|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 17, 2011 10:42:20 GMT -5
...and thanks for my point... ;D
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 17, 2011 10:44:00 GMT -5
Can we take away the rights of conservatives to vote? They don't vote in the best interest of the nation. Can we still remain a democracy if we do that? I am amazed that so many conservatives are coming out against democracy. Then may be I am not that amazed after all. Conservatives across countries have always favored tyranny of the minority. If an Arab is a citizen of Israel they have the right to vote, if they are not a citizen of Israel they do not have a right to vote. Just Like all American citizens have a right to vote and non citizens do not have a right to vote. seems pretty simple.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 10:44:35 GMT -5
<<< Conservatives Survivalists across countries have always favored tyranny of control over the uprising minority. >>> ...fixed... Dude, you are talking like Chemical Ali in Iraq. You are starting to scare me a bit here. Are you for dictators or the uprising masses?
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 10:45:01 GMT -5
Can we take away the rights of conservatives to vote? They don't vote in the best interest of the nation. Can we still remain a democracy if we do that? I am amazed that so many conservatives are coming out against democracy. Then may be I am not that amazed after all. Conservatives across countries have always favored tyranny of the minority. If an Arab is a citizen of Israel they have the right to vote, if they are not a citizen of Israel they do not have a right to vote. Just Like all American citizens have a right to vote and non citizens do not have a right to vote. seems pretty simple. That's what the British told the Americans.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 17, 2011 10:47:28 GMT -5
If an Arab is a citizen of Israel they have the right to vote, if they are not a citizen of Israel they do not have a right to vote. Just Like all American citizens have a right to vote and non citizens do not have a right to vote. seems pretty simple. That's what the British told the Americans. Your point?
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 10:48:35 GMT -5
That's what the British told the Americans. Your point? My point is that it sounds pretty simple, but thank goodness the American revolutionaries didn't agree.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 17, 2011 10:50:40 GMT -5
There are no rules for democracy, my dear Lunatic. There are simply democracies that survive and democracies that self-destruct.
Have you considered what enfranchising the Palestinians would look like? Assuming they bothered to exercise their rights, they'd table bill after bill proposing Palestinian independence which, not surprisingly, would be defeated again and again by the ruling majority. The whole process would be decried as a farce by international observers. And they'd be right.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Jun 17, 2011 10:51:02 GMT -5
Most of the Financial Problems for the Palestine population has been self inflicted!!!
The Fatah–Hamas conflict (Arabic: النزاع بين فتح و حماس Al-Nizāʿ bain Fataḥ wa Ḥamās), also referred to as the Palestinian Civil War (Arabic: الحرب الأهلية الفلسطينية Al-Ḥarb al-ʾAhliyyah al-Filisṭīnīyah), and the Conflict of Brothers (Arabic: صراع الأخوة Ṣirāʿ al-Ikhwah), i.e. fratricidal war, began in 2006 after Hamas's legislative victories and continued, politically and sometimes militarily, until a reconciliation agreement was signed in May of 2011. The conflict was between the two main Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas. The conflict is called Wakseh among Palestinians, meaning humiliation, ruin, and collapse as a result of self-inflicted damage.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 17, 2011 10:55:36 GMT -5
My point is that it sounds pretty simple, but thank goodness the American revolutionaries didn't agree. Actually they did agree, thats why we have America. Eligibility to vote in the U.S. is determined by both Federal and state law. Currently, only citizens can vote in U.S. elections.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 10:58:32 GMT -5
There are no rules for democracy, my dear Lunatic. There are simply democracies that survive and democracies that self-destruct. Have you considered what enfranchising the Palestinians would look like? Assuming they bothered to exercise their rights, they'd table bill after bill proposing Palestinian independence which, not surprisingly, would be defeated again and again by the ruling majority. The whole process would be decried as a farce by international observers. And they'd be right. That's called democracy my friend. It's chaotic, but it is the best system that we know to date. Besides, if the bills will be defeated, why are you so concerned? I will tell you why Israelis are concerned - the birth rate for Palestinians is far higher than that of others in the state of Israel and the occupied territories, and even accounting for the import of Eat European Jews sooner or later Muslims will become a majority. Then the democratic process will ensure that Israel becomes - gasp! - a Palestinian country.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 10:59:59 GMT -5
My point is that it sounds pretty simple, but thank goodness the American revolutionaries didn't agree. Actually they did agree, thats why we have America. Eligibility to vote in the U.S. is determined by both Federal and state law. Currently, only citizens can vote in U.S. elections. At that time Americans were British citizens with no right to vote, and they voted - illegally in the eyes of the British and per British law - to be independent of the British. So no, they didn't agree with the British. Do I have to teach American history to you? Sheesh, dude! Same situation with the Palestinians today.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 17, 2011 11:01:23 GMT -5
There are no rules for democracy, my dear Lunatic. There are simply democracies that survive and democracies that self-destruct. Have you considered what enfranchising the Palestinians would look like? Assuming they bothered to exercise their rights, they'd table bill after bill proposing Palestinian independence which, not surprisingly, would be defeated again and again by the ruling majority. The whole process would be decried as a farce by international observers. And they'd be right. That's called democracy my friend. It's chaotic, but it is the best system that we know to date. Besides, if the bills will be defeated, why are you so concerned? I will tell you why Israelis are concerned - the birth rate for Palestinians is far higher than that of others in the state of Israel and the occupied territories, and even accounting for the import of Eat European Jews sooner or later Muslims will become a majority. Then the democratic process will ensure that Israel becomes - gasp! - a Palestinian country. ...a similar discussion could be made about the increasing entitlement class in the USA... which may help to explain the push back by us pesky conservatives...
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 17, 2011 11:02:14 GMT -5
...and btw... how someone draws a parallel between me and Chemical Ali is, well, interesting...
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 17, 2011 11:02:37 GMT -5
There are no rules for democracy, my dear Lunatic. There are simply democracies that survive and democracies that self-destruct. Have you considered what enfranchising the Palestinians would look like? Assuming they bothered to exercise their rights, they'd table bill after bill proposing Palestinian independence which, not surprisingly, would be defeated again and again by the ruling majority. The whole process would be decried as a farce by international observers. And they'd be right. That's called democracy my friend. It's chaotic, but it is the best system that we know to date. Besides, if the bills will be defeated, why are you so concerned? I will tell you why Israelis are concerned - the birth rate for Palestinians is far higher than that of others in the state of Israel and the occupied territories, and even accounting for the import of Eat European Jews sooner or later Muslims will become a majority. Then the democratic process will ensure that Israel becomes - gasp! - a Palestinian country. Bingo
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 11:02:47 GMT -5
...and btw... how someone draws a parallel between me and Chemical Ali is, well, interesting... You said you want to control the uprising masses by force, no?
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 11:04:28 GMT -5
That's called democracy my friend. It's chaotic, but it is the best system that we know to date. Besides, if the bills will be defeated, why are you so concerned? I will tell you why Israelis are concerned - the birth rate for Palestinians is far higher than that of others in the state of Israel and the occupied territories, and even accounting for the import of Eat European Jews sooner or later Muslims will become a majority. Then the democratic process will ensure that Israel becomes - gasp! - a Palestinian country. ...a similar discussion could be made about the increasing entitlement class in the USA... which may help to explain the push back by us pesky conservatives... I know. Plutocracy or death, right? If that means we the rich need to use force, so be it. Do you think the voting rights of the poor and middle class should be taken away as they are not voting in the best interest of the rich...I mean, the nation?
