israel criticizes aregentina and brazil for recognizing palestinian st

[bud]

Well... you cant give away something that isnt yours.

heh. that's a tough one to swallow.

[Bonam]

Nope. I claim victory by timezone... Im PST. Theres a good chance its already 2 or 3 in the morning for you. Pretty sure Ill get the last piece of abject nonsense in.

Dang, I'm actually PST too, but looks like you outlasted me anyway.

[myata]

As the latest incident with settlements shows, US pseudo-mediation has utterly failed (not that it had any serious claim to impartiality, with a unconditional handout on one side and standby readiness to take no for the answer on the other). It's time for the world to recognize Palestinian state in 67 borders and move on to real negotiations between two states. In which, obvoiusly, acts like building up occupied territories can be treated as nothing short of open and blatant act of aggression, just like any democratic state would consider it, were it perpetrated against it.

[DogOnPorch]

As the latest incident with settlements shows, US pseudo-mediation has utterly failed (not that it had any serious claim to impartiality, with a unconditional handout on one side and standby readiness to take no for the answer on the other). It's time for the world to recognize Palestinian state in 67 borders and move on to real negotiations between two states. In which, obvoiusly, acts like building up occupied territories can be treated as nothing short of open and blatant act of aggression, just like any democratic state would consider it, were it perpetrated against it.

In 1967 before/during/after the 6 Day War, there was no so-called Palestinian state to "occupy". Egypt and Jordan controled the areas and had zero plans for creating this mythical Palestinian state. They went to war with Israel and lost. But folks seem to like to forget these wee details in favor of the Islamo-fascist world view. Guess you had to be alive through it all to see it as it was....

[myata]

Enlighten yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories#Boundaries

And no, world began in 1967 and there was nothing in it before then. Because that's how far our view of events wants to extend.

[bush_cheney2004]

... It's time for the world to recognize Palestinian state in 67 borders and move on to real negotiations between two states. In which, obvoiusly, acts like building up occupied territories can be treated as nothing short of open and blatant act of aggression, just like any democratic state would consider it, were it perpetrated against it.

Yea...let's see what "the world" can do. I welcome the change in pace and boring narrative. C'mon "world"...show us the way to eternal peace for Palestine and Israel. Oh, and don't ask me to pay for that too.

[bud]

show us the way to eternal peace for Palestine and Israel. Oh, and don't ask me to pay for that too.

i guess you prefer paying $1 million a day to israel to not have peace.

[bush_cheney2004]

i guess you prefer paying $1 million a day to israel to not have peace.

Peace with Egypt and Jordan is just fine thank-you very much. The Palestinians just piss their share of the money away on Katyusha rockets.

[bud]

Peace with Egypt and Jordan is just fine thank-you very much. The Palestinians just piss their share of the money away on Katyusha rockets.

don't act stupid.

palestinians receive chump change compared to the $3 billion a year israel receives from you and the rest of the US taxpayers. but that's okay, because you're fine with paying that money. you're just not okay with paying money towards something that wants to bring peace.

[bud]

by the way:

i made a mistake. $3 billion a year that you pay to israel works out to $8,219,178 a day of your tax money going to israel.

[DogOnPorch]

don't act stupid.

palestinians receive chump change compared to the $3 billion a year israel receives from you and the rest of the US taxpayers. but that's okay, because you're fine with paying that money. you're just not okay with paying money towards something that wants to bring peace.

Hamas equals peace, eh? Sure thing, Akmed.

[bud]

Hamas equals peace, eh? Sure thing, Akmed.

?

i don't have the time for simple, bigoted creatures like you. consider this response a gift.

Edited December 10, 2010 by bud

[DogOnPorch]

?

i don't have the time for simple, bigoted creatures like you. consider this response a gift.

Sure thing Mr Evil Zionist Entity.

[dre]

Peace with Egypt and Jordan is just fine thank-you very much. The Palestinians just piss their share of the money away on Katyusha rockets.

And what do you think Israel does with their money? Make dredles?

