Armbach unfortunately for you anything I post has been fact checked
The bullshitters charter ... answer every question except the one that has been asked
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 09:57
The truth hurts. There are 40000 Jews living in Gilo if you want to know who owns it I told you where you can check that information it's in Tabu - that's to be found in the centre of Jerusalem in the building next to HaMashbir on King George Street. I frankly have no idea why you consider I should dance to your tune.
I note you say nothing about the fact that your claim that Gilo is in the fairy land called "East Jerusalem" another made up term to go with "the West Bank" is in common with much else you post a load of baloney - obviously we now know who actually is the bullsh*tter.
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 10:30
King George Street is not on my schedule. But if I did go there are you saying I would discover that the Israelis that are colonising the land have legal title to it ? Will I see their names there, and find that everything is kosher ?
Or will I find that you are fibbing or that some Jews did buy the land but not these Jews ? Is it Jews stealing from Arabs or Jews stealing from Jews ?
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 10:40
Since your mind is closed to the facts you would find precisely what you wanted to find - a reasonable person on the other hand open to the facts would find that the land legally belonged to the Jews even prior to !939.
As such they have every right to build on it as they have in any other part of the world where they can show legal title - apart of course from the Arab and Islamic States which do not allow Jews to own property and where selling land to Jews is punishable with death.
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 11:25
which Jews ?
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:28
Construction of and residency in communities built by Jews in the territory of the former Mandate of Palestine cannot be considered acts that are either illegal, illegitimate or otherwise impermissible or thought of as "war crimes" and the such like. The right of "close settlement by Jews [Art. 6]" on the lands of the Mandate, which encompassed Judea, Samaria and Gaza, was enshrined in the League of Nations decision, itself based on a series of decisions and agreements that achieved status of international law between 1915 and 1924.
Which Jews - all of us muppet!
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:31
But surely any settlement / town / area that is exclusively for one type of people is apartheid, racist and fascist by nature?
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:47
Did not the mandate expire ?
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:59
Sorry Suzanna but Arabs do actually live in "settlements". Visit Pisgat Ze'ev which you would call an illegal settlement and note the signs which say "For rent - Arabs only". If you would just get the facts instead of parroting what you read on BDS pamphlets prepared for useful idiots like your good-self you would be less likely to make a fool of yourself.
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:03
I repeat - But surely any settlement / town / area that is exclusively for one type of people is apartheid, racist and fascist by nature?
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:04
Skovronek the Resolutions made by the great Powers at San Remo were enshrined in Article 80 of the founding Charter of the United Nations.
Quote: Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties. [my emphasis]
You must try harder.
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:06
Not only did it expire but...
1) The Mandate did not envisage the political sovereignty of one ethnic group
2) The Jewish settlers abrogated the Mandate by turning to terrorism against the Mandatory power
3) And further abrogated it by ignoring the provision that the rights of the native population should not be compromised by immigrant settlement.
4)And further abrogated it by declaring The State of Israel.
5)And whatever may, or may not, have been the law between 1915 and 1924 is not the law now. The Mandate has gone, The League of Nations is gone. They are irrelevant. A billion and one legal developments have superseded them.
There was a time when bear baiting was legal.
"Which Jews - all of us muppet!"
I take it you mean that the name of every Jew in the world is on the title deeds of the Gilo land. Interesting.
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:08
"until such agreements have been concluded...."
You must try harder
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:12
Who cares about the mandate etc? Settlements on occupied territory are apartheid, fascist, racist and all the rest.
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:15
Suzanna, Advs3r cares. He still thinks we are regulated by Magna Carta, the Corn Laws, window taxes,The Edict of Nantes,and goodness knows what else.
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:21
So Beit Jallah which abuts Gilo and in which no Jew who fears for his life would even venture to enter is Apartheid. Thanks for the clarification. I have told you that Arabs live on "settlements" on the other hand very few if any Jjews live in Arab villages - by your defintion that makes them Apartheid. Furthermore the Palestinians hjave stated that they want no Jjews in their new state by your definition that makes them racist fascist etc. Unfortunately it appears you have little or no knowledge of what living in the Middle East is all about.
The fact of the matter is that all across Israel there are Arab only communities in which Jews would not be welcomed. Israel unlike America for example is not a melting pot and basically because of cultural and religious reasons the communities tend to lead separate lives. So an Arab girl foolishly dating a Jewish or even an Arab Christian boy is likely to be severely beaten by her family as an affront to their honour or worse. This is not Apartheid - I suggest you read this article by Benjamin Pogrund.
Since I seriously doubt you will read it since it conflicts with your closed views on Israel - I should point out that Benjamin Pogrund is well equipped to write about apartheid and Israel. He was born in South Africa, where he was a leader in the fight against apartheid and outspoken proponent of equality as editor of the Rand Daily Mail. He now lives in Israel, where is is founding director of Yakar's Center for Social Concern in Jerusalem. he is also co-editor of the newly published book, "Shared Histories: A Palestinian-Israel Dialogue" - not what you would call a right wing fanatic which no doubt you think I am for having the temerity to defend Israel.
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:25
Armbach you do seem to have trouble with the facts when they impinge on your worldview.
By the way the Magna Carta is still considered relevant even today - see
These facts keep oin bumping into you - don't they?
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:26
I don't hear of Arab only roads, Arab only settlements, all I hear is of military justice for Palestinians, civil justice for Jews, Walls built around Palestinians, permits for Palestinians, administrative detention for Palestinians . . . . it all sounds like perfect apartheid, fascism and jack boot occupation.
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:27
These facts keep on bumping into you - don't they?
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 13:38
Relevant in the sense of historically important in the development of the common law but overlain, superseded a billion times. When was the last time a judge went to Magna Catrta in arriving at a legal judgment.
And what about The Edict of Nantes ?
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:12
A troll feeding frenzy - where to begin?
Yes Skovronek the deeds to Israel belong to every member of the Jewish People whether or not he/she wishes to take up that right. The rest of what you write is so convoluted that I have difficulty grappling with what you say.
Israel abrogated the mandate by turning to terrorism - where did you get that from? The Jews were the victims of terrorism - they were massacred by the Arabs in Hebron and in the A~rab Riots of 1936.
The Arabs welcomed Jewish Immigration so much so that they streamed in from Syria because of the job opportunities the Jews brought with them. Immigration was not illegal until the British pandering to the Arabs who they needed because war was about to break out and their oil supplies were threatened in complete negation of their Mandate obligations restricted Jewish immigration which otherwise would have saved countless lives lost in the Holocaust. But of course that does not bother you.
Israel accepted the Partition Plan the Arabs rejected it - your revisionism is breathtaking. The UN Charter is not gone and it confirms the Resolutions relating to Palestine made at the San Remo Conference - since when did you have the power to abrogate International Law?
Suzanna from where do you here all this the Guardian/Independent/BBC/Al Jazeera? You obviously did not read the article i referred you to preferring to repeat you anti-Israel diatribes - the sign of a closed mind. The barrier not wall has saved countless Jewish lives but of course that does not concern you. It will come down tomorrow if the Arabs forswear terrorism but of course they will not until they have a Jew free country from the river to the sea and who knows even then... That's what you support don't you - and by your own definition that makes you both a racist and a fascist - nice. Administrative Detention for terrorist activities where they have free access to their families, tv, education facilities etc etc - not things I would venture Gilad Shallit does.
You say there are no Arab only villages - you obviously need edujcating In the Jerusalem area Beit Jallah for example is an Arab only village as is Issawiya just two out of many more. In the rest of Israel for example Jujulia, Kafr Bara, Kafr Qasim, Qalansawe, Tayibe, Tira and Zemer are Arab only villages. so what is your point they are racists and fascists. I forget only the Jjews can be called that.
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 14:46
"Concluded" means in this case the San Remo Resolution has been put into effect - it still has not and therefore remains extant.
Watchful Iris (not verified)
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:22
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:38
Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded....
Hell this is excrutiating but I am feeling masochistic today
The individual trusteeship you have in mind is the agreements that made up the British Mandate.Conclude....to finish to end. Those agreements are concluded, kaput , finished, are no more.
Killed by a basket of things including Jewish terrorism against the mandatory power.
The declaration of the State of Israel emphasised what was already the case. The project to establish a National Jewish Home in Palestine that did not entail Jewish political sovereignty, had ,for whatever reasons, failed. And the agreements that made up the commitment were no more.
On your bizarre red herring analysis these agreements could not be concluded until every Jew in the world lived in Palestine.
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:44
In other words once a Jewish state was declared the right to appeal to Balfour, San Remo, the UN charter,was foregone.
All that stuff is foregone, kaput, finished
Superceded by a billion over riding legally relevant developments.
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 17:36
Comments for this page are now closed.