Kissinger: Israel will not exist in 10 years

Just my opinions. Israelis have done more for advancing technology, medicine, etc than the Iranians unless you can prove otherwise, then i will gladly take that back.

 

English translation to your neonazi hatespeech dialect?

Please and thank you

 

No.

They take credit for advances that are American.

Big difference.

 

I agree that your state is AIPAC owned.

 

Don't mistake intelligence and drive for ruthlessness and deception....The Persians are and always have been classier and more intelligent than the ashkaNAZI bolchevik terrorist slimes in charge of Palestine/Israel for the past 60 years....

 

A fellow i met at STARBUCKS uttered similiar sentiments.

Then he walked down the street yelling at himself.

 

I'd be glad to Jack, but you couldn't deal with it, like you can't deal with Any of my posts.

 

I find the discussion of Britain versus Israel bitterly ironic. After all it was Britain who decided to take the forked-tongue approach with Israel and promise the same thing, once to the people of the region and a second time to northern European Germanic-speaking Jewry.

And whereas, when you read 'Balfour' it doesn't seem quite so bad because it guarantees the civil rights of the non-Jewish residents, future British actions proved that that vow was not worth the paper it was written on. Popular demonstration of the violation of those rights reached a climax with Arab riots the subsequent British White Paper of 1939 which seemed to put breaks on the runaway Zionist demands. But then came WW2.

Britain in 1946 sang a totally different tune to that of 1939. Why? In 1947/48 she could have accepted the recommendations of UNGAR 181 and implemented the orderly creation of two states. But she didn't. She seemingly threw her toys out of the pram, packed her bags, tucked her tail between her legs, and ran.

But this is just so utterly unlike the British that we know. Fair play. Cricket. Don't push me Chum. So what happened.

# What caused Britain as the Mandate holder to stand by and watch the Mandate conditions be violated?
# What caused her apparent paralysis after '181' had been approved?
# What caused her to leave with barely a whimper?

 

No, you say I need to prove 26 was rightly "ignored" (not respected) - it wasnt ignored - it was simply not used by those you say should have used it - by their own choice!, they could have but didnt! who's at fault if not themselves? Egypt could address the court so could Iraq and Iran but none did.

its not that is was ignored but they didnt apply - big diffrence.

 

One organization did it and was outlawed soon after, its not the "JOOOS" that did it but one small organization - I dont expect you to see the diffrence


I dont know why I really wasnt there, really.

 

You mean European Jews lol ?

What violations?

What Mandate conditions been violated?
What "paralysis"? UK requested the UN to hold an urgent assembly and ran off at the date that was set by it.
It whipered some in the assembly, it ran because it got tired of Arabs and Jews fighting it and killing its troops.

 

I'm "sure" you are not an Islamist now

keep up the hate and they'll kick you from Europe very soon....

 

All I do is give you my opinions man....

 

You know perfectly well thats not what other Jewish/Zioninst ppl here think just by reading their posts, it is basiclly what you think on Jews thou isnt it....

 

And I repeat to you that '181' was a recommendation to the Mandate holder, i.e. Britain, and the holder was responsible for the legal opinion, NOT the Arab countries ... here, check the wording:

There is absolutely no doubt that this clause is part of the International Law applicable to Palestine at the time of '181' since the Mandate was still in fill vigour

At the time of the Arab request for an ICJ legal opinion, Britain was involved in the discussions on ‘181’. She chose to abstain from voting at the end. So what should have happened according to law (The Covenant of the League of Nations and the Mandate for Palestine) was for Britain to have called time-out as the Holder, and sought an ICJ legal opinion. I repeat ... the responsibility AND the authority lay with Britain … “the Mandatory agrees that …”.

But this is such a critical point that it deserves further elucidation:

The General Assembly had therefore endowed itself with the authority TO VOTE ON MATTERS OF COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW and to deny those countries who requestd it, the right to insist that such laws be applied!! BIZARRE!!

Taking actual verifiable facts into account, there can be no other possible conclusions other than that:

A) The UN General Assembly acted illegally in granting itself authority to vote on the violation of international law (Claause 26 and the UN Charter)
B) As a result, the Arab states were entirely correct is rejecting the recommendation
C) Israel used an illegal resolution as the basis for its declaration of independence, with obvious implications

Yet, even given these travesties of justice, we cannot turn back the clock to 1947.
But given these travesties of justice, what we CAN do is to view the Palestinian request for their own country based on 181 and a give-and-take on the 1967 borders, with extreme sympathy.

 

Klipklap, if it's an issue of trust then -
Trust me, Klipklap. I am a zionist jew from Israel.