They spend it on weapons as well, as does egypt.

[DogOnPorch]

Enlighten yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories#Boundaries

And no, world began in 1967 and there was nothing in it before then. Because that's how far our view of events wants to extend.

From the above Wikipedia:

Between the Armistice of 1949 and the Six-Day War of 1967, the West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied and annexed by Jordan and the Gaza Strip was occupied (but not annexed) by Egypt. The term "Palestinian" began to be applied exclusively to the Arab population of these areas only after Israel's victory in the 1967 War, and consequently the terms "Palestinian territories" and "occupied Palestinian territories" also gained wide usage. Until the start of serious negotiations for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian issues (the Peace Process), the Palestinians refrained from defining the boundaries of what they called "the occupied territories," and which some even called "occupied Palestine", which implied a potential Palestinian claim to the whole of Israel. It was in the context of the negotiations that the term "1967 borders" came to be used, as a basis for negotiation. "The 1967 borders" are in fact the 1949 armistice lines (which is the Green Line), which all Arab countries and Palestinians at the time insisted were to be temporary and with no other legal status. The Palestinian negotiators claim a return to those lines as the boundary for a future Palestinian state. The Palestinians also claim that East Jerusalem is a part of the occupied West Bank within the boundaries of the "1967 borders". The Arab League has supported these boundaries as the borders of the future State of Palestine in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.

Personally, I find the concept of the losers of a war of aggression getting a 'do-over' in terms of territory lost (et al) rather bizarre. Call me old school. But, anything is now possible it seems in this topsy-turvy brave new world where Jews are portrayed as the oppressors while the Arabs become the innocent victims.

[dre]

From the above Wikipedia:

Personally, I find the concept of the losers of a war of aggression getting a 'do-over' in terms of territory lost (et al) rather bizarre. Call me old school. But, anything is now possible it seems in this topsy-turvy brave new world where Jews are portrayed as the oppressors while the Arabs become the innocent victims.

Personally, I find the concept of the losers of a war of aggression getting a 'do-over' in terms of territory lost (et al) rather bizarre. Call me old school.

First of all its a simplistic half truth to suggest that the 1967 war was an act of agression on the part of Arabs. The war was already in its third year by that time, and you could make compelling arguments that EITHER side "started it".

Beyond that... your failure to understand that concept shows a total lack of understanding on what international law IS and how it works.

By your reasoning, since the invasion of Afganistan was defensive the US should just be able to keep that country now. And coalition forces should have been allowed to split up Iraq after the first golf war and each keep a piece

Really quite ridiculous and absurd.

[DogOnPorch]

First of all its a simplistic half truth to suggest that the 1967 war was an act of agression on the part of Arabs. The war was already in its third year by that time, and you could make compelling arguments that EITHER side "started it".

Beyond that... your failure to understand that concept shows a total lack of understanding on what international law IS and how it works.

By your reasoning, since the invasion of Afganistan was defensive the US should just be able to keep that country now. And coalition forces should have been allowed to split up Iraq after the first golf war and each keep a piece

Really quite ridiculous and absurd.

1. International Law as such is a complete joke. If it was for real then Robert Mugabe and numerous other murderers become leaders would be hanging from nooses. Instead, it (the so-called LAW) spends 99% of its time worrying about Israel, which tells me all I need to know about the concept.

2. The war started in 1948 and has yet to end.

By your reasoning, since the invasion of Afganistan was defensive the US should just be able to keep that country now. And coalition forces should have been allowed to split up Iraq after the first golf war and each keep a piece

You and your strawman fallacies. BTW, Afghanistan is a group operation. Even Canada has troops there. You might want to read-up about it before creating more strawman attacks.

War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

[dre]

1. International Law as such is a complete joke. If it was for real then Robert Mugabe and numerous other murderers become leaders would be hanging from nooses. Instead, it (the so-called LAW) spends 99% of its time worrying about Israel, which tells me all I need to know about the concept.

