Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Amazing that you should harp on this.

"ARTICLE 22.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position...

(COMMENT)

There are a couples reasons why this is rather stupid.

1. The Covenant is a pact between the signatories to the Covenant; which the Arab Palestinians ARE NOT.

2. Odd you should "bold" the phrase: tutelage of such peoples This is odd because every kind of tutelage the Mandatory offered, the Arabs rejected.

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations
of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947
​

Most Respectfully,
R

In 1923, there were 10 times as many Muslims and Christians than Jews. The British insisted that an Arab Agency occupy a position analogous (with the same power and influence) to the Jewish Agency. No people would have accepted such a role which would have only implied that the Muslims and Christians agreed with the British plans to dispossess them.

The Muslims and Christians were absolutely correct in refusing to appear as willfully participating in their dispossession.

 

[theliq]

Yawn. Two weeks until the plans for the American flag to be raised from the US embassy in the Israeli capital of Jerusalem, are put in place. Enjoy yourselves all that you want.

Really ......Roudy

 

[Hollie]

2. Odd you should "bold" the phrase: tutelage of such peoples This is odd because every kind of tutelage the Mandatory offered, the Arabs rejected.

They rejected being the subjugated end of a colonial project.

Actually, no. Ideologically, Moslems could not allow themselves to take part in any association, agreement or negotiation with the Jews. Jews and Christians in particular are reviled in the Islamist hare and war manual; the Koran.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can have all the "rights" you want. I have the "right" to earn a million dollars. That does not mean that some one is obligated to give me a million dollars. Just like any "right" I must do something to earn the outcome (a million dollars).

There are all types of responsibilities that are considered inherently functions of government.

Of course you know that a state or government are not prerequisites for a people to have rights. So this discussion is merely a distraction.

(COMMENT)

You Arab Palestinians pull this "rights" argument like the world has to stop and and give you something. If everyone has the very same "rights" then the Arab Palestinian is not holding anything special.

It is not a distraction. You introduced this bogus issue of "rights" not withstanding "state or government." It is you that are trying to entangle the issues.

A dysfunctional government and the absence of a government are to different things. And the fiduciary responsibility of government to its citizens is a completely different issue from that of the "rights" of the population.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can have all the "rights" you want. I have the "right" to earn a million dollars. That does not mean that some one is obligated to give me a million dollars. Just like any "right" I must do something to earn the outcome (a million dollars).

There are all types of responsibilities that are considered inherently functions of government.

Of course you know that a state or government are not prerequisites for a people to have rights. So this discussion is merely a distraction.

(COMMENT)

You Arab Palestinians pull this "rights" argument like the world has to stop and and give you something. If everyone has the very same "rights" then the Arab Palestinian is not holding anything special.

It is not a distraction. You introduced this bogus issue of "rights" not withstanding "state or government." It is you that are trying to entangle the issues.

A dysfunctional government and the absence of a government are to different things. And the fiduciary responsibility of government to its citizens is a completely different issue from that of the "rights" of the population.

Most Respectfully,
R

Keep dancing, Rocco

You know I am right.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

montelatici, et al,

Amazing that you should harp on this.

"ARTICLE 22.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position...

(COMMENT)

There are a couples reasons why this is rather stupid.

1. The Covenant is a pact between the signatories to the Covenant; which the Arab Palestinians ARE NOT.

2. Odd you should "bold" the phrase: tutelage of such peoples This is odd because every kind of tutelage the Mandatory offered, the Arabs rejected.

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations
of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947
​

Most Respectfully,
R

In 1923, there were 10 times as many Muslims and Christians than Jews. The British insisted that an Arab Agency occupy a position analogous (with the same power and influence) to the Jewish Agency. No people would have accepted such a role which would have only implied that the Muslims and Christians agreed with the British plans to dispossess them.

The Muslims and Christians were absolutely correct in refusing to appear as willfully participating in their dispossession.

(COMMENT)

Tutelage on any subject is not conditional to the size of the class. If the class is 8 of one kind and 2 of another, the class being taught (tutelage) is exactly the same if the ratio was reverse. The Arab Palestine is merely attempting to grab for greed all it can, and will any excuse to claim victimization.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You simply do not know what rights are.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can have all the "rights" you want. I have the "right" to earn a million dollars. That does not mean that some one is obligated to give me a million dollars. Just like any "right" I must do something to earn the outcome (a million dollars).

