Contact Carelton University - They should be able to help you - I do mean on the many questions - I am sure they have plenty of time on their hands. Please be sure to cut and paste a long questionaire.
Sixth Annual Israeli Apartheid Week
- Thread starter earth_as_one
- Start date
Contact Carelton University - They should be able to help you - I do mean on the many questions - I am sure they have plenty of time on their hands. Please be sure to cut and paste a long questionaire.
It (the UN's voice) seemed to work quite well for the creation of Israel and the 33 Nations that voted for their creation are still 100% behind their decision and have made any sort of meaningful resistance impossible. Kind of two faced to speak of a need for peace when your boot is only on the throat of 1/2 of the two that are fighting.
I wasn't voting on anything in '47 and I do question their right to take land from people and give it to somebody when that was part of a plan that was about 60 years in the making (1890-1950). Looking at the list of 33 you know some were not independent votes they voted the way the Queen (Britain) wanted them to vote.
As it is they were never compensated for their land, and war crimes apparently require some big cash payments from the abusers. If these things had been allowed to make it to the courts 'might' have come to some sort of agreement that didn't involve billions in arms per year.
If there was any compensation due, it was the UN who owed it at the time of Israel's creation. Today, Israel has already paid more than enough for the land and owes the Palestinians nothing. As you mentioned, it was not our decision to make, it was another time back then. Also as I have said before, Israel has not committed any war crimes, only defended what is rightfully theirs.
Making people refugees is a war crime, that has been going on for 60 years and we have done squat to stop it.
Also what is rightfully theirs is connected to God, do you see Him taking out full-page ads saying He supports this land grab.
Also what is rightfully theirs is connected to God, do you see Him taking out full-page ads saying He supports this land grab.
Isn't that your next poll question? lol
You won't need a newspaper to know He's in town. So far we have war and mayhem, same old, same old. Amazing what a big ol' wine-press will do in terms of quieting the whole neighborhood.
You are a believer in the bible - yet you turn one cheek away from hate and turn it towards another side that does at time have hatred - What does the bible tell you about that.
As to Israel's creation - If it is against God's word then the Wrath of God will come down upon Israel will it not?.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is it you use UN resolution after UN resolution to whip Israel, justify your contempt and then turn on the UN when it suits you?
I absolutely, 100% agree with you. So why do you do it?
No kidding. I'm still trying to figure out how Russia went broke supplying each and every Arab state with billions upon billions of dollars worth of munitions.
Please provide documentation to that effect.
Perhaps that explains why things have not been running so smoothly, if God was there to help them don't you think He would have acted at some point to spare them from WWII?
The Rothschild clan are not agents of God they are out for themselves alone.
Why is it you use UN resolution after UN resolution to whip Israel, justify your contempt and then turn on the UN when it suits you?
Shirley Bear you are mistaken as it is Israel's friends who are saying the UN should not be out making reports that are a condemnation of Israel's acts. Without a veto for those 50 some resolutions in thos few years listed.
Shirley Bear it would be your eye
Shirley Bear it was more from trying to spend money as fast as the US and Israel in the fake cold war.
Shirly Bear you can look such things up for yourself.
• The Right to Return has a solid legal basis:
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 13 affirms: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country."
- The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [Article 5 (d)(ii)], states: "State parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination on all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, color, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of ... the right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country."
- The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights [Article 12(4)], states: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."