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Jun 17, 2011 11:05:45 GMT -5
So Rick Perry and other Texans, Tea Party members, Militias, and members of the last board who commented extensively and fantasized of the upcoming uprising shouldn't vote then, right? Live with that. [insert hypocrisy comment here]
If you go back some pages, you'll find thread(s) about Conservatives wanting to only let people who own property vote. Other Conservatives have proposed a hefty "vote tax." Even though not many of them do, they totally hate people on welfare getting to vote. My amazement with their anti-democratic views ended a while ago.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Jun 17, 2011 11:07:58 GMT -5
There are no rules for democracy, my dear Lunatic. There are simply democracies that survive and democracies that self-destruct. Have you considered what enfranchising the Palestinians would look like? Assuming they bothered to exercise their rights, they'd table bill after bill proposing Palestinian independence which, not surprisingly, would be defeated again and again by the ruling majority. The whole process would be decried as a farce by international observers. And they'd be right. This is voted on every year at the UN in New York...Palestine did in deed violate the sovereign state of Israel in 1948 and that is the bases of Palestine Legal problems.. More on the history... Legal issues related to sovereignty In their relations with other peoples and countries during the colonial era the Concert of Europe adopted a fundamental legal principle that the supreme legal authority, or sovereignty, lay outside the indigenous nations. That legal principle resulted in the creation of a large number of dependent states with restricted sovereignty or colonial autonomy. Various terms were used to describe different types of dependent states, such as condominium, mandate, protectorate, colony, and vassal state. After World War II there was strong international pressure to eliminate dependencies associated with colonialism.[18] The vast majority of the world's sovereign states resulted from the grant of independence to colonial peoples and dependent territories. Prior to World War II many states were formed as a result of wars that were resolved through peace treaties. Some of these peace treaties were imposed on the losing side in a war; others came about as a result of negotiations that followed wars, or were entered into under the threat of war. In these cases, the applicable law was bound in peace treaties among the states. The practice of territorial aggrandizement was prohibited by the UN Charter, a multilateral treaty, and the authoritative explanation of its legal principles contained in UN General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970, Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.[19] The purpose of the United Nations is the prevention and removal of threats to peace and the suppression of acts of aggression. The Charter requires that members shall refrain from the threat of, or use of force. According to communis opinio the obligations imposed by those provisions of the Charter have become part of customary international law and are binding on all States, whether they are members of the United Nations or not.[20] [edit] Treaties and resolutions The communities and Holy Places of Palestine have been under the express protection of international law since the early 19th century. For example, the International Court of Justice advisory opinion noted that access to the Christian, Jewish and Islamic Holy Places had been protected by various laws dating back to the early Ottoman Empire, with the latest provisions having been incorporated into the UN Partition Plan, article 13 of the League of Nations Mandate, and Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin of 13 July 1878. The Treaty of Paris in 1814, called for a congress of the Great Powers of Europe to settle the future boundaries of the continent. Nearly every state in Europe was represented. A prohibition on unilateral annexation was adopted. It bolstered the concept of territorial integrity which was enshrined in the Congress of Vienna in 1815.[21] The 1856 Treaty of Paris declared that the Sublime Porte, the government of the Ottoman Empire, had been admitted to participate in the Public Law and System (Concert) of Europe.[22] The European system of public law governed territorial accessions and the creation of new states. After the Russo-Turkish Wars in 1878, Russia and the Ottoman Empire concluded the Treaty of San Stefano. Because it modified the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1856, the other signatories called for a Congress to obtain its revision. The Treaty of Berlin of 1878 was the result. Montenegro, Serbia, and Romania were recognized as new independent states and granted specific territory on condition that religious, political, and property rights of minorities were guaranteed on a nondiscriminatory basis.[23] The delegates of the First Zionist Congress acknowledged these customary diplomatic precedents in the Basle Program. It stated that the aim of Zionism was the creation of a home for the Jewish people in Palestine, secured by public law. During the course of the British mandate in Palestine, the British government sought to reconcile the two claims in different ways. A number of proposals and declarations were put forward, all of which were rejected by one party or the other, and usually both. Again, two different interpretations apply: The Israeli perspective is that the United Kingdom only had the mandate to propose solutions in keeping with the resolutions adopted at the San Remo Conference, not to amend them. Proposals that were offered but rejected by either or both of the parties had no legal authority.[24] In other words, that the relevant resolutions adopted at the San Remo Conference are the public law that awarded the Jewish people de jure sovereignty over Palestine. The Arab perspective views British proposals as promises (subsequently broken) to the people of Palestine, see also the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence.[citation needed] After World War II, the British government decided to abandon its mandate in Palestine. A United Nations Commission (UNSCOP) was assigned to recommend a solution to the conflict to the General Assembly. The recommendation was a partition plan that would result in an Arab and a Jewish state in the remaining mandate, and Jerusalem under UN rule, was approved by the General Assembly. However, the resolution served partially as a basis for the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel[citation needed] to take effect when Great Britain's mandate expired. Many states granted the State of Israel either de facto or de jure recognition. Israel was accepted as a sovereign member state in the United Nations and has diplomatic relations with many, but not all, sovereign states. [edit] The legal consequence of subsequent events Several events have affected the legal issues related to the conflict: After the war in 1948, the mandate ended up being split between Israel, Egypt and Jordan. Israel and Jordan annexed all areas under their administration; Egypt maintained a military occupation of Gaza. The United Nations did not assert its authority of Jerusalem, and the city ended up being split between Israel and Jordan. Although there were numerous informal and backchannel communications between Israel and Arab states through the years, all Arab states refused to accept Israel's sovereignty until 1979, and most (excluding Jordan, Mauritania, and Egypt) persisted in rejecting Israel's desire to exist (see Khartoum Resolution) until the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative that offers Israel peace and normal relations with all Arab countries if Israel withdraws from all areas occupied in the 1967 war and "attain a just solution" to the Palestinian refugee problem "to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution 194". The war in 1967 brought all remaining parts of the Mandate (as defined by Great Britain in 1947) as well as parts of the Golan Heights under Israeli administration. Israel subsequently annexed East Jerusalem, asserting that the West Bank and Gaza were "disputed territories". Both as a result of the wars in 1948 and 1967, Arab residents of the former Mandate were displaced and classified by the United Nations as "refugees" In approximately the same time frame, most Jews in Arab states fled or were forced to leave, with most of them absorbed by Israel. United Nations Security Council issued resolution 242 that set the framework for a resolution through "land for peace". In 1979 Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty, agreeing on international borders between the two states, but leaving the disposition of Gaza for peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. In 1988, the PLO declared "the formation of an independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital." In 1993, the PLO and Israel signed a declaration of principles that included mutual recognition and the ultimate goal of establishing self rule for the Palestinian people. In 1994, Jordan and Israel also signed a peace treaty. No other Arab state has granted legal recognition of Israel's sovereignty. A formal state of war still exists between Israel and several Arab states, though armistice agreements govern interaction between the states. Several attempts at finalizing the terms for a peace agreement between Israel and the PLO have failed. In 2006 the Palestinians elected Hamas into power, a party that does not recognize Israel as legitimate. [edit] Legal issues related to the wars Sovereign states have the right to defend themselves against overt external aggression, in the form of an invasion or other attack. A number of states assert that this principle extends to the right to launch military actions to reduce a threat, protect vital interests, or pre-empt a possible attack or emerging threat. [edit] Wars between Israel and Arab states Security Council resolution 242, emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," setting the stage for controversy on the legal status of areas captured in 1967, and in 1948. There are two interpretations of this matter: The Israeli position is that: The wars in 1956 and 1967 were waged by Israel to ensure the state's survival. As most hostilities were initiated by the Arab side, Israel had to fight and win these wars in order to ensure the state's sovereignty and safety. Territories captured in the course of those wars are therefore legitimately under Israeli administration for both security reasons and to deter hostile states from belligerence. In the absence of peace treaties between all the parties at war, Israel has under all circumstances the right to maintain control of the captured territories. Their ultimate disposition should be a result of peace treaties, and not a condition for them. Even so, Israel asserts that: The 1956 war was caused by a pattern of Egyptian belligerence against Israel, culminating with the nationalization of the Suez Canal and the blockage of the canal for Israeli traffic in violation of the Convention of Constantinople and other relevant treaties, in their view a clear casus belli (i.e., an act justifying war) The 1967 war was similarly caused by the closing of the Straits of Tiran, the rejection of UN forces in the Sinai desert, and the redeployment of Egyptian forces. Jordan and Syria entered the war in spite of Israeli efforts to keep these frontiers peaceful. The 1973 war was a surprise attack against Israel by Syria and Egypt.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 22:49:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 11:08:07 GMT -5
There are no rules for democracy, my dear Lunatic. There are simply democracies that survive and democracies that self-destruct. Have you considered what enfranchising the Palestinians would look like? Assuming they bothered to exercise their rights, they'd table bill after bill proposing Palestinian independence which, not surprisingly, would be defeated again and again by the ruling majority. The whole process would be decried as a farce by international observers. And they'd be right. That's called democracy my friend. It's chaotic, but it is the best system that we know to date. Besides, if the bills will be defeated, why are you so concerned? I will tell you why Israelis are concerned - the birth rate for Palestinians is far higher than that of others in the state of Israel and the occupied territories, and even accounting for the import of Eat European Jews sooner or later Muslims will become a majority. Then the democratic process will ensure that Israel becomes - gasp! - a Palestinian country. Actually he's not describing a democracy my friend, just a simple republic. Why does the far left seem to not be able to discern the difference between the two.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 11:09:07 GMT -5
If you go back some pages, you'll find thread(s) about Conservatives wanting to only let people who own property vote. Other Conservatives have proposed a hefty "vote tax." Even though not many of them do, they totally hate people on welfare getting to vote. My amazement with their anti-democratic views ended a while ago.
