I suspected as much. I would like to read the story for myself, please. Tel Aviv is not going to have everything their way all the time, just because the US acknowledges Israel having a right to exist.
Jerusalem say, "We have a right to exist and be acknowledged!" Obama say, "I agree, you have a right to exist and be acknowledged." Jerusalem say, "We have a right to defend ourselves from people who try to kill us!" Obama say, "I agree, you have a right to defend yourselves from people who try to kill you. The UN now hates me." Jerusalem say, "We want to build new settlements in West Bank and have Jerusalem all for Jews! Yay!" Obama say, "What the fuck?" and he go Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The US is Israel's supporter to the end. We do not support the building of new settlements. It is illegal, and it is disruptive.
That is true but all treaties are "at the same level," and the Mandate and the UN Charter are merely treaties (i.e. international agreements). The principle of specific trumping the general in this case comes in when figuring out whether the Mandate was overruled by the UN Charter, and it was not. Again the UN Resolution is only important because it is evidence that the UN Charter was not intended to trump the Mandate. Without that evidence, it might be argued that there was an desire that the Mandate be overruled. There would be no evidence of that, but the argument could be raised. If there were such an intent, then the legal rule of the specific treaty provision trumping a general provision of a later treaty would not apply. In this case, though, the vote of the general assembly came only shortly after the UN Charter was ratified, and so is good evidence that the Charter was not intended to apply in the case of Israel. Otherwise, a resolution is not a law, and so would have no weight or bearing on this question. This is a rather rare case of a resolution having a meaning, but it is limited to to the question of the correct resolution of the arguable conflict between the Mandate and the Charter. Mandate wins. Actually the northern imposed governments in place to govern the southern states did ratify the amendments. The North decided that white southerners with ties to or sympathies for the confederacy could not vote in elections, the legislatures that resulted were disproportionately pro-Union (and a large number of the legislators were black), and those are the legislatures that ratified the amendment. The north clearly "stacked the deck" then held the vote,m and the south was thereby bound. No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the Mandate talked about the establishment of a Jewish homeland there, and gave the job of administering the land to Britain. The specific provisions of the UN Charter failed to trump the earlier Mandate, because the specifics of the Mandate were not repealed by the general terms of the Charter. How do we know that they did not intend to supersede the Mandate when the Charter was ratified? Well, there are a few indications, but one is that they also passed a Resolution sanctioning the establishment of Israel. 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[/quote] Only under your minority viewpoint on how the law should be interpreted. The UN Charter provision on self-determination was not applicable here because the question was governed by the Mandate As a matter of international law, the Mandate contemplated the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, The Palestinians right of self-determination was established later in a the Charter but that provision is subordinate to the Mandate. To the extent a right of self-determination is relevant, it only applied to regions under the Mandate that were outside of the Jewish Homeland (the borders of which the Mandate did not set). Within the Jewish homeland, there was no legal right to self-determination under international law, save in the minority view of things. I am not, you just insist on mischaracterizing my actual position. That did not include a right of self-determination, that included the rights of general western style freedoms, which proved to be a problem when the many of the Arabs greeted the establishment of a Jewish Homeland with violence, which the new government had to address. Once the rebellion was quelled, those freedoms were granted to the Arabs who remained. They were, but there is no right to open rebellion against the state, newly forming or otherwise. When you openly rebel, you can expect the authorities will respond. That is not itself invidious oppression unless the government is viewed as a priori invalid. As the Arabs in the area the homeland was being established had no right of self determination, under the UN Charter or otherwise, the denial of that right is not a good basis for arguing the invalidity of the Jewish state. Of course, those in rebellion thought the state was invalid, but as a matter of law rather than emotion, those arguments fail. The vote violated nothing. It was a statement in favor of the establishment of Israel that, in effect, clarified what most already knew: that the plan was to establish a Jewish Homeland in Palestine. It just so happens that you are hung up on the notion that self-determination applied, and this is clear