The Protocols of the Elders Of Zion is fact tho.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
The Protocols of the Elders Of Zion is fact tho.[/quote]
I am of the understanding “The Protocols” are a literary fraud and plagiarism with much of the context coming from a woman name Joly that was attacking Napoleon. Weren’t these protocols written in Russia in the early 1900’s?
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Sikkario wrote:
The Protocols of the Elders Of Zion is fact tho.
I am of the understanding “The Protocols” are a literary fraud and plagiarism with much of the context coming from a woman name Joly that was attacking Napoleon. Weren’t these protocols written in Russia in the early 1900’s?
[/quote]
Correct, Pete, except in one detail: the original author was a man, Maurice Joly, a French satirist deriding Napoleon III.
It is also true, and verifiable, that Sikkario remains an imbecile.
Now for another fact, the actual text of Resolution 242:
[i]
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
-
Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; -
Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; -
Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
-
Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
[/i]
You will notice that the (1) acquisition of territory by force is “inadmissible,” and apparently has never been used against any other state “in the area” but Israel and (2) Section 1.i. says “territories” not “the territories” or “all territories,” versions which were debated and explicitly rejected by the Security Council.
Israel was agreeable to 242, and eagerly awaited the Arab nations to agree to the remainder of 242. It is known that, in June, 1967, the Israel cabinet was “waiting for the phone to ring,” and surprised that no Arab government called to arrange the details.
The alternative–the three “no’s” from the Arab League–dominated events until 1973.
You will notice, Pete, that Israel has withdrawn from “territories,” just not “all territories.”
So, complain that the withdrawal must be complete if you would, but then also complain that, with the grudging exception of Egypt and perhaps Jordan, the Arab states have not fulfilled the explicit obligation of Section 2, including, “the just settlement of the refugee problem,” a horrifying piece of international blackmail perpetrated by their Arab brothers since 1948. (Yes, my friend, UNRWA is supported financially by many nations, including Israel, but not by Arab nations’ funds.)
In an earlier post, Pete, you list the dreary recitation of the resolutions of the UN General Assembly. What this says about Israel is nothing; but what it says about the spineless organization’s members, who whether bought-off or coerced, can not hurry fast enough in their one-sided condemnation of everyone’s favorite little nation to hate. THere is no consequence to voting against Israel in the UN. Can we say the same about China, or Iran, or Libya, or Sudan…
Last, Pete, I ask that you re-examine the question of Gaza’s “occupation.” It isnot in control of its borders–Egypt and Israel are–but there is no military occupation, and no civil administration there–it was ceded to the Palestinian Authority, legally, on Israel’s withdrawal. How can Israel be continuously responsible for it’s poor inhabitants, when authority lapsed to this band of thugs known as Hamas. Whether they are legitimate, or the PA in Ramallah is, seems a question for Fatah to work out. You cannot have it both ways: both Israel out and Israel in to provide everything.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Now for another fact, the actual text of Resolution 242:
[i]
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
- Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; - Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; - Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
- Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
[/i]
You will notice that the (1) acquisition of territory by force is “inadmissible,” and apparently has never been used against any other state “in the area” but Israel and (2) Section 1.i. says “territories” not “the territories” or “all territories,” versions which were debated and explicitly rejected by the Security Council.
Israel was agreeable to 242, and eagerly awaited the Arab nations to agree to the remainder of 242. It is known that, in June, 1967, the Israel cabinet was “waiting for the phone to ring,” and surprised that no Arab government called to arrange the details.
The alternative–the three “no’s” from the Arab League–dominated events until 1973.
You will notice, Pete, that Israel has withdrawn from “territories,” just not “all territories.” So, complain that the withdrawal must be complete if you would, but then also complain that, with the grudging exception of Egypt and perhaps Jordan, the Arab states have not fulfilled the explicit obligation of Section 2, including, “the just settlement of the refugee problem,” a horrifying piece of international blackmail perpetrated by their Arab brothers since 1948. (Yes, my friend, UNRWA is supported financially by many nations, including Israel, but not by Arab nations’ funds.)
