This topic is locked from further discussion.
The United States will veto the admission of Palestine into the UN, they've already said so. Unfortunate, yes. Unexpected? Not really. Both sides are to blame in my opinion, Israel is no better than Palestine and vice versa. It isn't until they both accept that fact that anything will be done. Maniacc1
And until that happens, the US shouldn't be supporting either side.. Let alone unquestioningly..
[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]
And I can assure you all these are against Israel.
sSubZerOo
Cow4ever thank you for posting the completely irrelevent and pointless graph.. You forgot to point out that there are 5 perma members of UN security council with the power to veto anything.. The US is one of them, and they have shielded them against everything. And in the end of the day the minor members you listed mean nothing, the UN has always been controlled by the big 5 ALWAYS.
Still it's ridiculous to say Israel has most international support. Israel has support from one country which agreed is very powerful in the UN. But the question was who has most international support, not who has the most powerful ally. And there are 5 more members of the UNSC. If there ever was a resolution condemning palestinians (like that's ever gonna happen lol) it'd get vetoed by Russia, China, Britain and France. Not to mention if UN really has shielded them against everything why is there at least 224 resolutions concerning Israel and mostly condemning her?[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Cow4ever"]
And I can assure you all these are against Israel.
Cow4ever
Cow4ever thank you for posting the completely irrelevent and pointless graph.. You forgot to point out that there are 5 perma members of UN security council with the power to veto anything.. The US is one of them, and they have shielded them against everything. And in the end of the day the minor members you listed mean nothing, the UN has always been controlled by the big 5 ALWAYS.
Still it's ridiculous to say Israel has most international support.Compared to the Palesitnians who were only recently recognized internationally? Yeah..
Israel has support from one country which agreed is very powerful in the UN.
Not just support but UNQUESTIONINGLY support in which they veto ANYTHING and everything regardless of how truely just it maybe.. Israel has violated human rights laws, International laws, and has committ war crimes..
But the question was who has most international support, not who has the most powerful ally. And there are 5 more members of the UNSC. If there ever was a resolution condemning palestinians (like that's ever gonna happen lol) it'd get vetoed by Russia, China, Britain and France.
Wrong, those countries do not support the Palestinians.. What they are agaisnt is the war crimes done by ISrael..
Not to mention if UN really has shielded them against everything why is there at least 224 resolutions concerning Israel and mostly condemning her?
COULD IT BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE committed war crimes, violated International law and human rights acts? You seriously think that Israel is completely innocent in this regard? There is obviously NO point in discussing with this any further.. The US should never unquestioningly support Israel PERIOD.. Does that mean there should be ridiculous sancitons leveled against them for ridiculous reasons? OF COURSE NOT, but yet again there are numerous events where Israel has violated numerous things, and really should be treated no different from other violators like North Korea or Iran.
the US is being stupid
vetoing palestine is just going to piss of ALOT of countries and there is no reason for it.
i support isreal too. but your'e gonna have a ton of liberals hating on you for supporting isreal.I want peace too, but I fully support Isreal (in most cases), and I doubt the UN is going to be able to do anything. Palestinians want a seperate state but I don't believe in that, Israel should stay one state as that is our land now. And I'm of Jewish descent so mabey that might be another reason, but that doesn't change anything. Israel is the only true democracy in the middle east and if the palestinains get their way Hamas will move in and surrond them. I support Israels stance against the palestinain state and I think Isreal should have more control over the middle east. I guess this makes me a zionist but I don't care.
Both sides are going to have to comprimise and the UN being useless isn't going to fix anything. In order for this to work you have to get into Israel it'self and fix it there.
PS gamespot won't let me link, it's being glicthy again. But it's a top news story and my thread title is straight from the washing post.
ShadowMoses900
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Cow4ever"]
And I can assure you all these are against Israel.
Cow4ever
Cow4ever thank you for posting the completely irrelevent and pointless graph.. You forgot to point out that there are 5 perma members of UN security council with the power to veto anything.. The US is one of them, and they have shielded them against everything. And in the end of the day the minor members you listed mean nothing, the UN has always been controlled by the big 5 ALWAYS.
Not just support but UNQUESTIONINGLY support in which they veto ANYTHING and everything regardless of how truely just it maybe.. Israel has violated human rights laws, International laws, and has committ war crimes..
Nope as proven by 224 resolution.
Wrong, those countries do not support the Palestinians.. What they are agaisnt is the war crimes done by ISrael..
No the definitely support the Palestinians.
COULD IT BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE committed war crimes, violated International law and human rights acts? You seriously think that Israel is completely innocent in this regard? There is obviously NO point in discussing with this any further.. The US should never unquestioningly support Israel PERIOD.. Does that mean there should be ridiculous sancitons leveled against them for ridiculous reasons? OF COURSE NOT, but yet again there are numerous events where Israel has violated numerous things, and really should be treated no different from other violators like North Korea or Iran.
So the US doesn't unquestionably support Israel. Nice change of subject cause you exposed your ignorance. And now when you went off topic and showed how wrong you was what international laws does Israel breake? what war crimes? North Korea?? Seriously this country has concentration camps, makes human experiments, punishes descendendats of "Criminals", starves its own people, is a brutal dictatorship obviously. Iran yeah you know how they treat women and surpresses freedom?
Wouldnt leaving all of their settlements in Palestine (instead of a couple) stop the rocket attacks that they are concerned about? Isnt one of the gripes they have with Israel is because of the settlements?[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Not going to happen, the Israeli government has shown time and time again their refusal of relinquishing the West Bank in any way..
sSubZerOo
Its numerous things, there is no single solution its a start.. And the fact of the matter it BEGINS with Israel because they for decades now control all the territories, control the policies, they control the military power, the international support.. Its a completely one sided conflict, yet people some how think its the Palestinians who are preventing any kind of solution from happening?
