by Israeli bombardment if that too would be banned.

The troubling aspect of the poster banning is the use by the Carleton administration of ‘human rights’ as an excuse to violate freedom of expression. The process by which the poster was banned is completely unilateral and doesn’t allow for appeal: there is an unsubstantiated accusation and students cannot even defend their work. Are these the norms of “civil discourse in a free and democratic society” that the Carleton administration is referring to?

Ironically, this same administration that banned the poster could not summon enough concern for human rights or the right to education to speak against the bombing of a Gazan university. When 56 Carleton professors asked President Roseanne Runte to condemn Israel’s bombardment of the Islamic University of Gaza, the President refused. Neither the direct killing of hundreds of children nor the direct bombing of a campus are enough to elicit condemnation: a poster depicting the bombing is.

Following Carleton’s lead, on February 20, 2009, the University of Ottawa became the second Ottawa university administration to ban the posters of IAW 2009. Like Carleton University’s administration, the University of Ottawa’s Communications Office used spurious “human rights” claims to ban the poster. The Communications Office’s short communiqué to Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights read:

“A poster from the campus group Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights has recently come to the attention of the Communications Office. All posters approved by the Communications Office must promote a campus culture where all members of the community can play a part in a declaration of human rights recognizing the inherent dignity and equal rights of all students. Consequently, we will not place this particular poster on our campus billboards.”

Other universities (Wilfrid Laurier, Trent) also stopped the poster from being circulated using the same type of justification.

Again how this poster does not recognize the “inherent dignity and equal rights of all students” is unclear and unexplained. There is no mechanism for an appeal. In fact, the banning of the poster is a failure to recognize the dignity and equal rights of Palestinian students and those who seek to expose the violations of human rights of Palestinians. This is another innovation: the use of the language of human rights and equity, won through progressive struggle, to justify administrative fiat against students who are trying to practice the politics of human rights and equity.

As this article was being written, the Koffler Centre of the Arts announced it is dissociating itself from an exhibit presented by Reena Katz solely on the basis of her political affiliations, specifically with Israeli Apartheid Week. On May 12th, Koffler and its parent organization United Jewish Appeal of Greater Toronto (UJA) issued separate public statements of dissociation from Katz. Koffler made the artist a verbal offer to honor the full funding of the project while removing the Koffler’s name, logo and URL from any related material. The ironic part about this move to disassociate from the artist is that the off-site exhibit, entitled each hand as they are called, consists of sonic and visual performances, bringing elders from Toronto’s Jewish community into conversation and play with students from Ryerson Public School. The exhibit has nothing to do with Palestine, Palestinians or Israeli Apartheid. The Koffler’s behaviour, besides being an outrageous for an arts institution, sets a dangerous precedent, suppressing art and choosing to support artistic endeavors based on an artists’ political beliefs and affiliations (see Katz’s website: http://www.eachhand.org).

We are starting to see that the silencing of Israeli Apartheid week spread beyond campuses. Repression, once released, is not easily contained: it inevitably trickles outside to other aspects of everyday life. Why harm an exhibit about Jewish history on the basis of the artist’s affiliation with IAW?

Organizers of IAW are interested in opening up debate and discussion on Israel. As a matter of fact they have been calling for debates on the academic boycott of Israel to take place across Canadian universities. On one side, you have organizers clearly seeking mature debate on a subject of great importance to the public. On the other, politicians, university administrations, and now cultural institutions are trying to shut the debate down.

Labour Unions

If campuses are spaces where the possibility for a wider debate are possible, making them contested ground, labour unions are organizations that press for progressive change, and are often punished for it. Most are familiar with the media smear campaigns against CUPE Ontario, and its President Syd Ryan, when Resolution 50 supporting BDS was adopted by the membership. This resolution was adopted overwhelmingly by the CUPE membership, yet outside organizations, contemptuous of the democratic processes of the union, initiated campaigns of harassment against the leadership. Ryan received death threats, the chair of the international solidarity committee at the time had to change her phone number and email address due to the barrage of hate mail she was receiving. Luckily, CUPE did not back down due to these campaigns and continued to do rank and file education around Palestinian rights. As Ryan explained it: “criticize the State of Israel and face individually targeted and unprecedented criticism, threats and personal attacks – tantamount to a new form of McCarthyism.”

Shortly after the attack on Gaza, the university sector conference of CUPE Ontario adopted a motion calling for research on Canadian University connections with Israeli Universities specifically in the area of military research. It passed a second motion supporting free expression on the issue of Palestine on campuses. As those motions were being discussed inside the conference, the Jewish Defense League (JDL) gathered outside waving Israeli flags, one sign was of Ryan’s picture superimposed on Hitler’s body. The objective is to tell trade unionists solidarity with Palestinian workers will come at the price of fear, harassment, filthy accusations, and physical aggression.

Other unions, such as OPSEU and OSSTF, have active grievances in process because their members have been disciplined for putting up IAW posters or other Palestine-related materials in their workplaces.

Conclusion

A targeted campaign against Arab community organizations, academics that support Palestinian human rights and student activists that organize events such as IAW has been launched to keep the solidarity movement occupied with defending itself. This campaign employs a vast array of methods including threats by donors to stop grants to universities; calls for the dismissal of academics based on media smear campaigns, and the intervention of members of Parliament.

The success of Palestine solidarity activists and other progressive movements led to the launch of these campaigns of intimidation and repression. The level of retaliation an oppositional movement receives is a good gauge of its success and its ability to affect change in the public consciousness. This success is also reflected in the growing confluence of the political right, conservatism and the Zionist movement. Zionism is increasingly losing its ability to divide progressive movements and becoming associated with right-wing politics.

These developments indicate the importance of building cross-linkages and networks of solidarity between various progressive movements. This new round of attacks represents a threat to many of the gains won during previous rounds of struggle, most notably the free speech campaigns of the 1960s and 1970s across North America. It is on all of us to take responsibility to beat back this new McCarthyism. •

Rafeef Ziadah is an organizer with the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid.

i still yet to hear about obama speech from u?

http://uppingtheanti.org/node/3300

cheers

yes bigotry is a virus …people like you are responsible of attacks like the one at the holocaust museum. Ho! I forgot , you and your little blond friend (hamas’s little sister ) don’t believe there was a holocaust ..

your a very sad being,

cant win the debate so u ad hoc it, your smears are weak and baseless, again like your posting, sources, and self.

I’d yet to hear u talk about obama speech my little troll. nor about the suffering of minority jews. Why? cause u dont care. do u not think minorities should be Jewish or have equal rights or is it okay to discriminate because of past suffering?

i wish u luck on getting ride of that virus your holding try not to spread the thing.

Cheers troll.

yes I know all about it …..maybe you should watch out ….doing illegal things can get you in big trouble dear ….cheers….

R.M. + Fred C. and other people who support israel and call us names

your little blond friend (hamas’s little sister ) don’t believe there was a holocaust

How can you say that. I am here to say that “I, Lilya Lopekha, believe that Holocaust did happen”
I know you will still continue your song, even after the crowd disagrees with you.

I, also as a young person, do support Opposition in Iran – only at heart. However, I would not do say anything and/or do anything against Ahmedinejad, because is is not my country.

I also have deep respect for Amhedinejad for being brave and sticking to his morals and saying the difficult things. Example: Holocaust. He never ever ever once denied the Holocaust.

He did say: Holocaust is a human tragedy, committed by one group of people in “Europe” against another group of people in “Europe”. It has nothing to do with God. It is a human evilness. Therefore it cannot be Holy that is associated with superpowers, etc. Additionally, it happened in Europe, it has nothing to do with the Middle East.

He said that repeatedly, over and over again …. but yet you will never get it. If you find one single thing that is not logical or does not make sense…. get your brain checked by a professional, OK!

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

There are too many pearls of wisdom from Pres. nut-job to cut and paste here.

What are the Palestinians’ stance on the following issues and what rights will they offer to non-Muslims if/when they get their own state?
1. Rights of women.
2. Rights of gays and lesbians.
3. Rights of non-Muslims.

Will these people get equal rights as citizens, or will they be forced to wear yellow armbands (just like their co-religionists in Afghanistan did to some non-Muslims) and pay jaziya tax because they are “infidels”?

How about freedom of speech? Will those Palestinians who are critical of Hamas/extremists be allowed to voice their opinions, or will they be silenced?

And those who are supporting Palestinians, please ask them about equal rights for all before offering your unconditional support to them. If a state has to come in existence, it better guarantee certain rights for all citizens and not just the Muslims, otherwise I want no part of it.