JEDIYoda, it may be best for you to add a link to the source that you plagiarised your bulk of 'myths and facts' text from.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Yeah. We already saw that. You still avoid that it all ties into statehood under the UN charter, and Palestine is not a state.
I'm not the one disregarding history here. The Palestinians have had plenty of chances to form their own state and at any given time decided not to do so, then subsequently regretted their poor decision. There is nothing dishonest about that. It's a simple fact. I have always stated that the Palestinians have been their own worst enemy and I stand by that statement.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,320
- 126
http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=119561Myth and Fact: Can Territory Be Acquired in War?
Mitchell G. Bard
Jewish Virtual Library
Myth
"According to Security Council Resolution 242, Israel’s acquisition of territory through the 1967 war is ‘inadmissible.'"
Fact
On November 22, 1967, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242, establishing the principles that were to guide the negotiations for an Arab-Israeli peace settlement. This resolution was a tortuously negotiated compromise between competing proposals.
The first point addressed by the resolution is the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” Some people take this to mean that Israel is required to withdraw from all the territories it captured. On the contrary, the reference clearly applies only to an offensive war. If not, the resolution would provide an incentive for aggression. If one country attacks another, and the defender repels the attack and acquires territory in the process, the former interpretation would require the defender to return all the land it took. Thus, aggressors would have little to lose because they would be insured against the main consequence of defeat.
“This is the first war in history which has ended with the victors suing for peace and the vanquished calling for unconditional surrender.”
—Abba Eban, Abba Eban, (NY: Random House, 1977), p. 446
The ultimate goal of 242, as expressed in paragraph 3, is the achievement of a “peaceful and accepted settlement.” This means a negotiated agreement based on the resolution’s principles rather than one imposed upon the parties. This is also the implication of Resolution 338, according to Arthur Goldberg, the American ambassador who led the delegation to the UN in 1967 (Jerusalem Post, May 28, 1984). That resolution, adopted after the 1973 war, called for negotiations between the parties to start immediately and concurrently with the cease*fire.
Mitchell G. Bard
Jewish Virtual Library
Myth
"According to Security Council Resolution 242, Israel’s acquisition of territory through the 1967 war is ‘inadmissible.'"
Fact
On November 22, 1967, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242, establishing the principles that were to guide the negotiations for an Arab-Israeli peace settlement. This resolution was a tortuously negotiated compromise between competing proposals.
The first point addressed by the resolution is the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” Some people take this to mean that Israel is required to withdraw from all the territories it captured. On the contrary, the reference clearly applies only to an offensive war. If not, the resolution would provide an incentive for aggression. If one country attacks another, and the defender repels the attack and acquires territory in the process, the former interpretation would require the defender to return all the land it took. Thus, aggressors would have little to lose because they would be insured against the main consequence of defeat.
“This is the first war in history which has ended with the victors suing for peace and the vanquished calling for unconditional surrender.”
—Abba Eban, Abba Eban, (NY: Random House, 1977), p. 446
The ultimate goal of 242, as expressed in paragraph 3, is the achievement of a “peaceful and accepted settlement.” This means a negotiated agreement based on the resolution’s principles rather than one imposed upon the parties. This is also the implication of Resolution 338, according to Arthur Goldberg, the American ambassador who led the delegation to the UN in 1967 (Jerusalem Post, May 28, 1984). That resolution, adopted after the 1973 war, called for negotiations between the parties to start immediately and concurrently with the cease*fire.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,320
- 126
So what are you going to do if I don`t add a link??
Cry some more?
Wow you are making accusation left and right...
Now you claim I plagiarising material...I don`t need to do that.....I forgot the link sorry......
If you were not so quick to make false accusations....
Just like you claim I have called for the genocide of a whole race of people, when you know I have never ever posted any such words or in your case nonesense.
If we take the word "plagerise" to its extreme you could call leaving a link out plagerism....but I did not call it mine own words and I took no credit for it.
Since you are a know liar -- see unfounded accusations....
Anyways -- taken care of....
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFUN.html
Last edited:
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
That would be like saying the Canadian Constitution Acts are enforcable upon the government of the United States. It obviously is not, since they are obviously written to apply to Canada and say so in them.
The UN Resolution you quote says it applies to STATES. You have to have STATES for it to apply. If you cannot show the two STATES involved, you have to drop that point. It is really that simple.
You have been shown to be wrong, and easily so by a simply read of the resolution.
It sounds just like the whiners that always cry racism when it is non-existent....and we have had alot of that in this thread as well. This thread is full of WIN!!!
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,320
- 126
Most likely every Jew knows what Genocide means and the history of the word --
Genocide has been defined as the deliberate killing of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, or (sometimes) politics, as well as other deliberate actions leading to the physical elimination of any of the above categories. There is disagreement over whether the term genocide ought to be used for politically-motivated mass murders in general (compare "democide").
The term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew, in 1944, from the roots genos (Greek for family, tribe or race) and -cide (Latin - occidere, to kill). In the wake of the Nazi Holocaust, Lemkin successfully campaigned for the acceptance of international laws, defining and forbidding genocide. This was achieved in 1951, with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
JEDIYoda, I am not about to again refute botlike behaviour by one who considers discourse to be that of continuous grape-shot walls pasted of AIPAC propagandist text plastering this forum.
