No Veto: UN Security Council Adopts Anti-settlement Resolution; U.S. Abstains

I know that people have said that this vote does not matter because it is unenforceable. That of course makes you wonder why Israel so clearly has its knickers in a twist about it. I found this article which goes into the ins and outs in a readable manner. I will paste the bits I think go with why it clearly has Israel panicking.

http://jfjfp.com/?p=89392

Basically then, although non binding, Israeli's settlement building will be reported on regularly at the UN. On hearing about the situation there more and more people and companies may become involved in BDS leading to Israel having it's South Africa moment or in connection with this, pressure may mount on the ICC to take action. It looks unlikely that Trump can do anything to stop it.

 

And I am still waiting for you to acknowledge England is a Homeland but not a state.

 

Explain how England which is the homeland of the English is not a state to Stuntman and you will understand, but you can't and you won't, you will just deflect.

 

Good contribution, Alexa.

Let's bear in mind that- should Palestine force Israel before the international courts- which the Palestinians now have the power to do- then they would have the full weight of a Security Council unanimous Chapter Six Resolution behind them. And then some.

 

I'm only replying to people's comments. If you dont want me to repeat myself, please stop repeating yourself.

I have it accepeted by international law experts that some of them were part of drafting UN resolution regarding Israel. It's current international law.

 

Yes, Obama has contributed something very useful to his legacy by refusing to veto Resolution 2334- a universal endorsement of the power of international law.

 

Ok, and I'm still waiting for your answer. But I guess I will never get one, If I havent got till now.

- - - Updated - - -

I never said something about the Balfour Decleration, but I'm simply stating about international law regarding international instruments.

 

That's an admirable pursuit- but you have to know something about it first.

 

Look Stuntman you messed up and stated England was the Homeland of the English without understanding it was not a State. (since 1707) Why not just admit that and move on.

 

I know plenty. But thanks for the concern!

- - - Updated - - -

Why not just admit that you massed up by dismissing your own source? I know to admit when I'm wrong, and you?

 

Stuntman is England a state?

 

Really on what else are you trying to suggest that the promise of the intent to create a national home for Jews in Palestine provided it did not interfere with the rights of the indigenous people which is the cornerstone on which Israel is based came from? Without this there would be no Israel as we know it now and it most certainly was not talking about any Jewish State. According to Lilienthal in What Price Israel, Zionists at the time were saying they in no way wanted a state, finding themselves up against most Western Jews who absolutely did not want a Jewish State, found ethnic nationalism repulsive and again according to Lilienthal were talking more about it just being a cultural home - something which Lilienthal thought would have been absolutely delightful to Rothschild. A Jewish Home does not mean a Jewish State and a Jewish State could never come into being without the harm to the indigenous people which they have endured. To most Western Jews of the time the idea of taking their homeland from them was repulsive.

 

It was. Ria, can you finally admit that you massed up by trying to dismiss your own source that you take as a relaible source?

 

Thank you by acknowledging that England was a state by doing so you acknowledge it is not a state now.

So you stated England is the Homeland of the English people, but as you have acknowledged it is not a state now.

So your statement Homeland=State is proved false by your own statement.

 

The Mandate for "Palestine". But the Mandate was never bene fulfilled entirely, and therefore according to Article 80 which protects the rights that were granted to the Jews over the Land of Israel, it must to be fulfilled, and since it will happen nothing can alter the rights.

Jabotinsky, like alot of the founding fathers of Israel, stated numerous of times that the goal for Zionism is to establish a Hebrew state for the Jewish people.

That is in contradicting to what the Oxford dictionary states about it, as I showed earlier to RiaReab.

- - - Updated - - -

According to your own source, oxford dictionary that you find a relaible source, it means state, as the definition read:

Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homeland

 

And here is the full definition, please try to understand english.

1A person's or a people's native land:
‘he left his homeland to settle in London’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 An autonomous or semi-autonomous state occupied by a particular people:
‘they have been fighting for an independent homeland for nearly 30 years’
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homeland
If you do not understand how a dictionary works please get someone to tell you!

 

You are saying the same thing Ria. Or maybe you are dismissing your own source, Oxford dictionary, which stated that homeland is an autonomous or semi-autonomous state occupied by a particular people?

 

That is it you do not understand how to read a dictionary.
Fortunately most do and can see the mistake you are making.

 

i

No, the Mandate did speak about a Jewish home but most certainly not a Jewish State. At the time Zionists were claiming they did not want a State so it would be crazy to imagine as you are that that is what the Mandate is about. The Mandate gave the British the responsibility of getting the people living in Palestine ready for Independence and it was believed that they were very nearly ready. Had it not been for the Balfour Declaration, Britain's attempt to secure a win in WW1, which Churchill declared Jews made good on (see What Price Israel) there would have been absolutely no mandate for any Jewish Home in Palestine.

The Mandate itself was to get all the people living in Palestine ready for Independence. As you will know Britain also made promises to the arabs with regard to land but in this case she went back on them. Yes, the Mandate did include the idea of a Jewish home and allowing for some Jewish immigration but the mandate demanded Britain take responsibility to form a State for all the people of the area. No promise, absolutely no promise of a State, something which Western Jews wanted nothing to do with and found morally reprehensible. Now the Zionists, trying to stop Jews being antizionists were happily saying at this time it would be a cultural home and they had no interest in a State. How on earth can you believe that a Mandate which was for looking after all the inhabitants of a region could ever also be talking about giving foreigners a state and not only that but a State which those very foreigners at that time said they did not want.

On the British side 'Jewish home' was nebulous. They just wanted to win WW1 but no, no no it was not a State that was offered and it was strongly demanded that no State be offered by both British and American Jews.

Let me see did the Brits not kill him and was he not the Guru of Netayahu's father and the first person to suggest the wall.

 

Post limit thread closure.
You may continue the discussion here
No Veto: UN Security Council Adopts Anti-settlement Resolution; U.S. Abstains PART 2

Shangrila
Moderator