Comments on: Peace is no kiss, Israeli aide says Beyond the World news headlines Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:09:42 +0000 hourly 1 By: John Smith Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:36:31 +0000 The IDF is not indoctrinated to casually murder non-jewish children. They operate according to the laws of war.

But Hamas does indoctrinate children to casually murder Jewish people. That is a proven fact, and something Hamas boasts about. Watch “tomorrows pioneers”.

By: hasbaranator Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:16:45 +0000 “Palestinian recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people, which they have so far refused to do, is not a matter of a kiss on the forehead, but a declaration of intent,”

Arad knows very well that for the Palestinians to accept Israel in its present form is a declaration of suicide. And like the rest of the Netanyahu’s cabinet, he’s using this tactic to deflect growing international criticism of Israel’s ‘settlements’ (a neutral term designed to mask their racist character)

In a recent interview with Haaretz, Arad made it clear that he would prefer to focus his ‘brute energies’ on the ‘goyim’ rather than see Israel facing off the settlers. Arad may be many things, but a closet racist isn’t one of them. He sees no problem in openly identifying with the cultural genocide the settlers and the IDF are carrying out in the West Bank and Gaza.

Palestinian recognition of Israel as their overlord is of little importance. What Israelis should be concerned with is how the “the world’s most moral army” is being indoctrinated to casually murder children who are not amongst the chosen ones mI

By: Hmmm Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:10:40 +0000 Righto

Pakistan lost Bangladesh in a war. Several other border regions are issues as well, I believe.

Vietnam was formerly two countries. Soviet funded tanks and troops rolled into Saigon, you will recall. And all of South Vietnam became part of North Vietnam. The south had very little say in the matter, and those who did were ‘re-educated’.

Cypras was invaded by Turkey, who refused to recognise a greek friendly coup. The island was cut in half and remains so to this day.

The Israel-Arab conflict has used land as musical chairs. Israel became independent and recognised by the UN. Egypt seized Gaza. Jorden seized the West Bank. Israel seized both, and the Golan hights. The Sini region has exchanged hands twice. Now Gaza has been released, but remains officially occupied.

Yugoslavia slowly fell apart as a result of war. Thanks to the NATO bombing campaign, the country is now split into several independent regions severed from the parent nation.

Georgia remains a single nation recognised by the UN. Yet as a result of war, two regions are now occupied by russian military forces. These two regions are not recognised as independent except by a small handful of (russian aligned) nations. But the truth of the matter is those regions are independent regardless of Georgia’s wishes, and Russian force is the only reason why it is so.

Tamil Eelam was the region the LTTE wanted for their own nation. Now that region is once again under the control of Sri Lanka. The LTTE claims that no act of war can take their land from them. Sri Lanka claims exactly the same thing. But only one was able to win the civil war.

So as you can see, the indivisibility of land, while a core part of international law, rarely equates with reality on the ground. And the UN has little say in what actually happens.

By: Haha Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:36:33 +0000 You have admitted that there is no legally binding UN resolution, or legally binding IC ruling.

And the fact remains that there is no UN nation currently recognised as Palestine. Only occupied regions which are recognised to be West Bank and Gaza.

Which means that when you make bold claims such as “palistinian land is well understood to be palistinian land, in any court”, that is not entirely the truth.

And when you boldly claim the settlements are illegal, there is no actual binding IC ruling or UN resolution which says so. Oh dear.

Perhaps you should also consider whether Article 49 of the Convention truly applies. After all, it is supposed to be dealing with “forced transfers” of people.

By: brian Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:19:57 +0000 hmm,

Germany and Korea and Pakistan were both over 50 years ago in an age of imperialism.. and still were not handed to another race of people.. Palistine is the subject of MY conversation, Vietnam was not chopped up and given to anyone.. In fact please explain how any one of the countries in your list have been divided as the spoils of war since pre-50’s imperialism?? Tamil? Are you talking about the separitist tamil movement? I really think you’re missing the point.

I repeat: Today if you win a war you cant chop up a country and give it to someone else.
You don’t have to wish it were true, it is true..

