Friend & Supporter,
Today I joined Jewish leaders from the U.S. and abroad who share my concern that the United Nations might legitimize the Palestinian gambit to establish statehood in violation of established international accords.
Please explain how establishing Palestinian statehood violates established international accords.
'UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state’s international legitimacy, also recognised the remaining Palestinian territory outside the new state’s borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it mapped the borders of that territory with great precision. Resolution 181’s affirmation of the right of Palestine’s Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principles that grant statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine.) This right does not evaporate because of delays in its implementation.'
the Obama Administration seems intent on giving equal standing to the concerns of Israelis and Palestinians, including the orchestrators of terrorism.
The Israeli occupation is an act of terrorism.
http://www.btselem.org/settlements/international_law The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit an occupying power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.
The establishment of settlements results in the violation of the rights of Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe the right to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.
The attack on Gaza in 2008 that deliberately targeted unarmed civilians was also an act of terrorism.
Carrying out extra-judicial assassinations also qualifies as terrorism, as does using Palestinians as human shields, and demolishing Palestinian's homes with Bulldozers when the inhabitants are still inside.
Dropping white phosphorous on residential neighbourhoods also qualifies as terrorism.
If you agree with me that there is no moral equivalency between our allies and those who seek their destruction, please take a moment to sign our petition supporting Israel.
The Palestinians don't seek Israel's destruction. They seek implementation of the international consensus for a peaceful settlement based on the 1967 borders.
President Obama's policy of appeasement has forced Israel into a position of weakness - which in turn, makes America less secure.
Standing alone in the World in defiance of the wishes of the whole of the international community by giving unqualified support to Israel's occupation is what makes America less secure. The next time another 9/11 occurs, don't act surprised.
so, you are not signing the petition? name calling is not ok.
I won't report you though. You are still learning.
WWW.GOOGLE.EDU
No, I'm not signing the petition. I don't support ethnic cleansing, state terrorism, and deluded redneck bigots.
I did just sign this petition though:
The Petition
Dear Secretary Clinton:
Please reconsider your decision to oppose the Palestinian bid for statehood before the United Nations this coming week. In spite of your efforts and the work of George Mitchell, we are no closer to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians deserve a voice in the UN because Israel is doing everything in its power to delay a peace agreement while they continue to build settlements on land that has been slated to become a Palestinian state. US financial support for Israel should be made contingent on Israel's compliance with international law regarding refugees and its treatment of occupied people and land.
Palestinian statehood would give Palestinans a more equal footing when they come to the negotiating table. It would give recognition to their right to self-determination. And it would give them a voice at the UN, which they have been denied for 60+ years.
You know all the above. The US has been strong in its support for Israel's safety and its legitimacy. Please formulate US policy that gives Palestinians those same rights, and support their right to statehood.
No, I'm not signing the petition. I don't support ethnic cleansing, state terrorism, and deluded redneck bigots.
I did just sign this petition though:
The Petition
Dear Secretary Clinton:
Please reconsider your decision to oppose the Palestinian bid for statehood before the United Nations this coming week. In spite of your efforts and the work of George Mitchell, we are no closer to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians deserve a voice in the UN because Israel is doing everything in its power to delay a peace agreement while they continue to build settlements on land that has been slated to become a Palestinian state. US financial support for Israel should be made contingent on Israel's compliance with international law regarding refugees and its treatment of occupied people and land.
Palestinian statehood would give Palestinans a more equal footing when they come to the negotiating table. It would give recognition to their right to self-determination. And it would give them a voice at the UN, which they have been denied for 60+ years.
You know all the above. The US has been strong in its support for Israel's safety and its legitimacy. Please formulate US policy that gives Palestinians those same rights, and support their right to statehood.
obama being a weak leader again...this man can't even get republicans to support things that they have already voted for, so how can he expect to possibly bring palestinians to the table to negotiate when israel could not even stop settlement expansion as a good faith gesture in the proor negotiations?
this is a sham.
i am waiting for the worldwide backlash on this one...
americans claim to be for freedom..i guess it depends on what religion and what region of the world we are talking about..
NEW YORK (AP) — Scrambling to head off a diplomatic clash, President Barack Obama will publicly push for the Palestinians to drop a statehood bid when he addresses the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday.
Obama will follow up his speech with separate meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders as he seeks to coax both parties back to direct peace talks.
At the same time, U.S. officials are conceding that they probably cannot prevent Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas from moving forward with a request to the U.N. Security Council for full Palestinian membership.
Recognizing that Abbas seems intent to proceed, Obama is expected to privately ask the Palestinian leader to essentially drop the move for statehood recognition after Abbas delivers a formal letter of intent to the U.N. on Friday.
"The president will say, frankly, the same thing in private that he'll say in public, which is that we do not believe that this is the best course of action for achieving Palestinian aspirations," White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said.
Obama will also meet Wednesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Obama administration has pledged to veto any Palestinian statehood bid, arguing that only direct peace negotiations, not a U.N. vote, would allow the Palestinians to achieve the benefits of statehood.
Meanwhile, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N, called the Palestinian push for recognition by the world body "an unwise and diversionary gambit."
