Here we go again - another terror attack

[The Green Barbarian]

The UN is allowed to change decisions made by the Leaugue of Nations, no?

You just don't get it. The UN can do whatever it wants, but it can't create INTERNATIONAL LAW without the consent of all of the affected parties. Which is what the League obtained with the Mandate in 1922:

The San Remo conference was an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council, held at Villa Devachan in Sanremo, Italy, from 19 to 26 April 1920. It was attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the prime ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by Japan's Ambassador K. Matsui.[citation needed]

Resolutions passed at this conference determined the allocation of Class "A" League of Nations mandates for administration of the former Ottoman-ruled lands of the Middle East.

The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers," and were not finalized until four years later. The conference decisions were embodied in the Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97). As Turkey rejected this treaty, the conference's decisions with regard to the Palestine mandate were finally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922.

The UN can't just arbitrarily decide to change the borders of a country. Otherwise, no borders would mean anything. Tomorrow Quebec could just become part of Australia, if those kinds of rules were in place. The real issue here is that most people don't understand what the powers of the UN really are. They think that the UN has the same power as actual elected governments. I didn't vote for anyone in the UN, so what power do they really have over anyone in Canada? None. Zip. Zero.

After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, Israel—then called Palestine—became a mandate of the British Empire. The Ottomans were initially defeated at the onset of World War I, and Palestine was brought under British military control for the duration of the war. The British bettered the quality of life for the Jews and Arabs in Palestine, improving the water and food supply, fighting diseases, and enhancing communications. In 1922, following World War I, the League of Nations formally gave temporary control of Palestine to the British government; the stated objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, until the local residents became capable of self-rule. Great Britain was tasked with creating a national homeland for the Jewish people.

Britain's job was to implement the Balfour Declaration, which had been signed five years earlier, stating Britain's desire to create a homeland in Palestine for the Jews. The British government had, however, made conflicting promises to both the Jews and the Arabs, promising each their own autonomous area.

The drafting of the mandate and the demarcation of Israel's borders was a delicate balancing act, fraught with conflict. The Palestine Committee, for example, objected to the phrase invoking the Jewish people's historical "claim" on the Holy Land; the phrase was consequently reworded. The mandate was finally ratified in June of 1922.

And that's when the borders of Israel were established, like so:

[steven lloyd]

What the hell are you goofballs now talking about?

Just Static and Tank, being Static and Tank. Not like there is something intelligent or on topic going on.

Liar ^

Thinktank - upgrade your account.

[steven lloyd]

You just don't get it. The UN can do whatever it wants, but it can't create INTERNATIONAL LAW without the consent of all of the affected parties. Which is what the League obtained with the Mandate in 1922:

But, but, … they can pass a resolution – and then call it a resolution (wow). And just because intelligent people from around the world would not presume this resolution to somehow now be “international law”, that doesn’t mean naïve little dupes like Static and Thinktank can’t entertain themselves feigning outrage over the way our ancestors treated Canada’s First Nations people or how the US used Agent Orange in the Vietnam War. As long as they don’t have to acknowledge the fact they are cheering for barbaric murderous extremists who use their own children as cannon fodder and human shields and strap bombs to their young bodies to send them off to blow up crowded markets full of innocent people in terrorist attacks.

[The Green Barbarian]

I have a relative who was in a residential school and now is deaf and suffering from dementia due to the beatings she received. She is First Nations. I have my own issues with how the FN were treated in Canada and still are being treated, but that's not the topic of these threads. It actually bothers me to see twerps use the mistreatment of the FN as a deflection tool in threads that are not even related to them. It's just wrong, and horribly disrespectful to bring their unique issues and concerns into these very different discussions, purely to avoid the topic at hand.

[steven lloyd]

It actually bothers me to see twerps use the mistreatment of the FN as a deflection tool in threads that are not even related to them. It's just wrong, and horribly disrespectful to bring their unique issues and concerns into these very different discussions, purely to avoid the topic at hand.

Exactly. But I suppose it is tough to want to deal directly with the topic at hand
while idolizing terrorists who use their own children as suicide bombers.

[Static]

removed.

[Static]

Green, you need to do more reading. There have been changes since the 1920's.

[steven lloyd]

You just don't get it. The UN can do whatever it wants, but it can't create INTERNATIONAL LAW without the consent of all of the affected parties.

But, but, … they can pass a resolution – and then call it a resolution (wow). And just because intelligent people from around the world would not presume this resolution to somehow now be “international law”, ….