Moreover, the Principle of Self Determination guarantees, inter alia, the right of ownership and domicile in one's own country. The UN adopted this principle in 1947. In 1969 and thereafter, it was explicitly applied to the Palestinian People, including "the legality of the Peoples' struggle for Self-Determination and Liberation", (GAOR 2535 (xxiv), 2628 (xxv), 2672 (xxv), 2792 (xxvi)). International law demands that neither occupation nor sovereignty diminish the rights of ownership. When the Ottomans surrendered in 1920, Palestinian ownership of the land was maintained. The land and property of the refugees remains their own and they are entitled to return to it.• In 1948, the international community felt a deep sense of responsibility for the mass dispossession, ethnic cleansing and the Zionist transfer policy that began then. United Nations Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte, who was later assassinated by a Zionist terrorist hit squad, stated: "It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes, while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine" (UN Doc Al 648, 1948). This remains true today as any Jew, regardless of national origin, can gain automatic citizenship while Palestinian Arabs are denied their right to return to their own homeland.• Consistent with International Law, The United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 194 on December 11, 1948. Paragraph 11 states: "the [Palestinian] refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."• UN General Assembly Resolution 194 has been affirmed by the UN over 130 times since its introduction in 1948 with universal consensus except for Israel and the U.S. This resolution was further clarified by UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 which reaffirms in Subsection 2: "the inalienable right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return."• Israel's admission to the UN was conditional on its acceptance of UN resolutions including 194. Denying the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands is a war crime and an act of aggression which deserves action by the international community. The international community can apply sanctions on Israel until it complies with international law.
• The right of refugees to return is not only sacred and legal but also possible. Demographic studies show that 80% of Israelis live in 15 percent of the land and that the remaining 20% live on 85% of the land that belongs to the refugees. Further, of the 20%, 18% live in Palestinian cities while the remaining 2% live in kibbutzim and moshavs. By contrast, more than 6,000 refugees live per square kilometer in the Gaza Strip, while over the barbed wire their lands are practically empty. Ninety seven percent of the entire refugee population currently lives within 100 km of their homes. Fifty percent live within 40 km. While many live within sight of their homes.• The inalienable rights of refugees are not negotiable. International law considers agreements between an occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution.• The US is bound by its laws not to fund regimes that violate human rights and basic freedoms. There is no more elemental right than one's right to his/her home and to live in his/her land. The US could use the leverage of the massive financial support it gives to the State of Israel to press for this right.Al-Awda - PRRC: Fact Sheet
Goal posts?
Where did you put them now?
You use the UN to bash Israel, then you condemn the UN for creating Israel. Which is it? Is the UN credible or not?
Way to answer the question.
Oh, so you justify Russia's arming the Arab states then. OK, thanx for exposing more of your hypocrisy.
Actually yes, yes I can, but I don't cut and paste, I research archives, documents and other original source data repositories.
What you do is, cut and paste someone else's dissemination f historical data, never actually considering there may have been a spin put on it to suit a certain agenda.
In other words, you explore suppositories, as apposed to repositories.
And even selin, whom I think is one classy young lady, even with her struggle with the English language, knows it's spelled "surely", not "shirley". I wouldn't otherwise point out such an idiotic spelling error, if it wasn't for the fact that your childish attempt failed miserably.
I am condemning the 33 nations that voted for the creation with all it's stipulation that the resolution has were all equally enforceable. So far those same nations have supported the right of the Jews to have a designated area but have been totally and completely blind to the right they gave the Arabs in that very same document. The UN doesn't have status like the Vatican, the City of London or Washington DC. Without looking for an advantage for either side the ones who voted for or against should not have veto power over a proposed implementation of a resolution. The actual enforcement might be a tad difficult to organize. As it is no matter the crime any/all condemnations of either side can be 'swept under the table'
I'm not trying to be two-faced but the difference between a vote that involves 1 Million Sq mil of land, and close to that many people, compared to a vote that means more original documents (or other forms of proof that courts would recognize) are needed
Don't you mean Goad posts?
The UN is a collection of Nations, Israel uses it to verify it is a Nation and fully recognizes the role the vote taken that made her creation legit so to speak. There was also an avenue that allow for complaints (not just from there but they are specifically mentioned)
So far all attempts have been blocked in sanctions against Israel but there have been sanctions of sorts against the Arabs in the area. The list of complaints is nowhere being close to the same number even though populations are not extremely uneven. The 33 Nations that voted voted on the whole document not just a tiny portion. It is a new and improved treaty by the white-man, this time court cases have become a thing of the past, look how much trouble that right has cost them over cases in the Americas.
