Rather than broad brush my statements and libel me as the messenger, please be specific with your accusations. First state what I said . Next say specifically why it is incorrect and give credible references why it is incorrect. Do that for every statement I made. If you do not do that I assume that you agree with the ones you have not responded to.

The initial round of UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israeli settlements (and annexations)as violating the Geneva Convention came after Begin became PM. NGO's didn't even exist then. I would never condemn Israel for the extraordinary list of accomplishments both scientific and biologic which have garnered it a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes. They have carved a country out of a dessert. Our religion however is founded on the law and from the world and World Court's opinion, Israel is breaking it.

There is a huge difference between Israel and Pakistan. I am sorry that you can even compare us. There is a difference bettwen democracy and the people who are citizens of the country who betray and vilify our people, our soldiers, our values . I don't think there is a country more democratic than Israel.. So please get your facts straight before you shoot .

I agree with you, there is a huge difference between Pakistan and Israel. Pakistan has gone in and out of a democracy several times and clearly all democracies are not alike. But the hallmark of any democracy( Israel especially) is free speech. That doesn't give someone the right to yell fire in a crowded theater when no fire exists. But it also gives the minority a right to express their opinion for however much you disagree with it. No one seems to be stopping you from expressing an opinion.

You seem to be very ignorant about your own laws. The Logan Act of 1799 outlawed this very action in America. The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 required this type of disclosure for NGOs in the United States. All other countries in the entire world REQUIRE this disclosure. So does that mean we are the only ones in the entire world that have an active left wing? According to your standards your country is a fascist nation.

Sir, the World Court in 2004 said Israeli settlements violated art 49 of the Geneva Convention. There are 9 UN Security Council resolutions going back to 1978 condemning Israel annexations and violations of art 49 and 33 of the Geneva Convention. According to you that makes the world anti-Semitic. Why doesn't it simply make them pro-international law?

thank you for your kind/friendly reaction. i think it is a bad thing that 1.5 million dutchmen voted for geert wilders and his party for (the) freedom on 9th of june 2010, almost as bad as not voting at all. if he goes to israel again, please keep him there (his favorite country) and we in the netherlands donot need him anymore, plus those who voted for him. all sorts of people voted pvv for different/various reasons. i prefer his brother paul wilders above geert wilders himself!

First Gee, the Logan Act deals with a private individual establishing US Foreign policy with a foreign government. It has nothing to do with freedom of the press or desemination of information. Your reading of the act would prevent multinational oil companies from signing oil and gas contracts with Israel (in their new deep sea gas find) Foreign Agents Registration Act is for lobbyists representing a foreign power which I have no issue with. I also indicated I have no issue with the freedom of information act. The problem with the proposed Israeli law is countries like Spain or the Netherlands or Belgium do not have a comparable(freedom of information ) act. Hence if they or the Saudis were funding an NGO in those countries which intern funded an Israeli NGO, you would find out nothing by the law. (only that a foreign NGO as oppposed to a foreign power was the source of funds)You cannot compel these countries to change their laws. As a result, my fear is that a broad based requirement to provide source of funds info would simply dry up legal funds from left wing groups.(because of fear of retribution) In my country there are only two political parties, both on a general equal footing. Words like "eradicate" don't come up and foreign based NGO's or any NGO's providing info are simply dealt with in a free press.

My dear Sir, we would with a great pleasure keep Mr. Wilders here in the state of Zion, but I think that you own people who voted for him and that are 1.5 mio. people wann keep him in Holland. And as a democratic zionist jew I respect the will of this people. That is democracy, you have to learn it.

The law to gag the Human Rights Organisations was initiated by Lieberman's Party , most of whom are RUSSIANS so.......... Ben Ari is having to make a lot of noise because THEY ARE STEALING HIS POSITION AS THE LEADING FASCIST IN THE kNESSET. Another interesting aspect of Lieberman's Policy is this. IN THE USSR (where Lieberman and his cronies came from) HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENTS COULD NOT HAVE EXISTED. So the wheel has come full circle THE LIBERALISATION WHICH ENABLED 1 MILLION RUSSIANS TO COME TO ISRAEL DOES NOT SUIT MR. LIEBERMAN . Ironic isn't it?