Trust me, I know.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 17, 2011 11:09:19 GMT -5
...and btw... how someone draws a parallel between me and Chemical Ali is, well, interesting... You said you want to control the uprising masses by force, no? ...no...
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 11:10:09 GMT -5
Actually he's not describing a democracy my friend, just a simple republic. Why does the far left seem to not be able to discern the difference between the two.
A Democratic Republic, actually. It's like love and marriage. As the song goes, you can't have one without the other, if you believe in American principles.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 11:10:46 GMT -5
You said you want to control the uprising masses by force, no? ...no... Do you think the uprising masses should be allowed to democratically have their will enforced through a legislative system?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 22:49:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 11:18:29 GMT -5
Actually he's not describing a democracy my friend, just a simple republic. Why does the far left seem to not be able to discern the difference between the two. A Democratic Republic, actually. It's like love and marriage. As the song goes, you can't have one without the other, if you believe in American principles. American principles have nothing to do with whether a country is a republic or a democracy. As far as a democratic-republic ( double redundancy description ? ) That is not what you said.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jun 17, 2011 11:21:15 GMT -5
Democracy, schmacracy. Vote, schmote. According to Lunacy we have to go back to the Nazi deportation of the Jews. He says it all started this way: So, after WWII, the UN decided to remove all Jews from Europe and put them in a separate country somewhere. The right solution would have been to eradicate anti-Semetism in Europe, but that was too much work. Mass exodus of Jews from Europe was considered to be an easier solution. The way I read that is that the Nazi deportations never stopped. The UN just picked up where the Nazis left off and sent what was left of the Jews to Palestine. He says its in the history books. If they were all forced deportees, why would they embrace democracy? But I wonder about one thing. The Nazis made the Jews pay for their deportation. Maybe the UN continued the policy. Does anybody know that part well enough to tell us? Lunacy, how about that part? Who paid for the deportations? And another thing, who did they pay? And anopther thing> who furnished the transports this time, there were no railroads from Europe to Palestine. . . . were there?
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Jun 17, 2011 11:58:32 GMT -5
Henry, In fact, many were against letting the Jews go to Israel.. They had to hide movements and populations.. Most of the cost was paid for my the Jewish population in places like the USA and France..( Rothschild family)... also the Jewish army from WWII sent members of the Belgian underground in their Uniforms to Palestine during 1945 and developed systems to facilitate immigration to Palestine before returning home.. They were very good at what they did during WWII and this was the core of the core.
major point.. Right to defend....Arab states declared war and have not ....
Wars between Israel and Arab states
Security Council resolution 242, emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," setting the stage for controversy on the legal status of areas captured in 1967, and in 1948.
There are two interpretations of this matter:
The Israeli position is that: The wars in 1956 and 1967 were waged by Israel to ensure the state's survival. As most hostilities were initiated by the Arab side, Israel had to fight and win these wars in order to ensure the state's sovereignty and safety. Territories captured in the course of those wars are therefore legitimately under Israeli administration for both security reasons and to deter hostile states from belligerence. In the absence of peace treaties between all the parties at war, Israel has under all circumstances the right to maintain control of the captured territories. Their ultimate disposition should be a result of peace treaties, and not a condition for them. Even so, Israel asserts that: The 1956 war was caused by a pattern of Egyptian belligerence against Israel, culminating with the nationalization of the Suez Canal and the blockage of the canal for Israeli traffic in violation of the Convention of Constantinople and other relevant treaties, in their view a clear casus belli (i.e., an act justifying war) The 1967 war was similarly caused by the closing of the Straits of Tiran, the rejection of UN forces in the Sinai desert, and the redeployment of Egyptian forces. Jordan and Syria entered the war in spite of Israeli efforts to keep these frontiers peaceful. The 1973 war was a surprise attack against Israel by Syria and Egypt.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 12:20:22 GMT -5
Henry, dude, no one paid. You think Churchill cared for the Jews? Hell no, otherwise he would have given the uprooted Jews a piece of England.
By the way, am I to believe that you don't like democracy either?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 17, 2011 12:38:27 GMT -5
Henry, In fact, many were against letting the Jews go to Israel.. They had to hide movements and populations.. Most of the cost was paid for my the Jewish population in places like the USA and France..( Rothschild family)... also the Jewish army from WWII sent members of the Belgian underground in their Uniforms to Palestine during 1945 and developed systems to facilitate immigration to Palestine before returning home.. They were very good at what they did during WWII and this was the core of the core. major point.. Right to defend....Arab states declared war and have not .... Wars between Israel and Arab states Security Council resolution 242, emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," setting the stage for controversy on the legal status of areas captured in 1967, and in 1948. There are two interpretations of this matter: The Israeli position is that: The wars in 1956 and 1967 were waged by Israel to ensure the state's survival. As most hostilities were initiated by the Arab side, Israel had to fight and win these wars in order to ensure the state's sovereignty and safety. Territories captured in the course of those wars are therefore legitimately under Israeli administration for both security reasons and to deter hostile states from belligerence. In the absence of peace treaties between all the parties at war, Israel has under all circumstances the right to maintain control of the captured territories. Their ultimate disposition should be a result of peace treaties, and not a condition for them. Even so, Israel asserts that: The 1956 war was caused by a pattern of Egyptian belligerence against Israel, culminating with the nationalization of the Suez Canal and the blockage of the canal for Israeli traffic in violation of the Convention of Constantinople and other relevant treaties, in their view a clear casus belli (i.e., an act justifying war) The 1967 war was similarly caused by the closing of the Straits of Tiran, the rejection of UN forces in the Sinai desert, and the redeployment of Egyptian forces. Jordan and Syria entered the war in spite of Israeli efforts to keep these frontiers peaceful. The 1973 war was a surprise attack against Israel by Syria and Egypt. bimet...a interesting post and so true.. "They had to hide movements and populations.." As a aside, a little true one..Dad's gone now and I am sure the statute of limitations are long gone..after the war in "45 "..my dad , who had plenty of points, plus age on him was eligible to go home, one of the first to be demobilized, but as a member of Pattons third, having high NCO rank aquired by service..having seen what had happened in Europe first hand with the jews, and being a closet Zionest, volunteered to stay over, give up his place to go home and got involved in trying to help any way he could the illegal movement of the Jewish groups in Palastine. He spoke German , some Russian and Polish..a bit of french too..and was accepted to stay, they needed people like him..and he finagled a job of disposing of German small arms left over , which usually meant dropping in some deep river..but he and some others also seperated the chaff from the good, especially light MG and other such and they were gotten to the right people to move to then Palastine, Jewish forces, they knew there was going to be problems even back then, ..he was in Checkoslavakia at the time though also in Germany too. He knew he and friends were violating all kinds of regulations and such, I asked him about that, he just smiled , shrugged his shoulders, said after what he had experienced, no biggie, and felt he had to do what he had to do.. If caught , hoped his record, his decorations..might help him out.Stayed about a year over his time..I was a kid but knew Mom was pissed that he didn't get home, thought it was the damn government, not till later did she find out it was his call..think she was still pissed at him. ;D He got a letter of commendation of thanks for services rendered years later by a representative of the Israeli Government in their consulate in New York, he and others, my brother was in attendence then, I being over seas so couldn't be there, and had it in his office on the wall proudly diplayed. Just a small note, a lot of that by sympathetic folks right after the war.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 22:49:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 12:41:37 GMT -5
Henry, dude, no one paid. You think Churchill cared for the Jews? Hell no, otherwise he would have given the uprooted Jews a piece of England. By the way, am I to believe that you don't like democracy either? By placing the word "either" in your post, I guess you're inferring that I said I don't like democracies ? No where in any of my posts in this thread did I say I didn't like democracies. If you weren't referring to me, disregard this post.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 22:49:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 12:43:25 GMT -5
Great thread. I haven't had to say a word, and even learned some new stuff. God bless Israel!! And welcome to P&M, metal.
|
|