If the 33 are willing to force part of that resolution down the throats of the people who live there then they should also enforce their rights not to be driven from their homes.
How about your view, the vote by 100 means nothing compared to the wishes of the 10, that doesn't say much for blind obedience, it speaks volumes for dictator status.
If I'm not doing it then the problem is in your eye
That was probably old WWII stock and some proto types of jets. Once they got so expensive the bankers frowned when more than 100 were lost in a day' Iran was under
I seem to recall Isearl was constantly training their troops for war and the Arab neighbors were contend to buy equipment but not train anybody to use them in an actual war. Somebody should have shipped them some old west movies.
What's your point? Would this site be a better choice for defining war - crimes?
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/book.html
I thought you were anti-conspiracy, are you saying Bin Laden is reading this thread?
Try sorting the fact from the opinion on those posts.
In other words unless you were an eye-witness you better have a link of I can have reservation about your view if it can be challenged by some document floating around out there. For all my links I have about 20 links in my bookmarks and my HD is less than 50GB so that is why you get a varied amount of links, as long as they point to the document I need it is close enough for a chat-room. lol There is no attempt to corrupt the world.
So do I Shirley, but since you are trying to make an impression I'll put you on ignore if that would help you.
Last edited:
BS, they were offered a state too, they said no.
Yet you tout tthe resolutions they come to, with the up most certainty.
Which is why I don't support the UN AT ALL.
Sure, see my last response.
No, I have an excellent command of the English language. But in some ways, I can see how using a farm implement with someone as pig headed as you would be applicable.
Your point?
:lol:
You know why? Because the ICC hasn't enough credible evidence.
:lol:
Actually no, it says something about raw democracy. But I wouldn't think you were capable of understanding that.
Now I get it, I see you not answer a question so it's in my eye...hmmm, ok. PM selin, she can help you with grammar, spelling and coherent thought.
You don't.
Not at all, you may want to ask selin to give you a hand to understand simple English though. You obviously have a considerable amount of difficulty with it.
Done, it didn't take long, there more opinion, junk and lies then facts to look at.
Seriusly, can you even have a coherent thought?
I've checked the bulk of you links, they're OpEd pieces, oft using themselves for support. When they are factual, and you have posted a few, which I did not and do not challenge, they were merely historical recounts. The spin was still there. But I highly doubt by the limited cognitive, deductive and critical thought you've expressed, that you would be able to pick up on its subtlety, let alone understand it.
By all means, feel free to do so. Be aware, that I will take that as you admitting defeat, as I do with eao.
And again, if you don't believe me, feel free to ask selin, it's spelled surely, not Shirley. And I still understand the childish game. Not very original, and already stale.
Last edited:
MHz, you do not seem to understand a lot of us do not like the UN, but in its defense, when it was first formed by winners of WW-II, it was sort of thought of as a exclusive club for the 5 charter members only, then others wanted to join, but were given sort of second class citizenship. Since then this exclusivity has been pretty hard to get changed. (China/Taiwan) being the exception. The 5 hold veto power enabling any one of them to prevent the adoption of any 'substantive' draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft.
I would personally like to see the UN HQ moved out of the U.S. as well as the U.S. stop funding more than its share, say pay the same amount towards its function as say France or Great Briton..
I would personally like to see the UN HQ moved out of the U.S. as well as the U.S. stop funding more than its share, say pay the same amount towards its function as say France or Great Briton..
So why attempt to dress up a hostile take-over as anything but that, no matter how many agree that it is for the 'better' were obviously wrong.
During operation Cast Lead the international community was dead silent for the first 3 weeks and even after that the next week was still promoted as being 'a reasoned response' Unload for a full month and then throw your hands up and and yell truce. That was the same in '48. 700.000 people were affected in 5 months. look at their methods during the night raids, kick the door down and send in the guys with the wooden bats and that should be respected as just fine when in a declared war 1/2 of the combatants face war crimes for mistreatment of civilians. Starvation and fire-bombing are not all that different, the objective is ti kill civilians in mass numbers with as little talk about it after the better.