evidence that UN did not agree with you even back when the ink on the Charter was still fresh. That is true, to a point. The League of Nations created the British Mandate, and that, and the work and decisions that ensued in the decades that followed created Israel. The resolution was just the topper, and in this case it happens to show the weakness in your "but what about self-determination" position. As for my leaving the debate, I would, but I get the sense you are misguided, so I am hoping to educate you, or at least prevent you from leading anyone over to your heterodox interpretation of the law. No, they won't. The Palestinians who had property interests in the land are mostly long dead. Any Palestinian government that forms now cannot be presumed to be their inherent "heirs." If the direct lineal descendants of anyone who owned land seized come forward, Israel should in my opinion consider giving them fair compensation for the lost property, but that would be a gift. Governments are not automatically required to compensate anyone for taking property. It is a good idea to do so (and enshrined in many constitutions as a result). That said, nations have for years asserted the right to take land without compensation, and in Israel's formative years they were as well. Thank you, so I assume you are dropping your assertions that Israel is invalid? No? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well at least you should admit this truth: that only a minority of international law specialists would assert that the establishment of Israel was legally invalid. Whatever you may personally prefer to believe, that is no myth. That is dangerously naive. The Palestinians may well fight, IN PART, because they dislike their treatment under the Israelis. The other, much larger part is about who gets what land, with too many Palestinians arguing that the Israelis can have the part that is six feet below it, and not one other square inch. Many Israelis feel the same way about the Palestinians, but the point here is that treating the Palestinians better is not going to stop the violence. Someone will try to kill them and drive them out even after that. The Israelis have, on many occasions, agreed to ceasefires and tried to limit violence, and that almost always ends in the headline "rocket attack on Israel." Also, the notion that Israel views them as subhumans and even "less than animals" is good rhetoric, but if your argument is going to devolve into mere caricature, then maybe you should leave the thread, rather than me. There is bigotry on both sides, I'm afraid, and violence as well. In general I do look to Israel to be the side with more restraint (and they generally are) because they are less prone to having terrorist wackos in their midst, or at least better able to control them. I think it is pretty clear that if the Palestinians acceded to every Israeli demand, that there would be peace, and even prosperity for the Palestinians in the long run. Again, Israel has Arabs living freely in it, and they do not live as subhuman less-than-animals. They even have representation in the Knesset (and there are stories stories of issues with that, but the Israeli political system is such that abuses are redressed i n that regard, as with the Israeli Supreme Court ruling in favor of Ta'al last January). In stark contrast, if the Israelis acceded to every Palestinian demand, it would only be a matter of time before terrorist elements on the Palestinian side started slaughtering or exiling them. I apologize. I am sorry you were so unclear. I thought you wanted a two-state solution, which would mean Israel would continue to exist, but I guess not. How do you expect there to be a one state solution that is peaceful absent the death or exile of the vast majority of Jews? Because the Palestinians cannot be trusted to establish such a state. The majority of Palestinians would be fine, of course, but even the majority would happily turn a blind eye to the slaughter the minority of them would inevitably begin. If you want a single state solution ruled by Palestinians in which the Jews live as an unoppressed minority in peace, then you are living in lala land. I can only go on the basis of what you wrote. If you were not clear, then I accept your apology. In any event, I wrote "Wrong again" in reaponse to yoiuyr absurd claim that destroying Israel will lead to a peaceful middle east. I'm sure it's possible you might be stupid enough to believe you are right, and I would not dispute that you may believe it, but you are WRONG, in that that is not a realistic possibility. Hence "wrong again," is a statement indicating that I believe you are wrong on the facts, and not me telling you what you believe, but rather what you should believe if you are not naive about human nature. Also, stop cursing. You can see my confusion. You were talking about peace in the region, and a one state solution is UTTERLY INCOMPATIBLE with a one state solution, so naturally I assumed you meant a two-state solution. My mistake. What you are now confirming in rejecting a two state solution is that your position is incredibly stupid, and not a credible path to peace at all, save the peace of the grave for one or both of the sides. A trust building exercise? Do you mean to say