Is that the name of a Jew. Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like one of those "Failed in America, Try Israel" names. And everyone who speaks Hebrew with Ashkenazi pronunciation isn't Neturei Karta, you ignoramus! But then, based on your writing, your English isn's so great either.

John, it's clear to everyone on this thread that your sophistry, pedantic lecturing of everyone is born out of all general frustrations suffreed in your personal (private?) life. Nobody takes you seriously. Your application of Chapter 25 is a farce, and a very cheap at that. But probably you know all that. Your vainglorious "I know beter than anyone else here!" is so pathetic John that it reveals a poor and desperate soul. But allow me one concrete rebutal that pull the rug under your feet. The so-called Int'l court ruled in a decidedly NON-BINDING verdict that disagrees with the legality with Israel's separation fence/small-part wall. As I just mentioned it's an advisory opinion that does not oblige anyone to anything. But EVEN if it did, the very fact that the only 2 judges from Democratic countries, an Aemrican and a British female judge ruled the following way: the American opposed it, while the British one while did not allegedly muster the courage to oppose that, had still had reservations about the correctness of the decision. All the other judges were from despotic, primitive 3rd world hellholes, and even your predictable oh-so-righteous idnignation can't make me fear your cheap "racist" or similar calibre outcries. So in every possible way the Court's verdict is illegitimate, John. And by this one example I illustrated the bankruptcy of your stated wisdoms. But don't be bothered. Only you are right, and nobody else ever, John!

There has never been an act of political violence equal to the Atalena in Israel. The left knows how to murder and imprison their opponents far better than the Israeli right would ever do. After all the Left has decades of practical experience and also lacks the moral restraints of even the Kahanists.

My view of your $3billion military aid is this: the USA is one of the world's largest arms supplier, and I suspect that most, if not all of it's moves and actions, are motivated by their will to find new markets and preserve their present clients. It began with WWI, came to a gigantic scale at WWII, and ever since, with practically complete world domination, also in all of the Middle East (while kicking off their Soviet adversaries at that). Both peace treaties signed by Israel and mediated by the Americans include a weapon clause, supplied to both sides courtesy of the USA, of course. Another factor which influenced the USA's approach to Israel in general and Jerusalem in specific was the Oil Embargo of the 1970s, and a growing pro-Arabic approach there. As for the New Israel Fund, we are indeed capable of understanding that an organization which supports Adalla, Zochrot and Shatil, supports the so-called Pallestinian right to return, which endangers Israel's Jewish majority, and therefore is a danger to the very existence of the State of Israel. IMHO we're allowed to fight that, yet. Now please don't get me wrong, I am grateful to the USA's help and friendship over the years. But some of the things I would change. We do not wish to be American puppets, and also we would have been better off developing defence systems not necessarily based on F-16s. Best regards

Try reading article 25 of the UN Charter. It makes Security Council Resolutions binding. There are 9 such resolutions dealing with the settlements. All say they are illegal and violate the Geneva Convention (which is also binding on its signatories.) Israel signed the Geneva Convention in 1951. Under article 94 of the UN Charter ,Israel must accept rulings by the World Court as accepted law. They don't offer exceptions because Israel doesn't like the judges. If Israel felt their rulings were as inconsequential as you suggest why did they employ a full legal team to defend their position in the 2004 ruling?According to you advisory opinions and Security Council resolutions mean nothing. In 1967 Theodor Meron, counsel to your Foreign Ministry, told Levi Eshcol the then PM that WB settlements would violate the Geneva Convention. The world has tries on three occasions to impose severe economic sanctions on Israel for blatant violations of international law only to be stopped by US vetoes. Israel exists because of US vetoes and aid (both military and diplomatic). If the US didn't defend you ,Israel would be thrown out of the UN and would be subject to a world economic boycott. When you don't like the truth you attack the messenger. That is what children do. If you have specific legal information which refutes the facts I am stating please provide them and I will gladly debate you. Otherwise I can't deal with the rantings of an infant mentality.

