UN panel concludes Israeli settlements are illegal

Started Feb 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
Forum ProPosts: 11,639
Using cars kill people argument
In reply to KEVZPHOTOS, Feb 2, 2013


lanef wrote:


Sante Patate wrote:


lanef wrote:

The settlements contravene the 1949 Geneva Conventions forbidding the transfer of civilian populations into occupied territory, which could amount to war crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), it said.”

So, YOU like to pick and choose which violations that YOU wish to support, or not?

What about the 1948 resolution that the Arab camp has violated since day one....or UN Resolution 242 section II, that the Arabs have continuously violated since 1967?

You have the impudence to accuse others of cherry-picking? You allude (inaccurately) to Paragraph 2(c) of Resolution 242, and ignore the Preamble, which points out "the inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war", and goes on the say that the "establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should include" [...] "1(i): Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and requires "2(b) achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem" (http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136).

You and every Israeli leader since 1967 have said that Israel will never give up East Jerusalem under any circumstances whatsoever, so you could at least have the decency to stop pretending Israel would ever, now, or in the future willingly make peace on the basis of 242.

Actually, a very recent poll in Israel (including both left/right voters) 73% said that they would agree to dividing Jerusalem...in exchange for a lasting and comprehensive peace.

The 73% would need a leader who shares that point of view, unfortunately, they voted the evil leader in again, so this is pure utopia.

Unfortunately, the majority of Israelis feel that....no matter what they give back or concede to the Palestinians....the Arabs will never fully recognize a Jewish State in the ME, nor sign a comprehensive peace-diplomatic relationship deal.

At the end of the day, they chose Netanyahu again (but only by a small margin)...because nearly ALL Israeli's agree on the security/defence issue...regardless of what side of the domestic political fence they may fall.

Sure, Bibi is un-wavering in his strong defence rhetoric and 1000% support for the defence of his country.

But name me one US, Brit or French Military General who would not feel/think the same with regard their own nation?

His passionate stance is to be expected...otherwise he wouldn't get the top job.

Socially, Yes, Netanyahu is a conservative...however, he's not the right-wing extremist that you folks like to think...and Israel always has a coalition GOVT, this time around it's almost evenly balanced.

Israel socially & culturally tends to drift left of centre (except for the minority groups)....and Ben Gurion's s "socialist" dreams are still part of the national psyche....it's what pioneered the country.

Netanyahu is not some FOX news right wing wacko. The guy is highly educated with a very high IQ.

Israel not only has to deal with the external threats...there are a lot of social issues at home that need addressing.

The very high....relative cost of living being one of them...


No problem can be solved at the level of consciousness which created it" - Albert Einstein


your defense of Israeli action reminds me of guns defenders "cars kill people" argument.

As for passionate stance by Netanyahu, careful with that. There was a very passionate Austrian-born leader who caused the mess that caused another mess that we are talking about.


Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow