Israel bans entry to outspoken U.S. congresswomen

I wonder if they're surprised.

More ...

“As a vibrant and free democracy, Israel is open to any critic and criticism, with one exception: Israel’s law prohibits the entry of people who call and operate to boycott Israel, as is the case with other democracies that prevent the entry of people whose perception harms the country," he said in a statement posted to his official Facebook page .

"Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar are leading activists in promoting boycott legislation against Israel in the US Congress.

“The two-member congressional visitation plan shows that their intent is to hurt Israel and increase its unrest against it,” he added, citing the fact that two lawmakers called their visit destination Palestine rather than Israel.

Netanyahu noted that Tlaib may be granted entry into the territory to visit her Palestinian grandmother in the West Bank.

"However, if Congresswomen Tlaib filed a humanitarian request to meet her family members, subject to a commitment that she would not act to promote the boycotts against Israel, the interior minister announced he would consider this request," he said in the statement.

The decision to ban them was made when it was leaned that their itinerary DID NOT INCLUDE the normal meetings with Israeli lawmakers or officials, even the opposition lawmakers, and included only sites that were Palestinian, and NONE that would have provided them with a view of anything positive about Israel or its government.  In other words, the whole purpose for them was to bolster their BDS intent to destroy Israel as a nation.  As Netanyahu explained, we will accept criticism, but we will not accept the BDS intent to destroy Israel. He said that Israel is a “vibrant and free democracy” that is open to all criticism, with the exception of a call for boycotts.

She declined the option for the family visit, proving her real intentions.  

In other words, the whole purpose for them was to bolster their BDS intent to destroy Israel as a nation.

To quote a famous film... "There's a big surprise.  I think I'm gonna have a heart attack and die from not surprise."

nah, they both knew all along how bibi and trump each need to jerk off the religious extremists in their base.

These congresswomen have brought this upon themselves.

Serves the racist and hateful sluts right.

Why should Israel have anything to do with their sworn enemies.

These congresswomen have brought this upon themselves.

Um, how? By having religious beliefs? Trump has been screaming his head off about Muslims for years, but Muslim CITIZENS of the USA are NOT allowed to express their views? 1st Amendment. 

[delete] 

Wait...    Are you seriously trying to say that Israel is not allowing these congresswomen's 1st Amendment rights? 

Oh snap!!!!!!

removed for context

Um, not that's not at all what I said. Read it again. 

[Deleted]

I have a pretty good idea that those two's sole purpose for visiting is to try to stir up as much hatred and internal dissent as possible. Israel is fully within their rights as a sovereign nation to deny anybody entry into their own country despite those two thinking they have the right to visit solely because they are politicians from a foreign country. I say let them set foot in Israel and then revoke their passports...

I see that she clapped for this comment

nah, they both knew all along how bibi and trump each need to jerk off the religious extremists in their base.   (1.2)

What are you looking at? Something else? 

It has nothing to do with Muslims and everything to do with their views on Jews and Israel. Anti-Semitism and Hate.

These women can express their views, but they cannot expect a country they profess hate for to let them 'in'.

bibi got played politically by 2 novice congress persons. after his pal in the white house threw him under the bus by making bibi jump thru the xenophobe hoop. bibi has another critical election to win shortly and he just did a major face plant in the eyes of his base.

bibi got played politically by 2 novice congress persons.

How did they get played? The racist bitch is the one that got played. They folded to let her in because as a typical liberal she used her grandma for political clout. Then the dumb bitch states if they wont let me protest I don't care to see my grandma. What a joke.

I dont think either side came out of this looking very good. The bottom line though is that Israel receives monetary assistance from the United States and that makes it the business of US congresspeople.  It would have been better for Israel and Trump to let them go over there and criticize them as much as he wanted when they got back. Neither Trump or Israel look good after this, although Im not that sure the two congresswomen look that good about it either. 

These two from the "Taliban 4" had a chance to go with "The" group. They chose not to, for "Selfish" Reasons.

They SUCK !

I dont think either side came out of this looking very good.

That's as far as I read before you went off on a Trump rant. 

I agree.

Those two will be screaming "Racism" and "Bigotry" and "Anti-Semitic" shit soon !

deleted

Dear Friends cms5, Texan1211 and IT Is Me: Ms. Talib could bring her grandmother to the USA to visit her and other family. 

When one cannot for good cause enter a house they wish to tear down, they can still see family in their own home by inviting them.

Mrs. E. who is a Sabarit (Native born Israeli) is often inviting immediate and extended family and friends from her native country to come visit and stay with us.

They are always most warmly welcomed.

P&AB.

Enoch.

That's very true. Ms. Talib can also agree that she will not not act to promote the boycotts against Israel...and see her family as requested.

Dear Friend cms5: True.

Good point.

Both Ms. Talib and Ms. Oman are claiming that in nations Members of Congress visit for fact finding in order to make good objective fact based foreign policy decisions sometimes Congress Persons are restricted in where they can and cannot visit.

Fine.

Why are they, and folks supporting the attempt to deligitmize and then destroy economically the State of Israel make the same objections and take the same actions for other less open to American sociities?

Why the selectivity, and unilateral singling out of Israel and only Israel?

I think we are all tired of hearing the canard that one can not be anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish etc. and still criticize Israel when the criticism is one sided, and aimed at Israel. Never at nations (including in their case) predominantly Muslim countries where the thing being criticized is worse?

Why do they not visit those places?

Why are they so silent about them?

I think we all know the answer here.

If it looks like, swims like, eats like, waddles like, and quacks like a duck it is most surely not an aardvark.

It is time to address the double standards and those who perpetuate them.

In Israel, the government has not only the right, but the moral and practical responsibility to defend the State against those wanting to exterminate it by any and all means.

The first and most primary role of government is to defend and keep safe the state and its population.

Let the voters in Michigan and Minnesota decide if they want to be represented by haters of the only Jewish State on the planet.

Their votes, their state, their call.

Vox Populi. Let the voice of the people be heard.

Hopefully it will sound like the embracing of bedrock American values.

The best interests of former Egyptian and Jordanian citizens who only self referenced as Palestinians after they lost a war to commit genocide by war is ill served by continuing to rely on politicians who profit from hate peddling. 

If they want self determination, do so in areas which do not threaten the existence of a neighbor they cannot defeat, murder or terrorize.

In this life, success is not earned by swelling on what one is against.

It is achieved by what one can realistically do to improve ones lot.

Instead of never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity, take concrete steps to vote out of office the thugocracy mishandling the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Make and obey a treaty with Israel for ever lasting peace, mutual recognition of statehood, and learn to live in harmony with the Jewish State. 

How simple is that? 

They tried the rest, now try the best.

Forget about destroying Israel and killing Jews.

Focus on making a life for themselves as part of the Middle East.

They should not be surprised to find support for that from Israel, some Muslim nations and people and worldwide folks of good will, including Jews where ever they live.

Don't boycott Israel.

