And palestinian groups, but you igore those,
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Car Bomb in Jerusalem - Tens of casualties
Collapse
X
-
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
-
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Who are they?If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Comment
-
Sorry for the length of time it's taken me to post this. I was having technical problems, which I think were related to post size, so I'm posting this in several chunks. Sorry for any inconvenience it may cause.
Originally posted by GePap
The northern no-fly zoen and Kuridsh region are not UN speonsored as much as US created, I personally don't think much of them.
But the sactions regime does count and is valid.
Becuse in 1947 the UN partitioned the land- all the occupied territories today with the excetption of Jerusalem, both east and West (both were supposed to be under UN control), are parts of lands that were granted to the local Arabs, the Palesitnians.
JOrdan was wrong in annexing the West bank, for which they got lots of heat from other Arabs states, and they have now renounced the west bank. Egypt never annexed the gaza strip. Since neither of these two peices of land are rightfully Israeli either, who does that leave? Well, the people who inhabit them, and as a 90+% majority in those lands, it should go to the Palestinians.
Since this is a hypothetical bordering on the inane (yes, a releigous conservative sheikdom a Soviet ally), i wont touch it.
What I will say is that it was UN approval which gave the US the ability to set up the sanctions regime and gather wideranging Arab (heck, even Syria) support for the attack.
And neither is israel a secular state, nor its civil code secular by western standards, so i guess I will go by Middle eastern, in whic a little religious law is considered fine.
But you refuse to recognize the reality that the Jewish nation was biult upon the expulsion of over half a million huamn beigns out of their homes: until israel comes to term with that reality, that its birth is based on someone else pain and loss, it won't face peace.
From all i have heard him say, he sees Oslo a done deal,as in done for, no longer valid. This is going on statements he has made all durng Oslo and the intifadah.
You mena dismantling the illegal settlements he himself has started and gotten built when peace came with egypt.
Wheres the rope?
I don't see anyone being lynched. And I also fail to see many nations in gorups act outsied the bounds of pre=existing interantional frameworks like the UN, NATO, or WHO.
The Israeli definition is no no way the valid one, since the definition has yet to be determined!
242 has vagueness built in, so both sides would agree to use it as a starting point for negotiations. beyond the baselessness of just stating you are right, there is the fatc that neither side has actually gone to a mayor peace conference to hammer things out. My point is, that when that negotiation comes around, the Arab view, that Israel must withdraw all territories taken in 1967 will be the predominant one.
But it does not need to include Americans.
Sadat did not switch sides. he wanted to get his antion out of the Soveit sphere, where Nasser had gravitated, and to bring about peace.
But notice, all this happened after he launched war on israel. He knew that he had to bring the military balance more to his favor ot get israel to negotiate- and he was right.
Based on what? Syria agreed to UNSCR 242 in 1972. It does not have the power to retake the Golan and knows the Israeli demands and the US demands. Why then would they call for a complete IDF pullout wihtout the placing then of peacekeepers?
So israel should go ask the syrains in a new round of negotiations, instead of stting on their arse.
Why? the Us abides byu the ruilings of the WTO, which has far less enforcement capabilites than the UN. Why? Because following the ruels is in its own interests, which are calculated based on values.
The US, for the most part, wanst free tarde, thinks it is good for it, so it will abide by the rulings of a trade court, with absolutely no enforcement abilites, becuase it promotes its values.
Comment
-
Thats because Israel redefined the Druze as not Arabs to seperate them from the Arab mainstream. The plan still descriminates against millions, and thus wrong.
When 35% of the Israeli public, according to a poll, state that they agree with trasnfer (and not 'economic' but physical[poll was in the NYT a few weeks ago, don't remember the day]) . that shows me the ideas of kach are not irrelevant.
The settlements are an israeli policy- the goverment encourages them and subsideses them. Yasser isn't giving ten dollar bills to each Paletinians trying to get into Israel.
But no state claims the right to stop people from going to other parts of their land. The Israli closures are not only denying access into israel, but denying access out of ones home. They are not acts of immigration policy, but of occupation policy. The occupied territories aren't kansas. they are an area designated as under military occupation, and israel's closing, again, are more than simply immigration policy.
Point ebing, don't asume you have a monopoly on meanings.
Fine. So we simply disagree.
Fatah is the biggets part of the PLO, but not the only one. So, it what many diferent parties in the Palestinan side want. the Palestiians are no more monolithic than the Israelis.
And palestinian groups, but you igore those, and most palestiians ignore the Israeli ones cause they are not in power.
But if you don't solve the underlying politcal mess, more people like Rabbi Riskin will die.
Why did that man blow himself up if he knew several people there? Was he intrisically evil? I would say no. He was making a radical politcal statement the only way he had been told he could, thought violence.
Again, the strategy of terror is an idea that can't be destroyed, and as long as there is a conflict between palestinians and israelis, and the power differential is so great as to proclude all out war, palestionans will carry out such atatcks. The long term, and only solution, is peace.
Has the palestinian authority followed everything they sigend? No. Has Israel? No.
But tmes have changed and the situation detiriorated. Sharon's dropping of the one-week plicy is abowing to reality and a show that agreements are the way to peace, not the other way around.
No, we haven't invade canada,and thats our most siginficant treaty with them, but we break fuishing agreementa andlumber ones often.
Nazi germany is an extreme case anyway (notice how its the only one that seems to be used in this line of, you can' trust arguments)
Again, his territorail demands have remained the same. So any argument that Arafat is out to get all of Israel are wrong.
The issue of Terrorism deals with how he plans to get his demands met, and as far as that goes, i would agree that he didn't do eneough when he could have.
The Declaraion of Human rights isn't part of the 1946 Charter, it is a resolution passed latter. as such, it is the difference between the Charter (constitution) and the declaration (a specific law). You don't have to sign the declaration of hman rights to be a memebr of the UN, but you do have to follow the charter.
No, I am saying that by themselves, they are not enough to derail a peace process any ore that each outragous thing out of someones mouth is.
As before, even figuring out which is most likely (which may always eb wrong, since all you can see are posibilities), you get no where until you act, and that action, in the end, really exists independently of all the thinkign done.
At oslo 2, the west bak was divided into zones a,b,c. zone a were Nabuls, jenin, Bethlehem, Tulkarm, Qalqilya,and ramallah. Zone B, were most other small Palestinans hamlets and towns. Mus other lands were Zone C, including many lands around settleemtns and access roads. all zone a and bwere supposed to come into Palestinain control before Palestinian elections for council in 1996. In the 18 months after the elections, there were to be three phases of withdrawl, by which time all zone c lands would also be under paletinians control. All this was negotiated by rabin with arafat. Netanyahu did not carry out thephased withdrawls of zone C lands as ahd been agreed.
Zone C is every part of the West Bank not included in Zones A and B. So to say that Israel agreed to withdraw from it is incorrect, because as I’m sure you’ll agree, Israel never agreed to withdraw from all of the West Bank. As I understand it, Israel agreed to make two more withdrawls of a scope to be determined by negotiations. The two sides could not agree on the scope, and no one wanted Israel to end the proccess by unilaterally withdrawing from areas of its choosing.
The motive for isolating arafta, I believe, was to show politcal solidarity with Sharon, besides tha fact that the BUsh admin. is not friendly with Arafat (specially Cheney) so thery kept all the pressure on him, not Sharon too.
Becuase these gorups lacked popular support. where there giant rallies to mourn their deaths? Were there elections in which their political counterparts won many seats?
A bunch of lonely revolutionaries can be ebat. A bunch of guy adored as liberators can't be beat by bombing and scarring the popualce into the arms of the 'liberators'. They have to be shown fr the tugs they are, and this will only happen politically.
All the more reason to be warry of Hitler, since he said aht he said when it meant little politically, and thus everyone should have seen it coming years in advance.
And as for faisal and the Palestinians: how many more of the oslo negotiators agreed with him, and whens the last time he repeated this stance?
The Charter, or the declaration of Human rights?
Well, there was 338.
No, first, this is in the declaration of rights, not the 1946 charter. second, many people, besides the Soviet union, beleive that providing for economic rights is a basic or important part of overall human rights. It is a basic and acceptable politcal possiton. Again, to be oart of the UN one doesn't haver to have signed the deckaration, but you do need to stick with the charter.
Comment
Comment