Who is Israeli colonel Yusi Oulen Shahak in Golani Brigade with security code Re34356578765az2314?

[Billo_Really]

He's a member of the IDF, captured in Iraq, while leading ISIL terrorists against the state.

"Israeli agents from Mossad and other Israeli espionage and intelligence bodies were present in the first wave of ISIL attacks on Iraq and capture of Mosul in Summer 2014"​

Let's hope they treat him with dignity and respect during his interrogations?

On the other hand, just for fun, why don't they let Iraqi "settlers" interrogate him?

 

[Billo_Really]

This story proves the Israeli's are more terrorists than the Palestinian's.

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Nonsense!!!! Proves nothing of the sort.

Reference: Yusi Oulen Shahak

This story proves the Israeli's are more terrorists than the Palestinian's.

(COMMENT)

A sample of one, is not statistically valid to draw this conclusion.

• Active personnel: 176,500
• Reserve personnel: 445,000
​

If you wanted to get a significantly valid sample, for the ≈ 176K Active Duty members, you would need to sample about 400 members, to get a "Confidence Level" of 95%, with a "Confident Interval" of +/- 5.

Sampling just 1 would give you a 50-50 (toss a coin) chance at a 95% "Confidence Level" with a "Confidence Interval of ≈ +/- 100.

Garbage in gets you garbage out.

All the discovery of this one anomaly tells you is that the law of probability is working. We simply do not have enough information to draw any conclusion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Billo_Really, et al,

Nonsense!!!! Proves nothing of the sort.

Reference: Yusi Oulen Shahak

This story proves the Israeli's are more terrorists than the Palestinian's.

(COMMENT)

A sample of one, is not statistically valid to draw this conclusion.

• Active personnel: 176,500
• Reserve personnel: 445,000
​

If you wanted to get a significantly valid sample, for the ≈ 176K Active Duty members, you would need to sample about 400 members, to get a "Confidence Level" of 95%, with a "Confident Interval" of +/- 5.

Sampling just 1 would give you a 50-50 (toss a coin) chance at a 95% "Confidence Level" with a "Confidence Interval of ≈ +/- 100.

Garbage in gets you garbage out.

All the discovery of this one anomaly tells you is that the law of probability is working. We simply do not have enough information to draw any conclusion.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then how come you don't apply that same equation to the Palestinian's?

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Yes, a very fair question.

“In study after study, the variable that emerges as the strongest predictor of future criminal behavior is past criminal and delinquent behavior” (Wright, J.P., Chapter 2. Page 4, “The Stability of Criminal Behavior.”). This axiom is rooted in the behavioral concepts of stability and continuity.
​

Sometimes, the prediction of future events requires analysis from a different perspective --- other than statistical.

Billo_Really, et al,

Nonsense!!!! Proves nothing of the sort.

Reference: Yusi Oulen Shahak

This story proves the Israeli's are more terrorists than the Palestinian's.

(COMMENT)

A sample of one, is not statistically valid to draw this conclusion.

• Active personnel: 176,500
• Reserve personnel: 445,000
​

If you wanted to get a significantly valid sample, for the ≈ 176K Active Duty members, you would need to sample about 400 members, to get a "Confidence Level" of 95%, with a "Confident Interval" of +/- 5.

Sampling just 1 would give you a 50-50 (toss a coin) chance at a 95% "Confidence Level" with a "Confidence Interval of ≈ +/- 100.

Garbage in gets you garbage out.

All the discovery of this one anomaly tells you is that the law of probability is working. We simply do not have enough information to draw any conclusion.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then how come you don't apply that same equation to the Palestinian's?

(COMMENT)

Knowing how to define criminal behavior, and how genetics and the environment influence the behavior, is the first step to understanding.

The Arab Palestinians have an extensive record of past criminal behaviors and avail themselves intensive scrutiny. In this case, the evaluation and study of the past history of criminal behaviors over time, is probably the better choice of analysis.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

Billo_Really, et al,

Nonsense!!!! Proves nothing of the sort.

Reference: Yusi Oulen Shahak

This story proves the Israeli's are more terrorists than the Palestinian's.

(COMMENT)

A sample of one, is not statistically valid to draw this conclusion.

