UN, singles out Israel as world’s only violator of women’s rights

Why not?

 

The entire issue has nothing to do with land.
It's about killing Jews.
Naturally they want what the Jews created from the desert there.

Muslims have been robbing and killing jews for 1400 years and it is not going to stop.
The're pedophile God orders it.

 

Kindly show the exact international law your claim is based on.
You cannot, because there is no such law.
Your claim is based on politics not law.

 

Neither West Bank, nor Gaza, were territories of high contracting parties in 1967 under international law, so I'm not sure Chapter 2(4) applies at all.

On May 22, 1967, Nasser closed the Gulf of Akaba to Israeli shipping, blockading the port of Eilat in southern Israel. Blockades are acts of war. The Six Day War was a defensive war, and as such didn't violate the UN charter.

Are you seriously suggesting that Israel should have asked the UN Security Council, where the Soviet bear had veto rights, to act against the Soviet bear's friends and allies to prevent a war instigated by said Soviet bear himself? Oh, my poor head...

This is the Israeli side of the process that led to the Six Day War:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-war-before-the-war/

Regarding the legality of the "occupation", there is, of course, the principle of international law utis possidetis juris, governing the birth of new countries on former colonial territories. According to this principle, both West Bank and Gaza should be Israeli territory.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745094

UN resolutions are not international law.

 

Well at least you've answered any questions I might have had about your biases & ability to respond to a very simple line of argument. I don't engage in pointless arguments and any argument with you is clearly going to be pointless.

Oh, and for future reference Noam Chomsky is the guy who supported the rise of the Khmer Rouge in the early 1970s, attacked people trying to expose the genocide they perpetrated once they came to power & then denied it all afterward. If you are using him as anything other than an example of someone with no moral compass you are in even more trouble than I thought.

 

Seriously.

The source is AP.

The Times of Israel is one of the most accurate sources out there, despite a slight left bias.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-israel/

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east...-ancient-canaanite-treasure-in-gaza-1.5455968

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/society/2017/10/7/hamas-levels-an-ancient-archaeological-gaza-site

http://palestineupdates.com/hamas-flattens-an-ancient-treasure-in-gaza/

Yes, seriously.

 

Gaza is not occupied.

Ask Hamas what motivates the attacks. Their stated goal is the destruction of the Jewish state.

 

The Document of the Mandate is still valid.

No, Jews don't have the right to confiscate private property, unless it's done by the military in specific circumstances. That's why our Supreme Court ordered several settlements destroyed when it became clear they were built on private Palestinian land.

 

I have no idea how Israel treats women, is it true or is it not

I know many Muslims mistreat women... just not sure about Israel, would need examples to believe that

as for leaving the UN, that would be stupid

 

AND...
The UN is not the sole source of international law, nor the arbiter, final or otherwise, of same.

 

To whom do you speak, with regard to what claim?

 

Why would leaving the UN be stupid? The UN is nothing more than a massive, bureaucratic nightmare that doesnt actually accomplish anything of note.

 

And we have a major problem with it now.
Countries are voting based on their religious laws, instead of what is best.

 

Aside from the fact that your claims about Chomsky are beyond misleading - Ad hom is not an argument for much

 

sorry you can't see why that would be a bad thing, sure it got problems but it's how the countries work together, that will never be perfect, republicans may think 10+ year wars are the answer, I disagree

 

The UN encourages war with their ineptitude. Look at how many years they have been "peace keeping" in Africa and have nothing to show for it. They are a bureaucratic behemoth that doesnt actually do anything. The 10 years of war you just cited is further proof of that.

 

They let countries join that should have been annihilated, and vote with their primitive and religious based views.

 

The UN was designed to be all inclusive, no matter the size.

I agree with your point completely in regards to NATO.

 

That's asinine. There's probably 70% or more countries in the world that treat women a heck of a lot worst than Isreal. I can count at least 30 of the countries that voted yes as countries that treat their women hugely worst.

 

what would you recommend as a better option, America go it alone and leave the UN vs the USA - that would be dumb

America benefits from the UN as we can make change without war, no it doesn't mean the USA gets everything we want, nor should it

 

I think it's time to start our own club and allow only like minded countries in.
Democracies not run by religions.

We can't bitch about human rights when we have members who violate them every day.

 

I am 100% correct on Chomsky. I have read what he wrote at the time. It goes directly to his credibility on any issue of human rights or oppression. Of course, the Chomsky Cult can never accept this & Chomsky himself has been lying about it ever since (or simply refuses to discuss his support for the the Khmer Rouge).

 

If we were to leave the US, why would we suddenly be adversaries?

As for what I would like to see in Americas future is no involvement in foreign affairs. I dont care if Syria or Ethiopia or France wants to throw a civil war. As long as US citizens are secure or evacuated, we have no reason to be there. I also dont care what those same countries think of our laws, our form of govt, or our culture, just as I dont care about theirs.

As for trade, I believe our laws and practices should match that of the country with which are trading with. If US manufactured vehicles are slapped with a 5% import fee when entering Japan, then the Uzs should put that same 5% fee on Japanaese manufactured vehicles entering the US.

 

"During the 1967 war Israel seized the remainder of Palestine. Israel's occupation meant that 1,100,000 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were brought under Israeli domination.

