I have started this thread so as to avoid hijacking an existing one.It started here: I then commented that Jonsa's statement was "a flawed generalisation" which led to Jonsa's comment: And that led to the issue of the CONDITIONS attached to Israel's membership. What were they? Did Israel comply? Israels membership was based on it complying with the U.N. General Assemblys resolution 194. Israel was admitted on good faith assuming that the country would in fact comply: The following is based on UNISPAL records of the lead-up to Israels membership: 1) 11 December 1948 Progress report of UN mediator A / RES / 194 (III) [see 2) where this list of requirements was defined for admission] 2) 5 May 1949 - Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations - A/AC.24/SR.45 The president referred to the 11 December 1948 progress report in 1) above and emphasised: 3) 5 May 1949 UNGA 273: Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations A / RES / 273 Israels membership is approved - Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel In the almost 70 years since then, Israel had not complied with a single one of the preconditions for U.N. membership It would seem that the only valid conclusions that we can draw on Israels membership of the U.N. is that approval by the voting members of the UN Security Council in 1948 were extremely naïve in believing that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter So, Jonsa, THIS was your defence of Israels nationhood? Seems pretty ropey to me.
No, I was merely stating a recognized fact that Israel is internationally recognized as a sovereign nation. Unless I am confused, Israel votes in the UN and palestine doesn't. Isn't that correct? So, regardless of the original "conditions" of membership not being met, have not stopped the UN from acknowledging Israel as a sovereign nation. That is a "fact on the ground" that once again, for some strange reason, many pro-palestinians can't quite seem to come to terms with such reality.
Following Jonsa post and assuming you are not going on denial on Israel obvious membership in the UN, one can ask why did they accept it if several conditions have not been met, Also very common among anti Israelis ("pro Palestinians" misses their true agenda here IMO - Jonsa) is to compleatly disregard Palestinians actions since....ever and on any topic, perhaps, if one looks for it - he might find that all Arab countries and the Palestinian leadership itself were against 194 and voted against it, perhaps the UN members also decided not to hold their breaths till the Arabs wise up ? same thing happened in the WB btw, we do not freeze life to fit the Arab agenda of "Haram" - forbidden/boycott
Very nicely put... K and his followers are reminiscent of a Hatchery of antisemitism. Why I say that? Because the world is full of anomalies that everyone avoid... yet... they put the onus on Israel that needs to liberate its ancient patrimony. Pay attention to North Korea anticipating to display an Atomic Bomb and share it of course with Iran. Has anyone thought for a moment that Iran could produce missiles? They received all of them from North Korea and gave them Farsi names. (Farsi is the Language spoken in Iran).
What is anti-Semitism vs anti-Zionism... ? Not a big difference one and the same. watch this and listen closely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgCgTv7vDEQ&feature=share
Oh come on, you know the answer. hating jews is not at all equivalent to opposing zionist ambitions of "river to sea", or opposing the occupation or the method of operation of the occupation forces, or the suspension of basic civil rights. One is bigotry predicated on ignorance and hatred, the other is political opposition to perceived and actual injustice, oppression and ideology. HUGE difference.
Wrong on both cases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If we have to follow your <LOGIC> there are no Jews in this world, and there is NO Jewish history and according to your shaky response ... no Hebrew language either. So my friend it is the chicken or the egg again... Who came here first? Remember <Islam is of the 7th Century>, they were ALL conquerors, not only of my country but also a big chunk of Asia and Africa. In my country they should have no claim whatsoever... Squatting on Foreign Land does not entitle anyone of ownership without legal documentation.
