Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
RoofGardener

Israel and the Untied Nations

68 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RavenHawk

Ethnic Cleansing is a dirty policy. It's just the Zionists who happen to be carrying it out at the moment and so yes, they're dirty by extension. It is anti-human rights, anti-international law, anti-Geneva Convention, and anti Civil liberty. Only a fool would even need to be told this.

No, it is not a dirty policy. It is merely a tool used by a nation to remove an unwanted population. There is no nice way to do it but Human Nature makes it a reality and a necessity. It can range from a relatively benevolent action to something absolutely horrific. Every nation has used it and you wouldn’t be the person you are without it. You have the genes of cultures long dead. This is one thing that helps keep the gene pool healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

You never said?

That is correct.

Okay so where do rights come from?

I’ve stated that several times in various threads, if you actually read my posts. Natural Rights (Unalienable) are GOD given.

Where are your sources?

I’ve given several if you had bothered to pay attention. My ultimate source is John Locke. RoofGardener even split off a separate thread from 'Israel's War on Africans' to discuss it. Too bad you are fixated in hating Israel, you missed a good conversation.

I don't see one link from you on this thread and I'm never going to excuse your lack of sources, get used to it.

Sources are there to aid in the discussion, not necessarily validate it. If you aren’t going to following links provided, that’s your problem. If it is pertinent, then I’ll add a link. If you are too lazy to do a little research then you don’t need one. So if you need a link on every thing I post then get use to disappointment.

Are you going to try denying human rights when they're opposed to ethnic cleansing again? You've said that.

It depends on who’s Rights you are defending? Your own people or the unwanted population. What I’ve also said which seems to be over your head is that in this world of 7 billion people, you can’t make everyone happy. If you observe and protect a people’s Rights, that usually ends up violating another group’s Rights. That is the nature of the beast.

No, I don't have to defend Islam to defend 800,000 Palestinian kids being cut off from the world indefinitely because I'm not going to engage in your paranoid racist cleansing over religious BS, draconian clashes of civilization, neocon fantasy wipes about what we're doing in the world today.

Only the Palestinian is cutting off the world from their own children and they restrict it even further teaching them hate. They made their decision and now they’ll have to live with it. Trying to blame Israel isn’t going to work. They need to look within to find the problem. It didn’t take you long to start insulting someone now did it. You claim to be pro Human Rights yet you insult people’s religion and call it BS. Their religion is an integral part of their Rights.

You think we're in a war of religion and a clash of civilization and it's stunning to see a dupe believe you. Go find some sources from the policymakers of the US government who agree with any of your fantastic claims about what we're doing over there. You can't do it and you never will.

We have been in a war constantly from the beginning. It is only broken up by short periods of peace. All nations are at war. The relationship between nations is adversarial. You recall the recent faux pas on how this Administration was eavesdropping on allies such as Merkel? This actually happens all the time and it hasn’t changed since that incident. This is the level of most warfare. Information is power. China and al Qaeda are just a few of the top entities that attack us cyberly.

What claims are those? We’re talking about one thing and now you change gears. That’s fine, I just would like to know what your frame of mind is. If you are talking about our support of Israel over the Palestinians, for one, Palestine is not a state and two, there are things like USAID which is policy. It is an Appropriation which means periodic review by the policymakers.

There is no fear, paranoia, hatred, religion, ethnicity, nationalism, politics from 1948, or any other pathetic excuse up your sleeve to defend ethnic cleansing. Like I would even have to tell a human being this.

But that is exactly what it is. It is being Human. All those attributes play a role in Human Rights. They have meaning to the individual. EC is what nations do to deal with opposing attributes. How many more times am I going to have to explain this to you? Do you not understand the significance of the historic examples I give?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Yeah by denying the rights of the Palestinian

Israel is not responsible for Palestinian’s Rights. It is the purpose of the Israeli regime to protect its people from the Palestinian.

An entire Surah in Quran describes the rights of women.

Prophet Mohammed(SM) said that those couple are lucky whose first child is a girl.

I assume you are referring to An Nisa? Are you sure it wasn’t considered lucky because Mohammed’s firstborn was a girl? You couldn’t have Allah’s Prophet with the shame of a female firstborn. But Surah 4 also states:

Men are in charge of women by

what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Basically do as I say or else. This Ayah and similar ones are the basis for honor killings, throwing acid in the face, shooting or kidnapping girls for trying to go to school, and in the case of a man & women being caught in adultery, the woman gets stoned and the man walks away. Really good treatment of women.

Bible says that you women had to bear child it is a curse on the other hand Quran says that it is a blessing.

That sounds like you are referring to Genesis. It is explaining poetically the moment sin entered the world. Throughout the Bible, children are seen as a blessing. You seem to be trying to compare apples and oranges.

I think you should stop your hatred of Islam

Knowing the Quran is hatred? Or just being aware.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

No, it is not a dirty policy. It is merely a tool used by a nation to remove an unwanted population. There is no nice way to do it but Human Nature makes it a reality and a necessity. It can range from a relatively benevolent action to something absolutely horrific. Every nation has used it and you wouldn't be the person you are without it. You have the genes of cultures long dead. This is one thing that helps keep the gene pool healthy.

You do know how close that comes to inviting the invocation of Godwin's Law in drawing a parallel?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

What about UN Resolution 181(II)?

As it predates all the other resolutions so far mentioned, and Israel are not in compliance with it*, I would suggest it is the source of all the tension from the time it was ignored.

*Regardless that Israel accepted the resolution, and the Arab authorities of the time did not, Israel's subsequent seizure of the region - including the land the Resolution set aside for the Palestinian State - subverted the Resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dr no

No, it is not a dirty policy. It is merely a tool used by a nation to remove an unwanted population. There is no nice way to do it but Human Nature makes it a reality and a necessity. It can range from a relatively benevolent action to something absolutely horrific. Every nation has used it and you wouldn't be the person you are without it. You have the genes of cultures long dead. This is one thing that helps keep the gene pool healthy.

Its a necessity? So, apart from the methods used,your saying Nazi Germany was right to get the Jews out of the country to ensure a healthy gene pool.If you do believe that you need help

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

What about UN Resolution 181(II)?

As it predates all the other resolutions so far mentioned, and Israel are not in compliance with it*, I would suggest it is the source of all the tension from the time it was ignored.

*Regardless that Israel accepted the resolution, and the Arab authorities of the time did not, Israel's subsequent seizure of the region - including the land the Resolution set aside for the Palestinian State - subverted the Resolution.

Hi there Leanardo, and thanks for the comment.

At a procedural level: this was a General Assembly vote, not a Security Council vote. As a consequence, the outcome - even if relevant - would not have been binding on anybody, but would merely have the status of "a suggestion.". (albeit one with considerable poltical and international clout).

I say "even if relevant" because - on my reading of it - Resolution 181 is NOT relevant. The resolution did not have any details of implementation of the plan, nor did it place duties or responsibilities on any state, group or individual. To put it another way: it is not possible to judge compliance, because there was nothing in the resolution to be compliant WITH.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Hi there Leanardo, and thanks for the comment.

At a procedural level: this was a General Assembly vote, not a Security Council vote. As a consequence, the outcome - even if relevant - would not have been binding on anybody, but would merely have the status of "a suggestion.". (albeit one with considerable poltical and international clout).

I say "even if relevant" because - on my reading of it - Resolution 181 is NOT relevant. The resolution did not have any details of implementation of the plan, nor did it place duties or responsibilities on any state, group or individual. To put it another way: it is not possible to judge compliance, because there was nothing in the resolution to be compliant WITH.

So, your argument is that Israel is in the right because they comply with the letter of the law, even if not with the general ethic that Resolution 181 set out?

Couldn't any totalitarian, fascist or theocratic authority be seen as being "in the right" when using the excuse you provide, no matter their behaviour so long as they comply with whatever law is deemed relevant?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

So, your argument is that Israel is in the right because they comply with the letter of the law, even if not with the general ethic that Resolution 181 set out?

Couldn't any totalitarian, fascist or theocratic authority be seen as being "in the right" when using the excuse you provide, no matter their behaviour so long as they comply with whatever law is deemed relevant?

The ethic that 181 set out was about TWO parties coming to a compromise. Since one outright rejected the very thought of it, why would the other be held to it?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

The ethic that 181 set out was about TWO parties coming to a compromise. Since one outright rejected the very thought of it, why would the other be held to it?

Because they agreed to it.

As I said, so far the pro-Israel argument is that the "letter of the law" is on their side. I seem to remember a certain Jew living about 2000 years ago had something to say about living to the letter of the law, and not the spirit, or ethics, of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

The ethic that 181 set out was about TWO parties coming to a compromise. Since one outright rejected the very thought of it, why would the other be held to it?

Ummm.... no... not really. Resolution 181 was a result of lingering 19th century colonial thinking. "We will re-draw the map, regardless what the natives think". The language of the resolution itself doesn't take into account "two parties coming to a compromise"... it is "top down" thinking. 19th Century political philosophy echoing into the 20th Century.

Because they agreed to it.

As I said, so far the pro-Israel argument is that the "letter of the law" is on their side. I seem to remember a certain Jew living about 2000 years ago had something to say about living to the letter of the law, and not the spirit, or ethics, of it.

You can't invoke "the letter of the law" in regards resolution 181, or even the "spirit" of it, because it didn't address the mechanics of how the partition would be achieved. We are now reduced to attempting to re-interpret the original Resolution 181 through the lens of ethics, which the framing of the resolution didn't cover. Of course, we can all extrapolate from the resolution, and say "ahh.. but it implies such-and-such".

But... if you do that... you can no longer claim that your conclusions are supported by the resolution.

The resolution is a body of text. It is literal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Ummm.... no... not really. Resolution 181 was a result of lingering 19th century colonial thinking. "We will re-draw the map, regardless what the natives think". The language of the resolution itself doesn't take into account "two parties coming to a compromise"... it is "top down" thinking. 19th Century political philosophy echoing into the 20th Century.

You can't invoke "the letter of the law" in regards resolution 181, or even the "spirit" of it, because it didn't address the mechanics of how the partition would be achieved. We are now reduced to attempting to re-interpret the original Resolution 181 through the lens of ethics, which the framing of the resolution didn't cover. Of course, we can all extrapolate from the resolution, and say "ahh.. but it implies such-and-such".

But... if you do that... you can no longer claim that your conclusions are supported by the resolution.

The resolution is a body of text. It is literal.

Understood - but those who crafted it certainly didn't WANT the kind of conflict we are seeing. They were simply playing the game by the rules they knew and were expecting everyone to "get on board". I certainly don't blame the Palestinians for being angry and resentful. They feel they got a bad deal and truth is they probably did, up to a point. But 70 years later there is no way short of a major war and near annihilation of the 10th most powerful military in the world that they will ever achieve their goals. I've said it often - with them it is all or nothing and since they can't have it all...
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Ummm.... no... not really. Resolution 181 was a result of lingering 19th century colonial thinking. "We will re-draw the map, regardless what the natives think". The language of the resolution itself doesn't take into account "two parties coming to a compromise"... it is "top down" thinking. 19th Century political philosophy echoing into the 20th Century.

As opposed to the bronze-age thinking/philosophy of the Zionist groups who influenced/still influence the US/UN into pressing for the current 'solution'?

You can't invoke "the letter of the law" in regards resolution 181, or even the "spirit" of it, because it didn't address the mechanics of how the partition would be achieved. We are now reduced to attempting to re-interpret the original Resolution 181 through the lens of ethics, which the framing of the resolution didn't cover. Of course, we can all extrapolate from the resolution, and say "ahh.. but it implies such-and-such".

But... if you do that... you can no longer claim that your conclusions are supported by the resolution.

The resolution is a body of text. It is literal.

As I said previously, if you choose to leave ethics out of your reasoning then you can justify any atrocity through application of the "letter of law". It is only through the application of ethics that a peaceful solution may be found.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

As opposed to the bronze-age thinking/philosophy of the Zionist groups who influenced/still influence the US/UN into pressing for the current 'solution'?

As I said previously, if you choose to leave ethics out of your reasoning then you can justify any atrocity through application of the "letter of law". It is only through the application of ethics that a peaceful solution may be found.

Leo if you log onto PALWATCH.ORG you can see the "ethics" in place of the enemies of the state of Israel. I'm curious about the mental gymnastics of those who support these folks without EVER trying to hold them to account for their rhetoric. The unspoken message is that whatever the Palestinians say or do is justified since they are being occupied. But what you are consenting to is the propriety of a true genocide against Jews in Palestine. Nothing less. If you deny this then tell me how what they say about the Jews of Israel is compatible (ever) with a peaceful solution? People who continually pronounce judgement on Israel this way never explain what the Palestinians must do as well.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Leo if you log onto PALWATCH.ORG you can see the "ethics" in place of the enemies of the state of Israel. I'm curious about the mental gymnastics of those who support these folks without EVER trying to hold them to account for their rhetoric. The unspoken message is that whatever the Palestinians say or do is justified since they are being occupied. But what you are consenting to is the propriety of a true genocide against Jews in Palestine. Nothing less. If you deny this then tell me how what they say about the Jews of Israel is compatible (ever) with a peaceful solution? People who continually pronounce judgement on Israel this way never explain what the Palestinians must do as well.

Where did I ever say I 'supported' the Palestinians?

I am simply arguing against supporting only the Israeli perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Its a necessity? So, apart from the methods used,your saying Nazi Germany was right to get the Jews out of the country to ensure a healthy gene pool.If you do believe that you need help

Since Ravenhawk rhetorically defends ethnic cleansing under a blanket, I suppose the only thing left for him to answer to is whether or not he endorses ethnic cleansing in Nazi Germany as the ultimate acid test of his beliefs. So that's a good question for him to answer to.

Based on his history, I would guess that those were Jews and these are Arabs, and that difference means everything to Ravenhawk. Therefore he can screw around with foolish rhetoric about ethnic cleansing while 'and then' sprinkles his efforts with propaganda from Palwatch and together they can have a real garage sale of Evil around here.

People falsely claim that all I am is anti-Israel and that's preposterous. I speak of ideas Israel can employ to improve its security that I think are far more sensible than the policies they employ now, but if I don't participate in defending every single move Israel makes I "support" the worst things throughout history that a Palestinian has done by default.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Obviously Ravenhawk cares about the gene pool. In two words or less it boils down to blood rights. I've tried a dozen times to discuss humanity with him, he always debases the discussion back to his special interest groups.

Caring about gene pools as the basis of one's argument, you can't care about the entire human gene pool, you only care about one group's genes over another's.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Its a necessity? So, apart from the methods used,your saying Nazi Germany was right to get the Jews out of the country to ensure a healthy gene pool.If you do believe that you need help

You just gave me an idea! thanks.

How about "So, apart from the methods used,your saying Nazi Germany was right to get the Jews out of the country to ensure a healthy gene pool a healthy, clean Christian Nation"

Nothing wrong with that, is there? I mean, the US/UK pay the Jews in Israel big bucks to do the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

The ethic that 181 set out was about TWO parties coming to a compromise. Since one outright rejected the very thought of it, why would the other be held to it?

Remind why it is that Palestinians need to "compromise"?

You steal my car, don't come to me and say "compromise with me". No, just give me the keys and ****

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Because they agreed to it.

As I said, so far the pro-Israel argument is that the "letter of the law" is on their side. I seem to remember a certain Jew living about 2000 years ago had something to say about living to the letter of the law, and not the spirit, or ethics, of it.

Yeah yeah, I seem to remember him saying something like - "All Children Are God's Children"

They say he was somewhat of a Messiah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Leo if you log onto PALWATCH.ORG you can see the "ethics" in place of the enemies of the state of Israel. I'm curious about the mental gymnastics of those who support these folks without EVER trying to hold them to account for their rhetoric. The unspoken message is that whatever the Palestinians say or do is justified since they are being occupied. But what you are consenting to is the propriety of a true genocide against Jews in Palestine. Nothing less. If you deny this then tell me how what they say about the Jews of Israel is compatible (ever) with a peaceful solution? People who continually pronounce judgement on Israel this way never explain what the Palestinians must do as well.

And I am curious as to how you look at *me* curiously for not holding the Palestinians accountable for simply saying they want to annihilate Israel, but you don't hold yourself accountable for sticking up for the Zionists who actually DID annihilate Palestine.

You are an interesting study, indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

As opposed to the bronze-age thinking/philosophy of the Zionist groups who influenced/still influence the US/UN into pressing for the current 'solution'?

Ha.... well... OK, you can say that, I guess. However, that is irrelevant to resolution 181. The Zionists wanted a state of Israel, and they wanted it in historic Judea, with Jerusalem as its capital city. From that point of view, the UN Plan was far from ideal. If they really where the all-powerful Machiavellian masonic illuminati that they are occasionally accused of being, then they would have arranged for a VERY different Plan. But they weren't, aren't, and so didn't, and still haven't.

Oh.. as a footnote.... if we are going to consider the creation of the first Kingdom of Israel as the starting point, then it would presumably be Iron Age thinking, not Bronze Age.

As I said previously, if you choose to leave ethics out of your reasoning then you can justify any atrocity through application of the "letter of law". It is only through the application of ethics that a peaceful solution may be found.

Well, perhaps so. However, I was purely debating the Resolutions themselves. Resolution 181 was not framed in an ethical context, but was merely a plan to divide up some conquered territory that had no obvious "owner". (in the sense of a Nation State, not private land ownership). Resolution was a PLAN, not a LAW. The plan also required agreement between the Jews and the Arabs. Two keys had be turned simultaneously. When that failed to happen, the plan became void.

when the Civil War broke out, the Jews decided to declare the State of Israel based on the UN Plan. However, they had no "authorisation" from Resolution 181 to do this. Nor where they forbidden by resolution 181. The resolution was irrelevant.

Yeah yeah, I seem to remember him saying something like - "All Children Are God's Children"

They say he was somewhat of a Messiah.

Yeah... I met him at a party once. He was OK, but he had a bit of a "holier than though" attitude. :w00t:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

A little of Both, Colonel.

Gosh he is not a colnel any more he is an admiral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

The resolution was irrelevant.

No, Resolution 181(II) is still very relevant.

It should be the basis from which Israel seeks to accommodate the Palestinians, but it is now ignored as Israel wants to retain control over much of the land it has annexed since 1948 under the aegis of 'state security'.

But it was the actions of the Israeli/Zionist authorities in 1948/49 which meant this 'state security' would be required in the future. Yes, the Palestinian/Arab authorities rejected the Plan as offered, but at least it was the basis from which to arrive at a peaceful solution.

It is notable in all this that the "two State solution" was originally a US/Zionist proposal and was not what the British assumed would be put in effect after they abandoned their Mandate. The UK assumed the UN would sanction a bi-national State with a single govt authority - a plan which would possibly have avoided all the horror that the years subsequent to the Partitioning have brought about.

Prior to the Partitioning, the Palestinians, Arabs and Jews (with a smattering of Christians) had lived in relative peace in Mandated Palestine. What violence existed there was largely aimed at the British authority. There was no reason to suppose this co-existence could not continue under a one State, self-governed, solution. But the US-based Zionist groups pressured the US into assuring this did not happen.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

No, Resolution 181(II) is still very relevant.

It should be the basis from which Israel seeks to accommodate the Palestinians.....,

"It SHOULD be...." ??

That is a basis for a future "alternative history" debate thread perhaps, but this thread was debating the actual Resolution, as passed by the UN at the time, not what it SHOULD have been, or MIGHT have been.

You are projecting your own desires onto the Resolution, effectively re-writing it to give it a meaning that supports your world view. But it is a meaning that the Resolution - as written and passed - did NOT have.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.