2. The war started in 1948 and has yet to end.

You and your strawman fallacies. BTW, Afghanistan is a group operation. Even Canada has troops there. You might want to read-up about it before creating more strawman attacks.

War in Afghanistan (2001present)

Thats not a strawman fallacy. You seem to be suggesting that winners of defensive wars should be able to keep the territory they take in the course of the conflict. Based on this idiotic world view, countries like Japan, Germany, and Iraq should not exist today because they lost wars in which they were the aggressor and were susequently occupied.

1. International Law as such is a complete joke. If it was for real then Robert Mugabe and numerous other murderers become leaders would be hanging from nooses. Instead, it (the so-called LAW) spends 99% of its time worrying about Israel, which tells me all I need to know about the concept.

That statement just demonstrates your completely lack of any sort of knowledge about the subject. The part about how "the law harrasses Israel" is EXTRA hilarious and stupid. Israel has been given a complete pass by the UN and the international community. A COMPLETE PASS. It also shows that you think the UNGA is "internatal law" which again is hilarious in its absurdity.

Edited December 11, 2010 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

Thats not a strawman fallacy. You seem to be suggesting that winners of defensive wars should be able to keep the territory they take in the course of the conflict. Based on this idiotic world view, countries like Japan, Germany, and Iraq should not exist today because they lost wars in which they were the aggressor and were susequently occupied.

It was up to the victor re: these countries' fates. As for Germany, the heartland of Prussian culture was eliminated and handed over to Poland. Almost a fair trade...eh?

That statement just demonstrates your completely lack of any sort of knowledge about the subject. The part about how "the law harrasses Israel" is EXTRA hilarious and stupid. Israel has been given a complete pass by the UN and the international community. A COMPLETE PASS. It also shows that you think the UNGA is "internatal law" which again is hilarious in its absurdity.

The UN gives Israel a complete pass?

Hey, it's Friday...I'll have whatever dre's having.

Edited December 11, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[dre]

It was up to the victor re: these countries' fates. As for Germany, the heartland of Prussian culture was eliminated and handed over to Poland. Almost a fair trade...eh?

The UN gives Israel a complete pass?

Hey, it's Friday...I'll have whatever dre's having.

Yes. A complete pass. They have done literally NOTHING to force Israel to honor the international treaties he has signed. Just a bunch of lip service and nothing more.

Look at Saddam Husseins invasion of Kuwait as example where they really DID enforce international law.

[DogOnPorch]

Yes. A complete pass. They have done literally NOTHING to force Israel to honor the international treaties he has signed. Just a bunch of lip service and nothing more.

In this sense the UN has also given Robert Mugabe a 'complete pass' along with many, many others. See? A joke.

Look at Saddam Husseins invasion of Kuwait as example where they really DID enforce international law.

I have a better example...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

[dre]

In this sense the UN has also given Robert Mugabe a 'complete pass' along with many, many others. See? A joke.

I have a better example...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

Again... youre describing international law as a joke when you dont even have an elementary understanding of how it works or what it really is.

[bush_cheney2004]

Again... youre describing international law as a joke when you dont even have an elementary understanding of how it works or what it really is.

Well...frankly...international law is a joke.

[DogOnPorch]

Again... youre describing international law as a joke when you dont even have an elementary understanding of how it works or what it really is.

My point is that it is a joke and doesn't work...and at this rate...never will. Brought to you by the same idiots that gave us Durban and anti-blasphemy laws and over 200 resolutions against Israel while saying/doing sfa about dozens of other conflict areas. Not enough juice, apparently.

Headlines: Israel farts! Ten UN resolutions about Israeli farting passed.

[dre]

Well...frankly...international law is a joke.

Again you should learn the basics about what international law is before you make judgements like that. International is constantly "working".

And contrary to what you guys think international law is not the UN. Its a patchwork of international treaties that is enforced primary by each countries legal system, and sometimes by the UNSC. You think its bad that countries sign treaties with each other? Promise not to torture soldiers during war? Promise not to target civilians? Promise not use biological weapons? Promise not to build nuclear weapons? Use chemical weapons?