UN chief admits bias against Israel

[Billo_Really]

The land of Israel was given to the Jewish people by law in 1922 by the League of Nations, later to be called the United Nations. The arabs agreed to having countries surrounding Israel. The Jews' right to the land was protected in 1922 by the League of Nations with the proviso that the UN carried on ensuring the Jews entitlement to the land. As I keep saying, the fact that after then the arabs have refused land since is their serious problem.

They were given the land with certain caveats. One of which was they could only have the land, if they did not prejudice the inherent, inalienable rights of the indigenous, non-jewish population, that had been living there for generations.

The bottom line is, you cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.

 

[Lipush]

We obviously are not going to agree there.

But I am not surprised that it comes from you, since you attend to listen to one side of the story only. Saw you praising the Liberals without taking to mind the huge hypocrisy they hold.

"...only listening to one side of the story..."?

No matter how many times I explain my reasons, or how much detail I go into, or how many citations I provide (when stating my issues with Israel), you automatically dismiss all of it and play the anti-semitism card. Which wouldn't be so bad, if you could only explain "why" I hate jews? But you can't! If you can't explain your claim, why would anyone take it seriously? It becomes nothing but a "label", you're trying to attach, with the hope it sticks.

BTW, the jewish left are not hypocrites. They're the only reason you people should have a country.

The only reason we have a country is thanks to people like my great grandfather:

The great righteous Rabbi Dov (Son of Tehilla) Rodovsky who came to Israel in the 1800's, escaping racism, building a family, a house, a flowering inheritence, a true man of peace.

Only to be expelled, humiliated, and losing said property in 1936 when Arab hooligans burned down our family ranch and forced them out of their homes!.

 

[Lipush]

Do you condemn the brutal arrest of Bo'az Albert in Yitzhar?

Who's Bo'az Albert in Yitzhar?

Here's a better question, "Do you condemn the brutal treatment the Dodgers are doing to the rest of the league?"

Here is the link

Merciless Arrest in Yitzhar Caught on Video - Defense/Security - News - Israel National News

And I didn't understand your question.

 

[Billo_Really]

The only reason we have a country is thanks to people like my great grandfather:

The great righteous Rabbi Dov (Son of Tehilla) Rodovsky who came to Israel in the 1800's, escaping racism, building a family, a house, a flowering inheritence, a true man of peace.

Only to be expelled, humiliated, and losing said property in 1936 when Arab hooligans burned down our family ranch and forced them out of their homes!.

This is the difference between you and I...

...I can agree with you regarding your great grandfather and condemn the actions of the arab hooligans in 1936.

You can't condemn the actions of your government, that are just as bad.

 

[Lipush]

We obviously are not going to agree there.

But I am not surprised that it comes from you, since you attend to listen to one side of the story only. Saw you praising the Liberals without taking to mind the huge hypocrisy they hold.

"...only listening to one side of the story..."?

No matter how many times I explain my reasons, or how much detail I go into, or how many citations I provide (when stating my issues with Israel), you automatically dismiss all of it and play the anti-semitism card. Which wouldn't be so bad, if you could only explain "why" I hate jews? But you can't! If you can't explain your claim, why would anyone take it seriously? It becomes nothing but a "label", you're trying to attach, with the hope it sticks.

BTW, the jewish left are not hypocrites. They're the only reason you people should have a country.

Here is a new add on the streets of Jerusalem-

Maretz (Zehava Galon) add:

"We will stop the 'orthodoxazion' of Jerusalem"

Now Imagine a title saying "We will stop the 'Arabization' of Jerusalem".

What about human rights? It's pure racism against religious Jews.

Leberal fanatic left in Israel is despicable!

 

[Billo_Really]

Here is the link

Merciless Arrest in Yitzhar Caught on Video - Defense/Security - News - Israel National News

Those cops are in need of a "beat down".

That's a sensitive issue with me, since I live in the area of the Rodney King beating.

And I didn't understand your question.

It's not required that you do.

It is only required, that you provide un-conditional support to the Los Angeles Dodgers, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

 

[Lipush]

The only reason we have a country is thanks to people like my great grandfather:

The great righteous Rabbi Dov (Son of Tehilla) Rodovsky who came to Israel in the 1800's, escaping racism, building a family, a house, a flowering inheritence, a true man of peace.

Only to be expelled, humiliated, and losing said property in 1936 when Arab hooligans burned down our family ranch and forced them out of their homes!.

This is the difference between you and I...

...I can agree with you regarding your great grandfather and condemn the actions of the arab hooligans in 1936.

You can't condemn the actions of your government, that are just as bad.

Depends which actions you speak of.

There are some I highly disagree with, and some I do disagree with.

I do believe that the Likud should not manage thing here. They do not represent our nation well at all.

But this is what the people want.

It's not Egypt, here.

 

[Lipush]

Here is the link

Merciless Arrest in Yitzhar Caught on Video - Defense/Security - News - Israel National News

Those cops are in need of a "beat down".

That's a sensitive issue with me, since I live in the area of the Rodney King beating.

And I didn't understand your question.

It's not required that you do.

It is only required, that you provide un-conditional support to the Los Angeles Dodgers, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

How can I show support of something or someone, I have no clue about?

 

[sealadaigh]

The land of Israel was given to the Jewish people by law in 1922 by the League of Nations, later to be called the United Nations. The arabs agreed to having countries surrounding Israel. The Jews' right to the land was protected in 1922 by the League of Nations with the proviso that the UN carried on ensuring the Jews entitlement to the land. As I keep saying, the fact that after then the arabs have refused land since is their serious problem.

whose fookin' law. how many arab member states can you find from the list below.

1919: founding members[edit source | edit] Argentina (left in 1921 on rejection of an Argentine resolution that all sovereign states be admitted to the League.[1] It resumed full membership in 1933 [2])
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil (withdrew 14 June 1926)
British Empire separate membership for:[3]
United Kingdom
Australia
Canada
India (then under British rule and including the region of present-day India, Bangladesh, Burma, and Pakistan).[3]
New Zealand
South Africa
Chile (withdrew 14 May 1938)
China
Colombia
Cuba
Czechoslovakia (left 15 March 1939)[4]
Denmark[5]
El Salvador (withdrew 11 August 1937)
France (Vichy France withdrew 18 April 1941; withdrawal not recognised by Free French forces)
Greece
Guatemala (withdrew 26 May 1936)
Haiti (withdrew April 1942)
Honduras (withdrew 10 July 1936)
Italy (withdrew 11 December 1937)
Japan (withdrew 27 March 1933)
Liberia
Netherlands
Nicaragua (withdrew 27 June 1936)
Norway
Panama
Paraguay (withdrew 23 February 1935)
Persia (known as Iran from 1934)
Peru (withdrew 8 April 1939)
Poland
Portugal
Romania (withdrew July 1940)
Siam (known as Thailand from 1939)
Spain (withdrew May 1939)
Sweden
Switzerland
Uruguay
Venezuela (withdrew 12 July 1938)
Yugoslavia
1920[edit source | edit] Austria (joined 15 December 1920; left 13 March 1938)
Bulgaria (joined 16 December 1920)
Costa Rica (joined 16 December 1920; withdrew 22 January 1925)
Finland (joined 16 December 1920) [6]
Luxembourg (joined 16 December 1920)[7]
Albania (joined 17 December 1920)[8]
1921[edit source | edit]1921 [9]

Estonia (joined 22 September 1921)
Latvia (joined 22 September 1921)
Lithuania (joined 22 September 1921)
1922[edit source | edit] Hungary (joined 18 September 1922; withdrew 14 April 1939)

Member states of the League of Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

of course, you employ the zionist form of "democracy" where only the "haves" deserve rights and the vote.

 

[Billo_Really]

Here is a new add on the streets of Jerusalem-

Maretz (Zehava Galon) add:

"We will stop the 'orthodoxazion' of Jerusalem"

Now Imagine a title saying "We will stop the 'Arabization' of Jerusalem".

What about human rights? It's pure racism against religious Jews.

Leberal fanatic left in Israel is despicable!

I disagree. Liberal Jews would be against the "Arabization of Jerusalem" as well. They'd be against any religion trying to claim it's the only one in the city. Respecting people of all religious denominations, is what human rights is all about.

According to your logic, the "Jewish Inquisitions" should be starting soon.

 

[Billo_Really]

How can I show support of something or someone, I have no clue about?

No clue is required, just do what I tell you!

 

[Billo_Really]

Depends which actions you speak of.

There are some I highly disagree with, and some I do disagree with.

I do believe that the Likud should not manage thing here. They do not represent our nation well at all.

But this is what the people want.

It's not Egypt, here.

I can't recall you disagreeing with Israeli gunboats shooting at Palestinian fishermen?

At least you and I are on the same side regarding the Likud Party.

 

[Lipush]

Here is a new add on the streets of Jerusalem-

Maretz (Zehava Galon) add:

"We will stop the 'orthodoxazion' of Jerusalem"

Now Imagine a title saying "We will stop the 'Arabization' of Jerusalem".

What about human rights? It's pure racism against religious Jews.

Leberal fanatic left in Israel is despicable!

I disagree. Liberal Jews would be against the "Arabization of Jerusalem" as well. They'd be against any religion trying to claim it's the only one in the city. Respecting people of all religious denominations, is what human rights is all about.

According to your logic, the "Jewish Inquisitions" should be starting soon.

Don't be stupid.

I don't vote for any religious take over. I point out (for the upteenth time) that its about integrity. if you're only against Judaism taking over, you cannot cry "human rights".

I, however, was pleasently surprised when Zehava Galon condemned the attack on Bo'az Alberts house today, she showed a step of self respect, which is indeed noted.

Too bad they go 1 step forwards, 10 steps back.

 

[Lipush]

Depends which actions you speak of.

There are some I highly disagree with, and some I do disagree with.

I do believe that the Likud should not manage thing here. They do not represent our nation well at all.

But this is what the people want.

It's not Egypt, here.

I can't recall you disagreeing with Israeli gunboats shooting at Palestinian fishermen?

At least you and I are on the same side regarding the Likud Party.

We discussed this already, I have no intention to get into this again.

Regarding the Likud, my dislike of this party is due to their domestic policy, more than foreign one. Their behaviour increases the poverty rate in Israel and Holocaust survivers and disabled citizens are often being sacrificed due to corruption and greed leaded by the Likud.

Corrently, what interests me most is my ability to study, give my future children a good life, and to be able to care for my ill mother and give her the ability to end her life with respect.

That is more important than one peace tribute or another settlement building.

 

[Billo_Really]

Don't be stupid.

I don't vote for any religious take over. I point out (for the upteenth time) that its about integrity. if you're only against Judaism taking over, you cannot cry "human rights".

I, however, was pleasently surprised when Zehava Galon condemned the attack on Bo'az Alberts house today, she showed a step of self respect, which is indeed noted.

Too bad they go 1 step forwards, 10 steps back.

I condemned the attacks, but you didn't give me any credit for that.

You must be prejudiced against white, Irish Catholics.

 

[Lipush]

Don't be stupid.

I don't vote for any religious take over. I point out (for the upteenth time) that its about integrity. if you're only against Judaism taking over, you cannot cry "human rights".

I, however, was pleasently surprised when Zehava Galon condemned the attack on Bo'az Alberts house today, she showed a step of self respect, which is indeed noted.

Too bad they go 1 step forwards, 10 steps back.

I condemned the attacks, but you didn't give me any credit for that.

You must be prejudiced against white, Irish Catholics.

ANd how does your opinion influences on me?

It is nice of you, but I pay more attantion to what the political ministers say, than what a talkback or a post says.

Why should I have anything with white Irish men? I don't know any Irish people and I have bo problem with white men

 

[Billo_Really]

ANd how does your opinion influences on me?

It is nice of you, but I pay more attantion to what the political ministers say, than what a talkback or a post says.

Why should I have anything with white Irish men? I don't know any Irish people and I have bo problem with white men

Okay, so we take out the Irish and white men from the equation and what are we left with? Answer: Catholics. So you have issues with Catholics? You probably think Jesus was a Hebrew terrorist?

 

[Lipush]

ANd how does your opinion influences on me?

It is nice of you, but I pay more attantion to what the political ministers say, than what a talkback or a post says.

Why should I have anything with white Irish men? I don't know any Irish people and I have bo problem with white men

Okay, so we take out the Irish and white men from the equation and what are we left with? Answer: Catholics. So you have issues with Catholics? You probably think Jesus was a Hebrew terrorist?

I want some of that thing you take.

Is it good for law exams, too?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your citation is wrong on so many levels, I can't believe you cited it.

The UN has always favored Israel over Palestine.

Israel and Palestine declared independence in 1948.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

Israel had no defined territory and its "permanent" population was recent immigrants. Israel still has no defined territory.

Palestine had territory defined by international borders and its permanent population had a long history in Palestine.

Which did the UN favor in violation of international law?

(COMMENT)

With A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 (Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations) is the attachment [(A/AC.24/SR.45 5 May 1949)(Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations (A/818)] which in part discussed the boundary issues. The decision was favorably to the recommendation for membership.

• Even though it is "international law," it is law by treaty (Montevideo Convention). And it is a "Regional Treaty" not applicable or enforceable outside the "Americas;" the signatories being all within the Organization of American States (OAS). So, your assertion that the recognition of the State of Israel is somehow a violation of International Law relative to this citation is invalid.

• The question of the permanent population was asked and answered by Articles 4 and 7 of the Mandate of Palestine in which Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine were addressed.

The consideration of the decisions made over a half century ago, (very relevant from in historical context) by the international body that wrote the international laws you are trying to interpret, have very little relevancy to the situation faced today. The decision then (essentially the doctrine of precedent, stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the UN and a ruling already issued); Israel is a State and a recognized member of the UN pursuant to A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 - Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations. Today's question of boundaries now falls to the applicable laws which are in force now, not then.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.

http://www.unrol.org/files/3dda1f104.pdf

Article 2

The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.

Article 5

1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.

3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.

A/RES/3314(XXIX) of 14 December 1974

The Arab League, in cooperation with the various Palestinian Organizations claim to be liberationist activities, have since 1948, either directly attack or provoked armed conflict with Israel, a recognized state. There is no question of this. The last major conflict was the Sneak Attack of 1973 (Yom Kipper War). These are acts of continuous aggression, which establish a clear past practice of criminal behaviors on the part of the Arab-Palestinians and regional Arab States. While the State of Israel has come to terms with several of the States, including Treaties with Egypt (1975) and Jordan (1995), the Palestinians have yet to pledge peace in any fashion. The boundaries of Palestine, established in 1988, are in dispute; but are generally called the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. However, the State of Palestine has no government that is universally recognized (by its own people) as having the capacity to enter into relationships and agreements with the other states. And it never has had such a government. What is important here is that the continuing aggression has caused demarcation lines to float, and territory to change hands in terms of control --- and the degree of control.

Finally, what disconnected, disjointed, and unstable government the Palestinian State has been able to put together, has made some basic recognitions.

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.

Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.

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

You will notice that in Paragraph 1(i) of UNSC Resolution 242, there is an imbedded link called "territories." It is an attached Map (#3243 Rev 4) in the Archive Document. Which the Palestinians had agreed to in 1999.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Rocco, I admire your patience in your replies.