ABCer Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 I would like to make a wish, in fact more than one: Wouldn't it be lovely if many people stopped saying USA are 'feeding' Israel? Even more people honestly think Obama is feeding Netanyahu. Ridiculous! Wouldn't it be lovely if many people stopped calling Obama an ally of Netanyahu or vice-versa.? Wouldn't it be lovely if one Politician (Obama) stopped taking another Politician (Netanyahu) at his word? Did anybody try to take Obama at any of his many words? Netanyahu has a troubled country surrounded by apriori hostile Arabs paid by just about everybody to stay hostile. Obama has a troubled country with about 45M blacks hating his country from inside for free. Wouldn't it be lovely if both were given some leeway to attend to their problems the best way they know? When Netanyahu says there will be no 'Palestinian' State he is not being mean to Muslim Arabs. He simply knows that this scenario is fatal for Israel. But every Politically Correct son-of-a-gun paints him as a bloodthirsty monster. Jews and Arabs of Israel are not fools. At least they are not more stupid than some TV posters. And they did elect Netanyahu again despite his 'outrageously open' statements. I wish some more TV posters showed respect! IMHO about 6M American Jews are supporting about 6M Israelis - financially, politically and militarily. USA is an ally of Israel because Israel is the only ally of USA in Middle East. Obama may think differently. I wish he didn't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Cut the 3 Billion in aid, then the peace process might begin, and they might stop building all the new illegal settlements. It is the only way to get things done, but even Obama does not have the balls.Call your congresswoman and tell her. I don't think most Americans would support harsh anti Israel measures but you're welcome to lobby for them.Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app What is "harsh" about insisting on following the Geneva Convention? In saying that it would be "anti-Israeli" to do so, is saying that the concept of "Israeli" is a concept of breaking international laws and treaties. Think about it before getting offended, and thereafter don't say that insisting Country XXX follow the Geneva Convention is "anti-Country XXX". It's not, it's pro-humanity as agreed by the signatories to the GC. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 What is "harsh" about insisting on following the Geneva Convention? In saying that it would be "anti-Israeli" to do so, is saying that the concept of "Israeli" is a concept of breaking international laws and treaties. Think about it before getting offended, and thereafter don't say that insisting Country XXX follow the Geneva Convention is "anti-Country XXX". It's not, it's pro-humanity as agreed by the signatories to the GC. What part of this "Geneva Convention" which you invoke did either the US or Israel sign and agree to? They are sovereign countries which unlike some other puzzie countries don't give up their sovereignty to a group. Neither Americans nor Israelis would stand for it. It is not "pro humanity" to watch the EU go down the tubes in every direction by trying to follow a group. NO group which is not elected by the American People or the Israeli people will dictate anything. It's not going to take another 20 years to prove in Europe just how big of a mistake it was to sell out to an unelected, undemocratic group. The question is only "Will the people of Europe ever see the mistake?" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadBouy Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Obama and the Dems don't have a chance now that Senators and Congressmen can receive unlimited anonymous donations. I imagine many potentates, oligarchs and despots are lining up outside the Republican HQ to get their donation recognized and appreciated. I hope Netanyahu pays up or he is in deep siht. I didn't realize Hillary was a republican! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjunadawn Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 It is so disingenuous to even utter the words to "take him at his word." The speech writers for Obama don't even have a challenge any longer because there is simply nothing this guy will not say, irrespective of his own duplicity and hypocrisy. Obama has lied to the American people and the world so many times it has numbed the electorate (citations excessive). That this man would comment on another's apparent duplicitous words seems unstatesman-like. To take someone at their word at a time when so many cannot take [you] at [your] word seems something the speechwriters should have caught. Usually your vocabulary is better. To say Obama is "disingenuous" to take Netanyahu at his word implies Obama is pretending to think Netanyahu does not want a 2-state solution. You're suggesting that Obama believes (secretly) that Netanyahu DOES want peace. Really? Neither you nor the other readers here, left and right, believe that for a second. Then there's your "apparent duplicitousness".....absolutely duplicitous!!! Glaringly obvious, nothing "apparent" about it. Monday say, "No way peace", Thursday say, "Of course, peace". Your ultimate argument is one that means Netanyahu can never believe anybody and will forever more have to distrust everyone. Thus, he will never be able to sign a peace agreement. Maybe I unraveled my thoughts; I am tired. I just think Obama is the most prolific liar in politics today. Indeed, numerous sources note this. His chosing to note the same is another is actually hypocrisy. I did not choose to assert this because when someone is hypocritical, it does not necessarily mean their point is incorrect. I tried to avoid that, I failed. I just found the pot calling the kettle black incredulous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johpa Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 The Zionist lobby in Washington - represented by AIPAC, and moderate American Jews - represented by J Street, are the same same but different. In dealing with American presidents and politicians they operate with the good cop/bad cop psych ops technique that has worked very well for them so far. Oh my! We have the rather vague Elderly Zionist lobby who, to some, secretly rule the world aligned with the Evangelical Christian Street (C Street) lobby, AKA "The Family" who are hoping for the end of the world (as prophesied) both working in cahoots with the Jew Street lobby (J Street) who feel guilty about the world. A clear sign from the heavens that too many otherwise intelligent people are watching too many HBO series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Inflammatory post and reply removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexterm Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) What is "harsh" about insisting on following the Geneva Convention? In saying that it would be "anti-Israeli" to do so, is saying that the concept of "Israeli" is a concept of breaking international laws and treaties. Think about it before getting offended, and thereafter don't say that insisting Country XXX follow the Geneva Convention is "anti-Country XXX". It's not, it's pro-humanity as agreed by the signatories to the GC. What part of this "Geneva Convention" which you invoke did either the US or Israel sign and agree to? They are sovereign countries which unlike some other puzzie countries don't give up their sovereignty to a group. Neither Americans nor Israelis would stand for it. It is not "pro humanity" to watch the EU go down the tubes in every direction by trying to follow a group. NO group which is not elected by the American People or the Israeli people will dictate anything. It's not going to take another 20 years to prove in Europe just how big of a mistake it was to sell out to an unelected, undemocratic group. The question is only "Will the people of Europe ever see the mistake?" What part of this "Geneva Convention" which you invoke did either the US or Israel sign and agree to? ...all of it Israel [and the United States] are signatories to these parts in particular of Fourth Geneva Convention, and so is responsible as an occcupying power of the Palestinian territory it controls. See list of signatories here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions These parts and more are particularly relevant to Israel's treatment of Palestinians whom it is occupying. Collective punishments Article 33. No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Collective_punishments An occupying power is subject to several obligations Occupied territories As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49). Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories Article 53 - Destruction of property Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories Edited March 22, 2015 by dexterm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 What is "harsh" about insisting on following the Geneva Convention? In saying that it would be "anti-Israeli" to do so, is saying that the concept of "Israeli" is a concept of breaking international laws and treaties. Think about it before getting offended, and thereafter don't say that insisting Country XXX follow the Geneva Convention is "anti-Country XXX". It's not, it's pro-humanity as agreed by the signatories to the GC. What part of this "Geneva Convention" which you invoke did either the US or Israel sign and agree to? They are sovereign countries which unlike some other puzzie countries don't give up their sovereignty to a group. Neither Americans nor Israelis would stand for it. It is not "pro humanity" to watch the EU go down the tubes in every direction by trying to follow a group. NO group which is not elected by the American People or the Israeli people will dictate anything. It's not going to take another 20 years to prove in Europe just how big of a mistake it was to sell out to an unelected, undemocratic group. The question is only "Will the people of Europe ever see the mistake?" What part of this "Geneva Convention" which you invoke did either the US or Israel sign and agree to? ...all of it Israel [and the United States] are signatories to these parts in particular of Fourth Geneva Convention, and so is responsible as an occcupying power of the Palestinian territory it controls. See list of signatories here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions These parts and more are particularly relevant to Israel's treatment of Palestinians whom it is occupying. Collective punishments Article 33. No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Collective_punishments An occupying power is subject to several obligations Occupied territories As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49). Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories Article 53 - Destruction of property Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories I said "sign and agree to." Also I don't accept your personal definitions of what those treaties are. Here's what it takes for the US to ratify a treaty: "In the US, the treaty power is a coordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democratic republics to rally enough political support for international treaties." LINK (BTW, this is what has Obama screwed while trying to circumvent Congress and go to the UN for an agreement right now.) Start over and tell me what the US has signed and the Senate has agreed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexterm Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) Neversure, You now seem to wish to deny that the US and Israel are signatories of the Geneva Convention, even though I have given you a perfectly valid link as such. The wording is not mine, it's the Geneva Convention's. Not much point in serious discussion if you are going to say that governments sign major UN treaties but don't really mean it. I will leave it to other members of the forum to make what they can of that. BTW, the Geneva Convention applies to all nations, not just signatories. Edited March 22, 2015 by dexterm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poweratradio Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 America needs to show some tough love with this recalcitrant spoiled brat child of a country. Stop the non-military funding. Stop the military funding that doesn't get spent in the US. Stop UN SC vetoes made solely on Israel's behalf. Show them who's boss. The Whitehouse or AIPAC? And then Israel's enemies will take this as a free fire zone. Good thinking genius. The no minds bordering it will cause another massacre as they are fair weather fighters ready to play cowboy and Indians for the summer and be slaughtered as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Some perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM5kTgXdvzY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Neversure, You now seem to wish to deny that the US and Israel are signatories of the Geneva Convention, even though I have given you a perfectly valid link as such. The wording is not mine, it's the Geneva Convention's. Not much point in serious discussion if you are going to say that governments sign major UN treaties but don't really mean it. I will leave it to other members of the forum to make what they can of that. BTW, the Geneva Convention applies to all nations, not just signatories. "BTW, the Geneva Convention applies to all nations, not just signatories." YOU'RE KIDDING!! Things that The United States of America doesn't agree with can be forced onto it by other countries? (I leave it to you to show that the US ratified those treaties because you claim they are binding. Hint - they aren't.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) It is so disingenuous to even utter the words to "take him at his word." The speech writers for Obama don't even have a challenge any longer because there is simply nothing this guy will not say, irrespective of his own duplicity and hypocrisy. Obama has lied to the American people and the world so many times it has numbed the electorate (citations excessive). That this man would comment on another's apparent duplicitous words seems unstatesman-like. To take someone at their word at a time when so many cannot take [you] at [your] word seems something the speechwriters should have caught. Usually your vocabulary is better. To say Obama is "disingenuous" to take Netanyahu at his word implies Obama is pretending to think Netanyahu does not want a 2-state solution. You're suggesting that Obama believes (secretly) that Netanyahu DOES want peace. Really? Neither you nor the other readers here, left and right, believe that for a second. Then there's your "apparent duplicitousness".....absolutely duplicitous!!! Glaringly obvious, nothing "apparent" about it. Monday say, "No way peace", Thursday say, "Of course, peace". Your ultimate argument is one that means Netanyahu can never believe anybody and will forever more have to distrust everyone. Thus, he will never be able to sign a peace agreement. Maybe I unraveled my thoughts; I am tired. I just think Obama is the most prolific liar in politics today. Indeed, numerous sources note this. His chosing to note the same is another is actually hypocrisy. I did not choose to assert this because when someone is hypocritical, it does not necessarily mean their point is incorrect. I tried to avoid that, I failed. I just found the pot calling the kettle black incredulous. Maybe I unraveled my thoughts; I am tired. Yep, the humble self reflection reveals that it wuz hardly the usual pièce de résistance we've accustomed ourselves to being in the presence of. Perhaps it might be because this wuz another of the strictly partisan political rants ones. It is indeed evident that manufacturing assembly line political spam does consume time and it is a tedious effort, especially when done repeatedly, routinely. It can indeed become laborious. Sensible people either don't do it or they quickly give it up once they see what it is and what the producing of it requires. I just found the pot calling the kettle black incredulous. I'd say everything about it is right there in front of everyone in black and white, completely and entirely. Yep, it's all right there in black and redneck white for all of us to see, every time, always. Edited March 22, 2015 by Publicus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexterm Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) Neversure, You now seem to wish to deny that the US and Israel are signatories of the Geneva Convention, even though I have given you a perfectly valid link as such. The wording is not mine, it's the Geneva Convention's. Not much point in serious discussion if you are going to say that governments sign major UN treaties but don't really mean it. I will leave it to other members of the forum to make what they can of that. BTW, the Geneva Convention applies to all nations, not just signatories. "BTW, the Geneva Convention applies to all nations, not just signatories." YOU'RE KIDDING!! Things that The United States of America doesn't agree with can be forced onto it by other countries? (I leave it to you to show that the US ratified those treaties because you claim they are binding. Hint - they aren't.) Try the International Red Cross then... Israel signed the Geneva Conventions on 12.08.1949 Israel ratified the Geneva Conventions on 06.07.1951 https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreatiesByCountrySelected.xsp?xp_countrySelected=IL USA signed the Geneva Conventions on 12.08.1949 USA ratified the Geneva Conventions on 02.08.1955 https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreatiesByCountrySelected.xsp?xp_countrySelected=US Edited March 22, 2015 by dexterm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Neversure, You now seem to wish to deny that the US and Israel are signatories of the Geneva Convention, even though I have given you a perfectly valid link as such. The wording is not mine, it's the Geneva Convention's. Not much point in serious discussion if you are going to say that governments sign major UN treaties but don't really mean it. I will leave it to other members of the forum to make what they can of that. BTW, the Geneva Convention applies to all nations, not just signatories. "BTW, the Geneva Convention applies to all nations, not just signatories." YOU'RE KIDDING!! Things that The United States of America doesn't agree with can be forced onto it by other countries? (I leave it to you to show that the US ratified those treaties because you claim they are binding. Hint - they aren't.) This entire GC sideline is beside the point. You're trying to divert from the post you replied to. JT said it's "harsh anti_Israel", I asked why is it harsh OR anti_Israel to want Israel to follow the GC. Why is it harsh and why is it anti??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 It is so disingenuous to even utter the words to "take him at his word." The speech writers for Obama don't even have a challenge any longer because there is simply nothing this guy will not say, irrespective of his own duplicity and hypocrisy. Obama has lied to the American people and the world so many times it has numbed the electorate (citations excessive). That this man would comment on another's apparent duplicitous words seems unstatesman-like. To take someone at their word at a time when so many cannot take [you] at [your] word seems something the speechwriters should have caught. Usually your vocabulary is better. To say Obama is "disingenuous" to take Netanyahu at his word implies Obama is pretending to think Netanyahu does not want a 2-state solution. You're suggesting that Obama believes (secretly) that Netanyahu DOES want peace. Really? Neither you nor the other readers here, left and right, believe that for a second. Then there's your "apparent duplicitousness".....absolutely duplicitous!!! Glaringly obvious, nothing "apparent" about it. Monday say, "No way peace", Thursday say, "Of course, peace". Your ultimate argument is one that means Netanyahu can never believe anybody and will forever more have to distrust everyone. Thus, he will never be able to sign a peace agreement. Maybe I unraveled my thoughts; I am tired. I just think Obama is the most prolific liar in politics today. Indeed, numerous sources note this. His chosing to note the same is another is actually hypocrisy. I did not choose to assert this because when someone is hypocritical, it does not necessarily mean their point is incorrect. I tried to avoid that, I failed. I just found the pot calling the kettle black incredulous. Maybe I unraveled my thoughts; I am tired. Yep, the humble self reflection reveals that it wuz hardly the usual pièce de résistance we've accustomed ourselves to being in the presence of. Perhaps it might be because this wuz another of the strictly partisan political rants ones. It is indeed evident that manufacturing assembly line political spam does consume time and it is a tedious effort, especially when done repeatedly, routinely. It can indeed become laborious. Sensible people either don't do it or they quickly give it up once they see what it is and what the producing of it requires. I just found the pot calling the kettle black incredulous. I'd say everything about it is right there in front of everyone in black and white, completely and entirely. Yep, it's all right there in black and redneck white for all of us to see, every time, always. It matters not how black the pot is or the kettle. It matters not if the pot is as black as pitch at midnight and the kettle is a shiny stainless steel kettle. Which, of Netanyahu's statements is Obama supposed to take as true? The one that is likely true and which has plenty of evidence to suggest that it is true, or the one that is demonstrably made simply to appease criticism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABCer Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 What is "harsh" about insisting on following the Geneva Convention? In saying that it would be "anti-Israeli" to do so, is saying that the concept of "Israeli" is a concept of breaking international laws and treaties. Think about it before getting offended, and thereafter don't say that insisting Country XXX follow the Geneva Convention is "anti-Country XXX". It's not, it's pro-humanity as agreed by the signatories to the GC. What part of this "Geneva Convention" which you invoke did either the US or Israel sign and agree to? They are sovereign countries which unlike some other puzzie countries don't give up their sovereignty to a group. Neither Americans nor Israelis would stand for it. It is not "pro humanity" to watch the EU go down the tubes in every direction by trying to follow a group. NO group which is not elected by the American People or the Israeli people will dictate anything. It's not going to take another 20 years to prove in Europe just how big of a mistake it was to sell out to an unelected, undemocratic group. The question is only "Will the people of Europe ever see the mistake?" The EU as it is today reminds me the old USSR. Each and every member singularly is not happy. But the Brussels non-elected "Politburo" tells them they are a happy bunch. Oh, yes! People see the mistake but the PC Politicians cannot. I like this "BTW, the Geneva Convention applies to all nations, not just signatories" statement! Brilliant! Goes well with sovereignty concept... Makes me wonder what is the concept of UN doing to its members. Say, about 180 "members" walking around begging for alms, selling their 'equal' votes for cash or arms yet staunchly remaining in the barbaric stone age mentality. Thanks to God we have a 'VETO' clause in the Charter! In view of above, Obama, Netanyahu and especially how one takes another is just laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Neversure, You now seem to wish to deny that the US and Israel are signatories of the Geneva Convention, even though I have given you a perfectly valid link as such. The wording is not mine, it's the Geneva Convention's. Not much point in serious discussion if you are going to say that governments sign major UN treaties but don't really mean it. I will leave it to other members of the forum to make what they can of that. BTW, the Geneva Convention applies to all nations, not just signatories. "BTW, the Geneva Convention applies to all nations, not just signatories." YOU'RE KIDDING!! Things that The United States of America doesn't agree with can be forced onto it by other countries? (I leave it to you to show that the US ratified those treaties because you claim they are binding. Hint - they aren't.) Try the International Red Cross then... Israel signed the Geneva Conventions on 12.08.1949 Israel ratified the Geneva Conventions on 06.07.1951 https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreatiesByCountrySelected.xsp?xp_countrySelected=IL USA signed the Geneva Conventions on 12.08.1949 USA ratified the Geneva Conventions on 02.08.1955 https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreatiesByCountrySelected.xsp?xp_countrySelected=US Let's get serious. The four Geneva Conventions have to do with prisoners of war, shipwrecked people, not attacking wounded or medical people, not attacking hospitals, etc. The US ratified those. There are also two additional protocols that the US didn't ratify. Those are, LINK .................................. Protocol I: In this additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, the signing Nations agreed to further restrictions on the treatment of "protected persons" according to the original Conventions. Furthermore, clarification of the terms used in the Conventions was introduced. Finally, new rules regarding the treatment of the deceased, cultural artifacts, and dangerous targets (such as dams and nuclear installations) were produced. Protocol II: In this Protocol, the fundamentals of "humane treatment" were further clarified. Additionally, the rights of interned persons were specifically enumerated, providing protections for those charged with crimes during wartime. It also identified new protections and rights of civilian populations. ......................... Now, as I told you already, I don't agree even with your definitions of the Geneva Conventions and you didn't discuss the Protocols so you are wasting both of our time. They are also off topic and irrelevant. As for "signing," everyone would know that the US is unique in that no representative at a convention has the authority to bind the US, and that it takes 2/3 vote of the Senate to approve it. Edited March 23, 2015 by NeverSure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post dexterm Posted March 23, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) If Obama really does want to expose Netanyahu's insincerity, he need not send Kerry off yet again to try to get Israel to talk seriously about peace. Bibi has hammered the final nail in the coffin of direct negotiations and the Oslo Accords by blurting out his one state solution. All he has to do is tell his UN Ambassador to keep her hand down when it comes to a veto at the UN. Simple as that. In that Palestine, Israel and USA are signatories of the Geneva Conventions it would provide a very useful framework for dismantling Israel’s occupation of 4.5 million Palestinians, citing conditions that Israel has clearly breached, in matters of duty of care towards the occupied, collective punishments, illegal population transfers .. Collective punishments Article 33. No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Collective_punishments Occupied territories Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49). Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories Article 53 - Destruction of property Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories As of April the Palestinians will be able to take these matters to the ICC along with Israel’s war crimes, and maybe apply again to raise its status to full UN membership. This time Obama could stand aside and at least abstain. Finally Israel’s abuses and breaches of the Geneva Convention would be in the full glare of the entire UN community, and member states can vote for sanctions against Israel. As Obama stated in the OP... "But we are going to continue to insist that, from our point of view, the status quo is unsustainable," he said. "And that while taking into complete account Israel's security, we can't just in perpetuity maintain the status quo, expand settlements. That's not a recipe for stability in the region." Maybe he intends to earn his place in history and the Nobel Peace Prize after all. What has he got to lose? Let Hilary court the voters. Edited March 23, 2015 by dexterm 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastcanje Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I would like to make a wish, in fact more than one: Wouldn't it be lovely if many people stopped saying USA are 'feeding' Israel? Even more people honestly think Obama is feeding Netanyahu. Ridiculous! Wouldn't it be lovely if many people stopped calling Obama an ally of Netanyahu or vice-versa.? Wouldn't it be lovely if one Politician (Obama) stopped taking another Politician (Netanyahu) at his word? Did anybody try to take Obama at any of his many words? Netanyahu has a troubled country surrounded by apriori hostile Arabs paid by just about everybody to stay hostile. Obama has a troubled country with about 45M blacks hating his country from inside for free. Wouldn't it be lovely if both were given some leeway to attend to their problems the best way they know? When Netanyahu says there will be no 'Palestinian' State he is not being mean to Muslim Arabs. He simply knows that this scenario is fatal for Israel. But every Politically Correct son-of-a-gun paints him as a bloodthirsty monster. Jews and Arabs of Israel are not fools. At least they are not more stupid than some TV posters. And they did elect Netanyahu again despite his 'outrageously open' statements. I wish some more TV posters showed respect! IMHO about 6M American Jews are supporting about 6M Israelis - financially, politically and militarily. USA is an ally of Israel because Israel is the only ally of USA in Middle East. Obama may think differently. I wish he didn't. There is so much wrong with your six "wishes"/ "opinions"! Do you really think "6M American Jews are supporting 6M Israelis"? Can you disclose your mathematical trail? In your opinion, 45M blacks hate the U.S? Your other wishes/ideas are too preposterous to even consider, although I can discern a thought pattern! I am a proud American! I pay taxes! What are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johpa Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 The irony, at least in my own opinion, is that Netanyahu is correct about an independent Palestinian State, but for all the wrong reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 The irony, at least in my own opinion, is that Netanyahu is correct about an independent Palestinian State, but for all the wrong reasons. Correct? Which bit and what reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johpa Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) The irony, at least in my own opinion, is that Netanyahu is correct about an independent Palestinian State, but for all the wrong reasons.Correct? Which bit and what reasons.Simply economic, the area is not large enough to support an economically viable independent nation-state. The West Bank Palestinians would be much better off in an association with the Palestinian majority in Jordan rather than trying to make a go of it out of the limited resources on the West Bank. Edited March 23, 2015 by Johpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now