51 thoughts on “Netanyahu Claims Syria ‘Occupies’ Golan, Despite International Recognition of Syrian Sovereignty – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Factual correction – Israeli troops entered the Golan in June 1967 during which time most the residents (with the exception of the Druze) left (whether by their own accord, or being forced). Israel has been in full military control of the Golan since 1967. In 1973 some, but not all, of the Golan was overrun by Syrian (and allied) troops between October 6th and October 9th 1973, after which time (with the exception of the Hermon outpost I think) they were repulsed and the battle continued on the Syrian side of the pre-war contact line.

    Regarding the date of Syrian independence (and soverignity over the Golan which was messy in Syria) – Bibi was probably wrong in stating 1948, but 1945 isn’t clear cut either – the control of the French (and Vichy) mandate was mess during the war years, and the formation of Lebanon and Syria and the leaving of the French troops (which were out only in April 1946) does not offer completely clear cut dates (or clear political control – there was, for instance, a coup detat in 1949).

    Bibi probably shouldn’t have said 19 years, but 20-22 years of Syrian control. He was probably thinking in terms of Israeli dates (specifically 1948 deceleration of independence).

    1. @lepxii

      ” during which time most the residents (with the exception of the Druze) left (whether by their own accord, or being forced). ”

      Much like the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 1967, the Syrians in the Golan were either forced out or forcibly encouraged to leave by the IDF. Even if they ran away willfully to avoid the fighting, there’s no justification for the lie that “the land belongs to the Jews now” and preventing the Syrians, if they willfully fled, from returning when the fighting was over.

  2. Surely Richard the maths is as follows – The Golan passed from the French Mandate to Syria in 1944. Israel first occupied it in 1967. Syria unsuccessfully attempted to recover the entire Golan, and actually retained a tiny fragment in 1973. The Sea of Galilee littoral was part of the British Mandate which expired in 1948, but this is only nominally part of the Golan (and Israel disputed this in subsequent negotiations) The 19 years is thus 1948-1967, but much more accurately it would be 1944-1967 (23 years). However Syria did not “occupy” the land (only Israel does occupation). Syria was the legitimate and internationally recognised successor of French colonial occupation of Syria/Lebanon.

  3. Actually the Golan Heights were part of the original British mandate as approved by the San Remo convention, thus part of the putative Jewish national home that the mandate was supposed to facilitate. Three years later it was arbitrarily transferred from the British mandate to the French mandate as a result of the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement in exchange for British control of Mosul.
    I find it curious that you are such an ardent supporter of what is essentially a typical imperialist-colonialist political agreement. It is the same kind of agreement that established a Jewish national home in ALL of mandatory Palestine.
    BTW, The Syrians themselves did not recognize the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement. After 1948 they invaded and illegally took over the territory of Hamat Gader and most of the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.

    1. @ eli:

      It is the same kind of agreement that established a Jewish national home

      No, it isn’t. Because there was no such agreement establishing a Jewish national home “in all of mandatory Palestine.” That is a fiction. There was an agreement to establish two national homes in Palestine. Israel established one and refused, from 1948 & thereafter, to allow a second home to be established. No one ever offered Israel ALL of Palestine. And your claim is an outright lie.

      1. You are wrong.
        The mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations (and later enshrined in the UN covenant) explicitly calls for creating the conditions for establishing a jewish national home. Nothing is mentioned about an Arab state. Look it up here.

        I guess your confusing the mandate with UNGA 181 that DID call for a Arab state (in a legally non-binding resolution) but was summarily rejected by the Arab side thus becoming a dead letter.
        BTW, please explain how Israel in 1948 prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state in areas not under its control (west bank @ Gaza)

        1. @eli: No you are wrong. There is no agreement or document saying a Jewish homeland would occupy all of the Mandate as was claimed.

          The UN provided repeatedly from 1947 & thereafter for a Palestinian homeland within the mandatory territory.

          It is not a dead letter because the Arab side on.fact embraces this proposal & has done so repeatedly over many decades. All relevant international bodies & agreements since 1967 confirm this as an obligation for resolving the conflict.

    2. “Actually the Golan Heights were part of the original British mandate as approved by the San Remo convention, thus part of the putative Jewish national home that the mandate was supposed to facilitate. ”

      I’m just going to ignore what comes after the comma, since it is simply a red herring.

      The reason why it is a red herring is because the first part of that sentence (“Axtually the Golan Heights were part of the original British mandate”) is actually demonstrably incorrect.

      The very first line of the Mandate for Palestine reads:
      “Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, WITHIN SUCH BOUNDARIES AS MAY BE FIXED BY THEM”

      The plain meaning of that is clear: the Golan Heights was neither “in Palestine” nor “in Syria” until the two Mandatory Powers could get themselves together in a smokey room and nut out the boundary line between Mandatory Palestine and Mandatory Syria.

      That’s why they formed the Franco-British Boundary Commission, eli.

      And…….. in the horse-trading that took place the British agreed that the Golan would be “in Syria” in exchange for the French agreeing that the area of the Dan would be “in Palestine”, and it wasn’t until THAT agreement was reached that the two Mandatory Powers reported to the League of Nations that it was all done and dusted.

      At which point the Mandates were declared by the LoN to be in effect, and not a moment before.

      So it is impossible for eli to claim that the Golan Heights were ever “approved” to be “in Palestine”.
      It never was: the very first “approval” put the Golan “in Syria” (at the same time, of course, that the Dan region was “approved” to be “in Palestine”).

      Or, put another way: if eli wants to continue with this argument then he should also admit that the Dan region is territory that rightly belongs to Syria.

      Either/Or, eli, take your pick.

      But you can’t claim both. That’d be greedy……

  4. Seriously? How about returning California to Mexico?
    Unlike the West Bank, the residents of the Golan Heights (Druze) are Israeli citizens, and are definitely better off than their brothers left in Syria. In fact, last year an IDF ambulance was attached by them, and an injured rebel was lynched, since they did not approve of humanitarian aid to the militia attacking their brothers in Syria.

    Don’t blame Bibi for Syria’s instability. In a similar manner as Lybia and Iraq, Syria is an artificial country composed of different tribes which were held together in a metastable state by ruthless dictator (with no complaints by the west). The crumbling of these counties was only a matter of time.

    In many cases I find myself agreeing with your criticism, but this time I fail to see the injustice.

    1. @ Dani: people like you have just enough knowledge to be dangerous, but not enough to be right. Unlike the Israeli-Arab conflict and Israel’s territorial theft from various Arab states, the U.S. & Mexico signed a treaty recognizing U.S. sovereignty over territories the U.S. won in the 1848 War. The U.S. paid Mexico $23-million for this territory. No such treaty has been signed with Arab states except Egypt and Jordan (though there are territorial issues outstanding with regard to Jerusalem). Nor has Israel offered any financial compensation or restitution for the land it stole as the U.S. did. When you sign such treaties you will have the right to your sovereignty recognized. But only if the Arab parties sign the deal as Mexico did.

      Now, we can argue about the nature of the treaty Mexico signed and whether it was fair, etc. But the fact is that Mexico signed it & has never renounced it. We now have amicable relations with Mexico, something Israel has with none of its neighbors with which there are outstanding territorial disputes.

      Since you implied my hypocrisy with regard to the U.S. conquering Mexican territory and stealing it, I’d suggest we retreat back into Biblical history to the migration of the Israelites into Canaan. Then they conquered, stole and exterminated numerous tribes. By rights, Israel shouldn’t have rights to any of that territory they stole either. It should return to the Jebusites, Amorites, Moabites & Amalekites who were, alas, exterminated by the Israelites according to Biblical history. At least the U.S. didn’t exterminate Mexico as the Israelites did to some of their neighbors. Two can play this game, you know.

      the residents of the Golan Heights (Druze) are Israeli citizens, and are definitely better off than their brothers left in Syria.

      The issue isn’t whether Druze in occupied Golan are “better off.” Israel didn’t conquer the Golan to make any Arabs “better off.” Territorial sovereignty has nothing to do with economic well being.

      You’re lying about the soldier who was killed. He was a Syrian rebel fighter, not a “humanitarian.”

      Syria is an artificial country

      Just as Syria is an “artificial” country, so is Israel. Entirely artificial. It was carved out of the region by colonial intrigue mixed with Zionist power. SInce you don’t accept Syria as a country, I urge no one in the world to accept Israel as one until it comes to its senses & realizes it is not an empire, but a small country which must accept limits or have them imposed upon it by others more powerful than it (& there are such powers in the world, believe me).

      I think it’s a directive from Hasbara Central to tell me that you agree with me in many cases. It’s a feeble attempt to make you appear more reasonable than you otherwise are. I dare you to show a single time you ever agreed here in the comment threads with anything I wrote.

    2. Druze in the Golan heights are not citizens for fear of the Golan going back to Syria and thus they would be persecuted

      1. @ boris: You speak for the Druze, why? Are you an expert in Golani Druze? Studied them? Represent them? I didn’t think so. So under what presumption do you speak for them or pretend to know what they think??