"Otherwise I can't deal with the rantings of an infant mentality. " Of course not. A maniac narcissist could do no better even if wanted to. Theodor Meron was one sole individual. Israel does clearly not violate the IVth Geneva Conv.'s, because they don't "transfer" anybody anywhere. People are virtually dying out of desire" to move to Judea & Samaria. So your philosphying is clearly inane and not applicable to the territories. Your pathetic defense of Israel giving its own defence at the trial is only natural. It still does not negate the fact one inch that the verdict is advisory, non-binding and, further as I tried to explain to you before, illegitimate precisely becasue of the component of the panel. You may well deny this as a supposedly self-hating Jew living in NY - or an antisemite-in-hiding, but that's your problem. You cannot see the forest for the trees. Any sane and normal being would /could see the truth in concerning the the "judges" and who came from where. But a multiculturalist, pedantic self-hater you are too committed to your sophistry and dogma to get that John. All your assertions as I said before are twists, pedantic nothing, occasionally, outright lies. G'night.

Oh, and you would be that "messanegr" - one wonders where ends the limited amount of knowledge and starts your gigantic arrogance, pretense, faux pride and, most of all, EGO. G'night.

Please don't get me wrong but you are an ignorant ingrate. Of the $3 billion dollars Israel is given by the US, $750 million of it in cash goes directly to the Israeli arms industry. Israel is the 8th largest arms exporter in the world and actually competes with the US arms industry. The balance is spent by Israel for effectively free US arms. We could sell tomorrow $5billion in US arms to the Saudis (without giving them a penny)were it not for the Israeli lobby influence in the US congress. We could give Egypt, Jordon and Lebanon the same $3billion in arms and help our arms industry more. Why not ask General Dynamics who manufactures our drones how they feel about Israel selling its drone technology to China. The status quo will not exist for much longer in part because the Israeli government's attitude isn't very different than yours.

Dear Sjoerd, Your high level dialectic is very impresive. However, tell me what would you do if you were a jew in your country today? If you talk of Adolf, just tell me why the Dutch government is incapable of protecting and defending Jews in Amsterdam from arab racists? Apparently Jews should leave Holland for "America or Israel". I dont see you commenting on this. Is the reason that you are a blatant anti Israel, or anti Jew? What is the answer.

As a point of law, the International Court of Justice is the competent court of last jurisdiction on rulings concerning violations of the Geneva Convention. Since Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Convention as of 1951( which IS a Binding treaty), the ICJ ruling would be binding. There is a UN General Assembly resolution entitled "Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine". Its been voted on every year since 1983. It calls for Israel to stop building WB settlements predicated on the 9 UN Security Council resolutions which say they violate the Geneva Convention. About 93% of the members vote in favor of the resolution so Theodor Meron is hardy alone. In fact most of the 162 countries that recognize Israel vote for that resolution and have been doing it for more than 25 years. Israel chose not to participate in the UN inquiry on Operation Cast Lead hence it isn't always the Natural Thing to DO. Again if the ICJ 2004 ruling was so inconsequential why did Israel choose to defend themselves with a fully staffed legal team? After the Israeli government spent over $18 billion US dollars appropriating land, building subsidized housing, infrastructure, schools, post offices, governmental buildings,a multi-billion dollar security fence and granted Knesset representation plus full IDF security, I'm certain people are dying to move there. Unfortunately the World Court and the rest of the World consider that to be a government induced TRANSFER. Our religion is founded on the law. Without it Judaism does not exist. Because I respect it like the rest of the world does not make me an anti-Semite. I said it before ,yours are the rantings of an infant who attacks the messenger because there is no substance to your message so you have no other recourse.

I see I too have angered you. I admit to ignorance on foreign affairs (I am a physicist), but not to ingratitude. However my view on the race of arms between us and the Arabs, to borrow the words of Carl Sagan, as of two people which are up to their necks in a pool of gasoline, one has three matches and the other - five. As hindview is 20:20, perhaps if a little less weapons were supplied to us, we would have been forced to search for more creative solutions to cope with our neighbours. My point is, what if, instead of constantly supplying both sides with warplanes, the USA would have risen above their arms manufacturer lobby, and helped the ME on something like the Marshall Plan, for Arab refugee rehabilitation? That too could have boosted American industry, right? Instead, the USA, along with Europe and the UN, has contributed to perpetuate their poor situation, which is used as a weapon by the Arabs in their war against us. Good night.

I agree with you but Israel should also contribute in this Marshall Plan. The World Zionist Congress recently came out in full support of a 2 state solution and a settlement freeze. Give the Palestinians the West Bank, and Internationalize Jerusalem as it was agreed to by Ben Gurion in UN res 181. Part of this Marshall plan is that the International community(including the Arab shiekdoms) should buy right of return from the Palestinians. The Palestinians are not responsible for Egypt ,Iraq, Jordon and a host of other Arab countries expelling more than 600,000 Jews in 1948. They deserve fair monetary compensation for losing their right to return to Israel proper. Israel effectively annexing 10% of the West Bank and trading that for an equivalent amount of Negev Desert is not fair.If you fairly deal with core issues, all sides would need less military. I fully support a demilitarized Palestinian State but not one that is so carved up by Israeli annexation that a map of it looks like Swiss cheese.

The only obstacle in the two-state solution is Palestinians themselves. They have refused every offer we made since 1994. And even now they do everything in their power to avoid a peace treaty. Why should Israel freeze the settlements even further without an agreement? The initial 10-month freeze last year wasn't enough to bring Abbas to the negotiating table for more than brief moment. Why should it now? If a wild expansion of settlements (not that I approve it, but I'm afraid that'll be reality from now on) won't make Palestinians understand that they too have something to lose by not making peace with us, then nothing will. If I understand you correctly, you're talking about a program that will put all the factors of the Arab-Israeli conflict together to work a solution. But who has the power, or even the will, to impose such a plan? The old empires are gone, and the new ones have not reached their full might yet.

to those who said 'Ben-Ari for Prime Minister' ... amen and amen ... vote him in ... he's got the guts to save Israel .... he speaks the truth ..... he's not afraid ....

John and Bat-Zion: It seems to me that you are looking at this situation without the proper perspective. Take a deep breath and step back for a moment. This little country, Israel, has been at the center of the world's problems ever since the UN voted it into existence. It seems to be causing more and more trouble. This, IMHO, is because a scenario is being played out. The Hebrew prophets speak clearly of it, and the sages of the Talmud describe it in finer detail: we (Israel) and the world are in that tumultuous time before Israel emerges as that People and Country who will be responsible for leading the world into a real, non-nuclear era of peace and prosperity. What is freaking you (and everyone else) out is the tremendous shifts in history that must take place before Israel becomes who it is really supposed to be. I don't have the details, mind you - but the big picture is eminently clear to anyone who wants to read up and understand. You may continue arguing away about one policy or another, be aware: all is for the best, and the best is yet to come. That's my 2-shekels worth ....

... patience, and the understanding that we are not the skippers of the ship. And the skipper surely knows how to navigate in his world.

We all know I answered Bat Zion (115) on his 115 talkback. Initially I thought my response was lost in a communication error on the internet. I recomposed and resubmitted it as a result. It also wasn't published. Both of you will have to deal with issues of journalistic integrity and a free press (which isn't really free but censored.) The one attribute which firmly established Israel as the only real democracy in the Middle East was free speech. The purpose of the law which this article addressed and your censorship is to kill the free speech of people who don't agree with you.

Bat, I gave you a response to the very fair and pertinent questions which you asked in #115. As of this point I repeated the answer in 3 different talkbacks on three occasions . The authors of this article have elected not to print those responses because they electively chose not to have you see them. I'm sorry. John R