"There is no shortcut to statehood," she said Wednesday morning in an interview on CBS's "The Early Show."
Rice acknowledged that Abbas was determined to press his case, but said he wouldn't get enough Security Council votes to succeed.
Rice said that negotiations with Israel represent the only real path to statehood, saying that longstanding arguments over borders, security, a capital city and the Palestinian refugees, must be resolved ahead of statehood.
"There is a great gap between the expectations of the Palestinian people and the reality," Rice added.
With peace talks stalled, the U.S. and international partners have been negotiating intensely this week over the steps it would take to bring the two sides back to the negotiating table.
The new approach being considered would see the "quartet" of Mideast peace mediators — the U.S., European Union, United Nations and Russia — issue a statement addressing both Palestinian and Israeli concerns and setting a timetable for a return to the long-stalled peace talks, officials close to the diplomatic talks said.
Israel would have to accept its pre-1967 borders with land exchanges as the basis for a two-state solution, and the Palestinians would have to recognize Israel's Jewish character if they were to reach a deal quickly, officials close to the talks said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing diplomacy.
The White House publicly appeared to hold out slight hope that enough progress could be made to stop Abbas from formally requesting statehood recognition.
"President Abbas has indicated his determination to go to the Security Council, so we take him at his word on that," Rhodes said.
The simmering situation is far from the scenario Obama envisioned when he spoke at the U.N. one year ago.
"We should reach for what's best within ourselves," Obama said last September in pushing for negotiated agreement on a sovereign Palestinian state. "If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations."
While the Palestinian statehood bid has overshadowed Obama's time at the U.N., he is also expected to use his speech to the international body to reflect on the sweeping changes in the world over the past year, most notably in the Arab world.
Rhodes said the president also would highlight significant foreign policy developments for the U.S., such as drawing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Obama on Wednesday also planned to hold bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly. He was to meet with leaders from Britain, France, Japan and South Sudan, the world's newest nation.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I wish the U.S. would cut aid to both sides and just leave these guys to killing each other the best way they see fit. It's time for America to get out of this retarded square dance.
One day a fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up - fireman, mechanic, businessman, salesman... and so forth.
However, little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher prodded him about his father, he replied, "My father's an exotic dancer
in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes to music in front of other men and they put money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good,
he will go home with some guy and stay with him all night for money."
The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took little Justin aside to ask him,
"Is that really true about your father?"
"No," the boy said, "He works for the Democratic National Committee and helped to get Obama elected, but it's too embarrassing to say that in front of the other kids."
Here's a question for you: If you had been alive in the 1930's-1940's would you have supported the Nazis in their occupation of Europe? And if not, why not?
I have some questions for you, yours is just plain silly.
GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE
If you consider Palestine to be a "Sovereign" and "Independent" country ....
When was it founded and by whom?
What were its borders?
What was its capital?
Who was the President?
What was its form of government?
What were its major cities?
What constituted the basis of its economy?
Who was the Palestinian leader before Yasser Arafat?
Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
What was the language of the country of Palestine?
What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
What was the name of its currency and what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, or Japanese yen on any particular date?
another little nugget, not in my own words of course. I want to stay true to the Train.
The Palestinians want their own country. There is just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It is a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan", "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza belonged to Egypt and there were no "Palestinians" then. The West Bank belonged to Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the "Palestinians", weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation." So for the sake of honesty, let us not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at Jew deaths until someone points out they are being taped. Instead, call them what they are: "Other Arabs From The Same General Area Who Are In Deep Denial About Never Being Able To Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death." I know that is a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters."
Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal consequences of the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions: "The Court has also held that the right of self-determination as an established and recognized right under international law applies to the territory and to the Palestinian people. Accordingly, the exercise of such right entitles the Palestinian people to a State of their own as originally envisaged in resolution 181 (II) and subsequently confirmed."
The Palestinians want their own country. There is just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It is a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan", "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza belonged to Egypt and there were no "Palestinians" then. The West Bank belonged to Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the "Palestinians", weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation." So for the sake of honesty, let us not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at Jew deaths until someone points out they are being taped. Instead, call them what they are: "Other Arabs From The Same General Area Who Are In Deep Denial About Never Being Able To Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death." I know that is a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters."
I suppose reference to bad history and racism is all you have left now that you can't manage to respond intelligently to my previous points.
For your information:
The people known as Palestinians were recognized as such as early as the 5th century B.C.
Gaza ceased being occupied by the Egyptian's in the 12th Century B.C.
And as for the West Bank belonging to Jordan:
'Jordan was part of the Palestine Mandate for a mere eight months, from July 1920 to March 1921. Even that is vitiated by two facts: the League of Nations formally bestowed the mandatory responsibility on Great Britain only in July 1922, making the eight month period legally irrelevant; and the British disposed of almost no authority in Transjordan during those months when they theoretically held it as part of Palestine. In fact, the east bank lacked any ruler; Paris stayed away, London did not seek direct control, and the Hashemites had other priorities. "At that moment," reported Herbert Samuel, the British High Commissioner of Palestine, "Trans-Jordan was left politically derelict."
A few months of rule that was neither de facto nor de jure is hardly reason, seventy years later, to call Jordan a part of Palestine. Besides, it is preposterous to base today's major decisions of war and peace on the transient interests of the British Empire after World War I. That Jordan was briefly part of the Palestine Mandate does not establish a vital link; it merely recalls a historical curiosity. As L. Dean Brown observes, "Jordan is Palestine only in the sense that Nebraska, which was part of the Louisiana Purchase, is still Louisiana."
I suppose reference to bad history and racism is all you have left now that you can't manage to respond intelligently to my previous points.
You call me a redneck bigot, an ethnic cleanser or something, a racist and some other stuff like a upset little school boy. It's kinda funny. name calling. ha.
Your points are whack.
I suppose reference to bad history and racism is all you have left now that you can't manage to respond intelligently to my previous points.
You call me a redneck bigot, an ethnic cleanser or something, a racist and some other stuff like a upset little school boy. It's kinda funny. name calling. ha.
Your points are whack.
Big oranges. Very big oranges.
i don't think you are capable of intelligently discussing this topic. if i may, i suggest you maybe do a little reading up on the situation over there instead of mocking byrnzie's posts and arbitrarily cheerleading the israeli government and its policies. or, if you don't know something or don't understand something, just ask. there are people on here who are very knowledgable about the conflict. they can point you in the right direction if you want to learn more on both perspectives...sadly, many of them don't post anymore because people like you make a mockery of the conflict. i think if you keep doing what you are doing in this thread people are going to think you are nothing but a troll. i am just trying to give you a little advice. you can take it if you want or disregard it if you want.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
OK, just did some research. Now can I play? This is how you guys do it right?
The Washington Times
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The Palestinians, much as they have done for more than the last half-century, are planning to defy their international obligations and international law by unilaterally declaring independence at the United Nations. The legal effect of that declaration will be nil. First, the United States is likely to veto at the Security Council any Palestinian attempt to gain admission to the U.N. as a member state. Second, while the General Assembly can recognize a Palestinian nonmember state, that recognition has no legal effect.
According to international legal precedent, statehood does not become so by declaration or even recognition. Instead, it is a function of whether an entity possesses the qualities that the world associates with independent, sovereign states. Those criteria are defined in the Montevideo Convention as a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and a capacity to enter foreign relations. In essence, a state come into existence by being able to stand on its own as a separate, independent political body.
As much as the Palestinians want to exist as an independent state and as much as other members of the international community want them to as well, it simply is not the case. First, the Palestinians lack both a defined territory and a defined population. In the West Bank, areas are designated A, B and C, with the Palestinians exercising virtually no control in Area C and limited control in A and B.
Second, their government consists of an internationally recognized terrorist group - Hamas - and the Palestinian Authority (PA), whose authority is only recognized through the Oslo Accord agreements with Israel. Those same agreements also specifically curtail Palestinian power by stating that the PA does “not have powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations … and the exercise of diplomatic functions.” They also state that “[n]either side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent-status negotiations.” A declaration of statehood by the Palestinians would explicitly violate those provisions.
Perhaps just as importantly, however, the Palestinians lack the stability of a state. Of the Palestinian Authority’s nearly $4 billion annual budget, more than $500 million comes directly from the United States. European countries also provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. Nearly half of the remaining budget requires Israeli assistance, which would be seriously jeopardized in the event the Palestinians proceed with their declaration of independence in violation of Oslo.
Moreover, Palestinians lack the institutional legitimacy required of states. Even a 2008 PA report conceded a general lack of respect for judicial independence and the rule of law. That institutional instability is only exacerbated by the situation in Gaza, which is ruled by Hamas. In short, the Palestinians’ underdeveloped governance and economic infrastructure makes it unfit for statehood.
The timing of the Palestinians’ anticipated declaration of independence is especially ironic because Fatah has entered a unity agreement with Hamas, which has once again initiated a rocket-launching campaign into southern Israel. Those terrorist attacks should preclude any U.N. validation of the Palestinian cause. Indeed, U.N. admission is predicated upon compliance with the U.N. Charter and is only open to “peace-loving states,” a criteria that cannot possibly be met when complicit with terrorism.Some have argued that the precedent in Kosovo, and the subsequent International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion, provides legal support for Palestinian statehood. The ICJ opinion, however - even though nonbinding - was “narrow and specific” and held not that Kosovo’s declaration of independence created a state, but that it was not per se illegal. It specifically disclaimed any opinion on the legal effectiveness of a declaration of independence. That is because declarations of independence do not create states. If that were the case, a Palestinian state would already exist, as it declared statehood in 1988 as well, to no effect.
States, like stars, come into existence only when the right elements converge into a self-sustaining body. As much as the world may wish for a Palestinian state to exist, wishing it simply doesn’t make it so.
wow, that was tuff. Glad I am on the same bar as you guys now.
OK, just did some research. Now can I play? This is how you guys do it right?
The Washington Times
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The Palestinians, much as they have done for more than the last half-century, are planning to defy their international obligations and international law by unilaterally declaring independence at the United Nations. The legal effect of that declaration will be nil. First, the United States is likely to veto at the Security Council any Palestinian attempt to gain admission to the U.N. as a member state. Second, while the General Assembly can recognize a Palestinian nonmember state, that recognition has no legal effect.
According to international legal precedent, statehood does not become so by declaration or even recognition. Instead, it is a function of whether an entity possesses the qualities that the world associates with independent, sovereign states. Those criteria are defined in the Montevideo Convention as a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and a capacity to enter foreign relations. In essence, a state come into existence by being able to stand on its own as a separate, independent political body.
As much as the Palestinians want to exist as an independent state and as much as other members of the international community want them to as well, it simply is not the case. First, the Palestinians lack both a defined territory and a defined population. In the West Bank, areas are designated A, B and C, with the Palestinians exercising virtually no control in Area C and limited control in A and B.
Second, their government consists of an internationally recognized terrorist group - Hamas - and the Palestinian Authority (PA), whose authority is only recognized through the Oslo Accord agreements with Israel. Those same agreements also specifically curtail Palestinian power by stating that the PA does “not have powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations … and the exercise of diplomatic functions.” They also state that “[n]either side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent-status negotiations.” A declaration of statehood by the Palestinians would explicitly violate those provisions.
Perhaps just as importantly, however, the Palestinians lack the stability of a state. Of the Palestinian Authority’s nearly $4 billion annual budget, more than $500 million comes directly from the United States. European countries also provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. Nearly half of the remaining budget requires Israeli assistance, which would be seriously jeopardized in the event the Palestinians proceed with their declaration of independence in violation of Oslo.
Moreover, Palestinians lack the institutional legitimacy required of states. Even a 2008 PA report conceded a general lack of respect for judicial independence and the rule of law. That institutional instability is only exacerbated by the situation in Gaza, which is ruled by Hamas. In short, the Palestinians’ underdeveloped governance and economic infrastructure makes it unfit for statehood.
The timing of the Palestinians’ anticipated declaration of independence is especially ironic because Fatah has entered a unity agreement with Hamas, which has once again initiated a rocket-launching campaign into southern Israel. Those terrorist attacks should preclude any U.N. validation of the Palestinian cause. Indeed, U.N. admission is predicated upon compliance with the U.N. Charter and is only open to “peace-loving states,” a criteria that cannot possibly be met when complicit with terrorism.Some have argued that the precedent in Kosovo, and the subsequent International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion, provides legal support for Palestinian statehood. The ICJ opinion, however - even though nonbinding - was “narrow and specific” and held not that Kosovo’s declaration of independence created a state, but that it was not per se illegal. It specifically disclaimed any opinion on the legal effectiveness of a declaration of independence. That is because declarations of independence do not create states. If that were the case, a Palestinian state would already exist, as it declared statehood in 1988 as well, to no effect.
States, like stars, come into existence only when the right elements converge into a self-sustaining body. As much as the world may wish for a Palestinian state to exist, wishing it simply doesn’t make it so.
wow, that was tuff. Glad I am on the same bar as you guys now.
that is an editorial. i am embarrassed for you.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
OK, just did some research. Now can I play? This is how you guys do it right?
The Washington Times
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The Palestinians, much as they have done for more than the last half-century, are planning to defy their international obligations and international law by unilaterally declaring independence at the United Nations. The legal effect of that declaration will be nil. First, the United States is likely to veto at the Security Council any Palestinian attempt to gain admission to the U.N. as a member state. Second, while the General Assembly can recognize a Palestinian nonmember state, that recognition has no legal effect.
According to international legal precedent, statehood does not become so by declaration or even recognition. Instead, it is a function of whether an entity possesses the qualities that the world associates with independent, sovereign states. Those criteria are defined in the Montevideo Convention as a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and a capacity to enter foreign relations. In essence, a state come into existence by being able to stand on its own as a separate, independent political body.
As much as the Palestinians want to exist as an independent state and as much as other members of the international community want them to as well, it simply is not the case. First, the Palestinians lack both a defined territory and a defined population. In the West Bank, areas are designated A, B and C, with the Palestinians exercising virtually no control in Area C and limited control in A and B.
Second, their government consists of an internationally recognized terrorist group - Hamas - and the Palestinian Authority (PA), whose authority is only recognized through the Oslo Accord agreements with Israel. Those same agreements also specifically curtail Palestinian power by stating that the PA does “not have powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations … and the exercise of diplomatic functions.” They also state that “[n]either side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent-status negotiations.” A declaration of statehood by the Palestinians would explicitly violate those provisions.
Perhaps just as importantly, however, the Palestinians lack the stability of a state. Of the Palestinian Authority’s nearly $4 billion annual budget, more than $500 million comes directly from the United States. European countries also provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. Nearly half of the remaining budget requires Israeli assistance, which would be seriously jeopardized in the event the Palestinians proceed with their declaration of independence in violation of Oslo.
Moreover, Palestinians lack the institutional legitimacy required of states. Even a 2008 PA report conceded a general lack of respect for judicial independence and the rule of law. That institutional instability is only exacerbated by the situation in Gaza, which is ruled by Hamas. In short, the Palestinians’ underdeveloped governance and economic infrastructure makes it unfit for statehood.
The timing of the Palestinians’ anticipated declaration of independence is especially ironic because Fatah has entered a unity agreement with Hamas, which has once again initiated a rocket-launching campaign into southern Israel. Those terrorist attacks should preclude any U.N. validation of the Palestinian cause. Indeed, U.N. admission is predicated upon compliance with the U.N. Charter and is only open to “peace-loving states,” a criteria that cannot possibly be met when complicit with terrorism.Some have argued that the precedent in Kosovo, and the subsequent International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion, provides legal support for Palestinian statehood. The ICJ opinion, however - even though nonbinding - was “narrow and specific” and held not that Kosovo’s declaration of independence created a state, but that it was not per se illegal. It specifically disclaimed any opinion on the legal effectiveness of a declaration of independence. That is because declarations of independence do not create states. If that were the case, a Palestinian state would already exist, as it declared statehood in 1988 as well, to no effect.
States, like stars, come into existence only when the right elements converge into a self-sustaining body. As much as the world may wish for a Palestinian state to exist, wishing it simply doesn’t make it so.
wow, that was tuff. Glad I am on the same bar as you guys now.
Very good, I had several rounds with Byrnzie and gimmiesometruth27. All the are anti-American Semites. They have both the ability to back their bullshit arguments via Google. Job well done exposing two idiots.
According to international legal precedent, statehood does not become so by declaration or even recognition. Instead, it is a function of whether an entity possesses the qualities that the world associates with independent, sovereign states. Those criteria are defined in the Montevideo Convention as a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and a capacity to enter foreign relations. In essence, a state come into existence by being able to stand on its own as a separate, independent political body.
Great, so then how does this apply to Israel, which refuses to declare it's own borders (define it's territory), who's population is largely made up of immigrants from America and Russia, and whose foreign relations consist mostly of breaching international law and defying World opinion?
Perhaps just as importantly, however, the Palestinians lack the stability of a state. Of the Palestinian Authority’s nearly $4 billion annual budget, more than $500 million comes directly from the United States.
Meanwhile Israel receives $4 Billion annually from the U.S.
Those terrorist attacks should preclude any U.N. validation of the Palestinian cause. Indeed, U.N. admission is predicated upon compliance with the U.N. Charter and is only open to “peace-loving states,” a criteria that cannot possibly be met when complicit with terrorism.
This implies that Israel is a peace-loving state, which any honest 5 year old would find hilarious.
Very good, I had several rounds with Byrnzie and gimmiesometruth27. All the are anti-American Semites. They have both the ability to back their bullshit arguments via Google. Job well done exposing two idiots.
I had several rounds with Byrnzie and gimmiesometruth27. All the are anti-American Semites. They have both the ability to back their bullshit arguments via Google. Job well done exposing two idiots.
which has once again initiated a rocket-launching campaign into southern Israel. Those terrorist attacks should preclude any U.N. validation of the Palestinian cause. Indeed, U.N. admission is predicated upon compliance with the U.N. Charter and is only open to “peace-loving states,” a criteria that cannot possibly be met when complicit with terrorism.
only open to peace loving states????
give me a fucking break.... if that were truly the case the list of countries disqualified from the UN is as long as my arm. when you try to achieve peace, or democracy for that matter, through war... that isnt peace loving. no matter how red white and blue your underwear is. HYPOCRITES.
Post edited by catefrances on
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Obama: "Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN – if it were that easy it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately it is Israelis and Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately it is Israelis and Palestinians – not us – who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and security, on refugees and Jerusalem," he said as Abbas shook his head.'
One of the best kept diplomatic secrets is that a broad international consensus has long existed on how to settle the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Although this conflict has been depicted as among the most intricate, the authoritative political, legal and human rights bodies in the world in fact concur on the basis of its resolution. In the jargon of the so-called peace process, the “final status” issues are supposed to be so intractable that they need be deferred until the last stage of negotiations. These final status issues include borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees. The documentary record shows, however, that, on the terms for resolving these allegedly controversial” issues, Israel and the United States stand virtually alone.
The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled, “Peaceful Settlement of the
Question of Palestine.” This resolution uniformly includes these tenets for “achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”: (1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”; (2) “Affirming also the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses the need for: (a) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination; (b) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”; (4) “Also stresses the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.” Here is the recorded vote on this resolution the past decade:
1997 [155-2-3]
Israel, United States
1998 [154-2-3]
Israel, United States
1999 [149-3-2]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands
2000 [149-2-3]
Israel, United States
2001 [131-6-20]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Tuvalu
2002 [160-4-3]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia
2003 [160-6-5]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Uganda
2004 [161-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Grenada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2005 [156-6-9]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2006 [157-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2007 [161-7-5]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2008 164-7
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2009 [163-7]
United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama,
2010 [165-7-4]
Israel, United States, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
Comments
Please explain how establishing Palestinian statehood violates established international accords.
'UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state’s international legitimacy, also recognised the remaining Palestinian territory outside the new state’s borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it mapped the borders of that territory with great precision. Resolution 181’s affirmation of the right of Palestine’s Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principles that grant statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine.) This right does not evaporate because of delays in its implementation.'