        In fact, they are not Israeli citizens for the same reason that East Jerusalem Palestinians are not citizens. Because they refuse to recognize occupation & conquest. Just as the rest of the world refuses to recognize it as well.

        1. In fact I do know Golan Druze. I just recently spoke to a pharmacist doing ‘stage’ and noticed his Hebrew was fairly poor. I asked him if he studied at Hadasah or in Jordan and he said to me ‘you will be surprised where I studied’. So I asked him and he told me Syria which amazed me for more than one reason the essential reason is that they don’t have any kind of passport because they are not Israeli citizens nor do they have Syrian passports. He told me the government in Israel gave him a תעודת מעבר so he could study there and verified in the same conversation that the Golan Druze are not Israeli citizens for what ever reason. I asked him about the war there and he told me it got very rough after a while but he studied in Damascus and was able to finish.
          The reason I gave [concerning Golan Druze citizenship} is rather well known for those who live in Israel so I fail to understand why the salvo of accusations.
          BTW in the north of Israel fromAfula to the Golan at least 75% of pharmacists are Arab etc and the northern head pharmacist by appointment of the government is an Arab.
          Concerning East Jerusalem Palestinians what you said is not true. There maybe a few who don’t want an I.D. card{blue} but there is a branch of ביטוח לאומי in East Jerusalem which services the Arab community with the rights of medical care, old age pensions, unemployment and welfare etc.
          So I have not presumed anything and you need to do your homework.

      2. The 20,000 Druze of Golan could any day have taken Israeli citizenship and made their personal life with many things easier and got little more opportunities in the Israeli apartheid society. They have not done it during these almost 50 years. They want to stay Syrians and/or not to become Israelis. Claiming that they do it because they are afraid of Syrian leadership and a hypothetical revenge is – well lets call it “optimistic Israeli thinking”. The reluctance to change citizenship could also be explained by their fundamental disgust towards the Jewish state and to what it has developed.

        Why do millions of Israeli Jews hang so tight to their second passport even in many cases they have no contact their “original” home country and do have limited use of that second citizenship. Israel is full of Americans, French, Russians, Ukrainians, Poles etc and those people are not visiting tourists. In their hearths Israeli Jews obviously know, that this saga will not end well and eventually they have to find refuge, sooner or later. The big question then will be how eagerly the receiving countries will welcome the millions of badly radicalized, racist and aggressive settler Jews.

        1. @SimoHurtta:
          “The big question then will be how eagerly the receiving countries will welcome the millions of badly radicalized, racist and aggressive settler Jews.”

          I can only imagine that it I made a similar speculative comment about “millions of radicalized Islamist Muslim refugees” coming into Europe that I would immediaterly be labelled a racist Islamaphobe and bullied out of the discussion.

          Also. may I remind you that there are no “radicalized Jews” at present who are blowing themselves up in the streets, stores and theatres of Paris and Brussels…

          As far as duel passports, most people who maintain them do so for economic and other reasons, such as freedom of travel to certain destinations or because of economic opportunities.

          1. Well what is the word which can or should be used of people who march in thousands on the streets of Jerusalem shouting “death to Arabs”, provoke as soldiers and police using all imaginable means Palestinians, rob their lands and valuables, create as parliamentarians constantly discriminant racist laws etc ? The amount of Israeli Jews who are badly radicalized in their drunken nationalistic-religious “dreamworld” is not a few extremists. They exist in hundreds of thousands and in many topics the majority of Israeli Jews support their opinions and acts.

            Lets predict, that the Jewish state in future “collapses” and is transformed back to Palestine by its real majority population (in the one state solution which will be the most likely possible outcome in this present trend line). In that case hundreds of thousands if not millions of Israeli Jews will move to Europe and USA. It is certain that such an exodus will be problematic. Völkerwanderung is always a problem for those on the receiving end and for those moving.

            It is in a way amusing that Boris in his comment is partly justifying the dual passports for Israeli Jews with holocaust and “suffering in diaspora”. Jews have been in Europe and USA the most successful, well educated and wealthiest minority in known history. The unbelievable lists of Jewish bankers, media owners, professors, billionaires, Nobel price winners, politicians (outside Israel) etc is a proof of that. And this success story did not start in 1948. This “suffering in diaspora” has produced wealth and education for Jews already for hundreds of years. On the other hand if human suffering is a reason for dual passports, then Palestinians especially those in Gaza have certainly earned their right to Israeli passports.