• Active personnel: 176,500
• Reserve personnel: 445,000
​

If you wanted to get a significantly valid sample, for the ≈ 176K Active Duty members, you would need to sample about 400 members, to get a "Confidence Level" of 95%, with a "Confident Interval" of +/- 5.

Sampling just 1 would give you a 50-50 (toss a coin) chance at a 95% "Confidence Level" with a "Confidence Interval of ≈ +/- 100.

Garbage in gets you garbage out.

All the discovery of this one anomaly tells you is that the law of probability is working. We simply do not have enough information to draw any conclusion.

Most Respectfully,
R

Reduce that number just to Sayet Matkal or other IDF Special Ops units, and the sample becomes much more valid, reduce it further for officers of Colonel rank and above and it becomes significant, especially as he is one of "a number" of IDF officers apparently seen working with ISIL, if nothing else, he is a "smoking gun" where evidence if IDF support for ISIL is involved.

 

[Challenger]

Billo_Really, et al,

Yes, a very fair question.

“In study after study, the variable that emerges as the strongest predictor of future criminal behavior is past criminal and delinquent behavior” (Wright, J.P., Chapter 2. Page 4, “The Stability of Criminal Behavior.”). This axiom is rooted in the behavioral concepts of stability and continuity.
​

Sometimes, the prediction of future events requires analysis from a different perspective --- other than statistical.

Billo_Really, et al,

Nonsense!!!! Proves nothing of the sort.

Reference: Yusi Oulen Shahak

This story proves the Israeli's are more terrorists than the Palestinian's.

(COMMENT)

A sample of one, is not statistically valid to draw this conclusion.

• Active personnel: 176,500
• Reserve personnel: 445,000
​

If you wanted to get a significantly valid sample, for the ≈ 176K Active Duty members, you would need to sample about 400 members, to get a "Confidence Level" of 95%, with a "Confident Interval" of +/- 5.

Sampling just 1 would give you a 50-50 (toss a coin) chance at a 95% "Confidence Level" with a "Confidence Interval of ≈ +/- 100.

Garbage in gets you garbage out.

All the discovery of this one anomaly tells you is that the law of probability is working. We simply do not have enough information to draw any conclusion.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then how come you don't apply that same equation to the Palestinian's?

(COMMENT)

Knowing how to define criminal behavior, and how genetics and the environment influence the behavior, is the first step to understanding.

The Arab Palestinians have an extensive record of past criminal behaviors and avail themselves intensive scrutiny. In this case, the evaluation and study of the past history of criminal behaviors over time, is probably the better choice of analysis.

Most Respectfully,
R

“In study after study, the variable that emerges as the strongest predictor of future criminal behavior is past criminal and delinquent behavior” (Wright, J.P., Chapter 2. Page 4, “The Stability of Criminal Behavior.”). This axiom is rooted in the behavioral concepts of stability and continuity.

"The Arab Palestinians have an extensive record of past criminal behaviors and avail themselves intensive scrutiny. In this case, the evaluation and study of the past history of criminal behaviors over time, is probably the better choice of analysis." Really? People in glass houses....

YIVO | Crime and Criminals
Jewish-American organized crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Billo_Really]

Billo_Really, et al,

Yes, a very fair question.

“In study after study, the variable that emerges as the strongest predictor of future criminal behavior is past criminal and delinquent behavior” (Wright, J.P., Chapter 2. Page 4, “The Stability of Criminal Behavior.”). This axiom is rooted in the behavioral concepts of stability and continuity.
​

Sometimes, the prediction of future events requires analysis from a different perspective --- other than statistical.

Billo_Really, et al,

Nonsense!!!! Proves nothing of the sort.

Reference: Yusi Oulen Shahak

This story proves the Israeli's are more terrorists than the Palestinian's.

(COMMENT)

A sample of one, is not statistically valid to draw this conclusion.

• Active personnel: 176,500
• Reserve personnel: 445,000
​

If you wanted to get a significantly valid sample, for the ≈ 176K Active Duty members, you would need to sample about 400 members, to get a "Confidence Level" of 95%, with a "Confident Interval" of +/- 5.

Sampling just 1 would give you a 50-50 (toss a coin) chance at a 95% "Confidence Level" with a "Confidence Interval of ≈ +/- 100.

