Biden will ‘make Abbas great again,’ says Israeli pundit

Of course you can't. The answers to my questions are quite uncomfortable for anti-Zionists.

Why do you call my post "a diversion"? Since when are historical facts "a diversion"? How is stating the fact that the PLO was founded in 1964 "running around crying "Palestinians are Evil""?

 

@Giftedone will not reply to this question.
Similarly, all his sort.


It is like bringing up the Medieval Climate Optimum / Warm Up
to Global Warming alarmist.
Just ignore the inconvenient facts or belittle them is their way


Moi

​

 

The Document of the Mandate is not a League of Nation document. It was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference. It was approved by the League of Nation.

Anyway, Article 80 in Chapter 12 of the UN Charter preserves the rights granted to the Jewish people under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14, 1948.

UN resolutions are not binding, don't generate international law, and don't cancel international treaties.

The date of the annexation was April 24th, 1950.

Until any of those crying that Israel breaks international law can actually quote passages of the international law allegedly ignored by Israel, questions like those in #250 can't be properly answered. The post in question contains a logical fallacy as well, the bandwagon fallacy.

 

I asked you about your historical facts ... What of them ? how do they relate to this blood feud .. the only uncomfortable one is you - who keeps trying to run from the topic by answering a question with an unrelated question - or at least no relation that you have pointed out thus far.

Enough of this hide and seek - State what is on your mind lad. already getting into the playground name calling and demonization tactics.. because you can't handle the reality .that it is you who is uncomfortable with my questions - and you are desperately projecting your failings onto other - as a substitute for sound argument.

What is it you would like to discuss - since clearly you are unable to state what your characterization of this conflict - which you claim is not a blood feud.

Speak - here is your chance - stop playing parlor games and defend your position with something other than name calling and strawman fallacy.

 

What is being discussed - and what would you like me to reply to .. and what is my sort ? and what facts have I ignored.

Are you OK What has you so in a tizzy ?

 

OK....

Note my underlined.

That's unsupportable in logic. How can Jews have the same rights as Palestinians, in a Palestinian state as envisioned by the UN?

Well yes that's LITERALLY true regarding the present capacity of international law - a lack of capacity which is the ultimate catastrophe for global peace - because the veto was forced onto the UNSC by the great powers, over the wishes of the majority of delegates present at the 1946 San Francisco conference.
And of course, likewise international treaties can be broken at the whim of one of the parties...

Jordan never ruled over ALL of Israel - "Judea and Samaria" as you referred to it - after 1947. Obviously. that would have meant Israel would have ceased to exist.

But there is no international law according to you...which is why all YOUR arguments based on appeal to international law are fallacious.

As Mr. Hillman observed in post #250:

Correct I use the term illegal because that is what the majority of the countries in the UN believe the occupied territories to be, as you have said Israel follows its own laws and interprets international law however it considers right. Its pointless pointing to international law since Israel and Zionists propaganda merchants will only dispute it. So I stick to the facts, that the majority of countries consider the occupation to be illegal. Do you dispute that fact?

Exactly. The fallacy is in your non-recognition of international law, based on the fact that the UNSC is not yet in a position to implement international law which however DOES exist in a developing form.

Hence your invention of "the bandwagon fallacy"; the development of international law has nothing to do with a "bandwagon effect", it has everything to do with enlightenment of the global community.

As opposed to behaviour founded on lies in the OT concerning "the chosen people" and the authorization of genocide by a bronze age god.

 

UN never envisioned a Palestinian state. They envisioned two states, one Jewish, one Arab. Their vision, however, was never legally binding. The UN charter, written and signed two years before Resolution 181, is a legally binding document for all signatories.

The meaning of Article 80 in Chapter 12 is that the rights of Jews in Palestine, and in general the rights of people in territories under mandates at the time the Charter was written, will be preserved absent a trusteeship agreement. Palestine was never subject to a trusteeship agreement. The Jewish rights that existed under the British Mandate - as written in the Document of the Mandate - remain in full effect, including the right to settle anywhere in the territory west of Jordan river.

The rights of other groups in Mandate Palestine are also preserved, but these are not the same political rights afforded to Jews by the San Remo Treaty and the Document of the Mandate. In other words, only Jews were afforded political rights as a nation in Mandate Palestine, and these rights remain in full effect. No UN resolution can change that.

The veto rights are irrelevant for the present capacity of international law. UN resolutions don't generate international law regardless.

https://unimelb.libguides.com/internationallaw/sources

Do you seriously think that subordinating national interests to an all powerful international law would be a good idea?

Judea and Samaria are not all of Israel. Judea and Samaria are not even in Israel. These are the names of the territories known as the West Bank.

I never said there's no international law. I said that 1. UN resolutions are not international law and 2. anti-Zionists can't quote even a single paragraph of that fabled international law that Israel is allegedly violating.

The Document of the Mandate, on the other hand, is a source of international law, and so is the UN Charter. You know, the rights granted to Jews in Palestine...

Every country in the world follows its own laws. Weird that only Israel shouldn't, according to you and @Ronald Hillman.

International law is not something imposed on all countries from above by a higher power. For instance, countries that didn't sign an international treaty are not bound by the international law generated by that treaty. There's also the matter of national sovereignty. The principle of sovereignty is a central principle of modern international law.

It's impossible to discuss violations of international law without knowing what that international law says. What does it say?

Invention?

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-...ogical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-bandwagon/

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-bandwagon-fallacy-1689158

https://www.cuinsight.com/how-the-bandwagon-fallacy-hurts-your-brand.html

Invention? Really?

So...quotes from that fabled international law yet?

Another logical fallacy, yay. The hasty generalization fallacy. Need citations?

 

delete

 

(Wikipedia)

"Contrary to this view other legal scholars have argued that under Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties the only common sense interpretation of UNSC 242 is that Israel must withdraw from all of the territory captured in 1967, as any interpretation permitting the extension of sovereignty by conquest would violate the relevant governing principle of international law as emphasized in the preambular statement, i.e., "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" as established through the abolition of the right of conquest by the League of Nations following World War I.

Furthermore, it is argued that UNSC 242 has binding force under Article 25 of the UN Charter owing to its incorporation into UN Security Council Resolution 338 and that it is also binding on Israel and the PLO by agreement owing to its incorporation into the Oslo Accords.[141

That first sentence is ridiculous. If the justices of a court have veto rights, the court will not function unless all the justices agree. [The UNSC is the UN machinery analogous to the supreme court of a nation].

The second sentence is true only in that it follows from the fallacy in the first.

As recognized by 'Doc' Evatt, former Australian high court judge, and a supporter of the creation of Israel, who argued passionately against the adoption of the veto.

ah...now all is revealed...the libertarian fantasy of absolute national (and individual ) sovereignty.

The eventual elimination of war as a legal means of dispute settlement between nations requires adjudication by a court with international jurisprudence.

Your "all powerful" libertarian bogeyman is a straw-man; an international court's jurisprudence would NOT extend to matters of internal national law.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Addressed above. Your libertarian conceptions of international law, in so far as you even recognize the concept, cannot be anything more than self-serving oxymorons, as already pointed out.

More false proclamations on international law from a sovereignty of the individual libertarian.

Some of us believe in a world without war. You want human civilization to be stuck in the stone age?

Addressed above. Your conception of "sovereignty" and "modern international law" belongs with the Neanderthals.

Addressed above. You are hiding behind your unbalanced, obsolete sovereignty of the individual concept.

OK ...so there IS a 'bandwagon fallacy'; and certainly your conception of individual sovereignty is a good example of it....

A "hasty generalization" which, far from a fallacy, is nevertheless a root cause of modern day terrorism*, and one which cost peace-maker Rabin his life.

* ie delusional belief in certain OT and Koranic scripture as the Word of God, rather than the word of men in search of God.
....with the same delusion driving the fundamentalist settler ideologues in the WB.

 

UNSC resolutions are not treaties, why should the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties apply to a non-treaty?

Only UNSC resolutions adopted under chapter VII of the UN Charter are legally binding. UNSC 242 was adopted under chapter VI.

Since the Security Council resolutions don't generate international law, the veto right is irrelevant for the purpose of establishing international law. The judicial arm of the UN is the International Court of Justice.

Nothing is absolute.

I grew up in a dictatorship. I'm well aware of the dangers of the "greater good" mantra. Labels don't scare me, but might affect your ability to understand my posts if you look at every word through a politically charged lens.

I'm not American, certainly not a libertarian. I'm more of a centrist, leaning left on most social issues, leaning right on most other issues. Personal experience with the communist experiment has left me with a penchant to mistrust any ideology not rooted in immediate reality. I think that at the moment human societies are too different from one another to be ruled effectively by the same laws. The "one size fits all" approach to humanity's problems is utopian.

Nope. You quoted Wikipedia. I want quotes from the relevant international law.

I reject your concept of international law. I reject the concept of one law for all reigning supreme. Laws are made to serve people, not the other way around. People are not a uniform mass of identical beings to be ruled by one universal law.

Some societies are still stuck in the stone age. Do you believe that tribal, primitive societies should be forced to cancel their own traditions and culture in order to fit into your ideological pattern?