that you see the dismantling of Israel and handing power over to people, a sizable and powerful minority of whom want them dead or gone from the land (and a majority of whom wouldn't care if that minority took steps to implement that Final Solution) is a "trust-building exercise"?? I hope I am misreading you again, or if I am not I am glad that your position will never actually be implemented in the real world, because that would be a prelude to genocide. First, I am dubious of the story of the Exodus. The archaeological and DNA evidence is entirely consistent with the notion that the Jews are a cultural offshoot of the Canaanites, and not a separate people that came to land after slavery in Eqypt. Second, arabs in the middle east went a very long time with a degree of toleration for Jews as "people of the book." The Ottoman Empire had a long standing history of excepting Jewish refugees fleeing Christian oppression. The Hatti-Humayun, a proclamation issued in 1856, went a long way to making all Ottoman citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim, equal in the eyes of the law. I agree, and Israeli Arabs have it legally. If the Palestinians were less violent, both they and Israeli Arabs would have it increasingly in practice, but living in a state of fear breeds ill will. Israel dissolving is what would lead to abuse, as I'd personally rather have a political disadvantage against the majority population rather than wait for the day that some imam issues the fatwa that I must die and his followers then carrying that out with impunity--an inevitability if the Palestinians establish a state with political and military dominance over the Jews. It's especially inevitable so long as idiots try to convince them that all Israelis are criminals who live in violation of international law and think of Palestinians as less than animals. I think (though I could be wrong...and based on what you say about the Jews I am certainly not sure I am right) that you do not want the Jews to be murdered, and yet your positions seem to me to be almost calculated to lead to just that.
Granted, it seems to be a good place to which to ship out some of the most extreme American religious nuts.
Misplaced frustration? I think I disagree with your assessment according to the article you posted. Point of contention: "Netanyahu says he is going to continue building and the US talks of progress and narrowing gaps." According to the BBC article you provided and quoted: Israeli media reports say Mr Netanyahu told the US president he needed to consult with his cabinet, which includes far-right wingers who are strongly opposed to the division of Jerusalem, before reaching agreement. "The prime minister's position is that there is no change in Israel's policy on Jerusalem that has been pursued by all governments of Israel for the last 42 years," his office said in a statement on Friday. But a spokesman told Israeli media there had been a "narrowing of the gaps" between Israel and the US. On Thursday, as Mr Netanyahu returned to Israel, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "We are making progress on important issues." (Boldface accent added) As near as I can tell, reading the above paragraphs according to what they say, it is Israel who speaks of closing gaps. Robert Gibbs suggested progress, but that could be on any number of issues. Stephen C. Webster, writing for The Raw Story, the comment about narrowing gaps came from Nir Hefetz: Netanyahu did not pose for any photographs and made no statement on arrival in Israel, but government spokesman Nir Hefetz insisted Israel and its closest ally had edged closer to an understanding. "There was progress; there is a narrowing of the gaps between the positions of Israel and the positions of the United States on this issue," he told Israel's Channel Two TV. Other Israeli media saw things differently. "One Israeli newspaper called the meeting 'a hazing in stages', poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House phone line," the Times Online reported. "Another said that the Prime Minister had received 'the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea'. "Left to talk among themselves, Mr Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. He later spent a further half-hour with Mr Obama and extended his stay for a day of emergency talks aimed at restarting peace negotiations, but left last night with no official statement from either side. He returns to Israel dangerously isolated after what Israeli media have called a White House ambush for which he is largely to blame. (Boldface accent added) Beyond that, we're still dealing with the basic questions: • What would we like Obama to do? • How is he going to do that?____________________ Notes: British Broadcasting Corporation. "Israeli PM says Jerusalem policy will not change". BBC News Online. March 26, 2010. News.BBC.co.uk. March 27, 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8588444.stm Webster, Stephen C. "Netanyahu returns to Israel after diplomatic ‘hazing’ by Obama". The Raw Story. March 25, 2010. RawStory.com. March 29, 2010. http://rawstory.com/2010/03/netanyahu-returns-israel-diplomatic-hazing-obama/
I going to have to agree with the idea lucy put forth if we don't back this with actions it is meaningless.
