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  
questionmark

Israel lobbies to cut ICC funding

135 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

and then

The best offer on the table was 50% of Namibia. They should have taken it instead of following the Torah thumpers.

"Next year in Jerusalem" Their attachment to that land is ancient. To act as though they just decided to settle there for spite is silly. That land barely sustained life for those few who were living on it in the early 20th century. And - news flash - it is literally a form of denial to continue with the hope that they will somehow be forced off that land. It's just not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

"Next year in Jerusalem" Their attachment to that land is ancient. To act as though they just decided to settle there for spite is silly. That land barely sustained life for those few who were living on it in the early 20th century. And - news flash - it is literally a form of denial to continue with the hope that they will somehow be forced off that land. It's just not going to happen.

Israel is a secular state and so attachment to the religious home is somewhat of a distraction when the decision for a home was made.

Long term security should have been the primary factor, and the inevitability of the way history has played out with a Levant based Israel made the original decision poor.

Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

I'm not sure that the "next year, in Jerusalem" saying was necessarily a religious one, Br Cornelius, as much as a cultural one ? I got the impression that the Kingdom of Israel in general, and Jerusalem in particular, cast a long shadow over the minds of the diaspora.

The best offer on the table was 50% of Namibia. They should have taken it instead of following the Torah thumpers.

Huh ? Namibia ? I never heard of THAT one ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SolarPlexus

Well, if we needed any evidence that this is scaring them ****less they have just delivered it!

Israhell busted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

The best offer on the table was 50% of Namibia. They should have taken it instead of following the Torah thumpers.

Perhaps the Palestinians might like to move there if it's still available - :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Methink the modern-day Republic of Namibia might have..... viewpoints... about that ? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Methink the modern-day Republic of Namibia might have..... viewpoints... about that ? :D

Yep - and so would ANY country. And the Jewish people have no historical connection to that land. What they DO have is a couple thousand years of animosity and dispersion from every country that has ever hosted them so if they were going to have to fight for their existence, why not do it on land that was once THEIR'S?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

The "rightful owners"?

So the folks who were living there weren't the rightful owners?

So those “down under” don’t understand the concept of land deeds? Did the majority of Fellahin have legitimate deeds? No, they didn’t so they weren’t rightful owners. The rightful owners were part of the Ottoman Empire and were identified as absentee owners and most of those were S-O-L. They had a choice of staying in the Empire or take the gamble that they could hang on to their land by moving into the Mandate.

You're a Yank right? Would YOU be happy if some outside power came in and gave 99% of America back to the Native Americans?

For one, it wouldn’t matter what would make me happy. Two, how would you like it if someone gave Australia back to the Aborigines? But that’s not exactly what happened now was it? The British didn’t invade Palestine and gave it back to the Jews. The British received the land by treaty. That meant that the land and the people belonged to the Empire as if they did invade and capture it. You should understand that being part of the old British Empire. Us Yanks understood. They began to return the land to the rightful owners, provided there was documented proof. When it got to Palestine, only the Jews and a few others had the proper documentation and the British walked away.

But that’s the other part of it. The strong invade the weak. If you can’t hang on to it, it’s not yours. That’s Mankind’s history. The indigenous peoples get invaded by a horde and then in time they merge into a new people then in a few generations another people invade them and so it goes. Sometimes the indigenous absorb the invader. Sometimes an upstart culture doesn’t take.

And "where else were the Jews supposed to go?"

Well I SEEM to recall plans for a Jewish state within America. And another one in Scotland or was it Ireland? EVERY offer of land anywhere other then Israel was rejected.

Would it make much sense to move the British Crown to Namibia? There wouldn’t have been a Jewish state if the Ottoman Empire wasn’t on the losing side. But it was beginning to collapse anyway. Although, the ideals of the Tanzimat reforms hadn’t completely died. If the Ottoman Empire hadn’t joined the Kaiser, it would probably be a good bet that a semi-autonomous Israeli state would have existed and a semi-autonomous Pan-Arabian state. Both part of the Ottoman Empire. But I don’t think the Empire would have been kind to the Fellahin. They would still be stateless and still squatters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Says the guy who trashes all religions..... haha... thanks for the history lesson Raven

And when/where have I done that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Would it make much sense to move the British Crown to Namibia?

First of all, I'm a republican, the British crown can go rot for all I care.

Secondly, if Britain as we know it doesn't exist, and the Isles were being happily lived in by someone else and the British people are looking for a homeland and someone says "here is some land for free" then yes off to the Kingdom of Namibia.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Any minute now, somebody's going to start arguing about who started the 1967 war. You can just FEEL it coming, can't you ? It's like a varient of Godwins Law .

Just to briefly pop back to the opening post: has there been any more news from the ICC ?

Nah, didn't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Wasn't the 67 war the Arab nations ganging up on Israel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Any minute now, somebody's going to start arguing about who started the 1967 war. You can just FEEL it coming, can't you ? It's like a varient of Godwins Law.

Just to briefly pop back to the opening post: has there been any more news from the ICC ?

Nah, didn't think so.

No, not since the initial non- announcement, announcement. "We're investigating the likelihood of an 'official' investigation". sheesh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Was that a FULL 'likelyhood', or just a "possible" likelyhood ?

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot

Gaza has one of highest density of population per square mile in the world, little over 12000 people per square mile. It's like bombing crowded marketplace. I don't understand why it is strange that, with almost 500 childrens killed, there is also high number of male adults. Was that serious question? Check demographics, about 52% population belongs to age group of 15-64, age 65+ only 2.8%. Rest are children. Interestingly, i can't find data for ages 15-45 or so... Source for this info is wiki, link.

So, Gaza is densely populated. 2nd, Gaza is occupied, there are shelters and there is always priority - woman, children, ill and older people - they go first. Many people die because they don't wan't to go out of their apartments, its called living under siege but keeping at least some of your pride 'alive' but hardly anyone could understand that, not if haven't experienced life under siege, especially when against modern, high tech army. To fire even one high explosive projectile at Gaza is enough to commit war crime.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

Any minute now, somebody's going to start arguing about who started the 1967 war. You can just FEEL it coming, can't you ? It's like a varient of Godwins Law.

Just to briefly pop back to the opening post: has there been any more news from the ICC ?

Nah, didn't think so.

Congratulation you just did that!!!!!!!!

Wasn't the 67 war the Arab nations ganging up on Israel?

Nah Israel intiated it by a preemptive attack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

First of all, I'm a republican, the British crown can go rot for all I care.

Secondly, if Britain as we know it doesn't exist, and the Isles were being happily lived in by someone else and the British people are looking for a homeland and someone says "here is some land for free" then yes off to the Kingdom of Namibia.

That’s an honest answer (which is refreshing), but you still didn’t answer if Australia should be given back to the Aborigines? Likewise, without England you wouldn’t be where you are now. I don’t know if that is good or bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Nah Israel intiated it by a preemptive attack

I think you just did it. Israel didn’t initiate it, they finished it. Nasser initiated it. To do what Nasser did and when it backfired to turn around and claim that Israel was in the wrong? If that isn’t typical of Islam playing the victim card.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey

I think you just did it. Israel didn't initiate it, they finished it. Nasser initiated it. To do what Nasser did and when it backfired to turn around and claim that Israel was in the wrong? If that isn't typical of Islam playing the victim card.

Not according to the official narrative..

"Relations between Israel and its neighbours had never fully normalized following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and in the period leading up to June 1967 tensions became dangerously heightened. As a result, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields on June 5 following the mobilisation of Egyptian forces along the Israeli border in the Sinai Peninsula."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Not according to the official narrative..

Well there you go. There is the “OFFICIAL” narrative and then there is what happened.

"Relations between Israel and its neighbours had never fully normalized following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and in the period leading up to June 1967 tensions became dangerously heightened. As a result, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields on June 5 following the mobilisation of Egyptian forces along the Israeli border in the Sinai Peninsula."

Sounds like Nasser initiated it to me. You are just hung up on the term “preemptive”. That is not a term that reflects some guilt. Nasser’s rhetoric and the mobilization of the Arab League was enough provocation for Israel to strike. “Preemptive” was a wise and prudent move on Israel’s part. Mobilizing a mass of troops along the border is an act of war. That was not a police action to secure the border. You don’t need armor to secure the border. A tank here and there is one thing but divisions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

In other words - Israel have both tabula rasa and carte blanche to dictate borders and behaviors in the region ...

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco

and never forget that neither Israel, nor the USA are members of the ICC., That I thinks informs us all as to the intent to commit Wars of Criminal culpability by both nations... :td:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

In other words - Israel have both tabula rasa and carte blanche to dictate borders and behaviors in the region ...

Of course, just as any other sovereign nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Of course, just as any other sovereign nation.

Soverign over who and what ? Annointed Dictatorship is still Fascism in every shade and color or size ~ anyway , who granted Israel sovereignty too while you're at it ~

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

and never forget that neither Israel, nor the USA are members of the ICC., That I thinks informs us all as to the intent to commit Wars of Criminal culpability by both nations... :td:

Of course, but don’t forget why. You need to bother yourself and read why they haven’t ratified the treaty. Also, there are some 29 other nations that have not ratified it. It primarily interferes with national sovereignty. Plus it can be used to attack a nation by weaker nations or nations wanting to control another nation’s sovereignty. Bodies to deal with war crimes and crimes against humanity need to be established only when needed and by those involved as always has been the case. Don’t need another level of control added for that wanabe *anti-Christ* or dictator.

  • 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.