Don't you worry, the Palestinians do their share of ruining things, its not one sided here. I can assure you , there is zero chance for peace unless the rockets stop, the moment a treaty is signed is the moment the rockets stop , there is no gradual process here. by that account it would be ok to have some settlements left over after an agreement, but of course no one would agree with that, and thus we wouldn't agree to rockets , its really quite simple. in the event of a state where the Palestinians control their own territory, they can't use any excuse such as "we don't control all of our territory" , being a state is just as much a responsibility as it is a right. Of course Israel can help them in some ways like intelligence cooperation , but beyond that, its their responsibility. and no , we would not have the UN or any other international force arrive on the border, we saw it in the Sinai , we saw it with UNIFIL in Lebanon , and its a useless waste of time and money. furthermore, the Palestinians need to get the various groups under control , they can't have groups like Islamic Jihad or some of the family/clan based groups run amok in their territory in the event they get a state , we have seen what happens when that happens in Lebanon.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Cow4ever"] You do realize Lieberman is willing to give up way more than like anyone since he want to give up places with big arab majority to a future palestinian state form Israel including parts of Jerusalem. Granted it's not very "tolerant" of him but still don't deny this aspect.Cow4everThe PLO was prepared to literally give away virtually all of East Jerusalem. Lieberman is far from the most willing Israeli government official to give up land. Lieberman only wants to take land by building more and more settlements. He is one of the biggest obstacles to a deal actually getting done anytime soon. He's only going to agree to peace once the Jewish settlers take all of the land that they want, so if and when the time comes to draw up the borders (and if there is a two state solution they will be based on the 1967 lines), all of these illegal settlements will miraculously become legal as a result of "mutually agreed land swaps" to reflect the reality on the ground. This is a man who is on record saying that Israel should treat the Palestinians like how the US treated the Japanese, and that Arab members of the Knesset who met with Hamas should be executed. He is a near-perfect caricature of all that is wrong with the Israeli government vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Nope. Not close, when have they ever wanted to "give up"(how can you give up something you don't have) almost all of East Jerusalem?? Not even close. And about Lieberman that has actually nothing to do with what I said. Except the part about he isn't willing to give up land, why do you think that?
Like it or not, East Jerusalem is occupied territory under international law. They have no legal claim to that land. You can't show me one legal organization of international standing that has ruled otherwise. Israel might not like it, but that is the reality. Even the US, Israel's greatest (and one of its last few) ally sees it as occupied territory, which is why the US embassy is in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem.
As for when exactly the PLO conceded virtually all of East Jerusalem, here you go:
"Qurei:This last proposition could help in the swap process. We proposed that Israel annexes all settlements in Jerusalem except Jabal Abu Ghneim (Har Homa)."
http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122112512844113.html
The only shortcut possible would be to take all of the Palestinians and find them some uninhabited island big enough to live on. Other than that, there is no peace because the Palestinians, like many other Arab nations, hate the Jews and Israel and want to see them burned asunder. It's sad really, because the Jews are the only real democracy in the region, like the OP said.
[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Cow4ever thank you for posting the completely irrelevent and pointless graph.. You forgot to point out that there are 5 perma members of UN security council with the power to veto anything.. The US is one of them, and they have shielded them against everything. And in the end of the day the minor members you listed mean nothing, the UN has always been controlled by the big 5 ALWAYS.
Cow4ever
Not just support but UNQUESTIONINGLY support in which they veto ANYTHING and everything regardless of how truely just it maybe.. Israel has violated human rights laws, International laws, and has committ war crimes..
Nope as proven by 224 resolution.
Wrong, those countries do not support the Palestinians.. What they are agaisnt is the war crimes done by ISrael..
No the definitely support the Palestinians.
COULD IT BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE committed war crimes, violated International law and human rights acts? You seriously think that Israel is completely innocent in this regard? There is obviously NO point in discussing with this any further.. The US should never unquestioningly support Israel PERIOD.. Does that mean there should be ridiculous sancitons leveled against them for ridiculous reasons? OF COURSE NOT, but yet again there are numerous events where Israel has violated numerous things, and really should be treated no different from other violators like North Korea or Iran.
So the US doesn't unquestionably support Israel. Nice change of subject cause you exposed your ignorance. And now when you went off topic and showed how wrong you was what international laws does Israel breake? what war crimes? North Korea?? Seriously this country has concentration camps, makes human experiments, punishes descendendats of "Criminals", starves its own people, is a brutal dictatorship obviously. Iran yeah you know how they treat women and surpresses freedom?
Reading comprehension I said the US needs to stop unquesitingly supporting them.. Furthermore war crimes check out the Lebenon Civil War for instance.. Or just recent things in general like http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/israel-gaza-war-crimes-guardian.. International law.. Lets go see their occupation of the West Bank is actually ILLEGALunder UN law.. http://www.thenation.com/article/israels-war-crimes I am sorry but there is a prime minister right now that if he ever wakes up from his coma will have his ass hauled in front of court for committing war crimes.. Yet again Israel still breaks the law in multiple ways, they should not be given protection by the United States.. That is my point.. That is why the rest of the security council would be ALL in favor of putting sanctions on Israel for their numerous violations in the past few decades.
Nope. Not close, when have they ever wanted to "give up"(how can you give up something you don't have) almost all of East Jerusalem?? Not even close. And about Lieberman that has actually nothing to do with what I said. Except the part about he isn't willing to give up land, why do you think that?[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] The PLO was prepared to literally give away virtually all of East Jerusalem. Lieberman is far from the most willing Israeli government official to give up land. Lieberman only wants to take land by building more and more settlements. He is one of the biggest obstacles to a deal actually getting done anytime soon. He's only going to agree to peace once the Jewish settlers take all of the land that they want, so if and when the time comes to draw up the borders (and if there is a two state solution they will be based on the 1967 lines), all of these illegal settlements will miraculously become legal as a result of "mutually agreed land swaps" to reflect the reality on the ground. This is a man who is on record saying that Israel should treat the Palestinians like how the US treated the Japanese, and that Arab members of the Knesset who met with Hamas should be executed. He is a near-perfect caricature of all that is wrong with the Israeli government vis-a-vis the Palestinians.-Sun_Tzu-
Like it or not, East Jerusalem is occupied territory under international law. They have no legal claim to that land. You can't show me one legal organization of international standing that has ruled otherwise. Israel might not like it, but that is the reality. Even the US, Israel's greatest (and one of its last few) ally sees it as occupied territory, which is why the US embassy is in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem.
