Friday, November 15

Submission: USAC resolution fails to distinguish anti-Semitism, criticism of Israel

On Tuesday, March 10, the Undergraduate Students Association Council passed a resolution to “condemn anti-Semitism” proposed by members of Hillel at UCLA, a Jewish organization linked to the U.S. pro-Israel lobby. Denouncing anti-Semitism is important, but buried in the resolution are clauses that attempt to redefine anti-Semitism by coupling Israel as a political entity with Jews as a people. This redefinition is so vague that any critique of Israel might be construed as anti-Semitic. Councilmembers, committed to oppose anti-Semitism and concerned about being themselves labeled anti-Semites, didn’t seriously discuss these clauses and passed them without any qualification. In this redefinition of anti-Semitism, Israel receives center stage while the question of racism is worryingly sidelined, making it in fact a redefinition of the limits of debate regarding Israel. As a Jewish citizen of Israel, social activist and UCLA graduate student, I see the passing of the resolution as a capitulation to right-wing politics of fear aimed at silencing criticism and activism on campus. Let’s consider some of the problematic clauses.

First, the resolution dubs any speech “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist” as anti-Semitic. This assumes that the only way of exercising Jewish self-determination is embodied in the state of Israel. This is clearly false: Many Jews in the past and today reject the idea that Israel embodies their collective identity and are increasingly alienated by its policies. Moreover, Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories cannot be passed off as a necessary component of Jewish self-determination. The “right to exist” is actually about preserving the existing status quo in which Israel is an occupying power.

Many Jews believe, as I do, in the right of Jews and Palestinians to live peacefully with their collective and individual rights mutually respected. This entails a radical change in the political framework in Israel and Palestine today and an end to the domination of one group over another. Such a change, based on mutual commitment to equal rights, does not amount to questioning the right of Jews for collective national rights, but to the recognition that Jews are not the only people in today’s Israel and Palestine who deserve this right.

The resolution also states that anti-Semitism can come in the form of “applying double standards by requiring of (Israel) a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and “multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations.” Such “multilateral organizations,” like the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have repeatedly criticized and continue to criticize Israel’s violations of human rights and international law. Moreover, must we simultaneously criticize other countries every time we wish to condemn the killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza?

These clauses have little to do with racism against Jews; rather, they serve as a gag order on criticism of Israel. They are meant to make people afraid of uttering their opinions for fear of being branded as anti-Semitic. But who gets to decide how these definitions are applied? According to the resolution, USAC “will respect the right of the organized Jewish Community at UCLA to define, within the guidelines of the national definition, what is and is not anti-Semitic.” In other words, despite the fact that no country, including Israel, accepts this definition as binding in law, the authors demand not only acceptance of this right-wing position but also the authority to decide when it applies. Despite such attempts to exclude us, there are many Jews on campus who disagree with this conflation of Jewishness with the Israeli state. A UCLA Jewish Voice for Peace chapter was established last year precisely to free progressive Jews from the monopolization of their public voice by the pro-Israeli lobby.

Dissenting Jews are dealt with by a special clause: “The fact that a small minority of Jews may disagree with aspects of the above definition does not render it invalid, as an accepted definition of racism against any community would be nearly impossible to create if it required the agreement of every single member of that community.” In other words, they, the established, well-funded organizations, shall decide for all Jews, regardless of their opinions, when an act is anti-Semitic.

Despite these clauses, I trust that people on campus can distinguish between criticism of Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment. Speaking out against and working to end Israel’s violations of human rights and international law is the obligation of everyone who seeks to combat racism.

Ball is a graduate student in the Department of History.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on Google+Share on Reddit

Comments are supposed to create a forum for thoughtful, respectful community discussion. Please be nice. View our full comments policy here.

  • McMullans

    Having a “gag order” against American citizens criticism (aka. freedom of speech) of a foreign nation, is this even legal?

    • ThisIsPalestine

      There’s no ruling against criticism of a foreign nation. There is ruling against anti-Semitism, which SJP and their supporters like to disguise as criticism of Israel.

      By the way, guys, screaming that Jewish nationalism is “racism” or “apartheid” while waving the flag of Arab nationalism IS anti-Semitism and always will be. Don’t whine when you are called out for what you are.

      • Michael Hess

        Israel is by definition an Apartheid state kid. There’s nothing antisemitic about it as the author and the Jews in my family will attest. Today is a perfect example of this obvious Apartheid.

        All those 600,000 illegal colonists who are outside of Israel living illegally in Palestine will be able to vote today in elections of the nation that is breaking Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention more than 600,000 times.

        This is analogous to letting criminals vote for leniency and freedom.

        • ThisIsPalestine

          With all due respect to the fictional “Jews in your family,” by all real definitions of “apartheid” Israel doesn’t come close. Everyone who lives in Israel has equal rights under the law. Arabs serve as judges, police officers, generals, and even the President of Israel. You are simply telling lies.

          You want to find apartheid, look at the 52 Muslim nations and 23 Arab states who are backed to the hilt by SJP and their fellow travelers. Got hypocrisy?

          • Michael Hess

            Yeah yeah, I’ve come across little bigots and fools like you before. Israel is an Apartheid State. There is no doubt about this fact, I just gave an undeniable proof of tat fact and sorry bud, there’s nothing that you can do to change it until you get all the illegal colonists out of Palestine and back to Israel where they came from.

          • Adam OnWeb

            You said: “…there’s nothing that you can do to change it until you get all the
            illegal colonists out of Palestine and back to Israel where they came

            Apartheid is about discrimination. Settlements are a completely separate issue. By stating that the only way to change this is to get settlements out of Palestine, you demonstrate that you don’t even know what ‘Apartheid’ means.

            Stop embarrassing yourself and UCLA.

          • Michael Hess

            Adam, TODAY, illegal colonists from Israel who are in Palestine VOTED, while the rightful indigenous people on their own land did not vote.

            It’s baldfaced Apartheid. Late last year, Israel passed a law extending Israel law to the illegal colonists while those indigenous people on their own land, the Palestinians, get MILITARY LAW.

            Now, should you wish to avoid further embarrassment, go to B’Tselem and the Association for Civil Rights Israel (ACRI) and read their respective reports on the two different systems of justice enjoyed by the illegal colonists, and those who are having their land and resources stolen from them at the point of a gun.

          • Adam OnWeb

            Micheal, Israel occupies the West Bank as a result of a defensive campaign. Israel has not annexed the West Bank. The West Bank is not part of Israel – PERIOD. If you would like the West Bank to be part of Israel, you should come out and say that.

            Do you support Israel annexing the West Bank? Do you support the idea that the West Bank should not be part of Palestinian state?

            You can’t have it both ways.

            Meanwhile, within Israel proper, Arabs, Jews, and Christians all vote – and that’s more than you can say for nearly every Arab state in the region. So please, spare us your hypocrisy. Israel is not apartheid and if you were really so concerned about Arab’s not getting to vote, there are about 40 other countries in the region who don’t allow ANYONE to vote at all.

            Get real.

          • Michael Hess

            Adam, you are just spouting well worn Hasbara that has been debunked so many times it is pitiful that you even try to run it by folks on the student Web site. Even before Israel was founded it was the Israelis who were the terrorists. The Irgun, LEHI, Stern Gang, and Haganah the forerunner of the IDF were all terrorist groups. Israel started the 1967 war and highlights from that include the near sinking of the USS Liberty by Israel who killed 34 American sailors and injured 172. The Israelis were though to be covering up their massacre of 1000 Egyptian POW’s and their impending theft of the Golan Heights.

