So there are two basic parties:

The party of basic neandrathals, from the ancient proto-Hebrews whose God ordered them to commit mass genocide. Along with warring Mongols, Muslims, Mayas, Aztecs, Nordics, et al - especially the British, taught by false Christians. What I call the Genghis Khan-Charlie Manson Party.

Then there's the pacifist Jew Party.

Don't forget the two terrorist parties of savages that have sworn to "push them into the sea" and have turned down the chance for peace over and over again - for many years. Live by the sword...

Don't forget the two terrorist parties of savages that have sworn to "push them into the sea" and have turned down the chance for peace over and over again - for many years. Live by the sword...

"he who lives by the sword...." goes both ways doesn't it?

Lets look at the situation, say 2 weeks ago, when no rockets had been fired out of Gaza for over a year. The Palestinians were behaving. The "quartet" were trying to broker peace....and then Israel announces 1600 new homes for Israelis are to be built on occupied land, and then, to make matters worse, they close Gaza off from humanitarian supplies (again).

Is there any doubt that the Palestinians are provoked and prodded? The rocket that killed a Thai man last week was retaliation, not provocation (albeit pathetic and highly unfortunate and tragic).

It is easy to say the Palestinians reject peace.....but the peace they are offered is intolerable for anyone....loss of land against international law (and lets not forget that the settlements that the Israelis force upon the Palestinians is always where the aquifiers are, or is desirable land in some other way). Loss of access to their traditional spiritual sites. Continued killing and incarceration of their people.

Of course the Palestinians have a chip on their shoulder.

Israel continues to breach international law, with impunity. An impunity that is supported by the US.

Currently, the US is paying lip-service to international law....but, as always, is all talk and no action when it comes to Israel's crimes.

Don't forget the two terrorist parties of savages that have sworn to "push them into the sea" and have turned down the chance for peace over and over again - for many years. Live by the sword...

"he who lives by the sword...." goes both ways doesn't it?

Lets look at the situation, say 2 weeks ago, when no rockets had been fired out of Gaza for over a year. The Palestinians were behaving. The "quartet" were trying to broker peace....and then Israel announces 1600 new homes for Israelis are to be built on occupied land, and then, to make matters worse, they close Gaza off from humanitarian supplies (again).

Is there any doubt that the Palestinians are provoked and prodded? The rocket that killed a Thai man last week was retaliation, not provocation (albeit pathetic and highly unfortunate and tragic).

It is easy to say the Palestinians reject peace.....but the peace they are offered is intolerable for anyone....loss of land against international law (and lets not forget that the settlements that the Israelis force upon the Palestinians is always where the aquifiers are, or is desirable land in some other way). Loss of access to their traditional spiritual sites. Continued killing and incarceration of their people.

Of course the Palestinians have a chip on their shoulder.

Israel continues to breach international law, with impunity. An impunity that is supported by the US.

Currently, the US is paying lip-service to international law....but, as always, is all talk and no action when it comes to Israel's crimes.

From what I read this isn't "new". The project is in step 4 of 7 in the process and all parties have known about it for some time.

That is exactly right. Israel never agreed to stop building in that part of East Jerusalem and it was not a secret.

Obama is trying to manufacture an excuse to abandon one of our closest allies.

Israel continues to breach international law, with impunity. An impunity that is supported by the US.

Currently, the US is paying lip-service to international law....but, as always, is all talk and no action when it comes to Israel's crimes.

It must have been a jury in New Zealand that declared Israel and the US were illegal.

We had all better sit up and pay attention or they will send Greenpeace after us all.

That jury in New Zealand would probably like to give Hamas the Nobel Peace Prize for blowing up civilians and babies.

Israel continues to breach international law, with impunity. An impunity that is supported by the US.

Currently, the US is paying lip-service to international law....but, as always, is all talk and no action when it comes to Israel's crimes.

It must have been a jury in New Zealand that declared Israel and the US were illegal.

We had all better sit up and pay attention or they will send Greenpeace after us all.

As usual, you completely misinterpret very clear words. Whether intentionaly or through lack of comprehension is beside the point. Would you point out where I said the US was illegal?

Furthermore, it's nonesensical to suggest that it was an NZ jury declaring Israel's settlement expansion as illegal....it is international law....as I said.

That jury in New Zealand would probably like to give Hamas the Nobel Peace Prize for blowing up civilians and babies.

Another stupid post that I'm certain even you aren't too happy with....your sarcasm doesn't quite have that je ne sais quoi that makes for good sarcasm, don't you agree? You can do better.

Or will you disagree out of principle?

Israel continues to breach international law, with impunity. An impunity that is supported by the US.

Currently, the US is paying lip-service to international law....but, as always, is all talk and no action when it comes to Israel's crimes.

It must have been a jury in New Zealand that declared Israel and the US were illegal.

We had all better sit up and pay attention or they will send Greenpeace after us all.

As usual, you completely misinterpret very clear words. Whether intentionaly or through lack of comprehension is beside the point. Would you point out where I said the US was illegal?

Furthermore, it's nonesensical to suggest that it was an NZ jury declaring Israel's settlement expansion as illegal....it is international law....as I said.

Read this again, and then look up Aiding and Abetting.

"Israel continues to breach international law, with impunity. An impunity that is supported by the US."

what a funny line is this!

They have offered land for peace over and over again. The Palestinians keep turning them down.

Israel continues to breach international law, with impunity. An impunity that is supported by the US.

Currently, the US is paying lip-service to international law....but, as always, is all talk and no action when it comes to Israel's crimes.

It must have been a jury in New Zealand that declared Israel and the US were illegal.

We had all better sit up and pay attention or they will send Greenpeace after us all.

As usual, you completely misinterpret very clear words. Whether intentionaly or through lack of comprehension is beside the point. Would you point out where I said the US was illegal?

Furthermore, it's nonesensical to suggest that it was an NZ jury declaring Israel's settlement expansion as illegal....it is international law....as I said.

Read this again, and then look up Aiding and Abetting.

"Israel continues to breach international law, with impunity. An impunity that is supported by the US."

Ok.... if you want to get technical and out of the actual context...... is "aiding and abetting" a componant of international law? If so, does it pertain to the topic at hand? I think not.....thus I maintain that I did not say or imply that the US was a criminal in this instance.....( unless we consider "criminally negligent"? (Which I also doubt is a part of international law in the situation we are talking about.))

Furthermore, not acting to prevent a crime when one has the power to do so is not "aiding and abetting"....it is "condoning" .... in other words, supporting. Very different to aiding and abetting.

And I will confess here that my belligerant tone was because I mistakenly thought your post was from someone else. Sorry for that....although my points are still the same.

It must have been a jury in New Zealand that declared Israel and the US were illegal.

We had all better sit up and pay attention or they will send Greenpeace after us all.

As usual, you completely misinterpret very clear words. Whether intentionaly or through lack of comprehension is beside the point. Would you point out where I said the US was illegal?

Furthermore, it's nonesensical to suggest that it was an NZ jury declaring Israel's settlement expansion as illegal....it is international law....as I said.

Read this again, and then look up Aiding and Abetting.

"Israel continues to breach international law, with impunity. An impunity that is supported by the US."

Ok.... if you want to get technical and out of the actual context...... is "aiding and abetting" a componant of international law? If so, does it pertain to the topic at hand? I think not.....thus I maintain that I did not say or imply that the US was a criminal in this instance.....( unless we consider "criminally negligent"? (Which I also doubt is a part of international law in the situation we are talking about.))

Furthermore, not acting to prevent a crime when one has the power to do so is not "aiding and abetting"....it is "condoning" .... in other words, supporting. Very different to aiding and abetting.

And I will confess here that my belligerant tone was because I mistakenly thought your post was from someone else. Sorry for that....although my points are still the same.

1. Yes, "aiding and abetting" is part of International law.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/j.../n2/4/index.htm

2. Definition of aiding and abetting:

A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.

3. Clearly by the following quote from your earlier post, you are claiming the US, with their support of Israel's government which you claim is performing so called illegal acts, is illegally aiding and abetting these illegal acts and the US government is, therefore, acting illegally. No other inference can be drawn.

4. Your words: "Israel continues to breach international law, with impunity. An impunity that is supported by the US"

your sarcasm doesn't quite have that je ne sais quoi that makes for good sarcasm

How would you know? Your idea of answering an honest, accurate and truthful post is to repeatedly answer "ditto" since you are not capable of writing anything substantial on your own. Maybe you should try "I'm rubber, you are glue" for a little variety.

what a funny line is this!