Garbage in gets you garbage out.

All the discovery of this one anomaly tells you is that the law of probability is working. We simply do not have enough information to draw any conclusion.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then how come you don't apply that same equation to the Palestinian's?

(COMMENT)

Knowing how to define criminal behavior, and how genetics and the environment influence the behavior, is the first step to understanding.

The Arab Palestinians have an extensive record of past criminal behaviors and avail themselves intensive scrutiny. In this case, the evaluation and study of the past history of criminal behaviors over time, is probably the better choice of analysis.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not as extensive as this one!

1955-1992:
# * Resolution 106: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid”.

# * Resolution 111: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”.

# * Resolution 127: ” . . . ‘recommends’ Israel suspends it’s ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 162: ” . . . ‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”.

# * Resolution 171: ” . . . determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”.

# * Resolution 228: ” . . . ‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control”.

# * Resolution 237: ” . . . ‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”.

# * Resolution 248: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan”.

# * Resolution 250: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 251: ” . . . ‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250″.

# * Resolution 252: ” . . . ‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital”.

# * Resolution 256: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation”.

# * Resolution 259: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation”.

# * Resolution 262: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport”.

# * Resolution 265: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan”.

# * Resolution 267: ” . . . ‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem”.

# *Resolution 270: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 271: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 279: ” . . . ‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 280: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 285: ” . . . ‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 298: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 313: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 316: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 317: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 332: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 337: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty”.

# * Resolution 347: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 425: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 427: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.

# * Resolution 444: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces”.

# * Resolution 446: ” . . . ‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

# * Resolution 450: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 452: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”.

# * Resolution 465: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program”.

# * Resolution 467: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 468: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of# two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return”.

# * Resolution 469: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians”.

# * Resolution 471: ” . . . ‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

# * Resolution 476: ” . . . ‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’”.

# * Resolution 478: ” . . . ‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’”.

# * Resolution 484: ” . . . ‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported# Palestinian mayors”.

# * Resolution 487: ” . . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility”.

# * Resolution 497: ” . . . ‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith”.

# * Resolution 498: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 501: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops”.

# * Resolution 509: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 515: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in”.

# * Resolution 517: ” . . . ‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 518: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 520: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”.

# * Resolution 573: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.

# * Resolution 587: ” . . . ‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw# its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw”.

# * Resolution 592: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops”.

# * Resolution 605: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 607: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly# requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

# * Resolution 608: ” . . . ‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians”.

# * Resolution 636: ” . . . ‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.

# * Resolution 641: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 672: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.

# * Resolution 673: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United# Nations.

# * Resolution 681: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 694: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.

# * Resolution 726: ” . . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 799: “. . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for there immediate return
​

Israel kills at will , attacks its neighbors, then expects people to believe they're the victims?

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

What is the individual or collective impact of these non-binding resolutions; other than a waste of paper? They condemn, deplore, urge and regret (occasionally demand something) --- but cannot actually cause an action of enforcement.

Billo_Really, et al,

Yes, a very fair question.

“In study after study, the variable that emerges as the strongest predictor of future criminal behavior is past criminal and delinquent behavior” (Wright, J.P., Chapter 2. Page 4, “The Stability of Criminal Behavior.”). This axiom is rooted in the behavioral concepts of stability and continuity.
​

Sometimes, the prediction of future events requires analysis from a different perspective --- other than statistical.

Billo_Really, et al,

Nonsense!!!! Proves nothing of the sort.

Reference: Yusi Oulen Shahak

This story proves the Israeli's are more terrorists than the Palestinian's.

(COMMENT)

A sample of one, is not statistically valid to draw this conclusion.

• Active personnel: 176,500
• Reserve personnel: 445,000
​

If you wanted to get a significantly valid sample, for the ≈ 176K Active Duty members, you would need to sample about 400 members, to get a "Confidence Level" of 95%, with a "Confident Interval" of +/- 5.

Sampling just 1 would give you a 50-50 (toss a coin) chance at a 95% "Confidence Level" with a "Confidence Interval of ≈ +/- 100.

Garbage in gets you garbage out.

All the discovery of this one anomaly tells you is that the law of probability is working. We simply do not have enough information to draw any conclusion.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then how come you don't apply that same equation to the Palestinian's?

(COMMENT)

Knowing how to define criminal behavior, and how genetics and the environment influence the behavior, is the first step to understanding.

The Arab Palestinians have an extensive record of past criminal behaviors and avail themselves intensive scrutiny. In this case, the evaluation and study of the past history of criminal behaviors over time, is probably the better choice of analysis.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not as extensive as this one!

1955-1992:
# * Resolution 106: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid”.

# * Resolution 111: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”.

# * Resolution 127: ” . . . ‘recommends’ Israel suspends it’s ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 162: ” . . . ‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”.

# * Resolution 171: ” . . . determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”.

# * Resolution 228: ” . . . ‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control”.

# * Resolution 237: ” . . . ‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”.

# * Resolution 248: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan”.

# * Resolution 250: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 251: ” . . . ‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250″.

# * Resolution 252: ” . . . ‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital”.

# * Resolution 256: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation”.

# * Resolution 259: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation”.

# * Resolution 262: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport”.

# * Resolution 265: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan”.

# * Resolution 267: ” . . . ‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem”.

# *Resolution 270: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 271: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 279: ” . . . ‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 280: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 285: ” . . . ‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 298: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 313: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 316: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 317: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 332: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 337: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty”.

# * Resolution 347: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 425: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 427: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.

# * Resolution 444: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces”.

# * Resolution 446: ” . . . ‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

# * Resolution 450: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 452: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”.

# * Resolution 465: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program”.

# * Resolution 467: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 468: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of# two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return”.

# * Resolution 469: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians”.

# * Resolution 471: ” . . . ‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

# * Resolution 476: ” . . . ‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’”.

# * Resolution 478: ” . . . ‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’”.

# * Resolution 484: ” . . . ‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported# Palestinian mayors”.

# * Resolution 487: ” . . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility”.

# * Resolution 497: ” . . . ‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith”.

# * Resolution 498: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 501: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops”.

# * Resolution 509: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 515: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in”.

# * Resolution 517: ” . . . ‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 518: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 520: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”.

# * Resolution 573: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.

# * Resolution 587: ” . . . ‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw# its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw”.

# * Resolution 592: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops”.

# * Resolution 605: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 607: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly# requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

# * Resolution 608: ” . . . ‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians”.

# * Resolution 636: ” . . . ‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.

# * Resolution 641: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 672: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.

# * Resolution 673: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United# Nations.

# * Resolution 681: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 694: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.

# * Resolution 726: ” . . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 799: “. . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for there immediate return
​

Israel kills at will , attacks its neighbors, then expects people to believe they're the victims?

(COMMENT)

Is there a chance that buried in here is a binding resolution? I do not believe that even one of these resolutions pertains to an action that was investigated or properly litigated in accordance with the dispute resolution process.

Israel does not "kill at will" in the sense that --- the use of force was not in response to a first use of force by the aggressive Arab Palestinians. You will find that in nearly every case -- something the Arab Palestinians did precipitated the deadly response from the Israelis. It may be a terrorist bombing, rocket fire, border incursion, or kidnapping and murder, or an ambush. But in nearly every case, the Arab Palestinian initiated the hostile contact first.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

Billo_Really, et al,

What is the individual or collective impact of these non-binding resolutions; other than a waste of paper? They condemn, deplore, urge and regret (occasionally demand something) --- but cannot actually cause an action of enforcement.

Billo_Really, et al,

Yes, a very fair question.

“In study after study, the variable that emerges as the strongest predictor of future criminal behavior is past criminal and delinquent behavior” (Wright, J.P., Chapter 2. Page 4, “The Stability of Criminal Behavior.”). This axiom is rooted in the behavioral concepts of stability and continuity.
​

Sometimes, the prediction of future events requires analysis from a different perspective --- other than statistical.

Billo_Really, et al,

Nonsense!!!! Proves nothing of the sort.

Reference: Yusi Oulen Shahak

This story proves the Israeli's are more terrorists than the Palestinian's.

(COMMENT)

A sample of one, is not statistically valid to draw this conclusion.

• Active personnel: 176,500
• Reserve personnel: 445,000
​

If you wanted to get a significantly valid sample, for the ≈ 176K Active Duty members, you would need to sample about 400 members, to get a "Confidence Level" of 95%, with a "Confident Interval" of +/- 5.

