Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 41 of 41
  1. #26
    Thailand Expat
    Pol the Pot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    22-02-2012 @ 03:37 PM
    Location
    Phnom Penh
    Posts
    1,643
    My opinion, either you take the whole bunch, democracies or not, or you don't need a world body.

    Taking away the veto will be a start.

  2. #27
    My kind of town
    chitown's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    12,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
    Prior to 1948 there were no Israelis either.
    Seems we can blame the English for the Israeli state, no?

    The day after it was formed, 4 Arab states declared war on Israel. Pecaeful folk back then too.

  3. #28
    In transit to Valhalla

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by larvidchr
    As long as there is dictatorships like China and semi dictatorships like Russia as permanent members of the SC the veto right must be maintained.
    So a single dictatorship, as you term them, should have the singular right to Veto any and every UN resolution? To me, that just adds to the argument that the veto process should require more than one SC vote.
    No I think I wrote that no dictatorships should have voting rights, and as long as the UN is riddled with them the veto right of any decent nation is essential to uphold.

  4. #29
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    ^ Well the permanent SC members are US, China, UK, Russia, France.
    Anyone of them can Veto any and all UN resolutions single handedly.
    The absolute last country that could complain about this would be the USA.

  5. #30
    Thailand Expat OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:25 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    25,226
    Quote Originally Posted by larvidchr
    We have to clearly show and state that it is not OK for a country to condone or execute mass murder, torture, be-heading's/leathal injection, corrupt Governments and appointed Judiciary's, and to keep half the population in financial slavery, and single lunatic dictator/government leader or group's of leaders,
    Above edited by me in bold.

    Quote Originally Posted by larvidchr
    if you do not comply with these things you have no leverage or vote on international matters
    Can you come up with a list of countries which meet your/my definition

  6. #31
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    The problem with having a 'United Nations of only who we like', is that there would then be at least one other 'UN of those who don't like us'. In other words, no UN.

    In fact, you'd end up with at least two 'PUNs' (Partly United Nations), each with their own pet Gorilla- being the US & China. Maybe a muzzie PUN too. Non aligned nations could pick and choose, and alternate between them at will. Heck, sounds like the Cold War all over again.

  7. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    21-03-2018 @ 04:20 PM
    Posts
    255
    basically the US refused to vote YES to the question as to whether it is illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention for Jews to live in what has been known since 1949 as 'the West Bank' but for millenia before that, was known as Judea and Samaria.

    here is I think why :

    1. Judea and Samaria have been known as such for thousands of years, including by Arabs.

    || Arabic: سامريّون, Sāmariyyūn or ألسامرة, as-Samarah – also known as جبال نابلس

    || Iudaea of the Romans was divided into three toparchies, Judea, Samaria, and Galilee

    Arab geography also refers to the northern part of the West Bank as ‘’as-Samara’’

    2. In the 1922-23 partition of Mandate Palestine, all of western Palestine (22% of the total) was allocated toward the Jewish state, with Arabs receiving eastern (Trans-Jordanian) Palestine.

    || The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions

    3. Jews lived in Judea & Samaria (and Gaza) prior to 1948.

    In Hebron, Jews have as much as 4,000 years of history.

    4. All Jews living in Judea, Samaria & Gaza were either massacred or ethnically cleansed by invading Arab armies in 1948, to the extent that not a single one remained.

    5. In 1949, Jordan renamed Judea & Samaria as its "West Bank", the term never previously having been used by anyone to describe the area.

    || The region did not have a separate existence until 1948–9, when it was defined by the Armistice Agreement. The name "West Bank" was apparently first used by Jordanians at the time of their annexation of the region

    || The 1949 Armistice Agreements defined its interim boundary.

    8. In 1988, Jordan rescinded its claims to this territory.

    9. Under Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Judea and Samaria can no longer be considered “occupied” and none of the prohibitions in later articles are applicable. The so-called "West Bank" is not a country and is not a high contracting party to the Geneva conventions. As such it cannot be said, legally, to be occupied. Now that Jordan has rescinded its claim, then who it is supposed to be occupied from, exactly? Israel legally administers the territories until their final status is determined in line with UNSCR 242.

    10. These are disputed territories. Until final borders are established as part of a comprehensive peace agreement, it is nonsensical to consider the territory “occupied”.

  8. #33
    Thailand Expat OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:25 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    25,226
    Bernd Debusmann | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com

    Who is the superpower, America or Israel?

    "On February 18, the United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. The vote raises a question: Who dominates in the alliance between America and Israel?

    Judging from the extent to which one partner defies the will of the other, decade after decade, the world’s only superpower is the weaker partner. When push comes to shove, American presidents tend to bow to Israeli wishes. Barack Obama is no exception, or he would not have instructed his ambassador at the United Nations to vote against a policy he himself stated clearly in the summer of 2009.

    “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop,” he said in a much-lauded speech in Cairo.

    Compare this with the text of the resolution that drew 14 votes in favor and died with the U.S. veto: “Israeli settlements established in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.”


    Continues with the previous analysis with reference to corrupt US politicians and presidents.
    A tray full of GOLD is not worth a moment in time.

  9. #34
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    Quote Originally Posted by callippo
    it is nonsensical to consider the territory “occupied”.
    What sort of nonsensical bullshit is this?
    The 'Occupied Territories' (aka occupied Palestine) are occupied, officially under international law. And illegally.

    Amazing how this argument so often goes back to ancient tribal semantics- Samaria (which was Samaritan, not Hebrew incidentally), Judea, Palastina etc. Or the frikkin Ottoman & Roman Empires. Why don't we throw the Babylonian & Egyptian Empires in the mix too? They threw the Jews out after all, which is more than the Palestinians ever did (vice versa actually). Just for good measure, lets have some Philistines, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Moabites etc too. Rhubarb.

    Neighbouring Syria is named after the Assyrians- they now constitute a small ethnic minority living in the north of the country. Strangely, I don't hear them calling to kick out 95% of the population and make it 'Assyria' again. I guess they lack a pythonesque sense of humor. The American Indians could have all sorts of fun with this too, in a parrallel universe. To say nothing of the aborigines.

    If your argument is for Israel to be entitled to it's ancient 'Homeland' of the Judeans, fine- you've just given away half of the modern state of Israel, being Samaria. It would entitle Israel to a modest slice of occupied Palestine, but they would lose a helluva lot more of Samaritan Israel. Or if we care to go back further, you've just given it all away- because the Hebrew tribe originally migrated from northern Iraq, part of now kurdistan.

    Israel refuses to even consider the one state solution of an Israeli Palestinian state, (or of you prefer, a state of bastardised, combined ancient local tribes) thus leaving the two state solution. It's as simple as that. the Palestinians have been continously occupying their land for an awful lot longer than the vast majority of modern nation states and their ethnic populations- and what is proposed represents, to state the minimum, a considerable loss. They literally have nothing left to give, unless of course we are talking ethnic cleansing and genocide, which is a bit unfashionable these days.

  10. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    21-03-2018 @ 04:20 PM
    Posts
    255
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by callippo
    it is nonsensical to consider the territory “occupied”.
    What sort of nonsensical bullshit is this?
    The 'Occupied Territories' (aka occupied Palestine) are occupied, officially under international law. And illegally.
    that is where you're wrong, and that is what the UNCR resolution was about - and they didn't pass it.

    a lot of people, including you, the Red Cross, a bunch of dudes that work for the UN (but not the UN Security Council) consider or believe, and certainly would like to think, and disseminate, that the settlements are illegal under international law.

    but notice how the anti-Israel crowd always just flat-out claim that the settlements are 'illegal under international law' without bothering to say which international laws these are supposed to be in contravention of (always assuming that there is such a thing as international law in the first place).

    now that they've largely given up trying to pretend that the wording of UNSCR 242 is something other that is, and that the settlements are illegal under that, since 1997 the anti-Israel crowd has attempted to claim that the settlements are 'illegal under international law' citing article 4 of the Geneva conventions, even though the 'West Bank' is not a signatory to the conventions, is not a country, and never has been a country. Therefore how can it possibly be considered 'occupied'. Jordan, which is a signatory, and is a country, recognised UNSCR 242 together with the Palestinians and relinquished their claim to the 'West Bank' over 20 years ago.

    Israel continues to legally adminster the terrotories in line with UNSCR 242, until a final peace settlement is made.

  11. #36
    Thailand Expat OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:25 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    25,226
    Quote Originally Posted by callippo
    Israel continues to legally adminster the terrotories in line with UNSCR 242


    Including bombing, imprisoning, starving, reducing their access to basic amenities such as power, water, drainage. Even during the second world war this was considered inhuman and so it is today.

  12. #37
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    Quote Originally Posted by callippo
    Israel continues to legally adminster the terrotories in line with UNSCR 242,
    How strange that the Head of the UN doesn't realise this.