            Stop trying to use logical fallacies in your extremism against human rights and the rule of law. Those other nations have ZERO to do with Israel’s Apartheid State and the crimes they have committed against Palestinians for decades. If you care about Israel, I suggest you encourage them to stop being an Apartheid state and then they can fully join the family of nations.

          • Adam OnWeb

            Michael, you’ve clearly read way too much propaganda. The facts are this: Israel is not Apartheid. You can watch the video I posted above and learn what apartheid really is – and learn that it doesn’t apply to Israel at all. And if you really want to reach peace in the middle east, I strongly suggest you stop trying to demonize Israel and try to appreciate the other point of view. I understand the Palestinian point of view. I can defend many of their positions, too. But I don’t demonize them and I don’t give any credibility to those who demonize Israel.

          • Michael Hess

            Israel was created in Palestine kid. Not the other way around. And it has been part and parcel of the entire enterprise ever since the Balfour Declaration that:

            “…it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine…”

            Balfour Declaration of 1917

            I am not demonizing Israel. They have a state. I am appalled at your defense of their illegal occupation of Palestine OUTSIDE of the state of Israel. Now please give me the links where you have also defended Vladimir Putin’s theft of Crimea by military force and impending takeover of Ukraine. As you say, you can’t have it both ways.

            I will continue to stand against Israel’s Apartheid and by the rule of law.

          • Adam OnWeb

            Ho-Hum… again… the occupation is not illegal. For someone who claims to know about this conflict, I’m surprised that you can’t grasp this fact. Do some homework. No occupation is illegal when it occurs as a result of a defensive campaign. This is basic international law. Resolution 242 – the cease fire agreement of the 67 war – acknowledges and lays out the terms for withdrawal. No where does it ever refer to the occupation as ‘illegal’. Really, learn some facts.

          • proudzionist

            Very true, Adam. Fact is that the “occupation” with which anti-Semites are hopelessly
            obsessed is indisputably legal under any/all laws, national, international,
            military or other. The West Bank was ILLEGALLY occupied by Jordan after
            Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, a DEFENSIVE war in which Israel was attacked
            by its “peaceful, tolerant,” neighbors. And the world had no problem with this
            whatsoever. Following Israel’s conquest of the West Bank during the 1967 war,
            yet another DEFENSIVE war in which Israel was attacked by its “peaceful, tolerant”
            neighbors, it maintained its military presence so as to protect itself from
            further attacks from this region. Ultimately, Jordan relinquished its hold on
            the West Bank (funny, as it’s hold was never legal to begin with), and this
            territory remains non-sovereign territory to this day. The very concept that Judea/Samaria automatically reverted to a “State of Palestine” in 1967 is utterly preposterous.

            Perhaps the funniest part of it all is that Israel’s occupation of the non-sovereign West Bank is not merely LEGAL. It is MANDATORY, under international law, as it is the result of having gained control of non-sovereign, hostile territory in a war of
            self-defense. And it must remain so “occupied” until sovereignty is established
            based on results of negotiations, as is dictated by UN res. 242, security
            council res. 338, and the multitudes of diplomatic initiatives during since

          • Adam OnWeb

            Proudzionist, Exactly right!

          • ThisIsPalestine

            Sorry Mike but on this planet “my Jewish relatives said so” doesn’t constitute “undeniable proof.” I suggest you head back to your SJP meeting where dissent is squelched through force.

          • Michael Hess

            No relation to SJP, I am however the editor of BBSNews for the last 25 years. And let me tell you something else kid. I am not posting with a fake name like you. I am posting as I always have with my real name. I have provided proof positive that Israel’s occupation of Palestine is illegal with links. So far all you have is bupkiss.

          • proudzionist

            Very impressive credentials, indeed. You are the “editor” of your blog which has virtually no readership, even after 25 years. And let’s face it, Mikey, you’re not just the “editor” of your blog. You’re the sole proprietor, aren’t you? Any employees over there at Any of you fictitious “Jews in my family” on staff?
            Don’t you think it’s time you get a real job?

          • Michael Hess

            Yes, this is the logic of trolls. I am not the only news source that you do this to. And it really must gall you that year after year my facts are born out and you are still just another anonymous troll standing up for unspeakable evil. I wonder how you would feel if occupation soldiers left your wife to give birth in the dirt, would you like that trollboy?

            How about strapping your child to the front of a jeep to protect that “most moral army?”

            You have always made me sick with your vile support of evil.

          • proudzionist

            You’re not a “news source”. As far as anyone can tell, you’ve got no cameras, no new reporters, no printing presses, no NOTHING. You’re a one man propaganda machine; a Goebbels wannabe.
            I haven’t made you sick, Mikey. You’ve been “sick” with anti-Semitism your entire adult life. It consumes you. Why don’t you go stand in front of a moving IDF bulldozer, protecting your precious “Palestinians” while they stand at a safe distance and cheer you on.

          • Adam OnWeb

            Funny :)

          • proudzionist

            Nope. The only thing you provided “undeniable proof of” is your anti-Semitism. Israel is the only true democracy in the middle east, surrounded by hundreds of thousands of square miles of Arab-Muslim apartheid.
            And there’s nothing you can do about that absolute truth.

          • Michael Hess

            I am not in the least antisemitic as you know, my brother-in-law and my cousins are Jewish. I am a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and you are a well-known vile troll.

            Stop stalking me troll. The entire world understands that Israel illegally occupied Palestine except for some nuts like yourself. Now explain to everyone how you are an illegal colonist and of course you are going to look out for your illgotten gain.

          • proudzionist

            It’s time your “brother-in-law” and “cousins” start speaking for themselves. You’re a broken record already, with your “Jews in my family”, “my Palestinian doctors”, “my Iranian computer guy” nonsense, ad-nauseum. Nobody buys your nonsense, so you should stop selling it.

          • Michael Hess

            Except for one little thing. Unlike you, I actually post with my real name and identity because as you know, I am the editor of BBSNews and have been for the last 25 years. You on the other hand are a well known anonymous troll.

          • proudzionist

            You are the very definition of a troll. You’ve spent the last 25 years (according to you) trolling the internet for articles pertaining to Israel, just for the purpose spewing the same, tired, old one-liners:

            - A have Jews in my family ™
            - I know Gaza is occupied, because Ban Ki Moon told me so ™
            - Israel is a rogue nuke state
            - Look for the Jihadi under your bed ™
            - I have friends in Gaza ™
            - Time’s up ™
            - I have Palestinian doctors, and they’re not trying to kill me ™
            - There are over 400 Hess’s in the Israeli telephone book ™

            Shall I go on, troll? You’re a broken friggin’ record.

            “In Internet
            slang, a troll
            (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by
            starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by
            posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking
            readers into an emotional response[3] or of
            otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion”

            Internet “troll” is a person who delights in sowing discord on the
            Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset
            people. Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for
            their bizarre game..Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or
            otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame
            or compassion; you cannot reason with them.”

            “a person
            who submits deliberately inflammatory articles to an internet discussion”

   (Collins Dictionary)

            You are in desperate need of some new material, my anti-Semite friend.

          • McMullans

            “It’s a Trick, We Always Use It.” (calling people “anti-Semitic”)

        • Adam OnWeb

          Hess, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Israel is not an apartheid state.

          You don’t have to believe me. Listen to Kenneth Meshoe, a black South African and a member of the South African parliament.

          I don’t know what foolishness they are teaching in UCLA, but the flood of ignorance and hate on display in the Daily Bruin is positively embarrassing!

          No wonder UCLA ranks among the top 10 most antisemitic universities in the country.

