Jerusalem

Back to your beer mug, my friend. And please, do not strain your brain?

 

In a strange way you are right, cow poop helped people get in touch with the higher power.

 

Egyptian troops were busy fighting in Yemen in 1967 when Israel attack Egypt.

 

Egyptian forces were massed on the Israeli border, thanks to a Soviet lie that Israel had attacked Syria. Looks like the USSR wanted a war.

- - - Updated - - -

sorry, but the UNSC never passed its own version of UNGA 181, and ONLY UNSC resolutions are legally binding upon its members.

as for the Occupation, its perfectly legal.

what is not legal, are the settlements.

 

According to Moshe Dayan so did Israel.

 

Arabs would rather have the Israelis deal with the Palestinians than themselves. They don't even consider them to be Arabs. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...gedy-of-the-palestinian-diaspora-1806790.html http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/p/all-arab-countries-except-jordan.html

 

181 was a REQUEST that the security council " take the necessary measures" because such measures are "necessary" to implement a "PLAN"

"Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
Requests that

(a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;..."


They never did.

"(b) The Security Council consider, if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace. If it decides that such a threat exists, and in order to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council should supplement the authorization of the General Assembly by taking measures, under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, to empower the United Nations Commission, as provided in this resolution, to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by this resolution;"

The UN was never "empower"ed to perform any such function because the mere "plan" stated in 181 was never implemented.

 

It is weird but the middle position is the most dangerous these days.

 

Thanks but I really don't consider myself an "expert" in anything.

Like most people, my opinions are largely formed by my experiences.

 

It didn't have to-- as I said.

You are mistaken. Occupations can only be temporary. Israel's has long overstayed its ' legitimate ' case. You can argue that international law does not define any durations- but any court would view the situation and strike your argument down.
That case is coming- so you'll be able to witness it.

Correct- and it is therefore criminal to support them.

 

there is no international law stating that Occupations have a time limit to be legal.

as is there no international law stating that UNGA resolutions are legally binding upon the members.

I win.

 

I agree with you that Israel must stop occupying Palestinians and mistreating them, but your signature "Zionism is criminal by default" is illogical and just plain wrong. Zionism is the idea that Jewish people have their own State. As long as you Arabs refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state and continue to bury your heads in the sand like an ostrich, you will never progress. Arab dictators use the issue of "Zionism" to divert their own population from their misdeeds and totalitarian rule.

 

Zionism was of course the idea that Jewish people could have a state and many places were suggested before Zionists decided that that state would be in an area already occupied by other people. Of course there is now a State called Israel in 2/3rd of the area of Palestine. Neo Zionists now want to take the rest. I think he has a decent argument.

I could be wrong but I don't think moon is an arab. The State of Israel has already been accepted. It is up to Israel to decide what she wises to call herself. Around 20% or more of Israel are not Jews. However this has nothing to do with the Palestinians getting their state in 22% of their ancient Homeland - even now Trump is accepting a one state solution, I am sure I heard Netanyahu still wanting the Palestinians to accept it as a Jewish state - makes it easier to ethnic cleanse the rest eh?

 

It's a messy history, but Jews were legally purchasing land the Arabs sold them, and in 1948 had accumulated enough land of their own to declare a Jewish State. The Arabs made the mistake of attacking Israel at that time. Had they accepted Israel, Palestinians would have not become refugees and would still have at least 1/2 of the area. Even now only a handful of Arab states accept Israel (Egypt and Jordan). The land of Palestine was historically the Jewish homeland, it only makes sense a Jewish state be established there rather than say Uganda or Germany. It's true that the Israeli right-wing are a huge impediment to a 2 state solution; but I don't see any problem with Zionism itself the idea that Jews should have a state in the land of Palestine (Judea)

Like I said only Egypt and Jordan have accepted Israel. The rest of the Arab states haven't. Among the broader Muslim world Turkey is the only other major country that accepts Israel. Iran and Pakistan do not recognize Israel to this day.

The implementation of Zionism would obviously require a partition of Palestine; a partition the Arabs rejected and turned out to be a huge blunder for them, especially since they attacked the nascent state in 1948. The concept of Partition (Arabs move out of Israel and go into the Arab territory, and Jews leave the Arab territory to settle in Israel) had a perfect precedent in the partition of India among Hindus and Muslims (resulting in the creation of Pakistan). Muslims were the ones who pushed for the partition of India in 1947, yet they opposed the partition of Palestine and denied Jews the same right they demanded for themselves in India.