The Israeli occupation is an act of terrorism.
http://www.btselem.org/settlements/international_law
The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit an occupying power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.
The establishment of settlements results in the violation of the rights of Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe the right to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.
The attack on Gaza in 2008 that deliberately targeted unarmed civilians was also an act of terrorism.
Carrying out extra-judicial assassinations also qualifies as terrorism, as does using Palestinians as human shields, and demolishing Palestinian's homes with Bulldozers when the inhabitants are still inside.
Dropping white phosphorous on residential neighbourhoods also qualifies as terrorism.
The Palestinians don't seek Israel's destruction. They seek implementation of the international consensus for a peaceful settlement based on the 1967 borders.
Standing alone in the World in defiance of the wishes of the whole of the international community by giving unqualified support to Israel's occupation is what makes America less secure. The next time another 9/11 occurs, don't act surprised.
Dream on, you deluded bigot!
so, you are not signing the petition? name calling is not ok.
I won't report you though. You are still learning.
WWW.GOOGLE.EDU
No, I'm not signing the petition. I don't support ethnic cleansing, state terrorism, and deluded redneck bigots.
I did just sign this petition though:
The Petition
Dear Secretary Clinton:
Please reconsider your decision to oppose the Palestinian bid for statehood before the United Nations this coming week. In spite of your efforts and the work of George Mitchell, we are no closer to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians deserve a voice in the UN because Israel is doing everything in its power to delay a peace agreement while they continue to build settlements on land that has been slated to become a Palestinian state. US financial support for Israel should be made contingent on Israel's compliance with international law regarding refugees and its treatment of occupied people and land.
Palestinian statehood would give Palestinans a more equal footing when they come to the negotiating table. It would give recognition to their right to self-determination. And it would give them a voice at the UN, which they have been denied for 60+ years.
You know all the above. The US has been strong in its support for Israel's safety and its legitimacy. Please formulate US policy that gives Palestinians those same rights, and support their right to statehood.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/suup ... statehood/
signed.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
this is a sham.
i am waiting for the worldwide backlash on this one...
americans claim to be for freedom..i guess it depends on what religion and what region of the world we are talking about..
Obama making final push to blunt Palestinian bid
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-making-fina ... 08844.html
NEW YORK (AP) — Scrambling to head off a diplomatic clash, President Barack Obama will publicly push for the Palestinians to drop a statehood bid when he addresses the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday.
Obama will follow up his speech with separate meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders as he seeks to coax both parties back to direct peace talks.
At the same time, U.S. officials are conceding that they probably cannot prevent Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas from moving forward with a request to the U.N. Security Council for full Palestinian membership.
Recognizing that Abbas seems intent to proceed, Obama is expected to privately ask the Palestinian leader to essentially drop the move for statehood recognition after Abbas delivers a formal letter of intent to the U.N. on Friday.
"The president will say, frankly, the same thing in private that he'll say in public, which is that we do not believe that this is the best course of action for achieving Palestinian aspirations," White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said.
Obama will also meet Wednesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Obama administration has pledged to veto any Palestinian statehood bid, arguing that only direct peace negotiations, not a U.N. vote, would allow the Palestinians to achieve the benefits of statehood.
Meanwhile, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N, called the Palestinian push for recognition by the world body "an unwise and diversionary gambit."
"There is no shortcut to statehood," she said Wednesday morning in an interview on CBS's "The Early Show."
Rice acknowledged that Abbas was determined to press his case, but said he wouldn't get enough Security Council votes to succeed.
Rice said that negotiations with Israel represent the only real path to statehood, saying that longstanding arguments over borders, security, a capital city and the Palestinian refugees, must be resolved ahead of statehood.
"There is a great gap between the expectations of the Palestinian people and the reality," Rice added.
With peace talks stalled, the U.S. and international partners have been negotiating intensely this week over the steps it would take to bring the two sides back to the negotiating table.
The new approach being considered would see the "quartet" of Mideast peace mediators — the U.S., European Union, United Nations and Russia — issue a statement addressing both Palestinian and Israeli concerns and setting a timetable for a return to the long-stalled peace talks, officials close to the diplomatic talks said.
Israel would have to accept its pre-1967 borders with land exchanges as the basis for a two-state solution, and the Palestinians would have to recognize Israel's Jewish character if they were to reach a deal quickly, officials close to the talks said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing diplomacy.
The White House publicly appeared to hold out slight hope that enough progress could be made to stop Abbas from formally requesting statehood recognition.
"President Abbas has indicated his determination to go to the Security Council, so we take him at his word on that," Rhodes said.
The simmering situation is far from the scenario Obama envisioned when he spoke at the U.N. one year ago.
"We should reach for what's best within ourselves," Obama said last September in pushing for negotiated agreement on a sovereign Palestinian state. "If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations."
While the Palestinian statehood bid has overshadowed Obama's time at the U.N., he is also expected to use his speech to the international body to reflect on the sweeping changes in the world over the past year, most notably in the Arab world.
Rhodes said the president also would highlight significant foreign policy developments for the U.S., such as drawing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Obama on Wednesday also planned to hold bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly. He was to meet with leaders from Britain, France, Japan and South Sudan, the world's newest nation.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
reminds me of a funny joke, I'd like to share.
One day a fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up - fireman, mechanic, businessman, salesman... and so forth.
However, little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher prodded him about his father, he replied, "My father's an exotic dancer
in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes to music in front of other men and they put money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good,
he will go home with some guy and stay with him all night for money."
The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took little Justin aside to ask him,
"Is that really true about your father?"
"No," the boy said, "He works for the Democratic National Committee and helped to get Obama elected, but it's too embarrassing to say that in front of the other kids."
Support Israel! WOOT!
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Here's a question for you: If you had been alive in the 1930's-1940's would you have supported the Nazis in their occupation of Europe? And if not, why not?
GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE
If you consider Palestine to be a "Sovereign" and "Independent" country ....
When was it founded and by whom?
What were its borders?
What was its capital?
Who was the President?
What was its form of government?
What were its major cities?
What constituted the basis of its economy?
Who was the Palestinian leader before Yasser Arafat?
Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
What was the language of the country of Palestine?
What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
What was the name of its currency and what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, or Japanese yen on any particular date?
another little nugget, not in my own words of course. I want to stay true to the Train.
The Palestinians want their own country. There is just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It is a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan", "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza belonged to Egypt and there were no "Palestinians" then. The West Bank belonged to Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the "Palestinians", weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation." So for the sake of honesty, let us not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at Jew deaths until someone points out they are being taped. Instead, call them what they are: "Other Arabs From The Same General Area Who Are In Deep Denial About Never Being Able To Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death." I know that is a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters."
No it isn't. You support ethnic nationalism, and ethnic cleansing. Therefore, why would you not have also supported the Nazis claims to Europe?
It was founded by the United Nations in 1947 at the same time as the state of Israel was founded.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 47.svg.png
East Jerusalem.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal consequences of the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions:
"The Court has also held that the right of self-determination as an established and recognized right under international law applies to the territory and to the Palestinian people. Accordingly, the exercise of such right entitles the Palestinian people to a State of their own as originally envisaged in resolution 181 (II) and subsequently confirmed."
The rest of your questions are irrelevant.
I suppose reference to bad history and racism is all you have left now that you can't manage to respond intelligently to my previous points.
For your information:
The people known as Palestinians were recognized as such as early as the 5th century B.C.
Gaza ceased being occupied by the Egyptian's in the 12th Century B.C.
And as for the West Bank belonging to Jordan:
'Jordan was part of the Palestine Mandate for a mere eight months, from July 1920 to March 1921. Even that is vitiated by two facts: the League of Nations formally bestowed the mandatory responsibility on Great Britain only in July 1922, making the eight month period legally irrelevant; and the British disposed of almost no authority in Transjordan during those months when they theoretically held it as part of Palestine. In fact, the east bank lacked any ruler; Paris stayed away, London did not seek direct control, and the Hashemites had other priorities. "At that moment," reported Herbert Samuel, the British High Commissioner of Palestine, "Trans-Jordan was left politically derelict."
A few months of rule that was neither de facto nor de jure is hardly reason, seventy years later, to call Jordan a part of Palestine. Besides, it is preposterous to base today's major decisions of war and peace on the transient interests of the British Empire after World War I. That Jordan was briefly part of the Palestine Mandate does not establish a vital link; it merely recalls a historical curiosity. As L. Dean Brown observes, "Jordan is Palestine only in the sense that Nebraska, which was part of the Louisiana Purchase, is still Louisiana."
You call me a redneck bigot, an ethnic cleanser or something, a racist and some other stuff like a upset little school boy. It's kinda funny. name calling. ha.
Your points are whack.
Big oranges. Very big oranges.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The Washington Times
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The Palestinians, much as they have done for more than the last half-century, are planning to defy their international obligations and international law by unilaterally declaring independence at the United Nations. The legal effect of that declaration will be nil. First, the United States is likely to veto at the Security Council any Palestinian attempt to gain admission to the U.N. as a member state. Second, while the General Assembly can recognize a Palestinian nonmember state, that recognition has no legal effect.
According to international legal precedent, statehood does not become so by declaration or even recognition. Instead, it is a function of whether an entity possesses the qualities that the world associates with independent, sovereign states. Those criteria are defined in the Montevideo Convention as a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and a capacity to enter foreign relations. In essence, a state come into existence by being able to stand on its own as a separate, independent political body.
As much as the Palestinians want to exist as an independent state and as much as other members of the international community want them to as well, it simply is not the case. First, the Palestinians lack both a defined territory and a defined population. In the West Bank, areas are designated A, B and C, with the Palestinians exercising virtually no control in Area C and limited control in A and B.
Second, their government consists of an internationally recognized terrorist group - Hamas - and the Palestinian Authority (PA), whose authority is only recognized through the Oslo Accord agreements with Israel. Those same agreements also specifically curtail Palestinian power by stating that the PA does “not have powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations … and the exercise of diplomatic functions.” They also state that “[n]either side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent-status negotiations.” A declaration of statehood by the Palestinians would explicitly violate those provisions.
Perhaps just as importantly, however, the Palestinians lack the stability of a state. Of the Palestinian Authority’s nearly $4 billion annual budget, more than $500 million comes directly from the United States. European countries also provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. Nearly half of the remaining budget requires Israeli assistance, which would be seriously jeopardized in the event the Palestinians proceed with their declaration of independence in violation of Oslo.
Moreover, Palestinians lack the institutional legitimacy required of states. Even a 2008 PA report conceded a general lack of respect for judicial independence and the rule of law. That institutional instability is only exacerbated by the situation in Gaza, which is ruled by Hamas. In short, the Palestinians’ underdeveloped governance and economic infrastructure makes it unfit for statehood.
The timing of the Palestinians’ anticipated declaration of independence is especially ironic because Fatah has entered a unity agreement with Hamas, which has once again initiated a rocket-launching campaign into southern Israel. Those terrorist attacks should preclude any U.N. validation of the Palestinian cause. Indeed, U.N. admission is predicated upon compliance with the U.N. Charter and is only open to “peace-loving states,” a criteria that cannot possibly be met when complicit with terrorism.Some have argued that the precedent in Kosovo, and the subsequent International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion, provides legal support for Palestinian statehood. The ICJ opinion, however - even though nonbinding - was “narrow and specific” and held not that Kosovo’s declaration of independence created a state, but that it was not per se illegal. It specifically disclaimed any opinion on the legal effectiveness of a declaration of independence. That is because declarations of independence do not create states. If that were the case, a Palestinian state would already exist, as it declared statehood in 1988 as well, to no effect.
States, like stars, come into existence only when the right elements converge into a self-sustaining body. As much as the world may wish for a Palestinian state to exist, wishing it simply doesn’t make it so.
wow, that was tuff. Glad I am on the same bar as you guys now.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Very good, I had several rounds with Byrnzie and gimmiesometruth27. All the are anti-American Semites. They have both the ability to back their bullshit arguments via Google. Job well done exposing two idiots.
Great, so then how does this apply to Israel, which refuses to declare it's own borders (define it's territory), who's population is largely made up of immigrants from America and Russia, and whose foreign relations consist mostly of breaching international law and defying World opinion?
Israel's terrorist actions over the past 60 years by far eclipse anything the Palestinians have carried out.
Meanwhile Israel receives $4 Billion annually from the U.S.
...in response to Israeli attacks on the Egyptian and Lebanese borders which left dozens dead.
This implies that Israel is a peace-loving state, which any honest 5 year old would find hilarious.
Simply put, your article is a sham.
Anti-American Semites?
Nice racist stereotyping of the Chinese there.
Except this didn't happen...except in the Rambo movie. But then it's possible you think that movie was based on fact, so I'll let you off this time.
I think you meant to say 'Man, you're an idiot.'
Probably not meant literally. Do you really think they had a warm reception? Naive.
"don't tread on me"
Hmmm...who got tread on literally.
You got a tiny nerve pinched huh?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
only open to peace loving states????
give me a fucking break.... if that were truly the case the list of countries disqualified from the UN is as long as my arm. when you try to achieve peace, or democracy for that matter, through war... that isnt peace loving. no matter how red white and blue your underwear is. HYPOCRITES.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
'The US president was dismissive of Abbas's plan to ask the security council to recognise Palestine as a state.
Obama: "Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN – if it were that easy it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately it is Israelis and Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately it is Israelis and Palestinians – not us – who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and security, on refugees and Jerusalem," he said as Abbas shook his head.'
No shit, Sherlock!
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/resolv ... om-gandhi/
What is the international consensus for resolving the
Israel-Palestine conflict?
One of the best kept diplomatic secrets is that a broad international consensus has long existed on how to settle the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Although this conflict has been depicted as among the most intricate, the authoritative political, legal and human rights bodies in the world in fact concur on the basis of its resolution. In the jargon of the so-called peace process, the “final status” issues are supposed to be so intractable that they need be deferred until the last stage of negotiations. These final status issues include borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees. The documentary record shows, however, that, on the terms for resolving these allegedly controversial” issues, Israel and the United States stand virtually alone.
The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled, “Peaceful Settlement of the
Question of Palestine.” This resolution uniformly includes these tenets for “achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”: (1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”; (2) “Affirming also the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses the need for: (a) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination; (b) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”; (4) “Also stresses the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.” Here is the recorded vote on this resolution the past decade:
1997 [155-2-3]
Israel, United States
1998 [154-2-3]
Israel, United States
1999 [149-3-2]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands
2000 [149-2-3]
Israel, United States
2001 [131-6-20]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Tuvalu
2002 [160-4-3]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia
2003 [160-6-5]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Uganda
2004 [161-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Grenada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2005 [156-6-9]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2006 [157-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2007 [161-7-5]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2008 164-7
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2009 [163-7]
United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama,
2010 [165-7-4]
Israel, United States, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
i am embarassed to be represented by a government that cant get its head of the arse of another.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say