unwise UN visa ban

If there isn't then Obama is authorising the murder of foreigners at random. Either way it's illegal.

 

so is the Hamas targeting of Israeli civilians inside Israel.

so was the Egyptian kicking out UN Peacekeepers in the Sinai.

so was the Egyptian sending more than 100,000 troops, tanks, and artilery into the Sinai in violation of the Armistice Agreement.

so was the Syrian and Jordanian attacks upon Israel in 1967.

So was the Arab attacks upon Israel in 1948.

Mod Edit ~ Don't make it personal.

 

Of course it makes a difference, as language is a powerful influencer of culture, and what someone says in one language may be construed differently by a speaker of a different language.

For instance, the communication style for Enlighten speakers centers around directness, clarity, and accuracy. For Arabic speakers, the stress is on emotional resonance, the use of symbols, and embellishment.

To learn more:

http://www.american.edu/soc/faculty/upload/understanding-cultural-preferences-on-arab.pdf

Incorrect; even Michael Oren disagrees with you:

Provide your evidence that the Egyptians were going to the attack. If they were going to attack, why did Nasser support finding a diplomatic solution to the closure of the Straits?

And all your Nasser quote says is that Egypt will attack Israel if the latter strikes first:

President Nasser knew his forces were no match for Israel's.

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/israel/gat1967.pdf

Your evidence does that prove that. Nasser massed his troops on the border after receiving false information that Israel was going to initiate an attack against Syria.

 

moon, et al,

The Office of The President has many powers and authorities. Some are inherent to the office and some are legislated.

(COMMENT)

Again, I think you are speculating relative to the powers and authority of The President. I suggest you read the National Defense Authorization Act, and the The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

But, everyone is entitled to speculate. So far, there has not been a court case to oppose that authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

The US has a history of vetoing legal action against itself.

 

such as when?

 

Eh no Israeli ship was stopped by Egypt. Egypt agreed to mediation.

Egypt had already been invaded by Israel numerous times.

As for Jordan Israel did start the military engagement with them with the Operation in Samu which killed some 17 soldiers from Jordan whioch was cooperating with Israel at the time.

Israel had chosen to go to war long before and did so when it was ready because its military wanted the land.

Israel did declare a state within its boundaries, then it declared a state well beyond its boundaries.

And if was ok for Israel to reject the plan of 1937 why wasnt it ok for the palestinians to reject the plan of 47? Double standard much?

 

The Arabs started the conflict by attacking Israel in 1948, in violation of the Partition Plan of 1947.

 

Rubbish the armistice with Jordan was broken by Israel, that's on record. What's also on record is the massive planning for war and desire for land within the military elite of Israel.

 

Jordan violated international law by attacking Israel in 1967.

 

The Israelis started the conflict by invading beyond their allotted areas in 1947 and cleansing Arab villages.

 

The Arabs started the conflict by initiating violence against the Jews after the UN Partition Plan vote.

- - - Updated - - -

The first casualties after the adoption of Resolution 181(II) by the General Assembly were passengers on a Jewish bus driving on the Coastal Plain near Kfar Sirkin on 30 November. An eight-man gang from Jaffa ambushed the bus killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, southbound from Hadera, killing two more. At other places, Arab snipers skirmished Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947–4....2830_November_1947_.E2.80.93_1_April_1948.29

 

The Zionist forces were already attacking villages by the 30th November. As the evidence shows they planned to do.

 

The Arabs started widespread attacks on Jewish civilians in 1936.

 

You've just moved the goalposts. Pretty bad attempt at a dodge. But since you've moved them, permit me to move them again:

"The dissent in Palestine was influenced also by the discovery in October 1935 at the port of Jaffa of a large arms shipment destined for the Haganah, sparking Arab fears of a Jewish military takeover of Palestine,[17][18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936–39_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

 

Im sorry, the violence against Jews by Arabs started in 1929.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots#Jerusalem_riots.2C_23_August

 

As long as you keep moving the goalposts I will too. You ignore the underlying tensions post 1917 that gave rise to the Hebron massacre:

"Since the Balfour Declaration of 1917, tensions had been growing between the Arab and Jewish communities in Palestine.[11] The Muslim community of Hebron had a reputation for being highly conservative in religion. Though Jews had suffered numerous vexations in the past, and this hostility was to take an anti-Zionist turn after the Balfour Declaration.[12] generally, a peaceful relationship existed between both communities."[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

 

nothing justified such violence.

if the Arabs had grievances they should have dealt with them in a civilized manner.

 

To be honest, I'm a tad uncomfortable with your generic description of Palestinian's as "the Arabs".

 

your level of comfort is the least of my concerns.

 

I'll remember that next time you complain of antisemitism.

 

I never complain about anti-Semitism.

I merely expose & highlight it.

 

Fair enough. But you don't see any contradiction in referring to Palestinian's as "the Arabs"?

 

fewer letters, easier to type.

 

What I find so sad about this whole tragedy that's the Israel/Palestine story is that British imperialism was its ultimate author. Up until 1917 both communities lived together in relative peace.