One cannot have reasonable dialogue with absolute ideologues.
Your chosen author refuses to recognise what is. In warfare, there is no such thing as defencive acquiring of territory. As per international that I have cited, aggression is the invasion and annexing of territory. There is no defencive distinction to proclaim -- but they attacked me first. The end result of criminal expansion defines the continuance of aggression.
In the post United Nations world, no state may unilaterally expand its territory, particularly upon the territory of indigenous people. Or are you to deny the presence and existence of Palestinians?
Israel is guilty of high crimes of aggression, and as per standing United Resolutions that reaffirm the illegality of such territorial acquisitions, Israel remains in defiance of united world bodies, and is standing alone is its belligerent viewpoint that Palestinian territory in the occupied West Bank are its victory spoils, and for its taking.
The displacement and control of indigenous peoples in favour of colonising Zionists, is the ironic, bloody and criminal re-enactment of Germany's past goals of lebensraum.
Reasonably and pragmatically displaying the validity of Israeli crimes and wrongs has no sway upon ideologues. Therefore there is no progressive discussion to be had.
One cannot have reasonable dialogue with absolute ideologues.
Your chosen author refuses to recognise what is. In warfare, there is no such thing as defencive acquiring of territory. As per international that I have cited, aggression is the invasion and annexing of territory. There is no defencive distinction to proclaim -- but they attacked me first. The end result of criminal expansion defines the continuance of aggression.
In the post United Nations world, no state may unilaterally expand its territory, particularly upon the territory of indigenous people. Or are you to deny the presence and existence of Palestinians?
Israel is guilty of high crimes of aggression, and as per standing United Resolutions that reaffirm the illegality of such territorial acquisitions, Israel remains in defiance of united world bodies, and is standing alone is its belligerent viewpoint that Palestinian territory in the occupied West Bank are its victory spoils, and for its taking.
The displacement and control of indigenous peoples in favour of colonising Zionists, is the ironic, bloody and criminal re-enactment of Germany's past goals of lebensraum.
Reasonably and pragmatically displaying the validity of Israeli crimes and wrongs has no sway upon ideologues. Therefore there is no progressive discussion to be had.
Israelis think that they have not to respects human laws , as according
to a former israeli prime minister public speach :
to a former israeli prime minister public speach :
Indeed , US politicians are daily licking the feet of their nazis zionist masters....
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
We can cite UN resolution 242 until we are blue in the face, but as Jordan and Egypt who previously signed peace treaties with Israel on the basis of Res 242, and saying Israel is in breech of the contracts of resolution 242, leaving them free to dissolve those previous treaties.
The only justification Israel has regarding the disputed territories, lies in being the power that administers them. The violation is in sneaking in 500,000 Israeli settlers which violates all the principles of Resolution 242.
The only justification Israel has regarding the disputed territories, lies in being the power that administers them. The violation is in sneaking in 500,000 Israeli settlers which violates all the principles of Resolution 242.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,320
- 126
The long and short of it is...You don`t see things my way -- yet I post links supporting my view...all your links are invalid thus we cannot have further discussion.
I for sure do not see things your way and like you I have posted links refuting what you believe to be the truth.
There is more to this than international law and the UN resolutions....
So we can agree to disagree or we can just go on our merry way.....
I
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
When you read the resolution here:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement
You will notice one word keeps being repeated. Can you guess what that word is? No? Did not think so, since you keep pretending it is not there.
STATE. It keeps saying other STATES. It also references the Geneva Convention which also explicity says STATES.
Until you can show which STATE owns the lands you claim Isreal is occupying, you have nothing to stand on.
We both know you cannot do it, which is why you have to pretend the word does not exist in all of your "supporting" documents.
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Pardon me JediY if I observe, many people like you trapped in a small slice of history can maybe be forgiven for assuming things will never change.
But still its likely that Israel will soon celebrate its 64'th birthday without being forced to change in major ways, but I don't think a smart betting man would gamble on many similar birthdays. In the eyes of history, 64 years is nothing, and when the end comes, it can come with rapid speed. South African Apartheid lasted far longer than just 64 years, The rein of Charlemagne lasted some 800 years, and a smart betting man during the rein of King Louie the 14'th would be clueless that it would ever change. But come 1789, that rein was all over in a comparative instant. The same could be said of the Russian Tsarist system of surfdom. I could go on and on in citing historical examples, but why bother.
Face the facts JediY, your arguments are all based on times never changing, and that is seldom a safe bet.
But still its likely that Israel will soon celebrate its 64'th birthday without being forced to change in major ways, but I don't think a smart betting man would gamble on many similar birthdays. In the eyes of history, 64 years is nothing, and when the end comes, it can come with rapid speed. South African Apartheid lasted far longer than just 64 years, The rein of Charlemagne lasted some 800 years, and a smart betting man during the rein of King Louie the 14'th would be clueless that it would ever change. But come 1789, that rein was all over in a comparative instant. The same could be said of the Russian Tsarist system of surfdom. I could go on and on in citing historical examples, but why bother.
Face the facts JediY, your arguments are all based on times never changing, and that is seldom a safe bet.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
LL. Nobody can divine the future. Considering your prognostication track record in P&N, you should know that better than anyone here.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter