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

Leonardo

"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.

No, my argument is still - and always has been - about the use of "letter of the law" to defend Israel's compliance with UN Resolutions. If anyone wishes to use such an argument then, considering Israel agreed to Resolution 181 and regardless the Palestinians/Arabs did not, why is Israel not in compliance with that Resolution?

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
and then

No, my argument is still - and always has been - about the use of "letter of the law" to defend Israel's compliance with UN Resolutions. If anyone wishes to use such an argument then, considering Israel agreed to Resolution 181 and regardless the Palestinians/Arabs did not, why is Israel not in compliance with that Resolution?

Why do you hold Israel to a higher standard? Are Palestinian rights more important? Should the fact that Palestinians openly call for the destruction of Israel be ignored, in your opinion?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Why do you hold Israel to a higher standard? Are Palestinian rights more important? Should the fact that Palestinians openly call for the destruction of Israel be ignored, in your opinion?

Where am I holding Israel to a "higher standard"?

Israel agreed with Resolution 181. I am holding them to that agreement. That is all. That the Palestinians/Arabs did not agree has nothing to do with Israel's agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Where am I holding Israel to a "higher standard"?

Israel agreed with Resolution 181. I am holding them to that agreement. That is all. That the Palestinians/Arabs did not agree has nothing to do with Israel's agreement.

Nice :) You are smearing one side and excusing the other - a bit hypocritical, no?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

This is a stupid argument.

Firstly, remove the word "Palestinians", because at the time of the framing of resolution 181, the Palestinians didn't exist. They where Arabs, previously under the control of the Ottoman Empire.

Secondly... can we PLEASE restrict this thread to the discussion of the Resolutions AS THEY WHERE STATED, and not spin off into hypothetical discussions over what they MIGHT have meant ... or SHOULD have meant ... in some fantasy alternative universe ?

Sheeeeesh... how hard is this ?

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

This is a stupid argument.

Firstly, remove the word "Palestinians", because at the time of the framing of resolution 181, the Palestinians didn't exist. They where Arabs, previously under the control of the Ottoman Empire.

Secondly... can we PLEASE restrict this thread to the discussion of the Resolutions AS THEY WHERE STATED, and not spin off into hypothetical discussions over what they MIGHT have meant ... or SHOULD have meant ... in some fantasy alternative universe ?

Sheeeeesh... how hard is this ?

I think it's due to the unassailable logic of your position. Remember - any discussion where Israel cannot be the source of all evil is verboten!
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orcseeker

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 clearly don't know anything about genes let alone being seemingly in compliance with the policy that is morally devoid.

I understand one of your points but that is bred from ignorance and pointless hatred between two groups attempts to understand each other. It's something we, as humanity should strive to overcome, not continue to enforce in this day and age.

I hope you realise the fallacies in your response and discontinue participation in this thread as I don't think I could take anything you say credibly on this subject.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

This is a stupid argument.

Firstly, remove the word "Palestinians", because at the time of the framing of resolution 181, the Palestinians didn't exist. They where Arabs, previously under the control of the Ottoman Empire.

Secondly... can we PLEASE restrict this thread to the discussion of the Resolutions AS THEY WHERE STATED, and not spin off into hypothetical discussions over what they MIGHT have meant ... or SHOULD have meant ... in some fantasy alternative universe ?

Sheeeeesh... how hard is this ?

Is this line of argument 'stupid' because you have no rebuttal for it?

Ethics are how we agree to co-operate and co-habitate peacefully in a society - not the "letter of the law" but the ethics behind the law. If you cannot accept that, then you do excuse any act, no matter how abhorrent, provided it has a 'law' to back it up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Is this line of argument 'stupid' because you have no rebuttal for it?

Ethics are how we agree to co-operate and co-habitate peacefully in a society - not the "letter of the law" but the ethics behind the law. If you cannot accept that, then you do excuse any act, no matter how abhorrent, provided it has a 'law' to back it up.

I have responded to it ... several times. Resolution 181 was not a law, it was a plan, and a plan that was rejected and therefore became null and void. I've said this over and over again, but you have not even responded to it, let alone rebutted it.

Leonardo, I have to ask... have you actually read the text of resolution 181 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

I have responded to it ... several times. Resolution 181 was not a law, it was a plan, and a plan that was rejected and therefore became null and void. I've said this over and over again, but you have not even responded to it, let alone rebutted it.

By the Arabs/Palestinians - not by the Israelis. That is a very pertinent point and an effective rebuttal of your "the Israelis always follow UN Resolutions, but others don't" claim in the OP.

Leonardo, I have to ask... have you actually read the text of resolution 181 ?

I haven't read the entire Resolution as drafted, but I am familiar with what the Resolution states and asks of the groups involved. Do you feel I should know where every "a" or "the" is written in the Resolution to be able to use it as part of my argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

By the Arabs/Palestinians - not by the Israelis. That is a very pertinent point and an effective rebuttal of your "the Israelis always follow UN Resolutions, but others don't" claim in the OP.

Oh contraire, mon ami. The General Assembly voted on a plan, and the Israeli's agreed to that plan. The plan was subsequently abandoned by the UN following it's rejection by the Palestinians and the Arab Block. Non of the measures envisaged in the plan where implemented by the UN. It was voided. There was no longer anything for Israel to follow.

I haven't read the entire Resolution as drafted, but I am familiar with what the Resolution states and asks of the groups involved. Do you feel I should know where every "a" or "the" is written in the Resolution to be able to use it as part of my argument?

Absolutely. If you can't tell me what the word next to the hundred-and-fifteenth occurrence of the word "the" is, then your whole argument collapses.

Oh... and did I mention ... I need that from the Chinese copy of the resolution. :w00t:

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Oh contraire, mon ami. The General Assembly voted on a plan, and the Israeli's agreed to that plan. The plan was subsequently abandoned by the UN following it's rejection by the Palestinians and the Arab Block. Non of the measures envisaged in the plan where implemented by the UN. It was voided. There was no longer anything for Israel to follow.

Not quite. The UN asked the Arabs/Palestinians and the Israelis to enter into further discussions using the plan from Res 181 as the basis. The Resolution/Plan was only 'abandoned' after the Israelis decided to take matters into their own hands, ignore the UN and the concerns of the Arabs/Palestinians, and proceed to take the land anyway.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
RoofGardener

Not quite. The UN asked the Arabs/Palestinians and the Israelis to enter into further discussions using the plan from Res 181 as the basis. The Resolution/Plan was only 'abandoned' after the Israelis decided to take matters into their own hands, ignore the UN and the concerns of the Arabs/Palestinians, and proceed to take the land anyway.

I don't think that's accurate Leonardo. The UN created a committee - The Palestine Commission - to take the plan forwards. Invitations where INDEED sent out to the Arabs and the Jews, and to the UK as the Mandate holder. The UK and the Jews accepted the invitation, the Arabs (once more) declined.

At this point, various Arab leaders where not only voicing opposition to the plan, they where threatening military opposition to the plan.

In May 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 186, appointing a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, and formally relieving the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities. The Commission adjourned without scheduling any new meetings. It never sat again. The UN plan was dead. Resolution 186 buried it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

In May 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 186, appointing a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, and formally relieving the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities. The Commission adjourned without scheduling any new meetings. It never sat again. The UN plan was dead. Resolution 186 buried it.

Yes, but Res 186 did not "supercede" or "bury" Res 181 - it was put into effect purely to replace the Palestine Commission with the UN Mediator. That new position still had the mandate of attempting to bring the Israelis and Arabs/Palestinians to the table with the Plan from Res 181 as the starting point of further negotiations. Israel pre-empted any further negotiations, however, by taking the land without entering into further dialogue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Yes, but Res 186 did not "supercede" or "bury" Res 181 - it was put into effect purely to replace the Palestine Commission with the UN Mediator. That new position still had the mandate of attempting to bring the Israelis and Arabs/Palestinians to the table with the Plan from Res 181 as the starting point of further negotiations. Israel pre-empted any further negotiations, however, by taking the land without entering into further dialogue.

Hmm... I disagree with that analysis, Leonardo. Resolution 186 never mentions either Resolution 181 explicitly, nor any of the goals/aims of Resolution 181 in general. When you read Res186, you would have no indication that Res181 ever existed.

Instead, it relates only Security Council resolutions 42-46 (the first time that the Security Council had stepped in to the Palestine debate, I believe ?? ). It purely seeks to achieve a truce between Arabs and Jews (there was a lot of tit-for-tat terrorist attacks going on at this point) and to permit humanitarian/relief efforts to enter the region. It creates a new UN Office - the UN Mediator.

And then.... out of the blue ... it effectively deactivates the Palestine Commission, without explanation or commentary. This paragraph sticks out like a sore thumb, because it seems to have no relation to the rest of the resolution.

This is the first - and only - hint that Res181 had even ever existed.

So, to summarise:

Res186 makes no reference to ANY of the aims and goals of the Partition Plan of Res181, let alone to the resolution itself.

Res186 makes no reference to territory or nationality. (the Raison d'étre of Res181)

Res186 appoints a new Office, with exclusive authority to negotiate between the UN and the various parties in the region.

Res186 disbands the only executive office created by Res181.

Isn't it clear that the UN has moved on, and that Res181 is no longer considered to be in effect ?

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Hmm... I disagree with that analysis, Leonardo. Resolution 186 never mentions either Resolution 181 explicitly, nor any of the goals/aims of Resolution 181 in general.

I never said it did. I said that Res 186 had nothing to do with Res 181 (except the replacement of the Palestine Commission with a UN Mediator), therefore it's introduction neither repudiated, nor "buried" Res 181 - as the rest of what you posted reinforces.

Res 186 is an amendment to Res 181, affecting only the party with authority to mediate the negotiations between the Israelis and the Arabs/Palestinians.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

I never said it did. I said that Res 186 had nothing to do with Res 181 (except the replacement of the Palestine Commission with a UN Mediator), therefore it's introduction neither repudiated, nor "buried" Res 181 - as the rest of what you posted reinforces.

Res 186 is an amendment to Res 181, affecting only the party with authority to mediate the negotiations between the Israelis and the Arabs/Palestinians.

So Res186 has nothing to do with Res181, and at the same time Res186 is an amendment to Res181 ? You can't have it both ways.

Res186 never mentions Res181. If it was an amendment or an adjunct, then it would have mentioned such in the text (as it does with SC Res 46).

You said it yourself: "... effecting only the party with authority to mediate....".

But Res181 was not ABOUT mediation. Or at least, not in the sense of conflict resolution a lá Res 186. They where discussing different agendas. Res186 has nullified Res181's executive authority, whilst introducing a new authority with new aims and objectives, and specifically LACKING the objectives of Res181.

How much clearer can it be ? The UN had abandoned and voided Res181.

Leonardo, we're going in circles here. The evidence is clear enough to me... abundantly and obviously so. However, equally clearly you are not convinced. I doubt either of us are going to persuade the other, so I'm going to leave this discussion of Res181/186, unless you have anything genuinely new to bring to the table.

We've both made our points pretty extensively. I'll adjourn and let the reader make his/her own mind up.

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

If you do believe that you need help

No, you just need to understand. The history of life on this planet is no picnic. Man is cruel to man. It is a fact of life that can have beneficial outcomes. That is how civilization advances.

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.

That’s right and I say that historically. That was certainly the intention of a few but as we’ll see, it was not well thought out and didn’t ensure the health of the gene pool. Not every EC works that way. That’s usually when it turns into genocide. But I get the feeling that you are not discerning practice from actual events. Nazi Germany didn’t stop at just removing the Jew from the country. To you, you only see genocide as interchangeable with EC. You don’t realize that EC can take on a wide range of actions. If you can’t see that difference then you can never learn from history. And history is filled with EC starting with the Garden of Eden.

