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

[P F Tinmore]

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.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

 

[Marc39]

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.

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?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

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?

So much propaganda-so little time.

 

[Marc39]

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.

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?

So much propaganda-so little time.

Plenty of time in which to attempt to refute me.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Getting back on subject, justice, international law, and UN resolutions are never mentioned in the so called peace process.

 

[Marc39]

Getting back on subject, justice, international law, and UN resolutions are never mentioned in the so called peace process.

Do your homework. Israel's existence is based on international law. That is justice.

Pallies have 25 Arab stinkholes to live in.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Getting back on subject, justice, international law, and UN resolutions are never mentioned in the so called peace process.

Do your homework. Israel's existence is based on international law. That is justice.

Pallies have 25 Arab stinkholes to live in.

International law forbids the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force.

What law are you talking about?

 

[Marc39]

International law forbids the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force.

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.

 

[P F Tinmore]

International law forbids the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force.

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.

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.

 

[Marc39]

International law forbids the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force.

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.

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.

I can reiterate for you, since you're not very bright and cut and paste others' words without actually knowing what you're doing. There is no rule in international law prohibiting seizure of land in a *defensive* war.

Furthermore, Pallies are not the legitimate sovereign of the West Bank and Israel seized the territory from Jordan, also, not the legitimate sovereign. In point of fact, the Ottoman Turks were the previous sovereign and they surrendered the territory in signing the Treaty of Sevres.

Thus, you do not know WTF you're talking about.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

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.

I can reiterate for you, since you're not very bright and cut and paste others' words without actually knowing what you're doing. There is no rule in international law prohibiting seizure of land in a *defensive* war.

Furthermore, Pallies are not the legitimate sovereign of the West Bank and Israel seized the territory from Jordan, also, not the legitimate sovereign. In point of fact, the Ottoman Turks were the previous sovereign and they surrendered the territory in signing the Treaty of Sevres.

Thus, you do not know WTF you're talking about.

You seem to be stuck on that "defensive" propaganda. Was Israel defending itself when it ran the farmers out of Najd BEFORE the start of the 1948 war.

 

[Marc39]

You seem to be stuck on that "defensive" propaganda.

Incorrect. I'm stuck on international law. You're stuck on stupid.

Was Israel defending itself when it ran the farmers out of Najd BEFORE the start of the 1948 war.

The Arabs initiated the '47 guerilla war preceding the '48 war.

Apparently, you are unaware of this historical fact, too.

Just what do you know? Anything, at all?

 

[P F Tinmore]

You seem to be stuck on that "defensive" propaganda.

Incorrect. I'm stuck on international law. You're stuck on stupid.

Was Israel defending itself when it ran the farmers out of Najd BEFORE the start of the 1948 war.

The Arabs initiated the '47 guerilla war preceding the '48 war.

Apparently, you are unaware of this historical fact, too.

Just what do you know? Anything, at all?

You are stuck on propaganda. What did those farmers in Najd do to warrant a "defense" by Israel.

 

[Marc39]

You are stuck on propaganda. What did those farmers in Najd do to warrant a "defense" by Israel.

I'm stuck on historical facts. You're stuck on stupid.

The Arabs initiated a civil war against Jews in 1947, one day after issuance of UN Res.
181, a flagrant violation of international law.

Furthermore, the Arabs initiated the subsequent '48 War, another violation of the law.

Thus, Jewish self-defensive countermeasures were entirely justified.

Thus, you illustrate you do not know WTF you're talking about.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are stuck on propaganda. What did those farmers in Najd do to warrant a "defense" by Israel.

I'm stuck on historical facts. You're stuck on stupid.

The Arabs initiated a civil war against Jews in 1947, one day after issuance of UN Res.
181, a flagrant violation of international law.

Furthermore, the Arabs initiated the subsequent '48 War, another violation of the law.

Thus, Jewish self-defensive countermeasures were entirely justified.

Thus, you illustrate you do not know WTF you're talking about.

Do you mean when the indigenous population defended themselves from the takeover of their country by imported foreigners.

 

[Marc39]

Do you mean when the indigenous population defended themselves from the takeover of their country by imported foreigners.

Indigenous population from Egypt, named al-Masri and from Maghreb, Africa, named Maghrebi? Much of the indigenous population migrated.

Jews were the indigenous population, Arabs having migrated from Arabia.

Furthermore, Jews acquired legal title to much of the land, while Arabs owned very little property, as most of the land was state-owned by the Ottoman Sultanate and sold to Jewish immigrants.

You really need to study the subject matter. You're getting destroyed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Do you mean when the indigenous population defended themselves from the takeover of their country by imported foreigners.

Indigenous population from Egypt, named al-Masri and from Maghreb, Africa, named Maghrebi? Much of the indigenous population migrated.

Jews were the indigenous population, Arabs having migrated from Arabia.

Furthermore, Jews acquired legal title to much of the land, while Arabs owned very little property, as most of the land was state-owned by the Ottoman Sultanate and sold to Jewish immigrants.

You really need to study the subject matter. You're getting destroyed.

Jews owned about 7% of the land in 1947. The indigenous Jews were about 8% of the population in the beginning of the century. The Jewish population was about 30% in 1947. The mass increase were those imported to take over Palestine.

 

[Marc39]

Jews owned about 7% of the land in 1947. The indigenous Jews were about 8% of the population in the beginning of the century. The Jewish population was about 30% in 1947. The mass increase were those imported to take over Palestine.

Few censuses were conducted during Ottoman and Mandate years and those completed were highly unreliable, thus, your figures are unverifiable..

There was a 400% increase in the Arab population of Palestine between 1880 and 1947, concomitant with Jewish immigration. Thus, your claim of an indigenous population is absurd.

The vast majority of property was government owned. The San Remo Resolution transferred sovereignty over Palestine to Israel with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire during WW I, rendering figures of land ownership moot.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jews owned about 7% of the land in 1947. The indigenous Jews were about 8% of the population in the beginning of the century. The Jewish population was about 30% in 1947. The mass increase were those imported to take over Palestine.

Few censuses were conducted during Ottoman and Mandate years and those completed were highly unreliable, thus, your figures are unverifiable..

There was a 400% increase in the Arab population of Palestine between 1880 and 1947, concomitant with Jewish immigration. Thus, your claim of an indigenous population is absurd.

The vast majority of property was government owned. The San Remo Resolution transferred sovereignty over Palestine to Israel with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire during WW I, rendering figures of land ownership moot.

So, what do you think about a bunch of outsiders deciding what is going to happen in your country?