Just to prove that I am not the only Jews who wants his land liberated from outside forces who deserve no attention... Most a apropos. another one wrote about it... and here it is. http://www.meforum.org/ http://www.meforum.org/ http://www.facebook.com/Middle.East.Forum http://twitter.com/meforum http://www.meforum.org/rss.xml http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php Follow the Middle East Forum MEF Home | Research & Writings | Donate Related Articles Will Obama Pick Another Fight with Israel? Lost Opportunities after Netanyahu's Bar-Ilan Speech Israeli Victory Is the Only Way to Bring Peace by Gregg Roman The Hill September 9, 2016 http://www.meforum.org/6269/israel-win-lose-solution http://www.meforum.org/6269/israel-win-lose-solution#print http://www.meforum.org/article_send.php?id=6269 Share: http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.meforum.org/6269/israel-win-lose-solution https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?so...sraeli+Victory+Is+the+Only+Way+to+Bring+Peace http://www.meforum.org/6269/israel-win-lose-solution http://www.meforum.org/facebook_lik...www.meforum.org/6269/israel-win-lose-solution Be the first of your friends to like this. At his first security briefing, Avigdor Liberman, Israel's Defense Minister, declared that Israel no longer has "the luxury of conducting drawn-out wars of attrition." 100 days into his term, with no sign of the decades-long conflict slowing, it is clear that the time has come to apply that principle to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In order for there to be peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Israel must win and the Palestinians must lose. For most of human history, military victory ended wars. The Pax Romana, a period of 200 years of relative peace within the Roman Empire, began only when Augustus defeated Marc Antony in the Battle of Actium. When the North ravaged the South in the American Civil War, it caused the seemingly intractable conflict that claimed three quarters of a million lives over four years to fade away. The South, knowing it was defeated, never made trouble again. German and Japanese ill-will toward Western democracies in World War II rapidly dissipated, thanks to the bitter pill of defeat; friendship soon followed. The conventional wisdom that conflicts are best resolved through negotiation and compromise simply isn't true. Today's conventional wisdom holds that conflicts are best resolved through negotiation and compromise. But let's look at the facts. After 40 years of negotiations to reunite Cyprus, the island remains divided, and 60 years of standoff over the Korean peninsula have achieved little. In Syria, the killing continues unabated despite five years of talks to reconcile Sunnis and Alawites. And at the same time, years of diplomatic efforts to roll back Iran's nuclear program ended with the West's capitulation to Tehran's demands. The negotiations fallacy is especially evident in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The crux of the conflict is simple: Israel wants to survive; the Palestinian leadership wants to destroy it. Some Palestinian leaders make no secret of this. Hamas leaders' open incitement to violence spawned the so-called "stabbing intifada," and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas praises the Palestinian "martyrs" and names streets after them. Others talk peace but demand a Palestinian "right of return" to Israel, a requirement that would effectively eviscerate the Jewish state by allowing millions of Arabs of Palestinian descent to resettle permanently within Israel's borders. But no matter their angle, all Palestinian leaders preach hatred towards Israel. American policy has long been to prevent Israel from achieving a decisive military victory over its adversaries. American policy has long been to prevent Israel from achieving a decisive military victory over its adversaries. In 1956, President Eisenhower forced Israel to abandon its territorial gains from the Suez Crisis. Similarly, following the 1967 Six Day War, the U.S. helped engineer a U.N. resolution calling on Israel to return unspecified "territories occupied" in the war. The Reagan administration stopped Israel from obliterating Yasser Arafat's PLO forces in Lebanon in 1982, and, most recently, the Obama administration pressured Israel to limit its objectives in its 2014 war with Hamas. These concessions, which are often unilateral and irreversible, include settlement freezes, prisoner releases and forfeiture of territory. Such policies deliver pernicious results; American "restraint" of Israel encourages its enemies to take risks. Much like government bailouts encourage banks to make high-risk, high-payoff investments by removing the consequences of failure, Israel's adversaries need not fret over irrevocable loss because they know the international community will admonish Israel for any gains it achieves. Moreover, restraining Israel legitimizes and nourishes Palestinian rejectionism, defined as the refusal to acknowledge Israeli sovereignty and right of Jews to live in their ancestral homeland. Because it knows there will be no consequences for its sophisticated propaganda war, the Palestinian Authority can continue to demonize Israel. "To become a normal people, one whose parents do not encourage their children to become suicide terrorists, Palestinian Arabs need to undergo the crucible of defeat," writes Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes. The fear of crushing defeat is a potent weapon in neutralizing Palestinian resistance. When Israel has licensure, without American opprobrium, to unleash its military might after a Palestinian rocket or terror attack, as when Liberman ordered over 50 airstrikes on Hamas military infrastructure in Gaza in response to one rocket, the Palestinians retreat. The fear of crushing defeat is a potent weapon in neutralizing Palestinian resistance. America's handling of the Arab-Israeli conflict is preventing the kind of metamorphosis in Palestinian thinking about Israel that peace requires. It's time for Washington to allow Israel to demolish the Palestinian dream of a one-state solution, free of Jews. As Ronald Reagan said regarding the US fight against communism, the only way to "win is if they lose." This doesn't mean the U.S. should support a winner-take-all settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But we must dispense with the fallacy that Israel is only a concession or two away from an American-brokered diplomatic breakthrough. As Gen. Douglas MacArthur said famously, "there is no substitute for victory." ~Gregg Roman is director of the Middle East Forum.
NONSENSE. Way to extrapolate to a completely wrong conclusion. As an ultra zionist, I am not surprised that you knee jerk a reaction. Apparently you don't think anyone should be opposed to the occupation, and should not criticize the SOP of the occupation forces, and should turn a blind eye to suspension of basic civil rights, because that would be anti-semitic. Apart from the object of their animus, seems ultra zionists and jew haters have much in common in their ability to reason and interpret reality..
Jonsa here is the latest VIDEO of our P.M. Please watch it.... I differ with him but you might get the <Balm> of his concern and apply it to i.e. Canada. You see... Netanyahu agrees with you... Watch the VIDEO. http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/09/0...bstacle-to-agreement-with-palestinians-video/
