So why do people hate Israel? - Page 176




 
--
 
February 20th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
You said shot in the tigh and shot through the foot.
I said not hit and toe hit.
I was correct in both cases, he was shot through the thigh 12 months previously, and the Israeli court agreed that in this case he was shot in the foot. Whereas your contradictory statements are regarding the same incident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Fact: toe was hit but inconclusive if it was a bullet. (witness: court, B'tselem, Abu Rahmeh himself, IDF soldiers).
So what was it? another of your miracles that just happened to occur after his foot was shot, you say yourself that the toe was hit, but then again you also stated the projectile missed by 40cm hitting the ground 6metres behind him. Another "Ziofact" reinforced by Nahum Shahaf and as quoted by you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Whether the shot missed or it was a grazing shot or a ricochet, whether from 1.5m or 4 m. It does not matter. Bottom line is, his toe was hit and he had a blister (that also could have been there before the shot). So stop making a fool of yourself.
It is stated numerous times by Israeli sources that the projectile hit him in the foot and that as a result he suffered a Bruisd toe and also a blistered toe (depending who you choose to believe), however they also state and you agreed, that it did not hit him in the foot Nowhere was it stated in court that this mysterious bruised/ blistered toe was a previous injury, in fact it was stated by you that the projectile caused the bruised toe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
No need to answeer them. Facts speak for themselves. He had a blister on his toe and that is an undiniable fact which makes your questions otiose.
What is "otiose"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Again you show your lack of knowledge and your persistent denial of facts, instead relying on wishfull thinking.
From the 2011 Humanrights.gov reoprt:
"Conditions in Israel Prison Service (IPS) facilities generally met international standards according to international and domestic NGOs"

Are you implying that an 29 year old cannot die from a heart attack? Each year 3.000 young Americans (age 15 -34) die of a heart attack.
No, I'm implying that these young men died as a result of torture inflicted by the Israelis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You forgot one small detail regarding Israeli Prisons. It is the Israeli prisons for general (Israeli) population that are found to be generally (not always) meeting International

Standards, not the prisons for Palestinians where conditions are much worse and torture is condoned by the authorities using deliberate loopholes in Israeli Law.

This document you quote is from the US Department of State a representative of the same government who is supporting Israel. As such it has little if any credibility. Note the
single justifying comment supporting this statement that conditions are "Generally acceptable". "Prisoners have access to potable water",.... I guess that makes it a holiday resort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PressTV
Palestinian prisoners continue to endure torture in Israeli jails as the United Nations marked the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. Currently there are nearly 5,000 Palestinian political prisoners and many of them are subjected to systematic torture. At least 200 Palestinian prisoners have died so far in Israeli custody due to torture and medical negligence.

Rights groups say that Tel-Aviv considers itself exempt from the jurisdiction of international law and the guidance of international conventions. According to the Independent Commission for Human Rights (ICHR) torture is openly legitimized by the Israeli judiciary.

Statistics show that nearly eight hundred thousand Palestinians were detained by Israel since 1967. Observers say that Israeli interrogators and various security services are licensed by the courts to continue torturing Palestinian prisoners and detainees. Torture is a crime under international law and it is absolutely prohibited and cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Human rights groups and prisoners continue to report cases of torture and ill-treatment in Israeli detention centers on almost a daily basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Seems like in Israel. Palestinians who throw rocks at the police get arrested and appear before the court. Sometimes they are even acquitted.
What,...
after being whipped with electrical flex so badly they had to keep the victim in Prison until the worst of his injuries had healed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
I love this one. Again a confirmation of your lack of knowledge.

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

Israel AND the Arab countries who attacked Israel are in violation of UNSC resolution 242
This number of contraventions by Hussein is still nothing compared with those flouted or ignored by Israel

Resolution 242 was not adopted until 22 November 1967 and says nothing whatsoever about the illegality of Arabs trying to remove an illegal occupier from THEIR land. What it DOES say was that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Res. 242
"Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter

principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." [4]
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
But there is more.
"Article 80, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Charter maintained the obligations of mandatories. The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate
survived the demise of the League" meaning the mandate still stands. And that mandate allocates the region, which now comprises Israel, West bank and Gaza, to the Jews. The Partition plan doesn't alter that either because that plan says that the eastern border of Israel borders to the Arab part. But the Arabs refused, so there is no Arab part and Israel's border moves to Jordan. (More useless padding having no bearing on any part of the debate)

Have you ever thought about why Israel is never brought before the International Court of Justice? Now you know why.
No it does not allocate anything to the Jews, it is the Mandate for Palestine, not the mandate for Israel. The British administration were asked to assess the "possibility" of a Jewish homeland being established in Palestine. However this was soon seen to be an impossibility as the preamble to the mandate clearly states that the Brits as administrators must do nothing that infringes on the religious or civil rights of the existing Palesinian, Jewish and Christian population. So no land could be allocated to anyone other than the pre existing Palestinian population. Hence the reason why the Israeli Terror groups set about driving the Brits out of Palestine.

There have been numerous attempts to take Israel before the ICJ, and on each occasion it was only a veto by the US that prevented it, nothing at all to do with the British Mandate for Palestine (not Israel)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
February 20th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
Which reminds me, You still have not shown your much quoted Frame 633 that you allege enables you to see the victim's uninjured foot inside his shoe and told us how you reached this miraculous conclusion. Another of your lies made up (poorly) on the run.

Neither have you posted any evidence to support your claim that the view of the hole in the sole of the shoe shows it is pushed inwards. Another lie

Also you have never explained how the material you posted, allegedly from Forensic Architecture states clearly the victim was shot in the foot from a range of 1.5 metres and yet their supposedly accurate drawing clearly shows the victim to be 4 metres away.
February 23rd, 2014  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
I was correct in both cases, he was shot through the thigh 12 months previously, and the Israeli court agreed that in this case he was shot in the foot. Whereas your contradictory statements are regarding the same incident.
???????????????? Give me your links that he was shot in the leg in 2007 and that the court said he was shot in the foot.

This is complete BS, and you know it. Why would a court rule that he was shot in the foot when the victim himslef declared he had a blister on the right side of his left toe? Your Nazi techniques don't work with me.

Quote:
So what was it? another of your miracles that just happened to occur after his foot was shot, you say yourself that the toe was hit, but then again you also stated the projectile missed by 40cm hitting the ground 6metres behind him. Another "Ziofact" reinforced by Nahum Shahaf and as quoted by you.
Something must have hit his toe, maybe even before the shooting. What is definitely clear though is that he was not shot in the thigh nor through the foot. No matter how you twist or turn your words it won't change the truth: no one knows what exactly caused the blister.

Quote:
It is stated numerous times by Israeli sources that the projectile hit him in the foot and that as a result he suffered a Bruisd toe and also a blistered toe (depending who you choose to believe), however they also state and you agreed, that it did not hit him in the foot Nowhere was it stated in court that this mysterious bruised/ blistered toe was a previous injury, in fact it was stated by you that the projectile caused the bruised toe.
read my previous answer

Quote:
What is "otiose"?
worthless, pointless.

Quote:
No, I'm implying that these young men died as a result of torture inflicted by the Israelis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You forgot one small detail regarding Israeli Prisons. It is the Israeli prisons for general (Israeli) population that are found to be generally (not always) meeting International

Standards, not the prisons for Palestinians where conditions are much worse and torture is condoned by the authorities using deliberate loopholes in Israeli Law.

This document you quote is from the US Department of State a representative of the same government who is supporting Israel. As such it has little if any credibility. Note the
single justifying comment supporting this statement that conditions are "Generally acceptable". "Prisoners have access to potable water",.... I guess that makes it a holiday resort.
First, the ICHR is a Palestinian organization. They also report on your beloved Palestinians torture each other in the West Bank and Gaza. You don't read that in western media and something you painstakingly avoid to mention.
"As for assaults on freedom of expression and peaceful protests, the human rights organization pointed out that on January 12, 2014, PA policemen used force to break up a protest by Palestinian youths north of Ramallah. Between 60-70 protesters, the report continued, were wounded in the head and legs after policemen attacked them with clubs and stun grenades."
On January 28, 2014, Palestinian Authority policemen used live ammunition to disperse stone-throwers in the center of Ramallah, according to the report. It also stated that there was no reason for the use of live ammunition during the incident. Four protesters were wounded, the report documented, when policemen attacked them with clubs.

During January, ICHR wrote that it received 56 complaints about torture and mistreatment in Palestinian prisons: 36 in the Gaza Strip and 19 in the West Bank. In addition, the human rights organization received innumerable complaints about arbitrary and unlawful arrests of Palestinians by the PA and Hamas.


Quote:
What,...
after being whipped with electrical flex so badly they had to keep the victim in Prison until the worst of his injuries had healed?
That picture does not prove he was hit by IDF or israeli police. If that was the case it would have been a far bigger news.

Quote:
This number of contraventions by Hussein is still nothing compared with those flouted or ignored by Israel
But it does prove your picture was WRONG

Quote:
Resolution 242 was not adopted until 22 November 1967 and says nothing whatsoever about the illegality of Arabs trying to remove an illegal occupier from THEIR land. What it DOES say was that:
"(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." [4]"


Quote:
No it does not allocate anything to the Jews, it is the Mandate for Palestine, not the mandate for Israel. The British administration were asked to assess the "possibility" of a Jewish homeland being established in Palestine. However this was soon seen to be an impossibility as the preamble to the mandate clearly states that the Brits as administrators must do nothing that infringes on the religious or civil rights of the existing Palesinian, Jewish and Christian population. So no land could be allocated to anyone other than the pre existing Palestinian population. Hence the reason why the Israeli Terror groups set about driving the Brits out of Palestine.
WRONG!! The mandate of Palestine had nothing to do with "Palestinians". They are not even mentioned because they didn't exist at that time. The mandate was all about the creation of a Jewish homeland (state). That's why Jews were allowed to settle everywere and Arab immigration was forbidden. It speaks clearly about the "Jewish people" and "existing non-Jewish communities". read that again: existing non-Jewish communities.

It was not about a possibility, it was about "putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty". That decleration was "Balfour Declaration 1917" which says: "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

The document doesn't mention "existing Palesinian, Jewish and Christian population" but :"safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion"

The Jews started attacking the British because after all those years they still did not fulfill their task: the creation of a Jewish homeland. They did not stop Arab immigration and impeded Jewish immigration contrary to the promises.

The Palestine mandate had nothing to do with an Arab state, for which Jordan was created.

I wonder which documents you read to be so far from the truth.

There have been numerous attempts to take Israel before the ICJ, and on each occasion it was only a veto by the US that prevented it, nothing at all to do with the British Mandate for Palestine (not Israel)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Only an opinion, she didn't, they did:

--
February 24th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
Which reminds me, You still have not shown your much quoted Frame 633 that you allege enables you to see the victim's uninjured foot inside his shoe and told us how you reached this miraculous conclusion. Another of your lies made up (poorly) on the run.

Neither have you posted any evidence to support your claim that the view of the hole in the sole of the shoe shows it is pushed inwards. Another lie

Also you have never explained how the material you posted, allegedly from Forensic Architecture states clearly the victim was shot in the foot from a range of 1.5 metres and yet their supposedly forensically accurate drawing clearly shows the victim to be 4 metres away. Like you they make up their excuses (very poorly) on the run.

You have never explained how Nahum Sharaf's Official Affidavit denies the findings of the Israeli High Court that Abu Rameh WAS shot in the foot, To many lies for them to keep track of, eh?


You still have not been able to produce this mysterious "uncut" video showing the projectile hitting the ground 6m behind the victim and having this alleged "conversation" on it. So far there is absolutely no evidence that this conversation ever took place, and the only mention that can be found of it is on a Hasbara site run by Rivka Shpak Lissak, an Israeli born Hasbarat, quoting Jonathan D. Halevi an ex Lt Col. in the IDF, now employed by The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (A recognised Hasbara site). Liar!

You also stated that Abu Rameh was not a protester, however it was stated in the court proceedings that he was, He is also clearly visible protesting in the opening scenes of the video. Another Lie on your behalf
February 25th, 2014  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Which reminds me, You still have not shown your much quoted Frame 633 that you allege enables you to see the victim's uninjured foot inside his shoe and told us how you reached this miraculous conclusion. Another of your lies made up (poorly) on the run.

Neither have you posted any evidence to support your claim that the view of the hole in the sole of the shoe shows it is pushed inwards. Another lie

Also you have never explained how the material you posted, allegedly from Forensic Architecture states clearly the victim was shot in the foot from a range of 1.5 metres and yet their supposedly forensically accurate drawing clearly shows the victim to be 4 metres away. Like you they make up their excuses (very poorly) on the run.

You have never explained how Nahum Sharaf's Official Affidavit denies the findings of the Israeli High Court that Abu Rameh WAS shot in the foot, To many lies for them to keep track of, eh?


You still have not been able to produce this mysterious "uncut" video showing the projectile hitting the ground 6m behind the victim and having this alleged "conversation" on it. So far there is absolutely no evidence that this conversation ever took place, and the only mention that can be found of it is on a Hasbara site run by Rivka Shpak Lissak, an Israeli born Hasbarat, quoting Jonathan D. Halevi an ex Lt Col. in the IDF, now employed by The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (A recognised Hasbara site). Liar!

You also stated that Abu Rameh was not a protester, however it was stated in the court proceedings that he was, He is also clearly visible protesting in the opening scenes of the video. Another Lie on your behalf
You never gave evidence how that "hole" in the shoe, which is not visible in all the frames BTW, came there in the first place. Was his left toe where the hole in the shoe was? Something must have caused the blister on his left toe, there's no need to deny that but unfortunately no one could proof it was the bullet. That's why B'Tselem contacted the Situ Studio to see if it was possible that the bullet could have hit the left toe of Ashraf Abu Rahme. The result was inconclusive.

Everyone knows that the "hole in the shoe" has nothing to do with the shoorting. It is time you know that too.
February 25th, 2014  
VDKMS
 
Does the Palestinians realy want a homeland?

The Arab caliphs didn't give them a homeland. "Palestinians" didn't rise up against them.
The Ottoman Turks didn't give them a homeland. "Palestinians" didn't rise up against them.
Jordan didn't give them a homeland. "Palestinians" didn't rise up against them.
Israel gave them a homeland, the PA. And now the "Palestinians" rise up against Israel.
Why didn't they rise up against former "occupiers" to get a homeland?

Because it is not about a homeland. All former "occupiers" were Muslim. It is about religion.
February 25th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Does the Palestinians realy want a homeland?

The Arab caliphs didn't give them a homeland. "Palestinians" didn't rise up against them.
The Ottoman Turks didn't give them a homeland. "Palestinians" didn't rise up against them.
Jordan didn't give them a homeland. "Palestinians" didn't rise up against them.
Israel gave them a homeland, the PA. And now the "Palestinians" rise up against Israel.
Why didn't they rise up against former "occupiers" to get a homeland?

Because it is not about a homeland. All former "occupiers" were Muslim. It is about religion.
You mean like 1831-1840 Palestinian revolt against the Turks or the 1916-18 one?
How about the 1936-39 revolt against the British which was oddly enough fought because the British did not give them the state they were promised in 1916-18?

But hey you keep trying I am sure you will convince someone not smart enough to check a history book.

Quote:
Because it is not about a homeland. All former "occupiers" were Muslim. It is about religion.
I am intrigued by the fact that you seem to have repeated several lines used by settlement leaders lately one thing I have learned in my time is that organised groups disseminate their information in packages for others to parrot.

But here is a thought, The issues are:
- past Jewish terrorism;
- On-going ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and lands;
- the establishment of an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”;
- the “Jewish State’s” 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder;
- the “Jewish State’s” refusal to honour its obligations under international law
- the “Jewish State’s” refusal to enter into sincere peace negotiations.

These may just be the reasons people dislike Israel but you keep playing the victim card because much like the "anti-semetism" card it has lost its value.
February 25th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
You never gave evidence how that "hole" in the shoe, which is not visible in all the frames BTW, came there in the first place. Was his left toe where the hole in the shoe was?
Don't be an ass all your life that matter has been resolved several times. Of course you can't see the hole in every frame but you CAN see it in everyframe where it faces the camera in direct sunlight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Something must have caused the blister on his left toe, there's no need to deny that but unfortunately no one could proof it was the bullet. That's why B'Tselem contacted the Situ Studio to see if it was possible that the bullet could have hit the left toe of Ashraf Abu Rahme. The result was inconclusive.
"Inconclusive" must be the understatement of the year, this "research" was done with all the expertise and finesse of a pair of 5 year olds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Everyone knows that the "hole in the shoe" has nothing to do with the shoorting. It is time you know that too.
Please post a link showing the Everyone knows this.

A p!ss weak attempt at an excuse even for you.

You still have not answered the questions, because you can't,... without showing yourself to be the liar you are.
March 3rd, 2014  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
You mean like 1831-1840 Palestinian revolt against the Turks or the 1916-18 one?
You make the same mistake as the newspaper The Guardian did. That revolt was an Arab revolt against the Egyptian conscription into their army. It was not an uprising against the Turks.