Boycott terrorism, despots, corrupt state leaders and politicians who want to trade on hate and prejudice.

Israel had made peace over turns since the 1940's.  

Presently, it has no credible party with whom to make things happen for both sides to benefit.

Give them such.

The future does not have to be like the past, just because the past is like what has and hasn't happened to date. 

P&AB to All Who Seek It for One and All.

Enoch.

Dear Brother Enoch, very well said and I totally concur.

Boozhoo niijii,

I agree with most of what you stated, but since Isreal is a democracy would it not have been better to allow them entry. I would think that it would show that Isreal really is a democracy that is willing to tolerate both congresswomen. 

I believe that if they did go off script, which, IMO, they will do, they will show the world what they really are. That would seem to me to be the ultimate goal and much to Isreal advantage.  

I'll add that this decision by Isreal is, IMO, a mistake. The two congresswomen will use this as proof that Isreal is far from being a democracy in the ME...Barring them because of their beliefs will give them a real bully pulpit and I'm sure that they will take full advantage of it.  

Dear Brother Kavika: Initially Israel granted them permission.

When Mr. Trump asked that they not be allowed into the country to visit the Israeli Prime Minister concurred.

Mr. Netanyahu is facing a tough re-election.

He cannot afford to appear weak on anything involving national security. 

Israel is a Democracy.

They are not a door mat.

My point isn't political.

The optics of this will not play out well for the Land of Milk and Honey (Eretz Zvat Chalav U'D'vash).

Ms. Talib and Ms. Oman are no more the face of the Democratic Party than Stephen King is the face of the Republican Party.

Still, birds of a feather flock together.

People in both parties will pressure Israel to reverse their decision and let them in.

The USA is the greatest and most reliable ally Israel has in this world.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu are close.

This will not make Israel look good. 

My point isn't a political or a public relations one. 

Rather it is to let those who want to hurt if not destroy Israel in any fashion know Israel will choose to be disliked and thrive before it will opt for capitulation and perhaps extinction. 

As the late Prime Minister Golda Meir once said, it is better to be hated and live than loved and be a footnote in history.

This is my point.

Israel must do what it must for its survival.

This will hurt but far from mortally wound Israel in the realm of public opinion.

With ever shortening attention spans and news cycles, by next week this story will disappear.

Sooner or later Talib and Oman will put themselves back on the hot seat with anti-Israel rhetoric. 

They play to their bases, not seek out and speak the truth.

That doesn't make them different than most in the political arena.

Isn't that tragic?

Peace, Abundant Blessings, Fresh Blueberries, Hot Sassafras Tea, Fry Bread and Roast Bear Meat for One and All.

Enoch.   

Thanks.

E.

As the late Prime Minister Golda Meir once said, it is better to be hated and live than loved and be a footnote in history.

I remember that saying by Ms. Meir well...I have always greatly admired her.

And I fully understand the survival of a nation, something that we both share. 

And yes, it is a political game as well. A very serious political game.

Will Israel survive this. Of course, they will. The downside for Isreal is that the two will use this against Israel and there are millions across the world that will listen. 

Waanakiwin (peace)

I agree. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech. Unless they thought these people were going to do something physical that threatened national security, there is no reason to deny them entry. Keeping them out will only martyr them and make it look as if Israel can't make a case for itself in the public forum.

They already indicated that they were going to go off script. Their itinerary, not meeting with any Israeli lawmakers (even opposition ones) or officials, and intending only to travel to Palestinian sites, is NOT an open-minded tour that virtually every other American lawmaker has done and intends to do in order to obtain a fair and just picture of Israel, which is supposed to be the intention of the trip.  Their intent was, by their itinerary, make CLEAR that their tour was meant for no other purpose but to support and bolster their BDS (hatred of and destruction of Israel) position.  I'm sorry to disagree with you, Kavika, but fair criticism of Israel is acceptable, but the intent to destroy it is not, democracy or no democracy.

Until their itinerary was released, indicating their TRUE intention, I was on the side of allowing them entry, but once their true intent, that is to NOT obtain a fair and honest picture of Israel, I agree with the Israeli government on their decision. 

This was a no-win situation for Israel, Kavika.  Had they been allowed to go on their intended itinerary, it would have been to provide them with ammunition to bolster the BDS movement, because they were only looking for the worst, to the exclusion of anything better, and because they are not being permitted to enter, they will use that to bolster their hateful invective about Israel and, as I have seen Omar has already done, Trump.

Golda Meir also said another truism:

"If the Arabs lay down their arms, there will be peace.  If the Jews lay down their arms, there will be no more Israel."

As I have already pointed out, this was a no-win situation for Israel.  Once those two released their itinerary, it was clear that their intention was not to learn about Israel, which is the whole intent of those trips, but to bolster their hateful invective about Israel and their BDS destruction of Israel intent.  In my opinion, Israel will weather that storm because anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see what the truth is.

As the late Prime Minister Golda Meir once said, it is better to be hated and live than loved and be a footnote in history.

She even understood this from a personal standpoint. I personally know of one such attack when terrorists from Lebanon landed on the Tel Aviv beach where she considered home.

Literally, right around the corner from where the ex was living then, long before she became the ex.

Bad decision and poor execution on the parts of the Lebanese terrorists.

Nonetheless, the intend was there.

Instead of never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity, take concrete steps to vote out of office the thugocracy mishandling the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Make and obey a treaty with Israel for ever lasting peace, mutual recognition of statehood, and learn to live in harmony with the Jewish State. 

How simple is that? 

They tried the rest, now try the best.

Forget about destroying Israel and killing Jews.

Focus on making a life for themselves as part of the Middle East.

They should not be surprised to find support for that from Israel, some Muslim nations and people and worldwide folks of good will, including Jews where ever they live.

Don't boycott Israel.

Boycott terrorism, despots, corrupt state leaders and politicians who want to trade on hate and prejudice.

It really is a very simple formula.

I would assume that a congresswomen visiting Isreal would have protection/bodyguards from the Israel government. Assuming that that is true if they rejected protection that would be a perfect excuse to refuse them entry. 

I never said anything about Israel lays down their arms, Buzz. I'm presenting what could be a win for Israel, that's all. 

Instead of never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity, take concrete steps to vote out of office the thugocracy mishandling the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank are not allowed to vote so that might be an issue...

Israel had made peace over turns since the 1940's.

web.archive

The Court notes that the route of the wall as fixed by the Israeli Government includes within the “Closed Area” (i.e. the part of the West Bank lying between the Green Line and the wall) some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and has been traced in such a way as to include within that area the great majority of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem). The information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The Security Council has taken the view that such policy and practices “have no legal validity” and constitute a “flagrant violation” of the Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

I don't think bodyguards has anything to do with it.  As I said, I agreed that they should be allowed to enter Israel, and Israel was willing, until they released their itinerary that indicated that they had no intention whatsoever to take advantage of what the trip was for, to learn about Israel, but their intent became very clear that it was only to gain ammunition to bolster BDS and hatred and destruction of Israel.  As I said, then it became a no-win situation for Israel, and IMO Israel made the right choice. 

