View Full Version : Why no UN resolution for Israel, but if an Arab state did same the troops...........
Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asserted Israel's "right to build" 1600 houses in occupied Jerusalem
"Jerusalem is not a settlement, it's our capital," he said in Washington.
This is despite the United Nations issuing a resolution in 1980, declaring that Israel has no valid claims on Jerusalem.
“United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) Security Council Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_resolution) 476 , adopted on June 30, 1980
declared that "all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention"
So yet again Israel refuses to ignore the consensus of the rest of the world and the rest of the world make token protests to show their displeasure.
We all know what happens when an Arab state ignores UN resolutions, so why can’t the UN/Nato get tough with Israel and use sanctions against it.
So yet again Israel refuses to ignore the consensus of the rest of the world and the rest of the world make token protests to show their displeasure.
We all know what happens when an Arab state ignores UN resolutions, so why can’t the UN/Nato get tough with Israel and use sanctions against it.
I thought you were apposed to sanctions? Or are you just apposed to sanctions against countries you support? :confused
Israel has consistently ignored UN sanctions and flouted International Law. Little is done about it since there is a large and powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States Congress and Senate.
Anyone criticising such a state of affairs or anyone who advocates sanctions against Israel is often labelled anti-Semitic and so any movement towards peace is immediately stalled.
Israel has consistently ignored UN sanctions and flouted International Law. Little is done about it since there is a large and powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States Congress and Senate.
Anyone criticising such a state of affairs or anyone who advocates sanctions against Israel is often labelled anti-Semitic and so any movement towards peace is immediately stalled.
That pretty much sums it up for me.. +rep
Why should any Religion think they have the right to be a nation state in the modern world?
In my view Israel was created for all the wrong reasons.
I thought you were apposed to sanctions? Or are you just apposed to sanctions against countries you support? :confused
Wrong guy, I have never said that I am against sanctions.
Wrong guy, I have never said that I am against sanctions.
Oops! Sorry.
Israel has consistently ignored UN sanctions and flouted International Law. Little is done about it since there is a large and powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States Congress and Senate.
Anyone criticising such a state of affairs or anyone who advocates sanctions against Israel is often labelled anti-Semitic and so any movement towards peace is immediately stalled.
Yep. That's why.
John Little
23-Mar-10, 12:43
Because the only state with sufficient strength to influence outcomes in the UN is the US. Which is why so many countries look at the UN with a jaundiced eye, and why the concept of international law is so flawed.
While the UN remains a device for imposing the decisions of the big doggies on the small doggies things will not change.
Turn over fred an go back to sleep. It's no your sort of thing.
Israel has consistently ignored UN sanctions and flouted International Law. Little is done about it since there is a large and powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States Congress and Senate.
Anyone criticising such a state of affairs or anyone who advocates sanctions against Israel is often labelled anti-Semitic and so any movement towards peace is immediately stalled.
There was a time when anti-Semitic meant someone who doesn't like Jews.
Now it means someone Zionists don't like.
Boozeburglar
23-Mar-10, 14:28
I have long considered the inequal treatment of Israel as a major stumbling block to peace, whatever form that might take.
It seems ironic that Libya remains the only real voice of the oppressed on the Security Council, they actually made some noise during their stint.
Maybe it will be a token gesture to include countries like Lebanon each time they elect non permanent members.
I detest tokenism.
John Little
23-Mar-10, 14:32
Be careful chaps - we seem to be agreeing......
The last colony of the west...
It's pretty much just another US state, however in the Middle East and too big for its boots.
northener
23-Mar-10, 16:08
I haven't got a lot of sympathy for Israel when they pull stunts like this.
'Lebensraum' springs to mind here.
Israel seriously needs to rethink it's position in the world if it thinks it will exsist in the next 100-500 years time.
A country in the middle east cant depend on western patronage for its entire exsistance.
They need to make concessions and work with their Arab neighbours to secure peace in the area not sabre rattle and then call big brother when the going gets tough.
Also in my opinion the fact Israel is a nuclear power is a disgrace.
The Drunken Duck
23-Mar-10, 16:25
I dont agree with much that Israel does these days and they do need to be taken down a peg or two on a few issues. No sympathy with them this time.
That said I have deep admiration for their commitment to their own existence and the way they beat down any nation that choses to throw the first punch. The Arab nations would just love the West to turn on Israel though, that's probably the reason why we haven't done it.
I dont agree with much that Israel does these days and they do need to be taken down a peg or two on a few issues. No sympathy with them this time.
