Boycott Israel

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

None of the Mandates expressed "sovereignty."

It was standard policy. None of the Mandates acquired sovereignty. Look it up.

(COMMENT)

Try and understand the meaning of "sovereignty."

• The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration,

• The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home,

• The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.

• The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law.

• The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country,

• The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers.

• The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all.

• The Administration of Palestine may organise on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country,​

Just how much different is "sovereignty" in comparison to these powers and responsibilities?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are describing the status of the Arab Palestinians.

Indeed, sovereignty was not a requirement for establishment of the Jewish National Home. Look that up.

Indeed, he likes to pretend that sovereignty is a pre-condition developing a State instead of the other way around.

It is. If they do not have sovereignty, they have no say in the status of the territory.

(COMMENT)

Pre-condition or Not, does not change the reality of how Israel came into being.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh - WOW.

(COMMENT)

Britain did not extend sovereignty; that is true. But the "future" was in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not so. The Turkish Empire had rights and title (sovereignty) until the Treaty of Lausanne then sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states. Nobody else had any sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

On more time: read it carefully... (See Posting # 5697)

You are confusing the disposition of "nationality" with the disposition of "territory." Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne does it say: "sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states"

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Section II - Nationality, deals with the the people such that no one is considered stateless (ie a refugee). It does not deal with the territorial disposition or citizen authority over the sate.

It must also be understood that the territory (to which the Mandate for Palestine applied) was NOT a self-governing institution. The administration of citizenship was a responsibility of the Allied Powers through the Mandatory (Britain).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh - WOW.

(COMMENT)

Britain did not extend sovereignty; that is true. But the "future" was in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not so. The Turkish Empire had rights and title (sovereignty) until the Treaty of Lausanne then sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states. Nobody else had any sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

On more time: read it carefully... (See Posting # 5697)

You are confusing the disposition of "nationality" with the disposition of "territory." Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne does it say: "sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states"

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Section II - Nationality, deals with the the people such that no one is considered stateless (ie a refugee). It does not deal with the territorial disposition or citizen authority over the sate.

It must also be understood that the territory (to which the Mandate for Palestine applied) was NOT a self-governing institution. The administration of citizenship was a responsibility of the Allied Powers through the Mandatory (Britain).

Most Respectfully,
R

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty. The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory. The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

This smells like a steaming pile of Zionist bullshit.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh - WOW.

(COMMENT)

Britain did not extend sovereignty; that is true. But the "future" was in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not so. The Turkish Empire had rights and title (sovereignty) until the Treaty of Lausanne then sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states. Nobody else had any sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

On more time: read it carefully... (See Posting # 5697)

You are confusing the disposition of "nationality" with the disposition of "territory." Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne does it say: "sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states"

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Section II - Nationality, deals with the the people such that no one is considered stateless (ie a refugee). It does not deal with the territorial disposition or citizen authority over the sate.

It must also be understood that the territory (to which the Mandate for Palestine applied) was NOT a self-governing institution. The administration of citizenship was a responsibility of the Allied Powers through the Mandatory (Britain).

Most Respectfully,
R

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty. The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory. The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

This smells like a steaming pile of Zionist bullshit.

So, the Treaty of Lausanne creating the “country of Pally’land” was a Zionist Plot

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh - WOW.

(COMMENT)

Britain did not extend sovereignty; that is true. But the "future" was in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not so. The Turkish Empire had rights and title (sovereignty) until the Treaty of Lausanne then sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states. Nobody else had any sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

On more time: read it carefully... (See Posting # 5697)

You are confusing the disposition of "nationality" with the disposition of "territory." Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne does it say: "sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states"

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Section II - Nationality, deals with the the people such that no one is considered stateless (ie a refugee). It does not deal with the territorial disposition or citizen authority over the sate.

It must also be understood that the territory (to which the Mandate for Palestine applied) was NOT a self-governing institution. The administration of citizenship was a responsibility of the Allied Powers through the Mandatory (Britain).

Most Respectfully,
R

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty. The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory. The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

This smells like a steaming pile of Zionist bullshit.

So, the Treaty of Lausanne creating the “country of Pally’land” was a Zionist Plot

I never said that. You have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh - WOW.

(COMMENT)

Britain did not extend sovereignty; that is true. But the "future" was in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not so. The Turkish Empire had rights and title (sovereignty) until the Treaty of Lausanne then sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states. Nobody else had any sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

On more time: read it carefully... (See Posting # 5697)

You are confusing the disposition of "nationality" with the disposition of "territory." Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne does it say: "sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states"

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Section II - Nationality, deals with the the people such that no one is considered stateless (ie a refugee). It does not deal with the territorial disposition or citizen authority over the sate.

It must also be understood that the territory (to which the Mandate for Palestine applied) was NOT a self-governing institution. The administration of citizenship was a responsibility of the Allied Powers through the Mandatory (Britain).

Most Respectfully,
R

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty. The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory. The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

This smells like a steaming pile of Zionist bullshit.

So, the Treaty of Lausanne creating the “country of Pally’land” was a Zionist Plot

I never said that. You have a reading comprehension problem.

Link?

 

[rylah]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh - WOW.

(COMMENT)

Britain did not extend sovereignty; that is true. But the "future" was in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not so. The Turkish Empire had rights and title (sovereignty) until the Treaty of Lausanne then sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states. Nobody else had any sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

On more time: read it carefully... (See Posting # 5697)

You are confusing the disposition of "nationality" with the disposition of "territory." Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne does it say: "sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states"

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Section II - Nationality, deals with the the people such that no one is considered stateless (ie a refugee). It does not deal with the territorial disposition or citizen authority over the sate.

It must also be understood that the territory (to which the Mandate for Palestine applied) was NOT a self-governing institution. The administration of citizenship was a responsibility of the Allied Powers through the Mandatory (Britain).

Most Respectfully,
R

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty. The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory. The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

This smells like a steaming pile of Zionist bullshit.

Sovereignty over all of Palestine was vested with the Jewish nation by an act of international law. And "Palestinian nationality" was a registration in the coming Jewish National Homeland.

No Arab state of Palestine was mentioned, it's a bluff.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh - WOW.

(COMMENT)

Britain did not extend sovereignty; that is true. But the "future" was in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not so. The Turkish Empire had rights and title (sovereignty) until the Treaty of Lausanne then sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states. Nobody else had any sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

On more time: read it carefully... (See Posting # 5697)

You are confusing the disposition of "nationality" with the disposition of "territory." Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne does it say: "sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states"

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Section II - Nationality, deals with the the people such that no one is considered stateless (ie a refugee). It does not deal with the territorial disposition or citizen authority over the sate.

It must also be understood that the territory (to which the Mandate for Palestine applied) was NOT a self-governing institution. The administration of citizenship was a responsibility of the Allied Powers through the Mandatory (Britain).

Most Respectfully,
R

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty. The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory. The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

This smells like a steaming pile of Zionist bullshit.

Palestinian nationality was a citizenship of a future Jewish National Homeland.
Sovereignty over all of Palestine was vested with the Jewish nation by an act of international law.

No Arab state of Palestine was mentioned, it's a bluff.

Pfffft.

Who says? Israel?

 

[rylah]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh - WOW.

(COMMENT)

Britain did not extend sovereignty; that is true. But the "future" was in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not so. The Turkish Empire had rights and title (sovereignty) until the Treaty of Lausanne then sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states. Nobody else had any sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

On more time: read it carefully... (See Posting # 5697)

You are confusing the disposition of "nationality" with the disposition of "territory." Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne does it say: "sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states"

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Section II - Nationality, deals with the the people such that no one is considered stateless (ie a refugee). It does not deal with the territorial disposition or citizen authority over the sate.

It must also be understood that the territory (to which the Mandate for Palestine applied) was NOT a self-governing institution. The administration of citizenship was a responsibility of the Allied Powers through the Mandatory (Britain).

Most Respectfully,
R

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty. The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory. The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

This smells like a steaming pile of Zionist bullshit.

Palestinian nationality was a citizenship of a future Jewish National Homeland.
Sovereignty over all of Palestine was vested with the Jewish nation by an act of international law.

No Arab state of Palestine was mentioned, it's a bluff.

Pfffft.

Who says? Israel?

Are 5?
Try international law, try US law - Palestine is Jewish sovereign land.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh - WOW.

(COMMENT)

Britain did not extend sovereignty; that is true. But the "future" was in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not so. The Turkish Empire had rights and title (sovereignty) until the Treaty of Lausanne then sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states. Nobody else had any sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

On more time: read it carefully... (See Posting # 5697)

You are confusing the disposition of "nationality" with the disposition of "territory." Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne does it say: "sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states"

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Section II - Nationality, deals with the the people such that no one is considered stateless (ie a refugee). It does not deal with the territorial disposition or citizen authority over the sate.

It must also be understood that the territory (to which the Mandate for Palestine applied) was NOT a self-governing institution. The administration of citizenship was a responsibility of the Allied Powers through the Mandatory (Britain).

Most Respectfully,
R

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty. The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory. The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

This smells like a steaming pile of Zionist bullshit.

Palestinian nationality was a citizenship of a future Jewish National Homeland.
Sovereignty over all of Palestine was vested with the Jewish nation by an act of international law.

No Arab state of Palestine was mentioned, it's a bluff.

Pfffft.

Who says? Israel?

Curious how you insist the Treaty of Lausanne created your invented “country of Pally’land” when there is no mention of “Pal’istan” in the document.

 

[Shusha]

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty.

Oh give me a break. You've been corrected on this so many times its laughable you still bring this up. It underscores your fundamental lack of understanding of law. Treaties do not create States. Treaties are agreements between States.

The Treaty of Lausanne in no way created a State in Palestine. Its utterly ridiculous to claim, in law, that the Allied Powers and Turkey could create a State for a different peoples outside their own territory. That would be the polar opposite of self-determination and self-governing. It would be like Canada and the US getting together and creating a State in oh I don't know, Patagonia or something.

The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory.

Squirrel. Absolutely NO ONE is arguing for this.

The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

No, the land was abandoned (ceded) by Turkey and given over to the Mandates to administer until the Arab peoples and the Jewish peoples in the geographical territory known as Palestine could develop their own self-governing institutions. Which they did. Hence the two STATES in the territory: Jordan and Israel. There is absolutely no way to argue FOR the right of Jordan to exist while arguing AGAINST the right of Israel to exist which is consistent. For example, IF a State of Palestine was created in the geographical territory called Palestine, and you claim that only "Palestinians" have sovereignty or have the rights to sovereignty on that land, then NEITHER Jordan nor Israel exist. Are you arguing that Jordan does not exist?

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

No, we are not. Sovereignty belongs to the collective Jewish people to reconstitute their homeland in recognition of their pre-existing right to that homeland. It belongs to the Jewish people as a right of return. (And if you standard for determining right of return is "have never been there", we've just solved the Arab Palestinian "right of return" since most of them have never been there. Call off the "Great March" asap, would you?)

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh - WOW.

(COMMENT)

Britain did not extend sovereignty; that is true. But the "future" was in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not so. The Turkish Empire had rights and title (sovereignty) until the Treaty of Lausanne then sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states. Nobody else had any sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

On more time: read it carefully... (See Posting # 5697)

You are confusing the disposition of "nationality" with the disposition of "territory." Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne does it say: "sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states"

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Section II - Nationality, deals with the the people such that no one is considered stateless (ie a refugee). It does not deal with the territorial disposition or citizen authority over the sate.

It must also be understood that the territory (to which the Mandate for Palestine applied) was NOT a self-governing institution. The administration of citizenship was a responsibility of the Allied Powers through the Mandatory (Britain).

Most Respectfully,
R

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty. The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory. The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

This smells like a steaming pile of Zionist bullshit.

You’re right. No Jews existed in the Holy Land before WW11. Just keep on repeating it.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Treaty of Lausanne did NOT create any new states anywhere between the Mediterranean to the Persian frontier. Turks relinquished the territorial title.

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty.

(COMMENT)

What states were created?

The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that the Allied Powers assumed sovereignty. But the Allied Powers assumed all the authority I mentioned in Post #5721.

The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

• IMPOSSIBLE •
The name "Palestine" is not even mentioned in the Treaty. The Palestinians are not mentioned as a people.

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

(COMMENT)

Now you are just attempting to confuse the issue. I am beginning doubt that you know the difference between sovereignty and all the authorities listed in Post #5721.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

Representatives of the Netherlands’ ruling party have asked the capital city’s government to explain why it allows anti-Semitic and anti-Israel incitement at a monument for victims of Nazism.

Amsterdam City Council lawmakers Marianne Poot and Diederik Boomsma of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy and the Christian Democratic Appeal, respectively, filed nine questions to the city government earlier this week in connection with Sunday’s edition of an action promoting a boycott of Israel that anti-Israel activists stage weekly at the Dam Square monument.

(full article online)

Amsterdam: BDS rally glorifies terror at Nazi victim monument

 

[Sixties Fan]

A German NGO has cancelled plans to honor the organizers of the “Women’s March” protest movement in the US, citing allegations of anti-Semitism after organizers refused to distance themselves from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and a Palestinian Arab terrorist responsible for the deaths of Israelis in a bombing attack in Jerusalem.

Last week, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES) – an NGO affiliated with Germany’s left-of-center Social Democratic Party – announced that it had cancelled an award planned for the Women’s March.

“The FES announces that the Human Rights Award scheduled for November 12th, 2018 has been cancelled,” FES tweeted last week. “We will examine the allegations,” FES continued, referring to accusations of anti-Semitism aimed at the Women’s March organizers.

(full article online)

German leftists nix award to Women's March over anti-Semitism

 

[Sixties Fan]

The many attendees that fill the conference halls don’t remain apathetic. Rene, one participant in a conference in Switzerland, said “I oppose the BDS groups. They say Israel is a ‘cancer’ and call for its destruction. Moreover, boycotting Israel is hypocritical! The BDS groups should invest their energy in ending the hatred by the Palestinians. The world must recognize that the vast sums of money going to the Palestinians are used for terror and educating children to terror.” Rene, who is a supporter of ‘Lev HaOlam,’ also receives packages with products from Judea and Samaria every month. He also spreads word about the packages throughout his community and to other citizens in Switzerland. “I am convinced that we must support and stand with Israel,” he emphasizes.

(full article online)

Swiss citizens against BDS

 

[Sixties Fan]

How is it possible for Students for Justice in Palestine to claim that they care for these communities while encouraging campaigns with such blatant omissions and intellectual dishonesty?

Let us consider SJP’s primary call to action for minority college students: to advocate in favor of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

Supporters of BDS call for a discriminatory economic boycott against the State of Israel and her citizens. That’s right, SJP’s primary call to action fails to address Palestinians at all, despite evidence that BDS is likely to threaten the livelihood of Palestinians more than any other group. Case in point: supporters of BDS continue to campaign for the closure of more than 775 Israeli-operated businesses in the West Bank that employ more than 11,000 Palestinians. Furthermore, these businesses offer their Palestinian workers two to three times the standard wage in the Palestinian territories, safer working conditions, and other protections under the most stringent labor rights laws in the Middle East.

(full article online)

Students for Justice in Palestine Misleads Minority Groups to Oppose Israel

 

[Sixties Fan]

African Evangelical Leaders Tour Samaria

 

[Sixties Fan]

Jerusalem at Smart City Expo World Congress 2018