Finnish activists Israeli settlements


Hill’s just another complete ignoramus journalist.

The moment the San Remo conference (here as well) ratified the mandates after WWI (in which the region of Palestine was just one of many) which took into account the Balfour Declaration which explicitly gave Jews the right of close settlement of the region of Palestine for an eventual Jewish National Home, Judea and Samaria became intrinsically linked to the nascent Jewish state. The right can never be relinquished.

Israeli Settlements

If Israel’s settlers get their way, hopes for peace will be buried beneath the tarmac

Far from being “integral” to peace, the settlements in the West Bank could lead to Israel becoming a pariah state

Israel accuses US of backing European settlement backlash

Matt Hill

By Matt Hill

3:08PM BST 14 Jun 2013

Are Israel’s West Bank settlements, rather than being an obstacle to peace, an “integral part” of any solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict? If this bold claim, made by Dani Dayan in a Guardian article last week, is right, the latest news from Israel will surely be welcomed by those who hold out hope for peace. According to new Israeli government figures, settlement construction hit a seven-year high in the first quarter of this year. And the building rush is set to continue, with plans for a major settlement expansion reported in the Israeli media this week.

Most observers, of course, agree with the view of Catherine Ashton, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, that the settlements contravene international law and damage prospects for peace by threatening to make a two-state solution impossible. But, says Dayan, if only such critics would “look into the eyes” of settlers and “understand their aspirations”, they would see that the settlements “stand on solid moral ground”.

More here.

NOTE: Anyone I have ever seen and heard, or in writing an op-ed or article, who take a highly negative stance towards Jews building their homes in ancient Judea and Samaria, use the highly fallacious mantra of ”most observers agree that the settlements are in violation of international law”.  That, like in global warming, is supposed to be enough to sway the average reader into believing their bull crap. The exact opposite is the truth.

NOTE II: I see Finnish activist Raimo Kangasniemi is up to his propaganda peddling as usual, commenting to the article in which he is clearly in the minority. Yet another ‘spitting mad’ anti-Israel ignoramus blowhard, spouting off on an issue with a bogus narrative spun from whole cloth.

raimo kangasniemi

72 percent of people in United Kingdom have a negative view of Israel. The politicians should stop announcing their “love and admiration” (Nick Clegg’s words) for Israel and act according to international and British laws and basic human morality.
Israel has US Congress in it’s pocket, but I doubt it could be able to buy the UK Parliament, so politicians brave enough to say that “Enough is enough” and Israel must face the consequences of it’s own actions should be safe from Israel’s hate campaign against all who dare to criticize it.

NOTE III: He also uses highly anti-Jewish/antisemitic rhetoric as well.

2 Responses

  1. Has Matt Hill never heard of the spoils of war belong to the victors? The Muslims certainly believe that. They started the war in 1967 by attacking Israel . They lost.

  2. “Most observers, of course, agree with the view of Catherine Ashton”- and how would this little ratbag know what “most viewers agree” with if they’ve never been asked?

    Ashton herself is a despicable creature with a more than dodgy career; and to agree with her is the same as agreeing with the OIC.

    Vomit doesn’t become edible just because Matt Hill says so.

    Revolting mental flatliners, all of them!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.