They have offered land for peace over and over again. The Palestinians keep turning them down.

"We appeal ... to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the building-up of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship and representation in all its ... institutions.

"We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and goodwill, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land." - David Ben-Gurion in Israel's Proclamation of Independence, May 14, 1948

If the Palestinians had agreed to the two state solution that they were offered in 1948 instead of declaring war, they would be much better off now. The Palestinian's obstinacy has gained them nothing at all and, in truth, has done nothing but hurt their own people.

.........

1. Yes, "aiding and abetting" is part of International law.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/j.../n2/4/index.htm

2. Definition of aiding and abetting:

A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.

3. Clearly by the following quote from your earlier post, you are claiming the US, with their support of Israel's government which you claim is performing so called illegal acts, is illegally aiding and abetting these illegal acts and the US government is, therefore, acting illegally. No other inference can be drawn.

4. Your words: "Israel continues to breach international law, with impunity. An impunity that is supported by the US"

When I made the post, I did not think "aiding and abetting" was a part of international law. What you have provided outlines corporate liability, not governmental culpability (from what I scan read)......but lets just say that aiding and abetting IS are part of international law. I therefore have to do a flipflop and say that America IS a criminal too when it comes to aiding and abetting Israel's crimes.

Happy now?

(Who said I was obstinate? I can change my mind when given the facts (NB the "facts' are only supposition here, but for the purposes of this post, lets take them as fact))

your sarcasm doesn't quite have that je ne sais quoi that makes for good sarcasm

How would you know? Your idea of answering an honest, accurate and truthful post is to repeatedly answer "ditto" since you are not capable of writing anything substantial on your own. Maybe you should try "I'm rubber, you are glue" for a little variety.

Very little of what you write is honest, accurate and truthful....but never mind.......

I'm rubber, you are glue.

.........

1. Yes, "aiding and abetting" is part of International law.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/j.../n2/4/index.htm

2. Definition of aiding and abetting:

A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.

3. Clearly by the following quote from your earlier post, you are claiming the US, with their support of Israel's government which you claim is performing so called illegal acts, is illegally aiding and abetting these illegal acts and the US government is, therefore, acting illegally. No other inference can be drawn.

4. Your words: "Israel continues to breach international law, with impunity. An impunity that is supported by the US"

When I made the post, I did not think "aiding and abetting" was a part of international law. What you have provided outlines corporate liability, not governmental culpability (from what I scan read)......but lets just say that aiding and abetting IS are part of international law. I therefore have to do a flipflop and say that America IS a criminal too when it comes to aiding and abetting Israel's crimes.

Happy now?

(Who said I was obstinate? I can change my mind when given the facts (NB the "facts' are only supposition here, but for the purposes of this post, lets take them as fact))

With that out of the way, what is anybody going to do about it? What legal recourse does anybody have in this matter? If the US is truly acting in a criminal manner, what court of law will prevail and what action should be taken?

I guess we could put the matter in front of a Kiwi jury for a really ridiculous verdict.

Give us some real answers to the alleged problems.

Remember, Google is your friend.

I guess we could put the matter in front of a Kiwi jury for a really ridiculous verdict.

Undoubtedly!

.........

1. Yes, "aiding and abetting" is part of International law.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/j.../n2/4/index.htm

2. Definition of aiding and abetting:

A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.

3. Clearly by the following quote from your earlier post, you are claiming the US, with their support of Israel's government which you claim is performing so called illegal acts, is illegally aiding and abetting these illegal acts and the US government is, therefore, acting illegally. No other inference can be drawn.

4. Your words: "Israel continues to breach international law, with impunity. An impunity that is supported by the US"

When I made the post, I did not think "aiding and abetting" was a part of international law. What you have provided outlines corporate liability, not governmental culpability (from what I scan read)......but lets just say that aiding and abetting IS are part of international law. I therefore have to do a flipflop and say that America IS a criminal too when it comes to aiding and abetting Israel's crimes.

Happy now?

(Who said I was obstinate? I can change my mind when given the facts (NB the "facts' are only supposition here, but for the purposes of this post, lets take them as fact))

With that out of the way, what is anybody going to do about it? What legal recourse does anybody have in this matter? If the US is truly acting in a criminal manner, what court of law will prevail and what action should be taken?

.......

Give us some real answers to the alleged problems.

Remember, Google is your friend.

Aye, therein lies the rub. The criminals have power over the courts. Just as the UN Security Council is powerless with America's power of veto.

Eventually, Israel will overstep itself (maybe it's on the verge of that now) and with Obama in power, the US will have to act or lose all crediblity, and hopefully Israel will be forced to return to 1967 borders.

Not that the US has much credibility (with regard to Palestine) as things stand now, but there is hope with the current right-wing Knesset.

I guess we could put the matter in front of a Kiwi jury for a really ridiculous verdict.

Undoubtedly!

That's a great idea. At least the world would be guaranteed an unbiased, logical, and fair ruling.

How on earth can the UN Security council ever be unbiased with the US veto used whenever they address Israel, or the world court act in a balanced fashion with US influence everywhere?

I guess we could put the matter in front of a Kiwi jury for a really ridiculous verdict.

Undoubtedly!

That's a great idea. At least the world would be guaranteed an unbiased, logical, and fair ruling.

How on earth can the UN Security council ever be unbiased with the US veto used whenever they address Israel, or the world court act in a balanced fashion with US influence everywhere?

In my undying efforts to give you some sort of knowledge about the US, here is a link you might find educational as to why most Americans feel the UN is useless and a paper tiger. It is also a major reason many conservatives feel foreign aid should be scrapped and the UN building used to house the homeless.

You won't discover this information by watching "CSI:Miami".

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2...-Against-the-US

It is a rather long read and might put you to sleep. We can only hope.

.

How on earth can the UN Security council ever be unbiased with the US veto used whenever they address Israel, or the world court act in a balanced fashion with US influence everywhere?

How do you feel about China and Russia have the same veto power? France & the UK also have it but I can't remember when they used it last (unless France did with some of it's underwater nuclear bomb testing too close to future Kiwi jurors). Considering Europe's track record in its treatment of Jews and China taking delight in anything that upsets the USA, if it were not for the US veto there might not be any Jews left on the planet. Talk about a "disturbance in the Force", I can actually sense some of you getting all giddy over the idea and I haven't even clicked the "add reply" button yet.

I guess we could put the matter in front of a Kiwi jury for a really ridiculous verdict.

Undoubtedly!

That's a great idea. At least the world would be guaranteed an unbiased, logical, and fair ruling.

How on earth can the UN Security council ever be unbiased with the US veto used whenever they address Israel, or the world court act in a balanced fashion with US influence everywhere?

In my undying efforts to give you some sort of knowledge about the US, here is a link you might find educational as to why most Americans feel the UN is useless and a paper tiger. It is also a major reason many conservatives feel foreign aid should be scrapped and the UN building used to house the homeless.

You won't discover this information by watching "CSI:Miami".

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2...-Against-the-US

It is a rather long read and might put you to sleep. We can only hope.

Sorry, it did not put me to sleep. I didn't read it! I took one look at it, realised it was by The Heritage Foundation, and closed the link.

Perhaps that is closed-minded of me, (Not really, I will go back and read it to counter any "closed minded" accusations) but my point is that you suggest that The Heritage Foundation is representative of most Americans' attitude toward the UN, yet is actually not even representative of American conservative views; it influences American conservative views.

(In the same way that it is not quite correct to say that the Rev Sun Moon is "representative" of his followers thoughts when he is the inventor and promoter of those philosphies/attitudes).

Mind you...it is certainly high time for America to address it's homeless problem. And if you scrap foreign aid, it would be only right to also scrap investment in foreign invasions and domination attempts.

Sorry, it did not put me to sleep. I didn't read it!

What a shocker.

...and then he wonders how he keeps shooting himself in the foot with his uninformed posts.

Are those Kiwi jurors "representive" of all Kiwis? Could there really be any that think fanatical muslim terrorists are a bad thing?

Are those Kiwi jurors "representive" of all Kiwis? Could there really be any that think fanatical muslim terrorists are a bad thing?