          • Michael Hess

            The fact is that Desmond Tutu, who knows Apartheid intimately, says that Israel’s Apartheid is WORSE that South Africa’s Apartheid. And Nelson Mandela said that South Africa’s struggle is simply not complete until Palestine is free from it’s Apartheid.

            You cannot hide the more than 600,000 illegal colonists and the occupation army that “protects” them by acts like letting Palestinians women give birth in the dirt at checkpoints. Or the use of Palestinians kids as Human Shields, as young as nine years-old, in various ways including tying them to the front of jeeps. Some “most moral army in the world.”

            More like a rogue nation that has committed Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes for decades with impunity. And the ICC is going to bring that impunity to an end. The rule of law will prevail and right will be done for the millions of Palestinians who have been so very wronged.

          • Adam OnWeb

            Rant and lie all you want, but watch the video I put in the post above – learn what ‘apartheid’ actually means.

            I encourage everyone to watch the video I linked above and learn what ‘apartheid’ means and why it is wrong to apply it to Israel. It does a disservice to people who truly suffered from apartheid.

          • Michael Hess

            Israel’s Apartheid is worse. I have not told a single lie here. I am simply pointing out that this new rule calling criticism of the Israeli Apartheid state antisemitism is ludicrous.

            The Jews in my family are not going to be held accountable for the criminal acts of successive Israeli Apartheid regimes. The worlds Jews should not be held accountable for the Crimes Against Humanity that the rogue state of Israel commits.

            THAT would be antisemitic.

          • proudzionist

            Lies, as per usual from you. Mandela never stated any such thing, and NEVER suggested that Israel was an Apartheid State. Desmont Tutu is nothing but a lifelong Jew-hater, much like you.

            “The truth is there is no apartheid in Israel…My
            parents suffered through apartheid… We need to speak up and tell the truth that
            Israel is not an apartheid state. We
            love the Jewish people, but more than that we love the truth. And the God that
            we serve is a God of love and truth. And in our Bible we are taught to be
            people of the truth” – Esther Meshoe [daughter of South
            African parliamentarian, Dr. Kenneth Meshoe]

            “If Israel were an apartheid state, I would not have been
            appointed here, nor would I have chosen to take upon myself this duty” –
            Ishmael Khaldi [US Pacific Northwest deputy consul of Israel, and Bedouin Muslim,
            in response to Israel Apartheid Week]
            You’re a pathologic liar. You couldn’t tell the truth if your life depended on it. You don’t know a thing about Israel. You’ve never been there. And you can spare us all the ridiculous lies about “Jews in my family”.

          • Michael Hess

            Oh PZ! Welcome you little troll. That’s funny, I did not see you answering the part about the High Contracting parties but then, you never have had a shred of integrity.

          • ScottAdler

            Nelson Mandela loved Yasser Arafat, a fascist murderer.

            The marble statue had feet of mud.

          • proudzionist

            True. Even so, Mandela never accused Israel of apartheid. Hess just makes stuff up. When he’s proven wrong, he just keeps on repeating the lies.

          • robman012

            Thats one dunce against the entire ANC. He was talking about Israel proper, not the West Bank

          • Adam OnWeb

            First, he’s not a dunce. He knows more about actual apartheid than you and I ever will. Secondly, you are right – he is talking about Israel proper – the West Bank is not part of Israel and never was.

            Israel is willing to extend sovereignty to Jews living in the West Bank and grant them rights as Israeli citizens, but Israel has not annexed the territory and makes no such claim (besides Jerusalem).

            All countries have a right to extend citizenship to people outside of their border – as long as it does not conflict with another sovereign state. If the citizen accepts the sovereign, they have rights as a citizen.

            The West Bank territory has never been annexed by Israel and the land remains ‘disputed territory’ in accordance with UN Resolution 242.

            Look it up.

          • Michael Hess

            There’s nothing to look up. The state of Israel does not have the legal power to “extend sovereignty” to illegal colonists who are outside of Israel. This should be self-evident as the US can’t extend sovereignty to citizens say in Canada or Mexico but some people just can’t get basic facts through their very thick and wrong heads.

          • Adam OnWeb

            Michael, you are just flat out wrong. You clearly don’t know much about intl law. ANY state can extend sovereignty to a citizen outside their border if the citizen accepts it – and it does not interfere with another sovereign power. Canada and Mexico are sovereign states, but the West Bank does not have a sovereign power. It is disputed territory and under occupation – legal occupation.

            You keep trying to conflate the settlements with the occupation, but you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. You could make an argument about the status of settlements, but the occupation is a separate issue. The occupation began before there were any settlements and it remains until hostilities cease. The arrival of settlements does not change that fact.

            Learn something. Look it up. The occupation is legal.

      • McMullans

        So if I’m reading your post correctly, “Don’t whine when you are called out for what you are.”, essentially you are attempting to smear me with your antisemitism brush?

        And when there is an organization with over 1600 Jews who think the same way I do, let me guess, do you pull out you self-hating Jew brush and attempt to smear them too?

        Jews For Justice For Palestinians
        WHO WE ARE:
        Jews for Justice for Palestinians is a network of Jews who are British or live in Britain, practising and secular, Zionist and not. We oppose Israeli policies that undermine the livelihoods, human, civil and political rights of the Palestinian people.

        We support the right of Israelis to live in freedom and security within Israel’s 1967 borders.

        As well as organising to ensure that Jewish opinions critical of Israeli policy are heard in Britain, we extend support to Palestinians trapped in the spiral of violence and repression. We believe that such actions are important in countering antisemitism and the claim that opposition to Israel’s destructive policies is itself antisemitic.

        We cooperate with other organisations on specific issues without necessarily endorsing everything they do.

        We work to build world-wide Jewish opposition to the Israeli Occupation, with like-minded groups around the world and are a founding member of European Jews for a Just Peace, a federation of Jewish groups in ten European countries whose principles include:

        condemnation of all violence against civilians in the conflict, no matter by whom it is carried out; recognition of Israel’s 1967 ‘green line’ borders; commitment to the Palestinians’ right to a state in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza; calling on Israel to acknowledge its part in the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem and its obligation to negotiate a just, fair and practical resolution of the issue.

        “Israel must withdraw from all the settlements and dismantle the wall within Palestinian territory. Then, perhaps, we may at last see some justice for Palestinians.”


        • ThisIsPalestine

          There were Jews who supported the Nazis, Jews who supported the Cossacks, even Jews who supported the Amalekites. The fact that you are able to trick approximately 0.001% of the Jewish population in the world to your side doesn’t mean that your side isn’t teeming with anti-Semitism.

          Now maybe try arguing the facts instead of hiding behind tokens.

        • yogii89

          You do realize that 1967 borders = West Bank going to Jordan & Gaza going to Egypt.

      • Sean Cohen

        Self victimization is a psychiatric disorder.

  • hypocrisy

    “Blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions”

    “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”

    “Multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations”

    How is any of these above anti-semitsm. You can disagree with them, but how is it anti-semitsm. Sounds more like curbs on free speech. No judge in this country is going to uphold this resolution if ever challenged on free speech grounds.

    • ScottAdler

      How are hypocrisy and double-standards not anti-Semitism?

      Exactly what IS anti-Semitism? Screaming and shouting and lying and drowning out? Banning Jews from leadership positions unless they agree with Palestinian and leftist lies?

      Or, eventually, beatings, fire-bombings, and shootings?

      You chose a fitting name.