By: brian Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:08:54 +0000 haha,

1. They arnt legally binding because the US Veto’s all binding resolutions against Israel thus making binding resolutions useless.

2. Geneva conventions apply to people, and palistinian land is well understood to be palistinian land, in any court.

3. If the UN or criminal court had any authority you would know that the US is the only country formally to be charged with terrorism in Nicaragua and ordered to recognize the decision of the court by the UN. Binding resolutions only work on very weak countries that cant just ignore the UN.

4. Size is irrelevant, as the authorities bulldozing palistinian homes on palistinian land dont have any jurisdiction to do so.

5. The UN knows that it is fighting the most powerful country in the world in trying to find justice for the palistinians, the US, who have used their veto power more times for Israel than any other veto in UN history combined.

6. What an absolute load of BS!! There is no rule that says land seized from your neighbor by bulldozing and rebuilding should remain under your control. Youre a joke buddy, I dont know where you pulled that from but learn how to read a document.

By: Haha Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:10:09 +0000 Not as fun as trying to argue with a person who doesn’t seem to be listening.

You didn’t bother even bother to read my post. Didn’t attempt to rebut it in a meaningful manner. Didn’t try to justify your point of view in any way.

Yet you believe you have somehow ‘corrected me with the facts’. And also accuse *me* of having a comprehension problem. Haha.

Perhaps in your pink pony castle fantasy world, the Secretery General and governments can wave their hands and issue decrees like they mean something.

But until the UN or the IC make a legally binding resolution, their political statements have no legal weight.

And all the “I’m clueless about international law but I still know I’m correct because I read left-wing blogs which spout opinion as fact and completely isolate myself from other viewpoints” wishful thinking is not going to change the reality of UN politics.

As your post is no more anonymous then mine, your comments concerning anonymous comments makes no sense. But then, little did.

Adios. Time to find a left winger who actually knows how to back up their arguments.

By: bbsnews Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:57:24 +0000 Haha,

Apparently you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

The “settlements” are illegal. Kofi Annan, Ban Ki Moon, and nearly every government on the planet has held this to be true since 1967.

So take your lttle fantasy to New York City, march into the UN and explain to them how wrong they are and stop on back here and let us know what you find out.

Isn’t this fun? Here you spread anonymous false information and I correct you with the facts.

Now be off to NYC, and don’t get too depressed when they laugh you right out of the UN as a wingnut…

By: Hmmm Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:18:28 +0000 “Today if you win a war you cant chop up a country and give it to someone else”

I wish that were true.

But what happened to Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Palestine, Pakistan, Somalia, Cypras, Yugoslavia, Georgia and Tamil Eelam proves otherwise.

By: Haha Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:04:24 +0000 Thank you, bbcnews. Your post completely failed to contest my post on any better level then “you are wrong, and others agree with me, so there”. Very amusing and predictable.

So I might as well try to broaden your mind with the other perspectives, even if I doubt you will bother to consider a second point of view.

1. The current UN resolutions on the illegality of Israeli settlements are not legally binding, as those resolutions were made under Chapter 6 of the UN charter.

2. As the Palestinian territories are not part of any recognised sovereign nation, the Articles of the Geneva Convention relating to the occupation of sovereign land can be argued not to apply.

3. The rulings of the international court were highly political, and at any rate were non-binding advisory opinions.

4. At any rate, the settlements are not of sufficient size to be said to displace the Palestinian people from their territory, or to be considered ‘forced transfers’.

5. The UN knows that it needs to pander to the Arab states to keep them cooperative, and does not need to worry about upsetting Israel with it’s decisions.

6. And even if you reject all of these arguments, and the settlements are illegal, the truth remains that under international law occupied land remains under the control and management of the occupying party until a peace treaty is made.

Of course, the UN is completely aware of all this. Yet another reason why the entire organisation is akin to a political joke.

P.S Thanks to the beauty of cyberspace, anyone can pretend to be anyone. Including you. So your postscript comment, while it was intended to sound dismissive and tough, is funny too. Haha.