Yep, the Neanderthals at Oxford.

https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1472

Again, neither Wikipedia nor UNSC resolutions are international law.

Huh?

The hegemonic ambitions of the Soviet-era Kremlin are another root cause of modern day terrorism. Utopian ideologies masquerading as absolute truth are extremely dangerous, regardless of the political affiliation or religious flavor.

That being said, only some settlers are religious fundamentalists. Many secular Jews, as well as Israeli Arabs, live in the settlements too. As I said, hasty generalization.

 

Only UNSC resolutions adopted under chapter VII of the UN Charter are legally binding. UNSC 242 was adopted under chapter VI.

Since the Security Council resolutions don't generate international law, the veto right is irrelevant for the purpose of establishing international law. The judicial arm of the UN is the International Court of Justice.[/QUOTE]

Like I said, the delegates present at the founding of the UN Charter were eventually FORCED by the great powers - who were looking to their OWN interests only - to accept that the new UNSC with veto would not be capable preventing war after all.
(Yes the judicial arm is the ICJ - membership of which the US has not ratified), but the 'police force' would need to be the UNSC).

Except US - and other nations - "national sovereignty"? Don' t ask Trump...

Citizens of Chile had a different experience; their democratically elected socialist government was destroyed by a fascist RW military dictatorship. A balance between the individual sovereignty of self-interested individuals, and well-ordered community with eradication of poverty is required.

Maybe, but don't go claiming the eradication of poverty is utopian. That's just neoliberal dogma serving vested interests who want to claim a greater share of a nation's output for themselves.

 

Like I said, the delegates present at the founding of the UN Charter were eventually FORCED by the great powers - who were looking to their OWN interests only - to accept that the new UNSC with veto would not be capable preventing war after all.
(Yes the judicial arm is the ICJ - membership of which the US has not ratified), but the 'police force' would need to be the UNSC).

See...proving my point., so you create a straw-man. eg "one law for all reigning supreme" ; an ICJ backed by a UNSC without veto is NOT "one law for all reigning supreme" though it is rule of law in the international sphere. Spot the difference?

Already covered. The concept of legal war itself is an oxymoron, even if It's still part of the UN Charter.

(Note the outrage of the public when their nation's soldiers turn criminal....as if there is a legal way to destroy life]

There are plenty of causes of modern day terrorism, yes. Poverty is an important one, widely over-looked because the dominant global neoliberal economic paradigm is itself a cause of poverty, with it's competitive trade wars and currency wars.

In as much as their cultures give rise to international conflict, yes.

OK; I'll stick to my insistence on eradication of war between nations, and poverty.

Just don't quote scripture, or neoliberal economic orthodoxy, or national sovereignty, as barriers to their eradication around the globe. Thank you.

 

Interesting comments Dutch and no...but.... would Biden try resurrect him? Abbas today has no support network and Obama turned on him.

To prop a guy like that would not work today. He has no support in his own organization let alone anywhere in Palestinian circles. He's considered a corrupt weakling.

It is true Biden sat in two administrations with Obama and was part of the foreign policy initiatives of Obama,Clinton andHerman Munster aka John Kerry now earmarked as environmental Messiah...but you must remember Biden also had no direct say in foreign policy as VP and was said to not agree with Kery or Clinton.

He sat as you know on the Foreign Relations Committeee as its chair for man years and was a hawk. He had zero problem with people like George Schultz, Warren Christopher, Madelaine Albright and Colin Powell and for that matter was closely aligned with McCain and Romney on foreign policy.

So Biden is no puppet on foreign policy like Obama. So I am not so sure of how much of it he will bring back. Time will tell. The attempt of Obama to use the Muslim Brotherhood to control the ME for US interests failed miserably and that brotherhood was crushed in Syria, Egypt and to all intensive purposes has lost much of its power in Sudan, Tunisia and is seen as an enemy of Saudi Arabia and the UAE and as a puppet of Iran in a war with the UAE and Saudi Arabia so one would think its not an alliance he would want to resurrect.

Today's ME unofficial alliance of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Israel versus Iran and Turkey carried out in proxy wars in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen makes the Obama efforts of using the Muslim Brotherhood to control Palestinians and other Muslim extremists obsolete.

Saudi Arabia is calling the shots against Iran and Biden in the past had no problem how Shultz used to suck up to them and how Powell, Albright and Christopher worked around them so I do not see him returning to an Obama approach but more like Bill Clinton's or Bush Sr's.

I think he packed off John Kerry to preoccupy him from the ME.

Its complicated for sure and yah he could as you say try back up on Iran to try resurrect Abbas. Its possible yes of course but I see more of a Clinton Bush Sr. Reagan approach.

