So why do people hate Israel? - Page 37




 
--
 
January 21st, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Yes, and born out of that were 2 Germanies. East and West who joined in 1990 and some wanted it to be called ... Prussia. This former Prussia is now the fourth largest by nominal GDP in the world !
So no Prussia on the map then I take it?


Quote:
The Egyptian Islamists vowed to keep the peace accord with Israel. Israel is strengthening it's ties with Ethiopia which is building a huge dam on the Nile that will decrease water volume through Sudan and Egypt. If Egypt starts to become more fundamentalistic it's income from tourism will fall dramatically and the $ from the US will dry up. They will be in trouble within the shortest period of time.
Turkey (Erdogan) dreams of the lost powers of the Ottoman Empire. If they attack Israel that would be the end of Turkish Nato membership. That will also make them vulnerable to pressure from their longtime enemy Russian.
Erdogan is to smart to do such foolish things. Fanatical Islamists do foolish things, none of their countries lives in prosperity.
Well then if Israel has Ethiopian support then its all over for the Palestinians, Ethiopia that great power house of Africa.

Egypt only requires US$ as long as UD$ have a value greater than say the Chinese$, now here is the interesting thing the US is nearing bankrupcy (along with the rest of the western world) the only thing the US government has come up with is a group to look into ways of reducing deficit growth not the deficit itself so at some point in the future how hard will it be when given the choice of supporting the side that takes billions in aid or the side that costs us nothing will it be to simply say sorry cant help.

As for Turkey well I suggest you should read more about the Syrian crisis because if you look close you will see that Turkey is the only country in the immediate area capable of supporting and enforcing any UN/Arab League sanctions.

Quote:
You underestimate the economic power of the USA. If they tax their people like European countries do they are out of debt within a couple of years. The US has also huge corporate assets. Take a close look at Japan and you will understand what I am saying.
Haha and it is easy to tell you dont know America because if they taxed their people like European countries do they would they would be in revolution within a week.
January 21st, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
They didn't give away a country from other people. Their former country, the Ottoman Empire, ceased to exist in 1923. Many new countries were created after WWI. Only Israel was created by the powers of the League of Nations. many others were created just by France and Britain ( a.o. Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia )
And show me exactly where in the charter of the League of Nations they have the right to give away the land of another people.

No more BS about not being a sovereign country, as we have already shown (several times) native occupants are the owners. The countries you name above have no problem because they were never given to a third party who had no legal or moral right to be there.
January 22nd, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
So no Prussia on the map then I take it?
It's yours!

Quote:
Well then if Israel has Ethiopian support then its all over for the Palestinians, Ethiopia that great power house of Africa.
There is a possible future conflict between Ethiopia and Sudan / Egypt about the Nile. When the dam is finished it will reduce the amounts of water flowing to Sudan / Egypt. Who once said that future wars will be about water?

Quote:
Egypt only requires US$ as long as UD$ have a value greater than say the Chinese$, now here is the interesting thing the US is nearing bankrupcy (along with the rest of the western world) the only thing the US government has come up with is a group to look into ways of reducing deficit growth not the deficit itself so at some point in the future how hard will it be when given the choice of supporting the side that takes billions in aid or the side that costs us nothing will it be to simply say sorry cant help.
I won't bet on western bankrupty.

Quote:
As for Turkey well I suggest you should read more about the Syrian crisis because if you look close you will see that Turkey is the only country in the immediate area capable of supporting and enforcing any UN/Arab League sanctions.
Syria used to be part of the Ottoman Empire so Erdogan will see to it that it becomes within the influence of Turkey. I don't know how it will turn out in Syria but I hope it will not set the whole region on fire.


Quote:
Haha and it is easy to tell you dont know America because if they taxed their people like European countries do they would they would be in revolution within a week.
They have gone through that before in the 19th century. Off course that's long ago. In november they are able to choose, Republican with less health care and less retirement wages or Democratic, more taxes. But then again, Republican propably means war with Iran. 2012 will be a very interesting year, I only hope the Mayas are wrong.
--
January 22nd, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
And show me exactly where in the charter of the League of Nations they have the right to give away the land of another people.
Read article 22. (The Covenant of the League of Nations)

They did not give away the land of another people.

Quote:
No more BS about not being a sovereign country, as we have already shown (several times) native occupants are the owners. The countries you name above have no problem because they were never given to a third party who had no legal or moral right to be there.
Native occupants are not the owners. They are just people who live there according to the rule of law of that country applied by that government. You can call the native occupants "assets" of a country. The government decides how much taxes they pay, if they can move freely, if they are allowed to have property, if they are allowed to vote,...
January 22nd, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
That fails at the very first line, in the case of Palestine
Quote:
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant
LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
They did not give away the land of another people.
Oh,... I'm so sorry. I didn't realise that Israel was never there, it seems we are arguing over nothing then. So let's just let the palestinians get on with running their country , eh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Native occupants are not the owners. They are just people who live there according to the rule of law of that country applied by that government. You can call the native occupants "assets" of a country. The government decides how much taxes they pay, if they can move freely, if they are allowed to have property, if they are allowed to vote,...
WRONG,.. this was discussed in the World court, in the case of Australia, 20 years or so ago and the native people are recognised as legal owners. They had no Government, that was introduced by us invaders. Our laws make no difference to "ownership" and this is enshrined in our Law. Also they do not have to vote, unlike the rest of us occupants of Australia, and they have many other freedoms not accorded to the rest of us, because they are the "owners".

We occupy the country and pay rent (about $80pw) to every Aboriginal person regardless of age, sex or social position, (including people with as little as 1/16 part blood).
January 23rd, 2012  
zhaldev
 
 
@SJ your analogies about Australia is quite same as Israel.They occupied land against the will of natives though there were Jews already living.They wanted their own country so they established one,called their people from all over the world and now running the country and saving their lives from the aggressive natives. Same goes with Aussies they came from different countries developed their own government and now as you said paying rent to the natives but before that you also had to fight the natives right? Only thing is that the aborginies had no predetermined ideas about how to react the invasion cause they had no such religious notion running their minds and had no support from others to continue the war,which in the case of Palestine cannot be said.
January 23rd, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
England occupied Australia in 1771 when such occupations were perfectly acceptable, Israel has done it in a time when the acceptable occupation of a country by force of arms was 50-100 years out of date.

The allies had just finished fighting WWII in defence of the Poles, who were being similarly occupied by Germany.
January 23rd, 2012  
RayManKiller3
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
England occupied Australia in 1771 when such occupations were perfectly acceptable, Israel has done it in a time when the acceptable occupation of a country by force of arms was 50-100 years out of date.

The allies had just finished fighting WWII in defence of the Poles, who were being similarly occupied by Germany.

This arguement of yours I find very flawed. You want to know why it is flawed? Because genocide wasn't officially illegal until 1946 and yet all the war criminals (mind you all there offenses was BEFORE it was illegal) that had something to do with genocide were tried and sentenced...

With your logic, because it was not illegal and therefore "acceptable" means they shouldn't have been tried. I do know that legal do not mean ethical, but since it is legal, they shouldn't have to worry about being tried.

If people are seriously going to attack Israel for being a "colonial power" then they must look at their own country first and see if they are "occupying" native lands. You can't use one set of logic to determine how another's situation is and ignore it when you are at fault as well, it is hypocritical. As we all know, situations are different, so yes some logical stances will not work in all cases; but we must rule out why it won't work first.
January 23rd, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
This arguement of yours I find very flawed. You want to know why it is flawed? Because genocide wasn't officially illegal until 1946 and yet all the war criminals (mind you all there offenses was BEFORE it was illegal) that had something to do with genocide were tried and sentenced....
Give me an example where it clearly states that the alleged offenders were executed for retrospective genocide.

I think you'll find that like so much you say, "you are making it up as you go along" They may have been executed for mass murder or something similar, but I'll say that they were not executed for "Genocide" retrospectively.

And, No!... Israel is not only being critcised just for being a colonial power 100 years too late, it's main criticism lies in the methods that it uses to achieve it's aims, and before you start making excuses, the list below is not something to be argued about, it is the opinion of the ICJ and the UN.
Quote:
ISRAELI VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
  • Major Legal Principle Violated -
    • Military Action and Occupation are Only Legal when They are Purely Defensive.
    • 2. Occupation Must Never Lead To Sovereignty over Occupied or Conquered Lands of the Enemy People or Nation.
    • 4. The Occupant is Required to not Significantly Change Local Laws Unless Required For Its Own Security Or To Benefit The Local Population.
    • 7. The Occupant is Required to Respect the Human Rights of the Native People except where it Significantly Jeopardizes its own Safety.
  • As Per International Law -
    • UN Charter (1945), article 51
    • Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations (1970), Principle 1 (full text) (specific article - see below)
    • see HERE for Laws pertaining to the illegality of acquisition of land by force, and occupiers not gaining soveriegnty over the lands they occupy;
    • see HERE for Laws pertaining to how de facto annexation illegally violates human rights and the right of self-determination;
    • see HERE for Laws pertaining to not altering local laws ;
    • see HERE for Laws pertaining to respecting human rights.
January 23rd, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
That fails at the very first line, in the case of Palestine LOL
you must read the whole article :

Quote:
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
The San Remo conference determined the allocation of Class "A" League of Nations mandates for administration of the former Ottoman-ruled lands of the Middle East.
The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were the basic documents upon which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed. Britain received the mandate for Palestine and Iraq; France gained control of Syria including present-day Lebanon.

Quote:
Oh,... I'm so sorry. I didn't realise that Israel was never there, it seems we are arguing over nothing then. So let's just let the palestinians get on with running their country , eh?
The jews did not create Israel, it was presented to them and they accepted it. The Arabs (Palestinians) former country was the Ottoman Empire. They were presented, for the first time, a country for themselves but declined.

Quote:
WRONG,.. this was discussed in the World court, in the case of Australia, 20 years or so ago and the native people are recognised as legal owners. They had no Government, that was introduced by us invaders. Our laws make no difference to "ownership" and this is enshrined in our Law. Also they do not have to vote, unlike the rest of us occupants of Australia, and they have many other freedoms not accorded to the rest of us, because they are the "owners".
The case of the aboriginals is not comparable to the situation in the region Palestine.
First of all, the Aboriginals were the only society to live on (future) Australian ground. They were never part of another country or government. So the Europeans invaded a souvereign nation.
The palestinians never had a country and were always ruled by another government, even a Jewish one. The allies (including Arabs and Jews) fought against the Ottoman Empire and "liberated" the region Palestine.
If you never had a country of your own, never had a government of your own how can you claim that they took your land? Personal ownership is subordinate to government control.

BTW it was not discussed in the world court. See Letter of Intent - The International Criminal Court 2011 and Thorpe loses bid to take case to international court
 


Similar Topics
Israel rightfully own the West Bank .
Israel strikes Beirut suburb, tightens blockade
A conversation with Iranian dissident (MUST READ)
Palestinians
American racism