  • Kowo92

    TRNN interviews Israelis and Jewish Americans (covering the Jewish Voice for Peace 2015 National Meeting) to discuss how to end the occupation of Palestine: “AIPAC is looking more and more irrelevant and backwards in the current political climate. I mean, they still dwarf us in size, in money, but our political relevance in the mainstream is growing at a much faster pace and is much bigger considering our level of resources we have.” Full interview here:

    • hypocrisy

      Under the new resolution what JVP states is anti-semitic.

      • Michael Hess

        Could be, and that’s a problem. I am a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and this attempt to stifle speech about Israel’s Apartheid created by the illegal occupation of Palestine looks pretty desperate. When you have to start squelching truth and the voices of those relating the truth then your cause is lost. And none too soon.

        • M2000

          Why are you related to a war criminal like Rudolf Hess?

  • Adam OnWeb

    Wrong, wrong, wrong… and terribly dishonest…

    The writer of this article makes a fair point about silencing speech, but his blatantly biased language and dishonest statements ruins his message and turns his piece into nothing but another dishonest attack on Israel. Here are some examples of where he goes wrong…

    THE ARTICLE STATES: “First, the resolution dubs any speech ‘denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist’ as anti-Semitic. This assumes that the only way of exercising Jewish self-determination is embodied in the state of Israel.”

    STRAW MAN ARGUMENT: That statement certainly does not ASSUME that the right of self-determination for Jews is solely embodied in the existence of Israel. The right of self-determination is a premise for creating states that world organizations have applied to sovereignty conflicts since the original formation of the League of Nations. To deny it to any state is discriminatory – and to deny it to Israel – simply because it is Israel (the only Jewish State) – can certainly be deemed anti-semetic. All states should have the right of self-determination.

    THE ARTICLE STATES: “Moreover, Israel’s ILLEGAL occupation of the Palestinian territories cannot be passed off as a necessary component of Jewish self-determination.”

    FALSE STATEMENT AND STRAW MAN ARGUMENT: Israel’s occupation is not ILLEGAL and the occupation is not ‘passed off as a necessary component of Jewish self-determination’. The occupation of the west bank is a result of Jordan attacking Israel on June 5th, 1967. Israel retaliated with a counter attack and occupied the West Bank (at the time, Jordanian territory). Under international law, as part of a defensive campaign, Israel IS NOT REQUIRED to end its occupation of captured territory until SECURITY IS ESTABLISHED AND HOSTILITIES CEASE. Since the end of the 67 war, funded by multiple Arab nations in the region, numerous terrorist organizations have waged a proxy war and launched thousands of attacks against Israel from the West Bank. Many of these organizations and their state sponsors have publicly stated that their ultimate goal is to militarily defeat and dismantle the state of Israel. Israel is completely within its rights to maintain a military occupation until SECURITY IS ESTABLISHED AND HOSTILITIES cease. All states have this right and this has nothing to do with ‘Jewish self-determination’.

    THE ARTICLE STATES: “The ‘right to exist’ is actually about preserving the existing status quo in which Israel is an occupying power.”

    FALSE STATEMENT: The ‘right to exist’ has nothing to do with maintaining any ‘status quo’ or occupation. The term ‘right to exist’ (as applied to nations) can be traced back to the 1880′s, long before Israel’s formation in 1948. Arab recognition of Israel’s right to exist was part of Count Bernadotte’s 1948 peace plan and nearly all Arab states gave this as their reason to rejected the plan. The occupation of the West Bank did not occur until 1967. The occupation and its resulting ‘status-quo’ didn’t even exist when the term was first utilized in connection of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    THE ARTICLE STATES: The resolution also states that anti-Semitism can come in the form of “applying double standards by requiring of (Israel) a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and “multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations…. …must we simultaneously criticize other countries every time we wish to condemn the killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza?

    STRAW MAN ARGUMENT (AGAIN): No one is contending that there must be simultaneous criticism of other countries, but there must be some degree of proportionality and context. To the north of Israel, far more Palestinian refugees have died in the Syrian conflict in a single month than the entire 70 year history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, yet there is almost no media coverage, international protests, or even noticeable public discussions about this fact at all. Another example: To claim the recent Gaza conflict with a total of about 1800 casualties is a “genocide” makes it comparable to situations like Darfur where Muslims Extremists have killed over 600,000 people. The comparison is ludicrous and grossly dishonest. The Israel-Palestine conflict is not – nor has it ever been – the most unjust, violent or damaging conflict on earth -not even close. To present the conflict as such – just to demonize Israel and Jews – is certainly anti-semetic.

    THE ARTICLE STATES: “But who gets to decide how these definitions are applied? According to the resolution, USAC “will respect the right of the organized Jewish Community at UCLA to define, within the guidelines of the national definition, what is and is not anti-Semitic.” In other words, despite the fact that no country, including Israel, accepts this definition as binding in law, the authors demand not only acceptance of this right-wing position but also the authority to decide when it applies.”

    SLOPPY – PUT THE WRITER DOES HAVE A POINT HERE: As reluctant as I am to agree with this dishonest writer, he does make a fair point about free speech. Too bad he has to muddy the issue by mislabeling it as “right-wing”. Most fair minded people support the right of free and open debate. People can and should be allowed to debate these issues openly without the proven inept USAC government body deciding which speech is offensive and which is reasonable. In light of their recent treatment of Rachel Beyda, I can’t see how they feel they are in any position to pass judgement on discriminatory speech.

    THE ARTICLE STATES: “Speaking out against and working to end Israel’s violations of human rights and international law is the obligation of everyone who seeks to combat racism.”

    WRONG: Speaking out against and working to end ALL violations of human rights and international law is an obligation of everyone who seeks to combat racism. Fair minded people might thing that the focus should be on some of the worst offenders with much larger populations involved, like ISIS and Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and Russia – just to name a few. To focus on Israel’s behavior alone, while it is engages in a legitimate conflict having implications on it’s very existence, is grossly disproportionate, unfair and exposes your obvious bias against Israel. It destroys your credibility and renders just about everything you say in this article as a cheap political attack.

    There are about 15 million Jews remaining on earth. There are over 1.5 billion Muslims – many who are overtly anti-semetic – and who knows how many anti-semities in Europe, Asia and the even the USA. I don’t think it would be an exaggeration to say that for every Jew, there are roughly 100 anti-semites. If someone like myself dedicated his entire life to correcting all the false and inaccurate statements generated by bigots and misguided leftists – like this writer – I would barely put a dent in the overwhelming wave of ignorance and hate.

    Writer, why don’t you write about how unfair that is?

    • hypocrisy

      ” Israel’s occupation is not ILLEGAL ” – Do we need say more.

      • Adam OnWeb

        I like to give an explanation so people understand the difference between an illegal and legitimate occupation. I think the more they understand, the better.

        Ironically, between 1948 and 1967, Gaza was illegally occupied by Egypt and the West Bank was illegally occupied by Jordan – and no one seemed to care. There were no calls or protests to free Palestine from illegal occupations – as long as the occupiers were not Jews.

        Only when Israel legitimately and legally occupies the West Bank in response to an attack does anyone cry foul.

        • Michael Hess

          Wrong as I have shown you above. Stop trying to make excuses. And you really should visit the Truman Library and read the documents there about Israel’s founding. The state of Israel’s legal borders are those under UNGA 181. This is what they repeatedly sold to President Truman, and that is what he recognized (after changing the press release and scratching out Jewish State and adding the word provisional).

          Stop making things up and read the actual documents, you will look less foolish that way.

        • hypocrisy

          All you need to do is read the UN Resolutions. Not what you and i think.

          • Michael Hess

            Exactly. Starting with UN General Assembly resolution 181, then 194, then UNSCR 242, and 338, and 476, and 1860 just to name the highlights…

          • Adam OnWeb

            Well, i know many people won’t do the research, so I like to give them the facts.

          • Michael Hess

            When will you start? So far you have failed miserably…

      • Michael Hess

        Sorry, Israel’s occupation is quite illegal. You should read up on Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and it would not hurt for you to understand Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter. It is quite illegal for an occupier state to transfer its citizens into occupied territory.

        Israel has done this more than 600,000 times, a Crime Against Humanity. To claim otherwise is to learn nothing from the German invasion of Poland. Or Putin and Crimea. It’s wrong to steal territory by military force, I should have thought for anyone over eight years-old that this would be self-evident.

        • Adam OnWeb

          Michael Hess, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. No occupation occurring as a result of a defensive campaign is – or ever has been – deemed illegal under international law.

          • Michael Hess

            Uh huh. Answer this:

            “The participating High Contracting Parties express their deep concern about the impact of the continued occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They recall that, according to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004, the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, at least insofar as it deviates from the Green Line, and its associated regime, are contrary to international humanitarian law. They equally express their deep concern, from an international humanitarian law standpoint, about certain measures taken by the Occupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the closure of the Gaza Strip. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territory and of the expansion thereof and of related unlawful seizure of property as well as of the transfer of prisoners into the territory of the Occupying Power.” [emphasis added]

            The United Nations

          • Adam OnWeb

            Michael, read it yourself… it says “ILLEGALITY OF SETTLEMENTS”.

            It does not say “ILLEGALITY OF OCCUPATION”.

            ‘Settlements’ and ‘Military Occupations’ are two different, separate issues. When Israel occupied the West Bank, there were no settlements. Do you understand the difference?

            What are they teaching you in UCLA?

          • Michael Hess

            What do they teach you in clown school? There can be a legal military occupation.

            Israel’s occupation became illegal the day the first colonist was sent to live OUTSIDE of Israel into Palestine with the goal of taking over that land. I’m way too old and way to familiar with the material kid.

            Anyone can look for themselves and follow the link to the United Nations report or read for themselves Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention. You see son, I am an American Indian in New Mexico and we know just a little about colonizers who kill off indigenous people and take the land and resources.

            You will never fool me kid. You make jokes about UCLA when you barely graduated high school and try to pass off semantic non-distinctions of fact. Perhaps you should have strived to get the grades to enter a university like UCLA…

          • Adam OnWeb

            You said, “There can be a legal military occupation. Israel’s occupation became illegal the day the first colonist was sent to live OUTSIDE of Israel into Palestine with the goal of taking over that land.”

            Again, you are wrong. Please show me any UN resolution that states that the ‘Israeli occupation of the west bank became illegal’ the moment a settlement went up.

            You’re trying to cover your mistake and you’re just making yourself look worse.

            The settlements are a separate issue. The quote you put up from the UN makes that very clear. You might be able to argue that settlements are illegal.

            But the occupation is – and always has been – absolutely legal and legitimate. The arrival of settlements do not change that fact.

            Period – end of case.

            It seems that you can’t distinguish between the occupation and the settlements.

          • Michael Hess

            Oh I most certainly can make the distinction. For some reason you are conveniently leaving out the most important ingredient. “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war…” from UNSCR 242 to start with. This goes all the way back to the Hague Convention in 1907.

            Secondly, there is no legal way for Israel to annex occupied territory by using illegal colonies and colonists with which to do so. There is no legitimacy by conquest. Thus this occupation is illegal under well known international law.

            Israel holds no sovereignty whatsoever over the West Bank, Jerusalem, or the Gaza Strip (and the Golan Heights and Sheeba Farms.)

            The documents from Israel’s founding repeatedly make clear that the state of Israel declared itself within the suggested borders of UNGA 181. When the state of Israel embarked on the illegal colonial project, the occupation went from being a legal “belligerent” occupation to being quite illegal.

          • proudzionist

            Nope. International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. All of Israel’s wars with its Arab neighbors were in self-defense.

            Professor, Judge Schwebel (of ICJ fame), wrote in What Weight to Conquest:

            “(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;

            “(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;

            “(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.

            “… as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what is known as was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt.”

            (Professor, Judge Schwebel, “Justice in International Law,” Cambridge University Press, 1994.)

          • Michael Hess

            Nope. Israel accepted the partition resolution. See the Truman Library:

            In correspondence from Eliahu Epstein, an authorized agent for the nascent Israel government he wrote President Truman on May 14th, 1948:

            “I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution of November 29, 1947 … the Act of Independence will become effective on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

            Now as much as I like a good Appeal to Authority logical fallacy, I’ll have to pass on yours. It is without doubt that it is highly illegal for an occupier country to transfer it’s citizens into occupied territory. In addition, things are about to come to a head on that issue because the state of Palestine, recognized by 138 nations and counting has now gone to the International Criminal Court for redress of this very issue (among others.)

            Ironically that recognition in the UNGA came on November 29th, 2012. The same day of the month of the original partition resolution that Israel officially accepted and President Truman recognized, on May 15th, 1948.

            You have never been correct PZ and over the years it has been enjoyable to point out to you where you have gone wrong so many times. Now stop stalking me troll.

          • proudzionist

            Yup. Israel accepted the partition resolution. Unfortunately, the Arabs didn’t. If you’re such an expert about the Truman Library, why don’t you tell us about the State Department documents that actually predicted that the Arabs would not accept the existence of a Jewish State? Why don’t you reference the documents (in the Truman Library) which reveal that the Arabs not only didn’t want a Jewish State, but they didn’t want an independent Arab State within “Palestine” either. The notion of a “Palestinian State” (no such nationality exists, as we all well know) didn’t come into being until the 1960′s, as presented by the father of modern terrorism Yassir Arafat (the Egyptian).

            So you see, my anti-Semite friend, Israel did indeed accept the partition, but the Arabs didn’t, and attacked Israel on the very first day of Statehood. In doing so, they screwed themselves. But they didn’t stop there. They still could have salvaged a State to which they were not entitled. But they haven’t stopped attacking Israel since 1948. Well, guess what. There are no more “do-overs” for your fakestinians.

            Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, stated:

            “Territorial Rights Under International Law…. By their [Arab countries] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel’s territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article.”

            (Israel and Palestine, Assault on the Law of Nations” The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981, p. 127.)

          • Adam OnWeb

            ProudZionist, I would offer to jump in but you clearly don’t need any help. Your arguments are flawless. You’re running circles around Micheal. He’s no match for you.

          • proudzionist

            Thank you, Adam. I’ve enjoyed making minced meat out of Hess, on and off for about 7 years now. It’s not difficult, really. He latches on to two or three references for months at a time (currently, he’s on a Truman Library kick), and wears them out. Many of the references he uses actually contain arguments against his own. This guy is in the game to
            start arguments, upset people, and post inflammatory messages in online forums with the deliberate intent of provoking
            readers into emotional responses. A “troll”, by very definition. Poor guy, he actually believes he’s a journalist running a news site. Funny, how he spends all his time on internet talkbacks.
            Anyway, feel free to jump in. The more, the merrier.

          • Adam OnWeb

            I would but I try to avoid preaching to the deaf. I prefer to talk to people who aren’t close-minded and want to actually learn about the conflict. It seems clear that Hess just wants to condemn Israel. People like that are a waste of time…
            But it is good that someone like you can expose his dishonesty and bring up all the facts. I’m always concerned about someone reading propaganda and drawing wrong conclusions. Thanks goodness there are people like you who know the facts and are able to communicate them effectively.

          • proudzionist

            And stop the stupid accusations of “stalking”. Though you make your poisonous presence known throughout the internet hundreds of times per day, 7 days a week, I go months (sometimes years) between dialogues with you. You see, Mikey, I actually work for a living. I don’t have the time to spend 24/7 on the internet like you do. Beside, Anti-Semitic trolls like you shouldn’t have such thin skins. You do more than your fair share of dishing it out. You should put your big boy pants on, and take a little bit of your own medicine. Of course, if you got out of your teepee for some fresh air every once in a while, you might discover that there’s actually a real world out there, and you wouldn’t have to be so paranoid about being “stalked” on the internet’s talkbacks to which you are pathologically addicted.

          • Michael Hess

            Making vile false accusation is the definition of a stalking Internet troll. I have never ever uttered an antisemitic statement in my entire long life and yet you show your racism by accusing me, an American Indian, that I should get out of my teepee.

            You just despise the fact that I have been right the entire time. After all the Geneva Convention is older than you are PZ. The only thing that has changed over the years is that since 1999, probably the first time I came across you as I recall, the High Contracting Parties have repeatedly confirmed that the Fourth covers Israel’s occupation and the colonies, each and every one of them right down to Ariel are illegal under international law. Thus my old friend, it is undeniably an ILLEGAL OCCUPATION.

            You are an Internet stalker. Instead of admitting that I am correct that the 4th applies to Israel and establishes that the colonies are illegal, you make racist remarks, you attempt to denigrate and harm my livelihood, in the very comment above you again lie and claim that I am antisemitic when I have told you dozens of times that I have Jews in my family, I have Jewish doctors, I have Jewish friends and I am a member of Jewish Voice for Peace. All things that are the antithesis to being antisemitic.

            You in short, are an obnoxious troll that can’t argue on the merits, you simply spew ad hominem because the truth of the matter is just too hard for you to countenance.

          • proudzionist

            Read any of your million postings written over the past 5 years, and you’ll see what a “vile false accusation” really looks like. You are the king of vile false accusations. And for someone who has “never ever uttered an anti-Semitic statement in my entire long life”, you sure do get accused of anti-Semitism an awful lot. In fact, I’d bet that you’ve been called a Na$i more times than anyone else in history, so much so that you’ve even developed a little rolodex of responses to such accusations (e.g. whenever someone takes notice of your anti-Semitism and your surname, you reflexively…and falsely… reply “There are over 400 Hess’s in the Israeli phone book”. In fact, there are only about 20, as if that mattered).

            You did not come across me in 1999. I did not start posting in talkbacks until about 7 years ago, when you were littering Haaretz talkbacks with your inane “time’s up, time’s up” nonsense 100 times per day, like some demented parrot. Looks like you were wrong back then, weren’t you, Mikey? You haven’t been right about a single thing, vis-à-vis Israel, since I’ve known you. You’ve been spewing your Nostradamus-like predictions of doom and gloom for Israel for at least 7 years, but that doom/gloom never comes, does it Mikey? Remember the glee you had for about 6 straight months after Cast Lead, when you were just certain that the Goldstone Report would be Israel’s demise? And now, you’re back with anticipated celebration with your absurd threats about the ICC; what a joke! As if ICC would dare try anything as stupid as you’re suggesting. As if ICC even had jurisdiction over Israel.

            Your lies about “Jews in my family”, “I have Jewish doctors”, and “I have Jewish friends” mean nothing. It’s the classic “some of my best friends are…”. And I wouldn’t go boasting about your (free) “membership” in Jewish Voice for Peace, a clearly and viciously anti-Israel hate group whose only functions are to condemn Israel, and support BDS. Most of its members aren’t even Jewish. These are the idiots who pour red dye on themselves (to signify blood) and lay down in front of government offices and embassies as a way of representing dead Palestinians killed by IDF. How SICK. And you boast your “membership” in this as a way of implying that you’re not an anti-Semite? Now THAT’S funny.

            You are the very definition of a troll. You spend your days and nights scanning the internet for anything related to Israel, so that you can post your vile hatred and lies about Israel, and provoke fights with Israel supporters. Get a life.

          • Michael Hess

            That’s funny. I was quite correct wit the time’s up as events have consistently shown. I told you that the state of Palestine would be recognized. I told you that the Fourth Geneva Convention applied, and I told you that Israel was headed to the International Criminal Court if the illegal colonies were not stopped.

            What we used to report on BBSNews when hardly no other US media outlet would is now in prime time media, every day and loudly. Support for Israel is slipping among Democrats and the young, and many American Jews including those in my family (that took years and Israel’s own actions) and millions of others who consistently vote Democratic.

            I could go on but h e l l, I’m proud of even that much of my track record and BBSNews.

            Here, I’ll give ya another one. If Israel tries to “annex” (steal) the West Bank there will be full regional war. And there’s a lot of US Arab allies these days. I would not be too sure of how that would turn out. Would Israel nuke even Iran? We’ll see, the rogue state has shown the propensity to cause terrorism and war for since even before Israel was first created in 1948.

          • proudzionist

            When you were spewing “time’s up” 7 years ago, you weren’t saying that a “State of Palestine would be recognized” in 5-6 more years, after another 300,000 Jews settled the West Bank. You were saying that the time was up THEN, and that Israeli evacuation of West Bank was imminent. You were WRONG!!! And you are still wrong. “Recognition” means nothing. There is no Palestinian State. There has never been a Palestinian State. And there will probably never be a Palestinian State. And Israel’s building and settling in West Bank is ongoing. Yup, you were dead WRONG.
            And who do you mean when you say “What we used to report on BBSNews…”. There’s never been a “we”. It’s your personal blog, so don’t try to make it sound as if it some media source.

          • Adam OnWeb

            This is interesting. I’ve never read Judge Schwebel’s opinions on this before. Point “C” is seems to imply that the settlements are not illegal. I’ve never been supportive of settlements because I felt they didn’t help the situation – but I also always knew that they weren’t the real issue preventing peace. I’ve read a lot of stuff from Prof. Dershowitz and he’s clearly against settlements. After reading point C, I wonder why Dershowitz takes a position against settlements.
            Thanks for posting this. Great stuff.

          • Michael Hess

            Hahahahaha… Oh My Goodness, you actually think the long discredited Dersh is an honest advocate? Bwhahahaha…

          • proudzionist

            Read Adam’s post again, Mikey. He stated that Dershowitz is “clearly against settlements” (i.e just like you). So your response is to denigrate someone who shares your view? Bwahahahaha!!
            BTW, the settlements are no more “illegal” than the “occupation”, and no more “illegal” than Arab settlements. Judea/Samaria is non-sovereign territory. And everybody (even the ersatz “Palestinians”) knows that, even if a Palestinian State is invented in the West Bank, it will not include most of the areas containing the majority of the Israeli settlements.

          • Michael Hess

            That’s simply a bald-faced lie as usual. You have lied in the face of the undeniable truth for many years. The Dersh is a fool and a tool of the illegal occupation, there is nothing more enjoyable for a young impressionable mind to read Norman Finkelstein’s dissection of the Dersh in Beyond Chutzpah.

            I have provided, as always, incontrovertible links to primary documents in this thread that show beyond any shadow of a doubt that the colonies are illegal, lock stock and barrel and by extension under international law, the occupation of Palestine by Israel is illegal. For instance you interminable troll, consider UNSCR 476 and it’s conclusion with respect to Jerusalem:

            “Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible …

            Reaffirming its resolutions relevant to the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980 …

            Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East…”

            Illegal. You simply are never going to contradict the undeniable facts from successive United Nations Security Council resolutions and General Assembly resolutions. The occupation of illegally annexed territory is illegal as is the transfer over decades, an occupier power’s citizens into occupied territory. This is well established international customary law and I have provided the source documents here in several instances to prove it.

          • Adam OnWeb

            Hi Michael Hess,

            I see you deleted most of the comments you made during our debate about settlements, the occupation, legal validity and illegality.

            I can’t blame you.

            Frankly, I was embarrassed for you during the debate. How could you be so wrong about so many things… and be so willing to display such ignorance in public?

            I figured you were just some mentally disturbed individual who didn’t feel humiliation like normal people. But now that I see you’ve deleted most of your erroneous posts, I feel better knowing that you don’t suffer from such an affliction.

            Clearly, you know when you’ve made a fool of yourself and the fact that you’ve gone to such great lengths to cover it up tells me that – although you have the IQ of a house plant – you still have the capacity to recognize when you’ve made a complete fool of yourself.

            I have to admit it… you’ve exceeded my expectations.

            Congratulations and good luck finding other telling statements that you’ve made – and would like to delete.

          • Adam OnWeb

            Proud, why do you waste your time with MHess? The guy contradicts himself all the time. I think he’s a little nuts. Too bad we can’t have a serious discussion about this stuff without MHess pestering us.

            MHess, why don’t you try to take this conflict a little more seriously and stop trying to win it like it is some kind of board game. Your positions are so over the top that no one is going to take you seriously. You’d be much better off – and your contributions might be much more constructive – if you stopped trying to demonize Israel on every point and simply accepted some points as fact. Like the occupation. No serious person discussing this conflict tries to convince people that the occupation is illegal. Once you press that point, you reveal that you really aren’t serious about finding a resolution.

          • Michael Hess

            Sigh. Millions upon Millions of people all over the world understand what the law says.

            For instance, let’s take Jerusalem. This is from United Nations Security Council resolution 476:

            “Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;” [Emphasis added]

            What part of “no legal validity” do you not get Adam? What actual primary source like I have offered several times here contradicts this Security Council resolution? Further, please provide the legal basis for the above finding not being applicable to the rest of the illegal colonies? I’ve never seen it and I’ve been working on this issue for decades.

          • Adam OnWeb

            MHess, you’re clearly not an international lawyer.
            First of all, ‘No legal validity’ does not mean ‘Illegal’. ‘Legal Validity’ refers to laws that are binding or having legal force. It is often used when referring to precedence. Look it up.

            It seems clear that you don’t have a clear understanding of terms used in international law. You didn’t seem to know the difference between ‘occupation’ and ‘settlements’. Now you don’t know the difference between ‘No legal validity’ and ‘illegal’.

            You really shouldn’t throw around terms when you don’t know what they mean. If makes you look foolish.

            Secondly, Resolution 242 is the cease fire agreement for the 6 day war. If the occupation were illegal – it would clearly state it in the cease fire agreement. Look it up. See if you can find anything in 242 that states the ‘occupation is illegal’.
            Good Luck!

          • Michael Hess

            “Now you don’t know the difference between ‘No legal validity’ and ‘illegal’.”

            Heh heh. You are clearly insane.

          • Adam OnWeb

            Michael Hess,

            On the subject of ‘legal validity’:

            Here’s a link to a dictionary, dummy. See for yourself. Point number 3.

            If that isn’t enough, here’s a whole thesis on it:

            I sure hope you aren’t practicing law anywhere.

          • proudzionist

            He doesn’t practice law. He practices lies.

          • Adam OnWeb

            I’m not sure he’s capable of flipping burgers.

          • proudzionist

            LOL. Oh, he’s not “a little nuts”. He’s a certifiable not job with some really major anger issues. This guy can dish it out all day long, but he’s got the thinnest skin of anyone I’ve ever met.

      • ThisIsPalestine

        Argument by assertion. What law does Israel’s occupation break? It’s not possible for an occupation to be illegal.

        • Michael Hess

          Read that last line of the 4th Geneva Convention in Article 49 and come on back and recant. Plus look up the fact that the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions affirmed once again, on December 17th, 2014, that the 4th applies to Israel.

          • ThisIsPalestine

            The relevant Geneva Convention line is about population transfer. Israel is not “transferring” its population anywhere, they are choosing to move of their own free will. Even if Israel was transferring its population, that would not make the occupation illegal. Excellent try though.

          • Michael Hess

            Please, please go through life just like you are. You will make a fine Republican Congressperson someday. After all, in a mere 17 minutes you managed to read the 4th Geneva Convention and the official UN release from the High Contracting Parties to the convention that show you to be horribly wrong.

            But you wear that red face of embarrassment with aplomb. I’m embarrassed for you…

          • ThisIsPalestine

            No silly, I read the relevant section you quoted (specifically Article 49 of FGC and Article 2, paragraph 4 of UN Charter), and had read them before from other conversations with SJP apologists like yourself.

            Your argument has becoming tautological; just repeating yourself over and over that you’re right and I’m wrong. This is because you aren’t actually smart enough to win the argument on the merit. Not surprising though: it’s a terrible argument.

          • Michael Hess

            Interesting. So let’s examine the flip side of the argument than shall we? It is obviously your position that might makes right and if a nation has a strong enough military that they can just take what they want and use religion as an excuse to do it.

            That about sum it up for you? You are either in favor of theft at the point of a gun or you aren’t. Based on your arguments, you are in favor. I have never been in contact with SJP, not that there’s anything wrong with their arguments, I agree with them.

            Now off with you. There surely has to be some right wing racist Web site you can hang out on.

          • ThisIsPalestine

            That’s not my position. That’s the Arab position, when they came pouring over the borders in 1948 with AK-47s in their hands and murder in their eyes. Only because they lose do they send their apologists like yourself here to whine about “international law” and “human rights.”

            Israel’s occupation is not illegal. End of discussion.

          • proudzionist

            100% correct.

          • Michael Hess

            Arguing by assertion again? I provided clear evidence that you assertions are flatly wrong.

  • robman012

    “The relevant Geneva Convention line is about population transfer. Israel is not “transferring” its population anywhere, they are choosing to move of their own free will. Even if Israel was transferring its population, that would not make the occupation illegal. Excellent try though.” From this comment alone, this guy doesn’t even deserve to be engaged in. The law and Israel doesn’t go in the same sentence.

    • Michael Hess

      Indeed. Using his logic then it’s perfectly acceptable for the US to start sending citizens to Baghdad, build homes for them, and extend American law and elections to them. It’s just ludicrous following out this type of logic.

    • ThisIsPalestine

      So you admit you can’t disprove his argument?

  • Michael Hess

    An explanation of occupation law is in order. Some people argue logical fallacies that simply don’t stand up to reality and fact. I’ve already established in this thread that the colonies are illegal under international law, specifically, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. But some would like to argue that this does not apply in a belligerent occupation in “self-defense.” There is no such distinction as I will demonstrate.

    The Fourth Geneva Conventions establishes occupation law

    From a course in international law from the International Committee of the Red Cross the text establishes the basics of “occupation law.”

    “Occupation ceases when the occupying forces are driven out of or evacuate the territory.”

    This is critical since the Palestinians have no army, no navy, no air force, airports, planes, helicopters, marines, air men, the only people that the state of Israel is occupying are citizens. Protected citizens under international law. But this occupation is unceasing and consists of a determined effort to establish “facts on the ground.” Currently there are more than 122 illegal colonies outside of Israel in the state of Palestine.

    “The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to the occupying power. As we will see in detail later, it cannot be forced to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces or give military assistance to the occupying power.”

    “Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour, family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. Their private property is protected.” And finally:

    “After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements and genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.”

    The law of occupation incorporates the Fourth Geneva Convention

    “The first codification of international rules relating to occupation can be found in the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907, which themselves were built on customary international law. Many lessons drawn from
    the crimes committed in the occupied territories of Europe and the Far East during the Second World War were subsequently incorporated into the Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention, which codifies a substantial part of modern international law applicable to occupation.”

    It is a gross misinterpretation of international customary law to claim that Israel’s occupation is “legal” while the well established facts show more than 47 years of illegal colonization in occupied territory that is not under Israeli sovereignty. It most certainly is not antisemitic to point out the rules of law with respect to Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine.

    • Adam OnWeb


      You’re clearly not an international lawyer. First, a proxy war is still on going from terrorist organizations who operate in the West Bank. These terrorists are funded by Arab states who openly admit that they remain in a de-facto state of war with Israel – most specifically, Iran. There have been thousands of attacks launched from the West Bank. Beyond that, the cease fire agreement for the 6 day war calls for “all participants” to agree and that has never happened.

      Even the UN does not refer to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as illegal. The settlements are a separate issue and they could be argued as well. Admittedly, the case for the settlements isn’t as strong as the case for the occupation. The case for the occupation is irrefutable. Anyone who understands international law knows that a country defending itself from attack has a very strong position and no one in the international community would want to set a precedence to change that.

      The occupation is not illegal – never has been and as long as Israel continues to defend itself from terror attacks within the West Bank – the occupation never will be illegal.

      • Michael Hess

        After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements and genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.

        It’s the rule of law Adam. I have established beyond doubt that the occupation is illegal. See the links to UNSCR 476 below about the illegal annexation of Jerusalem. In any case, I encourage you to follow PZ. It’s clear that you eat up nonsense in a comment thread but are incapable of going to the United Nations and International Committee of the Red Cross that I have provided as primary source material.

        There are no excuses about resistance. As I have established it is quite legal under the law of occupation as set fourth in the Fourth Geneva Convention, as I have also shown that the colonies, each and every one of them, is illegal under Article 49. This is well established fact I don’t see PZ over at JPost arguing against their finding that the colonies are illegal.

        There is no army in the West Bank. There are Palestinians security forces established under the Oslo Accords (that Bibi bragged he “stopped”). These forces protect Israel son. There have been several article in the recent press about the fact that if the Palestinian Authority collapses, those Palestinians security forces who have been rounding up Palestinians for Israel will no longer have a job, and then Israel will have to be responsible for their own security and take over the responsibility for the illegal occupation that they have out-sourced to Palestinian security forces.

        • Adam OnWeb

          You’re hopeless. A resistance force is lawful ONLY IN THE CASE WHERE THE OCCUPIER IS THE AGGRESSOR.
          Israel was attacked by Jordan. Israel was not the aggressor. They have every right to hold the territory until hostilities cease.
          There’s no point arguing with you further. You just don’t want to accept the truth.

          • Michael Hess

            Adam, Israel has a peace treaty with Jordan. You are just flailing all over the place because you puppy-dogged after the long discredited PZ without actually checking the facts. You answered this comment without spending even five seconds clicking on the Jerusalem Post link that I provided that also concludes the colonies are illegal.

            It is obvious that you are suffering from confirmation bias and going with what you wish to believe instead of what is actually true. You are just arguing by assertion without supplying any sources to primary documents as I have provided here. It is embarrassing for you to then conclude, “there’s no point in arguing with you further” when you have contributed no argument at all.

            Now, for those actually interested in the legal basis for my argument that the occupation is illegal, see Illegal Occupation: Framing the Occupied Palestinian Territory by Orna Ben-Naftali, Aeyal M. Gross, and Keren Michael for the Berkeley Journal of International Law in 2005.

            My argument is not new or antisemitic. I have provided several sources in this thread from Jews [or non-Jews] who are not twisting the discourse to justify the illegal “settlements” (colonies). Stop the childish nonsense and actually address the numerous documents that I have provided.

          • proudzionist

            Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)3 states the following facts:

            “The facts of the June 1967 ‘Six Day War’ demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR’s use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF. It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.”

            Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht wrote in 1968, just one year after the 1967 Six-Day War:

            “On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem. There was no question of this Jordanian action being a reaction to any Israeli attack. It took place notwithstanding explicit Israeli assurances, conveyed to King Hussein through the U.N. Commander, that if Jordan did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan. Although the charge of aggression is freely made against Israel in relation to the Six-Day War the fact remains that the two attempts made in the General Assembly in June-July 1967 to secure the condemnation of Israel as an aggressor failed. A clear and striking majority of the members of the U.N. voted against the proposition that Israel was an aggressor.”

            Tag. You’re “it”

          • Michael Hess

            And yet the entire planet understands that Israel started the 1967 war. In fact that was at the time that the Israelis murdered 34 America sailors and injured 172 more on the USS Liberty when Israel was trying to prevent them from learning about their massacre of 1000 Egyptian POW’s and the impending invasion of the Golan Heights. It’s in the Congressional Record. I deal in PRIMARY sources PZ as you well know.

            I have consistently, with full documentation, shown your opinions to be worthless. They will always be worthless until you admit the basic facts. In Jerusalem, repeated Security Councils have founds Israel’s actions there illegal. There is no debate. Illegal. There is no legal basis to conclude that Israel’s actions in the West Bank are legal, quite the contrary as I have shown here. Article 49 is clear. It’s why I became accredited with the International Criminal Court.

            I have been documenting on BBSNews each action so far and will continue to do so. After today’s elections, the march to the court is quite inevitable.

          • proudzionist

            LMFAO. So now you’re on to the U.S.S. Liberty. Priceless. You don’t know JACK about the Liberty incident, troll. Do some reading, and find out why, after extensive investigation, the U.S. deemed it an “accident”, and why no U.S. military action was returned. The Liberty was a communications (read: spy) ship that was sailing in a war zone without a flag, relaying sensitive information about Israel’s military positions to its enemies during the 1967 war. Israel issued warnings to all vessels to remain out of the area. The Liberty ignored such warning, and got exactly what it deserved. Case closed.

          • proudzionist

            Adam. Hess isn’t here to learn anything. He believes he knows it all. In fact, sometimes, he even uses his own blog as a reference for his “facts”. And he’s certainly not here for the purpose of any dialogue. Hess doesn’t do “dialogue”; he presents “incontrovertible FACTS”, whereas everyone else only offers unsubstantiated opinions. This chump has but one purpose in life, to pi$$ off Israel supporters with his B.S. He is the very definition of a TROLL.

          • Adam OnWeb

            He’s put his foot in his mouth so often that he’s developed a case of ‘athlete’s tongue!’

  • Sanych

    There is criticism of Israel and there is disproportionate criticism of Israel.

    Disproportionate criticism of Israel is antisemitic.


    • robman012

      Name one Western Sanction against Israel…that’s right, there isn’t any. Don’t want criticism, stop the Apartheid in the West Bank. Stop violating international law EVERY single day. Stop your whining and complaining.

      • Sanych

        There is no West Bank, but Judea and Samaria, and Apartheid exists only in the sick mind of the messenger.

  • garyfouse


    You might want to check out the State Dept (hardly a friend of Israel) definition of anti-semitism in regards to Israel.

  • Adam OnWeb

    A few years back in UCLA, when Alexandra Wallace made her infamous rant about Asians, did the Daily Bruin feel it necessary to publish the ravings of some hate monger arguing for his rights to criticize China or North Korea?

    This obsession with Israel is sickening.

    And extraordinary double-standards – like what we are seeing in this article – should tell you all you need to know about antisemitism in UCLA and the Daily Bruin.