I'm no pro-Israel hardliner, but the heinous crimes that have been, and still are, committed in the name of the Palestinian people cannot be swept under the carpet as a mere unfortunate consequence of the Israeli occupation. If that had been a simple question of a conflict between Israel and Jordan to settle a border issue, I don't doubt the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have long since disappeared from world news. But it hasn't, and a good part of the blame, IMHO, lies at the door of those who have hijacked the Palestinian cause for their own (and let's face it, nefarious, as they benefit absolutely nobody but themselves) purposes.Originally Posted by Plebeian
It is often tempting to establish a line of causes and consequences that can be drawn back to 1967 and the occupation, so we know what is the chicken and what is the egg. But historical facts are obstinate. Antisemitic terror attacks didn't begin in 1967. Hebron, 1936 is here to attest that reality, for example. So does Khan Yunis.
That doesn't mean that everything Israel does, just that it takes two to actually want and make peace. I'm sure the Palestinian people would rather live in peace than in this semi-permanent state of war. But those who claim to represent them? They have a lot to lose in peace, and that is why they'll always do their best to refuse, or to sabotage, any serious effort. They'll claim Israel doesn't offer enough, they'll brand pro-peace Palestinians as traitors. They already do that.
Again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Resolution_446
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Resolution_478
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Resolution_497
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...li_settlements
It's a nation. If you consider that an idea or not reality then I don't know what else to tell you.
I think a lot of Americans would like the US to go one step farther and stop all funding to the UN.
Go troll else wheres.
Pleb, you might not personally want Israel erased, but the important people in Palestine do(politicians,public faces) and have even said so before in public. Maybe even the Palestinian population would want peace, but until the day they stop firing rockets at school buses and more nice acts like that, palestine does not deserve to be recognized as a state.
A nation, but not a nation-state. Not now at least, not yet, and, I'm afraid, not until some serious effort is put into building a lasting peace with Israel. You know, of all the Arab springs we had, the one that could change the most things is the Palestinians'. But it has yet to come, alas. Hopefully some day they'll be able to speak for themselves.
What these poor tools don't understand is the last thing the PLO wants is a state.
I see that you are suspended for infractions, but you made some comments that require rebuttal.
You posted c_rap; no otherway to say it. The reactions posted by other members are a consequence of the nonsense you posted.
Thankfully others have saved me from the chore of posting yet another lecture on UNSC 242.
But, when you come back, I would really like to read how you justify your interpretation that UNSC 242 "force[s] Israel to withdraw from the territories it illegally occupied through war."
But, until then, the matter can rest with the comments made by Atlatic Friend, which can be summed up as: "no peace, no land."
Certainly, let's do just that:
- A non binding Chapter VI resolution.
- Not ratified by the US.
- Terms are in contravention to UNSC 242.
- A non binding Chapter VI resolution.
- Not ratified by the US.
- Terms are in contravention to UNSC 242.
Is there a Palestinian claim on the Golan? If so, news to me and probably Assad.
Anyhow, like the other above, it is a non binding Chapter VI resolution.
So what?
The position of successive Israeli governments is that all authorized settlements are entirely legal and consistent with international law.[15] Despite Israel's armistice agreements having all being with High Contracting Parties,[16] Israel's stance has been backed by a number of legal scholars. In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure, but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are.
The question is whether or not you hold Israel to a moral standard that you do not apply to other state actors.
When you come back, perhaps you could share with us your view on whether or not the Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of Gaza and the WB between 1949 and 1967 was legal.
x2
Or Hamas, or PIJ or any of those other fvcktards.
Almost choked on my iced tea just now. As for you r opening line, not even worthy of a response.
^^You cannot convince people who have an agenda and cannot move a thought from that line of thinking.
He was a tool and a soap box of crap. IMHO
Don't worry, the next NWO nutbird will sign up within the next 7 days to enlighten us "stupid and ignorant sheep". They're like roaches: Every time you stomp one, two more will emerge.
Did anyone find a list who vote for what? I'm struggling to find it.
EDIT:
The Pakistani representative called the decision "momentous.""For over six decades, Palestinians have proven to be superb human beings but have regrettably remained without their rights," she said, adding that "today this wrong has been righted."She referred to the longtime Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat as an "inimitable hero."
It's a good thing she doesn't drink alcohol.
EDIT:
A Dutch source lists the following nations among the ones which voted against:
Netherlands, USA, Canada, Germany
Sometimes few is better.
Well, I am with you on that one, albeit for different reasons. The UN and its organisations lived out their usefulness. And it can't be taken serious anymore anyway, if any country not happy with a verdict stops paying. Unrelated to the case in question, it's another nail in the coffin.
Either you're in or you're out - organisations cannot live on "I partake as long as it goes like I wish". Add to it that the UN is loosing importance generally, it's time to rethink it's usefulness - and if we want to keep funding it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
