Israel bans entry to outspoken U.S. congresswomen
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In this Feb. 5, 2019 file photo, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., left, joined at right by Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., listen to U.S. President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech, at the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
JERUSALEM -- Israel said Thursday that it will bar two Democratic congresswomen from entering the country ahead of a planned visit over their support for a Palestinian-led boycott movement, a decision announced shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted that it would "show great weakness" to allow them in.
The move to bar Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota from visiting the close American ally appeared to be unprecedented, and marked a deep foray by Israel into America's bitterly polarized politics. It is also a sharp escalation of Israel's campaign against the international boycott movement.
Interior Minister Aryeh Deri issued a statement saying that after consultations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials he decided not to allow Tlaib and Omar to enter because of "their boycott activities against Israel."
The two newly-elected Muslim members of Congress are outspoken critics of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Tlaib's family immigrated to the United States from the West Bank. Deri said Israel would consider any request from Tlaib to visit relatives on humanitarian grounds.
Shortly before the decision was announced, Trump had tweeted that "it would show great weakness" if Israel allowed them to visit. "They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds." He went on to call the two congresswomen "a disgrace."
Israel has sought to combat the BDS movement, which advocates boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israeli businesses, universities and cultural institutions. The country passed a law permitting a ban on entry to any activist who "knowingly issues a call for boycotting Israel."
Last month, Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer had said Israel would not deny entry to any member of Congress.
The interior minister's statement said "the state of Israel respects the American Congress, in the framework of the close alliance between the two countries, but it's unacceptable to allow the entrance to the country of those who wish to harm the state of Israel, especially during their visit."
Supporters of the boycott movement say it is a non-violent way to protest Israeli policies and call for Palestinian rights. Critics say the movement aims to delegitimize Israel and ultimately erase it from the map, replacing it with a binational state.
Israel often hosts delegations of U.S. representatives and senators, who usually meet with senior Israeli officials as well as Palestinian officials in the occupied West Bank.
MIFTAH, the Palestinian organization that was set to host Tlaib and Omar in the West Bank, issued a statement saying that Israel's decision was "an affront to the American people and their representatives" and "an assault on the Palestinian people's right to reach out to decision-makers and other actors from around the world."
It was not immediately clear if the two congresswomen had planned on meeting with Israeli officials during their visit. Their spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The decision to ban the congresswomen could further sharpen divisions among U.S. Democrats over Israel ahead of the 2020 elections. Republicans have amplified the views of left-wing Democrats like Tlaib and Omar to present the party as deeply divided and at odds with Israel. Democratic leaders have pushed back, reiterating the party's strong support for Israel, in part to protect representatives from more conservative districts.
In July, the Democratic-led House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favour of a resolution against the BDS movement.
Tlaib and Omar have also been the target of repeated attacks by President Donald Trump in recent months, including a series of racist tweets on July 14 in which he said they should "go back" to the "broken" countries they came from. Both are U.S. citizens and Tlaib was born in the United States. The two are members of the so-called "Squad" of newly-elected left-wing Democrats, along with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts.
American Jewish organizations had objected to barring the two Democrats from entering the country. The American Jewish Congress said that despite Omar and Tlaib's planned "propaganda exercise," it believed that "the costs in the U.S. of barring the entry of two members of Congress may prove even higher than the alternative."
Politicians and former diplomats also spoke out against barring the congresswomen from visiting.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro wrote on Twitter that the decision to bar their entry "harms Israel's standing in the U.S., boosts BDS."
Israeli lawmaker Ayman Odeh, leader of the Joint List of Arab parties, criticized the move, writing that "Israel has always banned Palestinians from their land and separated us from other Palestinians, but this time the Palestinian is a U.S. Congresswoman."
Arthur Lenk, formerly Israel's ambassador to South Africa, said barring Omar and Tlaib "would be sinking us deeper into U.S. domestic political quagmire."
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
451 visitors
I wonder if they're surprised.
More ...
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.
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.
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.
Wait... Are you seriously trying to say that Israel is not allowing these congresswomen's 1st Amendment rights?
@1.2.5
removed for context.
Oh snap!!!!!!
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
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.
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 !
That's as far as I read before you went off on a Trump rant.
I agree.
Couldn't have happened to two "nicer" people!
LOL!
These bitches are only going there for photo ops defaming Israel and getting cozy with the soldiers of Hamas, who hide behind women and children.
Those two will be screaming "Racism" and "Bigotry" and "Anti-Semitic" shit soon !
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.
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.
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.
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.
Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank are not allowed to vote so that might be an issue...
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.
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 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]
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.
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.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
"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.
[2] Jacques Gauthier, Thesis Defense,
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.
[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.
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.
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
Casus Belli . [Latin, Cause of war.] A term used in International Law to describe an event or occurrence giving rise to or justifying war.
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.
I suppose a preemptive strike isn't consider starting a war?
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.
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.
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:
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.
That excerpt is leaving out some details:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is it hypocritical for a Congresswoman to request entry into Israel, despite her knowing Israeli law forbids it because of her stance on BDS, have Israel deny her entry, her sign a letter asking for entry on humanitarian grounds to visit her grandmother, have Israel grant that entry, and then she turned it down.
Sounds pretty damn hypocritical to me!!!
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.
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.
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.
It's ironic that you would say that after posting a plethora of international agreements which Israel is NOT a signatory to.
WTF is your point Buzz. MY link has nothing to do with either...
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.
The link that I posted isn't MY opinion, it's the ruling of the International Court.
Actually Buzz, you didn't even start. You refuse to address anything that other members contribute yet you bloviate at will.
No worries but I will continue to post facts.
Under Israeli law, Israel was more than justified in denying entry to these women.
That the women chose to make it a huge issue is all on them--just riling up their base.
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.
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 US law the Congresswoman are more than justified to voice their opinion on that decision.
Trump is the one that made a 'huge issue' out of it and his lap dog, Netanyahu, did his bidding.
Yes, and I haven't ever said otherwise. They are completely free here to express whatever fucked-up opinion they have.
Trump DID make an issue of it--after the women refused to join a bi-partisan delegation that was scheduled to visit.
So I think they made it an issue as well, especially after one said that she desperately wanted to see her grandmother, was granted permission, then went back and refused to go. I have zero sympathy for them.
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.
Nice attempt, but probably a fruitless endeavor.
So when you said:
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 ...
Looks like Israel decided it didn't need to let people who hate them into their country.
Problem?
No problem at all, the next Dem POTUS can cancel the 10 billion a year we give them in handouts.
Problem?
Problem?
Not at ALL.
LOVE to see another Democratic politician commit political suicide!
Bring it ON!!!
BTFW, do you know that Congress appropriates money, not the President--even a Democratic one?
UNBELIEVABLE EXAGGERATION ON YOUR PART MISTER FROST. Israel gets somewhat over 3 billion dollars a year in MILITARY AID much of which is spent back in the USA keeping American jobs and industry viable. Joint development of military equipment such as anti-missile systems is part of that, or since Russia and Iran are preparing to wipe the USA off the map, are you unhappy with Israel's contribution to the defence of the USA? The extent of your exaggeration of that does say something about YOU, MISTER FROST.
@5.1.3
You'll just have to excuse it. [Deleted]
Maybe he read it on Mondoweiss or Veterans Today.
I said nothing about military aid BUZZ.
Since that's the only aid Israel gets from the USA, what other aid did you mean?
LOL. Cat got your tongue, MISTER Frost?
Okay, MISTER Frost, I guess you're sleeping on it in order to come up with an answer.
Over denying entry of two anti-Semitic Congresswomen? No Hate or anti-semitism here. /s
Isn't it sad that they expect Israel to disregard its own laws to placate a couple of freshmen Congresspersons?
[Deleted]
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.
Yes, they have every right to criticize anything under the sun.
Unfortunately for them, their right to do so doesn't include doing it in Israel.
Aw, too bad.
They were in Israel when they were criticizing Israel? You sure? Pretty sure you're wrong.
You are correct. He is not, as usual.
@10.1.1
No, Mr. Frost, the women were NOT IN ISRAEL.
No one said or implied that they were.
Where in the hell do you GET this crap?
from the same sources that told you Fox was banned in Canada and the UK?
Here:
The women are Americans. They are in America. They are critical of Israel. They have that right.
Israel decided they weren't going to being criticizing Israel IN Israel.
Hence, the women's right to criticize Israel is NOT being allowed IN Israel.
Get it now?
LOL. Look at how he and his [Deleted] JUMPED at the opportunity to totally misinterpret what you said in an unsuccessful attempt to embarrass you for YOUR CORRECT understanding and use of the English language.
@10.1.4
Gee, you don't think that someone would deliberately misinterpret my post in order to argue something no one stated, do you?
Naw……….……..
/s!
@10.1.4
Removed for context
I like it!
[Deleted]
No--it is just being intellectually dishonest and lazy.,
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.
[delete]
deleted for context by Charger 383
@11.1.1
You keep stretching far enough and eventually you might make some valid, reasonable point.
[Deleted]
The Pittsburg shooting and what occurred in the aftermath really doesn't have a damn thing to do with Israel barring a couple of haters.
deleted for context
deleted for context by Charger 383
Oh? So please advise what other financial aid Israel gets, and how much, or did Mondoweiss or Veterans Today not explain it?
[Deleted]
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
ZOA PRESS RELEASE
Earlier today, we published two press releases, one in support of Israel’s decision to refuse entry of Israelophobic and anti-Semitic Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, and another emphasizing that no nation –– including Israel –– shall be required to admit persons who seek to destroy or harm the host country.
Did you see anyone else proudly and publicly stand with Israel today? ZOA is not afraid to speak the truth:
ii) PLO Executive Committee member, propagandist and terror supporter Hanan Ashrawi ; and
iii) Co-founder and leader of the antisemitic anti-Israel international boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement to delegitimize and economically destroy Israel, Omar Barghouti .
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.
Tlaib has chosen not to go--even though she earlier claimed it was her "last chance" to visit her grandmother.
Guess that wasn't so important to her after all.
Seems like a whole lot of whining over NOTHING.
The deal is that Israel said Tlaib could enter, and now she chooses not to.
I don't give a fuck what else SHE has to say about it--she has proven herself to be a disingenuous liar.
So much for the "Grandma" cry fest the media pushed, and "Grandma" herself !
Tlaib is probably just pandering to her base.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Those aren't mutually exclusive. If they are citing facts, they're entitled to include accusations in their opinions.
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.
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.
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
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.