Biden will be preoccupied with Covid 19 and his economy in the first term. He may return into the Iran agreement yes. What that means who knows.

 

Thank you for your thorough, well thought through post. Unfortunately, I cannot reply in just as many words... not my style

Still - it would all make sense if it was sleepy Joe who would be in charge of the White House and of the foreign policy. But, as his nickname implies, he won't - he'll be sleeping through whatever time his handlers will let him stay in the WH, and as a figurehead at that.

And so it also follows, any important decisions will not be made by him.

 

The world is not a democracy. Can't be, for now. I don't like the idea of veto rights, but I hate the idea of failed dictatorships having more power over world affairs than civilized countries. It's bad enough that oil producers hold the rest of the world by the balls.

The UN wouldn't be capable of preventing war even without veto rights. They don't have the might to enforce their decisions. The blue helmets are a joke.

Few people seem to understand that international laws are just tools to help states cooperate and avoid wars. The moment an international law turns into a tool of coercion intended to bend nations' will, it loses its legitimacy. The best example is Brexit. Ideals, morality, and good intentions don't mix well - or not at all - with politics.

There are international laws regarding wars because wars are unavoidable at this point in human evolution. We can only hope this will change in the future.

Yes, there is a legal way to destroy life, because the right to self defense is enshrined in the UN Charter.

Soldiers' duty is to protect, and if they have to kill for it, so be it. Soldiers who kill for pleasure don't protect, they are a burden to the nation, a danger for their own.

I don't think poverty is a cause of terrorism.

I didn't expect that. I'm for slow reform from within, not forced conversions.

I'm an atheist, and I have no idea what neoliberal economic orthodoxy is.

This topic is too vast to be discussed in this thread. I'll just say that people's resistance to change is a significant factor against your ideals. Look at the most oppressed groups in the world, and ask yourself why aren't, for instance, oppressed Christians in Pakistan converting to Islam to get better lives. This is where you should start looking for the reasons why wars and poverty still exist.

We are way off topic. I'm not sure we should continue this discussion here.

 

Consider an ICJ (International Court of Justice) backed by a UNSC without veto. (The concept does require a belief in the value of human life and the possibility of human solidarity - with eradication of war being a basic requirement) .

Let's say the UNSC was composed of the US, Russia, China, France, UK, Japan and Germany. (7 nations with the most powerful militaries and largest economies.

In that case the UNSC could easily deal with any failed dictatorship or uncivilized country that threatened international peace.

Note: the internal economic arrangements of any nation would not be within the jurisprudence of the UNSC, though an ICJ might look at egregious human rights abuses stemming from particular economic arrangements.

Look again at my above scenario. Rulings of the ICJ would have huge respect and credibility around the globe; and the UNSC would have 99.9% of the world's military power to draw on.....

I suppose it all boils down to human solidarity versus individual nations' (or individuals') self interests. If the latter requires war to settle a disagreement, their is no human solidarity.

I think it will change: there is a strong reform movement in the UN, with various proposals to limit the solidarity-destroying effect of the UNSC veto.

And the vision of a world without war is irresistible:

The Parliament of Man: The Past, Present, and Future of the United Nations is a book by Paul Kennedy that covers the history and evolution of the United Nations. The book's title is taken from Locksley Hall, a poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson that talks about the future of warfare and the possibility of (eradication of war).

"legal" destruction of life...It's still an oxymoron.

[/QUOTE]Soldiers' duty is to protect, and if they have to kill for it, so be it. Soldiers who kill for pleasure don't protect, they are a burden to the nation, a danger for their own.[/QUOTE]

Rules soon go out the window when the firing starts... which is why the heaviest casualties in war are civilian non-combatants.

Of course it is ONE cause. The most frequent acts of Islamic terrorism today are happening in poor African nations.

And criminality is certainly associated with poverty, as observed by Trump : "You are living in poverty, your neighborhoods are like war zones...

I'm for free education.

Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe. HG Wells.

Slow reform associated with chronic poverty and war...we don't have time, the oceans are drowning in plastic...

It's the current global debt-based orthodox economic model in which money creation is confined to private banks.

Well I have actually covered it all in this post; forces of division maintained by politics, economic and religion.....and so yes the topic is vast but connected.

Oh gosh ... I have to admit I thought I was in the "UN Democrats and their plan for America' thread. Nevertheless the question of human solidarity is obviously powerfully related to this thread also.

So I agree we cannot solve the Palestine issue, given the current UN arrangements. As always, might is right, justice* will take a back seat for the time being.

*requiring both sides to live peacefully side by side.

 

@a better world I'll answer you in the UN Democrats and their plan for America' thread.