The two state solution fate

[pjdude1219]

until the issue of can the Security Council legally pass a resolution in violation of the un charter is resolved your point is well irrevelevant.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

until the issue of can the Security Council legally pass a resolution in violation of the un charter is resolved your point is well irrevelevant.

And just how do you come to this conclusion?

Citation please, yes show us where this comes from.

I am sure the Security Council would tremble at the searing logic of your fiery intellect.


United Nations Security Council - Wikipedia, the free encycl...
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the principal organs [1] .... Security Council Resolutions are legally binding if they are made under ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Co... - 150k - Similar pages

 

[pjdude1219]

And just how do you come to this conclusion?

have you ever heard of a legislative body that can legally pass a law, resolution or whatnot that violates the precepts of the legal document that made it and stated its powers? You could argue that a un security council resolution that goes against the un charter would be invalidated just like a us law passed that is in violation of the us constitution.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

have you ever heard of a legislative body that can legally pass a law, resolution or whatnot that violates the precepts of the legal document that made it and stated its powers? You could argue that a un security council resolution that goes against the un charter would be invalidated just like a us law passed that is in violation of the us constitution.

Read the U.N. charter, or take the short course from Wiki, if it will do any good, your comprehension levels are severely truncated.

But again you fail to provide any citation, so I guess as usual, you don't know what the hell your talking about.

 

[pjdude1219]

Read the U.N. charter, or take the short course from Wiki, if it will do any good,

I have thats why I know your vaunted UNGA 181 is in violation of the UN charter. A little thing called self determination which you seem incapable of understanding. UNSC 181 has to do with south africa.

your comprehension levels are severely truncated.

still projecting I see.

But again you fail to provide any citation, so I guess as usual, you don't know what the hell your talking about.

why not. I'd love to cite stuff to prove that you proved Israel's creation by the UN was illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_181
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/10/UN-resolutions.pdf

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I have thats why I know your vaunted UNGA 181 is in violation of the UN charter. A little thing called self determination which you seem incapable of understanding. UNSC 181 has to do with south africa. still projecting I see.

why not. I'd love to cite stuff to prove that you proved Israel's creation by the UN was illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_181
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/10/UN-resolutions.pdf

OK so now we have you finally posting citation and fact.

But none of what you posted has any thing to do with the Fact as you claim that a UNSC resolution doesn't have any force of law, but I will answer to your misconceptions on these points:

Now lets look at Resolution 242,

Under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, the recommendations of UN Resolution 242 cannot be imposed on the parties concerned, as Arab leaders often argue. In fact, the title of Chapter VI also offers a clue to its nature, for it deals with “Pacific Resolution of Disputes.”

Security Council Resolutions under Chapter VII:
In contrast, resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII invest the Security Council with power to issue stringent resolutions that require nations to comply with the terms set forth in the resolution. This leaves no room to negotiate a settlement with the affected parties. Thus, Chapter VII deals with “Threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression.” When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Security Council adopted resolutions under Chapter VII that only required the aggressor, Iraq, to comply.1

So we have the Arabs arguing that the U.N. resolutions don't have any power of law.

Arabs, ignoring the U.N. Resolution, not Israel. from your own citation grasshopper, (reading comprehension).

Yes, You finally decide to look something up, even if it was for all the wrong reasons, you took the bait.


But now lets look at UNGC 181 and the fact that the Arabs rejected it, and in so doing made it a Moot point because of their action, and no longer a valid point in these discussion.

It was the Arabs who rejected UNGC 181 not the Israelis.

Again from your own citation:

The Arab leadership (in and out of Palestine) opposed the plan.[65]. The Arabs argued that it violated the rights of the majority of the people in Palestine, which at the time was 67% non-Jewish (1,237,000) and 33% Jewish (608,000). [66] Arab leaders also argued a large number of Arabs would be trapped in the Jewish State. Every major Arab leader objected in principle to the right of the Jews to an independent state in Palestine, reflecting the policies of the Arab League.

The 13 countries (23%) that voted against resolution were: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

They lost the vote and they had signed the Treaty necessary to join the U.N. so it was the Arabs who in contravention of a Treaty they had signed broke the Peace, by Rejection of UNGC 181.

From your own citation.

Now more from your own citation the Arabs immediately after passage:

Main article: 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

On the day after the vote, a spate of Arab attacks left seven Jews dead and scores more wounded. Shooting, stoning, and rioting continued apace in the following days. The consulates of Poland and Sweden, both of whose governments had voted for partition, were attacked. Bombs were thrown into cafes, Molotov cocktails were hurled at shops, a synagogue was set on fire.

[/QUOTE]Fighting began almost as soon as the plan was approved, beginning with the Arab Jerusalem Riots of 1947. On 1 April 1948, the Security Council adopted Resolution 44 "to consider further the question of the future government of Palestine."[68] [/QUOTE]

The Arabs rioting and attacking Jews in the Palestine.

So from your own citation it was the Arabs who rejected the U.N.G.C. Resolutions, and who are the ones who used the fact that these General Council Resolutions don't have and legal standing.

So it is the Arabs who neutered the U.N. General Council and ignored the resolution 181 and made it a Moot point.

Which then renders any other UNGC resolution on the Palestinian question a moot point.

By the Arab action, they set up a situation were they want the Israelis held to the letter of the U.N. but they themselves ignored anything they didn't agree with.

So the Israelis are justified in their actions, If the Arabs are exempt from having to follow UNGC resolutions, so to are the Israelis.

Sauce for the Goose, sauce for the Gander.

Now lets look at the rest of UNSC resolutions on Palestine , Like:

UNSCR 42.
UNSCR 43.
UNSCR 44.
UNSCR 46.
UNSCR 48.
UNSCR 49.
UNSCR 53.
UNSCR 54.
UNSCR 56.
UNSCR 61.
UNSCR 62.
UNSCR 66.

Ignored by both side when it was to their advantage.

Arabs as well as Jews.

 

[pjdude1219]

none of which as anything to do with the fact you your self have laid the groundwork for an argument that Israel's very existence is a violation of the UN charter.

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't know any people that would react favourably to having their country partitioned by some foreign institution and distributed to immigrants to form a religious state.

No one was even willing to take in the Jews then let alone give them 53% of their land as a Jewish state.

The Arab leadership (in and out of Palestine) opposed the plan.[65]. The Arabs argued that it violated the rights of the majority of the people in Palestine, which at the time was 67% non-Jewish (1,237,000) and 33% Jewish (608,000).

And they were absolutely correct.

 

[spidergoat]

Except they didn't have a country, only the notion that Arab people traditionally lived there among others.

 

[pjdude1219]

Except they didn't have a country, only the notion that Arab people traditionally lived there among others.

which is irrelevant. The un charter states that nations are to be formed because of self determination. Israel never allowed the resident population any say in there political future unless they were jewish. That denial of rights makes its creation a violation of the UN charter.

 

[spidergoat]

There is that issue of the war. In such an atmosphere, it would have been suicide to re-incorporate the Arabs that fled (probably fearing that they would be killed along with the Jews). That was the Palestinians' best opportunity to come to some agreement, so first they try war, and then when that didn't work, they appeal to the rule of law? There is a legal principle of "clean hands", you can't call the cops because someone stole your stuff when you broke in to take it back and tried to beat up the thief and that didn't work.

 

[S.A.M.]

Actually, the Palestinians wanted a secular state, but the Jews wanted a Jewish state on Palestinian land with a Jewish majority, and with the intention of excluding the non-Jews. Anyone who denies this is ignoring the last 60 years. And of course, everyone must bow before pogrom-inducing Europeans when they suffer pangs of guilt. And other people have to suffer to make up for their inadequacies.

In any case, I think Zionists just used the Holocaust to get what they had been trying for since 1890s. To them, it was a boon.

The Palestinians at the time were right to fight back, anyone would.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

none of which as anything to do with the fact you your self have laid the groundwork for an argument that Israel's very existence is a violation of the UN charter.

none of which as anything to do with the fact you your self have laid the groundwork for an argument that Israel's very existence is a violation of the UN charter.

And also that Israel existence is a violation of the U.N. charter, if Israel's existence is a violation so is was and is the proposed Palestinian State of 181

No Israel's existence is not a violation of the U.N. Charter.

Again you change the subject, when you get you butt handed to you, So again I ask that you provide citation, of your conjecture about "That the U.N.181 foundation of Israel was in violation of it's charter".

And also that Israel existence is a violation of the U.N. charter, if Israel's existence is a violation so is was the proposed Palestinian State of 181, or any proposed future Palestinian State.

But even above that, the Arab rejection of U.N.G.C.R. 181 made it a moot point, and since the land was no longer under Mandate, or U.N. control because of that rejection, it was open to who ever could hold it.

That is why the Arabs rejected U.N. 181, they though that they could whip the Jews and take the land and hold it.

They had no plans for a Palestinian State, only a Pan Arab State with Palestine west of the Jordan divided between Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

So the Arabs went to War and lost, and then went crying to the U.N. because a bunch of Jews whipped them.

Remember it was the Arabs who forwarded the notion that the UNGCR we not enforceable as point of law.

Your own citation show such as fact.

 

[S.A.M.]

Except they didn't have a country, only the notion that Arab people traditionally lived there among others.

Not just Arab people, thats a relatively recent phenomenon. Palestinians have lived with countless invasions through the centuries. Nationalism may be new, but living on your ancestral land is very old.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

which is irrelevant. The un charter states that nations are to be formed because of self determination. Israel never allowed the resident population any say in there political future unless they were jewish. That denial of rights makes its creation a violation of the UN charter.

No pjdude, the Arabs were the one who never allowed the resident population any say in there political future weither they were Jewish or Arab Palestinian, the Arabs rejected U.N. 181 making it a moot point, again refer back to you own citation.

The Jews made their own political future by winning the War, if they hadn't there never would have been a future for them.

 

[S.A.M.]

No Israel's existence is not a violation of the U.N. Charter.

It is actually, its against basic human rights to give away indigenous lands to form a religious state for foreign immigrants. If the US gave away native American reservations to some Europeans, for instance and made all native Americans into refugees or enclosed them in a limited space, it would be a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human rights

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

All of the above were violated in the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Not just Arab people, thats a relatively recent phenomenon. Palestinians have lived with countless invasions through the centuries. Nationalism may be new, but living on your ancestral land is very old.

SAM argue with your Quran' and Mohammed, it states that the Lands belong to the People of the Book, the Jews.

 

[S.A.M.]

No it doesn't. We've already discussed this.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

It is actually, its against basic human rights to give away indigenous lands to form a religious state for foreign immigrants. If the US gave away native American reservations to some Europeans, for instance and made all native Americans into refugees or enclosed them in a limited space, it would be a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human rights



All of the above were violated in the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine

Israel is not a Religious State, any more that any Muslim State.

 

[S.A.M.]

In which state can a Muslim or Christian get citizenship because they are Muslim or Christian?