In accordance with the doctrine of international law, the principle of "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" goes beyond the rule "no fruits of aggression". 9/ The application does not depend on determining who was the aggressor in 1967, which is a difficult question to answer. There is no doubt that whether or not Israel was the aggressor, its occupation of territory was achieved by the use of armed force."

• 
  "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
  

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/9614F8FC82DCA5DF852575D80069E0C0

The closing of the Strait of Tiran was not the key determinant that there would be war though Israeli sources such as the ones you quote would have you believe otherwise. In fact the closing of the strait was only one in a long list of escalating tensions involving Israel and its neighbors following the Suez crisis. These included Israel bulldozing homes in the demilitarized zone between Syria and Israel, the refusal of Israel to have UN forces on it's occupied territories and the kicking out of UN advisers from Sinai and buildup of defensive forces.

In no way was the six-day war a defensive war:

(The defensive war argument was) "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war ... When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war — what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today."[205] Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military)."[206]

~Major General Mattityahu Peled,

"What do you mean, [the war was] unavoidable? It was, of course, possible to avoid the war if the Straits [of Tiran] had stayed closed to Israeli shipping.[207]"

~Moshe Dyan

"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."[208]

~Menachem Begin

"...the concept of 'defensible borders' was not even part of the IDFs own vocabulary. Anyone who will look for it in the military literature of the time will do so in vain. Instead, Israel's commanders based their thought on the 1948 war and, especially, their 1956 triumph over the Egyptians in which, from then Chief of Staff Dayan down, they had gained their spurs. When the 1967 crisis broke they felt certain of their ability to win a 'decisive, quick and elegant' victory, as one of their number, General Haim Bar Lev, put it, and pressed the government to start the war as soon as possible".[209]

~ Martin Van Creveld

Yes, I know the Time of Israel version of history and many of the other Jewish Library type of sources that try to absolve and normalize the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. No need to regurgitate it here. Clearly you don't understand the nature of state propaganda and how it is used to justify crimes under international law.

[quoteRegarding the legality of the "occupation", there is, of course, the principle of international law utis possidetis juris, governing the birth of new countries on former colonial territories. According to this principle, both West Bank and Gaza should be Israeli territory.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745094[/quote]

There is no basis to your argument under international law. There are no new countries being born. This is an occupation of Palestinian territory that no other nations acknowledges as legitimate with the possible exception of the US.

"The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, violating Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which states: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."[a][c][d][e] Israel maintains that it is not in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention since, in its view, Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories, and they cannot be considered to have become "occupied territory" since there had been no internationally recognized legal sovereign prior.[f] The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.[g][h]

Numerous UN resolutions and prevailing international opinion hold that Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979, 1980,[9][10][11] and 2016.[12][13] UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. 126 Representatives at the reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions in 2014 declared the settlements illegal[14] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[15] and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The position of successive Israeli governments is that all authorized settlements are entirely legal and consistent with international law.[16] In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure, but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern these areas de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are.[17][18] The majority of legal scholars hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position. The Israeli Supreme Court itself has never addressed the issue of the settlements' legality.[19]"

So by your argument the 1947, 273 resolution that admitted Israel to the UN charter is not valid and Israel does not actually have any right to exist as a sovereign nation?

Let's reconsider:

"The UN Charter, in its Preamble, set an objective: "to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained". Ever since, the development of, and respect for international law has been a key part of the work of the Organization. This work is carried out in many ways - by courts, tribunals, multilateral treaties - and by the Security Council, which can approve peacekeeping missions, impose sanctions, or authorize the use of force when there is a threat to international peace and security, if it deems this necessary. These powers are given to it by the UN Charter, which is considered an international treaty. As such, it is an instrument of international law, and UN Member States are bound by it. The UN Charter codifies the major principles of international relations, from sovereign equality of States to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations."

International Court of Justice
"The primary United Nations organ for the settlement of disputes is the International Court of Justice. Also known as the World Court, it was founded in 1946. Since its founding, the Court has considered over 170 cases, issued numerous judgments on disputes brought to it by states and issued advisory opinions in response to requests by UN organizations. Most cases have been dealt with by the full Court, but since 1981 six cases have been referred to special chambers at the request of the parties.

In its judgments, the Court has addressed international disputes involving economic rights, rights of passage, the non-use of force, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, diplomatic relations, hostage-taking, the right of asylum and nationality. States bring such disputes before the Court in search of an impartial solution to their differences on the basis of law. By achieving peaceful settlement on such questions as land frontiers, maritime boundaries and territorial sovereignty, the Court has often helped to prevent the escalation of disputes."

https://www.un.org/en/sections/what-we-do/uphold-international-law/

 

If you think an argument is going to be pointless, I agree it is better not to respond if all you are going to have left is ad hominem rather than a reasonable counter argument.

And for the record, Chomsky never supported the rise of the Khmer Rouge. Chomsky is widely acknowledged as one of the leading intellectuals on the left and is a consistent critic of Israel's policy in the ME which makes him open for such attacks.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-truth-about-chomsky/2779086

Though it is interesting to explore how the carpet bombing of Cambodia by US forces - yet another illegal act - played a large part in driving villagers, who had been attacked and had family killed and maimed, into the ideological arms of Pol Pot.

Course we never talk about that though do we.

Just as an aside, why would you say "for future reference" in falsely attacking Chomsky in this way if "any argument with me is going to be pointless" and you are not talking to me anymore?