Mandela: The United States of America is a Threat to World Peace

Re: Agreed...

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=289

I am referring not to just homicide and non-negligent manslaughter, I am referring to exactly what I said, death by guns...

Shall I spend much time at all out of all our busy days arguing the veracity, throughout its history, of the FBI's data, and its "honorable" intentions therewith?

Please.

In discussions like this, when someone shoots off with distractions like "LEFTIST LIES," its usually because they are used to operating in a world of lies all their own. I don't lie. We differ, but not because I'm lying. Indeed, might it be because we're now examing a manifest truth?

FYI, remember tht before he was shot in the head, Brady was a staunch RIGHT-wing loyalist...or is he a liar too...

(sigh)

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed...

Are you really that lacking in discussive ability, or is this a posture you take in public gatherings, to play the unsophisticate so that people think you come off more "real"? Listen, the whole act just comes off as less capable, and that's all, so engage my argument, and leave the dumb-it-down poseur act for ya mama.

That's impressive; first one poster attacks the information (incorrectly), and now you attack the language in which the argument is put forth. Only in America do we assault folks for their ability to say precisely what they mean. I guess its just that words that i've learned have different - and distinct - meanings, you've learned as synonyms; the ol' Dubya "fuzzy math" now turned into "fuzzy words," is it?

In any case, I'm waiting for anyone at all to spend some time engaging the argument. We've - hopefully - gotten past the initial, fearful, responses that engage everything BUT the argument...now let's debate and discuss...

Unless you want some other tangents folks can go off on. Just let me know any other useless info that's NOT about the point you might need, and we can spend time on that (alot like our newscasts, incidentally), instead of on asking the questions that ought be asked...

 

Incorrect.

Actually no, they're resolutions. Israel is in violation of two major bodies of UN resolutions; those instituted at its founding, and those established in 1967. Specifically, Israel has blatantly failed to respect its commitments and obligations as outlined in resolution 273 (II), particularly those related to the implementation of resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948. Not only does Israel continue to prevent the establishment of the Arab State as recommended by resolution 181 (II), which partitioned Mandated Palestine; it has also continued to deny the right of Palestine refugees to return to their homes and properties or be compensated as called for in resolution 194. Further, Israel has neither respected nor fulfilled the commitments pledged by the representative of the Government of Israel in the declarations and explanations before the Ad Hoc Political Committee at the time of its admittance to the UN.

Among the numerous Security Council and General Assembly resolutions adopted with regard to the question of Palestine, the Security Council alone has adopted 16 resolutions on Jerusalem since 1948, and since 1967 has adopted 25 resolutions reaffirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, including 5 resolutions on illegal Israeli settlements. However, in defiance of the will of the international community, Israel has not respected or acceded to any of the demands made in any of these resolutions. It has even repeatedly refused to cooperate with fact-finding missions and representatives of the Secretary-General in connection with various resolutions.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed...

Exactly. To the McCrackens of the world, noone - NOONE - is impressed with how down-home-stupid-and-typical you can be. People are impressed with the ability to put forth an argument, to make a statement, not with the rather common skill of ripping someone's level of education or ability, particularly if that ability is to say clearly what they intend to say.

And if you think that what Universal submitted here is part-and-parcel of what it takes to not only get a Berkley degree but a degree of any meaning, then I understand the source from which your hostility springs...

Lots of letters of rejection in your background, huh?

NEXT!

Now, as has been submitted earlier, let us engage the arguments posited, and minimize the attacks on HOW the argument is presented. Doing anything else is really only an attack upon yourself...

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed...

ahhh, the berkeley jab. right up there with "love it or leave it".

 

Re: Incorrect.

181 was a proposed partition plan. The Israelis accepted it, the Arabs rejected it.

Once the war was fought, the borders were changed. The borders after the war of independence are accepted by the UN and the rest of the world, with the exception of most Arab states, which have never accepted ANY state of Israel, no matter what borders.

194 is a UNGA resolution, so its not binding in any event. But even if it were, 194 did not require Israel to repatriate all refugees.

Any other resolutions, whether they be UNGA or UNSC resolutions, are all in the context of the negotiated agreement between the relevant parties, whether they be Israel and the belligerent Arab states, or the Palestinians.

In contrast, the UN's dictates to Saddam Hussein were unilateral and unconditional.

 

Re: Re: Incorrect.

I don't want to argue over Israel and Palestine because they are not central to any of my points are only one point of contention globally among many, no more and no less significant than other death-producing conflict worldwide. But...

I said that "Israel has blatantly failed to respect its commitments and obligations as outlined in resolution 273 (II), particularly those related to the implementation of resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948."

You said "181 was a proposed partition plan. The Israelis accepted it, the Arabs rejected it."

Okay. Therefore what? You responded to what I said by answering a question that was never posed. Yes, the Arabs rejected 181 and the Israelis (then in Palestine) accepted it. Yet my point was clearly about commitments made in 273 that related to the implementation of 181 and 194 (which, I think we agree, the Israelis endorsed).

It is untrue to submit that Arab states have never publicly resolved to acknowledge a state of Israel; I'll leave it to you to clarify what, given your knowledge on the subject, must have been a mistake on your part.

Unilaterally and unconditionally, the UN has moved to send UN fact-finders to present-day Israel on several occaisions, the most public of them being the Jenin incident, only made public tfrom the UN's end because ofthe lack of cooperation by Israel in the past, and to bring public opinion pressure upon them through the media (see: http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/04/23/LatestNews/LatestNews.47605.html).

Unfortunately, ther's been a general rebuke of the UN from many quarters, but Israel is certainly one of the many to call upon UN resolutions when it is in their favor, and to ignore them when they perceive it is not.

 

I know the Brits attacked the USA after the revolution. Spain attacked Peru after they split ways.

I would agree that Israel is the worst case study, but 50 years is still a relativly short time in history and it was established politically and with some terroristic means in the most unstable regions on the earth. Who'da thunk?

 

Re: Re: Re: Agreed...

Big difference between Taiwan and the other examples on here is that Taiwan is not an independent state like Cuba, Iraq, and the other states in question are. The government here in Taiwan doesn't even claim to be a state. If Taiwan DOES declare independence, China can use that as a justification for invasion, and LEGALLY they would be correct to do so. That is far different than Cuba, Iraq, or other states.

 

Bring back Apartheid!

 

This should have been the thread's title.

 

Re: Re: Re: Incorrect.

Once the Arabs rejected the partition plan and declared war, there was little the Israelis could to to bring about the recognition of the Arab state that was called for in 181 (and accepted by Israel).

Israel has repeatedly tried to make peace with its neighbors. This should lead to the establishment of a third state in what was part of the British mandate (the first being Transjordan, now Jordan, the second being Israel) which would in all likelihood be called Palestine.

Since Israel has never had adequate partners for peace, it cannot be said to be in violation of resolutions 181 or 194 (assuming they are binding at this point in time). Israel has, nevertheless, endeavored to work with its neighbors to bring about peace, whether that be a ruthless brutal dictator like Assad in Syria, or a mendacious, corrupt kleptocrat like Arafat.

Nothing in 181, 194, 242 or any other UNGA or UNSC resolution requires Israel to unilaterally do ANYTHING. The one possible exception to this are the resolutions pertaining to the withdrawal from Lebanon. Israel did, of course, comply with this to the letter. And yet Lebanon refuses to secure its borders, allows Hezbollah to act with impunity, and now is attempting to divert Israel's water supply. Go figure!

Currently, the only Arab states that recognize Israel are Egypt and Jordan. All other states refuse to recognize the country.

Contrary to what you say, Israel has never really tried to rely on "international law" for its convenience. It has recognized for some time now that the UN will not deal with it in a reasonable manner and does not bother to make the perfunctory appeals for basic rights such as recognition, territorial integrity, the right to be free from aggression from its neighbors. Israelis realized a long time ago that they, thank G-d, have the U.S. as an ally, but otherwise will be left out hanging by the rest of the world.