Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Vince G, CSN MFT on November 29, 2012, 05:41:08 PM
-
Oooooohhhh Shit!!!!! ;D
(http://thegreenlineblog.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/farfour.jpg)
(http://gal.darkervision.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/130.jpg)
(http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?ID=168537)
(http://electronicintifada.net/sites/electronicintifada.net/files/artman2/1/patriarch-cover-483.jpg)
-
Lol, like it matters, no one takes the UN seriously and nothing is going to change, so who gives a shit?
-
they went from being a permanent observer to a non-member observer. i dont think that means they are a recognized state.
-
they went from being a permanent observer to a non-member observer. i dont think that means they are a recognized state.
Exactly. Reading comprehension isn't one of Vince's strong points.
-
By NBC News staff and wire services
The U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution on Thursday giving implicit recognition to Palestinian statehood despite threats by the United States and Israel to punish the Palestinian Authority by withholding funds for the West Bank government.
Follow @NBCNewsWorld
The resolution, which lifts the Palestinian Authority's U.N. observer status from "entity" to "non-member state," like the Vatican possesses, easily passed the 193-nation General Assembly with 138 nations voting in favor, and nine opposed, including the United States. Forty-one countries abstained, including the United Kingdom.
Israel, the United States and the other members who opposed the resolution see it as a largely symbolic and counterproductive move by the Palestinians. The vote took place on the 65th anniversary of the assembly's adoption of resolution 181 on the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.
Maybe you guys should read a little more.
Vince is correct.
-
By NBC News staff and wire services
The U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution on Thursday giving implicit recognition to Palestinian statehood despite threats by the United States and Israel to punish the Palestinian Authority by withholding funds for the West Bank government.
Follow @NBCNewsWorld
The resolution, which lifts the Palestinian Authority's U.N. observer status from "entity" to "non-member state," like the Vatican possesses, easily passed the 193-nation General Assembly with 138 nations voting in favor, and nine opposed, including the United States. Forty-one countries abstained, including the United Kingdom.
Israel, the United States and the other members who opposed the resolution see it as a largely symbolic and counterproductive move by the Palestinians. The vote took place on the 65th anniversary of the assembly's adoption of resolution 181 on the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.
Maybe you guys should read a little more.
Vince is correct.
Meh, as I said, it will change nothing.
-
Meh, as I said, it will change nothing.
I agree completely... We recognize Chad as a state and it means nothing to anyone.
-
Implicit-implied, not = explicit- stated or actual.
-
israel really are bastards
aipac should be audited
-
I'm implying that they should build a chain of Mirage Hotels all over Palestine.
-
israel really are bastards
aipac should be audited
For once I agree with you. Completely. VIVA PALESTINE!!
-
Maybe you guys should read a little more.
Vince is correct.
Well in fairness he didn't post an article stating as such and I was going off an article I was reading earlier about UN membership, which didn't mention state recognition.
But yea, it's rather anti-climatic.
-
Its not exactly monumental but it is definitely a small step in the right direction for the Palestinian struggle. It is an upgrade in status that may enable them to join other international agencies such as the International Criminal Court.
Which would allow them to refer Israel to the international court for breaching the Geneva Conventions, for it's forcible displacement of civilians and illegal transfer of it's own civilian population into the occupied regions, amongst other human rights abuses.
The Israelis certainly aren't happy with it, internal Israeli documents show they have been talking about trying to overthrow the Palestinian President if the UN upgrade went ahead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20322405
The official UK position after the ruling was to request "assurances" that Palestine would not try to pursue "ICC jurisdiction over the Occupied Territories at this stage"
What a f@cking joke , please assure us you won't use the international laws we were instrumental in setting up to seek justice for yourselves.
-
Good for them.
Now you just watch peace break out everywhere.
-
UN general assembly makes resounding vote in favour of Palestinian statehood
Overwhelming majority votes to recognise Palestine as non-member state as US and Israel are left to condemn decision
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/11/29/1354233253699/Palestinians-celebrate-in-010.jpg)
The United Nations general assembly voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to recognise Palestine as a state, in the face of opposition from Israel and the US.
The 193-member assembly voted 138 in favour of the plan, with only nine against and 41 abstentions. The scale of the defeat represented a strong and public repudiation for Israel and the US, who find themselves out of step with the rest of the world.
Thursday's vote marked a diplomatic breakthrough for Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and could help his standing after weeks in which he has been sidelined by Palestinian rivals Hamas in the Gaza conflict.
Abbas, who flew from Ramallah, on the West Bank, to New York to address the general assembly, said: "The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly: enough of aggression, settlements and occupation."
A Palestinian flag was unfurled on the floor of the general assembly after the vote.
Several hundred people turned out in Yasser Arafat square in Ramallah on the West Bank, waving flags and singing along to nationalist music to mark the occasion.
In his address, Abbas noted the symbolism of the date, the 65th anniversary of the UN partitioning what had been British-ruled Palestine into Jewish and Arab countries. In the decades that followed, the idea of an independent Palestine had often been in danger of disappearing but had been "miraculously" kept alive, he said.
The general assembly resolution had finally given legitimacy to Palestine, he said. "The general assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the state of Palestine."
Israel and the US immediately condemned the resolution. The office of the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, described Abbas's speech as incitement and full of lies about Israel.
Ron Prosor, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, said: "Because this resolution is so one-sided, it doesn't advance peace, it pushes it backwards."
The only way to a Palestinian state was through direct negotiations, he said.
Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, described the vote as "unfortunate and counterproductive". She said: "Only through direct negotiations between the parties can the Palestinians and Israelis achieve the peace that both deserve: two states for two people, with a sovereign, viable and independent Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security with a Jewish and democratic Israel."
Thursday's resolution raises Palestine from being a "non-member observer entity" to a "non-member observer state". The key is the final word, which confers UN legitimacy on Palestinian statehood and, while it cannot vote at the general assembly, it will enjoy other benefits, such as the chance to join international bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC).
While important, the resolution is limited, elevating Palestine only to the status of the Vatican, which until Thursday had been the only other non-member observer state. For Palestinians, the idea of an independent state bears little reality on the ground, given the degree of Israeli involvement in the West Bank and Gaza.
The US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, speaking after the vote, disputed that the resolution conferred statehood on Palestine. "Today's grand announcements will soon fade and the Palestinians will wake up to realise that little in their lives has changed," Rice said. "This resolution does not establish Palestine as a state."
But the coalition against the vote was thin. Apart from Israel and the US, those voting against were Canada, the Czech Republic, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Panama.
European countries such as France, Italy, Spain, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland all voted yes. Britain and Germany both abstained, with Britain saying Abbas had failed to promise he would resume peace negotiations with Israel.
Some countries, especially in Europe, switched from abstention to support out of a feeling that Abbas needed to be bolstered after eight days of conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians earlier this month. An estimated 158 Palestinians died in Gaza, and six Israelis were killed.
The Israeli and US governments had put pressure on the Palestinians not to press the issue to a vote and threatened significant retaliation – mainly in the form of punitive financial measures. They have since largely backtracked over the threats, concerned that withdrawal of major funding might undermine Abbas at a time when he is particularly vulnerable.
The prospect of the Palestinians applying to bodies such as the ICC is one of the main reasons for Israeli opposition, fearful that the Palestinians might try to launch a case over Jewish settlements on the West Bank or over military attacks on the West Bank and Gaza.
Palestinian officials say they have no immediate plans to do so but it remains a new and useful lever for the future.
The Obama administration, in an effort to try to persuade the Palestinians to drop the vote, sent deputy secretary of state Bill Burns to see Abbas on Wednesday. But Abbas turned down his pleas.
The US, Israel and Britain wanted the Palestinians to give explicit pledges they would not seek to join the ICC any time soon and also to resume peace negotiations with the Israelis that were abandoned in 2010 over a settlement expansion.
In Ramallah, hundreds watching on a television in the square cheered enthusiastically for Abbas as he denounced Israel's most recent assault on Gaza.
When the Israeli ambassador began addressing the UN, the crowd in the square watching on a giant television screen began booing. Prosor's speech was suddenly cut, and nationalist music fired up.
But the mood of the crowd did not appear to be that of people who thought they were marking a great national moment, or who had hope that the general assembly's recognition of Palestinian statehood amounted to anything like the birth of a real country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/29/united-nations-vote-palestine-state
-
so this means palestine will stop sending in suicide bombers in to Israel? probably not :D
-
about time.................... . biggest disgrace in modern politics that this never happend along time ago
and for the record im not a big religion of peace fan either, but those poor fuckers have been held down for decades
-
Good for them.
Now you just watch peace break out everywhere.
Lol!!!!!
-
so this means palestine will stop sending in suicide bombers in to Israel? probably not :D
until isreal treats palestine as a credible state and treats it lawfully as it would with its other neighbours they most probably wont...
i draw the line between terrorism and freedom fighting with these guys, if they hadnt of carried on prolonged attacks they would never have been in this position they are now with the UN and the worlds eyes on them, and isreal would have took more and more land back
this shit wont be sorted out in my lifetime...
-
about time.................... . biggest disgrace in modern politics that this never happend along time ago
and for the record im not a big religion of peace fan either, but those poor fuckers have been held down for decades
qft
-
Is this the same UN that has countries like Saudi Arabia (as well as many others) and formerly Libya On a council dedicated to human rights?
Haha, who gives a fuck? Hopefully the UN is driven into the sea with the Mohammedans.
-
The united nations of Islam have spoken.
The arabs upped their anti jew game big time - hopefully there's war soon.
-
ron avidan and his family have immunity from prosecution
-
The united nations of Islam have spoken.
The arabs upped their anti jew game big time - hopefully there's war soon.
put your self in the shoes of a paletinion, would you react any differntly?
the whole world except isreal and parts of usa see's this in palestines favour
-
Hopefully the extremist muslims will now comply to UN standerds, if not, hopefully they take them by storm
-
how about the extremist jews. you dont want to know what kind of pieces of shit live in israel.
-
That's right.
There is actually a "Medvedev-street" somewhere in Palestine, named after former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
In honor to Russian efforts through the years to up the living possibilities of people in the area !! Pretty nice from their part.
-
put your self in the shoes of a paletinion, would you react any differntly?
the whole world except isreal and parts of usa see's this in palestines favour
It's a paper win - no change at all.
The people living in this area/s are used on a larger scale for political leverage.
The whole "world" is quite different from what you might want it to be - how can countries who violate their own people make judgment on how others mistreat a bunch of people lost in the desert? But as a good Collectivist - if all say the wrong thing then it makes it right.
The United Nations have long lost any credibility as they have become corrupted by various member states of dubious origin.
-
how about the extremist jews. you dont want to know what kind of pieces of shit live in israel.
true. shitheads on both sides. that's why that war will never end.
unless Israel wipe out the Palestines completly which is a possible scenario.
-
theres so much hatred on both sides. it would have been much better had they settled in madagascar all together , the jews.
religion is the cancer of the world.
-
The United Nations have long lost any credibility as they have become corrupted by various member states of dubious origin.
Although there's no doubt the biggest blackmailer and on the other hand briber is none other than USA.
Ridiculous to think they're playing with clean cards.
After all, I think it's good to have an international arena where small voices are heard as well.
-
theres so much hatred on both sides. it would have been much better had they settled in madagascar all together , the jews.
religion is the cancer of the world.
No shit, nice warm weather and beaches, just like Florida. :D
-
So now that they are a state will they be subjected to the same laws and such that cover terror attacks, rocket strikes etc?
-
The decline of U.S political influence in the world continues.
-
Sweet, so now the fighting is over? Good job UN! Everyone has changed, peace has come to them at last! ;D
-
The decline of U.S political influence in the world continues.
We have an Afro-Marxist Islamist Supremecist as POTUS. All of Americans' worst enemies know its now or never to get all of their dreams fulfilled w such incompetent idealogically driven neo-jihadis in high office.
-
We have an Afro-Marxist Islamist Supremecist as POTUS. All of Americans' worst enemies know its now or never to get all of their dreams fulfilled w such incompetent idealogically driven neo-jihadis in high office.
Yes because Obama has really been weak on terrorists.
Seriously have you ever been right on anything in your life?
-
so now a ahmed can stfu
-
btw its just "observatory statehood" thats granted.
whats the limitation on that?
Paper tiger.
-
Palestine: Why UN recognition matters
by Randa Abdel-Fattah
Source: abc.net.au
(http://muslimvillage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/naksa-day1-desertpeace.wordpress.com_.jpg)
Two-state, one-state, “peace process,” “path to peace” – whatever words one chooses to use, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about one very simple thing: dispossession. It is about a population of newcomers taking the land, homes and possessions of the indigenous Palestinian people and expelling them. That is the essence of the conflict.
It was the essence of the problem in 1917 when the British presumed the right to give away what it did not possess and promised the Jews a homeland in the British Empire, ignoring the majority Palestinian population in the land. It was the essence of the problem when Israel unilaterally declared a state on 78% of the land in May 1948. It was the essence of the problem when Israel occupied the remaining 22% of the land in 1967. And it remains the essence of the problem today.
Despite countless United Nations resolutions, and in the face of the weight of international law, Israel and her allies – including Australia – continue to see the conflict quite differently. The starting point is not dispossession, but Israel’s so-called “right to exist.”
It is important to understand these two paradigms if we are to make any sense of the way forward. It also means we can put the Palestinian National Authority’s (PNA) bid to seek non-member observer state status for Palestine in the United Nations General Assembly into its proper context.
The two-state solution on the basis of Palestine’s pre-1967 borders is a compromise solution for Palestinians. And judging by the way it is lauded by Israel and Western leaders, it is the ideal solution – and a magnanimous one, at that. For Palestinians who accept such a state, however, it is a pragmatic solution that says: we accept that we have lost. Despite Israel having had no moral or legal legitimacy in expelling, depopulating and colonizing our majority population some sixty-four years ago, we will be pragmatic and compromise by accepting a return of a mere 22% of our historic homeland.
And yet even this modest compromise evades Palestinians, not, as Israel would have the world believe, because the Palestinians are incapable of negotiating and making peace, but because Israel is simply not interested in a two-state solution. Israel and her allies’ opposition to the PNA’s bid for non-member observer status is not because of any fear that this will lead to an independent Palestine state. Nobody honestly believes such a status represents anything more than a symbolic gesture of support.
Indeed, in an interview on ABC Radio National Breakfast yesterday, Peter Wertheim, Director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said that an upgrade to observer state status would “harm the cause of peace by raising and then dashing expectations.” Presenter Fran Kelly then asked, “So it will harm the cause of peace because Palestinians in your view would get their hopes up that there is going to be a move towards recognition of a two state solution but that’s not going to happen?” Wertheim responded, “Precisely because nothing will actually change on the ground.” I couldn’t have put it better myself.
So, beyond the symbolism, what is all the fuss about? The fear lies in the fact that observer state status would potentially allow the PNA to take legal action in the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israel and Israeli citizens for alleged war crimes, or for settlement building in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. It is a fear so potent that Britain has made its support of the UN bid conditional on Mahmoud Abbas refraining from trying to join the ICC. While France is voting in favour of the PNA’s resolution, it has been pressuring the Palestinians to amend the resolution and make it clear that it will not take Israel to the ICC for any alleged war crimes committed retrospectively.
And this brings us to the heart of the issue. Israel and her allies know that a two-state solution is not on the horizon and that this resolution will have no impact on the ground. Their opposition is based on something more insidious. It is about continuing to allow a situation where Israel can enjoy immunity to legal accountability.
On 25 March 2001, then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was quoted by BBC News as saying: “Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.” It is precisely this culture of impunity that Israel and her allies, including Australia’s Liberal Party and Prime Minister Julia Gillard – who was only forced to “abstain” because of political pressure – seeks to protect.
The fact is that the two-state solution is dead. Israel knows it. The United States knows it. And it is an illusion to think that our own government doesn’t know it. While the Labour government should be commended for pressuring Julia Gillard to agree to Australia abstaining, rather than opposing, a vote on the Palestinian observer status resolution, abstention does not quite get Australia on the “right side of history.” It is as if, as Ghassan Hage has put it, “Palestinians can now say: ‘Not that long ago, the Australian government didn’t believe we were human beings. Today they admit that they’re not so sure’.”
So, while a shift from a “No” vote to an abstention is an improvement on the tired, old policy of blind support for Israel, it is still only a modest victory. I fear we are still far from a genuine commitment to a viable two-state solution. For even a “Yes” vote, in the absence of real pressure applied on Israel to respect international law and make viable what it renders unviable with each passing day, is little more than a symbolic gesture.
The facts on the ground in the occupied territories and Jerusalem make a mockery of the call for a state based on the 1967 borders. The more the sloganeering about the “peace process” and “negotiations” (which the Palestine Papers clearly showed were a charade), the more attention is diverted from the expanding settlements, the seven-hundred kilometer long annexation wall, the Judaisation of Jerusalem, the land grabs and confinement of Palestinians into tightly controlled cities, the monopoly and control Israel exercises over the West Bank’s natural resources – including, most importantly, water – the complete dependency of the Palestinian economy on Israel, the blockade on Gaza, and so on.
While many Palestinians support the PNA’s UN resolution because of its symbolic weight and the potential to seek justice in the ICC, we cannot lose sight of the bigger and more important questions:
Will we accept the crumbs Israel leaves to us as a “state” and celebrate this as some sort of two-state solution?
Is there a possibility that the PNA, not holding the mandate of the Palestinian people, will accept a truncated “state” of Bantustans – a reinvention of the occupation with Palestinian rulers looking like they’re in charge?
Will governments use symbolic recognition of a Palestinian “state” to evade their responsibilities and ignore the elephants in the room: occupation, dispossession, settlements and the right of return of refugees?
Is the PNA’s UN bid a cynical ploy to maintain its power while burying the rights of Palestinian refugees, who continue to remain invisible in “peace” talks?
These are the questions that need to be asked. But these questions can only be asked if the starting point is an understanding that this conflict is and always has been about dispossession. That’s what it was about over sixty-four years ago. And that’s what it’s still about today.
Randa Abdel-Fattah is the award-winning author of eight novels. She practiced as a lawyer for ten years, and is now completing a PhD in the Department of Sociology at Macquarie University. You can watch her in conversation on ABC News 24 on the Gaza crisis.
-
Good for them.
Now you just watch peace break out everywhere.
^^^^^^^
-
Scum:
Israel to build 3,000 settler homes after UN vote
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64488000/jpg/_64488863_1717c569-c3f9-48bd-bce0-7df7b6a0e84b.jpg)
The Palestinians have said settlement building must cease before peace talks
Israel has authorised the construction of 3,000 more housing units in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank, according to Israeli officials.
It is also speeding up the processing of 1,000 planning permissions.
The Palestinian Authority has said it will not return to peace talks without a freeze in settlement building.
The decision comes a day after a vote at the UN General Assembly upgraded the Palestinians' status at the UN to that of non-member observer state.
According to the Israeli Haaretz newspaper, some of the new units will be between Jerusalem and the settlement of Maale Adumim.
Plans to build settlements in the area, known as E1, are strongly opposed by Palestinians, who say the development will cut the West Bank in two, preventing the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state
The move is a first indication of Israeli anger, less than 24 hours after the vote on Palestinian status was held at the UN, the BBC's Kevin Connolly in Jerusalem reports.
The Palestinians may well have been expecting this - or something like it - but it is a reminder that the gulf between the two on the settlement issue remains huge, our correspondent adds.
Earlier this month, a paper by the Israeli foreign ministry described the Palestinians' pushing for the vote as "crossing a red line that will require the harshest Israeli response".
About 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.
'Political theatre'
Earlier on Friday, Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said the UN vote was "negative political theatre" that would "hurt peace".
The General Assembly voted by 138-9 to recognise the Palestinians as a non-member observer state, with 41 states abstaining.
The Palestinians can now take part in UN debates and potentially join bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said it was the "last chance to save the two-state solution" with Israel.
Two decades of on-off negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank have failed to produce a permanent settlement, with the latest round of direct negotiations breaking down in 2010.
In January, several months of indirect "proximity talks" ended without any progress.
Palestinian negotiators insist that the building of Jewish settlements on occupied land must stop before they agree to resume direct talks.
Their Israeli counterparts say there can be no preconditions.
Mr Abbas was much criticised by many Palestinians for remaining on the sidelines of the conflict between the militant Hamas movement and Israel earlier this month in Gaza.
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64488000/gif/_64488565_israel_jeruslaem_464_e1.gif)
-
Does this mean the UN recognizes Hamas as a legitimate government? The same group the U.S. and others deem terrorists?
-
Hamas IS the government of Palestine and has been for several several years. The US and Israel may hate it but it's reality.
Oh boohoo they hve a 'military wing'. So does the US, so does Israel. What Palestinians can't have an army? lol.
They build schools, hospitals, roads, police the areas, etc... etc... they all struggle in the onslaught from Israel but they are struggling to live normal lives like anyone else.
Anytime the US or israel don't like someone despite them being elected, they want to undermine, demonize, kill, maim, etc... until the people are presured to give up or forced to accept a puppet imposed by US or Israel.
-
Hamas IS the government of Palestine and has been for several several years. The US and Israel may hate it but it's reality.
Oh boohoo they hve a 'military wing'. So does the US, so does Israel. What Palestinians can't have an army? lol.
They build schools, hospitals, roads, police the areas, etc... etc... they all struggle in the onslaught from Israel but they are struggling to live normal lives like anyone else.
Anytime the US or israel don't like someone despite them being elected, they want to undermine, demonize, kill, maim, etc... until the people are presured to give up or forced to accept a puppet imposed by US or Israel.
So.. the next time a rocket enters Israel it's a legit military action from a neighbor and Israel gets to fuck them up? Sounds good.
-
The difference is Hamas retaliates on Israeli aggression. Israel is the aggressor.
Israel claims to have the most advanced weapons and 'precision weapons' yet more than 50% of casualties are children and women.
Palestinians have nothing but rocks and fireworks, they retaliate how Israel targets their civillians.
I don't agree with killing of civillians in either case, however putting myself in their shoes I understand their desperation.
Israel is a cynical beast and it treats non-jews as less than animals. Straight out of the horse's mouth, their politicians talk like that all the time.
-
The difference is Hamas retaliates on Israeli aggression. Israel is the aggressor.
Israel claims to have the most advanced weapons and 'precision weapons' yet more than 50% of casualties are children and women.
Palestinians have nothing but rocks and fireworks, they retaliate how Israel targets their civillians.
I don't agree with killing of civillians in either case, however putting myself in their shoes I understand their desperation.
Israel is a cynical beast and it treats non-jews as less than animals. Straight out of the horse's mouth, their politicians talk like that all the time.
You didn't answer the question. Just more rhetoric.
The next time a rocket fired from Palestine enters Israel, it will be considered a legitimate military action, yes? And therefore Israel will be able to respond with full military force. Sounds good to me.
-
Israel is a useless turd who doesn't give a fuck about honor, about dignity, about respect, about life, about holding truces, about agreements, about peace or anything to do with any form of law, international or otherwise.
Israel is full of shit.
Whining and bitching about Hamas all day long, but then being a murderous scumbag that kills thousands of women and children.
Out of all the 'rockets' fired by Palestinians. Only 26 Israelis have been killed. EVER.
From all the 'precision' weaponery that Israel employes. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed. Then we have the non weapons based war, where children are literally jailed, beaten, tortured by Israelis.
Fuck Israhell.
Just now they are stealing more land and plan to build 3000 more settlements.
Same story over and over again, you have to be dumb as fuck to not realize what's really going on. They are the ultimate evil in the region and that's that.
I remember since 97 all the 'settlement expansions'. There is no real 'peace talks' with Israel, they do not want peace. Negotiations are just for fun to ridicule palestinians and buy time. Every single time they kill more, steal more, that's it.
Israel is also the very country that supplied the 'intel' for the invasion of Iraq. No weapons of mass destructon there huh.
People who have been observing the conflict for the last few decades know this.
Israeli politiicans were just talking about 'returning to the table and holding onto oslo accords' WHAT oslo accords? Israel does not follow or obey ANYTHING agreed upon in the Oslo accords.
It's pure evil and pure cynicism at it's finest.
Now that Palestine has been upgraded in the UN, the next step is the ICC. International criminal court. Then Israel will be put in it's place and be judged for the war criminal that it is.
-
You're ranting but not answering the question.
If a rocket is fired into Israel, it is now considered a legitimate military action, yes? Therefore, Israel can and will retaliate with full military force, correct?
-
You're ranting but not answering the question.
If a rocket is fired into Israel, it is now considered a legitimate military action, yes? Therefore, Israel can and will retaliate with full military force, correct?
theoretically yes. And vice versa as well. That's the real reason Isreal was against it.
-
Israel is a useless turd who doesn't give a fuck about honor, about dignity, about respect, about life, about holding truces, about agreements, about peace or anything to do with any form of law, international or otherwise.
Israel is full of shit.
Whining and bitching about Hamas all day long, but then being a murderous scumbag that kills thousands of women and children.
Out of all the 'rockets' fired by Palestinians. Only 26 Israelis have been killed. EVER.
From all the 'precision' weaponery that Israel employes. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed. Then we have the non weapons based war, where children are literally jailed, beaten, tortured by Israelis.
Fuck Israhell.
Just now they are stealing more land and plan to build 3000 more settlements.
Same story over and over again, you have to be dumb as fuck to not realize what's really going on. They are the ultimate evil in the region and that's that.
I remember since 97 all the 'settlement expansions'. There is no real 'peace talks' with Israel, they do not want peace. Negotiations are just for fun to ridicule palestinians and buy time. Every single time they kill more, steal more, that's it.
Israel is also the very country that supplied the 'intel' for the invasion of Iraq. No weapons of mass destructon there huh.
People who have been observing the conflict for the last few decades know this.
Israeli politiicans were just talking about 'returning to the table and holding onto oslo accords' WHAT oslo accords? Israel does not follow or obey ANYTHING agreed upon in the Oslo accords.
It's pure evil and pure cynicism at it's finest.
Now that Palestine has been upgraded in the UN, the next step is the ICC. International criminal court. Then Israel will be put in it's place and be judged for the war criminal that it is.
Are Israelis subhuman?
-
You're ranting but not answering the question.
If a rocket is fired into Israel, it is now considered a legitimate military action, yes? Therefore, Israel can and will retaliate with full military force, correct?
No. The rules of engagement state that any targeting of civilians is prohibited by international law, but then again the same laws also state it is illegal to transfer any of your own civilian population into an occupied area.
So Israel really has no regard for what is or isn't "legitimate"
The reason Israel are opposed to this is because they have breached countless international laws and if Palestine is officially recognised as a state, there is more chance that Israel can start to be brought to book for it's crimes.
-
Israel is a useless turd who doesn't give a fuck about honor, about dignity, about respect, about life, about holding truces, about agreements, about peace or anything to do with any form of law, international or otherwise.
Israel is full of shit.
Fuck Israhell.
They are the ultimate evil in the region and that's that.
It's pure evil and pure cynicism at it's finest.
1. What are you referring to when you say 'Israel'? Does 'Israel' have a right to exist?
2. The Jordanian military has killed more Palestinians than Israel, yet you don't seem to rail against that organization and/or the government that utilizes it at all. If your primary concern is pointing out crimes against Palestinians, why the discrepancy?
3. Are you as disgusted with the daily butchery being carried out by your fellow Muslims in Syria as you are at Israel's rather limited military actions these past two weeks? If not, why not?
Out of all the 'rockets' fired by Palestinians. Only 26 Israelis have been killed. EVER.
4. Yet thousands of rockets and mortar shells have been fired into Israel, many (but not all) without provocation. Is such attempted killing of Israeli civilians -- men, women, and children -- any less reprehensible because it happens to be less effective? I don't think so, and there certainly isn't a government in the world that will give an attacker a break because that attacker is only mediocre at terrorism.
Anytime the US or israel don't like someone despite them being elected, they want to undermine, demonize, kill, maim, etc... until the people are presured to give up or forced to accept a puppet imposed by US or Israel.
5. I know, it's almost as if states act first and foremost to promote their own interests in the international sphere, including influencing the form and composition of other governments. Weird shit, brah!
Now that Palestine has been upgraded in the UN, the next step is the ICC. International criminal court. Then Israel will be put in it's place and be judged for the war criminal that it is.
6. This isn't a realistic scenario at all. It simply isn't going to happen, whatever your and my opinion of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. You seem susceptible to swapping in your fantasies for accurate descriptions of the world and all that occurs within it, and this is just another example of that tendency.
-
-
Lol @ suing Israel. Yeah, im sure that's gonna make a difference. Lol.
-
I love how people never address specific points or counter arguments, but instead just paste a bunch of pics, articles, or vids. Then later on they spew out a bunch of other crap else where doing the same thing.
-
-
F'n satan incarnate in human skin, the news lady rips him a new one and so well... so nice to see non censored media speaking the truth:
-
I love how people never address specific points or counter arguments, but instead just paste a bunch of pics, articles, or vids. Then later on they spew out a bunch of other crap else where doing the same thing.
It's unfortunate, but understandable all the same. The fact is, engaging in a legitimate discussion with someone -- identifying their main points, figuring out their reasoning, and formulating a response -- is a cognitively intense activity. Not too many people are on here other than for low-grade dopamine surges, i.e., a bit of entertainment. They certainly don't want a mental workout. So, better to avoid all that difficult "thinking" stuff and instead post videos and emotional diatribes rather than actual arguments that are susceptible to criticism.
-
1. What are you referring to when you say 'Israel'? Does 'Israel' have a right to exist?
2. The Jordanian military has killed more Palestinians than Israel, yet you don't seem to rail against that organization and/or the government that utilizes it at all. If your primary concern is pointing out crimes against Palestinians, why the discrepancy?
What does this have to do with anything? The discussion is about Israel/Palestine. And at present Israel is the only nation occupying Palestine, no other nation lays claim to any Palestinian land.
3. Are you as disgusted with the daily butchery being carried out by your fellow Muslims in Syria as you are at Israel's rather limited military actions these past two weeks? If not, why not?
I would imagine most people would be disgusted by innocent people dying anywhere, but again what does this have to do with what Israel is doing in Palestine?
I've noticed it's a common tactic for Israel supporters to try and bring up how badly Palestinians have been treated by others or other conflicts as if this is somehow justification for Israel's current subjugation of Palestine
4. Yet thousands of rockets and mortar shells have been fired into Israel, many (but not all) without provocation. Is such attempted killing of Israeli civilians -- men, women, and children -- any less reprehensible because it happens to be less effective? I don't think so, and there certainly isn't a government in the world that will give an attacker a break because that attacker is only mediocre at terrorism.
Without provocation? Well there is the small matter of the 500,000 million Israeli civilians that Israel has transferred outside of it's internationally recognised borders into the occupied regions and the small matter of the people that have been run out of their homes to accommodate this.
Oh and there isn't a government in the world that recognises Israel's right to build settlements in any part of the occupied territories.
And then there is the horrendous living conditions and daily violations of human rights that Israel forces the Palestinians to endure, that has attracted countless UN condemnations.
No provocation? Really?
5. I know, it's almost as if states act first and foremost to promote their own interests in the international sphere, including influencing the form and composition of other governments. Weird shit, brah!
6. This isn't a realistic scenario at all. It simply isn't going to happen, whatever your and my opinion of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. You seem susceptible to swapping in your fantasies for accurate descriptions of the world and all that occurs within it, and this is just another example of that tendency.
7. If you ever go there (I recommend Jaffa in Tel Aviv), you will see Arab and Jew live side-by-side amicably. I understand that it is cheaper to rely on overly emotional propaganda from the internet that confirms your preconceived notions, but I think you might be smart enough (though I wouldn't bet on it) to realize that this is no substitute for genuine data and on-the-ground experience.
That is good that you have witnessed Arabs and Jews living together in peace, shows it is possible. I don't think anyone(well definitely not neutrals anyway) has a problem with Jews per se. it is simply the actions of the Israeli government that most right minded people find abhorrent, and I think there is a growing number of Israeli Jews that are also appalled at what it is being done in their name in Palestine.
/color]
-
Israeli desperation. Because the TRUTH cannot lose to lies... they spend BILLIONS to cover the truth... and to spread their bs pro-israhelli propaganda.
They PAY soldiers, PAY israhellis to TROLL the internet, chat rooms, forums, youtube, websites, even wikipedia WOW:
“The goal of the day is to teach people how to edit Wikipedia which is the number one source of information today in the WORLD “.
“We want to be there. We want to be the guys who influence what is written, how it is written and insure that is balanced and ZIONIST in nature”.
Desperate losers.
-
Now that Palestine has been upgraded in the UN, the next step is the ICC. International criminal court. Then Israel will be put in it's place and be judged for the war criminal that it is.
Well, first of all, considering how Israel is not a state party in the ICC, I don't see what jurisdiction the ICC has over Israel to begin with. But let's assume that they somehow, magically, get jurisdiction. Pray tell, what exactly can the ICC do and how would a decision by the ICC against Israel be enforced?
P.S.: Don't conflate this post with support for Israel. I'm just trying to understand what you think the ICC can do in this instance.
-
-
Israel >>>>>>>>>> You and the entire shitty Islamic world. How sad, to have tens of millions condemned to a life of ignorance, ineptitude, poverty, and despair.
Anyway...............Enj oy! ;D
Arab/Islamic Nobel Prize Winners
From a pool of 1.4 BILLION Muslims which are 20% of the world's population (2 out of every 10 people)
Literature
1988 - Najib Mahfooz
Peace
1978 - Anwar El-Sadat
1994 - Yasser Arafat *
2003 - Shirin Ebadi
Chemistry
1999 - Ahmed Zewail
Physics
Abdus Salam
Jewish Nobel Prize Winners
From a pool of 12 million Jews which are 0.2% of the World's Population (2 out of every 1,000 people)
Literature
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer
2002 - Imre Kertesz
World Peace
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin
1995 - Joseph Rotblat
Chemistry
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1972 - William Howard Stein
1972 - C.B. Anfinsen
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Ronald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Herbert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1989 - Sidney Altman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1998 - Walter Kohn
2000 - Alan J. Heeger
2004 - Irwin Rose
2004 - Avram Hershko
2004 - Aaron Ciechanover
Economics
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1973 - Wassily Leontief
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Rober Fogel
1994 - John Harsanyi
1994 - Reinhard Selten
1997 - Robert Merton
1997 - Myron Scholes
2001 - George Akerlof
2001 - Joseph Stiglitz
2002 - Daniel Kahneman
2005 - Robert (Israel) Aumann
Medicine
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - David Baltimore
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Rosalyn Sussman Yalow
1977 - Andrew V. Schally
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1994 - Martin Rodbell
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1997 - Stanley B. Prusiner
1998 - Robert F. Furchgott
2000 - Eric R. Kandel
2002 - Sydney Brenner
2002 - Robert H. Horvitz
Physics
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1945 - Wolfgang Pauli
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1958 - Il'ja Mikhailovich
1958 - Igor Yevgenyevich
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1963 - Eugene P. Wigner
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1967 - Hans Albrecht Bethe
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - Leon N. Cooper
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Georges Charpak
1995 - Martin Perl
1995 - Frederick Reines
1996 - David M. Lee
1996 - Douglas D. Osheroff
1997 - Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
2000 - Zhores I. Alferov
2003 - Vitaly Ginsburg
2003 - Alexei Abrikosov
After reviewing this list, can you supply a reason for the large discrepancy between the Arab/Islamic population's contribution to the world body and that of the Jew? There are 165 Jews listed as opposed to 6 from the Arab side.
-
Well, first of all, considering how Israel is not a state party in the ICC, I don't see what jurisdiction the ICC has over Israel to begin with. But let's assume that they somehow, magically, get jurisdiction. Pray tell, what exactly can the ICC do and how would a decision by the ICC against Israel be enforced?
P.S.: Don't conflate this post with support for Israel. I'm just trying to understand what you think the ICC can do in this instance.
Israel does not have to be a state party of the ICC for Israeli individuals to be investigated/pursued by the court, anything occurring on a state party's territory falls under ICC jurisdiction.
So if the UN upgrade enables Palestine to become an ICC state party this would allow them to refer to the court any Israeli individuals responsible for the crimes committed in the occupied territories.
"The ICC, as it’s known, is on record as inclined to regard Israel’s more than 100 residential settlements on the West Bank as a crime of war. (The Jewish state pulled its settlers and soldiers out of Gaza in 2005 and argues that it no longer qualifies as its “occupier” under international law. Critics argue otherwise.) The physical presence of the settlements in other words would give Palestine a ready-made case to drag Israel before the court — or to threaten dragging it before the court"
Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/11/29/why-palestine-will-win-big-at-the-un/#ixzz2E1EGQXgL
Of course even if the ICC did investigate and indict Israeli individuals for their pretty much indisputable crimes, there's no way Israel would hand over those individuals and they would be supported by the US.
But it would go a step further to helping people in the west wake up the fact that Israel is guilty of war crimes for what it is doing in Palestine and the state of Israel would be seen to be harbouring war criminals.
-
Israel does not have to be a state party of the ICC for Israeli individuals to be investigated/pursued by the court, anything occurring on a state party's territory falls under ICC jurisdiction.
So if the UN upgrade enables Palestine to become an ICC state party this would allow them to refer to the court any Israeli individuals responsible for the crimes committed in the occupied territories.
Even if something occurs on the territory of a state that's party to the treaty, the Court cannot compel another non-party State to attend proceedings. You could argue that the Court would try such cases in absentia, but even that wouldn't help. After all, what exactly can the ICC do to Israel? Nothing. The ICC has no enforcement mechanism. At best it can give Israel a stern talking to; one that Israel will completely ignore.
"The ICC, as it’s known, is on record as inclined to regard Israel’s more than 100 residential settlements on the West Bank as a crime of war. (The Jewish state pulled its settlers and soldiers out of Gaza in 2005 and argues that it no longer qualifies as its “occupier” under international law. Critics argue otherwise.) The physical presence of the settlements in other words would give Palestine a ready-made case to drag Israel before the court — or to threaten dragging it before the court"
Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/11/29/why-palestine-will-win-big-at-the-un/#ixzz2E1EGQXgL
Of course even if the ICC did investigate and indict Israeli individuals for their pretty much indisputable crimes, there's no way Israel would hand over those individuals and they would be supported by the US.
But it would go a step further to helping people in the west wake up the fact that Israel is guilty of war crimes for what it is doing in Palestine and the state of Israel would be seen to be harbouring war criminals.
Even if everything above is true and even if Israel is guilty of such war crimes any ICC proceedings would hardly wake anyone up. People are inclined to believe what they believe, and even an utterly perfect decision from the ICC that was completely rational and substantiated wouldn't do much to change people's opinions.
To be clear, I don't think that Israel is pure and untainted. War is a messy, bloody business - not clean or neat. And they could have certainly dealt with the whole situation differently. But, frankly, from where I stand that applies to both sides.
-
Even if something occurs on the territory of a state that's party to the treaty, the Court cannot compel another non-party State to attend proceedings. You could argue that the Court would try such cases in absentia, but even that wouldn't help. After all, what exactly can the ICC do to Israel? Nothing. The ICC has no enforcement mechanism. At best it can give Israel a stern talking to; one that Israel will completely ignore.
The ICC can only go after individuals not states, so Israel(the state) would not be asked to attend any hearing. But as I explained in previous post, if the court believes a crime has been committed on a party state territory it will issue arrest warrants for the individuals deemed responsible for that crime, regardless of if those individuals are nationals of an non party state.
As I said I can so no way that Israel would turn over any such fugitives, but it really would not do Israel's world image much good to have what would be leading figures of past and present Israeli governments indicted as war criminals by the International Criminal Court.
Even if everything above is true and even if Israel is guilty of such war crimes any ICC proceedings would hardly wake anyone up. People are inclined to believe what they believe, and even an utterly perfect decision from the ICC that was completely rational and substantiated wouldn't do much to change people's opinions.
To be clear, I don't think that Israel is pure and untainted. War is a messy, bloody business - not clean or neat. And they could have certainly dealt with the whole situation differently. But, frankly, from where I stand that applies to both sides.
I don't agree with this. I think the majority of people in the west really have little idea of what is really going in Palestine and something like Israel being investigated for war crimes and arrest warrants being issued would really be an eye opener for many.
-
Blabla
Obama and Henry Kissinger won the peace prize. It's meaningless shit. The nobel prizes are meaningless, they are indeed very politicized. In Iran there were a few scientific break throughs in the last 2-3 years. They are a really progressive nation. Some examples in stem cell research, some examples in nano technology, etc... firsts, yet they did not get any prize of any kind.
These prizes over all are meaningless especially when they are controlled by a certain group of people. Henry Kissinger a peace prize? OBAMA a peace prize before he did SHIT, he started FIVE MORE wars and wants to start MORE wars... peace prize LMAO...
You get the idea.
-
I don't agree with this. I think the majority of people in the west really have little idea of what is really going in Palestine and something like Israel being investigated for war crimes and arrest warrants being issued would really be an eye opener for many.
yeah, probably very true.
-
Obama and Henry Kissinger won the peace prize. It's meaningless shit. The nobel prizes are meaningless, they are indeed very politicized. In Iran there were a few scientific break throughs in the last 2-3 years. They are a really progressive nation. Some examples in stem cell research, some examples in nano technology, etc... firsts, yet they did not get any prize of any kind.
And in North Korea they "discovered" the lair of unicorns (conveniently labeled as "Lair of Unicorns") per http://news.yahoo.com/real-story-north-koreas-unicorn-lair-235304830.html. Can we see references to these scientific breakthroughs? Have any papers on them been published in peer-reviewed journals?
Even if these are real breakthroughs, it will take a while: even Einstein didn't get his Nobel prize until more than 15 years had passed. He published his paper on the photoelectric effect in 1905 (along with 3 other seminal papers that reshaped physics) and didn't get awarded a Nobel prize until 1921.
Any breakthroughs by Iranians are unlikely to compare to Einstein's work. And if Einstein had to wait 16 years, surely they can wait a little longer than a mere 3...
-
And in North Korea they "discovered" the lair of unicorns (conveniently labeled as "Lair of Unicorns") per http://news.yahoo.com/real-story-north-koreas-unicorn-lair-235304830.html. Can we see references to these scientific breakthroughs? Have any papers on them been published in peer-reviewed journals?
Even if these are real breakthroughs, it will take a while: even Einstein didn't get his Nobel prize until more than 15 years had passed. He published his paper on the photoelectric effect in 1905 (along with 3 other seminal papers that reshaped physics) and didn't get awarded a Nobel prize until 1921.
Any breakthroughs by Iranians are unlikely to compare to Einstein's work. And if Einstein had to wait 16 years, surely they can wait a little longer than a mere 3...
It's science!
-
yeah, probably very true.
I think it's definitely true.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
ARTICLE 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
So as Israeli settlements obviously equate to the transfer of the occupying Power's civilian population into occupied territories , according to the Geneva Conventions those settlements represent a war crime.
But how many people in the west are aware of that? Mainstream media never mentions Israel's breaches of the Geneva Conventions or the 60 odd UN resolutions condemning it's actions...
Most poeple don't bother looking under the surface and just take what they are told by the media at face value.
-
Of course there was, Palestine existed for thousands of years and for over a 1000 years under Muslim rule where Muslims, Jews and Christians peacefully co-existed (except when christian crusades came and except when zionist jews came)
-
-
Conker, next time please respond outside of the 'quote' brackets (I had to copy and paste quote brackets to reconstruct your responses rather than just quoting you).
"What does this have to do with anything? The discussion is about Israel/Palestine. And at present Israel is the only nation occupying Palestine, no other nation lays claim to any Palestinian land."
I've noticed it's a common tactic for Israel supporters to try and bring up how badly Palestinians have been treated by others or other conflicts as if this is somehow justification for Israel's current subjugation of Palestine
I'm simply interested in the personal psychology of many of those who berate Israel with such zeal. I don't intend my questions -- nor what they imply about such people to the extent that these people aren't consistent in their criticism of those who harm Palestinians -- as a defense of Israel's actions.
In any case, I'd be curious to know what the basis is of your claim that the land under discussion is inherently 'Palestinian.' Assuming the 'occupation' narrative to be accurate, the brutally reductionistic reality of the situation is that one group of apes has moved in and taken land where previously another group resided; what remains once the latter are gone to say that the land is still theirs? Further, how long do the traces of this mysterious force remain before the land can now be deeded to the occupiers? Until you explicate what this force is, you are being rather cryptic when the reality on the ground is that the land is Israeli in all the relevant respects (I encourage you to go and see).
Note that this isn't a justification for such occupation. Perhaps you, I, and the world community abhor such actions and wish to punish Israel accordingly. The important point is that this moral component has no effect on the reality on the ground, which is that for all intents and purposes the land is Israeli; unless, that is, you wish to submit similar arguments that Tibet is really 'still Tibetan' or that large swathes of North America are really 'still Indian.' Without some sort of compelling argument your claim that the land is 'still Palestinian' is false. And I think it's important to let the facts on the ground dictate the world community's discourse and decision making going forward, not just ideals.
Without provocation? Well there is the small matter of the 500,000 million Israeli civilians that Israel has transferred outside of it's internationally recognised borders into the occupied regions and the small matter of the people that have been run out of their homes to accommodate this.
Oh and there isn't a government in the world that recognises Israel's right to build settlements in any part of the occupied territories.
Well, as is usually the case in international relations, there is the reality on the ground and the rational calculus each state must engage in on the basis of that reality, and then there are moral considerations. The two may coalesce, but often they diverge (hint: states almost always behave rationally at the expense of moral considerations).
You're letting the notion of international law do a lot of legwork for you by presuming that it dictates what is right and wrong. Well, as I've just said above, what is right and wrong is often irrelevant to how countries behave, so in that respect the international community's opinion is irrelevant. But, more importantly, what is it about international dictums about borders and all the rest that makes them authoritative, i.e., morally binding? It seems to me that the U.N. isn't even a genuinely supranational organization anyway (look at who founded it, why, and how it has generally functioned to promote Western interests across its history) -- it is dominated by state interests. So, we've got an instance of state interest vs. state interest, not some magically binding moral force over state interest. Maybe the one form of state interest is more authoritative because more states are involved, but I don't think you wanted to argue from popularity in making the claims you did.
That is good that you have witnessed Arabs and Jews living together in peace, shows it is possible. I don't think anyone(well definitely not neutrals anyway) has a problem with Jews per se. it is simply the actions of the Israeli government that most right minded people find abhorrent, and I think there is a growing number of Israeli Jews that are also appalled at what it is being done in their name in Palestine.
/color]
I haven't a mind-reading device so I can't disprove your claim that 'nobody that is neutral has a problem with Jews' (paraphrase), but nonetheless I think it is almost certainly false and that in fact, if the situation entailed two Muslim populations (say), there'd be drastically less interest in the conflict.
Still, the spirit of your post is accurate: polls show that increasingly, both Jew and Palestinian want an end to the violence.
-
Conker, next time please respond outside of the 'quote' brackets (I had to copy and paste quote brackets to reconstruct your responses rather than just quoting you).
I'm simply interested in the personal psychology of many of those who berate Israel with such zeal. I don't intend my questions -- nor what they imply about such people to the extent that these people aren't consistent in their criticism of those who harm Palestinians -- as a defense of Israel's actions.
In any case, I'd be curious to know what the basis is of your claim that the land under discussion is inherently 'Palestinian.' Assuming the 'occupation' narrative to be accurate, the brutally reductionistic reality of the situation is that one group of apes has moved in and taken land where previously another group resided; what remains once the latter are gone to say that the land is still theirs? Further, how long do the traces of this mysterious force remain before the land can now be deeded to the occupiers? Until you explicate what this force is, you are being rather cryptic when the reality on the ground is that the land is Israeli in all the relevant respects (I encourage you to go and see).
Note that this isn't a justification for such occupation. Perhaps you, I, and the world community abhor such actions and wish to punish Israel accordingly. The important point is that this moral component has no effect on the reality on the ground, which is that for all intents and purposes the land is Israeli; unless, that is, you wish to submit similar arguments that Tibet is really 'still Tibetan' or that large swathes of North America are really 'still Indian.' Without some sort of compelling argument your claim that the land is 'still Palestinian' is false. And I think it's important to let the facts on the ground dictate the world community's discourse and decision making going forward, not just ideals.
Well, as is usually the case in international relations, there is the reality on the ground and the rational calculus each state must engage in on the basis of that reality, and then there are moral considerations. The two may coalesce, but often they diverge (hint: states almost always behave rationally at the expense of moral considerations).
You're letting the notion of international law do a lot of legwork for you by presuming that it dictates what is right and wrong. Well, as I've just said above, what is right and wrong is often irrelevant to how countries behave, so in that respect the international community's opinion is irrelevant. But, more importantly, what is it about international dictums about borders and all the rest that makes them authoritative, i.e., morally binding? It seems to me that the U.N. isn't even a genuinely supranational organization anyway (look at who founded it, why, and how it has generally functioned to promote Western interests across its history) -- it is dominated by state interests. So, we've got an instance of state interest vs. state interest, not some magically binding moral force over state interest. Maybe the one form of state interest is more authoritative because more states are involved, but I don't think you wanted to argue from popularity in making the claims you did.
I haven't a mind-reading device so I can't disprove your claim that 'nobody that is neutral has a problem with Jews' (paraphrase), but nonetheless I think it is almost certainly false and that in fact, if the situation entailed two Muslim populations (say), there'd be drastically less interest in the conflict.
Still, the spirit of your post is accurate: polls show that increasingly, both Jew and Palestinian want an end to the violence.
I never claimed Palestine is inherently anything, but if every government worldwide refers to Israel's incursion into Palestine as an "occupation" and no one supports their right to be there , who should I believe in regards to who's land it is?
Israel as the only nation on earth that believes it has a right to be in Palestine? Or the rest of the world?
My argument is not based on any predictions of what I think will happen , but on what I believe to be right.
I have no idea on the timespan for how long an occupying power has to continue it's occupation until the rest of the world recognises the land to then be theirs, but I have an idea Israel is trying to find out...
I'm also not calling for Israel to be punished, i would just be happy to see some real pressure put them on to try and get them to start complying with international law. At present the US is simply rewarding them for their subjugation of Palestine , by continuing to make them their largest recipient of foreign aid, whilst using their veto to avert all attempts by the UN to put pressure on them.
What is happening on the ground as you say (i.e Israeli imposed Palestinian living conditions) is even more reason why the international community needs to start getting serious with Israel.
I urge anyone(who hasn't already) to go read some of the findings and reports from the Israeli group B'Tselem who observe events in the occupied regions.
-
They are conquered nation. Get over it. Move on.
-
They are conquered nation. Get over it. Move on.
Boom
-
They are conquered nation. Get over it. Move on.
;D
True.
-
-
They are conquered nation. Get over it. Move on.
Not even a nation. They were nothing more than a bunch of pedophile Bedouins who became good scapegoats for their Arab oppressors. They should go back to Medina and give the Middle East back to the non-Muslims who were there before the Arab imperialists spread their tentacles all over it.
-
Not even a nation. They were nothing more than a bunch of pedophile Bedouins who became good scapegoats for their Arab oppressors. They should go back to Medina and give the Middle East back to the non-Muslims who were there before the Arab imperialists spread their tentacles all over it.
Lol ;D
-