SUMMARY OF ISRAEL'S RIGHTS TO JUDEA AND SAMARIA

  Background:

The Middle East was a part of the Ottoman Empire, which had ruled it some 400 years when World War I broke out. The Ottomans allied themselves with Germany. And so it was that, when the war ended, the Ottomans had lost their land. As part of the readjustments, the map of the huge area we call the Middle East was reconfigured. The original plan was to create a Jewish state in what the British called Mandatory Palestine (some 45,000 square miles on both sides of the Jordan river) and an Arab state in the rest of the region. In 1922, the British put the Hashemite family in charge of "administering" the area on the east side of the Jordan -- some 78% of the land destined to be the Jewish state -- leaving the Jews with some 8,840 square miles, 1/10 of 1% of the area of the Middle East, for a future homeland. The land holdings of the 22 Arab League countries, in contrast, is 6,145,389 square miles.

1.  According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have   not   expired and are still in full force and effect. [1]

The process began at San Remo, Italy, when the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I — Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan — agreed to create a Jewish national home [*] in what is now the Land of Israel.

1. The 1920 San Remo Resolution
   

   This was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire, i.e, redrawing the borders of the Middle East and giving its land to its original inhabitants.

   The relevant resolution reads as follows:

   "The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust... the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

   
   

   The San Remo Resolution also bases itself on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which declares that it is "a sacred trust of civilization" to provide for the well-being and development of colonies and territories whose inhabitants are "not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." Specifically, a resolution was formulated to create a Mandate to form a Jewish national home in Palestine.

   Professor Jacques Gauthier wrote that the San Remo treaty specifically notes that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" - but says nothing about any "political" rights of the Arabs living there.[2]

2. The 1922 Mandate for Palestine
   

   The League of Nations' resolution creating the Palestine Mandate included the following significant clause: "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." No such recognition of Arab rights in Palestine was granted.

3. The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.
   

   The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine.

   "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

   
   

   The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine."

2. The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:

1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)  
2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923)

3. The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded 77.5% of Palestine to TransJordan and the Golan to Syria:

ART. 5. "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."
ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.

4. In the   1924 Anglo American Convention   the U.S. agreed to support Great Britain as a Mandatory so long as the Mandatory abided by the San Remo Resolution. The sole purpose of the Resolution regarding Palestine was:

1. Drawing the borders of Palestine  
2. Reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide  
3. Recognizing the Jewish People's historical connection to the land

There was not even one word in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab land in Palestine.

In November 2009, the Office for Israeli Constitutional Law (OFICL), a non-governmental legal action organization, sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, warning that by labeling Jewish settlements in the West Bank illegal, she is violating international law, as well as American law. OFICL directer Mark Kaplan said:

"The mandate expired in 1948 when Israel got its independence, but the American-Anglo convention was a treaty that was connected to the mandate. Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on   ad infinitum ."

5.   The Lodge-Fish Resolution of September 21, 1922,   was a Joint Resolution passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress and signed by President Warren Harding, endorsing the Balfour Declaration with slight variations. This made the text of the Joint Resolution part of the law of the United States until this very day.

"Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United states of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national Home for the Jewish people..."

confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine — anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:

6. Under American Law when a joint resolution is passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives in an identical form and then signed by the President, it becomes the Law of the U.S.

7. Both the Lodge-Fish Resolution and the Anglo American Convention underwent the above noted process (see point 6). Therefore reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide and recognizing their historical connection to the land became part of US LAW.

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

8. The 1924 Anglo American Convention on Palestine included the whole text of the Palestine Mandate. The Palestine Mandate included the Balfour declaration preamble committing to reconstitute Palestine as a National homeland for the Jewish People worldwide and to recognize their historical connection to the land. It did not mention anything about creating an Arab State in Palestine. The Mandate explicitly prohibited ceding any land in Palestine to any foreign powers or changing the terms of the Mandate without the League's expressed permission. That permission had to be unanimously passed by all members. That never occurred.[3]

9. The significance of the above (see #8 ) is that no decision made by the US or Britain, may be in conflict with the terms of the Mandate or the Anglo American Convention. France, Italy and Japan sat on the San Remo Supreme Council - along with the US and Britain - approving the San Remo decision. After the Supreme Council approved the San Remo decision, the resolution was further approved by the League of Nations and its 51 members. This resolution became a binding international Treaty. The Treaty became   Res Judicata . Consequently all the above noted countries are bound by their own approval. Thus they are prevented from changing their approval without Israel's consent.

10. No decision, policy or measure taken by subsequent American administrations may be in conflict with the Terms of the Palestine Mandate. (The sole purpose of the Mandate was-to reconstitute Palestine as a national homeland for the Jewish People world-wide and recognize their historical connection with the land.) Under the Doctrine of Estoppels the US is estopped from making policies, taking any steps, measures, spending any monies on policies, which run contrary to its covenants and undertaking under the Anglo-American Convention of 1924, because among other things they are violating US Law.

11.   Both their Excellencies, the Emir Faisal and Abdullah approved the League of Nations decisions.   At different points in history, Emir Faisal, in an agreement with Weitzman, agreed to support the Zionist claim on both sides of the Jordan river and later Abdullah, agreed with Churchill to support the Zionist claim to the territory from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean, including Judea and Samaria and Gaza, and the Golan Heights. The Supreme Council did not want to approve the final borders of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan until they had the approval of Emir Feisal.[4]

12.   All rights emanating from the three international treaties were approved by the League of Nations and inherited by the United Nations. They did not expire. The United Nations had no right to vary them.

The UN has no right to pass a resolution which ran contrary to an existing earlier decision/ resolution on its books.
The UN or Britain are not sovereigns and had no right to change borders at its pleasure.
The same Supreme Council that drew the borders for Iraq Syria and Lebanon, gave Israel the right to its borders from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. This was approved by the League, and its members: Britain, France, Japan and Italy. They have no right to vary that which they had approved.

13. The General Assembly does not have the right to create enforceable resolutions or borders. So even if the Arabs had accepted the Green Line [the armistice lines after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war], these borders would not have been legally enforceable.

14.   The Partition Plan of 1947 only demarcated the cease fire lines. It had no binding legal force.

• It was not approved by the Arabs. In order for the Green Line to have had any sort of legal significance that approval would have been necessary at the very least;
  

• The General Assembly has no power to change borders. Therefore its decision or advice was insignificant from a legal perspective.
  

• The UN has no power to vary an existing valid international treaty which the League of Nations - its predecessor - had approved. ( Res Judicata ). The UN inherited from the League of Nations the granting to Israel of the lands between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.
  

• The UN has no power to draw new agreements which run contrary to existing valid International Agreements or treaties which it had inherited from its predecessor, the League of Nations.
  

• No borders decided by the San Remo Conference and approved by the League of Nations, save those of Israel, were ever challenged or changed;
  

• In 1923 Britain - the Mandatory and Trustee of the Palestine Mandate of 1922, and of the British American Convention of 1924 - contrary to the explicit terms of the Mandate, ceded the Golan to Syria.[5]
  

  "This treaty which was concluded by the principal powers, in effect, as representative of the League of Nations, is binding on the League, particularly after it approved it. The League cannot therefore change the mandate provisions. (Nor, of course, does the Mandatory have that right)"[6]

OFICL chairman Michael Snidecor has stated, "The General Assembly has no authority to create countries or change borders. The UN partition plan [1967] was just that -- a plan."

Significant precedents:

1. The Vienna decision on treaties: According to Howard Grief:

Rights gained from Mandates don't cease at the expiration of the Mandate

The principle of law that rights once granted or recognized under a treaty or other legal instrument do not expire with the expiration of that treaty or instrument is now codified in article 70(1)(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (the Treaty on Treaties). This article states that "unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty... does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination".

As a result, Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel remain in full force today under international law.

The South Africa decision on Mandates basically says the same thing: rights gained by a country through a mandate don't expire at the expiration of the mandate.[7]

Article 80 of The UN charter: No right gained by a country through a mandate will expire as a result of the expiration of the mandate.  
 

End Notes

[*]   Jewish National Home   and "homeland for the Jewish people" were a less in-your-face way of saying "Jewish State."

[1] See, for example,   this ,   this ,   this ,   this   and   this,   for starters. Other articles can be retrieved by googling for "Howard Grief" and/or "Yoram Shifftan".

OFICL chairman Mark Kaplan has pointed out that IDF's presence in the West Bank has added to this misconception of illegal activity.

"Israel chose to adopt a policy of military rule in 1967, which makes it smell of occupation. And the world says it is illegal occupation because of all the propaganda that's been out there. Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria does not qualify as an occupation under international law because of the Anglo-American Convention -- and if you look at the Hague and Geneva conventions."  
( jpost 1259243026960&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull).

[2] Jacques Gauthier, Thesis Defense,  
sustainabilitank.info gauthiers-phd-dissertation-on-the-legal-status-of-jerusalem-an- important-document-to-be-read-by-the-annapolis-process-and-the-un-lawyers/,

[3] Howard Grief,   The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law: A Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty over the Land of Israel , pg 204

[4] Jacques Gauthier re: minutes of San Remo Conference.  
docstalk.blogspot

[5] Joan Peters,   From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine,   pg 236.

[6]  Jacques Gauthier, Thesis, pg 404.

[7]  Jacques Gauthier.  
globalpolitician  
 

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

Israel is entitled to annex Judea and Samaria, legally entitled, but there isn't a relevant court or judging body in the world that isn't SO BIASED AGAINST ISRAEL that it would find on behalf of Israel.

Oh, sorry. I meant for that Golda Meir quotation to follow the one Dave quoted.  I guess I posted it in the wrong place.

I agree Israel was in a no win situation with the two Congress women. 

However the Golda Meir is inaccurate.

If either side lays down their arms it will not result in peace.

Lumping the Arabs as one entity is a complete and utter fallacy. Even if they managed to wipe Israel off the map they would continue to fight each other forever. Religious, tribal, and clan differences would not end with the destruction of Israel.

If the Arabs laid down their arms there would be a peace that none outside of Israel could accept. The West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights annexed fully by Israel- the Palestinians, and other Arab minorities forced out of Israel proper. Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and potentially Egypt turned into larger war zones by displaced Palestinians trying to create a new homeland. Wars between Israel and between the surrounding countries over water and dwindling resources. Hamas and whatever is left of the PA fighting each other and Israel. Sure there still would be "Arabs" left after laying down their arms against Israel; but the already destabilized ME would be much more so.

Neither side really wants peace. They have shown so repeatedly.

"Neither side really wants peace. They have shown so repeatedly."

They have?  And other than defending themselves or retaliating when attacked, what wars has Israel started? *

How many times have the Palestinians walked away from the table when offers of 95% and even 97% of their demands were offered to them?  Israel has given up land for peace, such as the Sinai and evacuating every Jew out of Gaza.  Israel has released hundreds of Palestinian terrorist prisoners who had blood on their hands (some then returning to kill again) in order to get the Palestinians to negotiate by fulfilling that demand, to no avail.  Israel put an 11 month moratorium on settlement building as demanded by the Palestinians, and then they demanded it be further extended, but the Palestinians would not negotiation....

What concessions, what initiation of negotiations, what ANYTHING have the Palestinians done?

*Before you blame Israel for the 1967 Six Day War, besides the fact that armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria were amassed on the border with Israel prepared to strike...  Israel launched the first attack of bombing Egypt's Air force, but Egypt provided a prior casus belli by blocking the Straits of Tiran (an illegal act according to international law).

Casus belli legal definition of casus belli - Legal Dictionary

Well said.

It appears that Ms. Talib wrote a letter...received a humanitarian exception to visit her grandmother and then decided she didn't want to visit.

So, what is her real agenda? Well, for certain...it wasn't to visit her Grandmother.

They have?  And other than defending themselves or retaliating when attacked, what wars has Israel started? *

history

The Six-Day War was a brief but bloody conflict fought in June 1967 between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Following years of diplomatic friction and skirmishes between Israel and its neighbors, Israel Defense Forces launched preemptive air strikes that crippled the air forces of Egypt and its allies. Israel then staged a successful ground offensive and seized the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria . The brief war ended with a U.N.-brokered ceasefire, but it significantly altered the map of the Mideast and gave rise to lingering geopolitical friction.

I suppose a preemptive strike isn't consider starting a war?

mondoweiss

Finkelstein emphasizes that no genuine academic today, whatever their political orientation, endorses the Mainstream Narrative. He starts by identifying what he has called the “Two Biggest Lies.”

* The truth is that Nasser and the other Arab leaders had absolutely no intention of invading Israel in June 1967.

* And Israel’s existence was never in the slightest doubt, as both Israeli and American leaders knew that Israel could easily win any conflict, even against a coalition of  Arab states.

Finkelstein insists we cannot understand the Six-Day War without going back 11 years, to the 1956 Suez Crisis. That year, the Egyptian leader, Nasser, nationalized the Suez Canal — and Israel, Britain and France launched an unprovoked joint invasion of Egypt to seize the waterway back. But the United States, under President Dwight Eisenhower, opposed the attack, and pressured the tripartite invasion force to withdraw and leave the Canal to Egypt. Suez was a catastrophe for all three invading nations, and British Prime Minister Anthony Eden was forced to resign. Meanwhile, Nasser’s reputation in the Arab world, and across Africa, Asia and Latin America, rose to new heights.

Norman Finkelstein argues that the historical record shows that in 1967 Israel yearned to complete its failed mission of 1956. First, he says, Israel’s “primary goal was to neuter Nasser, to deliver a death blow to these uppity Arabs, and finish off what was called radical Arab nationalism.” He goes on that Israel’s government had a “secondary goal” — “to conquer the lands they had coveted but didn’t manage to seize in ’48: East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan.”

Israeli leaders had only one big doubt: what would America do? If Israel did attack, would the United States force another humiliating climbdown, as in 1956? Or would Washington look the other way?

Finkelstein challenges the Mainstream Narrative’s account of the specific events in the months leading up to the war. His analysis is not at all unusual, and is shared to a great extent by other scholars. He argues that the facts show that Israel was not peacefully minding its own business, but instead regularly and violently provoking its Arab neighbors. In November 1966, in the largest military action since the Suez invasion, Israel attacked the West Bank town of Samu, then under Jordanian rule, killing 18 Jordanian soldiers and destroying 125 homes. Israel continued instigating along its border with Syria in April 1967, triggering an aerial battle in which 6 Syrian planes were shot down, including one over Damascus. Voices in the Arab world started to accuse Gamal Abdel Nasser, the leader of the Arabs, of standing by and doing nothing.

So Nasser did ask the United Nations to remove the peacekeeping troops from Egyptian Sinai, mainly so he could be seen to be taking some action. But Finkelstein points out that Israel could have asked for UN peacekeepers to be placed on its side of the border, which would have maintained the tripwire. Israel did no such thing.

Nasser’s closing of the Straits of Tiran has been similarly distorted in the Mainstream Narrative. Finkelstein explains that Nasser may actually have had the legal right to close the Straits, that he probably did not intend to maintain the closure, and that he offered to take the dispute to the International Court of Justice, but Israel refused. And Israel would not have choked overnight, but got 95 percent of its imports through its other ports and had a several months’ reserve supply of oil.

Meanwhile, Finkelstein says, Israeli diplomats descended on Washington, D.C. to find out if the United States would give them a green or at least an amber light. Finkelstein has looked through the historical record, and here is a summary of what he found:

* The U.S. agreed with Israel that Nasser had no plans to attack.

* The U.S. agreed that Israel would easily defeat Egypt on the battlefield, either alone or with any combination of other Arab nations.

* And the U.S. tacitly gave Israel permission to start the war, or at least indicated there would be no repeat of Eisenhower’s repudiation after the 1956 Suez invasion.

Once Israel attacked first, Finkelstein says the conflict should more aptly be called the Six-Day Walkover. “In fact,” he says, “the war did not last six days; it lasted closer to six minutes. Once Israeli planes in a surprise blitzkrieg knocked out the Egyptian air force still parked on the ground, the war was over. . . If the war lasted longer, it was only because Israel wanted to conquer the Egyptian Sinai, the Jordanian West Bank, and the Syrian Golan Heights.”

Finkelstein does recognize that the Israeli public did believe the Mainstream Narrative, took to heart the lies and distortion their government was feeding the world, and genuinely feared the Arab states wanted to push them into the sea. He explains that the Israeli government “figured the Israeli people would give their all if they feared their backs were up against the wall. The leaders were culpable twice over; they provoked the crisis and then launched an unprovoked attack.”

Once the war ended, in the United States it was treated as a lark, a thrilling adventure. After Israel occupied the Egyptian Sinai, jokes circulated: “See the Pyramids. Visit Israel.”

But it was no joke for the at least 18,000 people who died in the fighting: 10,000-15,000 Egyptians; 6000 Jordanians; 1000-2500 Syrians; and nearly 1000 Israelis.

Israel did win its immediate war objectives; Nasser’s image was severely damaged, and he died three years later, with his brand of Arab nationalism greatly discredited. Israeli soldiers did occupy the West Bank, Sinai and the Golan.

Whether the occupation, now shuddering into its 51st year, has been good for Israel is still to be decided by history.

Well, let's get some things straight first. Quoting from Mondoweiss is like quoting from a Palestinian paper. Quoting from Norman Finkelstein is like quoting from Arafat. So this version of history is hardly unbiased. 

That being said, did you know that even Norman Finkelstein calls the BDS movement a "cult" bent on the destruction of Israel?

Now I might not agree with Finkelstein, but the man does know his international law and according to him, the BDS movement goes beyond what is legally allowed. 

I will post these two videos (sorry Buzz you will not be able to see them), in the event, anyone is truly interested in how someone who is really anti-Israel (refers to it as the "Holocaust Industry"), regards the BDS movement from a legal standpoint. May I point out, that although I don't agree with Finkelstein's POV on Israel, he is no moron either. 

May I point out, that although I don't agree with Finkelstein POV on Israel, he is no moron either. 

Many folks are under a false impression that all people, who are biased and/or who have a different world viewpoint than they do, are all stupid.

When nothing could be further from the truth.

If a Palestinian state was to be comprised of Gaza and part of the West Bank, but none of the area between those two places, it would be absurd. 

I would suggest divide Jerusalem with the larger portion being in Israel but a small area of the city dedicated to the Palestinians, and then apportion land to each side outward from Jerusalem so that each side has self contained and contiguous territory. 

I know that is a pipe dream, but creating a Palestinian homeland in two pieces separated by the Israeli army is not a prescription for peace. 

Many folks are under a false impression that all people, who are biased and/or who have a different world viewpoint than they do, are all stupid. When nothing could be further from the truth.

I have to agree with that. I don't have to agree with someone to see that they are well informed on a subject. It just may be that we take different items at a different level of importance or none at all. Most of how we interpret things are experience based anyway. 

John,

There has never been a real attempt at a two-state solution that the Palestinians were pleased with, the least being how to connect the two. The last time they couldn't even get past the verbiage of Isreal being a Jewish state. 

It's really sad for them as a people. I do believe in a two state solution, but you need to have real partners, and BDS now in the mix is not helping that cause, since they want full right of return, which would mean no Isreal and that is never going to happen.

If Israel stopped creating new settlements COMPLETELY and maybe dismantled some of the more recent existing ones, I bet they could create a basis for two state negotiations. Netanyahu  and the Israeli hard line right just rub the Palestinians noses in it. 

The hard right of Israel believes they have won, and have no intention of ever allowing Palestinians a state. They will offer non Jews a form of second class citizenship and that will be that. Take it or leave it. 

John,

Long before Netanyahu and the right, there were offers made in good faith towards a 2 state solution that the PA turned down under Arafat. You must have forgotten that Jews were torn from their homes to deliver Gaza to the Palestinians as part of that good faith.... long before any wall. Here let me refresh your memory:

They will offer non Jews a form of second class citizenship and that will be that. Take it or leave it. 

May I remind you that are Muslims who are in the Israeli government and vote. Can you please find me 1 Muslim nation in the M/E that has ant Jews left within their borders nevermind in their government. 

Or don't murder gays

Or treat women as second class citizens. 

I don't like Netanyahu, but in a region full of petty despots, what do you think it would breed? Why are they not held to the same standards as Israel is?

Dear cms5: No grass grows under your feet.

You see the world for what is it.

Goo point.

Excellent observation.

P&AB.

Enoch.

So is it your posit that the International agreements sighed by the present day Israeli government are null and void? 

I didn't know Israel was on trial and adherence to International Agreements was the topic here.  When you can establish the absolute perfection of your own country, or in fact ANY country in the world, please come back and put Israel on trial. 

history

The Six-Day War was a brief but bloody conflict fought in June 1967 between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Following years of diplomatic friction and skirmishes between Israel and its neighbors, Israel Defense Forces launched preemptive air strikes that crippled the air forces of Egypt and its allies. Israel then staged a successful ground offensive and seized the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria . The brief war ended with a U.N.-brokered ceasefire, but it significantly altered the map of the Mideast and gave rise to lingering geopolitical friction.

I suppose a preemptive strike isn't consider starting a war?

That excerpt is leaving out some details:

history

ORIGINS OF THE SIX-DAY WAR

A series of border disputes were the major spark for the Six-Day War. By the mid-1960s, Syrian-backed Palestinian guerillas had begun staging attacks across the Israeli border, provoking reprisal raids from the Israel Defense Forces.

In April 1967, the skirmishes worsened after Israel and   Syria   fought a ferocious air and artillery engagement in which six Syrian fighter jets were destroyed.

In the wake of the April air battle, the   Soviet Union   provided Egypt with intelligence that Israel was moving troops to its northern border with Syria in preparation for a full-scale invasion. The information was inaccurate, but it nevertheless stirred Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser into action.

In a show of support for his Syrian allies, he ordered Egyptian forces to advance into the Sinai Peninsula, where they expelled a   United Nations peacekeeping force that had been guarding the border with Israel for over a decade.

MIDEAST TENSIONS ESCALATE

In the days that followed, Nasser continued to rattle the saber: On May 22, he banned Israeli shipping from the Straits of Tiran, the sea passage connecting the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba. A week later, he sealed a defense pact with King Hussein   of Jordan.

As the situation in the Middle East deteriorated, American President   Lyndon B. Johnson   cautioned both sides against firing the first shot and attempted to garner support for an international maritime operation to reopen the Straits of Tiran.

The plan never materialized, however, and by early June 1967, Israeli leaders had voted to counter the Arab military buildup by launching a preemptive strike.

SIX-DAY WAR ERUPTS

On June 5, 1967, the Israel Defense Forces initiated Operation Focus, a coordinated aerial attack on Egypt. That morning, some 200 aircraft took off from Israel and swooped west over the Mediterranean before converging on Egypt from the north.

After catching the Egyptians by surprise, they assaulted 18 different airfields and eliminated roughly 90 percent of the Egyptian air force as it sat on the ground. Israel then expanded the range of its attack and decimated the air forces of Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

By the end of the day on June 5, Israeli pilots had won full control of the skies over the Middle East.

Israel all but secured victory by establishing air superiority, but fierce fighting continued for several more days. The ground war in Egypt began on June 5. In concert with the air strikes, Israeli tanks and infantry stormed across the border and into the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip.

Egyptian forces put up a spirited resistance, but later fell into disarray after Field Marshal Abdel Hakim Amer ordered a general retreat. Over the next several days, Israeli forces pursued the routed Egyptians across the Sinai, inflicting severe casualties.

A second front in the Six-Day War opened on June 5, when Jordan – reacting to false reports of an Egyptian victory – began shelling Israeli positions in   Jerusalem . Israel responded with a devastating counterattack on East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

On June 7, Israeli troops captured the Old City of Jerusalem and celebrated by praying at the Western Wall.

ISRAEL CELEBRATES VICTORY

The last phase of the fighting took place along Israel’s northeastern border with Syria. On June 9, following an intense aerial bombardment, Israeli tanks and infantry advanced on a heavily fortified region of Syria called the Golan Heights. They successfully captured the Golan the next day.

On June 10, 1967, a United Nations-brokered ceasefire took effect and the Six-Day War came to an abrupt end. It was later estimated that some 20,000 Arabs and 800 Israelis had died in just 132 hours of fighting.

The leaders of the Arab states were left shocked by the severity of their defeat. Egyptian President Nasser even resigned in disgrace, only to promptly return to office after Egyptian citizens showed their support with massive street demonstrations.

In Israel, the national mood was jubilant. In less than a week, the young nation had captured the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

LEGACY OF THE SIX-DAY WAR

The Six-Day War had momentous geopolitical consequences in the Middle East. Victory in the war led to a surge of national pride in Israel, which had tripled in size, but it also fanned the flames of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Still wounded by their defeat in the Six-Day War, Arab leaders met in Khartoum, Sudan, in August 1967, and signed a resolution that promised “no peace, no recognition and no negotiation” with Israel.

Led by Egypt and Syria, the Arab states later launched a fourth major conflict with Israel during 1973’s   Yom Kippur War .

By claiming the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the state of Israel also absorbed over one million Palestinian Arabs. Several hundred thousand Palestinians later fled Israeli rule, worsening a refugee crisis that had begun during the First Arab-Israeli War in 1948 and laying the groundwork for ongoing political turmoil and violence.

Since 1967, the lands Israel seized in the Six-Day War have been at the center of efforts to end the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1982 as part of a peace treaty and then withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, but it has continued to occupy and settle other territory claimed in the Six-Day War, most notably the Golan Heights and the West Bank. The status of these territories continues to be a stumbling block in Arab-Israeli peace negotiations.

That so called "preemptive strike" was in reality one of the first attempts at Arab propaganda. They were by no means sitting around, minding their own business. They were set to strike Israel and invade.

Their problem was, Israel was quicker on the draw.

The October 1973 Yom Kippur war was arguably a bigger stun to the Arab world when Israel was "caught with their pants down" when massive numbers of Mechanized units, artillery, infantry, Air Forces, etc. attacked on a Holy day. 

Israel had next to nothing in place.

Within about 72 hours Israeli forces began to turn the tables even though after troop build up, where outnumbered 7 or 8 to 1 vs the Syrian forces.

It was bad.

The Syrians launched one last offensive to take the Golan, which had been won by Israel in the 6 day war, back and thanks to folks like Col Kahalani, Israel stopped a vastly greater force of Syrian tanks at a place that became known as the Valley of Tears. Look it up.

Col Kahalani finished that battle with 4 or 5 remaining operational tanks. Hundreds of Syrian tanks ran at that point in time. 

Short take, anyone over there or over here who thinks they can tell or demand what Israel can and can not do with that land, is delusional.

Yet Israel has made offers. The Arabs have consistently found a way to fail at getting their 2 state solution.

Their solution is a 1 state solution. The one where Israel is pushed in to the sea.

I didn't know Israel was on trial and adherence to International Agreements was the topic here.

