Breakthrough: Kerry announces peace talks' resumption

http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress....only-moral-but-legal-as-well-by-myaguarnieri/

at the link you can find links to everything here.

 

Only This week in the "modern" Muslim world - 72 dead in Egypt.
100000 dead in Syria since 2011 .
5000 dead in Iraq..
What's your point ?

 

I refer you to post #86.

You lost.

 

You know very well that the USA is a much bigger supporter of Israel than it is of Palestine. Just admit it and move on, FY.

 

Why let facts obstruct good trolling material ?

 

Even if an occupation were legal, it isn't if it being administered illegally. It is one hundred percent against the law to transfer your own civilians into an occupied territory, no matter how legitimate that occupation itself may be.

No matter how you slice it, Israel are breaking the law.

 

In its ruling on the illegality of the apartheid wall the international court determined that Israel had no claim of ' self-defense ' in its construction and could not claim justification under Articles 51 and 53 of the United Nations Charter. Extrapolating, and considering the legal determination of the Occupation as belligerent occupation the same principle applies to ALL of the Occupied Territories. So, the only justification for occupation which exists at all- ' self-defense ' does not apply. So Israel's occupation is illegal.

There are other factors too which support that ruling.

 

They really should just have gone on and taken Israel to the ICC.

http://jfjfp.com/?p=46474#negs4

 

Thay are more able to do that now that they have full UNESCO membership, the recognition of their State by a landslide majority at the General Assembly and the , shamefully late, recognition of their territory by the EU. That's why there are ' peace ' talks ahead. I imagine that Kerry and Netanyahu foresaw and discussed future legal rulings which will diminish Israel's power- even its legitimacy- and so hope to somehow swindle Abbas into a guarantee that he will not approach the courts. Netanyahu is reacting out of fear, not by the promptings of his generous and philanthropic humanity.

 

I thought he had already before these talks or at any rate agreed not to do something with the UN. I have never heard of talks that are supposed to resolve issues that I have been so sure are going to go backwards.

 

That might have been a UNESCO issue over Jerusalem. It's very early days for Palestinian lawyers to feel confident- and they won't be accepting any offers of ' help' if they have any sense at all.

 

No I was meaning I thought I had read that they had said they would not, hopefully not. I was concerned that they were throwing away what they had got.

Anyway came upon this about whether Palestine is a State which people keep questioning

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9561

Anyway I was seeing on my tv tonight there were riots in the West Bank about the talks but can't find a link.

I guess I have just been reading a lot of depressing things. The links at JFJFP all see the situation as negative and one way or the other it will leave the Palestinians in a worse shape - one idea suggested was that if things are going the Palestinians way, Israel will do a few extra judicial killings of key Palestinians which as usual will not be reported and this will go on until they respond with some sort of an attack at which point Israel will leave the discussions as 'obviously you can't talk to terrorists'.

I have also heard financial pressure was put on them - both with money gone if they don't do the talks and extra if they do....but I cannot for the life of me see this government coming out with a deal which gave the Palestinians their state as noted in the quote I gave or anything near it.

 

No, their best outcome is for Netanyahu to posture in Washington and then for Bennett to stab him in the back at home. Israeli intransigence has become Palestine's ally. They are riding a wave of the world's good-will. It's just a matter of time before that manifests itself as the destruction of Israel's ' facts on the ground '. They don't actually have any legal ' facts on the ground ' at all.

 

+

Fact: Your article is pure propaganda, first of all there have been 64 fatalities as a result of "Palestinian" rocket and mortar attacks.

Fact: There have been no less that 15 thousand rocket, mortar, and missile attacks conducted by the "Palestinians" since 2001.

Fact: In addition to the fatalities they have resulted in 1,700 injuries.

Fact: They have created more than 3,000 refugees, E.G. appx. 40% of the population of Sderot was forced to flee.

Fact: These indiscriminate attacks against civilians are flagrant war crimes.

Fact: The only reason why there have not been more fatalities and injuries is because every home in Israel within rocket/mortar range is legally required to have at least one bomb resistant room.

 

If USA stopped giving aid to all of the Middle East, who would suffer the most? I would expect it to be Palestine ($500 million lost), and Egypt ($2 billion lost). Israel has a much stronger economy, and USA aid is a mere drop in the bucket for them. And truly, I am all for that. I would prefer USA gives nothing to any country for any reason. No humanitarian aid, no military aid, no natural catastrophe aid. USA should spend the money on USA. And as an American Jew, I would prefer if the USA dollars sent to Israel came ONLY from after-tax dollars from our own individual paychecks. This is what I believe the Founding Fathers would have wanted. They never sent money to the "Musselmen" living in the Middle East. Look at the Treaty of Tripoli - no money offered.

 

I would give each and every one of those prisoners a frontal lobotomy before releasing them. Otherwise you are just re-arming the enemy with more hate filled gunners. Turn every last one of them into One Flew Over The Cookoo's Nest.

 

If this is the case then I have a two questions:

1) If Israel don't need this cash, then why do they receive more money than any other country from the United States, courtesy of hard-working American taxpayers?

Should we consider this a free gift just because, or is there some welfare fraud going on or what?

 

Well, what percentage of Israel's budget is US cash received?

 

Just over 62 billion revenue vs. 3 billion US welfare handouts, annually as of the latest. That makes nearly 5 percent approximately..

So my question is, does Israel need this money or not.

You could argue they do, considering they run a deficit of like 10 billion, but I don't know whether such expenditures are necessary or not; I've not studied it.

What I do know is, the stance that Israel are super bad-ass and they can single-handedly own anybody and they dominate all by themselves and nobody can mess with Israel, is completly inconsistent with the stance that Israel need financial aid from the United States. So if the former is true, this means Israel are scamming welfare basically, and the US taxpayers are being scammed. It would mean that Israel are taking free money just because, from an "ally" who needs that cash for themselves, and that's no way to treat a friend.

If not, and Israel do rely on that money to make it, then it means that Israel owe the USA, but such credit or appreciation never seem to shine through. And the people tooting the "Israel rules" horn ought to tone it down a bit.

So that's why I would ask.. Which is it? Do you need the cash or not?

 

Dude, Israel's GDP is $243 billion
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/israel/gdp

 

He asked the budget, not the GDP. Unless a country has a 100% tax rate, they don't have their GDP to work with. They have their revenue to work with.

 

What a f$#king complete waste of time and effort.

What we need is the US to get lost and for a independent mediator to move the process forward, but the US will not allow that to happen so who cares what Kerry announces or does!

 

You're right. There can never be anything approaching a fair and legal outcome when the self-appointed arbitrators are Washington Zionists. Nevertheless, the tame media are reporting the event as if both sides have equal goodwill, legal rights and moral standing instead of the invaded and maligned in the same slanted room as the illegal invader and his bankers .

 

This is what most normal people refer to as: "conflict of interest".