All The World's Indeed A Stage: The Obama-Netanyahu Meeting

[Marc39]

Shit-for-brains. The fact that Palestine was a Turkish possession before World War I means absolutely nothing. By your logic the ENTIRE Arab World were just tenant farmers, because it was all part of the Ottoman Empire and hence under Turkish sovereignty. There were Palestinian landowners just as there were land owners anywhere else in the Arab world under Ottoman Rule. You're a moron.

Asshole, the fact that Palestine was under Turkish sovereignty for 400 years means everything in international law.

The Turks transferred sovereignty over Palestine to the WW I Allies in signing the Treaty of Sevres. Sovereignty over Palestine was subsequently transferred to the Jews with issuance of the binding San Remo Resolution and Palestine Mandate establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland

Arabs were given separate Mandates for the establishment of homelands in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan.

Shit-for-brains. The Israeli Settlements in the West Bank are illegal under International Law. You can deny this all you want. They are illegal, by any, and every, and all admissions.

Asshole, the Israeli communities in the West Bank are LEGAL under international law.

You are unable to factually refute me. You know less than nothing about the subject matter.

Shit-for-brains. There IS no 'San Remo Resolution'.

Asshole, there IS a San Remo Resolution...

San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UN Security Council Resolution 446

Asshole, UN Res. 446 is NON-BINDING.

Or what about Resolution 452, 465, 471, 476? They all passed with 14 votes to none; 1 abstention from the US.

Asshole, all NON-BINDING.

Or General Assembly Resolutions? How about Resolution 61/118?

Asshole, NON-BINDING.

Ouch, that's embarassing. I'd post Resolutions 61/118, 62/108, 64/93, or any of the dozens about this same thing.

Asshole, NON-BINDING.

Well, fuck it. I've wasted enough time. I'm no longer interested in this debate. One day soon there will be a free, independent state in Palestine, and there's nothing that you "Shit-for-brains" can do about it.

It was fun ripping you a new asshole, asshole. Run along, you pantload.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Turks transferred sovereignty over Palestine to the WW I Allies in signing the Treaty of Sevres. Sovereignty over Palestine was subsequently transferred to the Jews with issuance of the binding San Remo Resolution and Palestine Mandate establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland

It is not true that sovereignty was transferred to the Jews.

The main points of the White Paper were:

* Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about "a national home for the Jewish people" had been met and called for an independent Palestine established within 10 years, governed jointly by Arabs and Jews:

"His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [...] His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."

White Paper of 1939 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asshole, the Israeli communities in the West Bank are LEGAL under international law.

Not so. One of the provisions of the Mandate was to help the Jews obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens they could live anywhere in Palestine. This is also a guarantee in Palestine's constitution.

Israelis are not Palestinian citizens.

 

[Marc39]

The Turks transferred sovereignty over Palestine to the WW I Allies in signing the Treaty of Sevres. Sovereignty over Palestine was subsequently transferred to the Jews with issuance of the binding San Remo Resolution and Palestine Mandate establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland

It is not true that sovereignty was transferred to the Jews.

The main points of the White Paper were:

* Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about "a national home for the Jewish people" had been met and called for an independent Palestine established within 10 years, governed jointly by Arabs and Jews:

"His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [...] His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."

White Paper of 1939 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asshole, the Israeli communities in the West Bank are LEGAL under international law.

Not so. One of the provisions of the Mandate was to help the Jews obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens they could live anywhere in Palestine. This is also a guarantee in Palestine's constitution.

Israelis are not Palestinian citizens.

Wrong, stupid.

The Palestine Mandate's sole directive is the establishment of a Jewish polity.

No provisions exist for competing non-Jewish polities in Palestine.

You know less than nothing about the subject, fool.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Turks transferred sovereignty over Palestine to the WW I Allies in signing the Treaty of Sevres. Sovereignty over Palestine was subsequently transferred to the Jews with issuance of the binding San Remo Resolution and Palestine Mandate establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland

It is not true that sovereignty was transferred to the Jews.

Asshole, the Israeli communities in the West Bank are LEGAL under international law.

Not so. One of the provisions of the Mandate was to help the Jews obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens they could live anywhere in Palestine. This is also a guarantee in Palestine's constitution.

Israelis are not Palestinian citizens.

Wrong, stupid.

The Palestine Mandate's sole directive is the establishment of a Jewish polity.

No provisions exist for competing non-Jewish polities in Palestine.

You know less than nothing about the subject, fool.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

The main points of the White Paper were:

* Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about "a national home for the Jewish people" had been met and called for an independent Palestine established within 10 years, governed jointly by Arabs and Jews:

"His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [...] His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."

White Paper of 1939 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Marc39]

It is not true that sovereignty was transferred to the Jews.





Not so. One of the provisions of the Mandate was to help the Jews obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens they could live anywhere in Palestine. This is also a guarantee in Palestine's constitution.

Israelis are not Palestinian citizens.

Wrong, stupid.

The Palestine Mandate's sole directive is the establishment of a Jewish polity.

No provisions exist for competing non-Jewish polities in Palestine.

You know less than nothing about the subject, fool.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

The main points of the White Paper were:

* Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about "a national home for the Jewish people" had been met and called for an independent Palestine established within 10 years, governed jointly by Arabs and Jews:

"His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [...] His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."

White Paper of 1939 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stupid, the White Paper was non-binding and, in fact, constituted a violation of the Palestine Mandate's mandate to establish Palestine as the Jewish homeland, issued by the League of Nations in 1922.

The British were merely the trustees charged with implementing the Palestine Mandate trust.

In law, the trust is superior to the trustee.

You know less than zero about the subject matter.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Though Neil Peart paraphrased it in the Rush classic, “Limelight”, it was William Shakespeare that famously wrote, “All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players…” Looking at Tuesday’s White House meeting between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it appears that what was true in the day of the Bard remains so today.

If this is the case, though, the question must be asked if Obama and Netanyahu are merely players on the world stage, who is the audience? While some may consider it glib or sarcastic, it is one that serious observers of the international arena are ever mindful of. Indeed, it is one I teach my International Relations students to diligently look for.

What are the forces driving the headlines? What messages are hidden in open sight between the lines of a story? If a picture is worth a thousand words, exactly what is it saying?

As I tell my students, actions on the world stage are often directed at both domestic as well as foreign audiences. Tuesday’s meeting is a case in point.

Domestically, both leaders had significant audiences they had to play to, but for distinctly different reasons. For Netanyahu, the objective was two fold.

First, there was the need to clearly demonstrate that the “special relationship” between Washington and Jerusalem endured.

After a Spring that saw Netanyahu denied a White House audience while visiting Washington in April – in retaliation for the Israeli announcement of expanded settlement construction in East Jerusalem during a March visit by US Vice President Joe Biden – and the Obama administration’s embarrassment of being placed between two increasingly antagonistic allies after a botched albeit ultimately successful Israeli interdiction of a Turkish aid flotilla headed for the Gaza Strip, many in both capitals openly wondered if what appeared to be a deepening political separation might give way to an eventual divorce. Were that the case, Israel would effectively find itself alone in what it perceived to be an increasingly hostile neighborhood, forced to confront a rising Iran and its’ proxies and clients without the military and political might of its’ patron, the United States.

Exacerbating the perception of a widening gulf between the two allies is an Israeli political body that increasingly views Obama as being indifferent at best and belligerent or even antagonistic at worst of Jerusalem’s security concerns.

Furthermore, Netanyahu had to demonstrate not only that he could lead Israel, but that he was not a detriment to her in the Oval Office. A critical element of this is the necessity that he is able to defend Israel’s interests and actions without incurring an immediately antagonistic response from the White House.

A corollary to this was the need to assure both Obama and his administration that the self-styled hawk was a rational and reliable partner they could work with. How strong could the “special relationship” be if America’s and Israel’s chief executives openly displayed disdain and contempt for one another? What faith could either place in the others’ word? What influence could either hope exercise over the other?

In contrast, Obama had three audiences he was playing to.

Domestically, Obama needed to reassure Jewish voters that despite a clash of personalities and an exchange of diplomatic slights, America’s – and his own – commitment to Israel’s security is unwavering. With independents abandoning him, Obama sought to reinforce a historically reliable part of the Democratic base in the face of a rising political storm that threatens to return control of at least one, if not both houses of Congress to Republicans come November.

In doing so, not only would he succeed in shoring up a key constituency, he would also deny some of his most ardent and impassioned critics yet another weapon in their already formidable arsenal. Sarah Palin’s assertions not withstanding, one thing he would not be accused of was abandoning Israel to the tender mercies of the Iranian wolves and their pack of proxies – Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria.

Internationally, it was these very same predators that stalk Israel, that Obama’s message was directed.

With reports of Iranian missile transfers to Hezbollah via Syria, tensions have risen significantly in the region. Adding fuel to the rhetorical fire was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s declaration that, “This criminal regime is doomed and the grand victory is imminent,” referring to Israel after dining with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassralah and Syrian President Bashar al Assad in Damascus in February.

Lest they be tempted by the thought they could prey on an isolated Israel with impunity, the message would come personally from the President’s own lips in the seat of America’s unrivaled power. Not only does the “special relationship” endure, it thrives.

Are there differences between the two in terms of priorities and positions on the “road map to peace” and resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Certainly, and significant ones at that. Yet, despite them and regardless of personality clashes or unseemly pettiness, Israel’s security remains underwritten and guaranteed by America’s military might and political power.

Finally, Obama sought to squelch the perception among Israelis that he approaches the peace process from a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli point of view. Were this to remain unchallenged, it would heighten an already growing siege mentality that would preclude any substantive movement whatsoever on critical issues entailed in a final settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

While initial reviews would suggest both leaders delivered an acceptable, if uninspired performance, the unspoken issue of Israeli settlement expansion looms ominously in the wings.

In order for Obama to coax the Palestinians back to the bargaining table, he most at the very least obtain an extension of the current suspension on new Israeli construction. Conversely, Netanyahu faces rising pressure from far right members of his coalition to resume settlement expansion in East Jerusalem and the West Bank once the freeze expires in September. Indeed, nothing less than the survival of the current coalition government and Netanyahu’s Prime Minister-ship is at stake. Reconciling these two diametrically opposed demands will in all likelihood dominate the next act in the decades-long bit of Kabuki theater that is the Middle East peace process.

Enjoy the intermission while you can, faithful readers. One never knows when the curtain will suddenly rise with the next act violently unfolding on the world stage.

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we eagerly watch the action inside the gilded cage.

America's bond with Israel is rock solid and Obama is a friend of Israel.


that is the 'unhidden' message -- the obvious message.

spin your wheels if you must, but The bond between America and Israel is as strong as ever and Obama is as good a friend of Israel as any other man.

 

[Marc39]

Though Neil Peart paraphrased it in the Rush classic, “Limelight”, it was William Shakespeare that famously wrote, “All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players…” Looking at Tuesday’s White House meeting between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it appears that what was true in the day of the Bard remains so today.

If this is the case, though, the question must be asked if Obama and Netanyahu are merely players on the world stage, who is the audience? While some may consider it glib or sarcastic, it is one that serious observers of the international arena are ever mindful of. Indeed, it is one I teach my International Relations students to diligently look for.

What are the forces driving the headlines? What messages are hidden in open sight between the lines of a story? If a picture is worth a thousand words, exactly what is it saying?

As I tell my students, actions on the world stage are often directed at both domestic as well as foreign audiences. Tuesday’s meeting is a case in point.

Domestically, both leaders had significant audiences they had to play to, but for distinctly different reasons. For Netanyahu, the objective was two fold.

First, there was the need to clearly demonstrate that the “special relationship” between Washington and Jerusalem endured.

After a Spring that saw Netanyahu denied a White House audience while visiting Washington in April – in retaliation for the Israeli announcement of expanded settlement construction in East Jerusalem during a March visit by US Vice President Joe Biden – and the Obama administration’s embarrassment of being placed between two increasingly antagonistic allies after a botched albeit ultimately successful Israeli interdiction of a Turkish aid flotilla headed for the Gaza Strip, many in both capitals openly wondered if what appeared to be a deepening political separation might give way to an eventual divorce. Were that the case, Israel would effectively find itself alone in what it perceived to be an increasingly hostile neighborhood, forced to confront a rising Iran and its’ proxies and clients without the military and political might of its’ patron, the United States.

Exacerbating the perception of a widening gulf between the two allies is an Israeli political body that increasingly views Obama as being indifferent at best and belligerent or even antagonistic at worst of Jerusalem’s security concerns.

Furthermore, Netanyahu had to demonstrate not only that he could lead Israel, but that he was not a detriment to her in the Oval Office. A critical element of this is the necessity that he is able to defend Israel’s interests and actions without incurring an immediately antagonistic response from the White House.

A corollary to this was the need to assure both Obama and his administration that the self-styled hawk was a rational and reliable partner they could work with. How strong could the “special relationship” be if America’s and Israel’s chief executives openly displayed disdain and contempt for one another? What faith could either place in the others’ word? What influence could either hope exercise over the other?

In contrast, Obama had three audiences he was playing to.

Domestically, Obama needed to reassure Jewish voters that despite a clash of personalities and an exchange of diplomatic slights, America’s – and his own – commitment to Israel’s security is unwavering. With independents abandoning him, Obama sought to reinforce a historically reliable part of the Democratic base in the face of a rising political storm that threatens to return control of at least one, if not both houses of Congress to Republicans come November.

In doing so, not only would he succeed in shoring up a key constituency, he would also deny some of his most ardent and impassioned critics yet another weapon in their already formidable arsenal. Sarah Palin’s assertions not withstanding, one thing he would not be accused of was abandoning Israel to the tender mercies of the Iranian wolves and their pack of proxies – Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria.

Internationally, it was these very same predators that stalk Israel, that Obama’s message was directed.

With reports of Iranian missile transfers to Hezbollah via Syria, tensions have risen significantly in the region. Adding fuel to the rhetorical fire was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s declaration that, “This criminal regime is doomed and the grand victory is imminent,” referring to Israel after dining with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassralah and Syrian President Bashar al Assad in Damascus in February.

Lest they be tempted by the thought they could prey on an isolated Israel with impunity, the message would come personally from the President’s own lips in the seat of America’s unrivaled power. Not only does the “special relationship” endure, it thrives.

Are there differences between the two in terms of priorities and positions on the “road map to peace” and resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Certainly, and significant ones at that. Yet, despite them and regardless of personality clashes or unseemly pettiness, Israel’s security remains underwritten and guaranteed by America’s military might and political power.

Finally, Obama sought to squelch the perception among Israelis that he approaches the peace process from a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli point of view. Were this to remain unchallenged, it would heighten an already growing siege mentality that would preclude any substantive movement whatsoever on critical issues entailed in a final settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

While initial reviews would suggest both leaders delivered an acceptable, if uninspired performance, the unspoken issue of Israeli settlement expansion looms ominously in the wings.

In order for Obama to coax the Palestinians back to the bargaining table, he most at the very least obtain an extension of the current suspension on new Israeli construction. Conversely, Netanyahu faces rising pressure from far right members of his coalition to resume settlement expansion in East Jerusalem and the West Bank once the freeze expires in September. Indeed, nothing less than the survival of the current coalition government and Netanyahu’s Prime Minister-ship is at stake. Reconciling these two diametrically opposed demands will in all likelihood dominate the next act in the decades-long bit of Kabuki theater that is the Middle East peace process.

Enjoy the intermission while you can, faithful readers. One never knows when the curtain will suddenly rise with the next act violently unfolding on the world stage.

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we eagerly watch the action inside the gilded cage.

America's bond with Israel is rock solid and Obama is a friend of Israel.


that is the 'unhidden' message -- the obvious message.

spin your wheels if you must, but The bond between America and Israel is as strong as ever and Obama is as good a friend of Israel as any other man.

Which is why Obam has a popularity of 5% among Israelis and Israeli leaders, and Americans, have gone on record as saying Obama is the most anti-Israel president in history.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...obamas-treatment-israel-housing-construction/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/29/never_again_will_we_be_silent_104961.html

Get a clue, dope

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Though Neil Peart paraphrased it in the Rush classic, “Limelight”, it was William Shakespeare that famously wrote, “All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players…” Looking at Tuesday’s White House meeting between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it appears that what was true in the day of the Bard remains so today.

If this is the case, though, the question must be asked if Obama and Netanyahu are merely players on the world stage, who is the audience? While some may consider it glib or sarcastic, it is one that serious observers of the international arena are ever mindful of. Indeed, it is one I teach my International Relations students to diligently look for.

What are the forces driving the headlines? What messages are hidden in open sight between the lines of a story? If a picture is worth a thousand words, exactly what is it saying?

As I tell my students, actions on the world stage are often directed at both domestic as well as foreign audiences. Tuesday’s meeting is a case in point.

Domestically, both leaders had significant audiences they had to play to, but for distinctly different reasons. For Netanyahu, the objective was two fold.

First, there was the need to clearly demonstrate that the “special relationship” between Washington and Jerusalem endured.

After a Spring that saw Netanyahu denied a White House audience while visiting Washington in April – in retaliation for the Israeli announcement of expanded settlement construction in East Jerusalem during a March visit by US Vice President Joe Biden – and the Obama administration’s embarrassment of being placed between two increasingly antagonistic allies after a botched albeit ultimately successful Israeli interdiction of a Turkish aid flotilla headed for the Gaza Strip, many in both capitals openly wondered if what appeared to be a deepening political separation might give way to an eventual divorce. Were that the case, Israel would effectively find itself alone in what it perceived to be an increasingly hostile neighborhood, forced to confront a rising Iran and its’ proxies and clients without the military and political might of its’ patron, the United States.

Exacerbating the perception of a widening gulf between the two allies is an Israeli political body that increasingly views Obama as being indifferent at best and belligerent or even antagonistic at worst of Jerusalem’s security concerns.

Furthermore, Netanyahu had to demonstrate not only that he could lead Israel, but that he was not a detriment to her in the Oval Office. A critical element of this is the necessity that he is able to defend Israel’s interests and actions without incurring an immediately antagonistic response from the White House.

A corollary to this was the need to assure both Obama and his administration that the self-styled hawk was a rational and reliable partner they could work with. How strong could the “special relationship” be if America’s and Israel’s chief executives openly displayed disdain and contempt for one another? What faith could either place in the others’ word? What influence could either hope exercise over the other?

In contrast, Obama had three audiences he was playing to.

Domestically, Obama needed to reassure Jewish voters that despite a clash of personalities and an exchange of diplomatic slights, America’s – and his own – commitment to Israel’s security is unwavering. With independents abandoning him, Obama sought to reinforce a historically reliable part of the Democratic base in the face of a rising political storm that threatens to return control of at least one, if not both houses of Congress to Republicans come November.

In doing so, not only would he succeed in shoring up a key constituency, he would also deny some of his most ardent and impassioned critics yet another weapon in their already formidable arsenal. Sarah Palin’s assertions not withstanding, one thing he would not be accused of was abandoning Israel to the tender mercies of the Iranian wolves and their pack of proxies – Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria.

Internationally, it was these very same predators that stalk Israel, that Obama’s message was directed.

With reports of Iranian missile transfers to Hezbollah via Syria, tensions have risen significantly in the region. Adding fuel to the rhetorical fire was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s declaration that, “This criminal regime is doomed and the grand victory is imminent,” referring to Israel after dining with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassralah and Syrian President Bashar al Assad in Damascus in February.

Lest they be tempted by the thought they could prey on an isolated Israel with impunity, the message would come personally from the President’s own lips in the seat of America’s unrivaled power. Not only does the “special relationship” endure, it thrives.

Are there differences between the two in terms of priorities and positions on the “road map to peace” and resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Certainly, and significant ones at that. Yet, despite them and regardless of personality clashes or unseemly pettiness, Israel’s security remains underwritten and guaranteed by America’s military might and political power.

Finally, Obama sought to squelch the perception among Israelis that he approaches the peace process from a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli point of view. Were this to remain unchallenged, it would heighten an already growing siege mentality that would preclude any substantive movement whatsoever on critical issues entailed in a final settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

While initial reviews would suggest both leaders delivered an acceptable, if uninspired performance, the unspoken issue of Israeli settlement expansion looms ominously in the wings.

In order for Obama to coax the Palestinians back to the bargaining table, he most at the very least obtain an extension of the current suspension on new Israeli construction. Conversely, Netanyahu faces rising pressure from far right members of his coalition to resume settlement expansion in East Jerusalem and the West Bank once the freeze expires in September. Indeed, nothing less than the survival of the current coalition government and Netanyahu’s Prime Minister-ship is at stake. Reconciling these two diametrically opposed demands will in all likelihood dominate the next act in the decades-long bit of Kabuki theater that is the Middle East peace process.

Enjoy the intermission while you can, faithful readers. One never knows when the curtain will suddenly rise with the next act violently unfolding on the world stage.

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we eagerly watch the action inside the gilded cage.

America's bond with Israel is rock solid and Obama is a friend of Israel.


that is the 'unhidden' message -- the obvious message.

spin your wheels if you must, but The bond between America and Israel is as strong as ever and Obama is as good a friend of Israel as any other man.

Which is why Obam has a popularity of 5% among Israelis and Israeli leaders, and Americans, have gone on record as saying Obama is the most anti-Israel president in history.

FOXNews.com - Koch Outraged By Obama's Treatment of Israel Over Housing Construction

RealClearPolitics - Obama's Treatment of Israel is Shocking

Get a clue, dope

September 10, 2001: Mayor Rudy had an opinion poll rating that was in the toilet.

September 21, 2001: Mayor Rudy was America's Mayor.




popularity polls?

 

[Marc39]

America's bond with Israel is rock solid and Obama is a friend of Israel.


that is the 'unhidden' message -- the obvious message.

spin your wheels if you must, but The bond between America and Israel is as strong as ever and Obama is as good a friend of Israel as any other man.

Which is why Obam has a popularity of 5% among Israelis and Israeli leaders, and Americans, have gone on record as saying Obama is the most anti-Israel president in history.

FOXNews.com - Koch Outraged By Obama's Treatment of Israel Over Housing Construction

RealClearPolitics - Obama's Treatment of Israel is Shocking

Get a clue, dope

September 10, 2001: Mayor Rudy had an opinion poll rating that was in the toilet.

September 21, 2001: Mayor Rudy was America's Mayor.




popularity polls?

Dope, I lived in NYC for 15 years. Koch is one of the leading voices in the Jewish community and campaigned for Obama.

You clearly are clueless, so, do yourself a favor and take a hike.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Which is why Obam has a popularity of 5% among Israelis and Israeli leaders, and Americans, have gone on record as saying Obama is the most anti-Israel president in history.

FOXNews.com - Koch Outraged By Obama's Treatment of Israel Over Housing Construction

RealClearPolitics - Obama's Treatment of Israel is Shocking

Get a clue, dope

September 10, 2001: Mayor Rudy had an opinion poll rating that was in the toilet.

September 21, 2001: Mayor Rudy was America's Mayor.




popularity polls?

Dope, I lived in NYC for 15 years. Koch is one of the leading voices in the Jewish community.

You clearly are clueless, so, do yourself a favor and take a hike.

Mayor Rudy Giulliani. I remember Koch, from the 70s and 80s. '


fuckin' closet case

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Shit-for-brains. The fact that Palestine was a Turkish possession before World War I means absolutely nothing. By your logic the ENTIRE Arab World were just tenant farmers, because it was all part of the Ottoman Empire and hence under Turkish sovereignty. There were Palestinian landowners just as there were land owners anywhere else in the Arab world under Ottoman Rule. You're a moron.

Asshole, the fact that Palestine was under Turkish sovereignty for 400 years means everything in international law.

The Turks transferred sovereignty over Palestine to the WW I Allies in signing the Treaty of Sevres. Sovereignty over Palestine was subsequently transferred to the Jews with issuance of the binding San Remo Resolution and Palestine Mandate establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland

Arabs were given separate Mandates for the establishment of homelands in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan.

Shit-for-brains. The Israeli Settlements in the West Bank are illegal under International Law. You can deny this all you want. They are illegal, by any, and every, and all admissions.

Asshole, the Israeli communities in the West Bank are LEGAL under international law.

You are unable to factually refute me. You know less than nothing about the subject matter.



Asshole, there IS a San Remo Resolution...

San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Asshole, UN Res. 446 is NON-BINDING.



Asshole, all NON-BINDING.



Asshole, NON-BINDING.

Ouch, that's embarassing. I'd post Resolutions 61/118, 62/108, 64/93, or any of the dozens about this same thing.

Asshole, NON-BINDING.

Well, fuck it. I've wasted enough time. I'm no longer interested in this debate. One day soon there will be a free, independent state in Palestine, and there's nothing that you "Shit-for-brains" can do about it.

It was fun ripping you a new asshole, asshole. Run along, you pantload.

I can't do this anymore. I can't insult someone with the sort of reading comprehension issues that you have. You couldn't even answer most of my post. I explained clearly that the Treaty of Svernes was rejected and never went into effect. The Treaty of Svernes is the result of the San Remo conference (there was no "san remo resolution".) That the Security Council resolutions are non-binding is irrelevant in this context; the resolutions were adopted and clearly state the the settlements are illegal under international law; that they are not binding only means Israel is not FORCED to abide by its stipulations, and the only reason for this is for American abstention (note: not rejection) in said resolutions.

Saying "You are unable to refute me" does not mean anything. You can write that phrase all you want but it still won't make it true. You bypassed everything else I posted on how and why it has been found illegal; the resolutions state clearly in the text that the settlements are illegal; the ICJ found the settlements illegal; the European Union finds the settlements illegal; the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention find the settlements illegal; even the United States thinks the Israeli settlements are "not legitimate," a position which they've held for "40 years" despite the fact they refuse to do anything to stop it.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

Implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territories: history of a multilateral process (1997-2001)

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedo...22/{3FA161D9-6DA6-408F-85CE-20D0EC68DDFF}.pdf

Israel/Occupied Territories: Removing unlawful Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories: Time to act | Amnesty International

Israel: Expanding Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories | Human Rights Watch

B'Tselem - Land Expropriation and Settlements in the International Law

Al Jazeera English - Americas - US 'opposed' to Israeli settlements (Hillary Clinton Interview)

You fail.

 

[daveman]

Nutandyahoo's version of a "Palestinian state" is a few prison camps completely surrounded by Israeli military.

The Palestinians aren't buying it.

Since the Palestinians aren't exactly honest brokers who cares what they're willing to buy.

They surely do not want to be surrounded by a bunch of criminals with guns.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have elected Hamas, a terrorist group, to lead them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Since the Palestinians aren't exactly honest brokers who cares what they're willing to buy.

They surely do not want to be surrounded by a bunch of criminals with guns.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have elected Hamas, a terrorist group, to lead them.

Three years before Hamas. Who was their boogyman then?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3JI-axaRF4]YouTube - Rachel Corrie - Interview[/ame]

You play that terrorist card like it was the ace of friggin' trump or something.

 

[daveman]

They surely do not want to be surrounded by a bunch of criminals with guns.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have elected Hamas, a terrorist group, to lead them.

Three years before Hamas. Who was their boogyman then?

The terrorists launching attacks into Israel.

You play that terrorist card like it was the ace of friggin' trump or something.

I can understand how someone telling the truth about people you admire makes you uncomfortable. Perhaps you might want to rethink who you're supporting.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Then perhaps they shouldn't have elected Hamas, a terrorist group, to lead them.

Three years before Hamas. Who was their boogyman then?

The terrorists launching attacks into Israel.

You play that terrorist card like it was the ace of friggin' trump or something.

I can understand how someone telling the truth about people you admire makes you uncomfortable. Perhaps you might want to rethink who you're supporting.

Israel bulldozed their water wells, bulldozes their crops, and bulldozes their home while shooting and killing them.

And you call the Palestinians terrorists.

BTW, there is no "into" Israel. There is no border between Gaza and Sderot. Sderot is inside Palestine's borders but not inside any Israeli border.

BTW revisited, who was Israel's boogyman before Hamas.

 

[Marc39]

Shit-for-brains. The fact that Palestine was a Turkish possession before World War I means absolutely nothing. By your logic the ENTIRE Arab World were just tenant farmers, because it was all part of the Ottoman Empire and hence under Turkish sovereignty. There were Palestinian landowners just as there were land owners anywhere else in the Arab world under Ottoman Rule. You're a moron.

Asshole, the fact that Palestine was under Turkish sovereignty for 400 years means everything in international law.

The Turks transferred sovereignty over Palestine to the WW I Allies in signing the Treaty of Sevres. Sovereignty over Palestine was subsequently transferred to the Jews with issuance of the binding San Remo Resolution and Palestine Mandate establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland

Arabs were given separate Mandates for the establishment of homelands in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan.



Asshole, the Israeli communities in the West Bank are LEGAL under international law.

You are unable to factually refute me. You know less than nothing about the subject matter.



Asshole, there IS a San Remo Resolution...

San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Asshole, UN Res. 446 is NON-BINDING.



Asshole, all NON-BINDING.



Asshole, NON-BINDING.



Asshole, NON-BINDING.

Well, fuck it. I've wasted enough time. I'm no longer interested in this debate. One day soon there will be a free, independent state in Palestine, and there's nothing that you "Shit-for-brains" can do about it.

It was fun ripping you a new asshole, asshole. Run along, you pantload.

I can't do this anymore. I can't insult someone with the sort of reading comprehension issues that you have. You couldn't even answer most of my post. I explained clearly that the Treaty of Svernes was rejected and never went into effect. The Treaty of Svernes is the result of the San Remo conference (there was no "san remo resolution".) That the Security Council resolutions are non-binding is irrelevant in this context; the resolutions were adopted and clearly state the the settlements are illegal under international law; that they are not binding only means Israel is not FORCED to abide by its stipulations, and the only reason for this is for American abstention (note: not rejection) in said resolutions.

Saying "You are unable to refute me" does not mean anything. You can write that phrase all you want but it still won't make it true. You bypassed everything else I posted on how and why it has been found illegal; the resolutions state clearly in the text that the settlements are illegal; the ICJ found the settlements illegal; the European Union finds the settlements illegal; the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention find the settlements illegal; even the United States thinks the Israeli settlements are "not legitimate," a position which they've held for "40 years" despite the fact they refuse to do anything to stop it.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

Implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territories: history of a multilateral process (1997-2001)

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedo...22/{3FA161D9-6DA6-408F-85CE-20D0EC68DDFF}.pdf

Israel/Occupied Territories: Removing unlawful Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories: Time to act | Amnesty International

Israel: Expanding Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories | Human Rights Watch

B'Tselem - Land Expropriation and Settlements in the International Law

Al Jazeera English - Americas - US 'opposed' to Israeli settlements (Hillary Clinton Interview)

You fail.

Asshole, learn to understand the law of treaties and why the effects of the Treaty of Sevres cannot be rescinded.

Asshole, learn that ICJ judgments are NON-BINDING and that the ICJ has NO JURISDICTION in Israeli-related matters.

Asshole, learn that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of civilians during warfare and NOT to Israeli communities.

Asshole, learn that the ICRC has a history of anti-Israel bias and was complicit in issuing passports to Nazi war criminals to assist in their escape.

Asshole, learn that the San Remo Resolution DOES exist that transferred sovereignty over Palestine to the Jews. You STUPIDLY said it doesn't exist.

Asshole, learn how to discern the basic difference between a binding and non-binding UN resolution. Yoiu STUPIDLY listed UN resolutions issued against Israel which are NON-BINDING, meaning they are not worth the paper they're written on.

Now, you're resorting to posting links to NGOs with a history of anti-Israel bias and even Al Jazeera?

Like HRW, whose former Mid East analyst was fired for being a Nazi fetishist?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/world/middleeast/15nazi.html

The same HRW caught soliciting funds in Saudi Arabia, one of the worst human rights violators in the world that beheaded 6 preople last year in just one month, by bragging about harrassing Israel?
Human Rights Watch Goes to Saudi Arabia - WSJ.com

And, Al Jazeera, the mouthpiece of the jihadist?

Your posts get increasingly pathetic and desperate and reflective that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Take a hike, ignorant loser.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Asshole, learn to understand the law of treaties and why the effects of the Treaty of Sevres cannot be rescinded.

Already dealt with this, if you can't read, then please spare yourself from this kind of debate.

Asshole, learn that ICJ judgments are NON-BINDING and that the ICJ has NO JURISDICTION in Israeli-related matters.

Already dealt with this, if you can't read, then please spare yourself from this kind of debate. (If you had bothered with the link, you would realize that the document we're talking about is the Advisory Legal opinion of the ICJ. If you had the cognitive abilities to understand anything, this means the judges sit down, look at international law, and then put out their LEGAL OPINION; 14 of 15 Judges find that, when looking at International Law, the settlements go directly against it. Sorry, that's just the way it is.)

Asshole, learn that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of civilians during warfare and NOT to Israeli communities.

The Fourth Geneva Conventions apply to treatment of civilians in OCCUPIED TERRITORY. As I already put from several sources, and again, if you had the ability to read, you would understand that everybody in this Universe accepts that the Fourth Geneva Conventions apply to the Palestinian territories; every single government except for the United States has explicitly accepted that as exemplified in every resolution I've mentioned.

Asshole, learn that the ICRC has a history of anti-Israel bias and was complicit in issuing passports to Nazi war criminals to assist in their escape.

Yes, the Red Cross is full of Nazis. This is all a conspiracy to kill all the Jews.

Asshole, learn that the San Remo Resolution DOES exist that transferred sovereignty over Palestine to the Jews. You STUPIDLY said it doesn't exist.

You're an idiot. This has got to be the third time I have to explain this to you. There is no San Remo Resolution. The product of the San Remo conference WAS the Treaty of Sevres. Seriously, how dense can you get? And how can you possibly be oblivious to the irony of putting forward a stillborn treaty from 1920 which was not even put into effect but then claim that dozens of Security Council resolutions are irrelevant? They call that doublethink.

Asshole, learn how to discern the basic difference between a binding and non-binding UN resolution. Yoiu STUPIDLY listed UN resolutions issued against Israel which are NON-BINDING, meaning they are not worth the paper they're written on.

This is sad. I've already explained this to you. Really, I mean, you gotta do something about the educational institutions you attended.

Now, you're resorting to posting links to NGOs with a history of anti-Israel bias and even Al Jazeera?

Like HRW, whose former Mid East analyst was fired for being a Nazi fetishist?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/world/middleeast/15nazi.html

The same HRW caught soliciting funds in Saudi Arabia, one of the worst human rights violators in the world that beheaded 6 preople last year in just one month, by bragging about harrassing Israel?
Human Rights Watch Goes to Saudi Arabia - WSJ.com

So that's what it boils down to. Again, it gets to a sad point when everybody who disagrees is a Nazi and you have to selectively take things out from my post to expound your claims. What about Israeli Jewish Human Rights Group B'Tselem? Are they anti-semites? Are they also Nazis? What about Amnesty International, Nazis too I presume? The EU, well, why even go there. The EU MUST be filled with Nazis. And Hilary Clinton? She's a Nazi too.

See how easy? Everybody who disagrees with the Israeli government is a Nazi! And of course, because one loon worked at HRW that means that all of HRW, Amnesty International, ISRAELI NGO B'Tselem, and the EU all MUST be Nazis. Right? And everyone at the UN is a Nazi. And Everyone of every government that supported and adopted the UN resolutions I posted is a Nazi. And every ICJ Judge. And everybody in the world. Everybody is a Nazi. Every single one of these people is an anti-semite.

And, Al Jazeera, the mouthpiece of the jihadist?

That's idiotic; but let's take it for a fact. Again, had you bothered for one second you would've realized that link is to a video of a recent Hilary Clinton interview in which she states "Israeli settlements are not legitimate and this has been the position of the United States for 40 years." You fail. Nobody but the most reactionary of ultra-nationalist Israelies thinks the settlements are legitimate. Absolutely nobody.

But you can keep on living in your fantasy world, of course. I know that whatever you post next is going to be akin to more idiotic drivel about how everybody in the universe is a Nazi and settlements are legitimate because you say so.

Your posts get increasingly pathetic and desperate and reflective that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Take a hike, ignorant loser.

I love the Irony there, Marc. Woo, you really showed me.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

September 10, 2001: Mayor Rudy had an opinion poll rating that was in the toilet.

September 21, 2001: Mayor Rudy was America's Mayor.




popularity polls?

Dope, I lived in NYC for 15 years. Koch is one of the leading voices in the Jewish community.

You clearly are clueless, so, do yourself a favor and take a hike.

Mayor Rudy Giulliani. I remember Koch, from the 70s and 80s. '


fuckin' closet case

MARC? Why were you so clueless? Tired?

 

[Marc39]

I'll repeat for your benefit, since you didn't know of the existence of the San Remo Resolution nor can you distinguish between a binding and non-binding UN resolution: ICJ judgments are non-binding and the ICJ has no jurisdiction in Israeli matters.

The Fourth Geneva Conventions apply to treatment of civilians in OCCUPIED TERRITORY. As I already put from several sources, and again, if you had the ability to read, you would understand that everybody in this Universe accepts that the Fourth Geneva Conventions apply to the Palestinian territories; every single government except for the United States has explicitly accepted that as exemplified in every resolution I've mentioned.

Stupid, didn't I inform you the Fourth Geneva Convention relates to treatment of civilians during warfare, NOT to Israeli communities.

Read, learn...

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Neither the West Bank nor Gaza are sovereign states and, therefore, cannot be occupied.

Furthermore, Israel is not at war with the West Bank with the signing of the Oslo Accords.

Further, still, the West Bank and Gaza are sovereign Jewish territories under the terms of the Palestine Mandate establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland.

You're an idiot. This has got to be the third time I have to explain this to you. There is no San Remo Resolution. The product of the San Remo conference WAS the Treaty of Sevres. Seriously, how dense can you get? And how can you possibly be oblivious to the irony of putting forward a stillborn treaty from 1920 which was not even put into effect but then claim that dozens of Security Council resolutions are irrelevant? They call that doublethink.

Stupid, the San Remo Resolution established Palestine as the Jewish homeland, putting the Balfour Declaration into legal effect. The San Remo Resolution eventuated in the Palestine Mandate issued by the League of Nations.

You are so uneducated, it's not even funny.

Read, learn...

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,

San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

San Remo Resolution - Council on Foreign Relations

Furthermore, the San Remo Resolution established homelands in Syria and Iraq, so, if you want to delegitimze Israel by attempting to dismiss existence of the resolution, you have to delegitimaze Syria and Iraq...

The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers

So, lets summarize...

You didn't know of the existence of the San Remo Resolution establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland and Syria and Iraq as Arab homelands.

You are unable to discern between binding and non-binding UN resolutions. You stupidly post numerous UN resolutions issued against Israel absolutely clueless they have no legal weight and are worthless.

You are unaware that ICJ judgments are non-binding and that the ICJ has absolutely no jurisdiction in Israeli matters.

You don't understand occupations nor the correct application of the Geneva Conventions.

You are clueless that HRW's former Middle East analyst was fired for being a Nazi fetishist and that HRW went begging for funding in Saudi Arabia, one of the worst human rights offenders in the world.

All in all, turns out, you know less than nothing.

 

[Marc39]

The Fourth Geneva Conventions apply to treatment of civilians in OCCUPIED TERRITORY.

Tell us the legal conditions that define an occupation and provide the legal basis for an occupation.

You don't even know. It doesn't exist. LOL.

If you did know, you couldn't characterize any territories under Israeli occupation.

You are one big, dumb, uneducated, lying shit bag.