East Jerusalem should be declared Palestinian state's capital, say Muslim world leaders

Hang on... I sourced how well Palestinians are supported by Kuwait.
So wow about you go source me why Palestinians left Israel? lol

 

I don't know if the participants to this discussion realize that this is something historical in the real sense of the term: it will go beyond our life on this planet.

It's a precedent: UN [an organization created by sovereign nations to delegate some sovereignty] is literally facing sovereign countries [US on a side, Turkey and other Muslim countries on the other side] sustaining that UN can *u*c themselves ... sovereign countries rule, that's all.

 

And rightly so -- the idea that the UN is the be all and end of international law is beyond absurd.

 

You've grasped the point ... 1,000 points for you

 

Neah. Countries with veto power get to rule the UN. That's why it's still a mess with Israel/Palestine. Because the US refuses to punish Jews ethnic cleansing Arabs, and let them get away thieving land. 10% of them thieving ethnic cleansing Jews in the WB are Americans... says enough.

 

Jared will bring peace to the middle east, it is written.

 

Israel has had a lot of help between US foreign aid since 1948 and Holocaust reparations.. Aren't you a bit smug to compare your successes to the Palestinians?

 

True, it should be the US, no wait, Russia, or maybe the EU..........

 

Silly you, thinking there can be but one source of international law.

 

I thought it was funny considering the arbitrary nature of it, shrug.

 

Just a question: if Americans are so omnipotent in ME about Israel ... why did they impose an embargo on ME about selling weapons and Jews in Israel had to persuade Soviet Union to smuggle weaponry through Czechoslovakia?

Why Americans wanted to limit the military capability of Israel? Because Israel was near to USSR?

That was curious ...

 

They are giving billions of dollars in military aid every year. There is no country on this planet that the US passes more money to.

 

May I remind you your words:

Now I'm waiting for proof that those Egyptian officers are paid over a billion American bucks just to say things. The officers themselves, not the government of Egypt.

Obviously you're not aware of the general anti-Israel attitude of Egypt, going down from the higher political levels to the fellahin in the back of beyond. The American aid is not a bribe to make them say nice things. It's a bribe to make them keep the peace the American (as opposed to Russian) way. As cold as this peace is right now, it's still better than war.

It's extremely naive to think that a country - any country - would spend billions each year just to make someone from a foreign country say nice things about another foreign country. It's even more naive to think that a country - any country - would invest time and efforts into convincing another country to spend billions each year just to make someone from a foreign country say nice things about the first country.

One Egyptian officer does not an Arab loving hand to Israel make.

 

A bit of history

Not in 1948 ...

In late 1947 Robert Lovett [Secretary of State] was against the sale of American weapons to ME [to avoid that Israel or the Arab nations used them in such a context]. On December 5th US imposed an embargo about the sales of weaponry to ME.

See for example "Jerusalem in America's Foreign Policy: 1947 - 1997" https://books.google.it/books?id=YfVPnuMVxbUC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=december+5th+1947+embargo&source=bl&ots=dDXkty1h25&sig=sb60r8Uu2VGWiG56IJm6JJsA5pc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZmLni2srYAhUBrxQKHWqDBrcQ6AEILjAA#v=onepage&q=december 5th 1947 embargo&f=false

 

Because as I have said a couple of times, the State Department was against the US recognising Israel a because they believed that the only way the State could stay in existence was continual war which Marshal believed Israel would always be at always saying it was for security when the reason would be more land and secondly because he believed that the ME who at the time respected the US as they were for an end to colonialism and for supporting self determination would lose their respect and hence US influence in the region. Before Israel declared Independence the UN had put through a vote for UN trusteeship of the area due to the massive fighting which had been going on particularly since the UN vote on partition. Trusteeship was supported by the State Department

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...-george-marshall-and-israel-palestine/263365/

and

cont'd
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602447.html[/quote][/quote][/quote]

 

[/quote][/quote][/QUOTE]


Yes, that what happened. We have already had occasion to discuss, briefly, about the relationships between the government and the diplomatic system of a country. It happens also in Italy that our diplomatic corps follows political directives coming from the Foreign Ministry which are not exactly in agreement with the political orientation of the government [just about Israel it has happened and guess where ... at UN!].


Obviously, the situation is a bit more complicated when a minister, so a member of the government wants to follow a line which is not the one of the Chief of the Government [Prime Minister, President, chancellor …]. Usually this means that the minister gets fired, but it happens that he’s got enough sponsors and "clients" to stay at his [or her] place.


I’ve always found interesting to observe the internal dynamics of an administration [they are influenced by the relations of powers of the lobbies and the groups which make reference to it].

 

They bought Nazi equipment. That was probably far better anyways to fight against 3rd world countries.
https://warisboring.com/how-israel-won-its-independence-with-nazi-guns/

And they used it to ethnic cleanse +700.000 Arabs.

 

I sourced
"Following the peace treaty with Israel, between 1979 and 2003, Egypt acquired about $19 billion in military aid, making Egypt the second largest non-NATO recipient of U.S. military aid after Israel."

How is that not linked to Israel, and it's Jewish population and having peace with them is beyond me.
It's also well now Jews got an extremely powerful lobby in the US. You want me to link that as well?

 

In fact the concept of international law requires that the UN is sovereign in international affairs (yet to be realised)

The conservative view - based on the primacy of competition - denies the very concept, as you have demonstrated.

 

It is what a country agrees with when it's signs up to be part of the UN.

 

Not in the slightest. International law existed for at least 5000 years before the UN, and, indeed, exists outside the UN, even today.

 

See notme's post:

(international law) is what a country agrees with when it's signs up to be part of the UN


The legal minds who have been developing international law since the creation of the UN in 1946 might have some problems with your concept of international law.... which is moving in the direction of de-legitimising war as a means of dispute settlement between nations.

In a global economy, war between nations is of course the ultimate absurdity: individuals will always behave badly, but there are just as many conservatives in other counties who you would wish to destroy if you went to war with those countries.....insane.

 

The concept of international law requires that the body tasked with upholding the law should be willing and able to enforce it.

The concept of sovereignty in international affairs can't be separated from the concept of sovereignty in internal affairs unless the later is severely restricted, which is neither desirable nor feasible. See Brexit.

 

Not in the slightest. UN charter is not a source of international law. International treaties and conventions are sources of international law.

If a UN member state has signed and ratified, for instance, a treaty regarding refugees, that state has the obligation under international law generated by that treaty to abide by the rules specified. A UN member state that didn't sign the same treaty has no obligation whatsoever to respect the terms of the treaty, even though those terms are international law.

One very simple example is the treatment of Palestinian refugees' descendants in Arab countries. All 22 Arab countries are members of the UN, signatories of the UN charter, but some of them and the UN itself completely ignore the definition of refugees issued by UN's own body the UNHCR. Arab countries and the UN are still treating grand-children of Palestinian refugees as refugees, a feat that would have been impossible if the UN charter was a source of international law. However those Arab countries that never signed the convention regarding refugees - source of international law - can't be compelled to abide by its terms.

 

In a global economy, the concept of international sovereignty over international affairs is not all that different from the concept of national sovereignty over national affairs.

The conservative view - based on un-managed competition for resources - will of course recoil from a perceived loss of national sovereignty - no matter how minimal, demonstrated by your terminology "severe restriction".

And yet the conservative view reinforces the very conditions that maintain poverty, dysfunction, and conflict - manifesting internally in criminality and externally in failed states, war and refugees.

"It's the economy, stupid" .

As for "feasibility", the Brexit vote was 52-48, hardly a landslide, and young people who were most likely in favour of staying are said not to have voted. [Not that I'm personally concerned about a 'United States of Europe', one way or the other].