By iternational agreement, no country can expand its territory through war. Wars do not change national boundaries. Also, Israel did not take over West Bank. Your idea of "deserved" is not only totally irrelevant, but patently absurd. Please remember that we're talking asbout PEOPLE who own PROPERTY. What is happening is two fold, at the very least: - people are having their property stolen by Israel for profit - homes, farms, water rights, equipment, etc - in any situation people are ruled by a government, those people require representation in that government. Instead, Israel is ruling significant portions of Palestine by Israeli MILITARY law and mercenaries are being used to enforce that foreign law - with the people having ZERO representation. It's like you lived in south Texas and Mexico decided to steal your land. Of course, the USA has the military power to protect you. But, Palestine doesn't have the military power to protect its people against the humanitarian atrocities perpetrated by Israel. Not only that, but the USA HELPS ISRAEL with their ethnic cleansing operations.
Palestine has a voice at The UN and on the global stage now... Maybe if they want to be taken serious, they stop funding the terrorism, yes?
The ADF has stated that Abbas is a SERIOUS ally of the Iraeli forces in Palestine. They trust Abbas enough that they made sure he has armed security forces to help maintain peace. Suggesting Palestinians should stop objecting to ethnic cleansing is a little bit freaking insane, isn't it??? And, because of AMERICA, Palestine only has observer state status at the UN. What it can do is incredibly limited, both because of Palestine's limited status and because of American opposition to anything related to justice for Palestine. If America is your sworn enemy, you're pretty screwed. And, we have been Palestine's sworn enemy for decades.
In other words, you found no evidence whatsoever for your claims, but you believe this drivel anyway. According to your post, all scientists are Holocaust deniers, as well as all cops and judges. Should be laws against asking for evidence, right? Or does this rule applies only to Jews and/or pro-Zionists? What do you mean, "allow" Palestine to have a vote? They have their own governments, should Israel constrain these governments to have a vote? Furthermore, should Israel dictate the result of the vote? I guess asking for evidence for the supposed grip of Israel on Palestinian elections is also a Holocaust deniers' tactic, right? Let's imagine for a moment that Israel employs mercenaries (it doesn't, but I like indulging in fantasies myself now and then). As far as I know, employing mercenaries is not against international law. France is doing it for nearly two centuries, why shouldn't Israel? Let's also imagine for a moment that when you write "Palestine" you're talking about a well defined territory. Do you mind telling me what this territory is, or would that be interpretable as endorsing Holocaust denial? There are no Israeli soldiers in the area A (the de facto Palestinian Authority) and Gaza - the fabled "UN observer state of Palestine - so I can only guess that you have a different definition for Palestine. I'd appreciate very, very, very much, if you told me what's your source for the "mercenaries ruling Palestine" claim. You're the only person to make this claim that I know of, and I've plenty of experience with the anti-Israel crowd. You have no idea how ridiculous this claim sounds to an Israeli.
RE: Israel Destroys and Steals More Land in West Bank SUBTOPIC: Acquisition through Conquest ⁜→ WillReadmore, et al, From a layman's perspective. BLUF: I've heard, seen, and read many times, this claim. But when pressed, no one has actually shown me a binding international agreement or international law that actually says that. Can you show me the International Legal citation? (COMMENT) I have seen people trying to reword the law, substituting words or extrapolating the meaning. But what does the law actually say? NOTE: Article 22 Nullum crimen sine lege • Page 14 RS ICC 2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted. There are some hidden nuances that should be brought forward. ◈ Notice that the law does not use the term war. The operative phrase is: “act of aggression” An “act of aggression” is not the same as action taken under Article 51 of the UN Charter in self-defense (against the use of force or the threat to use force). ◈ When the law speaks to an "occupation," it speaks in terms of an occupation resulting from "such invasion or attack" (AKA: the “act of aggression”). This is much different than the actions taken by Israel in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War in response to an offensive military build-up on the borders or the 1973 surprise attack in the Yom Kipper War. ◈ Nor does the law address the legal status the obviates the Peace Treaties (pursuant to A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States) that establish new agreed-upon international boundaries such as those found in: ✦ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) • (Article 3 - International Boundary) ✦ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace (1979) • (Article II The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel) We begin to get into deep complications with an occupation [Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR)] when we start to make distinctions between Common Article 2 [International Armed Conflict (IAC)] and Common Article 3 [Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC)] to the Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949. But I'm sure you don't want to go that deep. Most Respectfully, R
As I mentioned before, Madson is is not the person who heard Netanyahu say: “Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away”.(1) You are right in that the individual who heard those words was a former CIA Agent. As for context, Netanyahu's language couldn't be more direct and clear in its meaning with or without context. Under what circumstances could Netanyahu mean anything different than what he so clearly stated? Additionally, Netanyahu's penchant for parasitism is made clear in yet another quote that was captured by video(2): “My opinion of Christian Zionists? They’re scum. But don’t tell them that. We need all the useful idiots we can get right now.”— Benyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu (1), (3) Still a 3rd more widely known quote captured by video and made by Netanyahu reveals the degree to which Israeli lobbies dominate US Foreign Policy: “America is something that you can easily maneuver and move in the right direction. And even if they say something, so then they say something – so what? Look, I wasn’t afraid to maneuver the Americans, I wasn’t afraid to go against the UN.” Benjamin Netanyahu(1), (2) As an Israeli, I can understand why you would be supportive of Israel's preying on America and indifferent to the detrimental effects this lop sided relationship has on the US. I hope, however, that you can understand why I as an American would oppose AIPAC etc driven policies that have cost and continue to cost America dearly in both blood and precious resources with no end in sight. Thanks, (1) “Stupid pro-Israel Americans - have you heard these quotes from your hero Netanyahu? See below?” https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20170819014914AA8hRm2 (2) (3) https://www.inspiringquotes.us/quotes/7kIB_4CbQIeuh
Context always matters. For example if Netanyahu was addressing a fanatically nationalistic Israeli audience his comments are much more understandable. Remember Israel (and several other nations) have been abrasive in the past about the way they felt the United States made them feel like a "vassal state" (Menecham Begin's words). But given Netanyahu's family ties to the United States, even assuming he said that exact statement I would never believe he actually meant it.
Netanyahu admitted that what they were doing was illegal back when Bush was pushing for peace talks. Netanyahu agreed to remove settlements that even HE agreed were illegal. He didn't do that, of course. So, for you to suggest that I need to show something is merely proof that you haven't even STARTED to do your reading on this topic. Yet, you think you can just spray out accusations against others with no foundation whatsoever!!! Seriously. Do some research.
Netanyahu actually made a start at removing settlements. It's just plain nutty to suggest that he lied, that he bargained in bad faith on an issue of major international importance, and then that he took a politically difficult position in starting to remove settlements for no reason than that Bush told him to.
The site you linked doesn't give the source for the quotes, so for the most part it's impossible to say whether they're authentic or not. However, there are quotes I know for sure are not authentic, so the site can't be trusted. Regarding the video: it's mistranslated, enough to put an ugly spin on it. Bibi didn't use the word "maneuver". He only said that America can be moved in the right direction, and explained what he meant by that. He was visiting settlers during election campaign, and was desperate because he was losing their support. That was an ugly campaign. The video was leaked to a tv channel, it was all over the news. I remember the outcry.
When did Bush tell Netanyahu to remove settlements, which settlements, and which Bush? As far as I remember, Shamir was the PM under fire from Bush senior for the settlements, not Bibi. I don't remember Shamir removing any settlement. Sharon removed the settlements in Gaza in 2005 after 4 years of incessant rocket attacks on those settlements by terrorist organizations during the second intifada. Nothing to do with Bibi, or legality of settlements. Or Bush.
Somehow I think that if Netanyahu had been quoted expressing the value of America as a good ally rather than its value as a sucker to be exploited we might not be quibbling about the importance of context. Yes, context is important but I cannot think of any context that would change the meaning of: “Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away.” — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 2002(1) Netanyahu was overheard making that statement while talking to an Israeli spy who had done irreparable damage to US security operations. What context would mitigate the meaning of that blatant desire to exploit in these clearly expressed, ugly sentiments? The quotes I cited appear in various sources throughout the internet and the language used reflect both the ability of AIPAC etc to move America in the "right" direction and the ability of Israel to prey on and betray America with impunity. As far back as the Lavon Affair and as recently as the sale of US secrets to China(1), Israel has repeatedly attacked, preyed on and betrayed the US for decades. In other words, the malevolent actions and parasitism of Israel toward the US are consistent with the language expressed in the quotes I've just cited. Thanks, (1) “Stupid pro-Israel Americans - have you heard these quotes from your hero Netanyahu? See below?” https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20170819014914AA8hRm2 QUOTES: - “It is very good! It will be good for Israel!” Benjamin Nutandyahoo on the 9/11 attacks - “Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away.” — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 2002 - “My opinion of Christian Zionists? They’re scum. But don’t tell them that. We need all the useful idiots we can get right now.”— Benyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu - “America is something that you can easily maneuver and move in the right direction. And even if they say something, so then they say something – so what? Look, I wasn’t afraid to maneuver the Americans, I wasn’t afraid to go against the UN.” Benjamin Netanyahu (2) "Report: Israel Passes U.S. Military Technology to China" https://www.military.com/defensetec...srael-passes-u-s-military-technology-to-china EXCERPT "Israel has a long record of getting U.S. military technology to China. In the early 1990s then-CIA Director James Woolsey told a Senate Government Affairs Committee that Israel had been selling U.S. secrets to China for about a decade."CONTINUED
This is the last time I reply to one of your posts. You're just repeating the same falsehoods ad nauseam after proven wrong. For instance, Netanyahu didn't say "maneuver", this word doesn't even appear in the English translation in the video, but you insist on posting the fake quote again. Pfftt.
That was an agreed requirement for entering the Bush43 "roadmap" negotiations. I wasn't referring to Bush41. Each sde had a set of requirements that they agreed to meet before there would be negotiations. For Israel, the primary requirement that Netanyahu agreed to was to remove settlements that even Netanyahu agreed were illetal. Netanyahu did not remove the illegal settlements. In fact, Netanyahu gave a green light to CONTINUING to steal land DURING any negotiations that might ever take place. How's THAT for a stance on agreeing to borders? They demand to be allowed to continue ethnic cleansing DURING border negotiations!! Obviously, Israel's view of negotiations was that it was no more than a delyaing tactic while they continued to steal land.
Netanyahu wasn't PM in 2003, Sharon was. Have you read the document? It talks about dismantling outposts illegal under Israeli law, not settlements. The Palestinians didn't stop the violence (the first step in the roadmap). The Israeli side offered 14 reservations to the plan, including rejection of settlement freeze. The roadmap was never implemented. Netanyahu actually agreed to a 10 months settlement freeze during Obama's first term.
OK, Sharon then. Thanks for the correction. Of course, this has been a continuing issue as Israel has continued to expand it's theft of Palestinian land and has refused to even so much as PAUSE that theft during prospective border negotiations. So, yes. The "roadmap" failed. In fact, Netanyahu (I'm right this time, lol) has stated that he will NEVER negotiate and that he WILL continue striving to ethnically cleanse all of Palestine. Let's remember that even the ADF has given credit to Abbas as their primary partner in peace. His proven action against terrorism caused Israel to relieve the weapons ban on Palestine so that they could be armed in opposing terrorism. And, a recent head of Mosad has pointed out that Israel's actions are a serious problem for the foreign relations of the USA. While obvious, it's interesting to note that Israel realizes this. Let's remember that Israel has been waging war on Palestine for decades now. Suggesting that Palestine should be expeceted to NEVER take action while Israel wages war is just an indication of the size of this atrocity. And, assuming that Palestinian citizens should be perfect in never fighting back on an individual basis using whatever means at their disposal as they are devestated by Israel in ways that are even illegal in WAR is just not rational.
Why not just find a nice sizable chunk of land nearby such as in the Sinai Peninsula, pay Egypt a few billion dollars for it and forcibly relocate all the Palestinians there? There is enough land in the Sinai that acquiring more land than the Palestinians claim on the West Bank should be easy. And it can be connected directly to the Gaza Strip. Such a Palestinian nation would also have sea access which has always been a vital component for economic growth and political independence. We could even afford to move that big mosque in East Jerusalem there. And the Sinai is sparsely populated so it wouldn't be inconveniencing too many people.
Nowhere have you proven me wrong. I hope that you will remember that you initiated this exchange by taking issue with the "context" relating to Netanyahu's quote: " “Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away” I am simply asking you to clarify in what context Netanyahu could have made that remark and others like it that would have made those words mean anything other than what they obviously mean. For the sake of context, it is relevant that Israel has managed to "squeeze" $ Trillions(1) from Americans while Americans have little to show for it but a string of betrayals dating back to the Lavon Affair. (1) "The Costs to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: $3 Trillion" https://www.wrmea.org/003-june/the-...israeli-palestinian-conflict-$3-trillion.html By Thomas R. Stauffer EXCERPT "Similarly, aid to Israel—and thus the regional total—also is understated, since much is outside of the foreign aid appropriation process or implicit in other programs. Support for Israel comes to $1.8 trillion, including special trade advantages, preferential contracts, or aid buried in other accounts. In addition to the financial outlay, U.S. aid to Israel costs some 275,000 American jobs each year."CONTINUED
Why not? How about some out of the box thinking for once? The Palestinians still want access to Jerusalem and other holy sites? Declare Jerusalem an "open city", legally part of Israel but policed and administered by an international force with controlled access granted to everyone.
Hey, here is a crazy idea: How about having Israel stop ethnically cleansing West Bank??? How about allowing people to be represented in the government under which they live? That's something our founders DIED for and is rwritten into our founding documents as an absolute requirement. NEITHER of those costs anything!!! AND, there is the added benefit that it isn't even a humanitarian atrocity!!
How the heck could THAT be true??? Our founding documents identify the innate rights of PEOPLE. West Bank has PEOPLE, just like we do.