Israeli/Hamas disregard for human life.
- Thread starter StrawDog
- Start date
- Status
That is an interesting interpretation. Do you agree with this? It certainly appears as a potential point of discussion and common ground for reconciliation.
The problem remains. The state of Israel had various choices after it came into being. It could become a multi ethnic state of Arab and Jew living together as equal citizens. It could pursue a two state solution as originally laid out in the Balfour declaration. Unfortunately the early Israeli leadership were militant and aggressively imperialistic in their ambitions to gain more land. This of course continues to this day, and utterly unreasonable pre-conditions for dialogue are manufactured constructs to avoid talks that could lead to compromise. This ongoing pattern lead directly to the latest assault on Gaza. Which is a despicable abuse of human rights.
Why would I condemn the oppressed? For being victims?
Impossible.
That is not a fact, it is the beam in your eye.
Read them and learn.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
StrawDog, your post prove you the liar.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
New information, and it suck for your point of view:
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/10/UN-resolutions.pdf
IN A NUTSHELL
• UN Resolution 181 legitimized a Jewish state in 1947. The resolution also proposed an Arab state, but the Arabs refused to accept it and went to war against the newly declared State of Israel.
• In the late 1990s, Arab leaders sought to roll back the clock to 1947 and accept the UN partition plan recommended in Resolution 181. But their acceptance was 50 years too late. Its proposals concerning an Arab Palestinian state had become a moot point – outdated and irrelevant to current realities. For it to be accepted today would have meant the demise of the State of Israel.
• Neither references to the refugee problem nor an Israeli withdrawal constitute UN directives. They are solely recommendations upon which negotiations and reconciliation between the parties should be conducted.
• The refugee problem was never viewed as a stand-alone issue in the 1948-vintage UN Resolution. Moreover, it did not speak of Arabs alone, but of all refugees caused by the conflict. Often forgotten is that the conflict created as many or more Jewish refugees who fled the Arabs lands for their lives; a majority found refuge in Israel.
• The language of UN Resolution 194 clearly expects governments and authorities (not just Israel) to help solve the refugee problem. There were five hostile Arab governments involved in aggression and war that created the refugee problem, and the resolution expects them to be part of the solution.
• Resolution 242 is the cornerstone for “a just and lasting peace.” It calls for a negotiated solution between the parties based on “secure and recognized boundaries.”
• Resolution 1515, a ‘Blueprint for Peace’ if implemented will violate the Mandate for Palestine and international law. The Mandate clearly calls to “facilitate … and shall encourage … close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
© 2007, Eli E. Hertz Page 3 of 4 UN Resolutions
Could you please find some coherence and explain what you mean?
Indeed, you are a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.
can we at least wrap him in bacon so he at least has something going for him.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Read it is is a cohearent statement of fact, and that fact is it is the Arabs who rejected U.N. 181 and who ignored U.N. Resolutions from the beginning.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Read it is is a cohearent statement of fact, and that fact is it is the Arabs who rejected U.N. 181 and who ignored U.N. Resolutions from the beginning.
Arabs are the ones who made a art of ignoring U.N. General Council Resolutions, because the General Council Resolution have no enforcement, or legal standing, as the Arabs so kindly made a point of.
And then went to War in 1948.
And why did they go to war? The Arabs had more than reasonable grounds for their actions regarding UN 181. They were unhappy with the unfair distribution of land, and rightly so. The mere fact that they had to negotiate a settlement that infringed on their very birthright was obviously an issue. Can you not see this? Why do you think it was fair?
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Really, you can provide citation of such fact?
Of course.
(http://www.jatonyc.org/181.html)
Further facts outlining the unfairness that creates conflict to this day.
Elements of Resolution 181 which have never been accepted by Israel, include:
1. The creation of a Palestinian State, whose boundaries are specified.
2. The designation of Jerusalem as an International zone.
3. The adoption of a constitution for the Jewish State, of which the State of Israel does not have till today.
4. "No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in a Jewish State should be allowed except for public purposes".
5. Persons residing in Palestine shall "become citizens of the State in which they
are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights."
6. Jaffa should be an Arab Enclave in the Jewish State.
(http://www.jatonyc.org/181.html)
This seems pretty unfair to me.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War)
Thus the opposition.
as a terrorist organization they are allowed to steal food. it is in fact, illegal for you to complain.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Of course.
(http://www.jatonyc.org/181.html)
Further facts outlining the unfairness that creates conflict to this day.
Elements of Resolution 181 which have never been accepted by Israel, include:
1. The creation of a Palestinian State, whose boundaries are specified.
2. The designation of Jerusalem as an International zone.
3. The adoption of a constitution for the Jewish State, of which the State of Israel does not have till today.
4. "No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in a Jewish State should be allowed except for public purposes".
5. Persons residing in Palestine shall "become citizens of the State in which they
are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights."
6. Jaffa should be an Arab Enclave in the Jewish State.
(http://www.jatonyc.org/181.html)
This seems pretty unfair to me.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War)
Thus the opposition.
U.N 181 is a moot point, the Arabs rejected it.
So only your allowed to use it?
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
It is a Moot point, but the Israelis are willing to let it stand for Peace, if the Palestinian Arabs make a real Peace, the Israelis will allow for a Palestinian State.
But the Palestinian Arabs have to prove the Peace, that means stopping all attacks and arms smuggling, and do it for real, not Hudna, no Taqiyya, no Kitman, no Abrogation, real lasting Peace.
And after the record of the Arabs of Palestine that will take a while.
if its a moot point why do you always bring it up. the Israelis for peace? have you not looked at the history? forcible annexation of land and attempts to do so are not the actions of a country that wants peace.
- Status