In an earlier post, Pete, you list the dreary recitation of the resolutions of the UN General Assembly. What this says about Israel is nothing; but what it says about the spineless organization’s members, who whether bought-off or coerced, can not hurry fast enough in their one-sided condemnation of everyone’s favorite little nation to hate. THere is no consequence to voting against Israel in the UN. Can we say the same about China, or Iran, or Libya, or Sudan…
Last, Pete, I ask that you re-examine the question of Gaza’s “occupation.” It isnot in control of its borders–Egypt and Israel are–but there is no military occupation, and no civil administration there–it was ceded to the Palestinian Authority, legally, on Israel’s withdrawal. How can Israel be continuously responsible for it’s poor inhabitants, when authority lapsed to this band of thugs known as Hamas. Whether they are legitimate, or the PA in Ramallah is, seems a question for Fatah to work out. You cannot have it both ways: both Israel out and Israel in to provide everything.[/quote]
How is this inadmissible? It was an adopted sanction. It was adopted by the UN, a group which many claim as a Muslim based organization with Muslim swinging votes, yet this same group agreed to the invasion of Iraq by the US?
The UN is pro Muslim or not?
[quote]
In an earlier post, Pete, you list the dreary recitation of the resolutions of the UN General Assembly. What this says about Israel is nothing; but what it says about the spineless organization’s members, who whether bought-off or coerced, can not hurry fast enough in their one-sided condemnation of everyone’s favorite little nation to hate. THere is no consequence to voting against Israel in the UN. Can we say the same about China, or Iran, or Libya, or Sudan…[/quote]
Not sure how you can argue the UN is a lopsided group bent on Muslim domination when this same group agreed to allow the US to attack, invade, and take over Iraq…a Muslim nation. Wouldn’t they vote against such an act if they were truly biased? Wasn’t the UN created by the US around 50 years ago? Why would the US create such a biased entity?
[quote]
Last, Pete, I ask that you re-examine the question of Gaza’s “occupation.” It is not in control of its borders–Egypt and Israel are–but there is no military occupation, and no civil administration there–it was ceded to the Palestinian Authority, legally, on Israel’s withdrawal. How can Israel be continuously responsible for it’s poor inhabitants, when authority lapsed to this band of thugs known as Hamas. Whether they are legitimate, or the PA in Ramallah is, seems a question for Fatah to work out. You cannot have it both ways: both Israel out and Israel in to provide everything.[/quote]
I know Israel is in charge of Gaza’a borders…I do not see this as a good thing. How can I discount the videos I see of reporters (for other countries) showing the tanks driving around Gaza? How can I tell people that give me first hand experience recounts of check points, and military occupation by Israel? Tell them they were tripping? They imagined it? And what about the videos of the occupation? Am I to assume there is no Israeli military in Gaza to spite what I am told and see?
What Israel is doing to people is wrong. Those people are fighting using guerrilla warfare because it is all they have. I know the background of this country and i know we used tactics that would have deemed the same if done in modern society, so I cannot condemn an oppressed society for their tactics against Israel. To do so would be holding a double standard of biblical proportions.
I would have to sway my opinion if Israel stopped the check points, the military occupations, stopped attacking, and actually got attacked without provocation. Perhaps this has happened, but I am not aware of it and all I see is an oppressed people fighting for life.
Lastly, I ask is George Galloway insane as well?
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Now for another fact, the actual text of Resolution 242:
[i]
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
- Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; - Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; - Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
- Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
[/i]
You will notice that the (1) acquisition of territory by force is “inadmissible,” and apparently has never been used against any other state “in the area” but Israel and (2) Section 1.i. says “territories” not “the territories” or “all territories,” versions which were debated and explicitly rejected by the Security Council.
Israel was agreeable to 242, and eagerly awaited the Arab nations to agree to the remainder of 242. It is known that, in June, 1967, the Israel cabinet was “waiting for the phone to ring,” and surprised that no Arab government called to arrange the details.
The alternative–the three “no’s” from the Arab League–dominated events until 1973.
You will notice, Pete, that Israel has withdrawn from “territories,” just not “all territories.” So, complain that the withdrawal must be complete if you would, but then also complain that, with the grudging exception of Egypt and perhaps Jordan, the Arab states have not fulfilled the explicit obligation of Section 2, including, “the just settlement of the refugee problem,” a horrifying piece of international blackmail perpetrated by their Arab brothers since 1948. (Yes, my friend, UNRWA is supported financially by many nations, including Israel, but not by Arab nations’ funds.)
In an earlier post, Pete, you list the dreary recitation of the resolutions of the UN General Assembly. What this says about Israel is nothing; but what it says about the spineless organization’s members, who whether bought-off or coerced, can not hurry fast enough in their one-sided condemnation of everyone’s favorite little nation to hate. THere is no consequence to voting against Israel in the UN. Can we say the same about China, or Iran, or Libya, or Sudan…
Last, Pete, I ask that you re-examine the question of Gaza’s “occupation.” It isnot in control of its borders–Egypt and Israel are–but there is no military occupation, and no civil administration there–it was ceded to the Palestinian Authority, legally, on Israel’s withdrawal. How can Israel be continuously responsible for it’s poor inhabitants, when authority lapsed to this band of thugs known as Hamas. Whether they are legitimate, or the PA in Ramallah is, seems a question for Fatah to work out. You cannot have it both ways: both Israel out and Israel in to provide everything.
You will notice that the (1) acquisition of territory by force is “inadmissible,” and apparently has never been used against any other state “in the area” but Israel and (2) Section 1.i. says “territories” not “the territories” or “all territories,” versions which were debated and explicitly rejected by the Security Council.
How is this inadmissible? It was an adopted sanction. It was adopted by the UN, a group which many claim as a Muslim based organization with Muslim swinging votes, yet this same group agreed to the invasion of Iraq by the US?
The UN is pro Muslim or not?
In an earlier post, Pete, you list the dreary recitation of the resolutions of the UN General Assembly. What this says about Israel is nothing; but what it says about the spineless organization’s members, who whether bought-off or coerced, can not hurry fast enough in their one-sided condemnation of everyone’s favorite little nation to hate. THere is no consequence to voting against Israel in the UN. Can we say the same about China, or Iran, or Libya, or Sudan…
Not sure how you can argue the UN is a lopsided group bent on Muslim domination when this same group agreed to allow the US to attack, invade, and take over Iraq…a Muslim nation. Wouldn’t they vote against such an act if they were truly biased? Wasn’t the UN created by the US around 50 years ago? Why would the US create such a biased entity?
Last, Pete, I ask that you re-examine the question of Gaza’s “occupation.” It is not in control of its borders–Egypt and Israel are–but there is no military occupation, and no civil administration there–it was ceded to the Palestinian Authority, legally, on Israel’s withdrawal. How can Israel be continuously responsible for it’s poor inhabitants, when authority lapsed to this band of thugs known as Hamas. Whether they are legitimate, or the PA in Ramallah is, seems a question for Fatah to work out. You cannot have it both ways: both Israel out and Israel in to provide everything.
I know Israel is in charge of Gaza’a borders…I do not see this as a good thing. How can I discount the videos I see of reporters (for other countries) showing the tanks driving around Gaza? How can I tell people that give me first hand experience recounts of check points, and military occupation by Israel? Tell them they were tripping? They imagined it? And what about the videos of the occupation? Am I to assume there is no Israeli military in Gaza to spite what I am told and see?
What Israel is doing to people is wrong. Those people are fighting using guerrilla warfare because it is all they have. I know the background of this country and i know we used tactics that would have deemed the same if done in modern society, so I cannot condemn an oppressed society for their tactics against Israel. To do so would be holding a double standard of biblical proportions.
I would have to sway my opinion if Israel stopped the check points, the military occupations, stopped attacking, and actually got attacked without provocation. Perhaps this has happened, but I am not aware of it and all I see is an oppressed people fighting for life.
Lastly, I ask is George Galloway insane as well?
[/quote]
Your comments on the UN are out of context, but if you must, yes, when Iraq invaded another Muslim nation, force was sanctioned. The remainder of your comment I will leave adrift…
It is clear your views are fixed. But there is fact, and the fact is there is no continuing Israeli occupation in Gaza. If you see tanks, it is a police measure against the indiscriminate launching of rockets. They are purposefully not staying as an occupation force.
George Galloway?
Why do you choose this whackjob as an engine of probity?
Goodbye, Pete, read some real books, and not the propaganda that comes to the true naif.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
What laws were broken when Israel took back Israel?
The Geneva Conventions and other international tractates recognize that land a) conquered in the course of a war; and b) the disposition of which is unresolved through subsequent peace treaties is “occupied” and subject to international laws of war and international humanitarian law. This includes special protection of individuals in those territories, limitations on the use of land in those territories, and access by international relief agencies.
*The West Bank and Gaza are “occupied,” because:
* They were captured by force of arms and against the will of their populations.
* The residents in these areas were stateless.
* Israel has put the territories under military rather than civilian administration, creating a de facto state of occupation.
- Non-Jewish residents who reject Israeli citizenship and/or hegemony have the right to self-determination.
UN resolution 242 calls for Israel to withdraw and states it is an illegal occupation.
I have nothing against Jewish people. [/quote]
The west bank was given back - as was gaza.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Sikkario wrote:
The Protocols of the Elders Of Zion is fact tho.
I am of the understanding “The Protocols” are a literary fraud and plagiarism with much of the context coming from a woman name Joly that was attacking Napoleon. Weren’t these protocols written in Russia in the early 1900’s?
Correct, Pete, except in one detail: the original author was a man, Maurice Joly, a French satirist deriding Napoleon III.
It is also true, and verifiable, that Sikkario remains an imbecile.
Now for another fact, the actual text of Resolution 242:
[i]
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
- Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; - Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; - Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
- Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
[/i]
You will notice that the (1) acquisition of territory by force is “inadmissible,” and apparently has never been used against any other state “in the area” but Israel and (2) Section 1.i. says “territories” not “the territories” or “all territories,” versions which were debated and explicitly rejected by the Security Council.
Israel was agreeable to 242, and eagerly awaited the Arab nations to agree to the remainder of 242. It is known that, in June, 1967, the Israel cabinet was “waiting for the phone to ring,” and surprised that no Arab government called to arrange the details.
The alternative–the three “no’s” from the Arab League–dominated events until 1973.
You will notice, Pete, that Israel has withdrawn from “territories,” just not “all territories.” So, complain that the withdrawal must be complete if you would, but then also complain that, with the grudging exception of Egypt and perhaps Jordan, the Arab states have not fulfilled the explicit obligation of Section 2, including, “the just settlement of the refugee problem,” a horrifying piece of international blackmail perpetrated by their Arab brothers since 1948. (Yes, my friend, UNRWA is supported financially by many nations, including Israel, but not by Arab nations’ funds.)
In an earlier post, Pete, you list the dreary recitation of the resolutions of the UN General Assembly. What this says about Israel is nothing; but what it says about the spineless organization’s members, who whether bought-off or coerced, can not hurry fast enough in their one-sided condemnation of everyone’s favorite little nation to hate. THere is no consequence to voting against Israel in the UN. Can we say the same about China, or Iran, or Libya, or Sudan…
Last, Pete, I ask that you re-examine the question of Gaza’s “occupation.” It isnot in control of its borders–Egypt and Israel are–but there is no military occupation, and no civil administration there–it was ceded to the Palestinian Authority, legally, on Israel’s withdrawal. How can Israel be continuously responsible for it’s poor inhabitants, when authority lapsed to this band of thugs known as Hamas. Whether they are legitimate, or the PA in Ramallah is, seems a question for Fatah to work out. You cannot have it both ways: both Israel out and Israel in to provide everything.[/quote]
Damn good post.