No Missiles For Hezbollah

[member]

If you're confusing Islam with my enemy, tell me the percentage of Muslims "who prefers death over life?"

"my enemy"

i must of missed it: who is that ?

It's not the 90% of Muslims who prefer life over death.
You?

Fuck this SICK "RELGION" called ISLAMe ! ALL OF IT.

 

[georgephillip]

"my enemy"

i must of missed it: who is that ?

It's not the 90% of Muslims who prefer life over death.
You?

Fuck this SICK "RELGION" called ISLAMe ! ALL OF IT.

Why don't you do the math.
How many citizens of Bensonhurst Brooklyn have Muslims maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated in the last twenty years?
Now compare that number to the number of Iraqi civilians murdered by USA Christians in Baghdad and Basra.

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip; et al,

(REFERENCE)

• LINK: United Nations Official Document UNSC Resolution 42 (1948) 5 MARCH

• LINK:
  Memorandum by His Britannic Majesty's Government presented in 1947 to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine Published at Jerusalem, 1947 A/AC.14/8 of 2 October 1947

• LINK:
  U.K. ACCEPTS UNSCOP GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS;
  Will Not Implement Policy Unacceptable by Both Arabs and Jews
  Palestine question - UK accepts UNSCOP recommendations, will not implement policy unless accepted by Arabs and Jews - Press release (26 September 1947)

• LINK:
  Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine
  A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947

Separate SIDEBAR reference listed below in Palestinian quotation.

(DIALOG)

UNSC 42 is a conciliation requirement (nothing more); the topic of the conciliation: Prevent or Reduce disorder in Palestine.

et al,

I sense that I will get into a lot of trouble delving into details of this matter with you, Rocco; however, why don't we take it from the top?

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UN Security Council
Resolution 42
Date: March 5 1948
Meeting no.: 263
Code: S/691 (Document)
Vote: For: 8 Abs.: 3 Against: 0
Subject: The Palestine question
Result: Adopted

"United Nations Security Council Resolution 42, adopted on March 5, 1948, called upon the permanent members of the Council to consult and inform it regarding the situation in Palestine and to make recommendations to the United Nations Palestine Commission. The Resolution also appealed to all governments and peoples, particularly those around Palestine to aid the situation in any way possible.

The resolution was adopted with eight votes to none and abstentions from Argentina, Syria and the United Kingdom.

Do you happen to know why the UK abstained from voting on this Resolution?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 42 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(THE QUESTION)

• Do you happen to know why the UK abstained from voting on this Resolution?

(PREFACE)

It starts 8 months prior when the (July '47) when His Majesty’s Foreign Secretary announces, in part, that "His Majesty’s government have of themselves no power, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them." Faced with a dilemma, "We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”

Then, His Majesty’s government announces (Sept '47) that the UK accepts the recommendations by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP); BUT!, "Will Not Implement Policy Unacceptable by Both Arabs and Jews." This is also when His Majesty’s government formally states that the UK will plan for an early withdrawal of British forces and of the British Administration from Palestine.

Then come the GA Resolution 181(II) (Nov '47) which announces a Partition Plan, but does not require acceptance by both Arabs and Jews. GA Resolution 181(II) follows the UNSCOP Recommendations. Resolution 181(II) requests (but does not require) the Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation.

(THE ANSWER)

The UK abstained because, as you can see, in the one case, it turned the matter over to the UN for resolution of the matter, and in the other case, it opposed the the mechanics of implementation (while accepting the concept). So it left the matter in the hands of the UNSC.

(CONFUSION)

A bindding resolution is a "command" or a "directive" to the member; or a concept/plan in which other members are enjoined to assist in the accomplishment of an objective. It is issued by the UN Security Council.

A non-binding resolution is legitimacy of a principle, concept, law, or program. It is like all those UNHRC Laws, International Laws, and alike, that people are so fond of quoting but ignoring. They state basic ideas that have been agreed upon by the membership. The UN Charter is one such document. The are issued by the General Assembly, or one of the major subordinate activities.

In the case of GA Resolution 181(II), it does not command or direct that either the Arab or Jew be apportioned anything specific. It is an "offer" of sovereignty under the territory of the Mandate. Either party had the opportunity to accept or reject. They were not "commanded" to accept or reject.

All the international laws and treaties are made this same way. Just as all the nations of the Middle East (except Saudi Arabia) were established this same way (from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea). Even Egypt was a Protectorate of the UK before it was granted sovereignty.

There is this argument that because it wasn't approved by the UNSC, that GA Resolution 181(II) was not enacted or implemented. Oddly enough, this is the Israeli Position and not a Palestinian Position. The Palestinians see the dilemma of the argument and have recognized GA Resolution 181(II) as legitimate.

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

A/53/879
S/1999/334
25 March 1999

SOURCE: A/53/879-S/1999/334 of 25 March 1999

I hope I was able to answer your question.

Most Respectfully,
R

You always do, Rocco. Thanks.
I need a few hours to formulate a half-way respectable response to the information you provided, but there is one glaringly obvious option that seems to have been missed by the UN and the UK: Why wasn't a referendum called for in Palestine in 1948 that would have provided at least a thin veneer of democratic intent?

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip; et al,

This is a good question for the 21st Century.

• Why wasn't a referendum called for in Palestine in 1948 that would have provided at least a thin veneer of democratic intent?

(COMMENT)

This is answered by another question.

Q: Was there ever a time when any of the Arab nations in the region held a "referendum?"

A: No​

• EGYPT: 28 February 1922 (from UK protectorate status)
• IRAQ: 3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
• JORDAN: 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
• KUWAIT: 3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
• LEBANON: 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• SUDAN: 1 January 1956 (from Egypt and the UK)
• SYRIA: 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• YEMEN: 1918 (from the Ottoman Empire) and became a republic with the overthrow of the theocratic Imamate in 1962; South Yemen became independent on 30 November 1967 (from the UK)

The governments in the Persian Gulf and Middle East don't change by referendum. You're lucky if they don't change by killing everyone in the previous government. It is a violent region of the world. They change through violence; like when the King and the entire Royal Family was gunned-down in the back of the Palace in Baghdad; or, what you see in Syria now. Think Lebanon, they have more assassinations in one decade than the Roman Senate in 3000 years.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

Yep, it's a cultural thing. And as long as they just kill their own people in their own countries as in Syria, let us wish both sides victory.

georgephillip; et al,

This is a good question for the 21st Century.

• Why wasn't a referendum called for in Palestine in 1948 that would have provided at least a thin veneer of democratic intent?

(COMMENT)

This is answered by another question.

Q: Was there ever a time when any of the Arab nations in the region held a "referendum?"

A: No​

• EGYPT: 28 February 1922 (from UK protectorate status)
• IRAQ: 3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
• JORDAN: 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
• KUWAIT: 3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
• LEBANON: 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• SUDAN: 1 January 1956 (from Egypt and the UK)
• SYRIA: 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• YEMEN: 1918 (from the Ottoman Empire) and became a republic with the overthrow of the theocratic Imamate in 1962; South Yemen became independent on 30 November 1967 (from the UK)

The governments in the Persian Gulf and Middle East don't change by referendum. You're lucky if they don't change by killing everyone in the previous government. It is a violent region of the world. They change through violence; like when the King and the entire Royal Family was gunned-down in the back of the Palace in Baghdad; or, what you see in Syria now. Think Lebanon, they have more assassinations in one decade than the Roman Senate in 3000 years.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

Egypt is still flooding the Palestinians tunnels from Gaza with raw sewage & has again closed the Rafah border to prevent Palestinian terrorists from smuggling weapons. Interesting how there have been no Palestinian supporter complaints. I guess that's not so bad compared to Israel's peace offerings, security fence & land concessions treatment of the Palestinians.

Foul sewage flooding raises Palestinian ire - Features - Al Jazeera English