That said I have deep admiration for their commitment to their own existence and the way they beat down any nation that choses to throw the first punch. The Arab nations would just love the West to turn on Israel though, that's probably the reason why we haven't done it.
If the Arab nations could stick together on a single issue it would be good...........unfortunately they just will not agree on anything.
Everyone is getting fed up with Israel and people are at least getting wise to the terrible abuses they inflict on a daily basis to the Palestinians.
northener
23-Mar-10, 18:08
And on Radio 4 just now, they stated that the UK Government has now had an Official Sense of Humour Failure over the assassination of the Hamas official earlier this year.
It would appear that they are now satisfied that the Israelis are up to their necks in this and are booting out an Israeli diplomat.
I wonder if we are seeing the beginnings of a shift away from support for Israel?
It would appear that they are now satisfied that the Israelis are up to their necks in this and are booting out an Israeli diplomat.
I wonder if we are seeing the beginnings of a shift away from support for Israel?
No, I dont think so.
Wait for a couple of weeks, let the story go cold, then back to a full normal diplomatic relationship.
redeyedtreefrog
23-Mar-10, 19:25
...
Also in my opinion the fact Israel is a nuclear power is a disgrace.
In my opinion the fact that any country is a nuclear power is a disgrace. :roll:
Yoda the flump
23-Mar-10, 22:42
Israel, given its history of the jews really should know better than this.
The US must wake up and read the riot act to them. What the Israelis are doing is unacceptable.
The United States is never going to castigate Israel for any wrong-doing; here's (http://www.aipac.org/index.asp) why. Whether we like it or not Israel has the US in its pocket and all of David Miliband's rhetoric isn't worth a cardboard shekel.
Whitewater
23-Mar-10, 23:44
Israel is an unofficial American state, thats why they think they can get away with anything, hence all the American worries about Iran being a Nuclear Power, they are afraid of missile attack on their sneaky little friends. Even GB, although attempting to look tough by expelling one diplomat are not really taking any action, how many diplomats remain? 50, perhaps even 100, maybe many more. I'm pretty sure if it was an Arab state trying build in Israel/Jerusalem there would be some very rapid action taken. There will be a bit of sabre rattling but nothing more. Perhaps the western allies may prove me wrong, but I doubt it.
So yet again Israel refuses to ignore the consensus of the rest of the world and the rest of the world make token protests to show their displeasure.
The bit I've highlighted is confusing. Taken as read, it means Israel is actually following the consensus of the rest of the world.
Israel is an unofficial American state, thats why they think they can get away with anything, hence all the American worries about Iran being a Nuclear Power, they are afraid of missile attack on their sneaky little friends. Even GB, although attempting to look tough by expelling one diplomat are not really taking any action, how many diplomats remain? 50, perhaps even 100, maybe many more. I'm pretty sure if it was an Arab state trying build in Israel/Jerusalem there would be some very rapid action taken. There will be a bit of sabre rattling but nothing more. Perhaps the western allies may prove me wrong, but I doubt it.
An American state? I don't think so, American states are in dire financial crisis, states like California teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and there is no sign of the Federal Government offering any help.
Israel however have a GDP larger than Egypt which has more than ten times their population, their GDP growth rate is larger than most western countries, they are the fifth most powerful military power in the world, an arms exporter.
Yet they receive more American foreign aid than every other country in the world put together.
They are more than just another state.
Boozeburglar
24-Mar-10, 00:11
The bit I've highlighted is confusing. Taken as read, it means Israel is actually following the consensus of the rest of the world.
Dude, please don't pretend to be confused. If you want to highlight a mistake in someone's post, go ahead and be honest. If that turns you on.
Just don't pretend you did not realise what was meant.
Boozeburglar
24-Mar-10, 00:16
An American state? I don't think so, American states are in dire financial crisis, states like California teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and there is no sign of the Federal Government offering any help.
Israel however have a GDP larger than Egypt which has more than ten times their population, their GDP growth rate is larger than most western countries, they are the fifth most powerful military power in the world, an arms exporter.
Yet they receive more American foreign aid than every other country in the world put together.
They are more than just another state.
Got to agree.
It does great harm to the legacy of the Jewish people that the nation born in their name is carrying on like this.
I want to live in a world where all of us are on an even playing field.
Israel needs to be shown the error of its way.
Diplomatically.
Got to agree.
It does great harm to the legacy of the Jewish people that the nation born in their name is carrying on like this.
I want to live in a world where all of us are on an even playing field.
Israel needs to be shown the error of its way.
Diplomatically.
It seems very strange, Israel has universal health care while the American tax payer who doesn't is sending them $3 billion a year in direct assistance alone.
changilass
24-Mar-10, 00:31
Having health care doesn't make a country rich.
Dude, please don't pretend to be confused. If you want to highlight a mistake in someone's post, go ahead and be honest. If that turns you on.
Just don't pretend you did not realise what was meant.
I wasn't confused after reading it twice, others may have read it the same way I did. :roll:
Boozeburglar
24-Mar-10, 00:39
It seems very strange, Israel has universal health care while the American tax payer who doesn't is sending them $3 billion a year in direct assistance alone.
Yes. strange indeed.
They don't need the money.
I am hoping things will change in the US and perhaps people's focus will change when they realise what carnage they are financing rather than care for their own citizens.
Having health care doesn't make a country rich.
No, it's GDP that makes a country rich.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
changilass
24-Mar-10, 00:53
You said '
It seems very strange, Israel has universal health care while the American tax payer who doesn't is sending them $3 billion a year in direct assistance alone.'
Which is why I asked the question.
So are you now suggesting, that aid should only be given to those on the bottom of the list you linked to as they have the lowest figures?
You said '
It seems very strange, Israel has universal health care while the American tax payer who doesn't is sending them $3 billion a year in direct assistance alone.'
Which is why I asked the question.
So are you now suggesting, that aid should only be given to those on the bottom of the list you linked to as they have the lowest figures?
The $3billion you speak of is for 'security assistance' to meet the increased threat from Iran. :roll: More details can be found in this Memo (http://www.aipac.org/Publications/AIPACAnalysesMemos/AIPAC_Memo_-_Aid_to_Israel_Foreign_Aid_Funding_Vital_for_U.S._ National_Security.pdf)
The US probably think the Iranians are going to stone Israel to death before the Israelis retaliate with one of their Weapons of Mass Destruction. :confused
northener
24-Mar-10, 08:21
I'd agree with just about everything that has been said so far...but let's not forget that Israels' neighbours are hardly hapless innocents either. We could point the finger at almost any country in that region and highlight serious problems with security, freedom of speech, oppression (to Western eyes, anyway) and a willingness to take up arms at the slightest provocation to settle old scores...take your pick.
But you'd expect a country that likes to portray itself as a 'victim' in all of this to act a little more responsibly, wouldn't you?
I'd agree with just about everything that has been said so far...but let's not forget that Israels' neighbours are hardly hapless innocents either. We could point the finger at almost any country in that region and highlight serious problems with security, freedom of speech, oppression (to Western eyes, anyway) and a willingness to take up arms at the slightest provocation to settle old scores...take your pick.
But you'd expect a country that likes to portray itself as a 'victim' in all of this to act a little more responsibly, wouldn't you?
Now if all the Arab nations were to get together . . . . . . . . . . Nah - they've all got too many fingers in too many different pies - some of them western ones at that!
You said '
It seems very strange, Israel has universal health care while the American tax payer who doesn't is sending them $3 billion a year in direct assistance alone.'
Which is why I asked the question.
So are you now suggesting, that aid should only be given to those on the bottom of the list you linked to as they have the lowest figures?
I just don't think it's fair on those Americans who are losing their homes at an alarming rate after the financial crisis to be spending so much on aid to a country which doesn't need it.
Iran which has always been a peaceful country gets crippling sanctions, Israel who keeps invading other countries and is in breach of so many UN resolutions gets massive aid. Those bombs Israel dropped on Gaza were paid for by the American tax payer while their own Veterans sit on street corners begging, it does not make sense.
In my opinion the fact that any country is a nuclear power is a disgrace. :roll:
I dont disagree with that either but for us to arm a country in that way in the middle east was a disgrace.
Nuclear Weapons are disgusting fullstop, The USA's assertion that it ended the war with Japan and saved many lives in the longterm is false because without a bomb to drop on civilians America would have to accept it could not achieve overall victory and sue for peace. America could not realistically fight on.
I wasn't confused after reading it twice, others may have read it the same way I did. :roll:
I think if you are that easily confused, that you stick to reading the "nice" threads on here, like favourite chocolates, wearing watches and thongs etc etc
changilass
24-Mar-10, 12:48
Since when did starting a thread, give you the right to decide who posts on it?
Stop being such a pompous ass, everyone has the same right to post as you do.
And on Radio 4 just now, they stated that the UK Government has now had an Official Sense of Humour Failure over the assassination of the Hamas official earlier this year.
It would appear that they are now satisfied that the Israelis are up to their necks in this and are booting out an Israeli diplomat.
I wonder if we are seeing the beginnings of a shift away from support for Israel?
The government is kicking out the Israeli diplomat because they forged British passports.
