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

[Marc39]

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

Let's make certain you've learned the errors of your ways and have become educated on the difference between binding and non-binding UN resolutions, which you didn't know earlier.

Tell us the elements that make a UN resolution binding and non-binding

 

[Epsilon Delta]

You didn't know of the existence of the San Remo Resolution establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland.

The product of the San Remo conference WAS the Treaty of Sevres.

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

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 (FROM YOUR OWN LINK)...

The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers"[2] and were not finalized until four years later. The conference's decisions were embodied in the stillborn Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97). As Turkey rejected this treaty, the conference's decisions were only finally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, and when Turkey accepted the terms of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive <= Try finding any mention of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine here.

By the way,

This is the ENTIRETY of the Balfour Declaration:

Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour

Shit-for-brains. As you can well see, there is nothing here about borders, there is no mention of STATEHOOD, there is no mention of the right to drive the Palestinians out or bulldozing their homes. There is nothing there. Not only that, but like I said before, it conflicts with the similarly vague counterpart to this; the Anglo-French Declaration of 1918, which promised the "complete and final liberation of the peoples who have for so long been oppressed by the Turks," which, as you so cleverly stated, includes the people of Palestine. Even ol' Balfour saw that all of this was contradictory:

"The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the &#8216;independent nation&#8217; of Palestine than in that of the &#8216;independent nation&#8216; of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American [King-Crane] Commission is going through the form of asking what they are.
The Four Great Powers [Britain, France, Italy and the United States] are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, and future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion that is right.
What I have never been able to understand is how it can be harmonized with the [Anglo-French] declaration, the Covenant, or the instruction to the [King-Crane] Commission of Enquiry.

Shit-for-brains. Either way, this discussion is useless. I'm not against the existence of Israel, or its causes. The fact is that there is a state in Israel. It's a State with a government, an army, and recognized boundaries, boundaries which engulf its 20,770 square kilometers in area, and do NOT include the 6,000 square km of the Occupied Palestinian Territories

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

Read, learn...

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.

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.

Ok, I'm going to explain this to you in the simplest terms I possible can:

What we have here are two sets of opinion. What this comes down to it, I have two options on the matter:

1) I can recant my position and accept your opinion on the matter; this would mean that I am persuaded by the argument you made and follow your opinion on the matter, that settlements are legitimate and legal under international law.

2) I can maintain my position that the settlements are illegal and accept the opinion of the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions, the European Union, B'Tselem, Amnesty International, Hilary Clinton and the following Governments of the World:

The draft resolution on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan (document A/63/401) was adopted by a recorded vote of 171 in favour to 6 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People&#8217;s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People&#8217;s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu , Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

So, again, when it comes right down to it, there is a possibility that I totally accept what you say. But before I do that, I would have to assume, as you do, that you know more about the Geneva Conventions and International law than the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions, the European Union, B'Tselem, Amnesty International, and everybody else. I'd have to assume that everybody, all those diplomats and judges and PhDs in International Relations, in all of those organizations and governments, are incompetent and easily refuted by the Great Marc39 of USMB.

So tell us Marc39 of USMB. Tell us your qualifications, and your theories on why all of those aforementioned organs managed to come to the wrong conclusion regarding the applicability of Geneva Conventions to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and why they even call them Occupied Palestinian Territories if they're not occupied in the first place. Is it gross incompetence? Or could it possible be...

... THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF MECCA?!

Humour me.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

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

You're absolutely right. I am. But I have an excuse marc, I was tricked. I was tricked into believing all I said before.

How was I so naive to believe that the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions, the European Union, B'Tselem, Amnesty International, and everybody else would know anything about International Law or Occupation?? Seriously...

Good thing you're about to explain to us why all of those organs are filled with dirty liars, and that how you know more than they about International Law.

Let's make certain you've learned the errors of your ways and have become educated on the difference between binding and non-binding UN resolutions, which you didn't know earlier.

Tell us the elements that make a UN resolution binding and non-binding

A non-binding resolution is one which states a position of approval or disapproval outside the body's jurisdiction.

Henceforth, it is the position of the the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice and all the governments, judges and representatives who voted for the non-binding resolutions and legal opinions aforementioned that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories (their words, not mine) are illegal and that the Geneva Conventions apply.

But they are all liars who know nothing about international law! Especially compared to Marc39 of USMB, who will now explain to us how these organs could fall so low and lie to me for so long.

 

[Marc39]

How was I so naive to believe that the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly

You didn't know each of the dozen UN resolutions issued against Israel were non-binding.

You're not informed on the subject matter.

A non-binding resolution is one which states a position of approval or disapproval outside the body's jurisdiction.

Wrong. Try again: Tell us exactly what determines if a UN resolution is binding or non-binding?

You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Marc39]

The product of the San Remo conference WAS the Treaty of Sevres.

Absolutely wrong.

The San Remo Resolution and Treaty of Sevres are entirely different entities.

The Sane Remo Resolution is an international treaty signed by the WW I Allies--Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan--establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland that constitutes international law.

Once, again, since you're not the brightest bulb...

The San Remo Resolution established Palestine as the Jewish homeland...

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...

Additionally, the San Remo Resolution established Arab homelands in Syria, Iraq and, later, Lebanon...

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.

San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

San Remo Resolution - Council on Foreign Relations

Any attempt to delegitimze Israel by dismissing the San Remo Resolution means the delegitimization of Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, as well.

Lastly, I asked you what the legal definition is for occupation and the legal case for Israeli occupation.

Israel is not an occupier. Give us your best shot. No Googling your response---Tell us in your own words.

 

[Marc39]

Henceforth, it is the position of the the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice and all the governments, judges and representatives who voted for the non-binding resolutions and legal opinions aforementioned that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories (their words, not mine) are illegal and that the Geneva Conventions apply.

But they are all liars who know nothing about international law! Especially compared to Marc39 of USMB, who will now explain to us how these organs could fall so low and lie to me for so long.

Sorry, Geneva Conventions do not apply to Israeli communities.

Geneva law applies solely to the treatment of civilians during warfare. Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank ended hostilities in 1993 with the signing of the Oslo Accords.

Thus, you really don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Your only "skill" is desperately Googling your responses, however, you're obviously clueless of what you're posting.

Do yourself a favor and run along. You've humiliated yourself.

 

[Marc39]

The draft resolution on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan (document A/63/401) was adopted by a recorded vote of 171 in favour to 6 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows...

NON-BINDING. You're fucked. LOL

 

[P F Tinmore]

The product of the San Remo conference WAS the Treaty of Sevres.

Absolutely wrong.

The San Remo Resolution and Treaty of Sevres are entirely different entities.

The Sane Remo Resolution is an international treaty signed by the WW I Allies--Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan--establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland that constitutes international law.

Once, again, since you're not the brightest bulb...

The San Remo Resolution established Palestine as the Jewish homeland...


Additionally, the San Remo Resolution established Arab homelands in Syria, Iraq and, later, Lebanon...

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.

San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

San Remo Resolution - Council on Foreign Relations

Any attempt to delegitimze Israel by dismissing the San Remo Resolution means the delegitimization of Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, as well.

Lastly, I asked you what the legal definition is for occupation and the legal case for Israeli occupation.

Israel is not an occupier. Give us your best shot. No Googling your response---Tell us in your own words.

I just read both of your links and neither one mentioned Israel.

 

[Marc39]

The product of the San Remo conference WAS the Treaty of Sevres.

Absolutely wrong.

The San Remo Resolution and Treaty of Sevres are entirely different entities.

The Sane Remo Resolution is an international treaty signed by the WW I Allies--Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan--establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland that constitutes international law.

Once, again, since you're not the brightest bulb...

The San Remo Resolution established Palestine as the Jewish homeland...


Additionally, the San Remo Resolution established Arab homelands in Syria, Iraq and, later, Lebanon...

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.

San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

San Remo Resolution - Council on Foreign Relations

Any attempt to delegitimze Israel by dismissing the San Remo Resolution means the delegitimization of Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, as well.

Lastly, I asked you what the legal definition is for occupation and the legal case for Israeli occupation.

Israel is not an occupier. Give us your best shot. No Googling your response---Tell us in your own words.

I just read both of your links and neither one mentioned Israel.

Dummy, the San Remo Res. was ratified in 1920. Israel was created in 1948.

You are one dumb motherfucker.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Absolutely wrong.

The San Remo Resolution and Treaty of Sevres are entirely different entities.

The Sane Remo Resolution is an international treaty signed by the WW I Allies--Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan--establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland that constitutes international law.

Once, again, since you're not the brightest bulb...

The San Remo Resolution established Palestine as the Jewish homeland...


Additionally, the San Remo Resolution established Arab homelands in Syria, Iraq and, later, Lebanon...

San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

San Remo Resolution - Council on Foreign Relations

Any attempt to delegitimze Israel by dismissing the San Remo Resolution means the delegitimization of Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, as well.

Lastly, I asked you what the legal definition is for occupation and the legal case for Israeli occupation.

Israel is not an occupier. Give us your best shot. No Googling your response---Tell us in your own words.

I just read both of your links and neither one mentioned Israel.

Dummy, the San Remo Res. was ratified in 1920. Israel was created in 1948.

You are one dumb motherfucker.

Why wasn't it created in 1920?

 

[Marc39]

I just read both of your links and neither one mentioned Israel.

Dummy, the San Remo Res. was ratified in 1920. Israel was created in 1948.

You are one dumb motherfucker.

Why wasn't it created in 1920?

It was, dummy. It wasnamed Israel in '48, pinhead.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Dummy, the San Remo Res. was ratified in 1920. Israel was created in 1948.

You are one dumb motherfucker.

Why wasn't it created in 1920?

It was, dummy. It wasnamed Israel in '48, pinhead.

The truth of the matter is that the League of Nations/Palestine Mandate did not create Israel. The UN did not create Israel. A group of foreigners, without any legal authority, declared themselves to be a state in Palestine.

They sent their military out to attack civilians driving them out of their homers and off their land. BTW, then they robbed the banks of all the Palestinian's money.

This was an act of aggression leaving Israel unable to claim any of the land they stole.

 

[Marc39]

Why wasn't it created in 1920?

It was, dummy. It wasnamed Israel in '48, pinhead.

The truth of the matter is that the League of Nations/Palestine Mandate did not create Israel. The UN did not create Israel. A group of foreigners, without any legal authority, declared themselves to be a state in Palestine.

They sent their military out to attack civilians driving them out of their homers and off their land. BTW, then they robbed the banks of all the Palestinian's money.

This was an act of aggression leaving Israel unable to claim any of the land they stole.

You're stuck on stupid, again.

The San Remo Resolution and Palestine Mandate are binding international treaties that created international law in the establishment of the Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The San Remo Res. also established Arab homelands in Syria, Iraq and, eventually, Lebanon.

Thus, delegitimizing the San Remo Res. results in the delegitimization of all states involved.

You're PWNED, dummy.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It was, dummy. It wasnamed Israel in '48, pinhead.

The truth of the matter is that the League of Nations/Palestine Mandate did not create Israel. The UN did not create Israel. A group of foreigners, without any legal authority, declared themselves to be a state in Palestine.

They sent their military out to attack civilians driving them out of their homers and off their land. BTW, then they robbed the banks of all the Palestinian's money.

This was an act of aggression leaving Israel unable to claim any of the land they stole.

You're stuck on stupid, again.

The San Remo Resolution and Palestine Mandate are binding international treaties that created international law in the establishment of the Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The San Remo Res. also established Arab homelands in Syria, Iraq and, eventually, Lebanon.

Thus, delegitimizing the San Remo Res. results in the delegitimization of all states involved.

You're PWNED, dummy.

You need to read some real history. Not that bull shit stuff out of Israel.

 

[Marc39]

The truth of the matter is that the League of Nations/Palestine Mandate did not create Israel. The UN did not create Israel. A group of foreigners, without any legal authority, declared themselves to be a state in Palestine.

They sent their military out to attack civilians driving them out of their homers and off their land. BTW, then they robbed the banks of all the Palestinian's money.

This was an act of aggression leaving Israel unable to claim any of the land they stole.

You're stuck on stupid, again.

The San Remo Resolution and Palestine Mandate are binding international treaties that created international law in the establishment of the Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The San Remo Res. also established Arab homelands in Syria, Iraq and, eventually, Lebanon.

Thus, delegitimizing the San Remo Res. results in the delegitimization of all states involved.

You're PWNED, dummy.

You need to read some real history. Not that bull shit stuff out of Israel.

I studied Middle East history at Princeton.

You're a high school drop out.

That's why you're so bereft of any ability to refute me. You're pitiful

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the crazies have taken over another Jew/Arab thread?

go figure

 

[jillian]

You're stuck on stupid, again.

The San Remo Resolution and Palestine Mandate are binding international treaties that created international law in the establishment of the Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The San Remo Res. also established Arab homelands in Syria, Iraq and, eventually, Lebanon.

Thus, delegitimizing the San Remo Res. results in the delegitimization of all states involved.

You're PWNED, dummy.

You need to read some real history. Not that bull shit stuff out of Israel.

I studied Middle East history at Princeton.

You're a high school drop out.

that was my specialty at Binghamton... his problem is that he's a pathological liar and has no knowledge of history.

he thinks he can get his news from al jazeera.

 

[Marc39]

the crazies have taken over another Jew/Arab thread?

go figure

You're at the head of the line

 

[Marc39]

You need to read some real history. Not that bull shit stuff out of Israel.

I studied Middle East history at Princeton.

You're a high school drop out.

that was my specialty at Binghamton... his problem is that he's a pathological liar and has no knowledge of history.

he thinks he can get his news from al jazeera.

Univ. of Rochester accepted me, but, too much snow.

Tin Head is way beyond mere stupidity. He is mentally ill.

 

[Jos]

Marc39,Warraq, longjohnnebel, beamargaret28, dothenalabama,mitch40,marcbalt, Jstone
The list keeps growing