        2. I know for a fact that they get medical care other than that I do not know.
          The head of the Safed hospital is a Druze and the hospital is always packed with Druze and when they visit a family member the entire clan comes whether it is visiting hours or not.
          As far as your ‘dual passport’ statement I think anyone that can have more than one passport would do so.
          This is especially true of Jews who have suffered in the diaspora and in particular the Holocaust experience.

          1. @boris: There’s a lot you do not know. Read my blog which offers documentary evidence that Israel is intervening for, and allied with al Nusra, which is al Qaeda. Israel treats their fighters & that is who was killed in the ambulance.

        3. simon-

          why Do you assume that the Druze want to remain Syrian citizens? What do they have to gain from it? After all, they will be a minority whether they are part of Israel or Syria, and generally speaking standers of living in Israel is much better?

          1. If the Druze of Golan would have wanted to become Israeli citizens, they would have done it decades ago. Israel has offered it to them frequently and it would be an enormous propaganda victory for Israel and make their normal “religious” land policies possible. So long the Golan Druze stay as Syrian citizens Israeli Jewish regime can not do to them what we see in the South of Israel is been done to Bedouins. The international response would be to “expensive” to Israel.

            Eli the better living standards is not a very good propaganda weapon for Israelis. For Israeli Jews the living standards and safety in many European countries and in USA would be much better than what they are for them now in Israel. Israel is not on the top of GDP rankings or other rankings. Many use their second passport and move permanently to better and safer surroundings. The amount of Israelis Jews living permanently outside Israel is a state secret. Normally developed countries count as their population all the people (citizens or not) who live in the country at certain time point. Israel informs only the number of those Jews coming, not the number of those moving in the opposite direction.

          2. @eli: You are hogging the threads. Hasbara Rule #1: no more than THREE comments in any 24 hour period. Respect this rule.

            We know they wish to remain citizens of Syria because they easily could renounce Syrian citizenship & assume Israeli. But have not done so.

          3. Simo
            Israel is ranked 11 at the UN’s World Happiness Report. That’s higher than the US. Obviously Israelis are enjoying life.
            There is some emigration – actually lower than most OECD countries – and it’s not a secret. For instance 16,000 left in 2011. But during the same year 9,000 Israelis who left in previous years returned. And an additional 17,000 non-Israeli Jews immigrated to Israel.

            Having a second passport is a convenient thing in today’s world for many practical reasons but has nothing to do with “moving to better surroundings”.

          4. @ eli: Happiness Report? You’re actually using something called a Happiness Report to…to do what exactly? Of course Israelis are happy as they dance on the graves and land of Palestinians. Andrew Jackson was off the charts happy with the Trail of Tears and all that land freed up for white settlers when the Cherokee were ethnically cleansed from the Carolinas.

            Buddy, this is WAY OFF TOPIC. Read the comment rules & follow them.

            Many Israelis want a second passport because they know they will need to emigrate and that 2nd passport is their ticket to freedom, a better life, keeping their kids out of harm’s war, etc.

      3. @Hasbara:


        Druze in the Golan Heights overwhelmingly don’t see themselves as “Israeli” and aren’t fans of the Israeli state. For better or worse, they see themselves as Syrian nationals.

        No doubt a battle-hardened Syrian force with modern equipment could prevail over the IDF in the Golan, as the IDF today is nothing more then a pack of third-rate soldiers with high tech, with their most common factor being an extreme hatred of “inferior” Arabs and regional non-Jews generally. A Syrian force that’s been through the civil war and has the same tech level as the IDF would win handily.

        But the notion that you push is at this point entirely unrealistic to say the least due to the overall situation in Syria. It goes without saying that your premise about why Syrian Druze don’t accept third class status in comparison to Jews (an Israeli citizenship) is as unrealistic to say the least.

  5. @Richard– International or UN recognition in cases of border disputes is a sticky business. There are over a hundred active and unresolved border disputes around the world, and hundred of others which have been resolved, de jure or de facto


    So, I am trying to understand all of your moralizing here. I know you are going to yell at me again, but previous comments on the thread have pointed out the very problematic nature of the borders of Middle Eastern countries, as laid out by the colonial powers. What is so holy about those borders? Why not just see the Golan as a border dispute, to be worked out, and why, unlike elsewhere in the world, in this case is it “aggression”, “expansionism”, etc, all of which not only predetermine the outcome but also frame one side as evil, unjust and immoral and the other the righteous victim. All the while you disregard the circumstances that resulted in the capture of the territories in the first place. And, in the Golan, we’re not even dealing with the problem of human rights, since the residents there have been granted citizenship.