As for when exactly the PLO conceded virtually all of East Jerusalem, here you go:
"Qurei:This last proposition could help in the swap process. We proposed that Israel annexes all settlements in Jerusalem except Jabal Abu Ghneim (Har Homa)."
http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122112512844113.html
Show me this law. Yes they have legal claim to that land, they where attacked from it YOINK! If you attack a country from a territory (which you occupied and of which you have destroyed all the synagogues, razed the Jewish quarter and expelled all the Jews) you can't be expected to get it back. The US does recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Haven't heard about the Jerusalem Embassy Act? And Israel is getting more and more allies. Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania and Malta are getting much closer to Israel now. If this really is true then it is the most generous proposal from the PLO so far. But still you are again distorting facts. East Jerusalem is majority arab town so giving up all the Jewish "settlements" isn't close to "virtually all". And Har Homa is pretty much the biggest Jewish "settlement" in Jerusalem. In any case you can't say this is a concession. It's Israeli territory, Israel can concede it, they can receive it. Not the other way around.[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]
[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]
Not just support but UNQUESTIONINGLY support in which they veto ANYTHING and everything regardless of how truely just it maybe.. Israel has violated human rights laws, International laws, and has committ war crimes..
Nope as proven by 224 resolution.
Wrong, those countries do not support the Palestinians.. What they are agaisnt is the war crimes done by ISrael..
No the definitely support the Palestinians.
COULD IT BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE committed war crimes, violated International law and human rights acts? You seriously think that Israel is completely innocent in this regard? There is obviously NO point in discussing with this any further.. The US should never unquestioningly support Israel PERIOD.. Does that mean there should be ridiculous sancitons leveled against them for ridiculous reasons? OF COURSE NOT, but yet again there are numerous events where Israel has violated numerous things, and really should be treated no different from other violators like North Korea or Iran.
So the US doesn't unquestionably support Israel. Nice change of subject cause you exposed your ignorance. And now when you went off topic and showed how wrong you was what international laws does Israel breake? what war crimes? North Korea?? Seriously this country has concentration camps, makes human experiments, punishes descendendats of "Criminals", starves its own people, is a brutal dictatorship obviously. Iran yeah you know how they treat women and surpresses freedom?
sSubZerOo
Reading comprehension I said the US needs to stop unquesitingly supporting them.. Furthermore war crimes check out the Lebenon Civil War for instance.. Or just recent things in general like http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/israel-gaza-war-crimes-guardian.. International law.. Lets go see their occupation of the West Bank is actually ILLEGALunder UN law.. http://www.thenation.com/article/israels-war-crimes I am sorry but there is a prime minister right now that if he ever wakes up from his coma will have his ass hauled in front of court for committing war crimes.. Yet again Israel still breaks the law in multiple ways, they should not be given protection by the United States.. That is my point.. That is why the rest of the security council would be ALL in favor of putting sanctions on Israel for their numerous violations in the past few decades.
English isn't my native language but I don't think unquesitingly is a word. Ehm I still don't know which law is broken, tell me what law did they brake? Not to mention these are all biased articles. One is even written by Richard Falk. Maybe next time I show you something from Meir Kahane... Right. Israel should be sanctioned because it defends itself whereas Hamas & co should be able to do whatever they want. And no I doubt UK and France would be all in favor of putting sanctions on Israel no.[QUOTE="Sunfyre7896"]
The only shortcut possible would be to take all of the Palestinians and find them some uninhabited island big enough to live on. Other than that, there is no peace because the Palestinians, like many other Arab nations, hate the Jews and Israel and want to see them burned asunder. It's sad really, because the Jews are the only real democracy in the region, like the OP said.
worlock77
Too bad the OP is wrong and simply does not know what he's talking about.
Says the guy who though Jordan was a democracy.[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]
[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]
Not just support but UNQUESTIONINGLY support in which they veto ANYTHING and everything regardless of how truely just it maybe.. Israel has violated human rights laws, International laws, and has committ war crimes..
Nope as proven by 224 resolution.
Wrong, those countries do not support the Palestinians.. What they are agaisnt is the war crimes done by ISrael..
No the definitely support the Palestinians.
COULD IT BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE committed war crimes, violated International law and human rights acts? You seriously think that Israel is completely innocent in this regard? There is obviously NO point in discussing with this any further.. The US should never unquestioningly support Israel PERIOD.. Does that mean there should be ridiculous sancitons leveled against them for ridiculous reasons? OF COURSE NOT, but yet again there are numerous events where Israel has violated numerous things, and really should be treated no different from other violators like North Korea or Iran.
So the US doesn't unquestionably support Israel. Nice change of subject cause you exposed your ignorance. And now when you went off topic and showed how wrong you was what international laws does Israel breake? what war crimes? North Korea?? Seriously this country has concentration camps, makes human experiments, punishes descendendats of "Criminals", starves its own people, is a brutal dictatorship obviously. Iran yeah you know how they treat women and surpresses freedom?
sSubZerOo
Reading comprehension I said the US needs to stop unquesitingly supporting them.. Furthermore war crimes check out the Lebenon Civil War for instance.. Or just recent things in general like http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/israel-gaza-war-crimes-guardian.. International law.. Lets go see their occupation of the West Bank is actually ILLEGALunder UN law.. http://www.thenation.com/article/israels-war-crimes I am sorry but there is a prime minister right now that if he ever wakes up from his coma will have his ass hauled in front of court for committing war crimes.. Yet again Israel still breaks the law in multiple ways, they should not be given protection by the United States.. That is my point.. That is why the rest of the security council would be ALL in favor of putting sanctions on Israel for their numerous violations in the past few decades.
And UN law?? :? UN is the bad guys. It consists of a majority of dictatorships. And has called Israel's existence racism. You think they're unbiased in this question? No I want to see international law itself not a bunch of racist organizations.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]The only solution I see is US pulling all support from the Israeli government until very strict demands are reached.. Until then they can enjoy no support from the US and no protection from the UN for war crimes, human rights violations etc etc.. IN the end of the day a solution will never be reached when the US is unquestioningly supporting a side that does not wish for there to be two states, that has little to no care for the consquences of extreme measures.. Israel is as much the aggressor as they are the victim, worse they have been protected by the West from the beginning and have been given every advantage in the conflict.. The time has come to force their hand that they must cease the hardline policy they have been conducting for decades.ShadowMoses900
Nope I think the US needs to support Isreal because it's the only stable democracy in the middle east. And they are outnumbered and just fighting back for their self defense. People who don't see this are anti semites.
ahahahahahaha
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Sunfyre7896"]
The only shortcut possible would be to take all of the Palestinians and find them some uninhabited island big enough to live on. Other than that, there is no peace because the Palestinians, like many other Arab nations, hate the Jews and Israel and want to see them burned asunder. It's sad really, because the Jews are the only real democracy in the region, like the OP said.
Cow4ever
Too bad the OP is wrong and simply does not know what he's talking about.
Says the guy who though Jordan was a democracy. its never quite as simple as "they all hate us" or "they all want peace" as some people try to characterize it. Ive seen enough protests in the Arab world where the most uttered phrase was "Itbach Al Yahud" and "Khaybar Khaybar ya Yahud" , essentially meaning "slaughter the Jews" and the other refering the the Battle of Khaybar" at the same time, I have no idea how much of the population in the Arab world holds this view, for all I know, it could be a minority, no different than seeing a group of neo nazis in Europe or the US shouting racist things.Compared to Palestine they do have more international support if we are talking about superpowers and trying to push their particular agenda in the international community.[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="Cow4ever"] All the territories? no. Control the policies? don't know what that means... Control the military power? Relative to the Palestinians obviously but not relative to the middle east. International support? You got to be kidding me. Do you even know what a UN resolution is? There is a, now defunct, UN resolution pretty much saying Israel's very existence is racism :?ShadowMoses900
Palestinians don't have a country so why would they be in the UN? It's Israel now and that's how it should be...
They are a nation.[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="worlock77"]Says the guy who though Jordan was a democracy. its never quite as simple as "they all hate us" or "they all want peace" as some people try to characterize it. Ive seen enough protests in the Arab world where the most uttered phrase was "Itbach Al Yahud" and "Khaybar Khaybar ya Yahud" , essentially meaning "slaughter the Jews" and the other refering the the Battle of Khaybar" at the same time, I have no idea how much of the population in the Arab world holds this view, for all I know, it could be a minority, no different than seeing a group of neo nazis in Europe or the US shouting racist things. I agree. One thing though. Israel is full of lefty antizionists and right ultrazionists. WB and Gaza is full of ultraislamists and moderates which are basically anti-zionists. My point is in Israel there is more diversity in this aspect.Too bad the OP is wrong and simply does not know what he's talking about.
Darkman2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Just going to leave this here
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Cow4ever"] Nope. Not close, when have they ever wanted to "give up"(how can you give up something you don't have) almost all of East Jerusalem?? Not even close. And about Lieberman that has actually nothing to do with what I said. Except the part about he isn't willing to give up land, why do you think that?Cow4ever
Like it or not, East Jerusalem is occupied territory under international law. They have no legal claim to that land. You can't show me one legal organization of international standing that has ruled otherwise. Israel might not like it, but that is the reality. Even the US, Israel's greatest (and one of its last few) ally sees it as occupied territory, which is why the US embassy is in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem.
As for when exactly the PLO conceded virtually all of East Jerusalem, here you go:
"Qurei:This last proposition could help in the swap process. We proposed that Israel annexes all settlements in Jerusalem except Jabal Abu Ghneim (Har Homa)."
http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122112512844113.html
Show me this law.Yes they have legal claim to that land, they where attacked from it YOINK! If you attack a country from a territory (which you occupied and of which you have destroyed all the synagogues, razed the Jewish quarter and expelled all the Jews) you can't be expected to get it back. The US does recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Haven't heard about the Jerusalem Embassy Act? And Israel is getting more and more allies. Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania and Malta are getting much closer to Israel now. If this really is true then it is the most generous proposal from the PLO so far. But still you are again distorting facts. East Jerusalem is majority arab town so giving up all the Jewish "settlements" isn't close to "virtually all". And Har Homa is pretty much the biggest Jewish "settlement" in Jerusalem. In any case you can't say this is a concession. It's Israeli territory, Israel can concede it, they can receive it. Not the other way around.If Israel has a legal claim to the land then why hasn't one International court affirmed this? You can't show me one legal body of international standing that has ruled that these territories are a part of Israel. The law couldn't be more clearer on this matter. Per UN resolution 2625, "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or the use of force shall be recognized as legal." Yes, Israel was attacked, but that doesn't justify anything as far the law is concerned. It is illegal to acquire territory through force.
As for the Jerusalem Embassy Act - it was passed in 1995. The US embassy was suppose to be moved to Jerusalem no later than 1999, per the act. It's now 2011. No president has actually implemented the law. The US embassy remains in Tel Aviv.
And to allow for the annexation for almost all of the settlements in East Jerusalem for absolutely nothing in return is a huge concenssion.
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]The only solution I see is US pulling all support from the Israeli government until very strict demands are reached.. Until then they can enjoy no support from the US and no protection from the UN for war crimes, human rights violations etc etc.. IN the end of the day a solution will never be reached when the US is unquestioningly supporting a side that does not wish for there to be two states, that has little to no care for the consquences of extreme measures.. Israel is as much the aggressor as they are the victim, worse they have been protected by the West from the beginning and have been given every advantage in the conflict.. The time has come to force their hand that they must cease the hardline policy they have been conducting for decades.SAGE_OF_FIRE
Nope I think the US needs to support Isreal because it's the only stable democracy in the middle east. And they are outnumbered and just fighting back for their self defense. People who don't see this are anti semites.
ahahahahahaha
the whole topic of wheter criticism of Israel is Anti semitism , is complex, and never easy. most people who have criticism of Israel are not Anti Jewish , they might sometimes be uninformed or get their facts wrong, but I do not think they hate Jews in any way. on the other hand, there are people who will try to hide their hatred of Jews simply by being hateful to Israel and its people, or try to excuse hatred of Jews due to Israel. take David Duke for instance, the former leader of the KKK, he says he is anti zionist , but read the stuff he says, and its pretty obvious what his real agenda is. likewise, its not coincidnece that anytime something happens in the Middle East, attacks on Jews (particularly in Europe) rise (its statistics) , Ive seen synagouges vandalised in Europe, the attackers usually leave some sort of extreme Anti Israel message on the wall , in those cases, its obvious what the real motive is. and the funny part is, Ive actually heard some Pro palestinian activists say that Jews should criticise Israel more and thus avoid attack , again , I belive that is racist, as one should not be attacked due to his religion/ethnicity or what he thinks, unless he is causing direct harm to someone else. so its never quite as simple as yes or no (as some critics on either side of the argument would have anybody believe) .[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Sunfyre7896"]
The only shortcut possible would be to take all of the Palestinians and find them some uninhabited island big enough to live on. Other than that, there is no peace because the Palestinians, like many other Arab nations, hate the Jews and Israel and want to see them burned asunder. It's sad really, because the Jews are the only real democracy in the region, like the OP said.
