ixyz
5.3K posts



SCOOP: I've discovered that Euro-Med Monitor has actually been formally designated as a terrorist organization by Israel — since 2015. And nobody realized. Not journalists. Not myself. Not even the Israeli Diaspora Ministry, which published a detailed report on Euro-Med just last week following the Nicholas Kristof NYT op-ed. So what happened? Israel designated the organization under its old name, "EUROMID OBSERVER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS." The group rebranded circa 2015 as "Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor," and the old spelling made the designation invisible to any obvious sanctions search. It sat buried in the government's official list for ten years, completely undetected. The Swiss commercial registry makes the link unambiguous. Same organization. New name. Still designated. The original designation, issued by then-Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, declared Euro-Med an "unauthorized association" under Israel's 1945 Defense (Emergency) Regulations. Under Section 101 of Israel's 2016 Counter-Terrorism Law, that designation was automatically converted into a permanent terrorist designation, with no additional process required. A terror front. Rebranded. Undetected for a decade.

@r168538 @ReddCinema the jews never stole the land zionism is legal it is a movement to go back to the ancestor land the land belongs to jews ancestor dna research proves it before 135 AD expulsion the jews were the majority the roman were the invader the colonizer




@strxwmxn @_ZachFoster The Zionist mvmt also refused a truce negotiated by the US ten days before May 14th, because they were having too much success with the Nakba already, having made 300k Palestinians refugees by that point. And Israel still plays the victim in hasbara. It’s remarkable.










@r168538 @ReddCinema the jews never stole the land zionism is legal it is a movement to go back to the ancestor land the land belongs to jews ancestor dna research proves it before 135 AD expulsion the jews were the majority the roman were the invader the colonizer



















On what moral basis were Palestinians "obligated" to accept partition? They weren’t obligated to like it. They were not obligated to see it as fair. They were entitled to reject it politically. But rejection is not the same as a right to launch or support a war to prevent any Jewish state from existing. By 1947 there were two peoples on the land with competing national claims. Jews were not a random foreign lobby with no connection to the place; they were a people with ancient ties, continuous presence, mass displacement, and a real need for sovereignty after centuries of persecution. Partition was morally imperfect because reality was morally impossible: two peoples claimed the same land, and neither was going to disappear. The moral basis was not that Palestinians owed Jews a debt. It was that Jews also had a right to self-determination, and partition was the proposed compromise between two conflicting claims. The tragedy is that compromise was rejected in favour of war by the Arabs. Palestinian suffering which is historically brought upon by themselves is real but it does not erase Jewish legitimacy and it does not turn rejection of any Jewish sovereignty into moral innocence.