Quote:
How about the 1936-39 revolt against the British which was oddly enough fought because the British did not give them the state they were promised in 1916-18?
First of all, nowhere was there anything said about an Arab state in the Palestine Mandate until the partition plan. The Arabs already got their state: Transjordan, the rest was intended for the Jews.
Second, the revolt was not about a promised state but about the Jewish immigration and the sale of land to them. The Jewish immigration was a right according to the Palestine Mandate and the sale of land was legal.

Quote:
But hey you keep trying I am sure you will convince someone not smart enough to check a history book.

I am intrigued by the fact that you seem to have repeated several lines used by settlement leaders lately one thing I have learned in my time is that organised groups disseminate their information in packages for others to parrot.

But here is a thought, The issues are:
- past Jewish terrorism;
- On-going ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and lands;
- the establishment of an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”;
- the “Jewish State’s” 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder;
- the “Jewish State’s” refusal to honour its obligations under international law
- the “Jewish State’s” refusal to enter into sincere peace negotiations.

These may just be the reasons people dislike Israel but you keep playing the victim card because much like the "anti-semetism" card it has lost its value.All BS and you know it.
Jewish terrorism? Targeted killing yes but no terrorism. Do you know what terrorism is? This is terrorism: hijacking aircraft, bombing hotels, restaurants full of innocent civilians, shooting an RPG at a school bus, killing athletes during Olympic games.

Etnic cleansing? How many Jews lived in the West Bank before the Arabs attacked and after? That's etnic cleansing.

The Jewish state is as it was promised in the Palestine mandate, meaning the reconstitution of the jewish Homeland meaning israel and the West bank and Gaza. The International community gave Transjordan to the Arabs.

60+ years of ongoing offensive? No, retaliation? Yes.

Israel complies to the resolutions that requires then to comply. UN General resolutions are not binding and are more political statements.

refusal to enter into sincere peace negotiations? Arafat got everything he asked for except the control of the Temple Mount. He said he could not justify that to the Muslims. Read that again! To the Muslims, not to the Plaestinians.

Muslim occupation of the temple Mount is the core issue, not the Palestinians.


Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Don't be an ass all your life that matter has been resolved several times. Of course you can't see the hole in every frame but you CAN see it in everyframe where it faces the camera in direct sunlight.
of course it was resolved. It has nothing to do with the incident. His shoe wasn't presented as evidence to the court to show where he was hit. A toe does not reside in the middle of a shoe.

Quote:
"Inconclusive" must be the understatement of the year, this "research" was done with all the expertise and finesse of a pair of 5 year olds.
If you fail to understand what the reasearch was for in the first place you'd better stop talking about it.

Quote:
Please post a link showing the Everyone knows this.

A p!ss weak attempt at an excuse even for you.

You still have not answered the questions, because you can't,... without showing yourself to be the liar you are.
There are lots of links already posted that the victim himself said he had a blister on his toe.

Again, your questions are silly. All have been disproved by several people and organizations. B'Tselem, the victim himself, the court. Your lie becomes not truth by repeating it.
March 3rd, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
First of all, nowhere was there anything said about an Arab state in the Palestine Mandate until the partition plan. The Arabs already got their state: Transjordan, the rest was intended for the Jews.
Second, the revolt was not about a promised state but about the Jewish immigration and the sale of land to them. The Jewish immigration was a right according to the Palestine Mandate and the sale of land was legal.
Really so why do you think British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said in a 2002 interview with newspaper New Statesman
Quote:
"A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now, I have to deal with now, are a consequence of our colonial past. ... The Balfour Declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis—again, an interesting history for us but not an entirely honourable one.
It would seem to me that it is common knowledge that Britain lead the Palestinians (Note they are what he calls them as well) to believe that in return for their support against the Ottoman Empire they would be given their land as a state, but by all means keep trying to deny it because it doesn't suit your indoctrinated mind.

Then of course there was the minutes of the Cabinet Eastern Committee meeting, chaired by Lord Curzon on the 15th December 1918 which documented...
Quote:
"The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future.
Lets not forget the memorandum from the British Foreign Office prior to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 that stated
Quote:
"The whole of Palestine ... lies within the limits which H.M.G. have pledged themselves to Sherif Husain that they will recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs.
Still going to cling to the idea that Britain never made promises to the Palestinians?

Please at least stop trying to spread the zionist narrative which is essentially little more than a fairy tale made up 100 years ago to pretend you have a 3000 year link to a region none of you have any right or link to, it is bad enough that we know you are doing it but your continued defense of an apartheid regime is only assisting us in making the world aware of it.


Anyway perhaps this is a reason Israel is not liked?

After Latest Incident, Israel’s Future in FIFA Is Uncertain
Dave Zirin on March 3, 2014 - 4:21 PM ET


The Palestinian national soccer team, a source of pride for many, has been under attack by the Israeli state. (Youtube)

Their names are Jawhar Nasser Jawhar, 19, and Adam Abd al-Raouf Halabiya, 17. They were once soccer players in the West Bank. Now they are never going to play sports again. Jawhar and Adam were on their way home from a training session in the Faisal al-Husseini Stadium on January 31 when Israeli forces fired upon them as they approached a checkpoint. After being shot repeatedly, they were mauled by checkpoint dogs and then beaten. Ten bullets were put into Jawhar’s feet. Adam took one bullet in each foot. After being transferred from a hospital in Ramallah to King Hussein Medical Center in Amman, they received the news that soccer would no longer be a part of their futures.

This is only the latest instance of the targeting of Palestinian soccer players by the Israeli army and security forces. Death, injury or imprisonment has been a reality for several members of the Palestinian national team over the last five years. Just imagine if members of Spain’s top-flight World Cup team had been jailed, shot or killed by another country and imagine the international media outrage that would ensue. Imagine if prospective youth players for Brazil were shot in the feet by the military of another nation. But, tragically, these events along the checkpoints have received little attention on the sports page or beyond.

Much has been written about the psychological effect this kind of targeting has on the occupied territories. Sports represent escape, joy and community, and the Palestinian national soccer team, for a people without a recognized nation, is a source of tremendous pride. To attack the players is to attack the hope that the national team will ever truly have a home.

The Palestinian national football team, which formed in 1998, is currently ranked 144th in the world by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). They have never been higher than 115th. As FIFA themselves said in assessing the state of Palestinian soccer, “Given the passion for football that burns among Palestinians, both in the Occupied Territories and the Diaspora, such lowly status hints at problems on the ground.” These “problems on the ground” consist, as Chairman of the Palestinian Football Association Jibril al-Rajoub commented bluntly, of “the occupation's insistence on destroying Palestinian sport."

Over the last year, in response to this systematic targeting of Palestinian soccer, al-Rajoub has attempted to assemble forces to give Israel the ultimate sanction and, as he said, “demand the expulsion of Israel from FIFA and the International Olympic Committee.” Al-Rajoub claims the support of Jordan, Qatar, Iran, Oman, Algiers and Tunisia in favor of this move, and promises more countries, with an opportunity at a regional March 14 meeting of Arab states, to organize more support. He has also pledged to make the resolution formal when all the member nations of FIFA meet in Brazil.

Qatar's place in this, as host of the 2022 World Cup, deserves particular scrutiny. As the first Arab state to host the tournament, they are under fire for the hundreds of construction deaths of Nepalese workers occurring on their watch. As the volume on these concerns rises, Qatar needs all the support in FIFA that they can assemble. Whether they eventually see the path to that support as one that involves confronting or accommodating Israel, will be fascinating to see.

As for Sepp Blatter, he clearly recognizes that there is a problem in the treatment of Palestinian athletes by the Israeli state. Over the last year, he has sought to mediate this issue by convening a committee of Israeli and Palestinian authorities to see if they can come to some kind of agreement about easing the checkpoints and restrictions that keep Palestinian athletes from leaving (and trainers, consultants, and coaches from entering) the West Bank and Gaza. Yet al-Rajoub sees no progress. As he said, “This is the way the Israelis are behaving and I see no sign that they have recharged their mental batteries. There is no change on the ground. We are a full FIFA member and have the same rights as all other members.”

The shooting into the feet of Jawhar and Adam has taken a delicate situation and made it an impossible one. Sporting institutions like FIFA and the IOC are always wary about drawing lines in the sand when it comes to the conduct of member nations. But the deliberate targeting of players is seen, even in the corridors of power, as impossible to ignore. As long as Israel subjects Palestinian athletes to detention and violence, their seat at the table of international sports will be never be short of precarious.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178642...fifa-uncertain
 


Similar Topics
Israel rightfully own the West Bank .
Israel strikes Beirut suburb, tightens blockade
A conversation with Iranian dissident (MUST READ)
Palestinians
American racism