Cow4ever
Too bad the OP is wrong and simply does not know what he's talking about.
Says the guy who though Jordan was a democracy.And it is. You can't say it's not simply because the fact is inconvenient to your argument.
its never quite as simple as "they all hate us" or "they all want peace" as some people try to characterize it. Ive seen enough protests in the Arab world where the most uttered phrase was "Itbach Al Yahud" and "Khaybar Khaybar ya Yahud" , essentially meaning "slaughter the Jews" and the other refering the the Battle of Khaybar" at the same time, I have no idea how much of the population in the Arab world holds this view, for all I know, it could be a minority, no different than seeing a group of neo nazis in Europe or the US shouting racist things. I agree. One thing though. Israel is full of lefty antizionists and right ultrazionists. WB and Gaza is full of ultraislamists and moderates which are basically anti-zionists. My point is in Israel there is more diversity in this aspect. the problem is that the far right has too much influence, they are not a majority, but yet can be kingmakers literally. of course that is a product of Israel political system , which in my opinion is flawed since it gives too much power to small parties with limited agendas, I would favour a an approach more like the UK , where there is less chance for small parties to get into parliament. of course that would also mean the Arabs would have less seats in the Knesset unless they form some sort of coalition into a single party , but thats up to them to decide. at the same time, Im not a big fan of the far left in Israel either.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Cow4ever"] Says the guy who though Jordan was a democracy.Cow4ever
Show me this law.Yes they have legal claim to that land, they where attacked from it YOINK! If you attack a country from a territory (which you occupied and of which you have destroyed all the synagogues, razed the Jewish quarter and expelled all the Jews) you can't be expected to get it back. The US does recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Haven't heard about the Jerusalem Embassy Act? And Israel is getting more and more allies. Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania and Malta are getting much closer to Israel now. If this really is true then it is the most generous proposal from the PLO so far. But still you are again distorting facts. East Jerusalem is majority arab town so giving up all the Jewish "settlements" isn't close to "virtually all". And Har Homa is pretty much the biggest Jewish "settlement" in Jerusalem. In any case you can't say this is a concession. It's Israeli territory, Israel can concede it, they can receive it. Not the other way around.[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
Like it or not, East Jerusalem is occupied territory under international law. They have no legal claim to that land. You can't show me one legal organization of international standing that has ruled otherwise. Israel might not like it, but that is the reality. Even the US, Israel's greatest (and one of its last few) ally sees it as occupied territory, which is why the US embassy is in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem.
As for when exactly the PLO conceded virtually all of East Jerusalem, here you go:
"Qurei:This last proposition could help in the swap process. We proposed that Israel annexes all settlements in Jerusalem except Jabal Abu Ghneim (Har Homa)."
http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122112512844113.html
-Sun_Tzu-
If Israel has a legal claim to the land then why hasn't one International court affirmed this? You can't show me one legal body of international standing that has ruled that these territories are a part of Israel. The law couldn't be more clearer on this matter. Per UN resolution 2625, "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or the use of force shall be recognized as legal." Yes, Israel was attacked, but that doesn't justify anything as far the law is concerned. It is illegal to acquire territory through force.
As for the Jerusalem Embassy Act - it was passed in 1995. The US embassy was suppose to be moved to Jerusalem no later than 1999, per the act. It's now 2011. No president has actually implemented the law. The US embassy remains in Tel Aviv.
And to allow for the annexation for almost all of the settlements in East Jerusalem for absolutely nothing in return is a huge concenssion.
International courts?? Didn't I just say this? They are clearly biased. Let's talk about something that isn't, international law itself. Show me where Israel breakes international law. YOU not some racist guy in some racist organization. And in addition do you really care about international law? I mean it good it exists but in a discussion like this I am more interested in your view not someone else's. Nevertheless I haven't seen any of these supposed laws. I see your UN resolution. Well first of all the UN is a big piece of **** But one thing is that the UNGA resolutions aren't legally binding according to the UN itself. I want more like geneva conventions, hague conventions. The actual LAW. Not interpretations by racist corrupt united dictatorships. Right but US nevertheless recognize Jerusalem as Israel's Capital. As does South Sudan and a bunch of other nations if I'm not mistaken. Israel's embassy to Georgia is in Yerevan. Does that mean Israel recognize Yerevan as Georgia's capital? Nothing in return? How about almost all of the West Bank and Gaza?? Anyway I'm sure Israel would accept these offers. At least Israel's previous government. How do we know this is true? It's from Al Jazeera afterall.Says the guy who though Jordan was a democracy.[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
Too bad the OP is wrong and simply does not know what he's talking about.
worlock77
And it is. You can't say it's not simply because the fact is inconvenient to your argument.
saying Jordan is a democracy is pretty funny, its a constitutional monarchy, except for the fact that the king has much more power than in a place like the UK. its democracy within the red lines, thats really about it. what exactly made you think its a democracy?Says the guy who though Jordan was a democracy.[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
Too bad the OP is wrong and simply does not know what he's talking about.
worlock77
And it is. You can't say it's not simply because the fact is inconvenient to your argument.
The King controls the Army and is the executive. Doesn't sound very democratic to me. He signs, executes, and vetoes all laws. The king may also suspend or dissolve parliament, and shorten or lengthen the term of session. He appoints and may dismiss all judges by decree, approves amendments to the constitution, declares war, and commands the armed forces. Cabinet decisions, court judgments. And only this year was an elected cabinet allowed. Yup some real democracy there. It does have democratic elements, just like North Korea.Copy from wiki btw
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="Cow4ever"] They aren't head of state. But yes I think it's not very democratic but certanly much more so than Jordan where the King is the actual ruler.Cow4ever
Yes, they are. Queen Elizabeth is the Head of State of the United Kingdom. Yet it still has a democratic parlimentary system. Much like Jordan.
I guess I didn't knew the definition of head of state then. I just gonna copy from wiki "The reigning monarch [of Jordan] is the chief executive and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The king exercises his executive authority through the prime ministers and the Council of Ministers, or cabinet."Yeah, that's called a Constintutional Monarchy, Norway, Canada, Australia, Denmark, UK all fall into that catagory.
All current Constintutional Monarchies. Some are more democratic than others mind you.
(linky here as Glictch spot happend again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy#List_of_current_reigning_monarchies)
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Cow4ever"] Says the guy who though Jordan was a democracy.Darkman2007
And it is. You can't say it's not simply because the fact is inconvenient to your argument.
saying Jordan is a democracy is pretty funny, its a constitutional monarchy, except for the fact that the king has much more power than in a place like the UK. its democracy within the red lines, thats really about it. what exactly made you think its a democracy?The fact that the King is moving them towards a UK-style government. The fact that the King has aggressively persued policies to liberalize the country's media, economy, and government.
I guess I didn't knew the definition of head of state then. I just gonna copy from wiki "The reigning monarch [of Jordan] is the chief executive and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The king exercises his executive authority through the prime ministers and the Council of Ministers, or cabinet."[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
Yes, they are. Queen Elizabeth is the Head of State of the United Kingdom. Yet it still has a democratic parlimentary system. Much like Jordan.
lordreaven
Yeah, that's called a Constintutional Monarchy, Norway, Canada, Australia, Denmark, UK all fall into that catagory.
All current Constintutional Monarchies. Some are more democratic than others mind you.
(linky here as Glictch spot happend again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy#List_of_current_reigning_monarchies)
I know I live in a Constintutional Monarchy. But in my country the king has no power except ceremonial ones. In Jordan he controls the army and the law so it' is in no way a democracy. And even in my country I consider even a ceremonial king undemocratic.[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]Show me where Israel breakes international law. ohgodohman'The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.' - paragraph 6, article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention When did it transfer or deport its own population??
saying Jordan is a democracy is pretty funny, its a constitutional monarchy, except for the fact that the king has much more power than in a place like the UK. its democracy within the red lines, thats really about it. what exactly made you think its a democracy?[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
And it is. You can't say it's not simply because the fact is inconvenient to your argument.
worlock77
The fact that the King is moving them towards a UK-style government. The fact that the King has aggressively persued policies to liberalize the country's media, economy, and government.
Going that way doesn't mean it is a democracy as of now.[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] saying Jordan is a democracy is pretty funny, its a constitutional monarchy, except for the fact that the king has much more power than in a place like the UK. its democracy within the red lines, thats really about it. what exactly made you think its a democracy?Cow4ever
The fact that the King is moving them towards a UK-style government. The fact that the King has aggressively persued policies to liberalize the country's media, economy, and government.
Going that way doesn't mean it is a democracy as of now.It's certainly not the ruthless dictatorship than many want to paint iit as. At any rate they have a Parliment and a Prime Minister. And also, Jordan is an ally of Israel, though I suspect the TC is ignorant of this fact.
Going that way doesn't mean it is a democracy as of now.[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
The fact that the King is moving them towards a UK-style government. The fact that the King has aggressively persued policies to liberalize the country's media, economy, and government.
worlock77
It's certainly not the ruthless dictatorship than many want to paint iit as. At any rate they have a Parliment and a Prime Minister. And also, Jordan is an ally of Israel, though I suspect the TC is ignorant of this fact.
Well I didn't say they where ruthless but it's certainly a dictatorship. Countries like Iran and North Korea also have Parliament and Prime Minister. Not really an ally, just not openly hostile.[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="ohgodohman"]'The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.' - paragraph 6, article 49 of the Fourth Geneva ConventionohgodohmanWhen did it transfer or deport its own population?? What, that's what it's come to? You're just denying the existence of the settlements now? No but I am denying the existence of any transfer or deportation.
saying Jordan is a democracy is pretty funny, its a constitutional monarchy, except for the fact that the king has much more power than in a place like the UK. its democracy within the red lines, thats really about it. what exactly made you think its a democracy?[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
And it is. You can't say it's not simply because the fact is inconvenient to your argument.
lordreaven
The fact that the King is moving them towards a UK government. The fact that the King has aggressively persued policies to liberalize the country's media, economy, and government.
at the end of the day, its still democracy within the red lines, the media is still censored, the king can still veto laws (although his veto can be overruled if Parliament passes the law again with an overwhelming majority). freedom to protest is controlled etc.
heck , I could go even further and say the system is racist somewhat, since the monarchy and to an extent politics, are controlled mainly by the Hashemites, ie Beduins, despite the fact that a large percentage of Jordan's population is of Palestinian origins, but we won't go into that.
at the end of the day, its still exactly that, democracy within the red lines.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
[QUOTE="Cow4ever"] Show me this law.Yes they have legal claim to that land, they where attacked from it YOINK! If you attack a country from a territory (which you occupied and of which you have destroyed all the synagogues, razed the Jewish quarter and expelled all the Jews) you can't be expected to get it back. The US does recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Haven't heard about the Jerusalem Embassy Act? And Israel is getting more and more allies. Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania and Malta are getting much closer to Israel now. If this really is true then it is the most generous proposal from the PLO so far. But still you are again distorting facts. East Jerusalem is majority arab town so giving up all the Jewish "settlements" isn't close to "virtually all". And Har Homa is pretty much the biggest Jewish "settlement" in Jerusalem. In any case you can't say this is a concession. It's Israeli territory, Israel can concede it, they can receive it. Not the other way around.Cow4ever
If Israel has a legal claim to the land then why hasn't one International court affirmed this? You can't show me one legal body of international standing that has ruled that these territories are a part of Israel. The law couldn't be more clearer on this matter. Per UN resolution 2625, "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or the use of force shall be recognized as legal." Yes, Israel was attacked, but that doesn't justify anything as far the law is concerned. It is illegal to acquire territory through force.
As for the Jerusalem Embassy Act - it was passed in 1995. The US embassy was suppose to be moved to Jerusalem no later than 1999, per the act. It's now 2011. No president has actually implemented the law. The US embassy remains in Tel Aviv.
And to allow for the annexation for almost all of the settlements in East Jerusalem for absolutely nothing in return is a huge concenssion.
