So you think having the palestinian forced to give up yet more to a country that has made no bones about wanting all of palestine is going to get peace? your just being naive.
Because in the end, God will sort us all out. And if he doesnt exist, then we might as well grab all we can get while we are alive cos after that we're just worm food.
so we should let evil and injustice win simply because it won't give up? should we have rolled over for the nazis because they would have given up?
Actually, the Kadima party in Israel, which I have vocally supported for much of this thread, is an outspoken advocate of the two-state solution. They take a much less hardline stance on the matter than any other force in Israel's politics. Without Kadima, the only means we have of getting concessions out of Israel is to lay sanctions against them, and sanctions don't work. Dude, I'm used to being flamed for my views. You're not special. I have found that whether or not I am being flamed for what I think has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not my views are based on an accurate, fair reflection of reality. Either address me respectfully, or find someone else to flame for their opinions, kay?
I have shown why, the legal rule of the specific trumping the general. The rule is not "the later trumps the earlier" unless the later passed law is equally specific (and in effect an overturning of the prior law) or unless the later law is general but there is clear indication that it was intended (specifically) to trump the earlier law. The details of the passing are relevant only if they voif the enactment, which they don't. It's rather like claiming there is not 14th amendment because the southern states ratified it under duress (which is certainly true, but the 14th amendment is valid nevertheless). That doesn't ruin anything. The intent of the British was clear, and it is irrelevant that there was violence involved at the time...because of course there were people who were unhappy that they were being left out of the power struggle, and it was also clear that the establishment of the Jewish state was going to require some strong arming by the Jews. It's perfectly understandable that the British, while supporting that process, didn't want to dirty their hands implementing it. That is not really my starting assumption. The Mandate was the start of the process of the creation, and it left the next stages of the creation to the British. The UN vote was merely important beceuase it signaled the intent that Israel was not intended to be subject to the rules on self-determination of other colonial holdings. No, I mean turning it over not to the original owners but to some "Palestinian government". Declaring the very existence of Israel to be contrary to law is not conducive to finding a political solution. In fact, if anyone listened to what you thought, it would suggest that the Palestinians should fight on until this illegal, illegitimate rogue state is wiped from the face of the planet. I don't see any political solution that includes declaring Israel's establishment illegal save a solution that involves a Second Holocaust. Well, I am glad you want Israel to be allowed to continue to exist, though I don't understand why if you think they are an illegal state. Wrong again. Your whole argument leads to nothing but a sense that Isael must be destroyed amongst everyone but you. Look at the people who argue for the illegality of Israel and you won't see many advocating a two state solution of the sort both you and I prefer. Also, the attitudes that are the problem developed in just one century, not several and not thousands of years. Jews and Arabs lived side by side in relative peace for a long time compared to current animosities. In fact Jews and Arabs still do...in Israel.
pjdude, please try to articulate a rational, syllogistically sound argument for taking a harder line toward Israel if that is indeed what you are advocating.
So? Israel is the aggressor here. Tell me again about the advantages of "working effectively" with Tel Aviv. Because I'm not seeing too many, in all this negotiating with ourselves about what we can and can't insist on from Israel. Israel is pushing this situation to the brink of something pretty horrible, and there isn't much excuse for abetting that.
I have been hearing a different story from those who either live in Israel full-time or spend part of their time in Israel. It entails fewer people, in the long-run, being blown into a million little pieces. The Israelis have been making similar accusations against Hamas, Hezbollah and Tehran. If you are talking about their expansionist projects, I would agree that they are problematical and inflammatory. I see it as senseless territorial pissing, and I will have you know that I have taken a great deal of heat for this point of view. However, their settlements and building projects in West Bank and elsewhere are getting in the way of international efforts and efforts by the US to initiate a peace process there. I refuse to adopt the same hardline stance on it that you do, and I have been called a racist for that. Frankly, I resent it.
The UN charter is the guidelines of what the UN can and can't do. Where a resolution and the charter disagree the UN charter must take precedence for the same reason when a US law and the constitution disagree the constitution must take precedence. their is a hierarchy to laws. The principle you are talking about only comes into effect when the things in question are on the same level they not. the UN charter is higher than a general assembly resolution. A general law higher than a specific one takes precedence. Your still trying to argue that the UN created Israel it did nothing of the such. Bad analogy. the southern state were under the auspices of the constitution the fact they didn't ratify them at the time didn't mean they were void. Here your saying that even though the UN charter had specific instructions on how a countries were to be formed a resolution in opposition of that is legit. and passed through duress. maybe in lala land but in reality it does. [/QUOTE]The intent of the British was clear,[/QUOTE] their intent was irrelevant. they hadn't the right to prevent or allow the prevention of self determination in palestine So it was irrelevant that the people of the territory were being stripped of their right to determine their own political status? than why are you hanging everything on it. Balfour. IT has negating clauses. the british basically said a jewish state was only valid if the right of others were protected. they weren't ergo the jewish state(ISrael) isn't valid. pretty little Idea but since it violates the UN's own governing rules it is void. secondly the resolution didn't create Israel. IF you can get over that myth you should leave the debate. the former will gain the latter. the truth and reality must be the basis and not myth. that is sole dependent on if Israel continue to treat them as less than animals or as human beings. remove the threats Israel poses the need to fight goes away. the only second holocaust that is going to be happen is the one the Israelis commit against the palestinians if they aren't reigned in from their violence and bigotry. I don't want it too. it would create to many problems too. Go back and reread my posts. I'm sorry how long have to been psychic. Who the fuck are you to tell my what I want and what my beliefs are. Than your not getting my argument. and please quit telling me what my own fucking ideas are. just because your smarter than most of those who do it doesn't mean its any less insulting I don't prefer a 2 state solution. I see it merely as something akin to a trust building exercise as a precursor to a one state solution. so the jews have only been persecuted for a 100 years rather than 2000 I'm sure they will be glad to find that out. with arabs as second class citizens with less rights. they can live in peace again only if they have some form of equality..
I don't hate Obama or love Netan. I just think Obama should treat our allies with some respect. He bows to/kisses the Saudi King but disses Netan.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
He is someone who has a vested interest in undermining your credibility by ascribing views to you that make you look either uneducated or unethical.
did it ever occur to you because the house of saud respected us and our relationship but netan didn't?
No, that's not true. Netan does. It's Obama that can't stand Netan. It's personal and I already stated the reason more than once.
Oh, but he gave a deep bow from the waist! That's a sign of subservience! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
prove it. No he doesn't. he had previous to the meeting basically told people he wasd going to tell him to go fuck himself. That couldn't be further from the truth. Obama doesn't really care about Netan either way and has no reasons too.
