Lying For Zion

So the liars over at CfZ [Christians for Zion] are at it again with a ‘blog’ titled ‘What is Defined as Illegal?’ written by an anonymous ‘Administrator’

The blog goes on to lie about Israel’s claims to the OPTs [Occupied Palestinian Territories]

 

Here’s what they claim.

“It would appear that the EU totally discounts existing international legal agreements and prefers to interpret clauses in these agreements to suit its own agenda.”

Wrong. The EU are not making up their own “interpretations” to “suit its own agenda”. They, the EU, are following International law. The people who ARE making up their own interpretations are the Zionists.

 

They then go on about San Remo and the British mandate.

 

“a) The San Remo Treaty of 1920, in which the victors of the First World War parcelled out the remnants of the defeated Ottoman Empire, created a geographical area called Palestine along both sides of the Jordan River. It is still valid today.

 

b) Article 6 of the Palestine Mandate signed by the League of Nations in 1922 stipulated ‘close Jewish settlement’ on the land west of the Jordan River. The river served as the boundary because that year the UK created a new Arab country, today known as Jordan, by unilaterally bestowing the land east of the river onto the Hashemite dynasty and thus giving some three quarters of Palestine away”

 

Anyone following this blog will know that the whole San Remo Chestnut was blown clean out the water in blogs written here. I won’t go over it again but here are the links.

https://christiansforzionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/san-remo-according-to-christians-for-zion/

 

https://christiansforzionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/israels-real-legitimacy/

 

Next they go on about the UN Charter,

 

“c) The 1945 UN Charter, Chapter XII, Article 80 explicitly says than nothing within it shall ‘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’.”

 

Article 80 which they refer to has been dubbed the “Eretz Israel article” by Zionist propagandists. But let me let you into a little secret which the Zionists fail to comprehend. If the Zionist claim that San Remo is still applicable were true then under article 80 of the UN charter Israel in its present form is illegitimate and has been so since Israel declared her borders based on UNGA res.181 as Israel’s independence and declared borders go totally against article 80 of the UN charter. More astonishingly Chris Proudlove told us only days ago that Article 80 is no longer applicable and now as if by magic it has become applicable once again.

 

Next they get into a real tangle.

 

“d) the claim that the Israeli settlements breach Article 49 of the Geneva Convention does not apply to the settlements. Written in the shadow of the deportation of European Jews to their deaths in Nazi Europe, it prohibits

‘individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or that of any other country, occupied or not…The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occu pies.’

But none of the Israelis living beyond the Green Line have been transferred or deported, forcibly or not; they all chose voluntarily to live there. (The only force ever used against these residents was in fact when Israel forcibly transferred them from Gaza into Israel in 2005.)

 

Here’s the problem that Zionists have. They tell so many lies [as they have to in order to try and cover the theft of Palestinian land] that sooner or later some of those lies get them tangled up.

 

Here’s what Haaretz says,

 

Israel is trying to have its cake and eat it too. On the one hand, it did not annex the West Bank into its sovereign borders or apply Israeli civil law and administration there. Palestinian residents of the West Bank were not granted Israeli citizenship. Israel enacted military rule in the West Bank and operates by this authority. When, for example, Israel confiscates land for security purposes, it does so under the international laws of occupation (found in the Hague Conventions) that impart specific powers to military commanders in occupied territory. On the other hand, Israel claims that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the West Bank, so the restrictions included in the Geneva Convention do not apply. The result is that Israel sometimes acts in the territories as if they are part of its sovereign territory: establishing Israeli cities, communities and factories and applies Israeli law to Israeli citizens living in this territory. However, Israel simultaneously treats that West Bank as occupied territory, administering it under martial law, with the original inhabitants of the occupied territory, the Palestinians, not given the same status as Israeli citizens. While at the same time Palestinian inhabitants are not given the full rights of residents of an occupied territory, including the prohibitions preventing the occupying power from dispossessing them in favor of its own citizens. The Europeans are not willing to let grants they earmark for Israel to fund this policy.”

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.536887

And here’s what the Independent UN inquiry says,

“Since 1967, the Mission’s report notes, Israeli governments have openly led, directly participated in, and had full control of the planning, construction, development, consolidation and encouragement of settlements.

 “In compliance with Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel must cease all settlement activities without preconditions,”

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44045#.UevlWuVQFwA

Oh my! Maybe the Zionists would like to convince us that they only build them because they look pretty and were never intended for Jewish only occupants…..

e) The Geneva Convention applies to actions carried out on the territory of a ‘High Contracting Party’ with a sovereign claim to that territory. But the areas in question ov er the ‘Green Line’ never belonged to any sovereign power.”

 

Israel has never LEGALLY annexed ANY of the territory “over the Green line” PERIOD!

 

Mike Fryer in another of his latest blogs goes on a rant about ‘Indoctrinating our young people’ yet he is indoctrinating his own young people into the cult of Zionism and is sending these young people out into the real world armed with lies…Odious doesn’t even come close to describing these people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “Lying For Zion

  1. Here’s the full Haaretz article which i quoted from.

    “Why does the European Union refuse to let its grant money be used on projects located over the Green Line?

    The European Union, like most of the world, does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over territories beyond the Green Line and does not view them as part of the State of Israel. The EU, and most of the world, also does not view the activities of Israeli citizens across the Green Line as legal, since under international law a country may not settle its citizens in occupied territory; a country may only temporarily manage such territory on behalf of the local population.

    Why does the EU decision also apply to East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, areas where Israeli civil law apply?

    While Israel may have instituted its civil law, jurisdiction and administration in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, thus basically annexing them to its territory, the international community does not view this as changing these territories’ status. A country’s unilateral annexation of territory during or following a war is not considered legal under international law. Nowadays, international law forbids the acquisition of territory by force. From the perspective of the international community, these are occupied territories just as much as the West Bank (and Gaza as well, which a significant portion of the world still views as occupied by Israel).

    What is the Israeli position regarding the status of these territories?

    Israel has not applied Israeli civil law to the territories gained in 1967, except for East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Thus, even from the perspective of Israeli law the rest of these territories are considered outside Israel’s sovereign borders. Israel’s claim with respect to the West Bank is that it was captured from Jordan, a country that also was not recognized as sovereign over the West Bank, and that the Geneva Convention that applies to territories occupied by a state from another state, therefore, does not apply to the West Bank. A similar claim was heard with respect to Gaza, which was previously held by Egypt. Due to this reason, from time to time Israeli figures are heard calling the territories “disputed,” but not occupied. Regarding its settlements, Israel claims that states are forbidden by the Geneva Convention to forcibly transfer their citizens to settle occupied territory but citizens may voluntarily move into occupied territory.

    So what is the problem with Israel’s claim to what it calls Judea and Samaria and what most of the world calls the West Bank?

    Almost no one accepts Israel’s claims that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the territories gained in 1967 because they did not previously belong to any country or that its citizens can voluntarily choose to move into occupied territory. The International Court of Justice in The Hague also rejected these claims when it ruled on Israel’s West Bank separation barrier in 2004. It is clear that because the settlements were established by government edict and with a hefty amount of funds allocated from the state budget, their establishment falls under the definition of a population transfer in contravention of the Geneva Convention.

    Israel is trying to have its cake and eat it too. On the one hand, it did not annex the West Bank into its sovereign borders or apply Israeli civil law and administration there. Palestinian residents of the West Bank were not granted Israeli citizenship. Israel enacted military rule in the West Bank and operates by this authority. When, for example, Israel confiscates land for security purposes, it does so under the international laws of occupation (found in the Hague Conventions) that impart specific powers to military commanders in occupied territory. On the other hand, Israel claims that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the West Bank, so the restrictions included in the Geneva Convention do not apply. The result is that Israel sometimes acts in the territories as if they are part of its sovereign territory: establishing Israeli cities, communities and factories and applies Israeli law to Israeli citizens living in this territory. However, Israel simultaneously treats that West Bank as occupied territory, administering it under martial law, with the original inhabitants of the occupied territory, the Palestinians, not given the same status as Israeli citizens. While at the same time Palestinian inhabitants are not given the full rights of residents of an occupied territory, including the prohibitions preventing the occupying power from dispossessing them in favor of its own citizens. The Europeans are not willing to let grants they earmark for Israel to fund this policy.

    Why consider the territories occupied, as they weren’t actually taken from any state to which they belonged?

    The civilians living in the West Bank can be considered occupied, because they live under military rule imposed by a state of which they are not citizens, and the fact that the West Bank was not a Palestinian state prior to its present status does not change that fact. There is no doubt that the West Bank is located beyond Israel’s recognized borders, and are under military rule, and because of these facts, the civilian population that lives therein can be considered occupied. In many instances throughout the world, territories have been occupied from states that did not rightfully rule them: Morocco occupied the Western Sahara from Spain; Indonesia occupied East Timor after Portugal. This did not make those territories any less “occupied.” In addition, those two nations also unilaterally annexed the territories in question, and this also did not make them any less occupied. East Timor was eventually granted independence, and Western Sahara is considered occupied to this day. The fact that Israel occupied the West Bank from Jordan and Egypt, nations to which it did not belong, does not matter. What matters is that there is a population, living beyond the borders of a state living under military rule, being denied the basic right of self-rule and self-determination.

    Are there really other territories in a similar situation?

    Territories considered occupied are almost always shrouded in arguments, and occupying states often deny that the territories are indeed occupied. The International Court in The Hague recently discussed Uganda’s occupation of parts of the Congo. The most debated occupation in recent history was the U.S. and Britain’s incursion into Iraq, but this case differs from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, in that Israel’s occupation is long term, and includes settlements and a civilian population from the occupying state. Two similar situations that stand out are North Cyprus declared independence, but most of the world still considers it an occupied Turkish territory, rather than an independent state. The European Court of Human rights has frequently referred to North Cyprus as occupied and found Turkey guilty of human rights violations against Greek Cypriots, by not allowing them to access their land. Western Sahara is still considered a territory occupied by Morocco. Back in 1975, the International court in The Hague decided that the population there, called the Sahrawi, should be granted the right to independently decide their own future, a realization of their right to self-determination. A referendum was supposed to be held in Western Sahara, but to this day that has not taken place. East Timor is another similar case, but was granted independence in 2002 following a referendum.

    Why does international law forbid nations from settling in occupied territory?

    It is fairly clear that if a occupying state begins to settle its population in occupied territory; a situation will be created in which the state relates differently to the occupied population, and to its own citizens, most likely resulting in discrimination against the occupied population. This situation is similar to colonization, or apartheid, and modern international law seeks to prevent it. Israel’s settlement policy did result in the situation which international law set out to prevent.

    So the international community does not differentiate between settlements and “outposts?”

    No, it does not. Most of the world sees the West Bank as occupied territory, to which the Geneva Convention is applicable, banning an occupying nation from settle its civilian population there.

    What about “settlement blocs?”

    According to international law, there is no difference. It is possible that a future agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will leave settlement blocs in Israeli hands, but as of now, there is no difference. Clearly, it was not within then-President George W. Bush’s authority to change this reality in his famous letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, when he wrote that it is unrealistic to expect Israel to return to 1949 borders, based on the facts on the ground.

    But in the past, states have conquered territories and made them their own

    Modern international law includes numerous rules that forbid use of force, and acquiring land by force, as well as rules that uphold self-determination. International law seeks to do away with old-fashioned colonialism. Today, a state cannot take possession of a territory simply because it conquered it by force. Furthermore, states that did take possession of land by force generally annexed those territories, and granted citizenship to their inhabitants (not to mention the darker periods of the past, most of such civilian populations were usually destroyed). Even though unilateral annexation is forbidden by modern international law, in theory annexation that is based on equal citizenship
    may allow for stability. Israel’s presence in the West Bank is far from that, as it is an illegitimate prolonged occupied population which was not granted citizenship.

    But Israel promised to return land to the Palestinians and “there’s no one to negotiate with”

    That claim is completely irrelevant. No matter where the “blame” lies for the fact that there is still no agreement, or the fact that negotiations are stalled, the legality of the settlements remains unchanged. Israel isn’t fulfilling its obligations in the West Bank as an occupying state, and that is an issue separate from the peace process and negotiations. As long as Israel occupies the West Bank, it is expected to act according to the laws that govern occupied territories, laws that forbid settlement, and which stipulate that the occupying nation must run the occupied territory only temporarily, and for the benefit of the occupied population. The occupying army must guarantee security in the occupied territory, but not be used for settling populations. It is important to point out that the Oslo Accords, while granting some authorities to the Palestinians, did not alter the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and did not alter the legality of the settlements.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.536887

  2. ICRC.

    “What does the law say about the establishment of settlements in occupied territory?
    05-10-2010 FAQ

    When a territory is placed under the authority of a hostile army, the rules of international humanitarian law dealing with occupation apply. Occupation confers certain rights and obligations on the occupying power.

    Prohibited actions include forcibly transferring protected persons from the occupied territories to the territory of the occupying power.
    It is unlawful under the Fourth Geneva Convention for an occupying power to transfer parts of its own population into the territory it occupies. This means that international humanitarian law prohibits the establishment of settlements, as these are a form of population transfer into occupied territory. Any measure designed to expand or consolidate settlements is also illegal. Confiscation of land to build or expand settlements is similarly prohibited. ”

    http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/faq/occupation-faq-051010.htm

  3. Well it looks like the propaganda is working. Here we have two comments from the CfZ blog that has been torn apart in this blog.

    “Margaret Buckley about 13 hours ago

    It’s helpful to know these basic facts about the historical rights of the Jewish people to the whole Land including the West Bank… unfortunately so many take on board the popular misconceptions about the ‘occupation’ and ‘oppression’ of Palestinians without thinking independently or looking at history. Is it because they are only too pleased to have a reason to criticise and stand against Israel, expressing anti-Zionism as the new anti-semitism, and really couldn’t care less about international law?

    Margaret

    Preview Post Reply

    ruth about 20 hours ago

    one wonders how many Eu AMs vote from a basis of knowledge and how many from a basis of woolly emotive thinking or even vote keeping thinking. They obviously don’t care much for international law!”

    Well,well, both Margaret and Ruthie are now experts in International law based on an Abridged version of a lying Melanie [mad mel] Philips article.

    One wonders how these liars and deceivers can live with themselves!?!

  4. Christopher proudlove

    Trevor Barclay contradicts himself. He says email addresses will not be revealed when people reply but he has threated to reveal mine because I take a different view than he does. Further, he complains about censorship and then censors comments of mine. He is wrong about San Remo, too, but chooses to believe in his own interpretation. This is the last he will hear from me!

  5. “Trevor Barclay contradicts himself. He says email addresses will not be revealed when people reply but he has threated to reveal mine because I take a different view than he does.”

    I threatened to reveal your email and ip address to prove that you were posting under two different names IT HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH “different views”. However i was told that revealing personal details was “not the done thing”

    “Further, he complains about censorship and then censors comments of mine.”

    No! You repeatedly and deliberately posted your comments in the wrong threads [just as you’ve done here because you can’t defend your lying blog] I asked you politely several times to post comments in the appropriate threads…you ignored this. Then after you ignored my requests i gave you several warnings …Again you ignored the warnings. Finally i gave you thirty minutes to cut/paste comments you had made and put them in the appropriate thread before i deleted them…you refused to do so…they were deleted as promised.

    “He is wrong about San Remo, too, but chooses to believe in his own interpretation.”

    Yes, yes. You were soundly defeated and you know it. You even posted up comments that backed my views on Israel’s legitimacy but you couldn’t accept this and now that your latest pathetic effort has been destroyed you run away.

    “This is the last he will hear from me!”

    Bye Bye!

  6. Did someone mention Oslo!?!

    “Israel’s Violations of the Oslo Agreements:

    1) Israel Has Failed to End its Occupation

    The Oslo Agreements provide that Palestinians would have their freedom by May 1999. To date, Israel’s military occupation not only continues, but intensifies. The Declaration of Principles provides that the interim period is not to exceed five years (Article 1), from May 4, 1994. This is confirmed in Article 4 of the Wye River Memorandum. The interim period commenced with Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho on May 1994. By May 1999, the interim period was to have ended and Palestinians were to be given their freedom. To date, Israel has failed to end its military occupation.

    2) After missing this deadline, Israel renegotiated a new deadline with the PLO. Under Article 1 of the Sharm El-Sheikh Memorandum, the Palestinians were to be given their freedom on September 13, 2000. By September 13, 2000, the Palestinians were still living under military occupation and continue to do so.

    3) Israel Continues to Build and Expand Its Illegal Colonies

    The Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified by Israel in June 1951 and which was not superceded by the Oslo Agreements, prohibits Israel from establishing colonies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention states “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The Oslo Agreements reaffirm this position. Article 31 of the Interim Agreement provides that “the two parties view the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period.” Article 31 also provides that “neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”

    Despite these articles and in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel has since 1993:

    4) Doubled the number of settlers living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. There are now approximately 400,000

    5) Increased the number of illegal housing units in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (excluding Occupied East Jerusalem) by 62%

    6) Confiscated more than 60,000 acres of Palestinian land for colony construction and related by-pass roads, uprooted 220,000 trees and demolished 690 homes in the West Bank alone

    7) Removed from official government maps the Green Line separating Israel from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, thereby failing to recognize the Occupied Palestinian Territories as a “single territorial unit”. (See official Touring Map of Israel issued by the Israeli Ministry of Tourism).

    8) Fails to Withdraw from Palestinian Territories

    Under the Oslo Agreements, Israel’s occupation forces were to have withdrawn from substantially all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by July, 1997 – more than four and a half years ago. The process of withdrawal was to be carried out in three phases, beginning in October 1996 and ending in July 1997 and would have transferred approximately 88 percent of the West Bank to Palestinian control. Israel delayed each and every phase of the withdrawal. The Palestinian Authority has only full jurisdiction over 17.2 percent of the West Bank.

    9) Israel Fails to Release Political Prisoners

    Throughout Israel’s 35-year occupation of the Palestinian Territories, Israel imprisoned and detained thousands of Palestinians. Israel’s rate was so widespread that Palestinians suffered from one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world.

    The Oslo Agreements contain a number of provisions regarding the release of political prisoners.

    Article 20 of the Gaza Strip and Jericho Agreement required Israel to release over 5,000 Palestinian political prisoners. Article 16 of the Interim Agreement provided for further releases of Palestinian prisoners in three phases, the last of which was to occur during permanent status negotiations. Finally, Article 3 of the Sharm El-Sheikh Memorandum provided for the release of 350 political prisoners in September and October of 1999 and in December 1999 and January 2000. Despite these agreements, as of December 2000, approximately 1,350 Palestinians remained in Israeli custody, in violation of the Oslo Agreements.[5]

    10) Israel Fails to Open the Northern Safe Passage Route between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and Closes the Southern Safe Passage Route

    Under the Interim Agreement (Annex I, Article 10) and the Sharm El-Sheikh Memorandum (Article 5), Israel was required to open both a northern and a southern safe passage route to connect the West Bank to the Gaza Strip for the movement of persons, vehicles and goods. The southern safe passage route was closed on October 8, 2000. The northern safe passage route was never opened.

    12) Israel Fails to Co-operate on Security Matters

    The Interim Agreement requires Israel and the Palestinian Authority to cooperate on security matters. (Annex I, Article 3). Since October 2000, Israel unilaterally decided not to cooperate with the PA on security matters. Repeated calls by the PA to resume security cooperation have been ignored by Israel.

    13) Israel Uses Lethal Force

    The Interim Agreement provides clear rules of engagement for Israeli soldiers:

    [T]he use of firearms…shall not be allowed, except as a last resort after all attempts at controlling the act or the incident, such as warning the perpetrator or shooting in the air, have failed or are ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result in the circumstances. Use of firearms should be aimed at deterring or apprehending, and not killing the perpetrator. The use of firearms shall cease once the danger is past. (Interim Agreement, Annex I, Article XI (3)(c)).

    Despite this provision, Israeli soldiers have deliberately aimed at killing Palestinian protestors and have not used live fire as a last resort. After conducting an inquiry into the Israel’s practices during the current uprising, Physicians for Human Rights (USA) concluded that the “IDF soldiers are not firing only in life-threatening situations and they are firing at heads and thighs in order to injure and kill, not to avoid loss of life and injury.”[6] Furthermore, even non-violent demonstrations (including those that do not involve stone-throwing), have met with violent responses by Israeli occupation forces. [7]

    14) Israel Denies Palestinians Freedom of Movement

    The Interim Agreement compels both sides to “respect[] and preserv[e] without obstacles, normal and smooth movement of people, vehicles and goods within the West Bank, and between the West Bank and Gaza Strip.” (Interim Agreement, Annex I, Article 1 .

    In contravention of these obligations, Israel has repeatedly imposed severe restrictions on the movement of persons, vehicles and goods through the establishment of more than 120 checkpoints in the West Bank alone, (dividing the West Bank into 64 cantons) and through Israel’s destruction of Palestinian roads and bridges.

    15) Israel Fails to Prosecute Israeli Settlers for Crimes Committed Against Palestinians

    Under the Interim Agreement, Israel is required to prosecute Israelis for crimes committed against Palestinians (Annex I, Articles 2 and 3). Since the signing of the Interim Agreement, there have been hundreds of attacks against Palestinians and Palestinian property. Since October 2000 alone, 44 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli settlers, and there have been hundreds of attacks on Palestinian property. Israel has not prosecuted ANY of these settlers for their crimes.
    >>>>>>>>>

    Doesnt matter what Israel agrees to they will always violate any agreement. They will provoke and manufacture violence as an excuse and they will lie. There has never been a single Isr government that kept their word on anything.
    The concept of honor, giving your word, living up to agreements is not part of Isr culture or character. Isr wll do this until someone puts an end to it.

    When you gonna learn Palestine?…….Get out of the Stockholm syndrome…… to the ICC.”

    Link to the Oslo Accords,

    http://middleeast.about.com/od/documents/a/Declaration-Of-Principles.htm

  7. All posts removed for the following reasons.

    1.Chris posting under a duplicate account.

    2.Foul and disgusting language.

    Chris, if you wish, you can re-post your comments under your own name and minus the foul and disgusting language.

    Thank you,

    Admin

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s