International courts?? Didn't I just say this? They are clearly biased. Let's talk about something that isn't, international law itself. Show me where Israel breakes international law. YOU not some racist guy in some racist organization. And in addition do you really care about international law? I mean it good it exists but in a discussion like this I am more interested in your view not someone else's. Nevertheless I haven't seen any of these supposed laws. I see your UN resolution. Well first of all the UN is a big piece of **** But one thing is that the UNGA resolutions aren't legally binding according to the UN itself. I want more like geneva conventions, hague conventions. The actual LAW. Not interpretations by racist corrupt united dictatorships. Right but US nevertheless recognize Jerusalem as Israel's Capital. As does South Sudan and a bunch of other nations if I'm not mistaken. Israel's embassy to Georgia is in Yerevan. Does that mean Israel recognize Yerevan as Georgia's capital? Nothing in return? How about almost all of the West Bank and Gaza?? Anyway I'm sure Israel would accept these offers. At least Israel's previous government. How do we know this is true? It's from Al Jazeera afterall. It's true because these were leaked documents straight from the negotiations, commonly referred to as the Palestine Papers. Al Jazeera merely published the documents.And before a discussion can be had terms have to be defined. International law is what defines these terms. And if UN resolutions aren't enough for you, section 3, article 42 of the Hague convention states "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." No distinction is made between land acuired in a war of aggression or in a defensive war. If a country acquires land through force, that land is occupied territory.
Even Israel considers the land occupied, at least privately. They even gave an order immediately after the war that the Geneva conventions apply (this was shortly rescinded).Theodor Meron, who was legal counsel for the Israeli government at the time, issued a memo to the Prime Minister stating that that the building of settlements on the territory in question is in clear violation of the fourth geneva convention.
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Cow4ever"] Going that way doesn't mean it is a democracy as of now.Cow4ever
It's certainly not the ruthless dictatorship than many want to paint iit as. At any rate they have a Parliment and a Prime Minister. And also, Jordan is an ally of Israel, though I suspect the TC is ignorant of this fact.
Well I didn't say they where ruthless but it's certainly a dictatorship. Countries like Iran and North Korea also have Parliament and Prime Minister. Not really an ally, just not openly hostile.It's as much of a democracy as the UK is. And they have diplomatic relations with Israel, including mutual embassies in ether country, open travel between the two, and a free trade zone between them. If that's not an ally I don't know what is.
International courts?? Didn't I just say this? They are clearly biased. Let's talk about something that isn't, international law itself. Show me where Israel breakes international law. YOU not some racist guy in some racist organization. And in addition do you really care about international law? I mean it good it exists but in a discussion like this I am more interested in your view not someone else's. Nevertheless I haven't seen any of these supposed laws. I see your UN resolution. Well first of all the UN is a big piece of **** But one thing is that the UNGA resolutions aren't legally binding according to the UN itself. I want more like geneva conventions, hague conventions. The actual LAW. Not interpretations by racist corrupt united dictatorships. Right but US nevertheless recognize Jerusalem as Israel's Capital. As does South Sudan and a bunch of other nations if I'm not mistaken. Israel's embassy to Georgia is in Yerevan. Does that mean Israel recognize Yerevan as Georgia's capital? Nothing in return? How about almost all of the West Bank and Gaza?? Anyway I'm sure Israel would accept these offers. At least Israel's previous government. How do we know this is true? It's from Al Jazeera afterall. It's true because these were leaked documents straight from the negotiations, commonly referred to as the Palestine Papers. Al Jazeera merely published the documents.[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
If Israel has a legal claim to the land then why hasn't one International court affirmed this? You can't show me one legal body of international standing that has ruled that these territories are a part of Israel. The law couldn't be more clearer on this matter. Per UN resolution 2625, "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or the use of force shall be recognized as legal." Yes, Israel was attacked, but that doesn't justify anything as far the law is concerned. It is illegal to acquire territory through force.
As for the Jerusalem Embassy Act - it was passed in 1995. The US embassy was suppose to be moved to Jerusalem no later than 1999, per the act. It's now 2011. No president has actually implemented the law. The US embassy remains in Tel Aviv.
And to allow for the annexation for almost all of the settlements in East Jerusalem for absolutely nothing in return is a huge concenssion.
-Sun_Tzu-
And before a discussion can be had terms have to be defined. International law is what defines these terms. And if UN resolutions aren't enough for you, section 3, article 42 of the Hague convention states "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." No distinction is made between land acuired in a war of aggression or in a defensive war. If a country acquires land through force, that land is occupied territory.
Even Israel considers the land occupied, at least privately. They even gave an order immediately after the war that the Geneva conventions apply (this was shortly rescinded).Theodor Meron, who was legal counsel for the Israeli government at the time, issued a memo to the Prime Minister stating that that the building of settlements on the territory in question is in clear violation of the fourth geneva convention.
tbh Im not too trusting of Al Jazeera simply out of the fact that after watching their English language news service, Ive noticed they are not particularly impatial , which becomes even more obvious when you realise where they are based and who funds them at least partially, ie the Emir of Qatar. at the same time, international law is international law, though I find it a little funny when people use international law against another , while breaking it themselves, and this applies to both sides here. though if you remember what Ben Gurion said about the UN . a saying which translates to "the UN? who cares" , shows what influence the UN has on the regionWell I didn't say they where ruthless but it's certainly a dictatorship. Countries like Iran and North Korea also have Parliament and Prime Minister. Not really an ally, just not openly hostile.[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
It's certainly not the ruthless dictatorship than many want to paint iit as. At any rate they have a Parliment and a Prime Minister. And also, Jordan is an ally of Israel, though I suspect the TC is ignorant of this fact.
worlock77
It's as much of a democracy as the UK is. And they have diplomatic relations with Israel, including mutual embassies in ether country, open travel between the two, and a free trade zone between them. If that's not an ally I don't know what is.
by that account, Syria is a democracy since President Assad was elected , just like the president of the US. of course this would be stupid , since in Syria, the only choice was Assad, and it was a simple , yes/no answer, and I can assure you nobody voted no. and those do not signifiy alliance, thats simple terms of the peace treaty. however, out of all the Arab countries, Joran is the one closest to Israel, there is no doubt about that, there is some military cooperation , and the Hashemites have relied on Israel before, even before the peace treaty.Well I didn't say they where ruthless but it's certainly a dictatorship. Countries like Iran and North Korea also have Parliament and Prime Minister. Not really an ally, just not openly hostile.[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
It's certainly not the ruthless dictatorship than many want to paint iit as. At any rate they have a Parliment and a Prime Minister. And also, Jordan is an ally of Israel, though I suspect the TC is ignorant of this fact.
worlock77
It's as much of a democracy as the UK is. And they have diplomatic relations with Israel, including mutual embassies in ether country, open travel between the two, and a free trade zone between them. If that's not an ally I don't know what is.
Didn't you read what we wrote above? And that's not really an alliance. It's diplomatic relations at best. Or else almost the whole world is in alliance.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]It's true because these were leaked documents straight from the negotiations, commonly referred to as the Palestine Papers. Al Jazeera merely published the documents.[QUOTE="Cow4ever"] International courts?? Didn't I just say this? They are clearly biased. Let's talk about something that isn't, international law itself. Show me where Israel breakes international law. YOU not some racist guy in some racist organization. And in addition do you really care about international law? I mean it good it exists but in a discussion like this I am more interested in your view not someone else's. Nevertheless I haven't seen any of these supposed laws. I see your UN resolution. Well first of all the UN is a big piece of **** But one thing is that the UNGA resolutions aren't legally binding according to the UN itself. I want more like geneva conventions, hague conventions. The actual LAW. Not interpretations by racist corrupt united dictatorships. Right but US nevertheless recognize Jerusalem as Israel's Capital. As does South Sudan and a bunch of other nations if I'm not mistaken. Israel's embassy to Georgia is in Yerevan. Does that mean Israel recognize Yerevan as Georgia's capital? Nothing in return? How about almost all of the West Bank and Gaza?? Anyway I'm sure Israel would accept these offers. At least Israel's previous government. How do we know this is true? It's from Al Jazeera afterall.
Darkman2007
And before a discussion can be had terms have to be defined. International law is what defines these terms. And if UN resolutions aren't enough for you, section 3, article 42 of the Hague convention states "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." No distinction is made between land acuired in a war of aggression or in a defensive war. If a country acquires land through force, that land is occupied territory.
Even Israel considers the land occupied, at least privately. They even gave an order immediately after the war that the Geneva conventions apply (this was shortly rescinded).Theodor Meron, who was legal counsel for the Israeli government at the time, issued a memo to the Prime Minister stating that that the building of settlements on the territory in question is in clear violation of the fourth geneva convention.
tbh Im not too trusting of Al Jazeera simply out of the fact that after watching their English language news service, Ive noticed they are not particularly impatial , which becomes even more obvious when you realise where they are based and who funds them at least partially, ie the Emir of Qatar. at the same time, international law is international law, though I find it a little funny when people use international law against another , while breaking it themselves, and this applies to both sides here. though if you remember what Ben Gurion said about the UN . a saying which translates to "the UN? who cares" , shows what influence the UN has on the region Al Jazeera has its problems, but the Qatar government really doesn't (or at least didn't) have much influence over the company, although I think just last week the head of Al Jazeera who was responsible for the quality reporting that Al Jazeera has become known for was replaced with a member of the royal family. But in this case Al Jazeera merely published leaked documents that they received - similar to the wikileaks documents.tbh Im not too trusting of Al Jazeera simply out of the fact that after watching their English language news service, Ive noticed they are not particularly impatial , which becomes even more obvious when you realise where they are based and who funds them at least partially, ie the Emir of Qatar. at the same time, international law is international law, though I find it a little funny when people use international law against another , while breaking it themselves, and this applies to both sides here. though if you remember what Ben Gurion said about the UN . a saying which translates to "the UN? who cares" , shows what influence the UN has on the region Al Jazeera has its problems, but the Qatar government really doesn't (or at least didn't) have much influence over the company, although I think just last week the head of Al Jazeera who was responsible for the quality reporting that Al Jazeera has become known for was replaced with a member of the royal family. But in this case Al Jazeera merely published leaked documents that they received - similar to the wikileaks documents. the documents could very well be true (although they could be fake as well) , though in all honesty, I really do have a hard time thinking the Palestinians would be willing to negotiate away most of East Jerusalem, just like I personally would not be happy to give any of it. though I suppose that they can be flexible about the matter, just like I can be. frankly the Jewish quarter (including the western wall) will remain part of Israel no matter what, its the other parts of Jerusalem where flexibility would be allowed.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] It's true because these were leaked documents straight from the negotiations, commonly referred to as the Palestine Papers. Al Jazeera merely published the documents.
And before a discussion can be had terms have to be defined. International law is what defines these terms. And if UN resolutions aren't enough for you, section 3, article 42 of the Hague convention states "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." No distinction is made between land acuired in a war of aggression or in a defensive war. If a country acquires land through force, that land is occupied territory.
Even Israel considers the land occupied, at least privately. They even gave an order immediately after the war that the Geneva conventions apply (this was shortly rescinded).Theodor Meron, who was legal counsel for the Israeli government at the time, issued a memo to the Prime Minister stating that that the building of settlements on the territory in question is in clear violation of the fourth geneva convention.
-Sun_Tzu-
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Cow4ever"] Well I didn't say they where ruthless but it's certainly a dictatorship. Countries like Iran and North Korea also have Parliament and Prime Minister. Not really an ally, just not openly hostile.Darkman2007
It's as much of a democracy as the UK is. And they have diplomatic relations with Israel, including mutual embassies in ether country, open travel between the two, and a free trade zone between them. If that's not an ally I don't know what is.
by that account, Syria is a democracy since President Assad was elected , just like the president of the US. of course this would be stupid , since in Syria, the only choice was Assad, and it was a simple , yes/no answer, and I can assure you nobody voted no. and those do not signifiy alliance, thats simple terms of the peace treaty. however, out of all the Arab countries, Joran is the one closest to Israel, there is no doubt about that, there is some military cooperation , and the Hashemites have relied on Israel before, even before the peace treaty.I can't comment on Syria's government. Admittedly I know little about it. But we consider the United Kingdom a democracy, yet the Monarch retains the power to refuse to sign bills passed by Parilement into law. The Monarch has the power to dismiss and appoint the Prime Minster, to dismiss members of Parliment, to dissolve the Parliment itself. The Monarch commands the armed forces, has the power to declare war, the power to make treaties with other nations, to issue and revoke passports, and the power to create corporations.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment