Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So you bring up the San Remo Conference as support for the existence of a state of "Palestine" in legal terms, but now reject the San Remo Conference because you don't like what it actually says?Never signed nor acknowledge by any Arab or Muslim country. Nor was any Arab country nor its representative present.
Read some books or try out the internet - it was rejected by Abbas because Israel had demanded to much.Please tell us why Olmert’s Peace Proposal was rejected?
Could you go back an re-read what I actually wrote, please? The UN does not have the legal authority to:Off course it has: that is why it is called SECURITY council.
Who do you think tried to pass a resolution in view of the Ukraine-Russia issue - e.g. recognizing or not of Russia's annexation of Crimea? Logically a resolution couldn't be passed it that regard due to Russia this time making use of it's veto right.
The Gaza ceasefire and conflict is presently - a matter dealt with by the UNSC - and is stuck due to the USA making use of its veto right.
Any country—even if it is not a member of the UN—may bring a dispute to which it is a party to the attention of the Security Council. When there is a complaint, the council first explores the possibility of a peaceful resolution. International peacekeeping forces may be authorized to keep warring parties apart pending further negotiations. If the council finds that there is a real threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression (as defined by Article 39 of the UN Charter), it may call upon UN members to apply diplomatic or economic sanctions. If these methods prove inadequate, the UN Charter allows the Security Council to take military action against the offending country.
A border or territorial dispute is exactly what the UNSC is about - BINDING decisions in order to avoid or stop a war.
You need to, not meSo you bring up the San Remo Conference as support for the existence of a state of "Palestine" in legal terms, but now reject the San Remo Conference because you don't like what it actually says?
Pick a lane and drive within the lines.
Oops. Apologies, that was Rigby. You just responded to my response to Rigby's post. My bad.I never brought in the San Remo Conference as support that a State of Palestine exists - where did I state that?
You should reread my reply to youCould you go back an re-read what I actually wrote, please? The UN does not have the legal authority to:
- create international borders between States
- create States
- dissolve States
Olmert gave him almost everything he asked for. Please tell us what proposals Abbas proposed that were rejected. You can’tRead some books or try out the internet - it was rejected by Abbas because Israel had demanded to much.
In the Ottoman census of 1870 there were a half million Muslims, 55,000 Jews and 70,000 Christians.
Read a book or two - there is also an internet
You need to, not me
I never brought in the San Remo Conference as support that a State of Palestine exists - where did I state that?
The San Remo Conference outcome is NOT about what is says - but the FACT that only 6 States signed it - out of 41, and not a single Arab State nor Palestinian Representative was involved nor invited.
Could you go back an re-read what I actually wrote, please
The Turkisg Basrards Stole it. Lets take it backSo what?
In 1450, the majority of Constantinople was Christian.
Off Topic; But on the ME board there’s a topic RE; MUSLIMS KILLING CHRISTIANS !! EVERYBODY ISSo what?
In 1450, the majority of Constantinople was Christian.
QUIET. 
Off course I can - e.g. -8.8% compensated with only +5.5%, and many other issues.Olmert gave him almost everything he asked for. Please tell us what proposals Abbas proposed that were rejected. You can’t
Interesting - so you know that the Ottomans CONQUERED Constantinople - but according to you, the Zionists didn't conquer British Palestine - but simply stole and occupied other peoples lands, fought and and drove them out.So what?
In 1450, the majority of Constantinople was Christian.
Interesting - so you know that the Ottomans CONQUERED Constantinople - but according to you, the Zionists didn't conquer British Palestine - but simply stole and occupied other peoples lands, fought and and drove them out.
So if the remaining forces of Constantinople would have aligned with the Serbs, Venice and Genoa to attack the Ottomans - then a history simpleton like you, would condemn such an attack onto Ottoman held Constantinople - (aka return it to it's rightful owner) and you would call the Constantinians - terrorists.
Was there a UN or a League of Nations in 1453? - you might want to check the internetInteresting - so you know that the Ottomans CONQUERED Constantinople -
Is that allowed?
If you don't even know that part - then why are you pestering this thread with your incorrect and nonsensical statements?but according to you, the Zionists didn't conquer British Palestine -
Conquer? How'd they do that?
Repeat; Tell us what Abbas proposed? What are the “ many other issues “ even if the compensation were different?Off course I can - e.g. -8.8% compensated with only +5.5%, and many other issues.
As I had stated - read it up yourself - aka internet, and only then post statements. Aka your above statement is wrong.
Was there a UN or a League of Nations in 1453? - you might want to check the internet
If you don't even know that part - then why are you pestering this thread with your incorrect and nonsensical statements?
Repeat: "Read some books or try out the internet" - I am not your daddy or your mom.Repeat; Tell us what Abbas proposed? What are the “ many other issues “ even if the compensation were different?