    UNITED NATIONS - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan harshly criticized Israel on Tuesday, calling on it to rein in its attacks on Palestinian civilians and end its "illegal occupation" of Palestinian lands.
    UN Chief Annan Calls on Israel to End 'Illegal Occupation'

    SECRETARY-GENERAL, IN PALESTINIAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE, SAYS ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS

    ILLEGAL, HAMPER EFFORTS TO RE-LAUNCH NEGOTIATIONS, PREJUDGE THEIR OUTCOME
    Secretary-General, in Palestinian Rights Committee, Says Israeli Settlements Illegal, Hamper Efforts to Re-launch Negotiations, Prejudge Their Outcome


    Legal issues related to occupation

    The Geneva Conventions and other international tractates recognize that land a) conquered in the course of a war; and b) the disposition of which is unresolved through subsequent peace treaties is "occupied" and subject to international laws of war and international humanitarian law. This includes special protection of individuals in those territories, limitations on the use of land in those territories, and access by international relief agencies.

    ..... Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states in paragraph 1, [2]
    Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
    and states in paragraph 6,
    The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

    International law and the Arab

    Most of the world already recognises the State of Palestine-







    The Israeli occupation of Palestine is illegal, and you know it. Get with the plot. If you were a true 'friend of Israel' you would have the common sense to realise your attitudes endanger the very survival of the state of Israel in the long term. If the current situation does not change, I personally doubt there will even be an Israeli nation by the end of this century. As every year passes, but Israeli intransigence doesn't, fewer and fewer will mourn it's passing.

  13. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    21-03-2018 @ 04:20 PM
    Posts
    255
    Kofi Annan hasn't been head of the UN for years and even if he was, the Security Council doesn't agree with him. The UN is not a dictatorship.

    would you care explain exactly how the so-called 'occupation' is illegal under article 4 of the Geneva Convention when the Palestinians aren't a signatory to it, and the country that was in actual fact a signatory, Jordan, relinquished any claim to the so-called 'West Bank' without transferring sovereignty to the Palestinians?

  14. #39
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    ^ I included this quote from the current Sec Gen too, dated 21 January 2011-

    SECRETARY-GENERAL, IN PALESTINIAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE, SAYS ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS

    ILLEGAL, HAMPER EFFORTS TO RE-LAUNCH NEGOTIATIONS, PREJUDGE THEIR OUTCOME

    Secretary-General, in Palestinian Rights Committee, Says Israeli Settlements Illegal, Hamper Efforts to Re-launch Negotiations, Prejudge Their Outcome


    That is from the official UN website. You should be considering how to be a better 'friend of Israel'.
    Last edited by sabang; 02-03-2011 at 08:20 PM.

  15. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    21-03-2018 @ 04:20 PM
    Posts
    255
    you could say the settlements are 'undesirable'. Or, like like Hilary Clinton, you can even say they are 'illegitimate'. But you can't say they're 'illegal' because you would be required to say exactly what law they're supposed to be in contravention of. It's obvious that the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the Arab parties only stated invoking after 1997 even though the convention had been going for almost fifty years and settlements in the territories had been going for thirty, won't wash. The Palestinians aren't a signatory.

    what happened was that the PLO and Jordan recognised UNSCR 242 and admitted that Israel had a legal basis to administer the territories, so the anti-Israel crowd changed tack, tried something else and came up with that.

  16. #41
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    I think you are basically saying that, under this UN statute, Israel is 'legally administering' illegally occupied territories? Well the last two Secretary Generals of the UN emphatically disagree, and theirs is hardly a lightweight, frivolous comment. But I don't see the point of going around in circles with this, because it just skirts the real issue- being the formation of the State of Palestine and the ending of the Israeli occupation. Even thats a slight misnomer, because Palestine is already a state, and officially recognised as such by the whole world except Europe and the anglo nations. So it's about ending the occupation, and final borders.

    The current state of play is that the largest settlements, which are close to Israel, will go to Israel as part of the final agreement- this means places like Ariel, which is a city in it's own right. The Palestinians have (reluctantly) agreed to this. So, whats holding things up? Well, we know what- the intransigence of the current right wing Israeli government. The balance of power is held by Zionists- but this does not reflect the will of the Israeli people.

    The occupation can't last forever, unless you believe in divine miracles like the parting of the Red Sea. Palestine will either become part of Israel, ie the one state solution (which Israel rejects), or the occupation of Palestine will end- ie the two state solution. The third possibility is entirely less palatable, being the elimination of Israel as a state in the long term. It may seem far fetched to you now- but just look at the regional map, the increasing diplomatic isolation of Israel, the relative decline of the West (the only reason Israel has survived thus far) and increasingly 'anti-Israel' attitudes all over the world- including the USA/ West, and even international Jewry. All because of the Occupation, and Israeli intransigence.

    Even Ariel Sharon came to realise the truth in the end, even Menachim Begin. Hardly peaceniks . This situation is unsustainable, and one way or the other will end. Which way would you prefer?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •