Netanyahu Pledges to Pursue Peace With Palestinians

Marc39 · 05-12-09, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Degreez

Find one person on here who agrees with your historically inaccurate conclusion that the British Mandate is just as legally viable as it was before it was terminated. I'll find the rest of the board who do not believe in revisionism and can understand that when a Mandate isTERMINATED, it is no longer in effect.

Are you still gonna hold to your assumption that you were the one who showed me what the Mandate was? Even though I showed I was posted about it on this board before you registered?

So the one with no integrity here, Mr. Revisionist, is you. Over and over again.

You need to provide support for your arguments if you want to be taken seriously. Especially when you claim certain things and give no evidence to reaffirm your claims.

So again, who conducted this survey that determined Haaretz produces 'disproportionate anti-Israel bias'?

Or is that little bit of info the latest thing you pulled out of your ass?

Eugene Rostow, former dean of the Yale School of Law, Under Secretary of State during the Johnson administration, Legal Advisor to the US State Dep't for Middle East affairs and consultant on the UN Resolution 242, which relates directly to the Israeli settlements, agrees with my point of view that the Jewish settlements are legally justified. Or, more properly, I with him. Rostow provides solid legal support for Jewish settlement in ALL of Palestine, incl. Gaza and the West Bank, and this right is preserved by Article 80 of the UN Charter, wihch you were clueless about until I brought it up.

Quoting Rostow...

Quote:

The heated question of Israel's settlements in the West Bank during the occupation period should be viewed in this perspective. The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided that local conditions might require Great Britain to "postpone" or "withhold" Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in 1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments..."

Full text: Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies

Degreez · 05-13-09, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc39

Eugene Rostow, former dean of the Yale School of Law, Under Secretary of State during the Johnson administration, Legal Advisor to the US State Dep't for Middle East affairs and consultant on the UN Resolution 242, which relates directly to the Israeli settlements, agrees with my point of view that the Jewish settlements are legally justified. Or, more properly, I with him. Rostow provides solid legal support for Jewish settlement in ALL of Palestine, incl. Gaza and the West Bank, and this right is preserved by Article 80 of the UN Charter, wihch you were clueless about until I brought it up.

Quoting Rostow...

Full text: Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies

1. Is he registered here?

2. No where does he say the Mandate is LEGALLY viable. He insinuates that the terms of the Mandate cannot be terminated, only because a lasting peace has not been made between Israel and its neighbors. A lasting peace was never a part of the British Mandate, and only comes from resolution 242.

3. Again, I will prove the Mandate was terminated, well within accord of Article 80 of the UN Charter:
80

Quote:

Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

79

Quote:

The terms of trusteeship for each territory to be placed under the trusteeship system, including any alteration or amendment, shall be agreed upon by the states directly concerned, including the mandatory power in the case of territories held under mandate by a Member of the United Nations, and shall be approved as provided for in Articles 83 and 85.

85

Quote:

The functions of the United Nations with regard to trusteeship agreements for all areas not designated as strategic, including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreements and of their alteration or amendment, shall be exercised by the General Assembly.

Hmm, I wonder what this UN General Assembly document could be about that I posted to you (I don't debate Internet hyperlinks, remember?):
A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947

Quote:

The General Assembly,

Having met in special session at the request of the mandatory Power to constitute and instruct a special committee to prepare for the consideration of the question of the future government of Palestine at the second regular session;

Having constituted a Special Committee and instructed it to investigate all questions and issues relevant to the problem of Palestine, and to prepare proposals for the solution of the problem, and

Having received and examined the report of the Special Committee (document A/364) 1/ including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee

What else is in here...?

The actual termination:

Quote:

1. The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.

Good tangent, once again.

Are you going to provide any form of evidence about this survey done that determined Haaretz was guilty of producing 'disproportionate anti-Israel bias'?

Still waiting, Mr. Revisionist.

Marc39 · 05-13-09, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Degreez

1. Is he registered here?

2. No where does he say the Mandate is LEGALLY viable. He insinuates that the terms of the Mandate cannot be terminated, only because a lasting peace has not been made between Israel and its neighbors. A lasting peace was never a part of the British Mandate, and only comes from resolution 242.

3. Again, I will prove the Mandate was terminated, well within accord of Article 80 of the UN Charter:
80

79

85

Hmm, I wonder what this UN General Assembly document could be about that I posted to you (I don't debate Internet hyperlinks, remember?):
A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947

What else is in here...?

The actual termination:

Good tangent, once again.

Are you going to provide any form of evidence about this survey done that determined Haaretz was guilty of producing 'disproportionate anti-Israel bias'?

You have confimed yourself, as if furtner confirmaton is needed, a complete and utter fool.

Still waiting, Mr. Revisionist.

You have confirmed yourself, as if further confirmation were needed, a complete and utter fool, and, frankly, possibly, mentally impaired.

Blunt · 05-13-09, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc39

You're referencing perhaps the most reflexively critical voice about Israel today from a newspaper that is decidedly unfriendly to Israel. A survey found Haaretz guilty of a disproportionatley high level of anti-Israel bias.

Have you got a link for that assertion or did you make it up?

Gardener · 05-13-09, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blunt

Have you got a link for that assertion or did you make it up?

I would think that most folks would be able to compare the Jerusalem post with Haaretz, and be able to determine the editorial differences, especially in regards to the propensity for criticising Israel's actions.

Blunt · 05-13-09, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gardener

I would think that most folks would be able to compare the Jerusalem post with Haaretz, and be able to determine the editorial differences, especially in regards to the propensity for criticising Israel's actions.

I would still like to see the survey,That ¨

Quote:

found Haaretz guilty of a disproportionatley high level of anti-Israel bias.¨

or did Marc39 simply make it up and hope he wouldn't get Questioned on it?

Marc39 · 05-13-09, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blunt

Have you got a link for that assertion or did you make it up?

I believe I've established a credible record, so, what would motivate me to fabricate anyhing? Furthermore, most people who are well-informed on Middle Eastern affairs know of Haaret'z slanted editorial coverage of Israel, so, why do you even need a survey to affirm it? Unless, of course, you merely cherry-pick Haaretz articles because they support your own agenda.

Blunt · 05-13-09, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc39

I believe I've established a credible record, so, what would motivate me to fabricate anyhing? Furthermore, most people who are well-informed on Middle Eastern affairs know of Haaret'z slanted editorial coverage of Israel, so, why do you even need a survey to affirm it? Unless, of course, you merely cherry-pick Haaretz articles because they support your own agenda.

Its not my credibility called into Question it´s Yours! post a link to your ¨survey¨or admit you made it up and maintain integrity.

Marc39 · 05-13-09, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blunt

Its not my credibility called into Question it´s Yours! post a link to your ¨survey¨or admit you made it up and maintain integrity.

You confuse my point. My credibility is not an issue. I don't live my life collecting links of everything I read, nor, am I compelled to link every sentence I post or risk compromising my integrity. As I said, if you are not aware of Haaretz's political leanings and the nature of its editorial coverage of Israel, then this, itself, indicts you as not being plugged into Middle Eastern affairs. It's like saying the BBC is not biased against Israel. Some things are readily apparent and do not need backup, like morning follows the night. You're merely a message board habitue taking wild stabs at criticizing Israel.

gree0232 · 05-13-09, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc39

You confuse my point. My credibility is not an issue. I don't live my life collecting links of everything I read, nor, am I compelled to link every sentence I post or risk compromising my integrity. As I said, if you are not aware of Haaretz's political leanings and the nature of its editorial coverage of Israel, then this, itself, indicts you as not being plugged into Middle Eastern affairs. It's like saying the BBC is not biased against Israel. Some things are readily apparent and do not need backup, like morning follows the night. You're merely a message board habitue taking wild stabs at criticizing Israel.

No Marc, your credibility is an issue.

The reason you do not provide links is because if you did, I strongly suspect, that much of what you are saying would either be proven wrong or that it comes from an extremist web site.

That you make ludicrious statements and then refuse to back them up when pushed, hiding behind 'integrity' while castigating others for their lack of 'integrity', is appalling.

And if there are people who take wild swings at Israel, there is of course the corollary, of taking wild swings in blind defense of Israel. You are like a battered child who has been beaten so many times that he can no longer disagree with his abuser and now, fearing another beating, lashes out against anyone else who dares to so much as look in the general direction of your tormentor.

Case in point, as no nation is perfect, tell me what Israel is doing wrong in the current conditions? Show us that you are capable of intellectually rigorous analysis you pride yourself on. Show your support for Israel by offering them real solutions that they can impliment to help solve problems and make Israel a better place.

Prove us wrong. Show us how much you care about Israel by honestly looking at it and finding a way to help them fix part of the problem. Can you?

Finding real solutions is much more difficult than finding insults.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to Blunt For This Useful Post:
Degreez

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Blunt For This Useful Post:
Degreez, gree0232