There were many Jews living in Palestine long before the Zionist movement started with Herzl in the late 19th century. So it is inaccurate to say that Jews settled in a land in which they had no roots. Basically, Jews lived under Ottoman rule, then when the Ottomans were defeated and the British mandate established, the Jews pushed for an independent Jewish state alongside an Arab state (the partition plan). It would be wrong to portray the history as if Jews all came out of Europe and just stole someone else's country to make Israel.

 

Cherub, this simply is not true. The Zionists had bought just over 5% of the land, due to massive recent immigration Jews were then 33% of the people having been I think 8% at the beginning of the century and the UN partition gave them 55% of the land.

It is a myth that they in any way owned the land. They owned just over 5% (source Ilan Pappe)

The arabs attacked Israel because their people demanded they did due to the Zionists massacring the Palestinians and having ethnic cleansed over 2OO,OOO before they had even declared their State.

This is just not true. If it were true then the arab armies would never have had to come in as Israel would not have been massacring and ethnically cleansing them in the hundreds of thousands before she even declared her state. Indeed from what I have read the arab states were well willing to accept Israel with minor concessions

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The War of the Israeli Historians.html

Golda Meir agreed to Jordan taking the West Bank 'for the time being' as they understood that if they took the whole lot then it would be too obvious to the world and they would not get away with it.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/Israel and the Arab Coalition in 19481.html

and as far as the arabs not agreeing, British Archives say that the Zioinists were only prepared to accept a deal which they knew would give them so much that the arabs would be unable to agree to it.

The problem was that right from the beginning Israel wanted not only the 'Jewish' part but the 'Christian and Muslim' part too.

Then you should get out of the US. Jews had apparently had some kind of rule there for 200 years 2000 years or so ago. That is madness to suggest it should therefore be their right to take it now. I do accept it is a done deal and Israel is there but this is no excuse. Further there is much work which suggests that most Jews stayed in the area and did not leave but rather moved onto other religions either Christianity or Islam. This is also supported by genetics. A Genetic study showed most Palestinians had a genetic relation to all Jews and further that their genetic relationship was closer to all groups of Jews that those groups of Jews were to themselves suggesting that they were probably the closest relations to the ancient Jews which would be expected of the people who live in the area. Many Scottish people for instance have Pict DNA. Many Palestinians according to Uri Avnery have had their ancestors living there for 5,000 years.

Why do you believe Zionists have the right to take a land from people who have been living there some for as much as 5,000 years. Though people who are ethnic nationalists like to have an ethnic nationalist state, not all do.

An American and British team were put there to investigate how two states might work. They said no state yet as if this happened they would just be fighting for ever which is what we have seen. The UN vote for partition was due to a number of things - obviously sympathy for Jews after the holocaust. Zionists refusal to allow other offers of a home, for instance Rousseau's plan followed on by Truman that the UK, US, Canada take 500,000 displaced persons. The Zionists would not allow this because one of the things which they were trying to imply was that there was nowhere else for these holocaust survivors to go and third, blackmail and bribery. (see what Price Israel)

I have flue and am getting too dizzy to continue. Will need to leave it there for now.

 

Win ??????????? I thought we were having a discussion.
You want a competition ? Sure- what are you putting up ?

 

I just told YOU that- with the additional information that any court would strike down your..er... argument that a temporary occupation can be indefinite. That's the standpoint of neoZionist shills.

You don't seem to want to acknowledge that all United Nations Resolutions are based upon international law. Too bad. They are.

What is it that you think you've won ?

 

" The idea that Jewish people have their own state " is just a notional premise intended to attract support for the political movement of Zionism. When you look beneath the emotional appeal of ' helping out ' the survivors of the fascism-driven Holocaust the problems start to pile up.
Firstly, where was this Shangri-la for Jews supposed to be placed ? Palestine wasn't an empty space with a ' Please fill me up with European refugees ' sign at the entrance. It already had an established indigenous population- of which Jews were very much a minority. Deciding upon Palestine for this homeland was not illegal in itself, however. The United Nations considered the hand-washing proposal of the guilty British and voted for the partition of an innocent party's country. So the notion of a Jewish homeland in somebody else's country gained legal support- which it still, disgracefully in my opinion, enjoys today.
No, the criminal nature of Zionism comes to the fore in its agenda for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine's non-Jewish indigenous population. This brutal agenda is clear from the writings and recorded speeches of the early , pre-Israel, Zionist leadership. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the Zionists intended to remove Palestine's Arabs by whatever means came to hand. You'll see this for yourself if you research ben Gurion and Jabotinsky,
Once you've done that you'll know that the intent of Zionism was always criminal intent- and the fact that that criminal intent has been glossed over the decades by others of criminal intent does not alter the - proven- fact that Zionism IS criminal by default. I'm stating a fact. Murder and ethnic cleansing are not ' matters of opinion '

It's not pertinent to that description but you might also want to be aware that the six million or so Jews exterminated by the Nazi fascists were only one-third of the victims of the Holocaust. Twice as many as that also perished - a total of eighteen million victims which included Gypsies, the Roma and many other ethnic minorities. Where is the ' homeland ' for their survivors to be situated ? Is there room in your country ? Would Israel take them ?

 

well, the fact is that I am right.

UNGA 181 is not legally binding upon the UN's members.

it would have been if the UNSC passed a similar resolution, but they did not.

ONLY UNSC resolutions are legally binding.

 

And the name Judea comes from the same place from the Tribe of Judah or from the Kingdom of Judah

 

You don't even understand that the United Nations Charter is legally binding upon its members.

You are only tunnel-visioned into the fact that Security Council Chapter 7 Resolutions are militarily enforceable.
You win the dunce's cap.

Understand that Resolution 181 carries legal weight. The fact that it cannot be imposed militarily does not diminish its authority.
So you lost.

You should treat the General Assembly with far more respect- as should the blood-soaked neoZionists.

 

Only if your weak

It makes it worthless

 

the UN Charter makes it very clear that ONLY UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding upon UN members.

its clear as day.

In general, resolutions adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter.

http://ask.un.org/faq/15010

 

Security Council Resolutions under Chapter VI:

Resolutions the Security Council adopts under Chapter VI are intended to be followed and implemented via negotiated settlements between concerned parties. One of the UN resolutions adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter is Resolution 242, adopted in 1967 after the Six-Day War. It calls on Israel and its Arab neighbors to accept the resolution through negotiation, arbitration and conciliation. Under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, the recommendations of UN Resolution 242 cannot be imposed on the parties concerned, as Arab leaders often argue. In fact, the title of Chapter VI also offers a clue to its nature, for it deals with “Pacific Resolution of Disputes.”

Security Council Resolutions under Chapter VII:

In contrast, resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII invest the Security Council with power to issue stringent resolutions that require nations to comply with the terms set forth in the resolution. This leaves no room to negotiate a settlement with the affected parties. Thus, Chapter VII deals with “Threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression.” When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Security Council adopted resolutions under Chapter VII that only required the aggressor, Iraq, to comply.1

UN's General Assembly Resolutions are a declarative statement of sentiment and lacks the legal authority to enact or amend international law that legally bind states
The UN Secretary-General, the General Assembly, and now the international Court of Justice (ICJ) seem ignorant of the General Assembly's powers or perhaps prefers to ignore them. These UN organs even fail to note that “affirmation” means merely a declarative statement of sentiment. It is not a directive. It is not law. In any case, this and a host of other anti-Israel resolutions passed annually are not legally binding documents by any measure. One does not even have to be an experienced judge to see this; one need only to read the UN Charter to establish this fact. Article 10 of the UN Charter states:

“The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.” [italics by author].

Past members of the ICJ have gone on record as underscoring that the UN Charter does not grant the General Assembly (or the International Court of Justice, for that matter) authority to enact or amend international law.

Professor Judge Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, has stated that:

“… the General Assembly of the United Nations can only, in principle, issue ‘recommendation' which are not of a binding character, according to Article 10 of the Charter of the United Nations.”2

Schwebel also cites the (1950) opinion of Judge, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, a former member judge of the International Court of Justice, who declared that:

“… the General Assembly has no legal power to legislate or bind its members by way of recommendation.”3

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/UN_resolutions.htm

 

Of course, moon. Tis is Palestinians' land and the Jews have not'n to do with it! As we all know, Palestinians were there first!!!