The Unz Review - Mobile

The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection

A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Philip Giraldi Archive
When Is Sovereignty Not Sovereignty?
The Golden Age of Newspeak

Email This Page to Someone


 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_136470602

Harvard Professor Stephen Walt has described the current contretemps over Ukraine as “geostrategic incompetence of the highest order” on the part of the White House. Seconding that I would add that the central problem with the Obama foreign policy, guided as it is by a bundle of poorly defined principles, is that it has no coherency. Moscow is claiming that it has intervened in Crimea, for the most part peacefully and with the overwhelming support of the local population, because it has a responsibility to protect Russian nationals living among its neighbors and also because its national security is threatened. All of that may or may not actually be true, but the argument has a certain plausibility in that one of Russia’s major naval bases is in Crimea while the population is largely Russophone and identifies as ethnically Russian. The jubilant crowds celebrating the referendum that overwhelmingly approved reunion with Russia should give pause to those insisting that the process was somehow coerced.

From Moscow’s point of view the new government in Kiev might reasonably be regarded as a US puppet which will not be heedful of Russian interests. The “Nuland tapes” revealing a phone conversation between senior State Department official and noted neocon Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt describing how Washington would form the new government suggests that Moscow’s assessment is likely correct, that the American policy both was and is geared towards moving Ukraine away from Russia and towards Western Europe. Why the United States should feel compelled to do that is not at all clear as the Cold War ended in 1991 and Russia has generally been a responsible player on the world stage since Putin gained power.

The lack of coherency surfaces because the United States has itself recently abused the “national security” argument to prolong its unhappy stay in Afghanistan, to threaten Iran and to justify an aborted plan to bomb Syria, all nations that are many thousands of miles away from the continental US and which would hardly seem to endanger anyone apart from their own citizens.

The US vice-president, Joe Biden, speaking during a recent visit to Poland and the Baltic states aimed at reassuring Russia’s neighbors, said that Russia stands “naked before the world” and is guilty of international aggression. But Biden’s effusions aside, Moscow can at least claim that Ukraine is of critical importance because it is on Russia’s doorstep. Indeed, if intervention in another country to reorder its politics under the pretext of strengthening one’s own security is a standard to judge by then the United States under Bush and Obama has been a serial offender while Putin’s Russia has been relatively peace loving. The difference between Washington and Moscow is that the former seeks to maintain global dominance while Russia pretty much operates within its own local zone of influence.

Washington’s hypocrisy is also on full display when it denounces the largely peaceful separation of Crimea from Ukraine while ignoring its own support of separation of Kosovo from Serbia in 1999 after a prolonged bombing campaign. The US military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the forty-six year domination of the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem by Israel are arguably much more brutal than anything occurring in Crimea. Russia can claim that Crimea was actually part of Russia prior to 1954, while the Israelis’ historical claim is shrouded in antiquity and requires a leap of faith to be considered credible. Washington’s nation building role in the Balkans and Asia has even less justification than either, apart from the desire to continue to be kingmaker in what have been sometimes regarded as client states.

Unlike Israel, Russia is not dispossessing the existing inhabitants of Crimea and planting colonies on the occupied land, nor has it been maintaining its extraterritorial presence by using drones to kill suspected militants American-style. Israel has also within its pre-1948 borders institutionalized various degrees of citizen status based on religion for the local Arab population that it did not succeed in forcing to leave while all Russian citizens are legally the same. Palestinians on the West Bank have no rights at all and the Israelis have never allowed a referendum to determine whom they wish to be ruled by. So if Washington truly stands for what passes for international law and “American values” where are the sanctions on Israel and its leading politicians and why haven’t American politicians themselves been regularly appearing before the International Criminal Court in the Hague?

Washington also claims that it is defending Ukrainian sovereignty even though it worked hard to overthrow the country’s government, just as it had been meddling in places like Egypt and Russia itself before the respective governments got wise and expelled the so-called democracy promoters. When the national security appeal fails or is not convincing it is always possible to claim that one is spreading democracy, which is surely a good thing. Or is it? Consider for a moment what it actually amounts to in many cases. It means sending in teams of Americans to train local people in how to organize and act politically. That translates into setting up and supporting groups that are opposed to the government, and that is exactly how many foreigners see it and why there are so many claims that the US is interfering in local politics.

Imagine for a moment how Mr. Obama would have reacted in 2012 if the Russian government were sending over advisers to educate American voters on what would have been needed to bring about a change of government in the United States. Impossible, right? But that is precisely what the United States does overseas through its National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and associated groups, which are allegedly “Non-government organizations” or NGOs but which are in fact largely funded by Congress. Sending in a bunch of NEDers, which has been described as doing openly what the CIA did covertly back in the 50’s and 60’s, is usually the first step in the process to destabilize the local government.

The Republican branch of NED, the International Republican Institute, is headed by John McCain and the Democratic version the National Democratic Institute is headed by Madeleine Albright, two outstanding examples of American interventionism. Well-funded efforts to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria and encouraging “democrats” in places like Iran continue. Within recent memory Washington has succeeded in actually replacing governments in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, nations that most of the world then considered to be sovereign for all their faults, leading to concerns that the US is intending to advance the neocon strategy for regime change in a large number of Muslim countries.

National legitimacy or statehood is not enshrined in international law and is generally considered to be conferred de facto when a substantial number of other countries recognize the new nation, so if other governments recognize that Crimea is now part of Russia it will actually become so in the real world. Many countries have embassies in Israel but no one, not even the United States, recognizes its annexation of all of Jerusalem and much of the West Bank. Few countries now think that the US invasion of Iraq was either justified or legal given the fact that self-serving lies were employed to make the case. So sovereignty and legitimacy are tricky things that depends very much on the eye of the beholder.

And then there is the usual inside the beltway hypocrisy about the Palestinians. Even though Palestine is recognized as a state by 134 United Nations General Assembly members, it is not considered to be so by Washington, as that status is regarded as subject to Israel’s eventual approval, which might never take place. So the White House does not recognize a country that nearly the entire world accepts in Palestine while supporting a regime in Ukraine whose former government it subverted. It is also simultaneously denying peaceful self-determination to Crimea while supporting a violent version in Kosovo and invading and setting up puppet governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Confusing, isn’t it? And hardly coherent.

The other sitting on the shelf and “available for use” hook to permit intervention without calling it intervention is the “responsibility to protect,” which has become increasingly popular with the Obamaites because they are, after all, former community organizers with a great love for the common man. When Samantha Power talks about “protecting” at the UN she always looks like she is about to cry and it’s impossible to be more empathetic than that. To use the acronym, R2P means that if one suspects that a government is somehow killing its own people the United States has a moral responsibility to get involved. This was exploited to bring about regime change in Libya and has been most recently applied to Syria, though the US public somehow did not buy into the latter argument as both sides were clearly involved in the massacres. R2P does not, however, apply to anyone on a White House kill list or who is otherwise on the receiving end of an American drone because that is considered “constabulary action.”

So it is clear that one needs a dictionary and a thesaurus to try to figure out Obama foreign policy because commonly used words have lost their meaning. If one listens to the White House press spokesman, the United States no longer invades anywhere, just as the global war on terror has now become overseas contingency operations. Washington stands for international law, supporting national sovereignty and universal democracy. It is against any government’s killing of its own citizens. It all sounds good but in reality the US government doesn’t actually stand for any of those things and is adept at using language to misrepresent actions that in another place or time would have been considered reprehensible if carried out openly. George Orwell called in “newspeak.”

 
Of Related Interest
shutterstock_230565646
Who shot down MH-17? Somebody knows
Putin and Obama
Putin versus Obama
Russia vs US
Baiting Russia is not good policy

40 Comments to "When Is Sovereignty Not Sovereignty?"

Commenters to Ignore
Agrees/Disagrees/LOLs Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. The Obama regime’s “foreign policy” would be confused at best. Given the Obama’s predilection for drone assassinations and saturation bombing campaigns (intervention Libya), the regime stands alone as our world’s foremost threat to global security.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Another billion voted quickly to prop up a coup government in a faraway place, on top of five billion to make that coup happen.

    But nothing – NOTHING – for the millions of long term under and unemployed Americans here whose economic lives and future have been ruined by the donorists who buy policies to enable them to make more financial killings overseas.

    Dude, where are our jobs?

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. While having no objection to the main thrust of this article I found one phrase rather jarring.

    “The US military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the forty-six year domination of the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem by Israel are arguably much more brutal than anything occurring in Crimea.”

    “Arguably” Phil, really? “Arguably”??

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. You’re right – I should have said “demonstrably”

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. It’s fascinating how almost all the pieces unz.com features about Ukraine/Crimea can’t help mentioning Israel and/or “the Jews” even though these subjects are minimally relevant to Russia’s invasion and subsequent annexation of Ukraine. As for the critical detail that Giraldi conveniently omits, I’ll quote neocon war-monger Nelson Mandela:
    “I understand completely well why Israel occupies these lands. There was a war.”

    Lest I be accused of quoting Mandela out of context, here are two other sentences from the rest of his speech:
    “But if there is going to be peace, there must be complete withdrawal from all of these areas…I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognize Israel, within secure borders”

    I can’t argue with that.

    The US and the international community have responded differently to different occupations depending on the relevant facts – one can also compare and contrast US/international reaction to Morocco’s occupation of the Western Sahara, which, like the West Bank, had been under occupation by a foreign power when its current occupier assumed control.

    Anyway, it’s not a mystery why unz.com continually tries to tie Ukraine/Crimea to Israel/”the Jews,” as Unz demonstrated by publishing this anti-Semitic piece (yesterday’s featured piece) by notorious anti-Semite Israel Shamir:

    http://www.unz.com/article/putins-triumph/

    I also enjoyed this piece by 9/11 truther Eric Margolis, which claims that “the US neocons who have played a key role in engineering the coup in Kiev and this crisis…want to see Russia punished for supporting Syria and the Palestinians.” Yeah, that’s definitely what this is about.

    btw, how do we know Victoria Nuland is a neocon?