If Hitler had just left it at chasing off the Jew then it would be no different than what Russia did. Russia kicked out the Jew from the Ukraine. We can compare this with Spain during the “la Reconquista”. They got rid of all the Moors and Jews and basically anyone not Catholic. They gave these people the choice to convert, leave, or die. And by 1492, Spain became a reality. Because of this we got the discovery of the New World and the Inquisition. Certainly a mixed bag as the both led to their own EC but the knowledge gained from the libraries of Granada and others insured that the Renaissance continued. Without it, Man would have never landed on the Moon and if this knowledge had stayed only to the Muslims, we never would have.

But as I’ve pointed out, every nation has exercised EC to their benefit. America did it to the Native American. Early on, they could be pushed off to other lands but eventually they had no place to go so Reservations were established. The EC of the Native American has now turned into absorption. In time, the land on Reservations will be divided out among so many decedents that the communities that will be built will look like any other place. You see this from Isleta Pueblo to Pine Ridge. Sacred lands will become special parklands and the Reservation will no longer be needed.

Hitler’s hate of the Jew was very common. To exterminate them wasn’t something that was realized from the beginning. He saw how intertwined the Jew was in German culture and considered that a conspiracy. From Doctors, Lawyers, Bankers to the better Generals in the military. He couldn’t see that the Jews were German. He only saw a plague that needed to be cleaned from society.

In Russia, the Jews were segregated into their own communities so they could easily be forced to move on. Germany was different. You couldn’t tell a Jew from an Arian unless you asked them directly what their faith was. Hitler unleashed his hatred on the Jew, but instead of leaving, the majority still stayed because they were German. They had no place to go. And Hitler didn’t want to take the time needed to extract them. They even determined that a ¼ Jew was enough to be removed. That just highlighted Hitler’s hatred. In short, he simply hated his own people. We see this even in Israel recently with the likes of a David Sheen or Miko Peled but nowhere near the intensity.

I’m sure that at the Wannsee Conference, when Genocide was decided on because it was figured that the situation would be like with the Gypsies. You could chase them off but in time they would return. You would have to prevent that from happening. That sealed the fate of 6 million Jews. So the general outcome of EC to just remove an unwanted population turned into extermination. That really goes against the spirit of EC.

The Palestinians are not part of Israel therefore Israel cannot be an apartheid state. There are no ovens or mass graves therefore there is no genocide. I’d say that the Pallywood propaganda ministry is working well. I’ve asked this question several times and it never gets answered. So I’ll ask again. If we were to “roll” time back so that Israel and Palestine had two basically equal states, what would the history be going on from there be like? You’d see pogroms and massacres committed on the Jews as before. Then the Jew will retaliate. And knowing that this will happen, how is the world going to stop it? It can’t, so why put everyone through this again? Islam will never allow Israel to exist.

A two-state solution is dead. I can see a one-state solution. But it will need acceptance from both sides. Peled said that the Jews are ready for this change. I hope so, because they would have to accept the Palestinian as full citizens of Israel. And if discrimination would arise after that, Gandhi-like civil disobedience would draw the world together. But the Palestinian would have to actively work on reforming Islam, primarily in the area of Shirk. It would have to almost totally go away. Shirk is a major sin in Islam and to say that they couldn’t observe Shirk would be equivalent to telling a Christian that Jesus was not the Son of GOD. The Palestinian would have to also fully accept “The People of the Book” into dar al-Islam and all done sans Taqiya and Kitman. Of course, almost immediately a Fatwa would be put on the Palestinian but then the question to the Palestinian would be, do you want your religion or a homeland? Those that want their religion should leave but for those that stay will be forever tied with the dream of Zionism. For me that will be the final outcome of EC in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which was really no different from Black September in Jordan.

Edited by RavenHawk

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.