Nobody seems to mind too much about them murdering people just so long as they don't go in for forgery.
northener
24-Mar-10, 18:58
The government is kicking out the Israeli diplomat because they forged British passports.
Nobody seems to mind too much about them murdering people just so long as they don't go in for forgery.
Of course, Fred.
Do you know just how soul destroying it is when you realised you've been passed a duff £20? Scars you, it does. Hang 'em, I say.:Razz
You mentioned earlier about maybe this is a 'token' gesture (the expulsion) and that maybe the UK Government are just hoping the furore dies down.
This may be so, but I think Israel is rapidly losing support across the board with those who were prepared to cut them a bit of slack previously (like me).
The government is kicking out the Israeli diplomat because they forged British passports.
Nobody seems to mind too much about them murdering people just so long as they don't go in for forgery.
Remind us what the Hamas rep was doing in Dubai?..............not condoning the action but he knew (and was prepared to take) the risks.
Remind us what the Hamas rep was doing in Dubai?..............not condoning the action but he knew (and was prepared to take) the risks.
I don't know what he was doing in Dubai, I do know he was murdered and extra-judicial killing is illegal under international law.
Of course, Fred.
Do you know just how soul destroying it is when you realised you've been passed a duff £20? Scars you, it does. Hang 'em, I say.:Razz
You mentioned earlier about maybe this is a 'token' gesture (the expulsion) and that maybe the UK Government are just hoping the furore dies down.
This may be so, but I think Israel is rapidly losing support across the board with those who were prepared to cut them a bit of slack previously (like me).
Expelling a diplomat is a very mild slap on the wrist for such a serious offence, especially as they have done it before and gave assurances that it would never happen again. Israel is just going to replace the expelled diplomat with someone else so it's no skin off their nose.
Aye right, he was there for a wee break from the stress of life in Gaza...........don't think so.
Serious question here - where is International Law documented, if it is documented does it apply to everyone even though they have not signed up to it,who is responsible for enforcing it, and does it actually mean anything?
Aye right, he was there for a wee break from the stress of life in Gaza...........don't think so.
Serious question here - where is International Law documented, if it is documented does it apply to everyone even though they have not signed up to it,who is responsible for enforcing it, and does it actually mean anything?
There are several types of international law, most of it written in various treaties and conventions. Customary international law applies to everyone if they have signed a treaty or not, most of it existed before there were any treaties signed. Then there is precedent, at Nuremberg the allies tried Germans for crimes that had not previously been written down and Germany had signed no treaty on and by doing so we set precedent, we can not now decide those are not legal and expect to do the same ourselves.
As for who enforces it that depends on who is breaking it, if it is Israel then probably no one, if it is America then definitely no one, the UN has condemned their trade embargo on Cuba as illegal every year since 1992 but no one does anything.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2455923.stm
John Little
24-Mar-10, 20:37
"As for who enforces it that depends on who is breaking it, if it is Israel then probably no one, if it is America then definitely no one, the UN has condemned their trade embargo on Cuba as illegal every year since 1992 but no one does anything."
Ergo there is really no such thing as international law. The very contradiction here shows it is a myth.
It is nothing more than a shibboleth, an aspiration, a chimera waved like a flag by people who think that the world should be better.
There are several types of international law, most of it written in various treaties and conventions. Customary international law applies to everyone if they have signed a treaty or not, most of it existed before there were any treaties signed. Then there is precedent, at Nuremberg the allies tried Germans for crimes that had not previously been written down and Germany had signed no treaty on and by doing so we set precedent, we can not now decide those are not legal and expect to do the same ourselves.
As for who enforces it that depends on who is breaking it, if it is Israel then probably no one, if it is America then definitely no one, the UN has condemned their trade embargo on Cuba as illegal every year since 1992 but no one does anything.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2455923.stm
I don't know how it can be said a trade embargo is illegal. Surely any country can choose it's trading partners, it is no one else’s business.
If China for instance decided to stop trading with the US would that be illegal? Or, if the UK stopped trading with Saudi?
Maybe the US feels it has good reason to not trade with Cuba, you know, like them nearly starting WW3.
John Little
24-Mar-10, 20:57
Ducati - excellent point. It is the very crux of the matter.
The US trade embargo on Cuba is "illegal" in the sense that it is contrary to the UN Charter to which the US is a signatory; they break their own undertaking.
This does not include the influence of the US on other countries making it clear that the US would not look nicely on them if they traded with Cuba.
My point is that if it is broken at will, is only observed by some countries and not others, and if there is no way of enforcing it, then it is not 'law'.