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Gosh Nurit I guess the repeated Saudi brokered offer for all the Arab states to recognize Israel within “secure borders” was not serious. Of course, for Israel secure borders mean all of Jerusalem and continuously expanding into most of the West Bank. Funny how you rise to the bait whenever you feel your tribe is being dumped upon and you rarely seem to mention any US national interest. I connect neocons with Ukraine/Russia and with Israel in much of the stuff I write because they are connected. Strange that you can’t see that. Why do you keep coming to this site if you hate what appears on it?

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. I’m glad there are young Palestinians who reject racist ethnic nationalism of their backwards elders and are embracing liberal pluralism: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/world/middleeast/a-divide-among-palestinians-on-a-two-state-solution.html

    Judea Samaria thinks that the two state solution is dead:

    http://www.ejpress.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48468&catid=12

    UN accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing:

    http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/UN-rights-investigator-accuses-Israel-of-ethnic-cleansing-o-346132

    Does Russia have anything to do with Israel? How does Israel feel about Russia and its foreign policy?

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. “btw, how do we know Victoria Nuland is a neocon?”

    The neocon pillow talk with husband Robert Kagan can’t be any more pornographically revealing than that intercepted rant about regime change.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. NB writes:

    “btw, how do we know Victoria Nuland is a neocon?”

    Oh, I don’t know… maybe because she’s married to Robert Kagan, the co-founder of PNAC, the think-tank that pushed hard for the US to invade Iraq?

    So tell us NB, why would someone as well researched as yourself not know this? Or might there be a hidden motive to your innocent question – i.e., to cast doubt on Giraldi’s credibility as you constantly attempt to do?

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Nuland sure has outstanding credentials: “during the George W. Bush administration, she was the U.S. ambassador to NATO, and before that the principal deputy foreign policy advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney.”

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/16/victoria_nuland_to_be_state_department_spokesman

    Robert Kagan is part of the Foreign Policy Initiative which advocates militarism:

    http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Foreign_Policy_Initiative

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. I forgot to note the title of Giraldi’s piece in my original comment: The West Bank was not a sovereign entity prior to its occupation by Israel; Jordan was previously the occupying power. Crimea was part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. This is a significant distinction and is another explanatory factor behind the contrasting US/international reaction to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Russia’s occupation/annexation of Crimea (also compare US/international reaction to Morocco’s occupation of the Western Sahara, Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus, etc).

    Re: Victoria Nuland. Of course I know who her husband is. I fail to see the relevance; after all, James Carville and Mary Matalin are married too. Nuland’s career started in the Clinton administration, so it’s not clear to me why she is being called a neocon. [to be clear, I'm not asserting that she's not a neocon.]

    I don’t have time to respond to Giraldi’s comment at the moment. perhaps tomorrow, or later today I suppose.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. My take on Phil Giraldi is that he isn’t partisan, in the sense of distorting events so that they justify preferred policy. Had he been an analyst, he wouldn’t have been manufacturing or interpreting evidence to distort it so that it could function as manipulative propaganda for war.

    Is there any good reason that countries should be excepted from the expectation that they should behave as normal nations, or that we ought to see that other nations should be allowed to act in the interests of their own people?

    Why is Israel so special that it should be granted a waiver for behavior not allowed to others? Why should our own government leaders demand a dispensation for themselves and favored others from following the laws they insist others must?

    It is of genuine concern that anti-semitic elements have emerged openly in the post-putsch hyper-nationalist Ukraine; it is also true that there are Jewish people who choose to ignore that as unimportant, just as many thought fears of Hitler were overly alarmist in Germany in the early thirties when he gained power. Violence in the streets intended to influence government policy or regime change is defined by many in the west as terrorism, but not this time – too much elite profit is at stake. Too many are willing to overlook danger when they think political strategy for advancing one’s own wealth and power conflict is of greater immediate importance.

    As for Carville/Matalin, that show was remarkable for its man-bites-dog aspect, so clearly an anomaly. As for which administrations she has worked under, as we have seen, the policies of either a Republican or Democratic presidency have been remarkably consistent, not surprising given the narrow range within the political duopoly. Neocons are the propagandists and outward policy face for the donorist special interests who get what they want from either party.

    Little to none of it overlaps the interests of the American people, whose economic plight ought to be the major concern of those they elected. Everything is sacrificed to special interests. “Loyalty earns rewards” from those positioned to give it – the billionaires.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. My take on Phil Giraldi is that he isn’t partisan, in the sense of distorting events so that they justify preferred policy. Had he been an analyst, he wouldn’t have been manufacturing or interpreting evidence to distort it so that it could function as manipulative propaganda for war.

    Is there any good reason that countries should be excepted from the expectation that they should behave as normal nations, or that we ought to see that other nations should be allowed to act in the interests of their own people?

    Why is Israel so special that it should be granted a waiver for behavior not allowed to others? Why should our own government leaders demand a dispensation for themselves and favored others from following the laws they insist others must?

    It is of genuine concern that anti-semitic elements have emerged openly in the post-putsch hyper-nationalist Ukraine; it is also true that there are Jewish people who choose to ignore that as unimportant, just as many thought fears of Hitler were overly alarmist in Germany in the early thirties when he gained power. Violence in the streets intended to influence government policy or regime change is defined by many in the west as terrorism, but not this time – too much elite profit is at stake. Too many are willing to overlook danger when they think political strategy for advancing one’s own wealth and power is of greater immediate importance.

    As for Carville/Matalin, that show was remarkable for its man-bites-dog aspect, so clearly an anomaly. As for which administrations she has worked under, as we have seen, the policies of either a Republican or Democratic presidency have been remarkably consistent, not surprising given the narrow range within the political duopoly. Neocons are the propagandists and outward policy face for the donorist special interests who get what they want from either party.

    Little to none of it overlaps the interests of the American people, whose economic plight ought to be the major concern of those they elected. Everything is sacrificed to special interests. “Loyalty earns rewards” from those positioned to give it – the billionaires.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. NB writes:

    “The West Bank was not a sovereign entity prior to its occupation by Israel; Jordan was previously the occupying power. Crimea was part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. This is a significant distinction and is another explanatory factor behind the contrasting US/international reaction to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Russia’s occupation/annexation of Crimea…”

    In the words of Ronald Reagan, “there you go again!”

    So let me see if I understand your point: because the WB was not a sovereign entity and Crimea was, this “significant distinction” explains the US/int’l reaction to these events? So if the WB had been sovereign for 60 years (since 1954, when Crimea was gifted to Ukraine by the Soviet Union) the US reaction to Israel’s occupation would have been totally different…. right? So are you saying the presence of the Lobby has no influence on the US reaction to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East J, Golan Heights? That this is not the “significant distinction”… that sovereignty is? Boy, was I confused. Glad you came along and sorted that out for us!

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. says: «the critical detail that Giraldi conveniently omits, I’ll quote neocon war-monger Nelson Mandela:

    “I understand completely well why Israel occupies these lands. There was a war.”»

    Me: So? What makes Mandela an expert on war, Israel or (illegal) occupation? Or NB ditto, for that matter? Speaking of “critical detail that Giraldi conveniently omits,” there are two ways of lying, a) by commission and b) by omission.

    I can cite ‘random’ quotes too:

    MLK: “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”

    Me: Balderdash. When people criticise Zionists they are usually (99%, say) actually criticising Zionists’ *acts* = supreme international crimes, say = acts not people; here MLK was outright wrong. NB obviously has some axe to grind, but typical for this topic, deploying more smoke than fire means real themes get obscured = (one supposes) deliberate debating technique failure.

    Neither of the above quotes are meaningful/applicable to the headline article, worse, they are opinions and prove *nothing* – but NB’s does provide a segue into this: Yes there was a war, in fact two applicable here, namely 1948 and 1967. Zs may claim both as ‘defensive’ = more smoke and mirrors = code for lies; 1948 was a *response* to Herzl’s coveting, Jabotinsky’s “Iron Wall” as morphed into perpetual (aggressive) war = theory, then Plan Dalet etc. murdering aggression = practice, and 1967 is widely acknowledged as a war of Z-choice. Quote: “The war began with a large-scale surprise air strike by Israel on Egypt …” accompanied by yet another lie: “… inform immediately the President of the Sec. Co. that Israel is now engaged in repelling Egyptian land and air forces” = contradiction = deliberately deployed deceit, more of ‘typical for this topic’ lies. Those ‘wars’ may be superficial truths – but are used to disguise the fact that a) those wars are properly described by result as episodes of ethnic cleansing by genocidal methods (= ~750,000 + ~300,000 forced to flee = improper land/property alienation, murder for spoil), and b) what is ‘conveniently omitted’ here is that those wars are merely continuations of the underlying prime-problem, namely a) the Z-alien invasion by stealth; immigration partly illegal and wholly undesired by the local natives, and b) that those wars were preceded by Plan Dalet including such outrages as the Dier Yassin massacre = Z’s aggression as cause, plus other outrages before, during and after, right down to the current moment when the risibly named IDF regularly kills ever more natives, all outrages carried out by terrorists = the Zionist *offence* forces – now desperately striving for legitimacy – but ‘No way, José.’

    NB is welcome to his/her opinions but should stay within the bounds of observable, substantiable facts. The Mandela citation cannot stand alone, one must – since NB indicates s/he is aware of context – include the precursor-context, namely alien invasion and aggressive ethnic cleansing by those Z-intruders.

    No worthwhile project needs seek disguise behind lies, but the Z-topic reeks with whoppers from the ‘usual suspects;’ why that?

    It seems to me that NB’s intended ‘payload’ may well be this: That “… Arab states … recognize Israel, within secure borders.”

    Me: The Zs are attempting to violate the natives *inalienable* rights on a permanent basis, having already temporarily done so via various ‘facts on the ground.’ There are two observations that need to be made: a) whatever ‘facts on the ground’ may be made by the intruders, the natives may reverse, and b) *inalienable* gives this point real authority; *absolutely no one* may either take away nor surrender *inalienable* rights, ergo the only way out – other than permanent, aggressive war – is RoR+R*3 = Right of Return + Revest, Reparations and Reconciliation, fully compatible with UNGA194 and its most modern invocation, A/68/L.15 of 19Nov’13. Further, all who benefit from crime should be prosecuted – that’d only be fair.

    PS, to geokat62: Agree; any lobby purchasing influence, let alone acquiring influence via blackmail, is a perverter of democracy, and any so-influenced representative is a traitor to his/her electorate. When the influence is to the advantage of a foreign power, then the representative is a traitor to his/her country as well. When the influence is against the interests of the ‘home’ country, the treachery is doubled – and so it is (mostly = 99%, say), with the Israel Lobby.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. geokat62, I suggested that one compare US/international reaction to Morocco’s occupation of the Western Sahara and to Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus. Based on your reply, apparently you did not do so. The Western Sahara was occupied by Spain prior to Morocco becoming the occupying power, and I’m not aware of any sanctions on Morocco/Western Sahara. Turkey invaded the sovereign nation of Cyprus, and its occupation of Northern Cyprus is subject to sanctions.

    Fran Macadam asks, “Why is Israel so special that it should be granted a waiver for behavior not allowed to others?” Actually, it’s been argued that Morocco’s occupation of the Western Sahara is the one receiving special waivers:

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/eu-holds-contradictory-view-settlements-west-bank-and-western

    I noticed today that you left this comment here claiming that a false flag operation was responsible for the antisemitic comments left on unz.com:

    http://www.unz.com/article/such-a-deal/#comment-68894

    Were you insinuating that I left those comments in order to discredit unz.com?
    Unz.com discredits itself – esp by publishing Israel Shamir, which is an entirely predictable editorial decision from my perspective.

    And obviously the Matalin/Carville marriage is an extreme example, but I certainly know married couples who had different opinions on the Iraq invasion, so just b/c Nuland’s husband is a neocon, that does not imply she is. And the fact that she’s worked for both the Clinton and Obama administrations is significant evidence arguing against the conclusion that she’s a neocon. Giraldi asserted that she is a neocon, so I am asking for the evidence to support his contention.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Giraldi wrote: I guess the repeated Saudi brokered offer for all the Arab states to recognize Israel within “secure borders” was not serious.
    The Arab Peace Initiative was a non-starter for Israel since it called for resolution of right of return based on UNGA Res 194 (whereas UNSC Res 242 is actually binding international law), just as Arafat rejected the 2000 Camp David offer b/c he regarded Israel’s offer to allow 100,000 Palestinian refugees to return to Israel proper as insufficient.

    Of course, for Israel secure borders mean all of Jerusalem and continuously expanding into most of the West Bank.
    That is clearly not the case based on Barak’s offer at the 2000 Camp David Summit.

    Funny how you rise to the bait whenever you feel your tribe is being dumped upon
    Are you denying that Israel Shamir is an anti-Semite and/or that his Putin’s Triumph piece, featured on unz.com, is anti-Semitic?

    and you rarely seem to mention any US national interest.
    I rarely state my opinions and just focus on disputing the “facts” you put forth (or in this case the facts you omitted). However, that’s an interesting accusation in light of the fact that you advised Palestinians to walk away from the peace negotiations and even appeared to call for a Third Intifada:

    http://www.unz.com/article/such-a-deal/

    How would Palestinians walking away from a US-brokered peace proposal (based on mere rumors of what it entails) and greatly escalated violence in Israel/West Bank serve the US national interest?

    Or your description of Hamas and Hezbollah as “groups that are resistance to Israeli occupation. Whether or not they are terrorists is a judgement call and many countries do not consider them to be terrorists.”

    http://www.unz.com/article/a-new-year-just-like-the-old-year/#comment-61454

    If you think that a militant group that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans is not a terrorist group, then I have to wonder how you define the US national interest.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html

    Makes me wonder if your concern is truly the US national interest.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. The pbs article looks like blow back to me. The US should stay out of the fake peace process and stop funding terrorism and blow back against itself. We have to face the fact that what Yahweh promised Christian Zionist has gone unfulfilled. Either Yahweh is displeased, isn’t real, or has undergone entropy and is unable to bless anyone. Who or what must America destroy in order for Yahweh to bless us once again with freedom and prosperity? I’m trying to work with you here.

    The Muslims aren’t the only ones who have committed terrorist attacks against the West:
    “1946, October 31 Bombing of the British Embassy in Rome. Nearly half the building was destroyed and 3 people were injured.”
    “1944, September 27 Unknown number of casualties, around 150 Irgun members attacked four British police stations”
    “1948, March 1 20 Britons killed and 30 wounded in the Bevingrad Officers Club bombing”

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

    “On 12 January 1947, Lehi members drove a truckload of explosives into a British police station in Haifa killing four and injuring 140, in what has been called ‘the world’s first true truck bomb’.

    “On 17 September 1948, Lehi assassinated UN mediator Count Folke Bernadotte.” “The Security Council described the assassination as a “cowardly act which appears to have been committed by a criminal group of terrorists.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29

    “In March 1947 an Irgun operative left a bomb at the Colonial Club, near St Martin’s Lane in the heart of London, which blew out the club’s windows and doors, injuring several servicemen. The following month a female Irgun agent left an enormous bomb, consisting of 24 sticks of explosives, at the Colonial Office in London. The bomb failed to detonate because its timer broke.”

    “Finally, in June 1947, the Stern Gang launched a letter-bomb campaign in Britain, consisting of 21 bombs in total, which targeted every prominent member of the cabinet. The two waves of bombs were posted from an underground cell in Italy.”

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/01/01/how_zionist_extremists_helped_create_britain_s_surveillance_state

    I think there is enough evidence provided that shows that blow back and death await any nation who seeks to intervene militarily in the Middle East, or support any group in the Middle East. There is no divine blessing. Only death and destruction awaits.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. NB writes:

    “Makes me wonder if your concern is truly the US national interest.”

    Before responding to this nasty remark, just some background on the incident that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of American troops:

    “American Marines, who had been dispatched to Lebanon as peacekeepers to oversee the PLO evacuation but then had departed, hastily returned after the Sabra and Shatila massacres. They were housed in a large warehouse complex near Beirut’s airport.
    Over the next year, American forces found themselves drawn into the worsening Lebanese civil war. A key moment occurred on Sept. 18, 1983, when Reagan’s national security adviser Robert McFarlane, who was considered a staunch supporter of Israel, ordered U.S. warships to bombard Muslim targets inside Lebanon.
    As Gen. Colin Powell, then a top aide to Defense Secretary Weinberger, wrote in his memoir, “When the shells started falling on the Shiites, they assumed the American ‘referee’ had taken sides.” [See Powell’s My American Journey.]
    Muslim attacks on the Marines in Beirut soon escalated. On Oct. 23, 1983, two Shiite Muslims drove explosives-laden trucks into two buildings in Beirut, one housing French forces and the other the Marines. The blasts killed 241 Americans and 58 French.” Consortiumnews.com

    Just to underscore how pro-Israel Robert McFarlane is, he has recently called for the release of Jonathan Pollard (in a Feb. 9 letter to President Obama).

    Look, let me make this real simple for you: Giraldi and others such as Mearsheimer and Walt are US patriots for standing up and pointing out that the “special relationship” with Israel damages US interests. Their sole objective is for this relationship to return to a more “normal” one. It’s that simple! So the question is NB, are you in favour of the US having a “special” or “normal” relationship with Israel? Judging by your attacks on Giraldi, I think we all know the answer!

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Thanks to Johnny F. Ive for the list of Z-outrages; I would add King David Hotel bombing, the Deir Yassin massacre, ‘IDF’ (D = offensive; typical double-speak) attack on USS Liberty & the vile “Cast Lead;” the latter to demonstrate that Z-terrorism continues to the ‘current moment.’

    Since unz.com clearly entertains a range of opinions (some possibly less welcome than others), I submit the following as ‘talking points:’

    1, Fact: Between Herzl 1897 and UNGA181 1947, Z-type J-immigrants increased their (undesired, if not actively opposed) presence in the area temporarily known as Mandate Palestine from ~3% to ~30%, and managed to purchase = ‘legally acquire’ ~6% of that area.

    1, Opinion: Apart from that ~6%, *all* land/property controlled/occupied by the Z-intruders, *not* having been legally acquired, is ‘improperly alienated’ = stolen. Note that I see no difference between Mandate Palestine, the (invalid) UNGA181 Z-partition, nor the world-recognised ‘illegally occupied’ West Bank, say. Note also that since latest 1946 Nuremberg verdicts, war is an invalid method of acquiring Lebensraum. The determining legal status factor for any land/property object is: Did the ELO/Os (= erstwhile legal owner/occupiers) freely sell it in fair exchange, or not?

    1, Argument: UDHR, Article 17.
    • (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
    • (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

    1, My conclusion: The entity known as Israel is itself an un-remedied crime scene = illegitimate, on the grounds of the improper alienation of all land/property under its control, excepting the prior-purchased ~6%.

    2, Fact: Zionism n. movement for the establishment of a Jewish nation.