I am now an expert on New Zealand since I once saw a show on National Geographic about it. That gives me all the knowledge I need in order to expound on NZ ad infinitum. Sort of like..."At one time I couldn't even spell enganere and now I are one."

New Zealand (Hereinafter referred to as NZ) passed what is euphemistically called "The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act of 1987". What this act accomplished was to establish a 12 mile area around both islands that excludes any watercraft, aircraft or land craft from having or carrying any form of nuclear or biological weapon and even extended the ban to include any nuclear powered vessel as well. They even went so far as to ban private citizen ownership of either nuclear or biological weapons. This is probably the reason Bin Laden hasn't migrated to NZ yet, but that's another story for us to address when AlexLah is around.

When NZ passed this act, after refusing docking privileges in 1985 to the USS Buchanan because it "might" be carrying nukes, they were in violation of a mutual defense treaty with the US and Australia called the ANZUS Treaty. When NZ violated the terms of the treaty by not permitting docking privileges, the US suspended the treaty. NZ now only has Australia on their side should Polynesia, Fiji or the Emperor Penguins from the Antarctic decide to invade them to take over their wool industry.

The act of 1987 has had several results.

1. There are no nuclear or biological weapons within 12 miles of NZ territory that we know of.

2. There are no nuclear power plants within 12 miles of NZ territory.

3. NZ has not yet been attacked and destroyed by either nuclear or biological weapons.

4. No citizen of NZ currently possesses either nuclear or biological weapons that we know of.

5. It has kept Osama Bin Laden from moving his operations to within 12 miles of NZ territory.

6. Emperor Penguins have not made a beach assault to date.

7. No US ships have visited NZ for R&R, thereby causing working girls from NZ to lose incalculable riches.

Now by carefully examining all the events that have been played out since the mid-80's, I think we can safely say the Kiwi jurors, as mentioned by Mr. Koheesti, are indeed "representative" of all Kiwis.

The one question that remains, however. Did the 1987 act outlaw microwave ovens?

Jesus was a standard pacifist Jew during 2,500 years of Jewish pacifism that ended with Zionism.

I might have asked this before, but what happened to make Jewish pacifism end?

Zionism started as a peaceful movement to return to the roots of faith.

There has been a continuing Jewish presence in the Holy Land at all times, but mainly of religious scholars, studying.

In the nineteenth century many Russian and Polish Jews were inspiured to return to the land of their fathers and seek the freedom from pogroms and the endemic anti-semitism of these countries. Some went to study Talmud and Torah, others sought an agrarian life, draining swamps, building their homes in a desert or swamp and turning previously unoccupied, un-farmable land into somewhere they could scrape a living.

The movement swelled as pogroms became more frequent. Those who could afford to escape to Western Europe and the US did so, many of those who could not afford this walked from Poland and Russia to what is now Israel.

All this in the nineteenth century.

The attempted revolution in 1905 in Russia turned into another pogrom, sending more to Israel.

The Russian Revolution contributed more.

Hitler's rise to power sent German Jews to France, England, the US and Israel.

The slaughter through the Second World War by Nazis and Poles squeezed the flow for a time, but still people found their way to Israel, on their own, with the help of clandetine movements or, in a few cases, by legitimate sponsored emigration.

And all settled into legitimate homes - either unoccupied, unregistered land or legitimately purchased land not wanted by the then owners.

After the Second World War there was another influx of survivors, brought in against British policy, but not really stoppable. And in 1048 the State of Israel was placed on the map. The British driven out by terrorism, true, but that was the only target of the various groups - Irgun, Lufah, Stern and so on. All who lived by right in the area were expected to stay.

Now there is another wave of terrorism trying to break down this area into smaller fiefdoms of various sects, secular, religious, right-wing, left-wing, and this dismantling process is backed by the US, Britiain and the UN.

Why?

Furthermore, it's nonesensical to suggest that it was an NZ jury declaring Israel's settlement expansion as illegal....it is international law....as I said.

Please quote the "International Law" that renders this illegal.

There have been 'resolutions' tabled in the United Nations, some passed, some not. But I have no knowledge of any "Law" that covers this matter.

You must have been listening to politicians and journalists, who will both say things that have no support in fact, just in what they want you, Joe Public, to accept unquestioningly, so that they can pursue their agenda without let or hindrance.