You MADE it the topic of this discussion Buzz. You just posted a plethora of information about International Agreements that you claim are still in effect. Funny that the Israeli government didn't make that argument to the court. 

When you can establish the absolute perfection of your own country, or in fact ANY country in the world, please come back and put Israel on trial.

A country need not reach 'absolute perfection' before it can and should be held to the international agreements that is signs onto.

It's quite hypocritical to cite dated International agreements to defend Israel's action but then to ignore the FACT that Israel is violating International agreements to which their government is a signatory.  

Israel has as much right to build settlements in Judea and Samaria as you have to build a house in the USA.

thenewstalkers

Okay then. I will pay attention to that. Please provide a list of the agreements Israel is bound to that it has violated. Don't bother listing the Oslo Accords.  The Palestinians walked away from them before.

By the way, the League of Nations Mandates are NOT abrogated by the United Nations.

I think we can conclude that Israel's Interior Minister, Aryeh Deri nailed it when he said "I approved her request as a gesture of goodwill on a humanitarian basis, but it was just a provocative request, aimed at bashing the State of Israel. Apparently her hate for Israel overcomes her love for her grandmother."

I also think it's time we all admit the obvious - Tlaib represents a radical Palestinian fringe group, rather than the 13th District of Michigan.

"I also think it's time we all admit the obvious - Tlaib represents a radical Palestinian fringe group, rather than the 13th District of Michigan."

Absolutely.  When she won the election, she wrapped herself in a Palestinian flag.  Just look at my comment below:

Dear Brother Dave: Its a great point you raised here. 

In the case of soda stream, Jewish Israeli's opened a plant to manufacture a beverage product.

They opened it is the liberated territory of the west bank.

They hired locally.

This brought good paying stable jobs with comprehensive benefits to area residents. 

BDS and its allies boycotted this firm.

Thus depriving those living in the West Bank from earning a good living for their families and selves.

The best way to make peace is to make peace.

Hurting your own, whether economically, or using them a human shields in combat started by terrorist acts shows what is really going on here. 

By the way, where is the International Court of Law when terrorists use as human shields to protect themselves after they murder others?

Isn't that the very definition of a crime against humanity?

Best to let all people in the area find ways to live together in peace and prosperity.

Peace and Abundant Blessings To All.

Enoch.

Dear Brother Dave: Superb example.

Right on the money.

The intent was there and glaringly obvious.

P&AB.

Enoch.

Besides the fact that armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria were amassed on the border with Israel prepared to strike...  Israel launched the first attack of bombing Egypt's Air force, but Egypt provided a prior casus belli by blocking the Straits of Tiran (an illegal act according to international law).

Casus belli legal definition of casus belli - Legal Dictionary

https:// legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com / casus+belli

Casus Belli . [Latin, Cause of war.] A term used in International Law to describe an event or occurrence giving rise to or justifying war.

That made the Six Day War a Defensive War, and lands conquered in a defensive war belong to the victor.

Please provide a list of the agreements Israel is bound to that it has violated.

Your question tells me that you didn't read the link I provided. The international agreements that Israel violated are listed there. 

I always thought an agreement had to be signed, or else adhered to in some way to indicate its acceptance, but then, after all, I only have that opinion because of my profession.  I do not read Mondoweiss, nor do I read Der Stormer since I would expect the same opinions from both.  As for the Six Day War?  Ever heard of Casus Belli?  I think some border violations were pointed out elsewhere in these comments, and besides, if Israel's preemptive strike against Egypt was considered to be the start of a war against Egypt, Israel gave back the conquered Sinai to Egypt. Jordan and Syria struck Israel BEFORE Israel retaliated against them, and therefore there is NO ARGUMENT that Israel's conquest of THEIR lands were by means of defensive wars and therefor to the victor go the spoils. That may be contrary to the opinions of Mondoweiss, Der Stormer, Al Jazeera, Al Arabya and Veterans Today, which you would rather prefer. 

I always thought an agreement had to be signed, or else adhered to in some way to indicate its acceptance, but then, after all, I only have that opinion because of my profession. 

It's ironic that you would say that after posting a plethora of international agreements which Israel is NOT a signatory to. 

I do not read Mondoweiss, nor do I read Der Stormer since I would expect the same opinions from both.

WTF is your point Buzz. MY link has nothing to do with either...

As for the Six Day War? Ever heard of Casus Belli?

Blah, blah, blah...

You seem to be mixing my comments with other member's Buzz. Try to keep up. 

If you're going to respond to me, how about canning the deflection and addressing the content of the link that I posted. 

No, Dulay, I'm not going to waste my time, because it should be pretty obvious to you what side of this issue I'm on, and which side of it you're on, and neither of us is going to convince the other of anything.  So I'm through with you on this issue. Let's continue to be civil with each other and give it up. 

No, Dulay, I'm not going to waste my time, because it should be pretty obvious to you what side of this issue I'm on, and which side of it you're on, and neither of us is going to convince the other of anything. 

The link that I posted isn't MY opinion, it's the ruling of the International Court. 

So I'm through with you on this issue.

Actually Buzz, you didn't even start. You refuse to address anything that other members contribute yet you bloviate at will. 

Let's continue to be civil with each other and give it up. 

No worries but I will continue to post facts. 

Thank you and good example Enoch.

Another "cut off the nose to spite the face" on the part of those who refuse peace.

Thank you again Enoch.

Yet the same intent remains with the shift to the propaganda war.

Besides the fact that armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria were amassed on the border with Israel prepared to strike...  Israel launched the first attack of bombing Egypt's Air force, but Egypt provided a prior casus belli by blocking the Straits of Tiran (an illegal act according to international law).

Casus belli legal definition of casus belli - Legal Dictionary

https:// legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com / casus+belli

Casus Belli . [Latin, Cause of war.] A term used in International Law to describe an event or occurrence giving rise to or justifying war.

That made the Six Day War a Defensive War, and lands conquered in a defensive war belong to the victor.

It is true I did not include the blocking of the straights of Tiran. Didn't think I needed to, but it does build a stronger case.

IMO, to call the attack Israel launched on the buildup by the surrounding aggressors an act of unmitigated aggression would be like calling a "preemptive" strike by the Poles on the Nazi's a an attack on innocent bystanders.

Under Israeli law, Israel was more than justified in denying entry to these women.

Under US law the Congresswoman are more than justified to voice their opinion on that decision. 

That the women chose to make it a huge issue is all on them--just riling up their base.

Trump is the one that made a 'huge issue' out of it and his lap dog, Netanyahu, did his bidding.  

BDS and its allies boycotted this firm.

Thus depriving those living in the West Bank from earning a good living for their families and selves.

The best way to make peace is to make peace.

It's self-preservation.

Peace and prosperity are the poison that will bring about the death of BDS.  Prosperous people don't protest.  They have no need or patience for organizations that foment discord, disrupting the very peace and prosperity they have finally achieved.