The US is in a bit of a mess but their original constitution also has the solution to a corrupt Government. (assuming that it does need some improvement) The UN has all the paperwork to create a common basic right for the least important in society.
Those 5 are not the ultimate power, the 5 banks that make money available to wage war gets another bonus year each time war, or even fear of war, breaks out. If Israel is telling the US what to do inside and outside their country then you can bet Rothschild has that same control over Israel.
The UN could go virtual, communication is advance enough that each country could video into work and a lot more would get done. What is actually accomplished would take about 1/2 hour from home.
Why bother at all when the 5 will do whatever they want? Those humane things that the UN wrote up, is that how the peasants are supposed to act towards the elite when/if a revolt ever happens?
During operation Cast Lead the international community was dead silent for the first 3 weeks and even after that the next week was still promoted as being 'a reasoned response' Unload for a full month and then throw your hands up and and yell truce. That was the same in '48. 700.000 people were affected in 5 months. look at their methods during the night raids, kick the door down and send in the guys with the wooden bats and that should be respected as just fine when in a declared war 1/2 of the combatants face war crimes for mistreatment of civilians. Starvation and fire-bombing are not all that different, the objective is ti kill civilians in mass numbers with as little talk about it after the better.
The US is in a bit of a mess but their original constitution also has the solution to a corrupt Government. (assuming that it does need some improvement) The UN has all the paperwork to create a common basic right for the least important in society.
Those 5 are not the ultimate power, the 5 banks that make money available to wage war gets another bonus year each time war, or even fear of war, breaks out. If Israel is telling the US what to do inside and outside their country then you can bet Rothschild has that same control over Israel.
The UN could go virtual, communication is advance enough that each country could video into work and a lot more would get done. What is actually accomplished would take about 1/2 hour from home.
Why bother at all when the 5 will do whatever they want? Those humane things that the UN wrote up, is that how the peasants are supposed to act towards the elite when/if a revolt ever happens?
That would have voided the refugees right to return. You want to support a state that uses terror to take land after your country has said the this should not happen go for it. Stop your bitching about when the Jews were being made refugees then and they can do the same. They want the Arabs to put this in the past let them put their memories in the past also.
Why should they settle for less than the UN map even left them, constantly more land is designated Israel. Why should they even have to give up any land for a Rothschild plan?
UN Resolution 181 gave Palestine Nation statues by a certain date.
"Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below. "
They are the supposed clearing house for complaints that deal with that area, that is written right into the resolution. That the condemnations can be squashed should mean every country that is not the security council should pay no fees, their voice, even collectively means squat. if the five are going to do whatever, or enable others to do whatever they want why pay fees. might as well default on all the debts owed to the world banks at the same time, they do more harm to the other Nations anyway.
You talk about them like they are a sports score. The same sorts of events were grounds for punishing the losers of WWII (the ones who weren't secretly aided into hiding or ne identies in America)
All except their right to give away the land of an Allie at the request of a bank that held loans on every country that voted in favour.
Guess why the UN is impotent, who can influence those 5 Nations, more often than not it is business and banking institutions more than it is the people. For those resolutions that got vetoed how many would have been not vetoed if the 'news' of the way the vote was going to go brought mass demonstrations (or e-mails) would let the Gov know how to vote. In this day and age you could have input (your own vote if you wished). A tax return is done with a 4 digit pin, that is secure enough for voting. An MP voting he actually is casting about 10,000 individual votes. Joe citizen should be able to vote for himself or the MP votes with a split vote depending on the info his home riding has forwarded to him. 60/40 for the 'yeas'. Who cares what they come up with as long as it plugs the loop-holes that exist today. There is no incentive for countries to support the big 5 if the only time their voice is important is when it is to support some motion from one of them. That is like paying your abuser to beat you up.
How much bigger than a cast-iron skillet were you going to go?
Their courts have been too slack over the years. Could be the new reality TV series $3/yr/person/population/country then send the bill to the world bank.
So why hamper the complaint investigations if they are going to come up smelling like a rose. The UN update gave Israel's side of the story for some incidents that seemed to halt the UN doing anything further, I would expect that Hamas can challenge that if they have facts that were not known before, The investigation has just started and that same paper states some incidents were referred for criminal prosecution. I would assume that is a military trial at home as these were violations committed by individual soldiers.
It should be by anonymous vote, there is too much back room diplomacy going on for it to be a free vote when it issue is a little more important than the one mentioned here. Sanctions against Iran got India's vote in exchange for laxer inspections on their plants. There is nothing democratic about that. Why to dress it up to look like it other than if the voters saw it for what it was the money support could be withheld in protest. In a true democracy it takes very few signatures to make something that is proposed to make it something that has to be voted on by all the voters before it can become a law. I don't even recall the last time it was used for a Federal issue.
lol, that comment goes back to this post, it is your vision that is messed up, the US helps Israel fight against while sort of trying to pretend they are neutral a little bit. Nice try at deflection though.
"Quote:
Kind of two faced to speak of a need for peace when your boot is only on the throat of 1/2 of the two that are fighting.
I absolutely, 100% agree with you. So why do you do it?"
The link still supplies the same reference. So what if I have to go to a Palestinian site to find some scans of some note written by an Israeli commander about some past war. The document is still real and published in a book who is referenced right down to the page number. A long article about the 6 day war might have 30 references to books published by Israel leaders and commanders, so what if it can be easily found on their site.
Just the typing part.
How would that improve a conversation with you other than you would be reduced to posting various emoticons as your sole reply? lol
I try most of the time to pick something with very few adjectives in to add the spin. At other times it suits my purpose to do just that, like a few posts back about some Jew asking all Arabs to leave cause Israel is for Jews only.There is more than a few that feel that way, all the way to the ones who watched Cast Lead from a hillside who were for total anniliation and the sooner the better. I don't have to support a State like that.
Defeat, lol Shirley Bear you in the thread for the wrong reason.
Much like yourself, not very original and already stale. lol
That is irrelevant. They had their opportunity to have country to. But they wanted it all or nothing.
:roll:
:roll:
And they flatly turned it down.
:roll:
Please show me where I condoned that.
:lol:
:lol:
No one has, the ICC received 200 complaints regarding Israel, it has dismissed the majority and is compiling evidence on the rest.
You see, this is where real investigative skills come in handy. You actually get a good view of reality when you do you own work, instead of read someone else's, lol.
I'm actually amazed that you can even acknowledge that!!!
And again, I didn't think you were capable of understanding it and you obviously aren't.
Not a deflection at all. I actually agreed with your comment. You are the one that does agree, or in the very least support your own argument, by your actions.
Like I said, I don't dismiss sites, that's what you and eao do. I read everything posted. And as I said, you have occasionally posted material I do not question. Sadly the same cannot be said of you and eao. You both have a terrible habit of dismissing anything that does not fit your prescribed ideology.
Agreed. But then again, most of what you cut and paste is junk to, so it would only be fair to say that the bulk of what you type would be to.
Here try filtering the shyte you think is fat with this...
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/fun-jokes/57288-home-office-top-ten-reasons.html
See last response, and to be honest, sometimes your babble just isn't worth the effort of typing a reasoned reply to. If at all possible, considering the degree of difficulty you have with committing word to prose.
And I wouldn't force you to. But you do support a semi state that has a written policy of genocide. How do you justify that?
I don't think so. But then again, I'm not the one crying about putting people on ignore.
Have you finally reached the bottom mhz, that you can't even formulate a simple thought without taking it from someone else...:lol:
Last edited: