New U.S. push for Mideast peace faces old obstacles

Discussion in 'Israel and Palestine' started by P F Tinmore, Jan 6, 2010.

  1. P F Tinmore
    Offline

    P F Tinmore Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    34,651
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +2,926
    President Barack Obama's first efforts at brokering Middle East peace bore no fruit last year, and the White House now has crafted a two-year plan under which Israelis and Palestinians would hold regular, intense meetings to reach a final peace agreement.

    New U.S. push for Mideast peace faces old obstacles - Yahoo! News

    Yep, it is designed to fail.

    That's why it always has.

    That's why it always will.
     
  2. P F Tinmore
    Offline

    P F Tinmore Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    34,651
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +2,926
    Early in the Obama administration there seemed to be a number of indications that Obama would change traditional U.S. policies of unconditional support of Israel and would put real pressure on that country to reach a peace settlement with the Palestinians. Since this promising beginning, however, Obama has been in full retreat from any political confrontation with Israel and its U.S. supporters, Among the signs of that retreat are the following:

    *Obama's refusal--in direct contradiction of his repeated campaign rhetoric about the need to engage in diplomacy with one's adversaries--to confront Israel and its U.S. supporters by engaging in negotiations with Hamas.

    *The jettisoning of a number of Obama's campaign advisers who were critical of Israeli policy and, in particular, the Chas Freeman affair, in which Obama abandoned Freeman, an outspoken critic of Israel, when his appointment to a high-level intelligence position drew cries of outrage from the usual quarters.

    *Obama's gratuitious reassurance of Netanyahu that U.S. diplomatic and military aid to Israel will not be used as leverage to get the Israeli government to agree to end the occupation and allow the creation of a Palestinian state. Obama has even, in effect, abandoned diplomatic pressures on Israel to freeze its settlements in the occupied territories, even as the Netanyahu government thumbs its nose at the administration and actually steps up its new construction on the West Bank and, especially, in what used to be known as Arab East Jerusalem.

    These new or expanded East Jerusalem Jewish "neighborhoods" or settlements are, by themselves, deal-killers that make any two-state peace agreement with the Palestinians impossible--as, no doubt, is intended. No Palestinian government, including that of Mahmoud Abbas, will accept an agreement that does not include East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state.

    *Obama's response to the Goldstone Commission report, which blisteringly criticized Israel's behavior in its attack on Gaza a year ago. The administration rejected the report out of hand, without explanation or even an attempt to rebut its factual findings. Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., could not have been more pleased, saying that the American position "could have been drafted in Tel Aviv, it was so wonderful."

    ZNet - Obama & Israel-Palestine
     
  3. Marc39
    Offline

    Marc39 BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    10,018
    Thanks Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +202
    Of course the US shows unconditional support for Israel. Israel is the unconditional ally of the US, while Pallies are unconditional celebrants of 9/11, were unconditional supporters of the Nazis, were unconditional allies of the Soviets and unconditionally sided with Iraq in the Gulf War.

    The Pallies are unconditional terrorists and unconditional trash. Israel is an unconditional democracy that unconditionally embraces freedom, human rights and civil liberties.

    Does this unconditionally place things in the proper perspective, now?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. P F Tinmore
    Offline

    P F Tinmore Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    34,651
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +2,926
    So much propaganda-so little time.
     
  5. Marc39
    Offline

    Marc39 BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    10,018
    Thanks Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +202
    Plenty of time in which to attempt to refute me.
     
  6. P F Tinmore
    Offline

    P F Tinmore Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    34,651
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +2,926
    Getting back on subject, justice, international law, and UN resolutions are never mentioned in the so called peace process.
     
  7. Marc39
    Offline

    Marc39 BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    10,018
    Thanks Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +202
    Do your homework. Israel's existence is based on international law. That is justice.

    Pallies have 25 Arab stinkholes to live in.
     
  8. P F Tinmore
    Offline

    P F Tinmore Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    34,651
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +2,926
    International law forbids the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force.

    What law are you talking about?
     
  9. Marc39
    Offline

    Marc39 BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    10,018
    Thanks Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +202
    Pseudo-legalese gibberish.

    There is no rule in law prohibiting seizure of territory in a defensive war.

    Furthermore, international law established Palestine as the Jewish homeland.

    Do your homework, instead of being a poseur.
     
  10. P F Tinmore
    Offline

    P F Tinmore Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    34,651
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +2,926
    I. THE ILLEGALITY OF THE USE OF FORCE BY STATES:
    IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TITLE BY CONQUEST

    The most compelling argument for the claim that in our own
    times conquest no longer provides legal title to territory is the
    fact that the use of force as an instrument of state policy is today
    regarded as illegal. As Lauterpacht wrote in his 1955 edition of
    Oppenheim International Law:

    The recognition of the title by conquest was, prior to the Covenant of
    the League, the Charter of the United Nations, and the General Treaty
    for the Renunciation of War, the necessary result of the admissibility of
    the right of war as an instrument both for enforcing the law and for
    changing existing rights. . . . The position has, it is submitted, under-
    gone change as the result of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the
    Charter of the United Nations, and, in particular, of the General Treaty
    for the Renunciation of War. Insofar as these instruments prohibit war,
    they probably render invalid conquest on the part of the State which has
    resorted to war contrary to its obligations. An unlawful act cannot nor-
    mally produce results beneficial to the law-breaker. 1

    The history of legal limitations on the right to use force began
    with the Hague Convention of 1907 respecting the Limitation of
    the Employment of Force for the Recovery of Contract Debts.
    This was followed up, after the First World War, by the more
    comprehensive restrictions contained in the Covenant of the
    League of Nations.
    ____________________
    1 Oppenheim, International Law, 8th edn., i, ed. H. Lauterpacht ( London:
    Longmans, Green, 1955), 574.

    The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice

    "Furthermore, international law established Palestine as the Jewish homeland."

    Documents please.
     

Share This Page