Trump DID make an issue of it--after the women refused to join a bi-partisan delegation that was scheduled to visit.

So when you said: 

That the women chose to make it a huge issue is all on them--just riling up their base.

It was bullshit. Got ya...

ole Benji boy attempting to appease our tweeter in chief

while our tweeter in chief pleases his little Putin

WTF happened ...

I think it might actually be weakness to deny them entry. Show the world they don't intimidate you and let them go where they will, saying what they want. Chances are, they will only embarrass themselves and reveal their true colors anyway.

I think I answered that already. It was a no-win situation for Israel, and IMO they made the right choice.

This is exactly what they were wishing for.  

Now they can spew more anti Israel rhetoric.

It will be SOSDD for "the squad."

It is a good idea to keep troublemakers out of your country

Just pointing out that swooning over Israel is not a requirement and expressing your religious views is not a crime. While I do not support these two's criticism of Israel, I do respect their right to do so. 

As to trump once again, acting like a baby and throwing another fit? Same shit, different day. 

Just pointing out that swooning over Israel is not a requirement and expressing your religious views is not a crime. While I do not support these two's criticism of Israel, I do respect their right to do so. 

No-one is swooning over Israel, nor is anyone suppressing the congresswomen's rights to express their views.

They do not have the right to spew hatred towards any religion that is not their own. They wouldn't stand for anyone freely voicing hatred towards their religion, would they?

I would also point out that after the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting, the local Muslim mosque donated more money to the victims families than any other group. 

LOL.  It's not hard to determine the bias exhibited by EVERYONE on this article (or is this statement going to be deleted as well?)

From ISRAPUNDIT

Why ZOA supports the banning from Israel of Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib

According to the news this morning, Israel is reversing its decision and will let them enter.  I hope the PM is prepared for the tantrum Trump will unleash via twitter.  How dare they defy El Trumpo.

Israel is reversing its decision and will let them enter.

From what I understood, Israel only rescinded the ban on Tlaib in an humanitarian gesture to allow her to visit her ailing Grandmother, but, it was not rescinded for Omar. 

A few years ago there was a lot of contraversity about the Prime Minister of Israel addressing the U S Congress,  some did not want that to happen 

"Huge congrats to Rashida Tlaib, whose bigotry and unparalleled political skills have joined forces to explode her grievance narrative, shift the PR battle back into Israel’s favor & gratuitously shun her own grandmother"......Guy Benson

Guy you said it better than I could have.

This whole thing has turned into a big circus. Israel issues a Ban on the two women. Then Tlaib sends a letter pleading to be able to go to Palestine to see her sick Grandmother as it may be the last time she will be able to see her.

Then Israel rescinded the ban to allow Tlaib permission to travel to Israel to visit her Grandmother in a humanitarian gesture.

Then Tlaib says she will NOT go to Israel after being allowed to do so to visit her Grandmother.

msn

This is truly a total circus at this point. 

JMOO

Tlaibs "Greatest Self Gratification Show on Earth" !

I suppose just an 18% approval rating, really pisses her off !

She's going for 2% now.

"This is truly a total circus at this point."

That's exactly what she wanted it to be - she could not get better publicity even if she wrapped herself in a Palestinian flag when she won the election.......oh, she DID?  That's so "American" of her.

What Congress people on both sides need to learn, is that they need to leave their personal grudges at home when representing our government, be it here in America or other countries.

These two women are good examples of how interjecting their personal grudges into their representation of our country can be a detriment not only to themselves, but, to our country as well.

Being elected into the Congress of America does not give one carte blanche to bring their personal feelings toward another country into how they represent America. That they can't play out their personal grudges just because they have been elected to our government.

This is a very important lesson these two Congresswomen are finding out the hard way. 

JMOO

Being elected into the Congress of America does not give one carte blanche to bring their personal feelings toward another country into how they represent America. That they can't play out their personal grudges just because they have been elected to our government.

Yet pro-Israeli Congressmen are allowed, even encouraged to voice those opinions here and in other countries. Why the distinction? 

They're not just voicing their opinions. Or have you not noticed the difference. There is a difference in how they are presenting their opinions and how they are being played out in the game of world affairs.

They're not just voicing their opinions. Or have you not noticed the difference. There is a difference in how they are presenting their opinions and how they are being played out in the game of world affairs.

Other that a difference of opinion, what 'difference' are you talking about? I've seen them 'presenting their opinions' verbally and in writing? I've seen pro-Israel Congressmen do the same and they've managed to use US taxpayer funds to subsidize the Israeli government for decades. 

To me....me....the difference is how they are voicing their opinions. Are they voicing them merely as opinions, or as accusations? Are they merely voicing them as opinions, or as calling for the extermination of another group of people?

Such as: "I don't think that person seems to be as honest as they pretend to be.

Or: "That person is not worthy to be alive and all their people should be exterminated.

Note...I am only presenting these comparisons to demonstrate what I meant by "difference". It is not aimed in any way toward anyone or any group of people. I hope that is understood.

As I said, this is the difference as it applies to my thinking. 

Are they voicing them merely as opinions, or as accusations?

Those aren't mutually exclusive. If they are citing facts, they're entitled to include accusations in their opinions. 

Are they merely voicing them as opinions, or as calling for the extermination of another group of people?

I haven't heard anything like that coming from them. Have you? 

IMHO, they have a POLITICAL difference of opinion. It amazes me that Trump can say whatever the fuck he wants and people blow it off and these Congresswomen are criticized for every word they say. Compare the alleged 'anti-Semitic' trope from Omar that caused such and uproar and today's statement from Trump that any Jew that votes for a Democrat is disloyal. 

Those aren't mutually exclusive. If they are citing facts, they're entitled to include accusations in their opinions.

True, they can state their opinion with any facts they have. However, expressing an accusation without any facts to verify the accusation is another thing. 

But, as I said, I was expressing my own opinion and the differences as I see them. You may have a different POV.

IMHO, they have a POLITICAL difference of opinion. It amazes me that Trump can say whatever the fuck he wants and people blow it off and these Congresswomen are criticized for every word they say. Compare the alleged 'anti-Semitic' trope from Omar that caused such and uproar and today's statement from Trump that any Jew that votes for a Democrat is disloyal.

I totally agree with you on this part of your comment. 

But yet you seem to not have a problem with personal feelings when dealing with Muslim countries though.....sounds hypocritical to me

sounds hypocritical to me

Sorry that you see it that way. And I am not sure how you think I was talking about my personal feelings in that comment.

I was not at all talking about me, or my personal feelings. I was talking about the personal feelings of those who are elected to our American Congress who are supposed to represent ALL those who voted for them, not just those of the same ethnic group or belief, but, ALL of those who gave their vote to put them in Congress. 

And no....I do not have a problem with the Jewish or Muslims, or any other people of another country or ethnicity. 

We are all one people, we are all human being. No one of us is better or lesser that any other people. There is good and bad in all people no matter what their skin color, religious beliefs, or where they come from.