    People on the right do a lot of moralizing too, and I oppose that as well. For example, calling every act of violence by Israel’s adversaries “terrorism”. Or the silly whining about Jews’ “rights” to settle anywhere in the Land of Israel.

    1. @ Yehuda: No, international recognition of national sovereignty or UN recognition is not “sticky” at all. It is of course for those who campaign for Israeli sovereignty over land that isn’t theirs & to which they have no right. But Israel’s territory is clearly demarcated by the Blue & Green Lines. Lines Israel no longer recognizes according to Bibi. So if Israel refuses those internationally-accepted limits then I think the world has no obligation to recognize any Israeli sovereignty anywhere. What’s good the goose is good for the gander.

      What is “holy” about borders in the Middle East or anywhere else is whether they are universally accepted as Israeli borders are (except by Israel). If refuse to recognize these border prepare for the maelstrom. There will come a time when Israel will not be the power it is. Perhaps it may come in 50 yrs or 100 yrs. Then another ME nation will predominate. Then that nation, based on Israel’s refusal to recognize borders, will be able to steal from Israel whatever it wishes & you won’t be able to complain. Because when Israel had a chance to accept borders the world accepted, it refused.

      International law makes no allowance for consideration of the circumstances under which a nation conquered another’s territory by war. That is all the context that’s needed to determine whether the land belongs to Syria or not.

      This is not “moralizing.” This is international law. Law and morals are related, but in two separate spheres. By making this solely a moral issue you distort what international borders really are. They are a contract, not a moral pact.

      1. @Richard:
        It is true that international legitimacy for borders is a very important factor for stability and security. But it is not the only one. Strategic value, economics and power considerations are others. I certainly share your concern about long term stability and prosperity for Israel. But as we have so clearly seen elsewhere in the Middle East and other parts of the world, there are no guarantees, and NOTHING is forever.

        Don’t get me wrong– if a sovereign Syria could make a deal with Israel withdrawing that guarantees security and peaceful relations between Syria and Israel– we absolutely should take it. Bibi’s cynicism aside, I understand that there have been such negotiations (including with Bibi) in the past, that did not bear fruit. Given the current situation, I don’t see this possible in the near future, but who knows?

        “This is not “moralizing.” This is international law. Law and morals are related, ”
        Indeed. And the sordid history of Israel, Palestine, and all of the Arab countries include 100 years of broken ‘contracts’, violation of laws and conflict. Sometimes you just need a new contract!
        The ‘moralizing’ part of your argument is insisting that the only ‘justice’ that exists is going back to some previous standard that is no longer relevant. Sometimes you have to accept a new reality and make that the new standard.

        1. @ yehuda:

          I understand that there have been such negotiations (including with Bibi) in the past, that did not bear fruit.

          A slight correction: there were negotiations and a deal was on the table. At the very last second, Barak walked away. So once again it was Israel that rejected peace.

          going back to some previous standard that is no longer relevant.

          Now that would depend on who we’re asking, wouldn’t it? Ask Bibi, it’s no longer relevant. Ask virtually everyone in the rest of the world–it’s quite relevant. Victors may rewrite history, but Israel hasn’t conquered the world yet, nor will it. So it can rewrite history for itself, but not for anyone else.

          There is no “new reality.” That “reality” is criminal as is Bibi. As is Israel. Violations of international law are criminal offenses. Israel is guilty of them. There will come a reckoning. And it will be much harsher than it needed to be if Israel hadn’t determined that what it wanted was all that mattered. And what the rest of the world wanted was gornisht.

          1. Richard-
            Why is history so important? Why should the dead and dusty past trump the neads and wants of the present and future?
            It is obvious that Israel is doing a much better job of developing the Golan then Syria is capable of and that is benefiting all current residents. I think that’s much more important then giving the Golan to a dictator based on a line drawn in sand between a French officer and a British gentleman 100 years ago.

          2. @eli: It’s not “history.” It’s a quaint notion called international law. Such law is accepted by the world including at least nominally & in theory by Israel.

            Israel has done nothing in Golan that justifies its theft of those lands.

            Nor do I care what or who you think deserves the territory. The issue is settled law. The law goes against you.

  6. I can see no other basis for the legitimacy of the Jewish state than UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 29th November 1947. This gives a clear description of the Jewish state to be. It says inter alia “The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.” The then existing frontiers of Syria included the Golan Heights now occupied by Israel. Any suggestion that it is “disputed territory” can only refer to Israeli shenanigans about it and has no legal basis whatsoever.

    The international law principle that territory gained by conquest in war predates the existence of the Jewish state.

    “”John McHugo says that by the 1920s, international law no longer recognized that a state could acquire title to territory by conquest. Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations requires all members to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

    Michael Lynk says that article 2 of the Charter embodied a prevailing legal principle that there could be “no title by conquest”. He says that principle had been expressed through numerous international conferences, doctrines and treaties since the late 19th Century. Lynk cites the examples of the First International Conference of American States in 1890; the United States Stimson Doctrine of 1932; the 1932 League of Nations resolution on Japanese aggression in China; the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936; and the Atlantic Charter of 1941.”


    Morerover the very preamble to Security Council Resolution 242 that deals with the 1967 war by which Israel acquired inter alia the Golan Heights emphasises again “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”.

    This being the case I have always wondered how Israel managed to get at any case the “Green Line” recognised as its putative international border seeing that the territory within it contains about 17 % more of the British mandate territory of 1947 than was allocated to it in UNGA 181. These 17% were acquired by war.

      1. Because UNGA is not legally binding and was rejected at the time by the arab sids.

        In fact in 1948 Arab armies invaded territory that was not part of the proposed Arab state: Bethlehem, old/east Jerusalem, nevve Yakov, ramat Rachel, mishmar haemek, gezer, safed, semach, deganya, mishmar hayarden,

        1. @eli: Doesn’t matter. Palestinians have repeatedly expressed their willingness to accept a state, which obviates whatever rejection may’ve happened 70 yrs ago. International bodies have affirmed necessity of establishing said state. You reject it, hence you are violating international law. Period.

        2. @Hasbara:

          ” Because UNGA is not legally binding and was rejected at the time by the arab sids.”

          Yawn. The Jews bought and were entitled to 6% of the land in Mandate Palestine total. The delusion that they were entitled to any more then that, at any time, is fundamentally the cause of the unrest beginning in the 1920s and leading to the civil war and the war between the Israeli state and Arab interventionist forces.

          I repeat– the original sin here is the Jewish delusion that they “were entitled to” any more land in the Mandate then what they bought. Take it up with Ben Gurion and his cronies, although you’ll need a Ouija board.

          ” In fact in 1948 Arab armies invaded territory that was not part of the proposed Arab state: Bethlehem, old/east Jerusalem, nevve Yakov, ramat Rachel, mishmar haemek, gezer, safed, semach, deganya, mishmar hayarden,”

          And the Jews illegally squatted on land they had no right to, outside of the 6% that they legally bought.

          Jews had no right to 55% of Mandate Palestine. At all. Ever.

          The Palestinians were morally and fundamentally right to reject such an insane, ridiculous attempt at “partition”.

          You whine about “Arab invasion” but the fact remains that the “Arab invasion” only officially happened because of the ongoing ethnic cleansing and forcible displacement of Palestinian Arabs, by Zionist Jews.

    1. The territory conquered in 1948 represents more than a further 17%. According to UNGA resolution 181 the Jewish State was alloted approximately 56% of Mandatory Palestine, and the territory within the Green Line covers actually some 78% (not to speak of what has been further stolen by the Apartheid Wall ….).

  7. There have always been a lot of Israeli lies about the Golan Heights including those uttered by touristic loudspeakers at the border there. I have posted this video of a Dutch tv program with the personal observations of a Dutch UN observer at the pre 1967 border before, but seeing we have a new hasbara crowd here I will do so again. It consists of two parts:


    This is part 2 which is most relevant to our topic. Jan Mühren’s observations at the time are confirmed by no less an authority than Dayan:

    From the New York Times May 11 1997

    “JERUSALEM, May 9— It is an article of faith among Israelis that the Golan Heights were seized in the 1967 Middle East war to stop Syria from shelling the Israeli settlements down below. The future of the Golan Heights is central to the search for peace in the Middle East, and much of the case against giving the Golan Heights back to Syria rests on the fear of reviving that threat.
    But like many another of Israel’s founding legends, this one has come under question lately, and from a most surprising quarter: Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan.
    General Dayan died in 1981. But in conversations with a young reporter five years earlier, he said he regretted not having stuck to his initial opposition to storming the Golan Heights. There really was no pressing reason to do so, he said, because many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland.
    General Dayan did not mean the conversations as an interview, and the reporter, Rami Tal, kept his notes secret for 21 years — until he was persuaded by a friend to make them public. They were authenticated by historians and by General Dayan’s daughter Yael Dayan, a member of Parliament, and published two weeks ago in the weekend magazine of the newspaper Yediot Ahronot.”


  8. Holly molly, so much rhetoric yet not one claim that makes any sense. Seriously, where does the liberal anti-Zionist logic stem from?

    Syria was never a legitimate state. It was one Baath family that received a vast territory of land because the French and British didn’t have a better idea. Israel won the territory in war, fair and square. Don’t come whining now about a war that had no legitimacy to begin with. You lose territory in war, man up and acknowledge your failure.

    Anyway, Syria is gone, there is no such country – it doesn’t exist anymore and never will! Precisely for the reason it didn’t have any merit in the first place. Too many factions, tribes and different groups of people with no unity whatsoever.

    If anyone should annex any more territory – it’s Israel. The one country that can bring stability, peace and enlightenment to an area that lacks much of it.

    1. @ Jeremiah: Besides your ideas being in violation of international law, they’re racist and downright offensive. My finger hovers right above the moderation button as far as you’re concerned.

      1. @Richard

        And there’s yet another example of what I was talking about. Idiotic babble, accusations, insult, and ridiculous rhetoric.

        Literally nothing that remotely resembles a sane or salient “point” in any way on his part– maybe you could argue that he’s yet another case study in regard to how “problematic” the hasbara mentality can be, though.

        The last part of his comment really speaks for itself in regard to what I’m talking about.

        I really don’t get how anyone takes these people seriously, and yet we have organizations like AIPAC acting as though American congress is their own personal property. Up here in Canada it’s hardly as bad, especially after Harper, but of course Trudeau and the senate are uniquely spineless when it comes to Israel and the pro-Israel Jewish community in Canada to a certain extent.

  9. Your seeems to support the delusional viewpoint of “Assad or chaos in Syria”. This is utter nonesence. The short year the Moslem Brotherhood ruled Egypt, after toppling Mobarak (who incidently employed the same rhetoric) is a practical proof. There was no chaos, the fledgling democracy was showing signs of growing pain, press freedom was at its highest level, the country was on the right track to build a modern, civil democratic ME state. Only to abort by Sisi’s coup. I hope you re-consider and view Assad as a non-starter for any emeging new Syria.

  10. Eli said: “Because UNGA is not legally binding …”

    Now Eli that is an interesting opinion. I hope that you realise what you are doing. As far as I can see you are taking away the only basis of Israel’s legitimacy and make it thus appear to be a project of pure colonial usurpation. Interestingly your opinion was shared by the subcommittee of the UN that was established to comment on the UNSCOP report that had recommended the division of Palestine. The UNSCOP report had done so in spite of observing that Arabs outnumbered the Jews 2 to 1, that there were no large contiguous areas of Jewish occupation and that Arab land ownership was vastly larger than the 7% of the land that was in Jewish hands. And UNSCOP noted something else:

    “the report explicitly recognized that the denial of Palestinian independence in order to pursue the goal of establishing a Jewish state constituted a rejection of the right of the Arab majority to self-determination.”

    So no wonder that the General Assembly wanted further study of the legal issues here and established another committee to that end:
    “The Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question was established by the General Assembly shortly after the issuance of the UNSCOP report in order to continue to study the problem aA sub-committee was established in turn that was tasked with examining the legal issues pertaining to the situation in Palestine, and it released the report of its findings on November 11. It observed that the UNSCOP report had accepted a basic premise “that the claims to Palestine of the Arabs and Jews both possess validity”, which was “not supported by any cogent reasons and is demonstrably against the weight of all available evidence.” With an end to the Mandate and with British withdrawal, “there is no further obstacle to the conversion of Palestine into an independent state”, which “would be the logical culmination of the objectives of the Mandate” and the Covenant of the League of Nations.”

    This was in fact the Arab proposal in which it was explicitly said that the rights of all inhabitants of Palestine would be respected, that there would be freedom of worship and unimpeded access to the holy places.

    What else did this subcommittee come up with?

    “ It found that “the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce, any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine, and that the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine.” It concluded that “no further discussion of the Palestine problem seems to be necessary or appropriate, and this item should be struck off the agenda of the General Assembly”, but that if there was a dispute on that point, “it would be essential to obtain the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on this issue”, as had already been requested by several of the Arab states. It concluded further that the partition plan was “contrary to the principles of the Charter, and the United Nations have no power to give effect to it.” The U.N. could not deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country…. The United Nations Organization has no power to create a new State. Such a decision can only be taken by the free will of the people of the territories in question. That condition is not fulfilled in the case of the majority proposal, as it involves the establishment of a Jewish State in complete disregard of the wishes and interests of the Arabs of Palestine.[14]”

    If I were you Eli I would let sleeping dogs lie (not being you I might not follow that advice).

    See this article in Foreign Policy Journal of October 26 2010


  11. For all of you making predictions about this or that fate for Israel, I suggest a little humility.
    Would any of you predicted the “Arab Spring” and the total chaos of Libya, Syria, Egypt and elsewhere?
    I gave up on the business of predicting the future a long time ago. Perhaps your predictions are little more than fantasies…

  12. What predictions are you talking about Yehuda?

    And Jeremiah, the man of winning a war “fair and square”? Was it you who complained about rhetoric? When will you get it in your head that winning a war, however “fair and square”, does not provide a claim to territory?. It is noteworthy that many of the hasbarists here talk as if there was no such thing as international law. Defending the claims of a rogue nation must have made them impervious to that notion.

    1. @Arie; Richard’s predictions about a greater power taking land from Israel. Or Simo’s prediction that Israel will disintegrate with millions of Jewish radical refugees flooding the shores of Europe and the US.

      But I’ll venture and make a more modest prediction. That Israelis will soon tire of Netanyahu’s manipulations and of the diplomatic isolation, and will replace him with somebody more moderate. This will bring about renewal of peace negotiations. Not necessarily peace, mind you, but at least the sides will be talking to each other rather than wagging their fingers and lecturing at one another. At the same time western powers and Arab countries are losing their patience with both sides and will apply pressure to Israel and the Palestinians, respectively, to compromise.

      1. @ Yehuda:

        Israelis will soon tire of Netanyahu’s manipulations and of the diplomatic isolation, and will replace him with somebody more moderate.

        Been there, done that. Didn’t work. Won’t work. Israelis can’t & won’t work their way out of this one. They don’t want to. And the world permits it–till they don’t. It’ll happen.

      2. Yehuda – what is the compromise of what you “dream”?

        In Israel and occupied areas live over 5 million Palestinians and in the region are millions of Palestinians “waiting” for return and/or compensation. Without 2-states Israel simply can not stay long as a Jewish state in its present form and style. Israeli Jews can not kill or deport those >5 millions Palestinians, Israel can not function if those >5 millions are put in little isolated enclaves in poor violent circumstances using religious apartheid and military guarding. Israel can not live as another North Korea, as an isolated pariah state. It is to small and without natural resources to function like that.

        If Israel deports larger groups of Palestinians (thousands or hundreds of thousands) it is certain that the Arab countries leaders would be forced to act militarily because of the fury among their population masses. I recommend that Israelis would take a look on the wast weapon arsenals Arab countries have. Maybe Arabs as soldiers are behind in training, but their weapons are now the same Israel has and they have plenty of “cannon food”. Saudi Arabia alone uses yearly to weapons more than Russia does. In Yom Kippur war Israel lost 1,067 tanks and when this short war was ended by the big refugees Israel had little over 600 tanks left (as an example). Surely the Arabs did loose in that war a lot of armor, but already then in 1973 they had most of their weapons left. If the war would have lasted months Israel would have become Palestine already in 1973 or 1974.

        The two states solution begins to be an impossibility, because over halve million of Jews live in the West Bank and most certainly they would not want to become “Palestinians”. Evacuating them would cost billions and trigger sever problems including internal fighting among Israeli Jews. So can West Bank be offered as the core part of the second state? Well …

        Dreaming that negotiations can go on and on is absurd, when there is nothing Israeli Jews can (and will) offer to Palestinians. This negotiation circus has been going on for decades and only Israel Jewish side believes, that everybody is ready to continue this for the next 20 years and pay the costs while Israeli Jews take in small bits what is left. For Palestinians the absolute minimum are 1968 borders (and plenty of money) and real independence, not an “Israeli autonomy”. It is clear there is no Israeli Jewish government which can or will promise that. If Israeli Jews offer them less Palestinians simply will say – we want equality and a one state – and there is very little Jews can say or do against that on longer run, especially when Palestinians end this insane PA co-operation. So Palestinians will in the end get everything. And even if this transformation will be peaceful (which is not likely) it is certain, that many if not most at least western and eastern Jews will decide to move to Europe and USA.

        Yehuda there is simply no hope for the long lasting Jewish state based on apartheid and religious discrimination in modern times, as little there was hope for an eternal White South Africa. You can play time and get a couple of years/decades but the end result will be Palestine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link