As this is not the case, and it is not an issue of trust, i still have to disagree.
There is no apartheid here.

 

1) But there is apartheid in the Occupied Territories under Israeli occupation and control. And it is Evil Apartheid.

2) That there is no (or little) current]/u] apartheid in Israel proper, is only 'thanks' to the effective ethnic cleansing of 80% of the Arab Palestinians out of what was to become Israel in 1948. When you reduce the oppositon to such low levels, the need for continued mega-Apartheid disapears. So 1948-1950 was pure Apatheid, taken to its final stage in Israel, but never achieved in South Africa

 

The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been compared by United Nations investigators, human rights groups and critics of Israeli policy to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era. Israel has also been accused of committing the crime of apartheid.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, John Dugard, A/HRC/4/17, 29 January 2007, page 3 and 23

 

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-s-apartheid-is-worse-than-south-africa-s-1.4590

 

Its not a matter of responsibility, its a matter of who may address the court if he wishes to, the Brits did not HAVE to adress the court but they could if they wanted to, so could the Arabs and they didnt,

They did when the Brits said they want urgently out of it, no other country was ready to take UK position - none volenteered and the UN needed an urgent decison, why only then the Arabs wanted to adress the court ? did they have issues just at that moment but not in 1944?, when it came close to realize the Jewish state they got on their rear legs but not before, it has nithing to do with justice just to prvent the rights of others tahts all, the UN probebly saw throu this.

Saying the rights of the Arabs need to be maintained does not mean they have a say wether a Jewish state can or cannot be established, they have no right to deny the rights of others and thats how I see the UN resolution, establish 2 states peacfully if possible and in an orderly fashion but the Arabs will not call the shots for the Jews and will not stand in the way of its indipendance.

Yes, the Palestinians should get a state, thats whats on the table next.

 

1) there is not. There is occupation. A totally different thing. A bad thing, in my view, but still, totally different.
2)in 2010 it was estimated that israeli arabs are 20.4% of the polulation. 20.4%.
again - 20.4%
low level?
Ethnic cleansing?
Say what?

 

Gilos, perhaps our difference in opinion is due to our varying understanding of the English used in Article 26. Let us review that.

The issue comes down to the meaning of "shall be submitted".
"Shall be" in English is an imperative command. It does not mean "could be" or "might be" or "provision is granted for it to be" or any one of the more passive actions that you suggest. No. Instead "The Mandatory agrees that .... such dispute .... shall be submitted" is an order. It MUST be submitted. Clause 26 is part of the Mandate of which Britain was the Holder. That clause did not ask for Britain to monitor the situation; to await developments; to check whether someone else might take on the administrative task. On the contrary, the clause states in reduced essence that "Britain agrees that the dispute SHALL BE submitted to the ICJ."

Let us seek yet further support for my allegation: Britain was the only legal administrator of the Mandate, including Article 26, at the time of '181'. Admininstratorship of a mandate is defined in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (click the blue). This should be carefully read so as to understand Britains further responsibilities as the Holder:

That responsibility for administration is specifically defined in the case that we are debating, by Clause 26.

In order to comply with the sacred trust given to Britain for the well-being of the under-developed peoples of Palestine, Britain was therefore OBLIGED to seek the ICJ legal opinion.

You disappoint me with the false logic, Gilos. The Arab countries did not require an ICJ legal opinion only when, as you put it, Israel was about to become independent. They made their requirement long before that, first when the UNSCOP report was being discussed, and then again later when '181' was being debated, and then once again in February 1948 when Britain announced the handing over of administration to the UN Commission.

Oh yes they can, if that State is created illegally!!! That is WHY there are these laws.

NO!! The UN resolution emphatically did NOT give any peoples any rights. It made a recommendation to Britain, and only to Britain, of a future path of actions. Nowhere did '181' state that the Zionists were given permission to establish their own state unilaterally when the mandate ended. Nowhere!!

Instead the 'Administrator' or inheritor of the Mandate was responsible for partition.

At least we agree on that. A pity it has taken 65 years and tens of thousands of deaths, and being "on the table" is no longer good enough". I repeat - 65 years.

 

"Special rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the UN secretary
general to present reports on human rights to the organisation.

Their findings do not represent UN policy. "

 

An opinion piece.

 

... (continued) ...

Now that is a question that has intrigued me for a long time : Britain handed over control to the UN Commission. The UN disbanded the Commission before the Mandate ended. Who was responsible for the implementation of the Partition of Palestine once the Commission had been disbanded?

Any ideas, Gilos.

Also any ideas of the implication for '181' of the clause "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."

Who dropped that ball? Who is responsible for no Arab state having been created?