Sampling just 1 would give you a 50-50 (toss a coin) chance at a 95% "Confidence Level" with a "Confidence Interval of ≈ +/- 100.

Garbage in gets you garbage out.

All the discovery of this one anomaly tells you is that the law of probability is working. We simply do not have enough information to draw any conclusion.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then how come you don't apply that same equation to the Palestinian's?

(COMMENT)

Knowing how to define criminal behavior, and how genetics and the environment influence the behavior, is the first step to understanding.

The Arab Palestinians have an extensive record of past criminal behaviors and avail themselves intensive scrutiny. In this case, the evaluation and study of the past history of criminal behaviors over time, is probably the better choice of analysis.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not as extensive as this one!

1955-1992:
# * Resolution 106: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid”.

# * Resolution 111: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”.

# * Resolution 127: ” . . . ‘recommends’ Israel suspends it’s ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 162: ” . . . ‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”.

# * Resolution 171: ” . . . determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”.

# * Resolution 228: ” . . . ‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control”.

# * Resolution 237: ” . . . ‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”.

# * Resolution 248: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan”.

# * Resolution 250: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 251: ” . . . ‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250″.

# * Resolution 252: ” . . . ‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital”.

# * Resolution 256: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation”.

# * Resolution 259: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation”.

# * Resolution 262: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport”.

# * Resolution 265: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan”.

# * Resolution 267: ” . . . ‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem”.

# *Resolution 270: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 271: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 279: ” . . . ‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 280: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 285: ” . . . ‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 298: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 313: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 316: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 317: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 332: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 337: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty”.

# * Resolution 347: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 425: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 427: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.

# * Resolution 444: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces”.

# * Resolution 446: ” . . . ‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

# * Resolution 450: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 452: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”.

# * Resolution 465: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program”.

# * Resolution 467: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 468: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of# two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return”.

# * Resolution 469: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians”.

# * Resolution 471: ” . . . ‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

# * Resolution 476: ” . . . ‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’”.

# * Resolution 478: ” . . . ‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’”.

# * Resolution 484: ” . . . ‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported# Palestinian mayors”.

# * Resolution 487: ” . . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility”.

# * Resolution 497: ” . . . ‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith”.

# * Resolution 498: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 501: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops”.

# * Resolution 509: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 515: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in”.

# * Resolution 517: ” . . . ‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 518: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 520: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”.

# * Resolution 573: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.

# * Resolution 587: ” . . . ‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw# its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw”.

# * Resolution 592: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops”.

# * Resolution 605: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 607: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly# requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

# * Resolution 608: ” . . . ‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians”.

# * Resolution 636: ” . . . ‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.

# * Resolution 641: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 672: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.

# * Resolution 673: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United# Nations.

# * Resolution 681: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 694: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.

# * Resolution 726: ” . . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 799: “. . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for there immediate return
​

Israel kills at will , attacks its neighbors, then expects people to believe they're the victims?

(COMMENT)

Is there a chance that buried in here is a binding resolution? I do not believe that even one of these resolutions pertains to an action that was investigated or properly litigated in accordance with the dispute resolution process.

Israel does not "kill at will" in the sense that --- the use of force was not in response to a first use of force by the aggressive Arab Palestinians. You will find that in nearly every case -- something the Arab Palestinians did precipitated the deadly response from the Israelis. It may be a terrorist bombing, rocket fire, border incursion, or kidnapping and murder, or an ambush. But in nearly every case, the Arab Palestinian initiated the hostile contact first.

Most Respectfully,
R

G.A. resolutions, when they reaffirm existing international law or S.C. resolutions are just as binding on U.N. member states as S.C. resolutions, although yes, G.A. resolutions are non binding on their own; you should know this.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

I understand completely. A General Assembly Resolution that reaffirms existing law has no legally binding effect. It is the same as me reaffirming existing law. What has the effect, is the existing law, not the redundant Resolution.

General Assembly resolutions are non-binding; as indicated by Chapter IV, Articles 10 and Article 14, UN Charter refer to General Assembly as "recommendations"; the recommendatory nature of General Assembly resolutions has repeatedly been stressed by theInternational Court of Justice.[2]

G.A. resolutions, when they reaffirm existing international law or S.C. resolutions are just as binding on U.N. member states as S.C. resolutions, although yes, G.A. resolutions are non binding on their own; you should know this.

(COMMENT)

You will notice that "some passages" within a Security Council Resolutions start with the work "Decides." Under Chapter V, Article 25 of the UN Charter:

Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
​

As an example, the very first Resolution you listed was UN Security Council Resolution 106, adopted after hearing reports from the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) in Palestine and representatives of Egypt and Israel the Council. The UNTSO noted that the Egyptian-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission (MAC) made a determination that the attack of 28 February 1955 was a "prearranged and planned attack ordered by Israel authorities." The UNSC:

• Condemned this attack as a violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 54,
• Called upon Israel to take all necessary measures to prevent such action,
• Expressed its conviction that the maintenance of the General Armistice Agreement was threatened by deliberate violations.

BUT it does not actually "bind" Israel to a specific action. It is ambiguous. It merely puts Israel on notice that United Nations Security Council Resolution 54 (1948), is still applicable. It uses language such as:

• Determines
• Orders
• Declares
• Instructs
• Decides

This is very different language from that of a normal General Assembly Resolution. And you will also notice that in the case of UNSC Resolution 106, it does not actually do anything but recognize the violation as noted by the MAC.

This is very much like the UN making notes that the Russian Federation took the Crimea; or that Peoples' Republic of China took Tibet. Even in cases where there are clear violations, there is no enforcement (exceptions to the rule).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

G.A. resolutions, when they reaffirm existing international law or S.C. resolutions are just as binding on U.N. member states as S.C. resolutions, although yes, G.A. resolutions are non binding on their own; you should know this.

One would think if you choose to be a member of a certain organization, you would honor the rules of said organization?

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

That would be a terribly naive assumption to make.

G.A. resolutions, when they reaffirm existing international law or S.C. resolutions are just as binding on U.N. member states as S.C. resolutions, although yes, G.A. resolutions are non binding on their own; you should know this.

One would think if you choose to be a member of a certain organization, you would honor the rules of said organization?

(COMMENT)

Seldom, if ever, are political memberships acquired with the intent to follow every rule. Political memberships or affiliations are a utilitarian venture (taken under their own best interest) to the member.

Members selectively act in the best interest of their respective nation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

Even in cases where there are clear violations, there is no enforcement (exceptions to the rule).

Members selectively act in the best interest of their respective nation.

Exactly. Zionist Israel is able to act with complete impunity because the U.N. was created without any means of independant enforcement and given that the U.S. is Zionist Israel's de facto "bitch" in the U.N.

An Updated List of Vetoes Cast by the United States to Shield Israel from Criticism by the U.N. Security Council

U.S. Vetoes of UN Security Council Resolutions Critical to Israel | Jewish Virtual Library

the organisation is poweless to fulfill the function it was originally set up for, much like the earlier League of Nations. However, the General Assembly can still pass resolutions that reflect the rest of the world's disgust at Zionist Israeli policies and activities vis-a-vis the Palestinians. It is no accident that the USA and Zionist Israel have pulled out of the Rome Statute/I.C.C.

This is one reason I rarely get involved with "international law" discussions, they are generally pointless exercises until and unless the USA changes its stance.

US raises prospect of Israel UN isolation - BBC News

 

[Billo_Really]

That would be a terribly naive assumption to make.

Seldom, if ever, are political memberships acquired with the intent to follow every rule. Political memberships or affiliations are a utilitarian venture (taken under their own best interest) to the member.

These rules were created (in part) to prevent another Holocaust. Rules you choose to eschew. Furthermore, these aren't just "political" rules you can throw around and debate like a new bill for your district, these are rules designed to give the "mechanism" for countries to settle their differences peacefully.

Being against these "rules", is being against peace itself, as is shown by the nature of the Resolutions against Israel.

"...condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid..."

"...condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria..."

"...determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria..."

"...condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan..."​

The nature of these "rules violations", is just horrifying! Yet, you call, 'thinking Israel would honor rules to keep the peace', naïve?

I call you disgusting.

Members selectively act in the best interest of their respective nation.

That's what Nazi Germany did.

 

[Challenger]

That would be a terribly naive assumption to make.

Seldom, if ever, are political memberships acquired with the intent to follow every rule. Political memberships or affiliations are a utilitarian venture (taken under their own best interest) to the member.

These rules were created (in part) to prevent another Holocaust. Rules you choose to eschew. Furthermore, these aren't just "political" rules you can throw around and debate like a new bill for your district, these are rules designed to give the "mechanism" for countries to settle their differences peacefully.

Being against these "rules", is being against peace itself, as is shown by the nature of the Resolutions against Israel.

"...condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid..."

"...condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria..."

"...determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria..."

"...condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan..."​

The nature of these "rules violations", is just horrifying! Yet, you call, 'thinking Israel would honor rules to keep the peace', naïve?

I call you disgusting.

Members selectively act in the best interest of their respective nation.

That's what Nazi Germany did.

Interesting point when you consider that the League of Nations prevented another global war and provided a pressure release mechanism right up to the point where certain countries' "interests" trumped adhereance to "international law" and League condemnations, making the LoN effectively redundant. If you look around now, the same is happening to the U.N., countries and groups, "inspired" by U.S. and Zionist Israeli example, are ignoring the U.N. in favour of their own "interests". I suspect it won't be long before we have another global war. Watch this space...

 

[Quadravius]

That makes perfect sense if you think about the current situation in the middle east. As the saying goes, an enemy of my enemy is my friend. As long as ISIS is attacking Assad's forces, then they're seen as an ally of Israel. If anything, that shows just how low the Israelis are willing to go. Between human rights violations, war crimes, and now teaming up with evil forces working to destabilize the region. Its safe to say at this point, the Israelis don't have any problem being the villains. Israel is one of the most racist places on Earth, and it would suit me just fine to see it smashed. Its at least as racist as apartheid South Africa was. Anyone who has a skin color differing from white is suspect to unreasonable search, or detainmentIts less than they deserve for their crimes. Playing the whole victim card from the holocaust in WW2 only goes as far as the point where they decide to go from being victims of nazis to starting to act like them.

Its refreshing to see that not everyone here has their nose planted up Israel's ass. But that's an exclusively republican thing. They gotta protect the master race overseas.......

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

You say this, and suggest that the inspiration "by U.S. and Zionist Israel" are the only examples of countries that work in their own best interest (self-interest)! This is hardly the case.

The UN is an example of a Pluralistic system of governments that have different nations that keep their identities while existing within larger blocks of nations with commonality and can be associated with a more dominant group. They do this to achieve a position that will maximize their political and diplomatic influence.

Other examples of cooperative arrangements between political parties intended to promote a mutual self-interest are:

• The Cartels: Diamond or Oil --- Commodity Interests
• NATO --- Intergovernmental Military Alliances
• The Arab League --- Regional Organization
• The G-8 Highly Industrialized Nations

Many Realists consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states, which FIRST are concerned with their own security --- THEN act in pursuit of their own national interests, and struggle for influence.

That would be a terribly naive assumption to make.

Seldom, if ever, are political memberships acquired with the intent to follow every rule. Political memberships or affiliations are a utilitarian venture (taken under their own best interest) to the member.

These rules were created (in part) to prevent another Holocaust. Rules you choose to eschew. Furthermore, these aren't just "political" rules you can throw around and debate like a new bill for your district, these are rules designed to give the "mechanism" for countries to settle their differences peacefully.

Being against these "rules", is being against peace itself, as is shown by the nature of the Resolutions against Israel.

"...condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid..."

"...condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria..."

"...determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria..."

"...condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan..."​

The nature of these "rules violations", is just horrifying! Yet, you call, 'thinking Israel would honor rules to keep the peace', naïve?

I call you disgusting.

Members selectively act in the best interest of their respective nation.

That's what Nazi Germany did.

Interesting point when you consider that the League of Nations prevented another global war and provided a pressure release mechanism right up to the point where certain countries' "interests" trumped adhereance to "international law" and League condemnations, making the LoN effectively redundant. If you look around now, the same is happening to the U.N., countries and groups, "inspired" by U.S. and Zionist Israeli example, are ignoring the U.N. in favour of their own "interests". I suspect it won't be long before we have another global war. Watch this space...

(COMMENT)

The US does have a certain amount of influence; but nothing on the order that you suggest. And there are other nations and entities that ignore the UN and IHL (PLO/Palestine as an example) that were not inspired by the US or Israel.

• The 1948 occupation and subsequent 1950 Annexation of the West Bank by the Hashemite Kingdom, extended the influence of Jordan within the region.

• The 1950 annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China (PRC) established total PRC sovereignty but granted Tibet a certain measure of autonomy.

• The 1955 The Warsaw Pact was a Russian military response to the introduction of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO, motivated by the Soviet desires to maintain control over military forces (self-interest) in Central and Eastern Europe. NATO and the Warsaw Pact are not limited by the constraints of the UN. They are separate treaties made in the bast interests of their membership.

More Recently:

• The 2014/2015 NPT Negotiations with Iran, where Iran acted in its best interest.

• The 2014 Russian Federation annexation of the Crimea from the Ukraine assures Russian influence in the Black Sea Region.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al,

You say this, and suggest that the inspiration "by U.S. and Zionist Israel" are the only examples of countries that work in their own best interest (self-interest)! This is hardly the case.

The UN is an example of a Pluralistic system of governments that have different nations that keep their identities while existing within larger blocks of nations with commonality and can be associated with a more dominant group. They do this to achieve a position that will maximize their political and diplomatic influence.

Other examples of cooperative arrangements between political parties intended to promote a mutual self-interest are:

• The Cartels: Diamond or Oil --- Commodity Interests
• NATO --- Intergovernmental Military Alliances
• The Arab League --- Regional Organization
• The G-8 Highly Industrialized Nations

Many Realists consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states, which FIRST are concerned with their own security --- THEN act in pursuit of their own national interests, and struggle for influence.

That would be a terribly naive assumption to make.

Seldom, if ever, are political memberships acquired with the intent to follow every rule. Political memberships or affiliations are a utilitarian venture (taken under their own best interest) to the member.

These rules were created (in part) to prevent another Holocaust. Rules you choose to eschew. Furthermore, these aren't just "political" rules you can throw around and debate like a new bill for your district, these are rules designed to give the "mechanism" for countries to settle their differences peacefully.

Being against these "rules", is being against peace itself, as is shown by the nature of the Resolutions against Israel.

"...condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid..."

"...condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria..."

"...determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria..."

"...condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan..."​

The nature of these "rules violations", is just horrifying! Yet, you call, 'thinking Israel would honor rules to keep the peace', naïve?

I call you disgusting.

Members selectively act in the best interest of their respective nation.

That's what Nazi Germany did.

Interesting point when you consider that the League of Nations prevented another global war and provided a pressure release mechanism right up to the point where certain countries' "interests" trumped adhereance to "international law" and League condemnations, making the LoN effectively redundant. If you look around now, the same is happening to the U.N., countries and groups, "inspired" by U.S. and Zionist Israeli example, are ignoring the U.N. in favour of their own "interests". I suspect it won't be long before we have another global war. Watch this space...

(COMMENT)

The US does have a certain amount of influence; but nothing on the order that you suggest. And there are other nations and entities that ignore the UN and IHL (PLO/Palestine as an example) that were not inspired by the US or Israel.

• The 1948 occupation and subsequent 1950 Annexation of the West Bank by the Hashemite Kingdom, extended the influence of Jordan within the region.

• The 1950 annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China (PRC) established total PRC sovereignty but granted Tibet a certain measure of autonomy.

• The 1955 The Warsaw Pact was a Russian military response to the introduction of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO, motivated by the Soviet desires to maintain control over military forces (self-interest) in Central and Eastern Europe. NATO and the Warsaw Pact are not limited by the constraints of the UN. They are separate treaties made in the bast interests of their membership.

More Recently:

• The 2014/2015 NPT Negotiations with Iran, where Iran acted in its best interest.

• The 2014 Russian Federation annexation of the Crimea from the Ukraine assures Russian influence in the Black Sea Region.

Most Respectfully,
R

Do tell, how many times was the U.S.A. condemned by the U.N. for following it's own interests and breaking international laws between 1945 and 1991?

 

[depotoo]

We have no obligation to follow international law. We are a sovereign nation.