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

International law is far, far more than that.

If true, then they deny >5000 years of recorded history.

Never happen. War is a function of human nature.

 

Except, of course, that there is no enforceable international sovereignty, outside what the sovereign states are able and willing to bring to bear.

If some international body can force a state to do something with its resources it does not want to, the loss of sovereignty is real, not perceived.

 

UN Charter:
Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

Those refugees got the right to return to their homes. And it's not the UN to demand other countries to help the Jews out and absorb the people they ethnic cleansed by passing them citizenships. So in this case.. it's Israel that violates international law and the UN charter and the Geneva Conventions. Thats how Israel ends up being the most condemned nation on the planet.

 

The words "in accordance with the present charter" are not there for aesthetic impression, you know. It means that there are other provisions in the Charter which must be taken into account when interpreting Article 25.

What are the relevant provisions?

Please quote the relevant international law stating that refugees have the right to return to their homes.

Please quote the relevant international law stating that descendants of refugees have the right to return to their parents or grandparents homes.

 

Rather not relevant to the point that the UN(SC) actually does make international law.
Your demand of provisions is just changing the goalpost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return

The right of return is a principle in international law which guarantees peoples right of voluntary return to or re-enter their country of origin or of citizenship. A right of return based on nationality, citizenship or ancestry

You kind of spend your credits here for me to link and post the obvious.

 

You don't seem to be able to grasp "in accordance with the present Charter."

According to the UN itself:

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

 

Try watching this. Then research it if you don't believe it.

 

UN does not make international law. We've been through this.

What goalpost?

Excellent. The obvious in this particular situation is the right of Jews to return to their ancestral home in Palestine, including Judea and Samaria.

Now, if only the Palestinian Arabs would be allowed to return to their ancestral homes in Arabia...

The right of return principle is not as simple and straightforward as it seems to you (or to wikipedia). Even the Security Council didn't ask Israel to take all the Arab refugees back. By the way, it has been mentioned several times on this forum that Israel did negotiate with Arab countries for a peace that would have included return of a number of refugees, but Arab leaders refused. There went the VOLUNTARY right of return down the hatred drain.

 

Who the hell is Abby Martin, and why should I believe what she says? She might be thick as a plank?

 

Former employee of RT. She's currently working for teleSUR, a socialist television network sponsored by such champions of human rights like Venezuela and Cuba, and other Latin American governments.

 

Thank you - so I doubt she and I would have anything in common, therefore I'm glad that I didn't waste a second of my life watching the video link.

 

Wouldn't that be Kazharia?

Palestinians are direct descendants of the semitic people that lived in the Levant during, before and after the existance of both Israels. They are Arabic only by culture. They (as well as the jews who always lived there) are more semitic than the Ukrainians that invaded them for sure.

Of course they refused. Zionist "peace offers" are made to be refused. Woe to Israel if peace really happens out there, because with peace, the land theft and abuse, the milking of US funding would cease - at least until a provocation is to be conveniently created, of course, so the "war" - if you can call such conflicts between armed forces and civilian rabble as such - can resume until Eretz Yisrael is achieved.

War is beneficial for the zionist regime of Israel. What would be the Israeli reasons to stop it? Philantropism? Ha ha ha.

 

Yes, and so you can be assured it's not a U.S. pro-Zionist propaganda piece.

Sounds like you have some kind of fear about watching it. Maybe you would feel better with this:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/11/09/captives-2

https://mic.com/articles/19174/isra...ific-palestinian-living-conditions#.tzTS4E0qg

Or do you only accept anti-Palestinian versions of how the Palestinians live?

 

This is absolutely not adding a thing if the UN(SC) is able to make international law.

 

I just put up that the decisions of the UNSC are the rule of law and all UN members must comply.

Nope. Because some random American Jew can not prove what ancestor came from Israel, like a Palestinian.

 

Zionist political influence cannot be underestimated. If I'm not mistaken, the primary influence in dragging a reluctant U.S. into WW2. A war in which the people wanted no part.

 

They're only binding when Chapter VII is invoked. That's what the UN says.

You also grotesquely misinterpreted the advisory opinion, which states:

"The language of a resolution of the Security Council should be carefully analysed before a conclusion can be made to its binding effect. In view of the nature of the powers under Article 25, the question whether they have been in fact exercised is to be determined in each case, having regard to the terms of the resolution to be interpreted, the discussions leading to it, the Charter provisions invoked and, in general, all circumstances that might assist in determining the legal consequences of the resolution of the Security Council.”

 

Israel is an occupying power. That is according to the UN, the UNSC and the court of justice. And so the Geneva Conventions apply. That makes colonization illegal under article 49.

And resolution 242 was adopted under chapter IV. It demands the end of all the territorial claims obtained by war and Israel to withdraw it's troops.

So the UN(SC) did make international law. Israel refuses to comply.
Hence it's the most condemned nation on the planet.

But that's just an advisory opinion. Not exactly binding, now is it?

 

And, like all international law, they only matter when someone decides to back them up with force.

 

And that is a real problem.....but as I mentioned to Pisa, almost 50% of Britons recently voted to stay in the EU - this in a nation that has been invaded successively by Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Norsemen, and more recently endured wars with France and Germany. Attitudes change - and your conservatism is becoming old fashioned.

demonstrating your 'conservatism', driven by unconscious, un-managed (instinctive) competition for resources, competition which has of necessity always been mortal, but which no longer need be so, in this age of AI and IT. [There's a universe out there waiting to be explored, better if we get our own house in order first].

 

That's sweet. You wishing Jews had such a powerful awesome empire is like so melting my heart. Now all you have to do is take back Khazarian territories from Russia, Romania and Hungary, and we're in business.

Three "Israels", actually. There were two Jewish kingdoms in Canaan.

Well, there are some ungrateful Ukrainian refugees here fleeing their Russian benefactors, but it's hardly an invasion. They're nice quiet people. You don't like Ukrainians?

As for the origin of the Palestinian Arabs, as much as I yearn to believe your every word, I need to make sure you're not reinventing the myth of Achille's myrmidons. You know, cultural mostly youtube-ish influences, I mean, if a whole ancient culture could have been Arabized leaving no detectable traces of its past, nobody is immune to brainwashing. So...proof, please?

I'd give you a crash course in recent history and some global economy principles, but sadly I don't have the time. Maybe later.

Please explain why would Israel need US money in time of peace, knowing that the money is spent for military purposes. I mean, would you need a loan to buy a new car if you already had a new car?

Tough question, I know. Not the kind youtube can answer.

 

It was quite easy to take Palestine out of a people that has been disarmed, but it won't be that easy to steal land from bona fide armed forces like the Russians, Romanians and Hungarians have. Heck, just miserable Hizbollah gave you folks a licking last time you met in anger.

People generally don't like armed, foreign invaders who kill the natives and steal their lands.

The proofs of the Palestinians' past are exactly the same as the ones about a Jewish past; Neither of you semitic folks were great builders (exept maybe those who build Carthage) so don't expect an 8th wonder of the ancient world.

You are in no position to give crash courses to anyone. What you are lacking isn't time, but objectivity. Objectivity is required to give courses.

That's my point; the pretext for the US tribute is to pursue war - war from a nuclear nation onto a third-world concentration camp. Such is the bravery of the zionist regime.

WTF Youtube? I never used Youtube as an argument, except maybe one time to present cockpit footage from a F-22 vs Rafale dogfight, and to show an Iowa-class battleship firing a broadside. When I use youtube here, it's for the music. Like this one:

 

And one that will not be solved w/o resorting to war, where all of the states that do not wish to be part of single-state world will be forced to join.

You know nothing here negates what I said, right?

 

Wrong.

For example, Trump has been accused of being racist because of his recent remarks.....even though poverty-stricken countries, lacking sanitary infrastructure, might literally be characterised as "sh*t-holes" ........BUT Trump, with his conservative "America First' nonsense - and typical conservative "blame poverty on the victims" attitude, is part of the problem, not the solution - which obviously requires global oversight of all nations' economic development (see Keynes' 1944 Bretton Woods proposals for a new global financial and economic system, rejected by conservative US forces).

 

None of this, in any way, negates the fact that If some international body can force a state to do something with its resources it does not want to, the loss of sovereignty is real, not perceived.
You probably ought to check Google for the definition of "sovereignty".