Reply to #01 John - Comment - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
  • p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String p.mt = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValued'; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; RW java.lang.String value = '0'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.NumberInputPolicy'; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String p.mt = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValued'; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; RW java.lang.String value = '0'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.NumberInputPolicy'; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap
    • Simone Kessler
    • 30.10.13 | 13:53 (IST)

    The "settlers" are not illegal. Kindly explain by what legal criteria you claim they are. And while you're about it, don't forget to consider the following facts: The 1922 Mandate for Palestine applies to Judaea and Samaria, as well as to the territories within the 1948 ceasefire lines (the “green Line”) and states as its aim the establishment of a Jewish National Home in that area. It does, indeed, protect the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish residents, but NOWHERE does it grant anyone other than the Jewish People NATIONAL rights within the area of “Palestine”. Article 6 of the Palestine Mandate signed by the League of Nations in 1922 AND NEVER ABROGATED, required the Administration of Palestine (ie. Britain) to facilitate and encourage “close settlement” by JEWS on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. As I said, this obligation was never abrogated. Indeed, Article 80 of the UN Charter explicitly prohibits the alteration “in any manner (of) 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.” Thus, the aforementioned Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine is as valid today as it was in 1922. Furthermore, when the Jordanians occupied and annexed Judaea and Samaria in 1948, it is THEY who were in illegal occupation – an occupation which was legally recognized by no-one other than Pakistan, Iraq and the United Kingdom. Thus, when Israeli forces liberated those territories in a DEFENSIVE war in 1967, they were liberating them from an illegal occupier, NOT from a sovereign power. These lands were never, in fact, allocated to any “High Contracting State” to whom the obligations of the 4th Geneva Convention could be said to apply. The most that could be said about the territories rightly known as Judaea and Samaria is, that they were "no-man's land" between 1948 and 1967.

    from the article: Israeli victims recount 'anti-Semitic' attack in Australia
    First published 15:06 28.10.13 | Last updated 15:06 28.10.13
Haaretz Headlines
Britain's opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn leaves after an election campaign poster laun

Amid anti-Semitism furor, U.K. voters look set to punish Labour in local vote

The elections have been framed as a test of Corbyn's first months in charge of Labour after he shifted the party's political stance sharply to the left.

Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam.
Trump receives Sheldon Adelson's support for presidency bid

The New York businessman wasn’t the casino mogul's first choice for president, but Adelson concludes that he 'will be good for Israel.'

08:23 06.05.16 | 0 comments
A sign showing the distances to Damascus at an army post from the 1967 war at Mt. Bental.
After almost 50 years of Israeli rule, Jews still a minority on Golan Heights

Quality of life, sane housing prices, incredible scenery 
and quiet have failed to lure many Israelis to settle there, while local Druze and Arabs are still more connected to their Syrian brethren.

07:49 06.05.16 | 0 comments
Sigmund Freud - AP
The close relationship between Einstein and Freud, relatively speaking

Correspondence between the two Jewish giants of the 20th century shows that although they didn’t understand each other’s professions, they agreed on at least one thing – the qualities of Moses.

15:00 05.05.16 | 0 comments