Palestinian Statehood
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
I'm creating another thread on this important topic after the last one was hijacked - and subsequently locked - by a couple of trolls with nothing to contribute except baiting and personal attacks.
Anyway, the latest is that a 35 year old Palestinian has been shot in the neck by Israeli troops using live ammunition on a demonstration:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/se ... nian-state
'The incident began with a warning broadcast made over mosque speakers in Qusra of an approach by settlers from a nearby outpost. Scores of village men and youths headed towards a hill where around 20 settlers had gathered, waving Israeli flags.
Israeli troops arrived and fired tear gas, then live rounds. Settlers also fired their weapons. A statement from the Israel Defence Forces confirmed its troops had used live fire against the Palestinians after rocks were thrown...'
Using live rounds against people armed with rocks who were defending themselves against an attack by racist Jewish settlers. Business as usual then!
Also, Netanyahu addressed the UN by saying that the UN is a "theatre of the absurd", unfit to decide on whether there should be a Palestinian state. He also said that "The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict," he said. "The core of the conflict has always been, and unfortunately remains, the refusal of the Palestinians to recognise a Jewish state in any border."
So the illegal Jewish-only settlements are the result of this conflict? In a conflict zone the standard procedure is to build homes for your people on the land stolen from your enemy? Settlement building has nothing to do with any desire to steal land from the Palestinians and create 'facts on the ground'?
This would be hilarious if it wasn't so twisted!
As for recognition of a Jewish state, the Palestinians have already agreed to recognize Israel - though not as a racist 'Jewish state' - on the 1967 borders, in line with the rest of the World - excluding the U.S. But Netanyahu would like us to just forget about that inconvenient fact.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/se ... uncil-vote
'Palestinian sources say they believe Washington has bullied several security council members, including Portugal, into withdrawing their support for the Palestinian move by threatening to withhold support in financial institutions for its stricken economy, and Bosnia, over its opposition to Kosovo being admitted to the UN.
Palestinian officials believe Nigeria is no longer certain to vote in their favour, while there are also questions about the position of Gabon and Colombia.'
One senior Palestinian official said the US was "playing a really nasty game".
Anyway, the latest is that a 35 year old Palestinian has been shot in the neck by Israeli troops using live ammunition on a demonstration:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/se ... nian-state
'The incident began with a warning broadcast made over mosque speakers in Qusra of an approach by settlers from a nearby outpost. Scores of village men and youths headed towards a hill where around 20 settlers had gathered, waving Israeli flags.
Israeli troops arrived and fired tear gas, then live rounds. Settlers also fired their weapons. A statement from the Israel Defence Forces confirmed its troops had used live fire against the Palestinians after rocks were thrown...'
Using live rounds against people armed with rocks who were defending themselves against an attack by racist Jewish settlers. Business as usual then!
Also, Netanyahu addressed the UN by saying that the UN is a "theatre of the absurd", unfit to decide on whether there should be a Palestinian state. He also said that "The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict," he said. "The core of the conflict has always been, and unfortunately remains, the refusal of the Palestinians to recognise a Jewish state in any border."
So the illegal Jewish-only settlements are the result of this conflict? In a conflict zone the standard procedure is to build homes for your people on the land stolen from your enemy? Settlement building has nothing to do with any desire to steal land from the Palestinians and create 'facts on the ground'?
This would be hilarious if it wasn't so twisted!
As for recognition of a Jewish state, the Palestinians have already agreed to recognize Israel - though not as a racist 'Jewish state' - on the 1967 borders, in line with the rest of the World - excluding the U.S. But Netanyahu would like us to just forget about that inconvenient fact.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/se ... uncil-vote
'Palestinian sources say they believe Washington has bullied several security council members, including Portugal, into withdrawing their support for the Palestinian move by threatening to withhold support in financial institutions for its stricken economy, and Bosnia, over its opposition to Kosovo being admitted to the UN.
Palestinian officials believe Nigeria is no longer certain to vote in their favour, while there are also questions about the position of Gabon and Colombia.'
One senior Palestinian official said the US was "playing a really nasty game".
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
look it up
also. The European Union, the United States, Canada, Israel and Japan classify Hamas as a terrorist organization.
so fuck all that
peace. i'm done with this thread. you can all continue on in your vacuum
Issues Demands While Vowing to Stop Independence
by Jason Ditz, September 23, 2011
Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu loudly condemned the notion of an independent Palestinian state being recognized by the international body, saying that the Palestinians would have to reach a final peace deal with Israel, something which isn’t even being discussed by the two sides, before independence could even be considered.
As usual this included a number of demands from Netanyahu that the Palestinians would have to accept as a condition for ending the occupation, including recognizing Israel as “the Jewish state.”
The Palestinian Authority submitted its proposal for recognition to the United Nations Security Council today, just over a year after the last direct talks with the Israeli government, and are believed to have a strong majority in the general assembly, as well as a likely majority in the security council. President Obama has vowed to veto Palestinian independence on Israel’s behalf.
Perhaps the most unusual comment from Netanyahu, however, was that Israel would never accept an independent state in Gaza, saying that Israel would only accept an independent Palestine within a portion of the West Bank. Though Netanyahu’s Likud Party were loudly in opposition to withdrawing settlers from the tiny Gaza Strip, it is unclear what Israel plans to do with the strip in the event the PA ever got an independent state in the small portion of the West Bank which doesn’t contain settlements.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... y-1.386464
Full transcript of Netanyahu speech at UN General Assembly
----
'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.'
As for terrorism, Israel has been found guilty of state terrorism on numerous occasions. And the occupation is in breach of international humanitarian law under the Fourth Geneva convention.
http://www.btselem.org/settlements/international_law
'The establishment of settlements in the West Bank violates international humanitarian law which establishes principles that apply during war and occupation. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights 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 illegality of the settlements under international humanitarian law does not affect the status of the settlers. The settlers constitute a civilian population by any standard, and include children, who are entitled to special protection. Although some of the settlers are part of the security forces, this fact has absolutely no bearing on the status of the other residents of the settlements.'
The entire Israeli occupation of Palestine is illegal, not to mention the human rights violations, the breaking of UN resolutions (even more than Iraq had done before Gulf 2)
---
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
the americans on here need to look at this website...
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Laugh?
Sorry, but we Canadians aren't exactly threatening. Our armed forces are anemic and are population is significantly smaller. In this situation, we're Palestine to your Israel. For Canada to illegally occupy the American East Coast, we'd need the backing of a major world power that regularly ignores international laws and has absolutely no respect for the UN. Ironically, that kind of sounds like the country we're trying to occupy.
it was an analogy...a weak one yes...but you get the point, right?
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
We've both just flown thousands of miles to New York. Now we're in the same city. We're in the same building. So let's meet here today in the United Nations. Who's there to stop us? What is there to stop us? If we genuinely want peace, what is there to stop us from meeting today and beginning peace negotiations?
That did not happen.
:think:
Too little, too late.
Netanyahu wants another 20 years of negotiations while he continues building illegal, racist 'facts on the ground'. Obama obeys his boss Netanyahu by vetoing any U.N resolution critical of these illegal settlements and so it goes on, and on.
Is it surprising that nobody can take these clowns seriously anymore?
Thanks for sharing this. Definitely worth checking out.
Sure, and your hero Rick Perry will be President, right?
Brynzie, I wan to first apologize for the posts that most likely shut down the last thread. I was rude and though I am not sure I agree with your take. Gimme... sent me a very PM that I am reading and evaluating my position on this. Except my apology and hopefully we can debate this subject in the future.
As far as Rick Perry, not a chance in hell. I dislike Obama a lot. I truly beleive the Chicago political machine railroaded Hilliary and she should actually be our President right now. If she does not make a run at O, there will be a conservative in the office in 2013. Yes, I am a conservative but my ideology side with Ron Paul more then the other candidates. I do like Cain but it won't happen. The nominee is going to be Romney
No Problem, or mei guanxi, as they say in this neck of the woods.
http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/polit ... lang=en-ca
OTTAWA - Canada used its United Nations speaking slot Monday to lambaste opponents of Israel as no better than the appeasers who allowed fascism and communism to flourish before the Second World War.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird delivered Canada's views to the General Assembly in a speech that put meat on the bones of the Harper government's unflinching support of Israel."Just as fascism and communism were the great struggles of previous generations, terrorism is the great struggle of ours. And far too often, the Jewish state is on the front line of our struggle and its people the victims of terror," says a prepared text of Baird's remarks.
"Canada will not accept or stay silent while the Jewish state is attacked for defending its territory and its citizens.
The Second World War taught us all the tragic price of 'going along' just to 'get along.'"Baird made no direct mention of the Holocaust in which six million Jews died at the hands of Nazi Germany. But he evoked the era when he quoted Winston Churchill as saying "an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
So according to him the Israeli occupation is just a figment of everyone's imaginations, and It's in fact Israel that is under attack?
I find it interesting that Israel's supporters always have to resort to fantasy in arguing their position.
well the cat is out of the bag now. the us and canada blindly support the occupation, the blockade, and the israeli government. there is no secret about it...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Our Prime Minister speaking November 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... itism.html
You got it perfect Byrnzie, they do resort to fantasy, and the opposite of 'fantasy' is 'reality', which they know nothing of.
Really not sure how anyone can support the things Israel has done and continues to do...and it's not even that they are trying to justify the occupation, rather they are acting as if it's the Palestinians who are the ones with the tanks and jets, taking land, breaking down homes and whatever else. They are acting like It's the Palestinians who are the ones who have Israel under a brutal occupation.
Mr gimme! You know, America does not own the rights to stupid politicians
Bizarro world!
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I asked you a question in the other thread which you ignored, and now I'll ask it again: If you had been alive in the 1930's-1940's would you have supported the Nazis conquering of much of Europe and it's ethnic cleansing of 'undesirables'? And if not, why not?
By the way, It's not their land. The settlements are illegal under international law.
What part of that don't you understand?
U.N Resolution 242 refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war'.
http://www.btselem.org/settlements/international_law
'The establishment of settlements in the West Bank violates international humanitarian law which establishes principles that apply during war and occupation. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights 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 illegality of the settlements under international humanitarian law does not affect the status of the settlers. The settlers constitute a civilian population by any standard, and include children, who are entitled to special protection. Although some of the settlers are part of the security forces, this fact has absolutely no bearing on the status of the other residents of the settlements.'
Though I do realize that you actually have zero interest in this issue and merely post here to bait and antagonize people.
there is no question israel is violent. there is no question israel is brutal. th3ere is no question isreal's are ruthless. yeah its been bad, but what's the timeline here? how long is it gonna take the jews to get over the holocaust?
The holocaust is just an excuse. The Zionists began laying claims on Palestine at the end of the 19th Century, long before the holocaust.
Michael Neumann:
'Zionism was from the start an ill-considered and menacing experiment in ethnic nationalism. Neither history nor religion could justify it. The Jews had no claim to Palestine and no right to build a state there. Their growing need for refuge may have provided some limited, inadequate, short-term moral sustenance for the Zionist project, but it could not render that project legitimate. The mere fact of later suffering cannot retroactively convert a wrong into a right: my attempt to usurp your land does not become legitimate simply because I am wrongly beaten by someone else, far away, when my project is near completion. Nor did the well founded desperation of the Jews during the Nazi era provide any justification for Zionism; at most it provided an excuse. If someone is murdering my family in Germany, that does not entitle me to your house in Boston, or my "people" to your country. All Jews fleeing Hitler were indeed entitled to some refuge. One might even suppose that it was the obligation of the whole world, including the Palestinians, to do what they could to provide such refuge. But this is not the whole story.
For one thing, those with ample means to provide refuge, and those who are responsible for the need, have by far the greater share of responsibility. The Palestinians fell into neither category. Even more important, there is an enormous difference between providing refuge and providing a sovereign state. No amount of danger or suffering requires this, and indeed it may conflict with the demand for refuge. Simply to control one's own affairs isn't always the safest alternative. Arguably, for instance, the Jews were safer in the United States, where they are not sovereign, than they ever were in Israel. This is not only a fact but was always a reasonable expectation, so the need for refuge is also no basis for Zionism...
If there are any great lessons to be learned from the Nazi era , they are to watch out for fascism, racism, and ethnic nationalism. Supporting Israel hardly embodies these lessons.'
so jews are ruthless by nature? i don't buy it. they have been dealt a shitty hand and are using that hand to do unto others, so to speak. there's a reason for everything.