Peace Talks - Will Israel Really Withdraw?

Myth Alert!! Myth Alert!! HBendor, you know by now how this works, don’t you? You put up the myth and I get to critique it, in this case the sloppy CBN News video that you posted.

Let’s start with Tomas Sandal’s statement: “You can say the Israeli state was born the 25th of April 1920 in San Remo.” He had to put in the “you can say” bit, because this is not at all what happened. None of the 1920-1922 events ever mention even a Jewish State. Zionists on this forum keep on repeating the creation of the Jewish State to try to help make it come true. But it will never true; ever. San Remo (in fact, the Mandate for Palestine resolution of the League of Nations) granted the Jews a Homeland, which as Shiva so carefully explained, they were meant to share with the inhabitants of Palestine, in one country, with one nationality .. Palestinian.

The CBN News anchorman, Chris Mitchell, makes a real schoolboy howler when he states “Exclusive legal and political rights in Palestine went to the Jews, while those same rights, in the rest of the Middle East, went to the Arabs.” This is absolute unadulterated nonsense. San Remo delivered nothing of the sort; Mitchell sucked this out of his thumb or he got it straight from some Zionist web site. There were no “same rights” given elsewhere to the Arabs. The Arabs were granted clear sovereignty in Syria and Iraq. The way Mitchell phrased it is designed to make it appear that the Jews got these rights in Palestine. This is pure crap. As I have previously written, the Zionist propaganda is very subtle and extremely well thought out. But, as Frodo’s signature says, “You cannot polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter.” The Zionists are very good at this kind of rolling. Mitchell has tried a roll, but he has been caught out.

Grieff (?) says: “San Remo supercedes later UN resolutions.” What he really means but cannot say, it that it in fact only PRECEEDS them, the rest is inference. He then spins his web further: “The UN didn’t have the power to divide the country.” He is absolutely correct!! But he stops there, leaving us with the impression that the partition of Mandate Palestine was illegal, and we therefore have to fall back on the Mandate for Palestine and its predecessor for the answer. This is a fraud by Grieff. Why?

As a legal expert on the foundation of Israel, he would be familiar with the prelude to UNGA resolution 181 in 1947. He would know full well that the plan was for UNSCOP to examine the ‘Palestine problem’ on site and to make recommendations; for the UN General Assembly to debate and modify those recommendations; and then to vote on the consensus. And the legality to the whole process was provided by the fact that the Mandate Holder, Great Britain, who did indeed have the legal right to divide Palestine, had previously agreed to be bound by the decision of the General Assembly. So UN General Assembly Resolution 181 was totally legal. It is not void and never can be, as the Israeli Declaration of Independence so clearly states. It is not binding and doesn't have to be, because it was nothing but a vote that the Mandate Holder, empowered by the League of Nations, pledged to uphold. THAT is the crux, but Grieff cannot afford to tell the CBN viewers the whole truth.

Myth Alert!! Myth Alert!! Regarding the Myth that the Zionists are (still) allowed to settle anywhere in Mandate Palestine, and that the Israeli settlements are therefore legal, is equal crap. As we have just seen, UNGAR 181 was totally legal. The Mandate holder agreed to be bound by the resolution and the majority vote. The resolution calls for the cessation of the Mandate by August 1948 at the latest. The mandate cannot therefore still be in operation today, because after that date it ceased to exist. If the mandate does not exist, its provisions cannot continue to apply. Hence the Zionists stopped having freedom to settle where they wanted to in August 1948. The Israeli settlements are clearly illegal.

So this ploy be the US media and the Zionists is a fraud. Once again the Zionists are trying to roll a turd in glitter.

I said that the Zionist propaganda was subtle. It is also dishonest, deliberately misleading, and tries to undermine international law and derail justice.

 

The UN Security Council, which is the only authoritative adminstration of the United Nations, is dominated by the (5) permanent members. Russia, the United States, the UK, and France can easily be called "western nations" and China has moved in that direction in recent decades.

This is contradicted by the leaders of Israel who had absolute faith in the fact that the IDF could counter any attack by Egypt.

Yes, Egypt did expell the UN Peacekeepers citing the fact that Egypt would be unable to protect them from an anticipated attack by Israel. This was somewhat prophetic because Egypt would not have been able to protect them. Of note Israel refused to allow the peacekeepers on the Israeli side of the border because the Israeli leaders didn't want UN peacekeepers hindering or preventing an offensive Israeli attack of Egypt.

Yes, the Egyption leaders did declare that if Israel attacked Egypt that Egypt would wipe Israel off the map. Once again Egypts postering, which is something that all nations tend to do, were based upon an anticipated Israeli attack as the alliance between Egypt, Syria, Jordon, and Iraq was a defensive alliance and not an offensive alliance. In many of the statements often quoted from Egyption radio the actual broadcast referred to what Egypt would do if Israel attacked Syria where the real border disputes (being provoked by Israel according to Dayan) were taking place.

 

Shiva, you choose only the facts that will fit your theory and ignore 99% of the facts that oppose it. You simply fail to see the big picture, but more likely you don't want to see it. You exposed your clear anti Israeli bias in your post.

The whole nation was in panic, how could you not? 300 Million Arabs are on the verge of attacking a nation of just more than a million, but this time not in the disorganized way as in 1948, but in a full scale coordinated attack. For a full month Israel stopped working, every man was conscripted. The economy collapsed. There were only two options, either a full and surprising attack, or a slow starvation.

I guess the master of conspiracy theories such as Shiva, or klipkap would have waited until the women and elderly wouldn't be able to feed the men and starve, but fortunately we had people with brains back then, and they used the only available option of defense, a preemptive strike.

If for a moment you think the six days war was an Israeli aggression, go read about it, but this time try not to cherrypick suiting arguments, but try to understand what really went on there.

 

Regarding the security counsel. Russia is not a western nation, it is an anti-western nation. On a given day most of the members in the security counsel are non western nations. Just take the current security counsel as example:

Western nations: America, France, Britain, Austria, Japan

Non western nations: Uganda, Turkey, Gabon, Nigeria, Lebanon, Mexico, Bosnia, Brazil, Russia, China.

5 versus 10, not good for the west. But even if all the nations in the security counsel were western I still wouldn't follow its resolutions, no one except Israel and the Muslims can decide what will happen in the middle east. They can recommend, help negotiate, but not set policies for Israel.

 

The 5 permanent members are the only ones that matter and you know it.
4 out of 5 are Western.

 

If Israel doesn't want to comply with it's treaty obligations that it agreed to when joining the United Nations it should get the (*)(*)(*)(*) out. As noted, if it leaves then it loses any international voice whatsoever but that is it's choice.

Israel either needs to decide "to be a member" which requires it to comply with all UN Security Council Resolutions or get out.

Israel has blatantly refused to abide by UN Security Council Resolutions and should be facing action based upon Article 5 first and then Article 6 if it continues it's belligerant policies of defiance.

I believe Israel is either going to have to decide to join the international world community or learn to eat sand because everntually the UN is going to expel Israel and cut off all trade with it from UN members.

 

Then I guess Turkey will be cut off too (for the 40,000 killed Kurds), and all African countries will be cut off too (for the millions dead in genocides and massacres), and China will be cut off as well (For Tibet and Uighur), and Russia for Chechnya, and NATO members for the 30,000 killed civilians in Afghanistan. So who does it leave us with? Yeah, Switzerland and Finland. What a nice plan you have.

And yes, Israel should get the (*)(*)(*)(*) off, the sooner the better.

 

Your naivety is to presume that the Israeli people, who were indeed panicking, were told the truth by the Israeli high command. [Thanks for the support Shiva]. Of course they weren’t. They were fed the same propaganda as that which everyone else had received. The Israeli leaders could not console them by telling them the truth because that would obviously have undermined the entire plot of aggression that had started a year before June 5, 1967, and soured the pivotal role of the US (e.g. after Israel's Saumur atrocity).

In fact, you just provided one of the secondary reasons as to why the Sabra generals were so hell-bent on getting Levi Eshkol to authorise war; namely to take the pressure off the public and especially off the waiting conscripts. Thank you very much for reminding me of that other important reason that Israel just had to attack, irrespective of what Nasser did.

Regarding Nasser’s threat to annihilate Israel, you have to understand the mind and ego of the typical dictator [for instance, see the real reason for the Falklands war – some psychology]. He was trying to divert public attention in Egypt and the Arab world (remember his main goal?) from his dismal failure in Yemen. As the Israeli ex-foreign minister, Ben-Ami wrote in a quote from Rabin: “He (Nasser) wanted victory without war.” He also quoted the minutes from the War Headquarters of 27th May, with Eshkol recorded there as saying: “Nobody ever said that we were an army for preventive war… I do not accept that the mere fact that the Egyptian army is deployed in Sinai makes war inevitable …” (page 107). US intelligence to Israel was adamant that Nasser would not attack. General Yigal Allon (Segev, page 404): "... there was no existential threat to the State. The only crisis was psychological." Thank you for bringing that up, Eugenekop, so that I had the opportunity to get still more of the real facts (additional) on the record.

Why did Yitzhak Rabin, the IDF Chief of Staff have a nervous breakdown? Another thank you for providing me with this lead-in to further confirm Israel’s drive to attack. Let me put our readers into the picture on this issue; as is typical with stress symptoms, there were a number of reasons:
# Eshkol, the prime minister of Israel, was insistent that no action (war) could be taken without prior permission from the US (supported by Ben-Gurion – Segev, p.327). Rabin simply could not ‘press the button’ = major frustration.
# Intense pressure was being placed on him by extreme hawks, especially Generals Ariel Sharon and Ezer Weizman.
# A political rival, Shimon Peres, was scoring unfair points by pointing at weaknesses in the face of Egyptian verbal threats, while at the same time cautioning against war.
# “I felt lonely”, Rabin later wrote. He was exhausted. The killer was when his old mentor Ben-Gurion had strong words with him (Segev, page 286) saying that the premature call-up (of conscripts) had been a big mistake. Israel’s economy was suffering (another subordinate reason to attack).
# Rabin was accountable for the intelligence that said that Egypt would not ready for a war for many years. [Ironically he had been correct]
# Rabin realised that Nasser was sabre-rattling because of Rabin’s obsession with Syria and his leading of Israel into the war with the northern neighbour, Egypt’s ally. Rabin realised that HE was the real cause of the conflict, not Nasser (a conclusion drawn by both Ben-Ami and Segev).

Egypt was fully entitled to require UNEF to withdraw from Sinai. The UN Secretary General had no option other than to admit to that. Israel was at war with Egypt’s ally, Syria, and had been for nearly a year [see Zionist-sponsored definition of ‘war’ in a recent thread on this forum – it fits the aggression against Syria perfectly]. Egypt, for exactly the same reason, had full right to deny Israeli shipping ‘innocent passage’ through the Straits of Tiran. Instead of examining these legal definitions of war and the Law of the Sea, Zionist just bleat that Egypt had provided a ‘causus belli’ for attack. And when someone points out the Zionist fallacy, they get accused of trying to rewrite history. As I wrote, the Zionist propaganda is very thorough and very aggressive and usually totally wrong on critical issues. But they use the steamroller of ‘continuous myth repetition’ to drum the fallacy into the heads of concerned observers as being the truth.

But you just continue to ignore all of this, Eugenekop. I don't blame you. If you acknowledged it, one of the three main Zionist myths and all its repercussions, would come tumbling down. But then you have the nerve to call my substantiation ridiculous and to claim that my reputation is zero, Eugenekop. Here, take this mirror, you obviously need it.

 

Are you suggesting that the UN vote which therefore gave legal substance to the creation of Israel, and which is directly quoted in the Israeli declaration of independence as being inviolate, is to be ignored?

 

They withdrew from Gaza, was the result peace? Nope.

A withdrawal should only be done once the Palestinian groups are fully disarmed, and I mean fully. Anything less is suicide.

And Klip, the Un has been useless, biassed and more for a goo30-40 years now. the amount of Israel related resolutions when compared to Turkey , Sudan etc, nations with far more blood on their hands, just shows this.

 

All countries should honor their treaty obligations as members of the United Nations and should be held accountable for compliance with the UN Charter. If a country, any country, has no intent of complying with the treaty that they voluntarily became a party to then they should withdraw from the treaty.

Citing violations by other countries unrelated to specific UN Security Council Resolutions is not a valid argument for noncompliance. Each country is independently required to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions that affect it regardless of other unrelated Resolutions. That is what they agreed to when joining the United Nations.

 

If your problem with Israel is that Israel doesn't comply with the resolutions of the corrupt and anti-Israeli U.N, then that's fine with me. We should indeed leave U.N, not only because it targets specifically Israel and ignores everyone else, but also because it is useless and even dangerous in the specific issue of Israeli-Arab conflict, and more globally in the general issue of world security and international cooperation.

Yes. Israel became independent because of its strength and ability, not because a bunch of politicians said so.

 

All UN Security Council Resolutions related to Israel have been passed based upon either a direct vote by the United States supporting them or the implied consent of the United States by not vetoing them. One can hardly accuse the United States of being anti-Israel. No anti-Israeli bias exists in any UN Security Council Resolution addressing Israel.

The effectiveness of the United Nations depends on nations to fulfill their treaty obligations as members of the United Nations. When we see the failure of the United Nations relative to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict overwhelmingly it is the failure of Israel to fulfill it's treaty obligations.

No one denies that Israel obtained it's independence based upon the tyranny of the Zionist Movement in violation of the British Mandate for Palestine and in violation of UN Resolutions. What people oppose is the continued tyranny of Israel today.

 

The security counsel is viciously anti-Israeli. This is from a research by Yitzhak Shamir on the bias of the security counsel.

Well, at least we agree on that.

 

So the claim is that the United States, the UK, and France have always been viciously anti-Israel since no Security Council Resolution can be passed without each of the nations not agreeing with the Resolution?

Nice try but no one is buying it. If anything the United States has vetoed numerous proposed Security Council Resolutions that were critical of Israel reflecting a very pro-Israeli stance by the Security Council.

 

Why do Israel apologists keep repeating this debunked falsehood? I have explained this myth several times already. Israel maintained effective control over Gaza even after this so-called "disengagement" in 2005. Having effective control over a territory means it is still under occupation, as defined in international law.

Read the following report called "Disengaged Occupiers: The Legal Status of Gaza" for more details :

http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/Report for the website.pdf

If you want to test yourself if Gaza is still under Israeli occupation, I suggest you get on board a humanitarian aid flotilla, set sail for the Gaza city harbour and see what happens.

 

Because that is their whole argument, falsehoods, if they actually concentrated on the facts then their game would be up.

 

I brought you hard data, you can't really argue with that. It is viciously antisemitic. It is not in the interest of the western nations to veto each resolution, they want to maintain good relations with the third world countries, and the third world countries need good relations with the Muslims, and they need a scapegoat for their people (just like in the middle ages).

In any case, U.N is irrelevant, be it the security counsel, the general assembly, the human rights counsel, UNESCO, all the committees, and every other U.N organ. As David Ben Gurion once said: "Um Shmum" (U.N is worthless).

 

If it is "Um Shmum" then Israel will have to be disciplined regarding land theft in another way. I suspect that that way will be far more painful. If I were Israel, I would hitch my mule to the UN. At least there are controls in place; vetoes; the International Court of Justice; etc. The other way is uncontrollable.

Besides which I have to wish to battle through a nuclear winter because some buggers in the Middle East were greedy.

 

And you suggest that all of this is because the UN is corrupt. Given the plethora of Zionist myths that get busted on this forum, is it not a vague possibility that some of it might be due to the fact that Israel in out of line?

 

But why start with Israel? Let's discipline Russia for conquering hundreds of nations, oppressing huge populations, and massacring 200,000 Chechnyas just in the last decade.

Let's then disciple China for the oppression and killings of the Uighur and Tibetans.

After that let's move to discipline America and most NATO members for maintaining army bases in the whole planet and for indiscriminately killing 100,000 Afghans and Iraqi civilians.

We must also disciple Africa for genocides in which millions have died, for militias that massacre entire villages, for constant wars and "land grabbings".

Let's then discipline France for maintaining so many colonies over seas, and Australia and Canada for oppressing the native tribes (at least those who survived).

Of course then we should move to the Arab and Muslim world, and to discipline Yemen and Libya for oppressing the local tribes, Turkey and Syria for annihilating 50,000 Kurds, Lebanon for violations of resolutions regarding Hezbollah arming, Egypt for killing asylum seekers.

And this is all just the beginning, so I guess we should discipline and punish every nation on the planet, preferably with "nuclear war". Is that your genius plan? Or perhaps you just want some Jewish blood?

 

Time to check factual history, as usual.
# The withdrawal of Israeli settlers and military from the Gaza Strip was completed on 12 September 2005.
# In the Palestinian parliamentary elections held on January 25, 2006, Hamas won a plurality of 42.9% of the total vote and 74 out of 132 total seats (56%).
# In February 2006 the Israeli government and the key players of the international community, the United States and the EU refused to recognize its right to govern the Palestinian Authority. The Gazans must have been thrilled at the reaction to their exercise of a democratic process.
# Direct aid to the Palestinian government there was cut off. The resulting political disorder and economic stagnation led to many Palestinians emigrating from the Gaza Strip. Nice move guys – sure to make them happy.

In the light of these provacations of Gaza, let us have a look at the attacks on Israel from Gaza during this period. If you guys are correct in what you say, there should have been immediate attacks on Israel, right? Well there weren’t; not from Gaza. Up until January 2006 there were no significant attacks. So the concept of withdrawal = attacks does not hold water.

Let us now see what attacks happened from Gaza on Israel after Hamas took power in the January 2006 elections. Almost nothing in 2006. 2007 was also a very quiet year. Israel decided to press Hamas by admitting to Gaza only the minimum amount of goods required to avert a hunger or health crisis among its 1.5 million people, and prohibiting most exports. Israel contends that its approach is working. “Hamas’s popularity is suffering, because it cannot deliver,” Mark Regev, a spokesman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said in December 2007”

Now wasn’t that a bloody stupid thing for Israel to do!!??. The first fatal Hamas attack was on January 24, 2008. Am I the only one who can see the link? Thereafter, compared to the isolated rocket attacks, the incidence of these rose sharply. So guys, your thesis that withdrawal = attacks leaks like a sieve. Instead, by studying the unfolding of events, the attacks by Hamas from Gaza were a direct response, not to the Israelí pull-out, but to the blackade and sanctions imposed by Israel. Can I conclude anything other than Israel is the one to blame. It was a self-inflicted would and now DCC and D.E.P. try to shift the blame on the Israeli withdrawal.

As you know, we always check. Myth Busted!!

 

All I give you is a big DUH! Hamas is a terrorist organization. Of course it should not be trusted. It should be fought. When the Palestinians voted for Hamas, they showed their true colors.