The easiest action to implement: ban Americans from investing in Israeli settlements beyond the Green Line, and seize/freeze their assets if they refuse to comply. A lot of those communities are funded by wealthy Americans (many if not virtually all of the investors being Jewish, naturally). Perfectly legal, and perfectly sensible given that America has no reason to tolerate citizens in its midst violating the nation's foreign policy. Besides, coddling a bunch of extremists with cash handouts means they have more time to throw urine at Palestinians and torch their mosques, since they don't have to spend any time doing real meaningful work.
Where is your education from? The farm? You learned to speak this garbage cleaning up after the pig? You can go to hell ignorant son of a bitch.
Nothing I said hasn't been repeatedly reported in Israeli newspapers. Sorry you have to get so worked up about it, but you can't shout the opposition down this time.
But you know better, right? You've seen the maps, followed the events of the past forty years. That needs a little argument. The current policies seem to have been generating a lot of violently dead people, mostly Palestinian - the means of their demise (explosives, bullets, whatever) is not the central matter, surely? Balance in accusation is not to be mistaken for balance in deed, I hope. You expect people to just accept being told that by a bunch if invading foreigners, be turned out of their family homes and ghettoed up without a fuss? That is false in implication. Statistical studies have clearly shown that ceasefires and other limitations on violence have most often ended in Palestinian casualties at the hands of Israeli soldiers. The headlines are another matter, maybe, but that would be a discussion of the media involved. There is an obvious and influential faction of Zionists who do seem to hold such views - we have representatives of them on this forum, to all appearances (check out some of Spock's rhetoric over the past few months). Please. What the Israeli army has been doing in Gaza is not describable as "restrained" in any reasonable discussion. The Israelis do have their terrorism under better control, and employ it with more official support and regulation - but that is nothing to be proud of.
the UN charter is not merely a treaty. it states the role and what the UN can and can't do. again a later general alw takes precedence over anything before it and a higher law like ther governing rules of a body take precedence over any resolutions it takes. mandate was a general law. superceded by the later general law of the charter. Bullshit that's exactly what your saying. the UN rule that countries need to be created through self determination is viod because of a superceded agreement. the resolution is irrelevant. it violates the UN charter and therefore has no validity The un provision on self determination was intended to for the mandate because they were colonies. this is true only in your view. as the UN has later shown it always intended for the palestinian to have self determination. Only in your fucked upo and quite frankly bigoted world view was their ever an intent to strip the palestinian of their right for jewish wants. Yes you are. Prove it. only if we accept your ideas that previous agreements out rank later in the opposite fashion of how the law actually works. and what kind of delusional world are you arguing from where the legiatiamte basis for a countries creation is not met is not a good reason to argue invalifity? its irrelevant what they were in favor of they couldnt validly violate the charter. where a resolution and the charter disagree the charter takes precedence. and your still pushing the myth the UN created Israel. the UN provisions was created to stop this kinds of machinations to create states that the occuping power wanted. Meaning what I'm not willing to slavishly support Israel? I don't need to be educated least of by someone who argues to trough out the basic way the law works to suit them. So in other from reaching an honest truth. sorry but the precdent of returning stolen property to the heirs of those it was stolen from has been established with the jews and the stolen art work. the precdent has been set so chock on it. I'm not going to ignore the truth. out fear not understanding of the law. and many stand up to the propaganda machine your so willing to help and show yes it is. because of the actions of Israel so your basic argument is that what that the palestinian are just violent animals that have no cause to their violence? that Israel will never try and stop their thefts? that's been shown to be false by others. I didn't say they viewed them as sub human but that they treated them as such. funny most people who see how the palestinains live disagree with you. Same old fucking shit well their would be peace if they just gave up their rights. and yet they can't legally say what they want. that Israel took from them what was their and than handed back mere scraps except all evidence points to the contrary. You do know most palestinians think more highly of Israelis than the reverse? I wasn't unclear your were just fucking lazy and made auumptions. my beliefs are well known to anyone paying attention. no I believe in one state for anyone who wants to live in palkestine. acknowledgement, apology, restitution. more so than the Israelis. and why can't they be trusted? because you say so. the palestinians have wanted one state for from the begining. You really have no understanding of the palestinian view point and wants do you? why it could have happened in 48 had the jews not wanted a single ethnicty state and it can happen now. we just have to work to erode the hate. it will happen if people like you instead of ranting about how it won't work shut the fuck up and work to make it happen. So I should apoligize to you because you decided to make assumptions? your onbelievable while their are other problems in the middle east removing Israel brings them to the forefront and removes the scapegoat. I'm not being naive. stop misrepresenting my opinions and making assumption on my beliefs based on your own prejudices. You bitch that i'm not being clear(though your confusion is solely based on making assumption srather than asking what i believe) and than say something is incompatible with its self. a one state solution can and will bring peace if done right. your mistake is that your reling on your own twisted assumption than trying to find out what my beliefs are. So you have given up arrogant condensation for insults. there is nothing stupid about my position it is designed to do several things. 1. ensure every one's real true rights are protected 2. create a peaceful palestine 3. ensure a state that is militarily and economically strong again you completely mis represent my position in not asking for more info. first off Israel stay in existence for quite a while in my ideas. the first step is a viable 2 state solution. the trust is that Israel will noit try and take more land and not start anymore wars. and that the palestinian will control the extremist minority(just like Israel needs to reign in its extremist majority) and create a stable country. this first step will probably take some where around 70 or 80 year minumum. again despite me start up telling you my ideas are meant to happen over a long period of time you continue to act as if I expect everything to be done now. sorry it is what you want that will end in genocide(and probably Israel destruction in a fireball of destruction) Your making assumption of my ideas based on your own misrepresentations. um both bablyon and rome exiled the jews. the jewish deaths at the hands of crusaders happened, the russian pogroms happened, the general abuse of jews happened through out much of europe, the inquestion happened the holcaust happened. the abuses of jews during the Disporia and the exudus are to very different things. and that can and will happen aging but only if we work to see it happen. an arb and a jew are not equal before ISraeli law. ah yes the basis of ISraeli propaganda the palestinian are violent. IF Israel would keep stealing their land and abusing them they wouldn't be so violent. so Israel dissolving would cause jews to abuse arabs? thst you think it inevitible shows you know nothing of the palestinians. you do know they were very pro-western and secular before they had their lands taken from them by the zionist war machine? and yet again you misrepresent my positions I do not thin all Israelis are criminals just the ones that have broken the law and help the Israel government break the law. and I never said that Israelis view palestinians as animals. I don't want anyone to die. but if I have to choose between people dying the the law and morality the law and morality are going to come first. but my opposition to Israel has a more practical part. If things continue as they are with the current(ie your) view staying what will result is a blood bath where one side is genocided and the other becomes an outcast nation that is weak and that is open to attack from others.
My mistake, I thought you understood something of the law. The UN Charter does say what the UN can and can;t do, but it is is sill also a treaty, and nothing more. It has no special "super-treaty" status. That is not at all correct. You can look up the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant. It *only* applies when a later general law seems to conflict with an earlier specific one, and the earlier law wins. True that higher law takes precedence, untrue that organizational formation law does. You are assuming what you wish to prove...The whole question is: what does the Charter mean? If the self-determination provision of the UN Charter does not trump the Mandate, then there is nothing invalid about the General Assembly passing a resolution saying so. The resolution is non-binding anyway, so simply a statement of their understanding of the correct position to be taken. As they were all very familiar with the charter, it is evidence that the Charter does not mean what you wish it does--it does not give the Palestinians a right of self determination, because the earlier law set up a different and still enforceable rule for that area. Again also, the UN Charter is not a "higher" law. Every nation classifies it as a treaty. As for the rest of your post, I'd suggest you go look up the law and come back, as you are have a few areas in your understanding that could be more firm.
To the Fundamentalist Christians! I have read enough of their writings to know that even a fundamentalist Christian doesn't always stand a chance against another fundamentalist as far as the core of Christianity is involved. You could be the most hardcore fundamentalist and be condemned to hell by another of your own kind for subtle doctrinal differences. It isn't my finding. It is the truth. Knowing what I know, I can't believe that a practitioner of Judaism who doesn't even recognize Jesus (Yeshua or Yehoshua) could actually be apologized for or accepted as some type of proto-Christian. I read the Amazon links. They seem interesting. I haven't exactly been interested in this topic before, but I guess I should be? The reason I said that was this: A while back, I was doing some simple reading and I read this excerpt from the World Book Encyclopedia (1987 dated I know) but this is what it said, and I reproduce it right now (I have in my possession this dated volume) : Page 390 - I've heard more than once that Israel has the best funded military. That may or may not be hearsay. I recently heard a quote about U.S. welfare to Israel that sounded really large. That also may be hearsay. After all, it came from a disgraced Congressman Trafficant. So you can only believe so much. However, without knowing any real numbers, yet knowing how small the state of Israel is and that it has very few domestically produced resources, my mind put that rudimentary equation together and came up with this: Israel doesn't maintain its standing in the world without foreign aid. Am I wrong in my assessment? The same encyclopedia volume that I quoted above shows Iowa (a state of the USA) as having more than twice the Gross Product value of Israel. But that was 1987. Maybe with enough foreign aid, Israel has been able to out produce Iowa? I will gladly scan the pages of this stupid encyclopedia to at least verify what I am saying. In 1987 according to World Book Encyclopedia Volume "I", Israel was worth $15.195 billion dollars. Iraq had $30.43 billion in GNP. Iowa (a midwest state in the USA) had a product of $34.187 billion. Again "To build its industries, Israel has had to import large amounts of equipment and raw materials. As a result, the nation's imports greatly exceed exports in value. Income from various sources makes up the difference. These sources include grants and loans from other countries and income from tourists." Today, those numbers are (according to wikipedia): Israel: Population - 2009 estimate 7,465,0002[3] (96th) - 1995 census 5,548,523 - Density 356.8/km2 (34th) 839/sq miGDP (PPP) 2008 estimate - Total US$202.562 billion[4] (50th) - Per capita $28,473[4] (31st) GDP (nominal) 2009 estimate - Total $215.727 billion[4] (39th) - Per capita $29,671[4] (29th) Iraq: Population - 2009 estimate 31,234,000[1] (39th) - Density 71.2/km2 (125th) 184.6/sq mi GDP (PPP) 2009 estimate - Total $114.151 billion[1] (63rd) - Per capita $3,655[1] (125th) GDP (nominal) 2009 estimate - Total $68.553 billion[1] (58th) - Per capita $2,195[1] (105th) Iowa : If the economy is measured by gross domestic product, in 2005 Iowa's GDP was about US $124 billion.[76] If measured by gross state product, for 2005 it was US $113.5 billion.[77] Its per capita income for 2006 was US $23,340.[77] Complete turnaround. How did that happen? How does Israel become the largest economy recently? They certainly didn't do that because of aid to their country, did they?!?!
Yes. I do not consider the story being told by the Israelis to be entirely accurate or without bias. I have, yes. I do not know all of the details on it because I do not aspire to become a professional scholar of the history of that particular region, but I have been following the story with some degree of interest. However, it behooves me to remind you that the reason we are discussing Israel's policies is the fact that the Palestinians have not had very much of a policy at all. Their behavior has been characterized almost entirely by demagoguery, pity-seeking, and schizophrenic and uncoordinated violence. They have no sense of unity or order whatsoever in spite of being the largest per capita recepients of foreign aid worldwide. Their economic model seems at times to be based entirely upon playing on the widespread belief that they are a pitiful and oppressed people living under a persecuted apartheid regime. Allow me to make one thing absolutely clear: I will form my own conclusions on this matter, and you will respect that fact. You will not talk down to me, insult my character or intelligence, or speak to me as if you are trying to educate some yokel who just came out of the hills barefoot and illiterate. You will not accuse me of racism anymore than others are to accuse me of antisemitism. I will assert my freedom of conscience to you and any other party in this discussion, and trust that I have more than sufficient venom and intellect--assuming that you are not so blithering ignorant that you assume that anybody who does not have the same views you do must be your intellectual inferior--with which to defend that right. I advise masticating on this for a long while. Furthermore, do not accuse me of subscribing to any ideology whatsoever. I am too egotistical to subscribe to someone else's ideas.