It is something else; optimists and idealists call it law.
To me law implies a legislative body, a code of laws written and consented to, and an effective enforcement.
Without that there is no international law.
And, as Fred said, this situation does not pertain - so there is no such thing. How can there be - it's a contradiction in terms.
I don't know how it can be said a trade embargo is illegal. Surely any country can choose it's trading partners, it is no one else’s business.
If China for instance decided to stop trading with the US would that be illegal? Or, if the UK stopped trading with Saudi?
Maybe the US feels it has good reason to not trade with Cuba, you know, like them nearly starting WW3.
Well you are entitled to your opinion but it seems to me that 173 Ambassadors to the United Nations from 173 countries do not share your opinion.
John Little
24-Mar-10, 21:14
LOL - come on Fred! Who controls the UN?
Well you are entitled to your opinion but it seems to me that 173 Ambassadors to the United Nations from 173 countries do not share your opinion.
That seems of little import if they can't do anything about it? :confused
Ducati - excellent point. It is the very crux of the matter.
The US trade embargo on Cuba is "illegal" in the sense that it is contrary to the UN Charter to which the US is a signatory; they break their own undertaking.
This does not include the influence of the US on other countries making it clear that the US would not look nicely on them if they traded with Cuba.
My point is that if it is broken at will, is only observed by some countries and not others, and if there is no way of enforcing it, then it is not 'law'.
It is something else; optimists and idealists call it law.
To me law implies a legislative body, a code of laws written and consented to, and an effective enforcement.
Without that there is no international law.
And, as Fred said, this situation does not pertain - so there is no such thing. How can there be - it's a contradiction in terms.
So are you saying no one can ever be tried under international law?
When Iraq invaded Kuwait it couldn't have been illegal because there is no law?
Is there no such thing as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia?
John Little
24-Mar-10, 21:21
Of course they can be tried but it ain't international law.
It's might Fred. Force Majeur.
They do it because they can.
And if the other side don't comply they get hammered in some way or other.
International law is just a phrase they use to make it look acceptable; but in reality it's great power politics.
If it were not so then there's quite a few on our side who would be on trial - and should be - starting with GW Bush.
It's force and might.
Call it law if you wish. If it comforts you.
That seems of little import if they can't do anything about it? :confused
I'm sitting here at my computer, no one else in the house, I can do anything I like it won't bee seen by anyone.
So if I break a law is it not a law?
Of course they can be tried but it ain't international law.
It's might Fred. Force Majeur.
They do it because they can.
And if the other side don't comply they get hammered in some way or other.
International law is just a phrase they use to make it look acceptable; but in reality it's great power politics.
If it were not so then there's quite a few on our side who would be on trial - and should be - starting with GW Bush.
It's force and might.
Call it law if you wish. If it comforts you.
That seems to be what everyone else calls it.
Here, a web page all about what you say doesn't exist:
http://www.un.org/en/law/
I'm sitting here at my computer, no one else in the house, I can do anything I like it won't bee seen by anyone.
So if I break a law is it not a law?
I'm just observing that if it is unenforceable, what is the point.
For complaining about Israel forging British passports and expelling a diplomat we must be racist.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3866929,00.html
Wondered how long it would take them.
For complaining about Israel forging British passports and expelling a diplomat we must be racist.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3866929,00.html
Wondered how long it would take them.
Ooh! there is going to be a lot of disassociation going on over the next couple of days :lol:
John Little
24-Mar-10, 21:57
"Here, a web page all about what you say doesn't exist"
Thanks - I've actually seen it before.
Ducati's unenforceable point is very to the point you know. There is bad law in that it cannot be enforced -like not using mobile phones in cars - or the classic case was Prohibition.
But as to your other point- if you break a law at your computer then you are breaking the law of this country. This law is passed by Parliament and it is enforced.
On the other hand, if you seek high political office and order our forces to drop bombs and kill thousands of people, do you really expect 'international law' to bring you to book?
There is no such thing Fred - it's just window dressing. The whole UN is nothing more than window dressing. If you don't believe me, google Trygvie Lie, look at the McCarron Commission and see what pains the US took to gain control of the UN at its inception.
You have been propagandised into believing in this thing called 'international law' but its only purpose is to make the big guys look as if they are wearing the white hats.
northener
24-Mar-10, 22:00
For complaining about Israel forging British passports and expelling a diplomat we must be racist.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3866929,00.html
Wondered how long it would take them.
Well, there's certainly someone with rabies in that article...and he ain't British.
"Here, a web page all about what you say doesn't exist"
Thanks - I've actually seen it before.
Ducati's unenforceable point is very to the point you know. There is bad law in that it cannot be enforced -like not using mobile phones in cars - or the classic case was Prohibition.
But as to your other point- if you break a law at your computer then you are breaking the law of this country. This law is passed by Parliament and it is enforced.
On the other hand, if you seek high political office and order our forces to drop bombs and kill thousands of people, do you really expect 'international law' to bring you to book?
There is no such thing Fred - it's just window dressing. The whole UN is nothing more than window dressing. If you don't believe me, google Trygvie Lie, look at the McCarron Commission and see what pains the US took to gain control of the UN at its inception.
You have been propagandised into believing in this thing called 'international law' but its only purpose is to make the big guys look as if they are wearing the white hats.
No, the purpose of having laws is to have rules for international communities to live by. The fact some can break them and get away with it is the same in any legal system, just look at the Parliamentary expenses or the Hollie Greig case.
We are building an international legal system just as they built a legal system in Britain many hundreds of years ago, it was far from perfect at the start and it isn't perfect yet but it's far better than no legal system at all. Those who believe in the rule of law not the rule of dictators will keep fighting and keep winning one small battle at a time until the system works. That is how civilisations have evolved and if the world is to become a civilised place that is how it must evolve.
John Little
24-Mar-10, 22:40
"We are building an international legal system just as they built a legal system in Britain many hundreds of years ago, it was far from perfect at the start and it isn't perfect yet but it's far better than no legal system at all."
Exactly.
It's an aspiration. And until it is universal and observed by all it is not 'international law'.
And heaven forbid that it should be interpreted as a device for lending legality to actions that are in all other ways quite unacceptable.
BTW - there is a difference between 'rules' and 'laws'
I often feel some of these "diplomatic" rows are mere handbag waving or window dressing.
One side expels a dippy, then the other side expels a dippy, just a bit of a show with no real meaning other than to wave the handbag.
We should just sling the whole bloody lot out.
For complaining about Israel forging British passports and expelling a diplomat we must be racist.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3866929,00.html
Wondered how long it would take them.
I quite liked this statement in their feedback:
"This is not the same England that I learned about in history which stood up to the Nazis. This is not Churchill's England. England today is a putrid collection of leftist pigs and Muslim radicals and is one step away from Sharia law. England is the country that bans a brilliant commentator such as Michael Savage, but allows radical clerics all over the country spew their anti Jewish BS. So goes England , so goes Europe."
Rational!
"We are building an international legal system just as they built a legal system in Britain many hundreds of years ago, it was far from perfect at the start and it isn't perfect yet but it's far better than no legal system at all."
Exactly.
It's an aspiration. And until it is universal and observed by all it is not 'international law'.
And heaven forbid that it should be interpreted as a device for lending legality to actions that are in all other ways quite unacceptable.
BTW - there is a difference between 'rules' and 'laws'
Then if that applies to international law it must also apply to domestic law. George Bush and his staff repeatedly broke American law, ignored the Constitution, they were effectively above the law.
Does this mean what America has are not laws?
John Little
24-Mar-10, 23:08
I'm afraid it probably does.
In this sort of case the law crosses the line into politics and powerful interests protect or destroy the law breaker. It's interesting because it's a bit like Britain in the 18th century where the government used to try to prosecute people like John Wilkes and Tom Paine using stooge judges and the mob could intimidate courts into decisions one way or another.
Law does not always apply to the powerful - they get away with it. Privilege of Parliament and of position.
On the other hand, through US law, from Sacco and Vanzetti, up through the biased anti-black trials of the 1930s/40s.50s right through to today where certain groups have a disproportionate representation in prison, the law is never applied evenly.
They won't prosecute Bush and cronies. It would do far too much damage. They won't do it to Blair either. War crimes or no. Waging aggressive war or no.
You have far far more faith in the law than I have Fred.
Morally your idealism sets you far above my cynicism; but then again I do try to keep my feet on the ground.
Anyway I am up at 5.15am so am off to bed.
Catcha later.
The Drunken Duck
24-Mar-10, 23:17
I quite liked this statement in their feedback:
"This is not the same England that I learned about in history which stood up to the Nazis. This is not Churchill's England. England today is a putrid collection of leftist pigs and Muslim radicals and is one step away from Sharia law. England is the country that bans a brilliant commentator such as Michael Savage, but allows radical clerics all over the country spew their anti Jewish BS. So goes England , so goes Europe."
Rational!
They really need to come down off that fence dont they ??
I often feel some of these "diplomatic" rows are mere handbag waving or window dressing.
One side expels a dippy, then the other side expels a dippy, just a bit of a show with no real meaning other than to wave the handbag.
We should just sling the whole bloody lot out.
Hmm.. not just any old dippy in this case. They managed to turf out the head of Mossad in UK (quite possibly Europe). Wonder if they have been looking for an excuse for a while, and hey presto!
I quite liked this statement in their feedback:
"This is not the same England that I learned about in history which stood up to the Nazis. This is not Churchill's England. England today is a putrid collection of leftist pigs and Muslim radicals and is one step away from Sharia law. England is the country that bans a brilliant commentator such as Michael Savage, but allows radical clerics all over the country spew their anti Jewish BS. So goes England , so goes Europe."
Rational!
I like this statement, it is so true and we seem to have a few of the collections of leftist idjits and Muslim radicals, spewing their reteric in Scotland also. we do not have to look far either.
Hmm.. not just any old dippy in this case. They managed to turf out the head of Mossad in UK (quite possibly Europe). Wonder if they have been looking for an excuse for a while, and hey presto!
OK, not just any old dippy but still window dressing. The top boy's are only going to be office wallers and it'll be business as normal for them, just remotely.
Hmm.. not just any old dippy in this case. They managed to turf out the head of Mossad in UK (quite possibly Europe). Wonder if they have been looking for an excuse for a while, and hey presto!
I think it's more likely someone from the British government had lunch with someone from the Israeli embassy and said "look we'll have to expel somebody, got anybody due for retirement?".
I think it's more likely someone from the British government had lunch with someone from the Israeli embassy and said "look we'll have to expel somebody, got anybody due for retirement?".
Now that is terribly British!
:)
I think it's more likely someone from the British government had lunch with someone from the Israeli embassy and said "look we'll have to expel somebody, got anybody due for retirement?".
Aye good one:cool:
northener
25-Mar-10, 13:40
Rumblings in the US, too.....
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100325/tts-uk-palestinians-israel-ca02f96.html
Rumblings in the US, too.....
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100325/tts-uk-palestinians-israel-ca02f96.html
But they are still voting for Israel at the UN.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=121591§ionid=351020202
Rumblings in the US, too.....
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100325/tts-uk-palestinians-israel-ca02f96.html
And they are still supplying them with weapons.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1159155.html
Israel has consistently ignored UN sanctions and flouted International Law. Little is done about it since there is a large and powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States Congress and Senate.
Anyone criticising such a state of affairs or anyone who advocates sanctions against Israel is often labelled anti-Semitic and so any movement towards peace is immediately stalled.
In his own words ..........
“We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it.” —Ariel Sharon, Oct. 3, 2001.
http://intifada-palestine.com/2009/12/powerful-israel-lobby-has-death-grip-on-u-s-politics-elections-policies/
In his own words ..........
“We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it.” —Ariel Sharon, Oct. 3, 2001.
http://intifada-palestine.com/2009/12/powerful-israel-lobby-has-death-grip-on-u-s-politics-elections-policies/
Are you sure?
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=373 (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=373)
Are you sure?
Because all the evidence confirms it.
Boozeburglar
27-Mar-10, 00:33
Just another horse pooh internet myth, that quote.
Just another horse pooh internet myth, that quote.
Could be true, I don't know.
I looked at some of the writings on the CAMERA site used to refute the quote and in my opinion they are blatantly a Zionist propaganda machine which makes no pretence of impartiality and bandies plausible deniability as evidence.
So maybe he said it, maybe he didn't, I don't know, what I do know is that what was said is true, Israel does control America, I've seen masses of irrefutable evidence for that.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/2010/March/23%20n/Half%20Members%20of%20US%20Congress%20Scramble%20t o%20Express%20Allegiance%20to%20Israel%20in%20the% 20First%20Day%20of%20AIPAC%27s%20Conference,%20Mar ch%2022,%202010.htm
John Little
27-Mar-10, 11:18
I'm with Fred on this one. Anyone in doubt just have a look at AIPAC's activities. Astonishing- they are only equalled by the NRA in their ability to range votes on their side.
Could be true, I don't know.
I looked at some of the writings on the CAMERA site used to refute the quote and in my opinion they are blatantly a Zionist propaganda machine which makes no pretence of impartiality and bandies plausible deniability as evidence.
So maybe he said it, maybe he didn't, I don't know, what I do know is that what was said is true, Israel does control America, I've seen masses of irrefutable evidence for that.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/2010/March/23%20n/Half%20Members%20of%20US%20Congress%20Scramble%20t o%20Express%20Allegiance%20to%20Israel%20in%20the% 20First%20Day%20of%20AIPAC%27s%20Conference,%20Mar ch%2022,%202010.htm
And this one: http://intifada-palestine.com/2009/1...ions-policies/ (http://intifada-palestine.com/2009/12/powerful-israel-lobby-has-death-grip-on-u-s-politics-elections-policies/) isn't a propaganda machine?
John Little
27-Mar-10, 14:01
Aye - that's a propaganda machine alright. Fred does not need to use that though
But this is better;
http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/default.asp
They are much more savvy, much less overt and very very influential.
I think things may slowly be starting to change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpV4rvAOxXo&feature=player_embedded#
Also recall an interview in a magazine called Arabian Man with John Sununu who was former White House Chief of Staff under George W Bush, who was asked why he didn't do more to promote the Palestinain cause (his father is of Palestinian descent) and he said that whenever he got the relevant Palestinian and other Arab parties around a table all they did was argue - the Israelis always had a consistant message.
Aye - that's a propaganda machine alright. Fred does not need to use that though
But this is better;
http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/default.asp
.
The above link also has a link to http://www.aipac.org/694.asp#33115
which states that the US President Obama has requested $3 billion in security assistance for Israel for fiscal year 2011.
In comparison, the US has given Palestine a total of $2.9 billion since 1994
"..The United States is the leading provider of bilateral economic and development assistance to the Palestinians, having programmed $2.9 billion through USAID since 1994. Funding has supported programs in the areas of water and sanitation, infrastructure, education, health.."
http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/aboutUs.html
Aye - that's a propaganda machine alright. Fred does not need to use that though
I didn't use it actually, that was Stavro's link.
I'm not making any claims as to whether the quote is genuine or not.
I didn't use it actually, that was Stavro's link.
I'm not making any claims as to whether the quote is genuine or not.
Don't sit on the fence, it's obvious what I think.
John Little
27-Mar-10, 22:29
The most effective technique in propaganda is to take something of the truth and remould it into something which focuses individual opinion into public opinion. The Palestinian website takes something which has more than a grain of truth in it and elevates it in to something which it is not.
To think that Israel controls the US is an over-statement.
The reason why the Palestinians say this is because they have a constituency which already believes it, so by stating it they confirm their hold over their target audience.
The reason AIPAC says pretty much the same thing is because they over-state in search of donors.
That said, AIPAC is reputedly the second most effective PAC in the states.
They may not "control" the US but they do pack a powerful punch in Congress- and on their website they make no secret of that at all.
The most effective technique in propaganda is to take something of the truth and remould it into something which focuses individual opinion into public opinion. The Palestinian website takes something which has more than a grain of truth in it and elevates it in to something which it is not.
To think that Israel controls the US is an over-statement.
The reason why the Palestinians say this is because they have a constituency which already believes it, so by stating it they confirm their hold over their target audience.
The reason AIPAC says pretty much the same thing is because they over-state in search of donors.
That said, AIPAC is reputedly the second most effective PAC in the states.
They may not "control" the US but they do pack a powerful punch in Congress- and on their website they make no secret of that at all.
Nearly 300 congressmen just pledged allegiance to Israel in a letter to Hillary Clinton.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1159159.html
Congress has 535 voting members.
John Little
28-Mar-10, 11:05
Fred
I do wish you would not overstate.
You actually and often make some very good points, but reaffirming a commitment is not the same as pledging allegiance.
As you very well know.
These people reaffirm a commitment because if they don't they know damned fine they will face a backlash from their Jewish voters, hostility in the Jewish press and an AIPAC funded campaign against them. They will be labelled anti-Semitic and their reputations will be asassinated.
So they sign the letter.
Over 200 do not.
They do not put their hands on their heart/bible/Torah/Koran and 'pledge allegiance' as if to the flag of the US.
If they did so then they could no longer be in Congress because they would have violated their oaths;
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_citizenship_%28United_States%29#cite_note-0)
Your point is perfectly valid- without the over-egging.
Fred
I do wish you would not overstate.
Overstate? By declaring the bond between them and Israel unbreakable they are effectively giving Israel the green light to do as they like, take Jerusalem, commit genocide in Gaza, attack Iran. It doesn't matter to Israel what they do, even if it results in the death of American servicemen, they have 300 congressmen in their pockets.
Mind you there's nothing new there, look at the attack on the USS Liberty, what other country could attack an American ship killing 34 of their crew and it not even make the front page of the newspapers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
John Little
28-Mar-10, 12:20
I do not disagree with what you say.
I merely state that by using the phrase 'pledged allegiance' you were overstating your case.
Which you were, and which there is no need to do.
The article speaks for itself.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.