There are all types of responsibilities that are considered inherently functions of government.

Of course you know that a state or government are not prerequisites for a people to have rights. So this discussion is merely a distraction.

(COMMENT)

You Arab Palestinians pull this "rights" argument like the world has to stop and and give you something. If everyone has the very same "rights" then the Arab Palestinian is not holding anything special.

It is not a distraction. You introduced this bogus issue of "rights" not withstanding "state or government." It is you that are trying to entangle the issues.

A dysfunctional government and the absence of a government are to different things. And the fiduciary responsibility of government to its citizens is a completely different issue from that of the "rights" of the population.

Most Respectfully,
R

Keep dancing, Rocco
You know I am right.

(COMMENT)

And as long as the Arab Palestinian continues to cry, sponge and beg as a culture and as a unproductive people, --- so long will they remain a parasite on the Donor Community.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You simply do not know what rights are.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can have all the "rights" you want. I have the "right" to earn a million dollars. That does not mean that some one is obligated to give me a million dollars. Just like any "right" I must do something to earn the outcome (a million dollars).

There are all types of responsibilities that are considered inherently functions of government.

Of course you know that a state or government are not prerequisites for a people to have rights. So this discussion is merely a distraction.

(COMMENT)

You Arab Palestinians pull this "rights" argument like the world has to stop and and give you something. If everyone has the very same "rights" then the Arab Palestinian is not holding anything special.

It is not a distraction. You introduced this bogus issue of "rights" not withstanding "state or government." It is you that are trying to entangle the issues.

A dysfunctional government and the absence of a government are to different things. And the fiduciary responsibility of government to its citizens is a completely different issue from that of the "rights" of the population.

Most Respectfully,
R

Keep dancing, Rocco
You know I am right.

(COMMENT)

And as long as the Arab Palestinian continues to cry, sponge and beg as a culture and as a unproductive people, --- so long will they remain a parasite on the Donor Community.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oh jeese, more Israeli talking points.

 

[montelatici]

I am beginning to think that Rocco does not even know what the primary definition of tutelage is. Rocco, you do realize that it does not mean tutoring. LOL

 

[Hollie]

montelatici, et al,

Amazing that you should harp on this.

"ARTICLE 22.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position...

(COMMENT)

There are a couples reasons why this is rather stupid.

1. The Covenant is a pact between the signatories to the Covenant; which the Arab Palestinians ARE NOT.

2. Odd you should "bold" the phrase: tutelage of such peoples This is odd because every kind of tutelage the Mandatory offered, the Arabs rejected.

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations
of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947
​

Most Respectfully,
R

In 1923, there were 10 times as many Muslims and Christians than Jews. The British insisted that an Arab Agency occupy a position analogous (with the same power and influence) to the Jewish Agency. No people would have accepted such a role which would have only implied that the Muslims and Christians agreed with the British plans to dispossess them.

The Muslims and Christians were absolutely correct in refusing to appear as willfully participating in their dispossession.

Your "dispossession" slogan is really pointless. The Moslem squatters did not own the land. You're still befuddled about some invented "country of Pal'istan" that existed only in your mind. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire was a factor in the Ottoman Turks abandoning all rights and title to the territory that included the land area called Pal'istan.

The Arabs-Moslems were not "dispossessed" from something they did not own.

 

[theliq]

Australia's Israel policy is WRONG.....Australia's foreign policy backing Israel,as announced by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop(who is part of the Conservative present Government) is,as usual,immoral and self serving in relation to the United Nations Security Council voting unanimously to halt Israel's continuing building program on Palestinian Land on the West Bank.

Australia's continuing support for Israel and betrayal of the Palestinian people,(Prior to this Conservative Government the Labour Party were pro-Palestinians/Israel...but this changed as soon as the Liberal Party(Conservatives) got into power,this Party are riddled with Zionists and are Lap-Dogs to the Jewish Lobby,even in the face of the United States abstaining from the Security Council vote for the first time,having vetoed resolutions against Israel at least 75 times in the past,...IS SHAMEFUL.

The ABSTENTION by the US clearly demonstrates that President Obama has FINALLY realised that Israel has NEVER had any intention of making PEACE with the Palestinians.

Obama should have acted against Israel years ago.But unfortunately as President he has proved to be heavy on rhetoric and light on action,as has recently been demonstrated in respect of his lack of support for the opposition forces in Syria.

Many US Presidents have tried and failed to bring peace between Israel and Palestine and put a Stop to Israel's OCCUPATION to allow a Palestinian State to be achieved.

Israel's continuing use(now 60 years old) of emotional blackmail around the world in relation to the HOLOCAUST should cease forth with.It is time for Israel to change and move on in particular BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN BEHAVIOUR SINCE WW2

It is time for Israel to drag themselves out of the past and get on with it and make PEACE with the Palestinians.....steven...PS.Most of the Rhetoric on here is archaic it is time to Stop looking backwards,what is really mind numbing is the extent that Rocco and others dissect the past,it is the future you should be thinking about...Soon Forward I say

 

[Ringel05]

Despite stern warnings from the U.N. and even the U.S., Israel continues its steady march toward becoming an apartheid state that relies on anti-Arab racism to justify its behavior, as Lawrence Davidson describes.


By Lawrence Davidson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw a temper tantrum on Dec. 24 after the U.S. failed to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234 condemning Zionist settlements on Palestinian territory.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful.” He went so far as to tell the foreign secretary of New Zealand, one of the countries that brought the resolution forward for a vote, that this action was the equivalent of “an act of war.” He then started recalling Israeli ambassadors from the Security Council states that backed the resolution. Finally, Netanyahu said Israel would “not abide by it [the resolution].” All in all it was quite a performance.

In order to put the prime minister’s outrage in context, let’s look at what, in part, the resolution actually says. It “reaffirms the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War … and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…”

In other words, UNSC Resolution 2234 told the Israeli government that it is obliged to follow the rule of law – in this case international law. Mr. Netanyahu’s response was to repudiate that law. Thus, the Israeli prime minister ran from the law – something outlaws do.

This is nothing new. Israel has been acting in a criminal fashion in (among other areas) the West Bank of Palestine for the past 50 years – and doing so with impunity. “Impunity” is the key word here. The prime minister’s response was, in part, to the unexpected refusal of the United States to continue its half-century practice of protecting the Zionist state from any consequences for its illegal behavior.

Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior – Consortiumnews
They refuse to recognize The very UN that brought israel into being

Name one country that has not at one time or another violated international law or continues to do so. Unfortunately it appears that Lawrence has joined the "Israel is an Criminal Apartheid Nation" propaganda crowd hence surrendering any credibility concerning having an unbiased view. Indeed an unfortunate position for any social scientist, expected to be unbiasedly neutral, to find themselves in.
Does that mean Israel is completely blameless? Of course not, they're a nation doing what they think is best for their own protection, like all nations/peoples do, sometimes they get it right sometimes they don't and as always right and wrong can be subjective depending on the viewer.

Never realized you were Blind, Ringel

I did figure out you were anti Semitic though. Tell me, do you shave your head?

You have the WRONG MAN,Ringel,Completely...steve

Didn't like the jab? Well you were wrong about blind.......... Are you of aboriginal or English descent? If you are of English descent then which "breed" are you? Celtic, Roman, Saxon, Jute, Norse, Norman?
See where this is going?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL!
You have any images of currency that they used?

Clearly you have an obsession with currency. As if it somehow changes the inhabitant of a locale. LOL

If Palestinians had territory, they must have had a currency and a government.
You're shown no proof they had either.
Perhaps the claim that they had territory is mistaken?

There is no need for inhabitants of a territory to have a currency or a government to be inhabitants.

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations does not say anything about a currency or government, just inhabitants.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations


The Zionists did not have a currency or a government, in fact, they inhabited Europe, not Palestine. LOL

Inhabitants, not of Palestine. Glad you agree. No Palestinian territory. No occupation of Palestinian territory.

What were the British thinking, they called the Muslims and Christians inhabitants of Palestine? Do you have any idea?

"PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​

The Colonial Office to the Palestine Arab Delegation.


DOWNING STREET,
1st March, 1922.



"2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine..."

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unis...48a7e5584ee1403485256cd8006c3fbe?OpenDocument

What were the British thinking, they called the Muslims and Christians inhabitants of Palestine? Do you have any idea?

Because Israel wasn't formed yet.

I'm still looking for some Palestinian coins or paper money from 1966.
No luck finding any, what about you?

 

[dani67]

Despite stern warnings from the U.N. and even the U.S., Israel continues its steady march toward becoming an apartheid state that relies on anti-Arab racism to justify its behavior, as Lawrence Davidson describes.


By Lawrence Davidson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw a temper tantrum on Dec. 24 after the U.S. failed to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234 condemning Zionist settlements on Palestinian territory.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful.” He went so far as to tell the foreign secretary of New Zealand, one of the countries that brought the resolution forward for a vote, that this action was the equivalent of “an act of war.” He then started recalling Israeli ambassadors from the Security Council states that backed the resolution. Finally, Netanyahu said Israel would “not abide by it [the resolution].” All in all it was quite a performance.

In order to put the prime minister’s outrage in context, let’s look at what, in part, the resolution actually says. It “reaffirms the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War … and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…”

In other words, UNSC Resolution 2234 told the Israeli government that it is obliged to follow the rule of law – in this case international law. Mr. Netanyahu’s response was to repudiate that law. Thus, the Israeli prime minister ran from the law – something outlaws do.

This is nothing new. Israel has been acting in a criminal fashion in (among other areas) the West Bank of Palestine for the past 50 years – and doing so with impunity. “Impunity” is the key word here. The prime minister’s response was, in part, to the unexpected refusal of the United States to continue its half-century practice of protecting the Zionist state from any consequences for its illegal behavior.

Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior – Consortiumnews
They refuse to recognize The very UN that brought israel into being

f arab bastard. israel should genocide all of them

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Australia's Israel policy is WRONG.....Australia's foreign policy backing Israel,as announced by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop(who is part of the Conservative present Government) is,as usual,immoral and self serving in relation to the United Nations Security Council voting unanimously to halt Israel's continuing building program on Palestinian Land on the West Bank.

Australia's continuing support for Israel and betrayal of the Palestinian people,(Prior to this Conservative Government the Labour Party were pro-Palestinians/Israel...but this changed as soon as the Liberal Party(Conservatives) got into power,this Party are riddled with Zionists and are Lap-Dogs to the Jewish Lobby,even in the face of the United States abstaining from the Security Council vote for the first time,having vetoed resolutions against Israel at least 75 times in the past,...IS SHAMEFUL.

The ABSTENTION by the US clearly demonstrates that President Obama has FINALLY realised that Israel has NEVER had any intention of making PEACE with the Palestinians.

Obama should have acted against Israel years ago.But unfortunately as President he has proved to be heavy on rhetoric and light on action,as has recently been demonstrated in respect of his lack of support for the opposition forces in Syria.

Many US Presidents have tried and failed to bring peace between Israel and Palestine and put a Stop to Israel's OCCUPATION to allow a Palestinian State to be achieved.

Israel's continuing use(now 60 years old) of emotional blackmail around the world in relation to the HOLOCAUST should cease forth with.It is time for Israel to change and move on in particular BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN BEHAVIOUR SINCE WW2

It is time for Israel to drag themselves out of the past and get on with it and make PEACE with the Palestinians.....steven...PS.Most of the Rhetoric on here is archaic it is time to Stop looking backwards,what is really mind numbing is the extent that Rocco and others dissect the past,it is the future you should be thinking about...Soon Forward I say

voting unanimously to halt Israel's continuing building program on Palestinian Land on the West Bank.

Palestinian land? When did they get any land? How?

 

[theliq]

Despite stern warnings from the U.N. and even the U.S., Israel continues its steady march toward becoming an apartheid state that relies on anti-Arab racism to justify its behavior, as Lawrence Davidson describes.


By Lawrence Davidson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw a temper tantrum on Dec. 24 after the U.S. failed to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234 condemning Zionist settlements on Palestinian territory.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful.” He went so far as to tell the foreign secretary of New Zealand, one of the countries that brought the resolution forward for a vote, that this action was the equivalent of “an act of war.” He then started recalling Israeli ambassadors from the Security Council states that backed the resolution. Finally, Netanyahu said Israel would “not abide by it [the resolution].” All in all it was quite a performance.

In order to put the prime minister’s outrage in context, let’s look at what, in part, the resolution actually says. It “reaffirms the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War … and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…”

In other words, UNSC Resolution 2234 told the Israeli government that it is obliged to follow the rule of law – in this case international law. Mr. Netanyahu’s response was to repudiate that law. Thus, the Israeli prime minister ran from the law – something outlaws do.

This is nothing new. Israel has been acting in a criminal fashion in (among other areas) the West Bank of Palestine for the past 50 years – and doing so with impunity. “Impunity” is the key word here. The prime minister’s response was, in part, to the unexpected refusal of the United States to continue its half-century practice of protecting the Zionist state from any consequences for its illegal behavior.

Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior – Consortiumnews
They refuse to recognize The very UN that brought israel into being

f arab bastard. israel should genocide all of them

Spoken like a TRUE RABID ZIONIST TERRORIST SYNTHETIC JEW and a NASTY PIECE OF WORK YOU ARE TOO

 

[theliq]

Australia's Israel policy is WRONG.....Australia's foreign policy backing Israel,as announced by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop(who is part of the Conservative present Government) is,as usual,immoral and self serving in relation to the United Nations Security Council voting unanimously to halt Israel's continuing building program on Palestinian Land on the West Bank.

Australia's continuing support for Israel and betrayal of the Palestinian people,(Prior to this Conservative Government the Labour Party were pro-Palestinians/Israel...but this changed as soon as the Liberal Party(Conservatives) got into power,this Party are riddled with Zionists and are Lap-Dogs to the Jewish Lobby,even in the face of the United States abstaining from the Security Council vote for the first time,having vetoed resolutions against Israel at least 75 times in the past,...IS SHAMEFUL.

The ABSTENTION by the US clearly demonstrates that President Obama has FINALLY realised that Israel has NEVER had any intention of making PEACE with the Palestinians.

Obama should have acted against Israel years ago.But unfortunately as President he has proved to be heavy on rhetoric and light on action,as has recently been demonstrated in respect of his lack of support for the opposition forces in Syria.

Many US Presidents have tried and failed to bring peace between Israel and Palestine and put a Stop to Israel's OCCUPATION to allow a Palestinian State to be achieved.

Israel's continuing use(now 60 years old) of emotional blackmail around the world in relation to the HOLOCAUST should cease forth with.It is time for Israel to change and move on in particular BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN BEHAVIOUR SINCE WW2

It is time for Israel to drag themselves out of the past and get on with it and make PEACE with the Palestinians.....steven...PS.Most of the Rhetoric on here is archaic it is time to Stop looking backwards,what is really mind numbing is the extent that Rocco and others dissect the past,it is the future you should be thinking about...Soon Forward I say

voting unanimously to halt Israel's continuing building program on Palestinian Land on the West Bank.

Palestinian land? When did they get any land? How?

Apart from being a Rabid Zionist,you know not the Minute nor the Hour.....DUH

 

[theliq]

Despite stern warnings from the U.N. and even the U.S., Israel continues its steady march toward becoming an apartheid state that relies on anti-Arab racism to justify its behavior, as Lawrence Davidson describes.


By Lawrence Davidson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw a temper tantrum on Dec. 24 after the U.S. failed to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234 condemning Zionist settlements on Palestinian territory.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful.” He went so far as to tell the foreign secretary of New Zealand, one of the countries that brought the resolution forward for a vote, that this action was the equivalent of “an act of war.” He then started recalling Israeli ambassadors from the Security Council states that backed the resolution. Finally, Netanyahu said Israel would “not abide by it [the resolution].” All in all it was quite a performance.

In order to put the prime minister’s outrage in context, let’s look at what, in part, the resolution actually says. It “reaffirms the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War … and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…”

In other words, UNSC Resolution 2234 told the Israeli government that it is obliged to follow the rule of law – in this case international law. Mr. Netanyahu’s response was to repudiate that law. Thus, the Israeli prime minister ran from the law – something outlaws do.

This is nothing new. Israel has been acting in a criminal fashion in (among other areas) the West Bank of Palestine for the past 50 years – and doing so with impunity. “Impunity” is the key word here. The prime minister’s response was, in part, to the unexpected refusal of the United States to continue its half-century practice of protecting the Zionist state from any consequences for its illegal behavior.

Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior – Consortiumnews
They refuse to recognize The very UN that brought israel into being

f arab bastard. israel should genocide all of them

Spoken like a TRUE RABID ZIONIST TERRORIST SYNTHETIC JEW

ps Why use the letter "f" when you mean FCUKING ??????

 

[theliq]

Clearly you have an obsession with currency. As if it somehow changes the inhabitant of a locale. LOL

If Palestinians had territory, they must have had a currency and a government.
You're shown no proof they had either.
Perhaps the claim that they had territory is mistaken?

There is no need for inhabitants of a territory to have a currency or a government to be inhabitants.

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations does not say anything about a currency or government, just inhabitants.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations


The Zionists did not have a currency or a government, in fact, they inhabited Europe, not Palestine. LOL

Inhabitants, not of Palestine. Glad you agree. No Palestinian territory. No occupation of Palestinian territory.

What were the British thinking, they called the Muslims and Christians inhabitants of Palestine? Do you have any idea?

"PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​

The Colonial Office to the Palestine Arab Delegation.


DOWNING STREET,
1st March, 1922.



"2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine..."

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unis...48a7e5584ee1403485256cd8006c3fbe?OpenDocument

What were the British thinking, they called the Muslims and Christians inhabitants of Palestine? Do you have any idea?

Because Israel wasn't formed yet.

I'm still looking for some Palestinian coins or paper money from 1966.
No luck finding any, what about you?

Prior to the Zionist invasion,plenty BUT SINCE THE INVASION NONE,as the Palestinians have been under the YOKE OF ISRAEL,that is why nothing after 1966 you DUMB ASS

 

[theliq]

Despite stern warnings from the U.N. and even the U.S., Israel continues its steady march toward becoming an apartheid state that relies on anti-Arab racism to justify its behavior, as Lawrence Davidson describes.


By Lawrence Davidson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw a temper tantrum on Dec. 24 after the U.S. failed to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234 condemning Zionist settlements on Palestinian territory.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful.” He went so far as to tell the foreign secretary of New Zealand, one of the countries that brought the resolution forward for a vote, that this action was the equivalent of “an act of war.” He then started recalling Israeli ambassadors from the Security Council states that backed the resolution. Finally, Netanyahu said Israel would “not abide by it [the resolution].” All in all it was quite a performance.

In order to put the prime minister’s outrage in context, let’s look at what, in part, the resolution actually says. It “reaffirms the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War … and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…”

In other words, UNSC Resolution 2234 told the Israeli government that it is obliged to follow the rule of law – in this case international law. Mr. Netanyahu’s response was to repudiate that law. Thus, the Israeli prime minister ran from the law – something outlaws do.

This is nothing new. Israel has been acting in a criminal fashion in (among other areas) the West Bank of Palestine for the past 50 years – and doing so with impunity. “Impunity” is the key word here. The prime minister’s response was, in part, to the unexpected refusal of the United States to continue its half-century practice of protecting the Zionist state from any consequences for its illegal behavior.

Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior – Consortiumnews
They refuse to recognize The very UN that brought israel into being

Name one country that has not at one time or another violated international law or continues to do so. Unfortunately it appears that Lawrence has joined the "Israel is an Criminal Apartheid Nation" propaganda crowd hence surrendering any credibility concerning having an unbiased view. Indeed an unfortunate position for any social scientist, expected to be unbiasedly neutral, to find themselves in.
Does that mean Israel is completely blameless? Of course not, they're a nation doing what they think is best for their own protection, like all nations/peoples do, sometimes they get it right sometimes they don't and as always right and wrong can be subjective depending on the viewer.

Never realized you were Blind, Ringel

I did figure out you were anti Semitic though. Tell me, do you shave your head?

You have the WRONG MAN,Ringel,Completely...steve

Didn't like the jab? Well you were wrong about blind.......... Are you of aboriginal or English descent? If you are of English descent then which "breed" are you? Celtic, Roman, Saxon, Jute, Norse, Norman?
See where this is going?

I was actually joking re the blind comment Ringel,sorry to see you are so thin skinned.....apart from that you will please note I am of Basque heritage,not some ISIS or ZIONIST Lacky like you.....I never mind a Jab Ringel because it's "All shit off a Ducks back to me"LOL ....You see where this is going..steve