    2, Assertion: At any crime scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, apologists and ‘idle’ bystanders. The guilt associated with the crime(s) is distributed across all mentioned classes, the only escaping being active interveners, who attempt to stop/remedy the crime(s) and aid/free any victims. Any/all who benefit from the crime(s) also assume part-guilt.

    2, Blame distribution, Q: Who is at fault? A: Clearly, the perpetrators and their active supporters = accessories and apologists. The ‘idle’ class includes the 3rd-party ‘power-class’ members = so-called ‘leaders,’ the UN and the general population. The only innocent class are any active interventionists = those properly doing their humanitarian duties.

    2, Status quo: Israel endures as an active, un-remedied crime scene. At an home-invasion/burglary, SWAT teams are usually sent in, the perpetrators prosecuted and the victims (as far as possible) have their losses returned, replaced and/or recompensed. Q: Where is world-justice? A: Clearly a) in the ineffective minority and/or b) out to lunch.

    2, Summary: It is an extremely negative reflection on the entire I/J/Z-plex plus all non-actively intervening Jews in the 1st rank, so-called world-leaders and UN in the 2nd rank, then all the rest of the idle bystanders; vis-à-vis, note that silence is complicity.

    2, Appeal: Why is the world dominated by ‘black hats;’ where is the decent-people majority, forming an effective countervailing force?

    Qualifier: I take great care with my ‘absolutes’ like ‘all’ and ‘none.’ Usually, one can almost always find (tiny/insignificant) exceptions, so kindly interpret these absolutes as ‘within two standard deviations’ = 95%, say, or such like.

    Musing: In any debate, a non-contested point is assumed accepted by the opposing side. In other words, unless my points above are disproved, they are assumed to form accurate portrayals of reality. Apropos, kindly note the alleged MLK error in a previous post. I actively seek discussion – or not; do whatever you want, I know you will anyway.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. @Aletheia – While I agree with the bulk of your comment I do take slight issue with one single statement:

    “Note also that since latest 1946 Nuremberg verdicts, war is an invalid method of acquiring Lebensraum.”

    One should really avoid quoting Nuremberg when discussing legal matters as the IMT was a military tribunal and did not uphold the legal standards of a court of actual law. This fact is documented in the opening statements of the IMT at Nuremberg which proclaim them to be a “continuation of the Allied war effort” against the Axis forces as originally planned and outlined at the 1943 Moscow Conference.

    Also it is just generally unwise to compare Zionist Israel’s actions to that of Hitler’s Germany in dealing with Poland as in Germany’s case the newly reformed nation/republic of Poland created in 1919 split Germany into 2 wholly separate entities with a strip of land given to Poland splitting East Prussia from the rest of Germany proper. It was this strip of land which Germany invaded to “reunify” the 2 sections of Germany after both the Wiemar Republic government and National Socialist government had spent 20 years attempting to find peaceful solutions.

    This was post WWI banker dissected Germany – http://www.tomatobubble.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Polish_Corridor.jpg

    In that regard Germany would be better compared to the Palestinian’s who have also had their native territory dissected into pieces by the Zionist entity against their will and who see this as a humiliation and as discrimination against their people.(in no way would this justify ethnic cleansing on their part of Zionist Jews if they were to act as Germany did militarily, though they have no military to do that anyways.)

    Though the alliance of Hitler’s Germany to certain groups of Zionists through the Hanotea(May 1933) and later Haavara Agreement(August 1933) which actually allowed for the purchasing of much of those legally attained pieces of land you refer to is worth noting and is the original basis for the “Zio-Nazi” tag commonly used today.

    See – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

    More on this alliance is explained in the August 9, 1935 Canadian Jewish Chronicle article by William Zukerman entitled “Zionism in Nazi-Land” -

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0e1OAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XEwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2471%2C4486107

    Zionist Israel today is a similar beast to Hitler’s Germany but legally Germany actually had far greater justification for it’s actions, while there is ZERO legal justification under modern law for the Zionist actions as they are wholly aggressive invaders – hence their open proclamation that international law does not apply to them at all.

    Ethnic cleansing is of course never legally justified though whether carried out by Zionists or National Socialists or British oligarchs or Soviet communists and so on – Zionism needs to be held to the same standards and not be granted any special status in that regard.

    Peace

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. @Jonny: “… the IMT was a military tribunal and did not uphold the legal standards … ”

    Me: In order; thanks, sorry and fascinating. That the IMT was victors’ justice is not surprising (LeMay: “If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals” – “The Operation Meetinghouse firebombing of Tokyo on the night of 9/10 March 1945 was the single deadliest air raid of World War II;[2] greater than Dresden,[17] Hiroshima, or Nagasaki as single events”). Generally, it’s not so much ‘who says what’ as ‘what is said;’ as the origin of the ‘war of aggression = supreme international crime’ meme, Nuremberg seems to have achieved ‘currency by acclaim.’ I had not intended a Nazi-parallel so much as the priority of ‘no war for Lebensraum’ principle (later formalised by UNSC242). Then, both your Polish Corridor and the Hanotea/Haavara Zio-Nazi alliance go far deeper than my ‘standard’ analysis; I’ll look further, and get back if/when I see a need.

    Agree totally with your “there is ZERO legal justification under modern law for the Zionist actions as they are wholly aggressive invaders;” it’s also ‘what I say’ and thanks again.

    : “The Arab Peace Initiative was a non-starter for Israel since it called for resolution of right of return based on UNGA Res 194 (whereas UNSC Res 242 is actually binding international law), …”

    Me: ‘Stepping’ from UNGA194 to UNSC242 is a non sequitur. Between UNGA194 and UNSC242 (“inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”) came UNGA273 “to admit the State of Israel to membership.” UNGA273 mentions UNGA181 and UNGA194, as *prerequisites* of admission; 181 includes “a Palestinian State” and 194 “right of return.” From 273:

    «Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it “unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a member of the United Nations,”

    Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,»

    So far, Israel ‘honours’ the UN-Charter almost exclusively in the breach, there is no Palestinian State – on any borders, let alone on (invalid) 181-partition ones, and Israel continues to deny 194 right of return, *exactly* as illustrated by NB. In short, Israel violates both laws and agreements. (Well, all those who care to look can see that, der.)

    Now, refer to unispal A,68,L.15 “Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine” of 19Nov’13:

    «22. Also stresses the need for a just resolution of the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948;»

    Me; note: The world community (as ‘represented’ in the UNGA), and by a wide margin, repeatedly = *still* insists on 194. This means, among other things, that the ELO/Os continue to have a valid claim on their pre-Z-aggression land/property. Further, the ELO/Os valid claim proceeds from their *inalienable* rights; such rights, by definition, may neither be taken away *nor* surrendered.

    Just because Israel, its accessories, apologists & supporters including hasbara-ists/istes and sayanim don’t like UNGA194, doesn’t make it a show-stopper in any way, shape or form; what the I/J/Z-plex = those who imposed Israel by murdering force + those who live in Israel + any/all who benefit from Israel AND all those who support Israel *must* do in order to gain even shreds of legitimacy, is to conform to civilised, law-abiding behaviour = cease lying, cheating, and especially cease murdering to steal – then fully = acceptably recompense the hapless victims (including reconciliation = making a grovelling apology).

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. When Is Sovereignty Not Sovereignty?

    It’s not Sovereignty (nor sustainable, nor democracy) in this age of a quietly evolving New World Order which is a world order of Disguised Global Empire.

    Michaela is a bright young woman who appeared today on C-Span’s “Washington Journal” addressing, in an expanded format, essentially the same logic of comprehensive nuclear capabilities for deterrent defense (ie. a credible threat to an adversary) that Heritage in general supports.

    However, it appears to me that neither Michaela, nor Heritage, has considered the larger picture of unlimited adherence to what is essentially an unlimited continuation of the MAD strategy going forward to a new world order.

    Michaela applauds Reagan as having promulgated a strategy which is both successful and extendable to the 21st century for a sustainable new world order, based on the supposition that Reagan’s muscular STAR wars strategy, in addition to other strong defense department spending, had succeeded in maintaining America’s defense (and by implication leading to the success of dispatching the ‘evil Empire’).

    However, I strongly suspect that neither Michaela (nor Heritage) has sufficiently taken into account Francis Fukuyama’s famous 1992 book (and thinking) in “The End of History”. After all, even Fukuyama himself had not initially taken into account all the implication of his projections at that time.

    While the Reagan and Heritage posture of an increasingly invulnerable defense strategy may well have led to the dispatch of one ‘evil Empire’ the projection of this strategy over time in the 21st century can logically be argued to inexorably to a new world order that would be more accurately characterized as a new world order of ‘global Empire’, rather than new world order reaching a stable culmination of “liberal free-market democracy” as Fukuyama hoped.

    When one applies any intelligence to the nexus of Fukuyama’s work and Gary Will book, “Bomb Power” it is obvious that any “End of History”, defined as Fukuyama did as an end to competing political-economic systems, then the almost certain output would be either universal adherence of all nuclear powers to the same unipolar acceptance of one system, which would have to prevail by the leading nation-state in terms of economic, political, military, and technical ability to safely over-ride ALL other players, or a nuclear conflict that would end the game — which ever came first.

    Now, the scale of ‘hard’ coercive (or ‘soft’ convincing) power that it would take for any nation-state super-power to integrate such superior; corporate/industrial, financial, military, technological, media/network, extra-legal, and political power to achieve and defend such unrivaled (and unassailable) unipolar power in this world would clearly be enough to bankrupt any single nation-state on earth (as proven by the default of not only the last power that tried to keep up with such a level of ‘defense spending’ (the Soviet Empire), but which compelling even universal proof in the case of the rest of the 20th century Empire retired from this game; Britain, France, Germany, Japan, et al. leaves us with the same immutable conclusion that Fukuyama reached in reversing his position on the “End of History” — and which has caused him to begin his rebuttal of his own earlier conclusion in a book with the working title “The Future of History”.

    Furthermore, the only way that any individual nation-state could hope to even attempt such hubristic one world strategy, would be under a doctrine seeking effective monopoly world power (beyond its own boarders), and deception of the varied popular consent within its “Homeland”) would be to violate the 1648 Peace of Westphalia sovereignty doctrine of international relations, and also to employ overly strong measures of deception or control of the varied popular will within its own nation-state.

    Thus committing to such a course to grab the helm of the ‘ship of state’ so strongly would require, as Hannah Arendt has already warned and which many academics and public intellectuals in the arena of ‘Empire-studies” suggest that, “Empire abroad entails tyranny at home”.

    In fact, the more appropriate warning today (beyond Arendt’s time) might better be stated as “Global Empire entails tyranny, bankruptcy, and the death of democracy everywhere” — since only a massively powerful and disguised Global Empire with highly integrated (but hidden) powers over at least six sectors of power; corporate, financial, militarist, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and dual-party Vichy-political global imperial power could be so insane as to project such a world of deception and unsustainable existence for its ‘world citizens’ who would have to be be reduced essentially to the status of deluded Global Empire ‘subjects’

    And who could ever be so insane a ‘nation-state’ to take on such a project, eh? What current nation-state’s current (but disguised) foreign policies look anything like such a suicidal vision of this type of perverse Global Empire strategy today, eh?

    Best luck and love to the fast expanding ‘Occupy the Empire’ educational and non-violent revolutionary movement against this deceitful and Disguised Global EMPIRE, which can’t so easily be identified as wearing Red Coats, Red Stars, nor funny looking Nazi helmets —- quite YET!

    Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality
    Over
    Violent (‘Vichy’ disguised)
    Empire,

    Alan MacDonald
    Sanford, Maine

    We don’t merely have a “Big Money”/Citizens United problem, or a domestic tyranny and NSA SPYING problem, or a gun/fear problem, or an MIC problem, or an ‘Austerity’ problem, or an EXPANDING WARS problem, or a ‘drone assassinations’ problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street ‘looting’ problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or the world’s largest political prisoner problem, or a crappy un-healthy insurance problem, or shitty over-priced and exclusive educational access problem, or, or, or … ad nauseam — but what we REALLY have is a hidden VEMPIRE cancerous tumor of GLOBAL EMPIRE which is the prime CAUSE of all these underlying, related, and mere ‘symptom problems’.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. The whole of the Jewish people can’t be blamed for the actions and policies of a cabal of Likudniks.

    It’s scurrilous, in reverse, to attribute questioning of those policies as equivalent to antisemitism and Holocaust denial.

    I suppose fanatics see any means justified by what they regard as the greater good of their own allegiances. Thus do some manipulative appeals to patriotic tribalism fall into what Dr. Johnson called “the last refuge of scoundrels.”

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. . Let me applaud your skill. You are among the best Hasbara I have ever seen. That said, you are clearly a Zionist propagandist and complicit in Zionist crime.

    I could waste a perfectly fine day rebutting all your cleverly specious points, but I won’t allow you to steal that much time from me. Rather, I have a summary of an ethics-based point of view, and a reading list for others who may have actual lives to live, but might want to get straight at the full truth. Enjoy.

    **********************************************

    By the way, I’m an American and a Jew.

    **********************************************

    Here, NB, is the antidote to your Kool-aid dreams. Drink deeply and wake up to reality.

    We often hear the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” and along with it, “Israel’s right to self-defense.” Hear them endlessly, by propagandists who repeat them endlessly. But endless repetition does not make a thing true. And the seeming “legitimacy” that arises from this endless repetition is not legitimacy at all, but rather the “truth rape” of well executed propaganda.

    Yet the truth exists.

    And here it is: a fact-based, truth-based, ethics-based summary.

    In 1917, the British Imperial elite and the World Zionist Organization colluded in a criminal conspiracy to steal Palestine from the people — 95% Arab — who had lived there for 70 generations, and to give it to the Jews/Zionists. That’s ***STEAL***, as in take what doesn’t belong to you.

    This “plan” was a crime of conspiracy then, as the theft and murder in it’s execution is a crime today. A crime is still a crime, despite 90 years of control and censorship of the media.
    A crime is still a crime despite 90 years of impunity from prosecution or 90 years of protection through propaganda. JUST AS NO AMOUNT OF TIME CAN CONVERT A CRIME INTO A LEGAL ACT, NO AMOUNT OF TIME CAN CHANGE A LIE INTO THE TRUTH; .

    The Zionist entity called Israel is nothing less than a geopolitical crime-in-progress. This is the truth that the Jews will never be able to “disappear”, and that the digital age and internet have finally set free.

    So when next you hear propaganda about Israel’s “right to exist”, consider: what crime has a “right to exist”?, what criminal enterprise has a “right to exist”? Add to that: what criminal has a “right to self-defense”? What criminal has the right to commit violence in the furtherance of a crime? What criminal has the right to fight back against the lawful authority that arrives to halt the crime and arrest the criminals?

    Israel, the Zionists, their enablers, and their supporters are criminals: thieves and murderers on a global scale. They have no “right to exist” (as criminals) and they have no “right to self-defense” as they commit their crimes.

    Yet, they do have rights. And I stand in defense of those rights. They have the right to surrender to a competent authority, and not suffer summary execution. The right to a fair trial. If found guilty, the right to a proportionate penalty. And finally, once the offending parties have “done their time”, the right to rejoin society and resume a peaceful cooperative existence.

    The Zionist criminals cannot be allowed to continue in their criminal ways. And while I feel for the Palestinian and Arab and Moslem victims of this crime worldwide, as an American and a Jew I see with absolute clarity the immense danger these crimes pose for Jews the world over, who, whether it is true or not, will be seen as accomplices in the crime. A new holocaust is being built, and the Zionist criminal project Israel is the cornerstone of that catastrophe.

    ********************************

    Here are the crucial sources for understanding the situation the world finds itself in today vis a vis Israel.

    The last three are long, scholarly, and frankly, a bit dry. However, the first, for obvious reasons, is quite entertaining.

    “Concerning the Jews” by Mark Twain

    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1898twain-jews.html

    The Hidden History of Zionism

    http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/mideast/hidden/

    Behind the Balfour Declaration

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html

    Benjamin Freedman

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Off topic. My apologies.

    My head is reeling. Oh, my, I can feel the brain cells dying. I stumbled and suffered a momentary lapse in judgement. I got entangled briefly, in a Yahoo comments “discussion”.

    In goes the good air, out goes the bad air.

    Okay, that’s better now. My head is beginning to clear.

    You seem like bright folks. There’s a question I’ve been seeking an answer to, but… to no avail. Perhaps you can help?

    Was Kerry’s “blurt”: “If Assad got rid of all his chemical weapons…” a real blurt, or was it a setup. Has anyone investigated/reported on whether the ABC news woman who asked the question, was fed the question ahead of time?

    Anything — a link, a strategy for finding out, ruminations on the idea, contact info for the newswoman in question — will be appreciated.

    Oh, and could you forward this to other forums of the mentally alert.

    Because it’s off topic, feel free to reply to me directly.

    Thanks, Jeff Davis, jrd31415 at yahoo dot com

    “Everything’s hard till you know how to do it.”
    Ray Charles

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. I’m not replying the NB, but rather bringing to everyone else’s attention something he wrote:

    Anyway, it’s not a mystery why unz.com continually tries to tie Ukraine/Crimea to Israel/”the Jews,” as Unz demonstrated by publishing this anti-Semitic piece (yesterday’s featured piece) by notorious anti-Semite Israel Shamir:

    http://www.unz.com/article/putins-triumph/

    The hasbara can sometimes be helpful. If NB refers to someone as a “notorious anti-Semite”, a little alarm bell should go off in your head. If NB disses someone with ye olde “anti-Semite” smear, then maybe, just maybe that’s a “recommendation” worth checking out.

    In the case of Israel Shamir, NB’s “recommendation” rewards the reader with gold. Israel Shamir has the finest analytical mind and investigative skills I have encountered since Chomsky. He digs deep for the real truth, the truth hidden in the sort of details that only the most penetrating investigative journalists care to find. And as for Zionist Israel, Mr. Shamir has impeccable insider credentials, a genius at cleansing his reportage of contamination by hidden assumptions of Zionist mythology, and calm but fearless bluntness in reporting on Zionist criminality and narrative dishonesty.

    Note that NB did not call him an “anti-Semite”. No, he called him a ***NOTORIOUS*** anti-Semite. That’s a gold star recommendation. Thanks NB. Check it out.

    Remember,

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. It was CBS correspondent Margaret Brennan based in London.

    http://t.mediaite.com/mediaite/#!/entry/is-cbs-reporter-margaret-brennan-responsible-for-current-proposal-on,522f453f2ce9351e049e135a/1

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Unfortunately, a lot of nations, ours included, are on land that was stolen from others or obtained by violent conquest. But it’s not always simple, because sometimes they were people who were refugees themselves, treated unjustly elsewhere.

    The facts on the ground are that it would be unjust to require expulsion. What ought to happen from a human rights standpoint and for peace among human beings, is that demonization of one another stop and that we find ways to live in harmony and liberty, regardless of our origins. We can’t change the past, but we can do good for one another now.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. @Fran Macadam: “… scurrilous … antisemitism … Holocaust denial … fanatics … [questionable?] allegiances .. manipulative appeals … scoundrels.

    Me: Fallacious, ad hominem abuse.

    What is also demonstrated is an unhealthy obsession with anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

    Fran Macadam: “The facts on the ground are that it would be unjust to require expulsion. … We can’t change the past, but we can do good for one another now.

    Me: Worthless rubbish; Z-facts on the ground result from Z-crimes against humanity; totally unacceptable.

    What is needed is justice, not a free pass to vile criminals.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. “What ought to happen from a human rights standpoint and for peace among human beings, is that demonization of one another stop and that we find ways to live in harmony and liberty, …”

    This was the impetus behind the establishment of UN and other international bodies whose purpose was to help nations “find ways to live in harmony and liberty…”

    The following is a list compiled by Jeremy Hammond up to 2010 of UNSC resolutions directly critical of Israel for violations of UNSC resolutions, the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Conventions, international terrorism, or other violations of international law. Below this list is another list of US vetoes of resolutions against Israel.

    What those who are in favour of international being applied equally to all nations must do is take a page out of Bill Clinton’s book in his debates with GHW Bush and repeat incessantly “It’s the lobby, stupid!”
    ————————————————-
    Res. 57 (Sep. 18, 1948) – Expresses deep shock at the assassination of the U.N. Mediator in Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, by Zionist terrorists.

    Res. 89 (Nov. 17, 1950) – Requests that attention be given to the expulsion of “thousands of Palestine Arabs” and calls upon concerned governments to take no further action “involving the transfer of persons across international frontiers or armistice lines”, and notes that Israel announced that it would withdraw to the armistice lines.

    Res. 93 (May 18, 1951) – Finds that Israeli airstrikes on Syria on April 5, 1951 constitutes “a violation of the cease-fire”, and decides that Arab civilians expelled from the demilitarized zone by Israel should be allowed to return.

    Res. 100 (Oct. 27, 1953) – Notes that Israel had said it would stop work it started in the demilitarized zone on September 2, 1953.

    Res. 101 (Nov. 24, 1953) – Finds Israel’s attack on Qibya, Jordan on October 14-15, 1953 to be a violation of the cease-fire and “Expresses the strongest censure of that action”.

    Res. 106 (Mar. 29, 1955) – Condemns Israel’s attack on Egyptian forces in the Gaza Strip on February 28, 1955.

    Res. 111 (Jan. 19, 1956) – Condemns Israel’s attack on Syria on December 11, 1955 as “a flagrant violation of the cease-fire” and armistice agreement.

    Res. 119 (Oct. 31, 1956) – Considers that “a grave situation has been created” by the attack against Egypt by the forces of Britain, France, and Israel.

    Res. 171 (Apr. 9, 1962) – Reaffirms resolution 111 and determines that Israel’s attack on Syria on March 16-17, 1962 “constitutes a flagrant violation of that resolution”.

    Res. 228 (Nov. 25, 1966) – “Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property resulting from the action” by Israel in the southern Hebron area on November 13, 1966, and “Censures Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the United Nations Charter” and the armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan.

    Res. 237 (Jun. 14, 1967) – Emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, emphasizes that member states have a commitment to abide by the U.N. Charter, and calls for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied” during the June 1967 war.

    Res. 242 (Nov. 22, 1967) – Emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, emphasizes that member states have a commitment to abide by the U.N. Charter, and calls on Israel to withdraw from territories it occupied during the June 1967 war.

    Res. 248 (Mar. 24, 1968) – Observes that the Israeli attack on Jordan “was of a large-scale and carefully planned nature”, “Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property”, “Condemns the military action launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the cease-fire resolutions”, and “Calls upon Israel to desist from” further violations of resolution 237.

    Res. 250 (Apr. 27, 1968) – Considers “that the holding of a military parade in Jerusalem will aggravate tensions in the area and have an adverse effect on a peaceful settlement of the problems in the area” and “Calls upon Israel to refrain from holding the military parade in Jerusalem which is contemplated” for May 2, 1968.

    Res. 251 (May 2, 1968) – Recalls resolution 250 and “Deeply deplores the holding by Israel of the military parade in Jerusalem” on May 2, 1968 “in disregard of” resolution 250.

    Res. 252 (May 21, 1968) – “Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with” General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254, considers Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “invalid”, and calls upon Israel “to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem”.

    Res. 256 (Aug. 16, 1968) – Recalls Israel’s “flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter” condemned in resolution 248, observes that further Israeli air attacks on Jordan “were of a large scale and carefully planned nature in violation of resolution 248”, “Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property”, and condemns Israel’s attacks.

    Res. 259 (Sep. 27, 1968) – Expresses concern for “the safety, welfare and security” of the Palestinians “under military occupation by Israel”, deplores “the delay in the implementation of resolution 237 (1967) because of the conditions still being set by Israel for receiving a Special Representative of the Secretary-General”, and requests Israel to receive the Special Representative and facilitate his work.

    Res. 262 (Dec. 31, 1968) – Observes “that the military action by the armed forces of Israel against the civil International Airport of Beirut was premeditated and of a large scale and carefully planned nature”, and condemns Israel for the attack.

    Res.265 (Apr. 1, 1969) – Expresses “deep concern that the recent attacks on Jordanian villages and other populated areas were of a pre-planned nature, in violation of resolutions” 248 and 256, “Deplores the loss of civilian life and damage to property”, and “Condemns the recent premeditated air attacks launched by Israel on Jordanian villages and populated areas in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the cease-fire resolutions”.

    Res. 267 (Jul. 3, 1969) – Recalls resolution 252 and General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254, notes that “since the adoption of the above-mentioned resolutions Israel has taken further measures tending to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, reaffirms “the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible”, “Deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions”, “Censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, “Confirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status”, and urgently calls on Israel to rescind the measures taken to annex Jerusalem.

    Res. 270 (Aug. 26, 1969) – “Condemns the premeditated air attack by Israel on villages in southern Lebanon in violation of its obligations under the Charter and Security Council resolutions”.

    Res. 271 (Sep. 15, 1969) – Expresses grief “at the extensive damage caused by arson to the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem” on August 21, 1969 “under the military occupation of Israel”, reaffirms “the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible”, “Determines that the execrable act of desecration and profanation of the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque emphasizes the immediate necessity of Israel’s desisting from acting in violation” previous resolutions and rescinding measures to annex Jerusalem, calls on Israel “to observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation”, and condemns Israel’s failure to comply with previous resolutions.

    Res. 279 (May 12, 1970) – “Demands the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory.”

    Res. 280 (May 19, 1970) – Expresses conviction that “that the Israeli military attack against Lebanon was premeditated and of a large scale and carefully planned in nature”, recalls resolution 279 “demanding the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory”, deplores Israel’s violation of resolutions 262 and 270, “Condemns Israel for its premeditated military action in violation of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations”, and “Deplores the loss of life and damage to property inflicted as a result” of Israeli violations of Security Council resolutions.

    Res. 285 (Sep. 5, 1970) – “Demands the complete and immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory.”

    Res. 298 (Sep. 25, 1971) – Recalls resolutions 252 and 267 and General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254 concerning Israel’s measures to annex Jerusalem, reaffirms “the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible”, notes “the non-compliance by Israel” of the recalled resolutions, deplores Israel’s failure to respect the resolutions, confirms that Israel’s actions “are totally invalid”, and urgently calls on Israel to rescind its measures and take “no further steps in the occupied section of Jerusalem” to change the status of the city.

    Res. 313 (Feb. 28, 1972) – “Demands that Israel immediately desist and refrain from any ground and air military action against Lebanon and forthwith withdraw all its military forces from Lebanese territory.”

    Res. 316 (Jun. 26, 1972) – Deplores “the tragic loss of life resulting from all acts of violence”, expresses grave concern “at Israel’s failure to comply with Security Council resolutions” 262, 270, 280, 285, and 313 “calling on Israel to desist forthwith from any violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon”, calls on Israel to abide by the resolutions, and condemns “the repeated attacks of Israeli forces on Lebanese territory and population in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and Israel’s obligations thereunder”.

    Res. 317 (Jul. 21, 1972) – Notes resolution 316, deplores the fact that Israel had not yet released “Syrian and Lebanese military and security personnel abducted by Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory” on June 21, 1972, and calls on Israel to release the prisoners.

    Res. 332 (Apr. 21, 1972) – “Condemns the repeated military attacks conducted by Israel against Lebanon and Israel’s violation of Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty” in violation of the U.N. Charter, the armistice agreement, and cease-fire resolutions.

    Res. 337 (Aug. 15, 1972) – Notes “the violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” by Israel “and the hijacking, by the Israeli air force, of a Lebanese civilian airliner on lease to Iraqi Airways”, expresses grave concern “that such an act carried out by Israel, a Member of the United Nations, constitutes a serious interference with international civil aviation and a violation of the Charter of the United Nations”, recognizes “that such an act could jeopardize the lives and safety of passengers and crew and violates the provisions of international conventions safeguarding civil aviation”, condemns Israel “for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the forcible diversion and seizure by the Israeli air force of a Lebanese airliner from Lebanon’s air space”, and considers that Israel’s actions constitute a violation of the armistice agreement, cease-fire resolutions, the U.N. Charter, “the international conventions on civil aviation and the principles of international law and morality”.

    Res. 347 (Apr. 24, 1974) – “Condemns Israel’s violation of Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and calls once more on the Government of Israel to refrain from further military actions and threats against Lebanon”, and calls on Israel “to release and return to Lebanon the abducted Lebanese civilians”.

    Res. 425 (Mar. 19, 1978) – “Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries”, and “Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory”.

    Res. 427 (May 3, 1978) – “Calls upon Israel to complete its withdrawal from all Lebanese territory without any further delay”.

    Res. 446 (Mar. 22, 1979) – Affirms “once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention … is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, “Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East”, “Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by” resolutions 237, 252, and 298, and General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254, and calls on Israel “as the occupying Power” to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, to “rescind its previous measures and to desist from any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories”.

    Res. 450 (Jun. 14, 1979) – “Strongly deplores acts of violence against Lebanon that have led to the displacement of civilians, including Palestinians, and brought about destruction and loss of innocent lives”, and calls on Israel to cease actions against Lebanon, “in particular its incursions into Lebanon and the assistance it continues to lend to irresponsible armed groups”.

    Res. 452 (Jul. 20, 1979) – Strongly deplores “the lack of co-operation of Israel” with the Security Council Commission “established under resolution 446 (1979) to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem”, considers “that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”, expresses deep concern at Israel’s policy of constructing settlements “in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population”, and calls on Israel to cease such activities.

    Res. 465 (Mar. 1, 1980) – Strongly deplores Israel’s refusal to co-operate with the Security Council Commission, regrets Israel’s “formal rejection of” resolutions 446 and 452, deplores Israel’s decision “to officially support Israeli settlement” in the occupied territories, expresses deep concern over Israel’s settlement policy “and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population”, “Strongly deplores the decision of Israel to prohibit the free travel” of the mayor of Hebron “to appear before the Security Council”, and “Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

    Res. 467 (Apr. 24, 1980) – “Condemns all actions contrary to” resolutions 425, 426, 427, 434, 444, 450, and 459 “and, in particular, strongly deplores” any “violation of Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity” and “Israel’s military intervention into Lebanon”.

    Res. 468 (May 8, 1980) – Expresses deep concern “at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron” and “Calls upon the Government of Israel as occupying Power to rescind these illegal measures and facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders so that they can resume the functions for which they were elected and appointed”.

    Res. 469 (May 20, 1980) – Recalls the Fourth Geneva Convention “and in particular article 1, which reads ‘The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances,’ and article 49, which reads ‘Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from the occupied territory to the territory of the occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive”, “Strongly deplores the failure of the Government of Israel to implement Security Council resolution 468”, “Calls again upon the Government of Israel, as occupying Power, to rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and the Sharis Judge of Hebron, and to facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders, so that they can resume their functions for which they were elected and appointed”.

    Res. 471 (Jun. 5, 1980) – Recalls “once again” the Fourth Geneva Convention, “and in particular article 27, which reads, ‘ Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons… They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof…’”, reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention “to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, expresses deep concern “that the Jewish settlers in the occupied Arab territories are allowed to carry arms, thus enabling them to perpetrate crimes against the civilian Arab population”, “Condemns the assassination attempts against the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al Bireh and calls for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes”, “Expresses deep concern that Israel, as the occupying Power, has failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”, calls on Israel “to provide the victims with adequate compensation for the damage suffered as a result of these crimes”, “Calls again upon the government of Israel to respect and to comply with the provisions of” the Fourth Geneva Convention and “the relevant resolutions of the Security Council”, “Calls once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion [sic] with settlements in the occupied territories”, “Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”.

    Res. 476 (Jun. 30, 1980) – Reaffirms that “the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible”, deplores “the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem”, expresses grave concern “over the legislative steps initiated in the Israeli Knesset with the aim of changing the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem”, reaffirms “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, “Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly”, “Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to later the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”, “Reiterates that all such measures … are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council”, and “Urgently calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy city of Jerusalem”.

    Res. 478 (Aug. 20, 1980) – Reaffirms “again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible”, notes “that Israel has not complied with resolution 476”, “Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the ‘basic law’ on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions”, “Affirms that the enactment of the ‘basic law’ by Israel constitutes a violation of international law”, “Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent ‘basic law’ on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith”.

    Res. 484 (Dec. 19, 1980) – Expresses “grave concern at the expulsion by Israel of the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul”, “Reaffirms the applicability of” the Fourth Geneva Convention “to all the Arab territories occupied by Israel in 1967”, “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to adhere to the provisions of the Convention”, and “Declares it imperative that the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul be enabled to return to their homes and resume their responsibilities”.

    Res. 487 (Jun. 19, 1981) – Expresses full awareness “of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date”, notes “furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty”, expresses deep concern “about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States”, “Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct”, “Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty”, “Fully recognizes the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation”, and “Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards”.

    Res. 497 (Dec. 17, 1981) – Reaffirms “that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the principles of international law, and relevant Security Council resolutions”, “Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect”, “Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision”, and “Determines that all the provisions of the” Fourth Geneva Convention “continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since June 1967”.

    Res. 501 (Feb. 25, 1982) – Reaffirms resolution 425 calling upon Israel to cease its military action against Lebanon.

    Res. 509 ( Jun. 6, 1982) – “Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon”.

    Res. 515 (Jul. 29, 1982) – “Demands that the Government of Israel lift immediately the blockade of the city of Beirut in order to permit the dispatch of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population and allow the distribution of aid provided by United Nations agencies and by non-governmental organizations, particularly the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)”.

    Res. 517 (Aug. 4, 1982) – Expresses deep shock and alarm “by the deplorable consequences of the Israeli invasion of Beirut on 3 August 1982”, “Confirms once again its demand for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”, and “Censures Israel for its failure to comply with” resolutions 508, 509, 512, 513, 515, and 516.

    Res. 518 (Aug. 12, 1982) – “Demands that Israel and all parties to the conflict observe strictly the terms of Security Council resolutions relevant to the immediate cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and, particularly, in and around Beirut”, “Demands the immediate lifting of all restrictions on the city of Beirut in order to permit the free entry of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population in Beirut”.

    Res. 520 (Sep. 17, 1982) – “Condemns the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of the cease-fire agreements and of Security Council resolutions”, and “Demands an immediate return to the positions occupied by Israel before” September 15, 1982 “as a first step towards the full implementation of Security Council resolutions”.

    Res. 521 (Sep. 19, 1982) – “Condemns the criminal massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut” in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

    Res. 573 (Oct. 4, 1985) – “Condemns vigorously the act of armed aggression perpetrated by Israel against Tunisian territory in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and norms of conduct”.

    Res. 592 (Dec. 8, 1986) – Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention “is applicable to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, and “Strongly deplores the opening of fire by the Israeli army resulting in the death and the wounding of defenceless students”.

    Res. 605 (Dec. 22, 1987) – “Strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, and in particular the opening of fire by the Israeli army, resulting in the killing and wounding of defenceless Palestinian civilians”, and reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention “to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”.

    Res. 607 (Jan. 5, 1988) – Expresses “grave concern over the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories”, notes “the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to ‘continue the deportation’ of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories”, “Reaffirms once again” the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention “to Palestinian and other Arab territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, “Calls upon Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories”, and “Strongly requests Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by its obligations arising from the Convention”.

    Res. 608 (Jan. 14, 1988) – Reaffirms resolution 607, expresses “deep regret that Israel, the occupying Power, has, in defiance of that resolution, deported Palestinian civilians”, and “Calls upon Israel to rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians and to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those already deported”.

    Res. 611 (Apr. 25, 1988) – Notes “with concern that the aggression perpetrated” by Israelis on April 16, 1988 “in the locality of Sidi Bou Said”, Tunisia, “has caused loss of human life, particularly the assassination of Mr. Khalil El Wazir”, and “Condemns vigorously the aggression perpetrated … against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Tunisia in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and norms of conduct”.

    Res. 636 (Jul. 6, 1989) – Reaffirms resolutions 607 and 608, notes “that Israel, the occupying Power, has once again, in defiance of those resolutions, deported eight Palestinian civilians on 29 June 1989”, Expresses deep regret “the continuing deportation by Israel, the occupying Power, of Palestinian civilians”, “Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians”, and “Reaffirms that” the Fourth Geneva Convention “is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to other occupied Arab territories”.

    Res. 641 (Aug. 30, 1989) – Reaffirms resolutions 607, 608, and 636, notes that Israel “has once again, in defiance of those resolutions, deported five Palestinian civilians on 27 August 1989”, and “Deplores the continuing deportation by Israel, the occupying Power, of Palestinian civilians”.

    Res. 672 (Oct. 12, 1990) – “Expresses alarm at the violence which took place” on October 8, 1990, “at the Al Haram al Shareef and other Holy Places of Jerusalem resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and to the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers”, “Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life”, and “Requests, in connection with the decision of the Secretary-General to send a mission to the region, which the Council welcomes, that he submit a report to it before the end of October 1990 containing his findings and conclusions and that he use as appropriate all the resources of the United Nations in the region in carrying out the mission.”

    Res. 673 (Oct. 24, 1990) – “Deplores the refusal of the Israeli Government to receive the mission of the Secretary-General to the region”, and “Urges the Israeli Government to reconsider its decision and insists that it comply fully with resolution 672 (1990) and to permit the mission of the Secretary-General to proceed in keeping with its purpose”.

    Res. 681 (Dec. 20, 1990) – Reaffirms “the obligations of Member States under the United Nations Charter”, reaffirms “also the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, expresses alarm “by the decision of the Government of Israel to deport four Palestinians from the occupied territories in contravention of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention” in contravention to resolutions 607, 608, 636, and 641, “Expresses its grave concern over the rejection by Israel of Security Council resolutions” 672 and 673, and “Deplores the decision by the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportations of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories”.

    Res. 694 (May 24, 1991) – Reaffirms resolution 681 calling on Israel to respect the Fourth Geneva Convention, notes “with deep concern and consternation that Israel has, in violation of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and acting in opposition to relevant Security Council resolutions, and to the detriment of efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, deported four Palestinian civilians” on May 18, 1991, “Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians … is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention …, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, and “Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel, the occupying Power, refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported”.

    Res. 726 (Jan. 6, 1992) – Recalls resolutions 607, 608, 636, 641, and 694 calling on Israel to respect the Fourth Geneva Convention, “Strongly condemns the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportations of Palestinian civilians”, “Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention … to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, and “requests Israel, the occupying Power, to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported”.

    Res. 799 (Dec. 18, 1992) – Reaffirms resolutions 607, 608, 636, 641, 681, 694, and 726 calling on Israel to respect the Fourth Geneva Convention, notes “with deep concern that Israel, the occupying Power, in contravention of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention …, deported to Lebanon” on December 17, 1992 “hundreds of Palestinian civilians from the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jersualem”, “Strongly condemns the action taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to deport hundreds of Palestinian civilians, and expresses its firm opposition to any such deportation by Israel”, “Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention … to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention”, and “Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported”.

    Res. 904 (Mar. 18, 1994) – Expresses shock at “the appalling massacre committed against Palestinian worshippers in the Mosque of Ibrahim in Hebron” on February 25, 1994 by Jewish settler Baruch Goldstein “during the holy month of Ramadan”, expresses grave concern with “the consequent Palestinian casualties in the occupied Palestinian territory as a result of the massacre, which underlines the need to provide protection and security for the Palestinian people”, notes “the condemnation of this massacre by the entire international community”, “Strongly condemns the massacre in Hebron and its aftermath which took the lives of more than fifty Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others”, and “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to continue to take and implement measures, including, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers”.

    Res. 1073 (Sep. 28, 1996) – Expresses “deep concern about the tragic events in Jerusalem and the areas of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and the Gaza Strip, which resulted in a high number of deaths and injuries among the Palestinian civilians, and concerned also about the clashes between the Israeli army and the Palestinian police and the casualties on both sides”, and “Calls for the safety and protection for Palestinian civilians to be ensured”.

    Res. 1322 (Oct. 7, 2000) – Expresses deep concern “by the tragic events that have taken place” since September 28, 2000 “that have led to numerous deaths and injuries, mostly among Palestinians”, “Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem” on September 28, 2000 “and the subsequent violence there and at other Holy Places, as well as in other areas throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, resulting in over 80 Palestinian deaths and many other casualties”, “Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life”, and “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

    Res. 1402 (Mar. 30, 2002) – Expresses grave concern “at the further deterioration of the situation, including the recent suicide bombings in Israel and the military attack against the headquarters of the president of the Palestinian Authority”, “Calls upon both parties to move immediately to a meaningful cease-fire” and “calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah”.

    Res. 1403 (Apr. 4, 2002) – Expresses grave concern “at the further deterioration of the situation on the ground” and “Demands the implementation of its resolution 1402 (2002) without delay”.

    Res. 1405 (Apr. 19, 2002) – Expresses concern for “the dire humanitarian situation of the Palestinian civilian population, in particular reports from the Jenin refugee camp of an unknown number of deaths and destruction”, calls for “the lifting of restrictions imposed, in particular in Jenin, on the operations of humanitarian organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East”, and “Emphasizes the urgency of access of medical and humanitarian organizations to the Palestinian civilian population”.

    Res. 1435 (Sep. 24, 2002) – Expresses grave concern “at the reoccupation of the headquarters of the President of the Palestinian Authority in the City of Ramallah that took place” on September 19, 2002, demands “its immediate end”, expresses alarm “at the reoccupation of Palestinian cities as well as the severe restrictions imposed on the freedom of movement of persons and goods, and gravely concerned at the humanitarian crisis being faced by the Palestinian people”, reiterates “the need for respect in all circumstances of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”, “Demands that Israel immediately cease measures in and around Ramallah including the destruction of Palestinian civilian and security infrastructure”, and “Demands also the expeditious withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces from Palestinian cities towards the return to the positions held prior to September 2000”.

    Res. 1544 (May 19, 2004) – Reaffirms resolutions 242, 338, 446, 1322, 1397, 1402, 1405, 1435, and 1515, reiterates “the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”, calls “on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law”, expresses “grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967”, condemns “the killing of Palestinian civilians that took place in the Rafah area”, expresses grave concern “by the recent demolition of homes committed by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Rafah refugee camp”, reaffirms “its support for the Road Map, endorsed in resolution 1515”, “Calls on Israel to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law, and insists, in particular, on its obligation not to undertake demolition of homes contrary to that law”, and “Calls on both parties to immediately implement their obligations under the Road Map”.

    Res. 1701 (Aug. 11, 2006) – Expresses “its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel” that “has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries” and “extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons”, and “Calls for a full cessation of hostilities” including “the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations”.

    Res. 1860 (Jan. 8, 2009) – Expresses “grave concern at the escalation of violence and the deterioration of the situation, in particular the resulting heavy civilian casualties since the refusal to extend the period of calm”, expresses “grave concern also at the deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza”, “calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza”, “Calls for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment”, and “Condemns all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism”.
    —————————————————————
    US Vetoes of Resolutions Against Israel, 1972-1990.

    “…condemned Israel’s attack against Southern against southern Lebanon and Syria…”
    “…affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections…”
    “…condemned Israel’s air strikes and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians…”
    “…called for self-determination of Palestinian people…”
    “…deplored Israel’s altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city by most world nations and the United Nations…”
    “…affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people…”
    “…endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people…”
    “…demanded Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan Heights…”
    “…condemned Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva convention protocols of civilized nations…”
    “…condemned an Israeli soldier who shot eleven Moslem worshippers at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount near Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem…”
    “…urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon…”
    “…urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut…”
    “…urged cutoff of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon…”
    “…condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace…”
    “…deplores Israel’s brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urges its withdrawal…”
    “…condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounced the Israeli ‘Iron Fist’ policy of repression…”
    “…denounced Israel’s violation of human rights in the occupied territories…”
    “…deplored Israel’s violence in southern Lebanon…”
    “…deplored Israel’s activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem that threatened the sanctity of Muslim holy sites…”
    “…condemned Israel’s hijacking of a Libyan passenger airplane…”
    “…deplored Israel’s attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon…”
    “…called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian intifada that violated the rights of occupied Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and to formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations…”
    “…urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned Israel’s shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention, and called for a peace settlement under UN auspices…”
    “…condemned Israel’s… incursion into Lebanon…”
    “…deplored Israel’s… commando raids on Lebanon…”
    “…deplored Israel’s repression of the Palestinian intifada and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians…”
    “…deplored Israel’s violation of the human rights of the Palestinians…”
    “…demanded that Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel’s crackdown on the Palestinian intifada…”
    “…called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands…”

    (From Findley’s Deliberate Deceptions, pages 192 – 194)

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Prophetic comments by 3 eminent Jews:

    Asked to sign a petition supporting settlement of Jews in Palestine, Sigmund Freud declined: “I cannot…I do not think that Palestine could ever become a Jewish state….It would have seemed more sensible to me to establish a Jewish homeland on a less historically-burdened land….I can raise no sympathy at all for the misdirected piety which transforms a piece of a Herodian
    wall into a national relic, thereby offending the feelings of the natives.” (Letter to Dr. Chaim Koffler Keren HaYassod, Vienna: 2/26/30)

    Albert Einstein, 1939: “There could be no greater calamity than a permanent discord between us and the Arab people…. Let us recall that in former times no people lived in greater friendship with us than the ancestors of these Arabs.”

    Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, 1944: “The concept of a racial state – the Hitlerian concept- is repugnant to the civilized world, as witness the fearful global war in which we are involved. . . , I urge that we do nothing to set us back on the road to the past. To project at this time the creation of a Jewish state or commonwealth is to launch a singular innovation in world affairs which might well have incalculable consequences.”

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Phil Giraldi: When Is Sovereignty Not Sovereignty? | Piotr Bein's blog = blog Piotra Beina
    says:
    • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    […] Philip Giraldi says: March 25, 2014 at 11:36 am […]

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. The Golden Age of Newspeak: When Is Sovereignty Not Sovereignty? | Council for the National Interest
    says:
    • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    […] UNZ – Harvard Professor Stephen Walt has described the current contretemps over Ukraine as “geostrategic incompetence of the highest order” on the part of the White House. Seconding that I would add that the central problem with the Obama foreign policy, guided as it is by a bundle of poorly defined principles, is that it has no coherency. Moscow is claiming that it has intervened in Crimea, for the most part peacefully and with the overwhelming support of the local population, because it has a responsibility to protect Russian nationals living among its neighbors and also because its national security is threatened. All of that may or may not actually be true, but the argument has a certain plausibility in that one of Russia’s major naval bases is in Crimea while the population is largely Russophone and identifies as ethnically Russian. The jubilant crowds celebrating the referendum that overwhelmingly approved reunion with Russia should give pause to those insisting that the process was somehow coerced. […]

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. new Raiders uniforms Made In usa Outlet Coupon

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Shop for wholesale cheap Vikings jerseys china and get our ultra fast 7-day shipping standard and 365 day returns on any size order only at our wholesale cheap Vikings jerseys china online shop.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. The impossible ‘holocaust’ narrative allows the racist Israeli parasites to get away with slaughtering Palestinians and stealing billions from the US taxpayers every year, and then demand that US soldiers die for their greedy self interests.

    We can live without them, they cannot live without us.

    The laughable ‘holocau$t’ propaganda is an easily debunked, impossible as alleged Jewish supremacist scam.
    http://www.codoh.com
    discussion here:

    http://forum.codoh.com/

    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives
    ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and
    persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists parasites demand censorship.
    What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

    Fight racist Jewish supremacism.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Старата нова Студена война – Zahariada
    says:
    • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    […] Когато е Суверенитет Не Суверенитет? […]

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone



 
Remember
My Information
Why?

 Email Replies to my Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
Personal
Classics
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.
Pay no mind to the Mossad agent on the line.