I have my own issues with how the FN were treated in Canada and still are being treated, but that's not the topic of these threads. It actually bothers me to see twerps use the mistreatment of the FN as a deflection tool in threads that are not even related to them. It's just wrong, and horribly disrespectful to bring their unique issues and concerns into these very different discussions, purely to avoid the topic at hand.

… although I had no say in what happened on this land over the last couple hundred years (or in Vietnam), I can assure that if members of the Nisga’a, Gitxsan or Kitselas Nations starting launching rocket attacks on the playgrounds and elementary schools of Hazelton, Terrace and Smithers I would sure as hell support military incursion into their villages.

Went to do an Internet search to see if I could better understand this childish quirk of Static’s, …

Why do people ask questions to questions already answered?

Best Answer: cause they r stupid …

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 5123005383

I didn't really need to do an Internet search to figure that out, but interesting to know the explanation is there.

[Thinktank]

i heard weapons sales in mid east are up 70% from last year.

someone's getting richer and richer.



^ weapons manufacturers - getting richer

[Thinktank]

I bet America is terrorizing Russia - so they can sell more of their own weapons and gain market share.

[The Green Barbarian]

Green, you need to do more reading. There have been changes since the 1920's.

You need to do more reading.

Yes - since the 1920's there was a war of aggression against Israel in which certain of their mandated territories were taken through an act of aggression. Under international law, this act is illegal. Which is why Iraq had to get out of Kuwait, and Syria out of Lebanon. It's the same principle. The "West Bank" and "Gaza" are part of Israel's mandated lands, and their rights are fully protected under international law.

Otherwise, absolutely NOTHING has changed since the 1920's. To say that "there were changes since the 1920's" means that you are calling into question the borders of over twenty other countries that were created under the same mandate process on the same day. What about Iraq's borders? Kuwait's borders? Jordan's borders? Why are you not questioning their borders too? Why is it that ONLY Israel has their borders questioned, though their country was created in exactly the same way, on the same day, by the same people, as Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan etc.? Why is that?

[The Green Barbarian]

I bet America is terrorizing Russia - so they can sell more of their own weapons and gain market share.

LOL - and how much do you want to bet? Your definition of "terrorize" really isn't what is being discussed here.

[Static]

Green, you haven't a clue what you are talking about, Troll.


United Nations Security Council resolution 446, adopted on 22 March 1979, concerned the issue of Israeli settlements in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem". This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as well as the Syrian Golan Heights.

In the Resolution, the Security Council determined: "that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"

The Resolution was adopted by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions from Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

In 1980, Israel officially absorbed East Jerusalem and considers the whole of Jerusalem to be its capital. The inclusion, though never formally amounting to legal annexation, was condemned internationally and declared "null and void" by the United Nations Security Council (As pointed out by GordonH, the Security Counsel have the final say). The Palestinian National Authority, the United Nations, the international legal and humanitarian bodies and the international community regard East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank, and consequently a part of the Palestinian territories. The Palestinian National Authority housed its offices in Orient House and several other buildings as an assertion of its sovereign interests,until Binjamin Netanyahu shut them down. Israeli sovereignty, however, has not been recognized by any country, since the unilateral annexation of territory occupied during war contravenes the Fourth Geneva Convention.

[The Green Barbarian]

Green, you haven't a clue what you are talking about, Troll.

Static - you don't have a clue what you are talking about, Troll.

There - now can you just show me one, just one argument, that shows how Israel is contravening actual International Law? You just keep cutting and pasting UN garbage. Where is it stated that Israel's borders are supposed to change, due to a war of aggression, and how is making Israel give up part of its territory to aggressors considered complying with international law? Where is the precedent? Where?

And BTW - who was it again that Hamas was fighting against, that you said was invading Gaza in July of 2014? You never answered this question.

[Static]

There - now can you just show me one, just one argument, that shows how Israel is contravening actual International Law?

ISRAELI OCCUPATION IS ILLEGAL:

Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 2(4) & 51 (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 1 (1970).

Israeli Actions: It is illegal under international law to acquire land by force: Israel annexed land occupied by force during 1948 and 1967 wars (lands other than those given by the UN 1947-48 partition plan) ILRC article. Military action and occupations are legal only if they are for self-defense, or to directly benefit the native population. But studies show Israel is not just defending itself as it develops de-facto annexation with its settlements and separation barrier on occupied land, as it takes over most of the occupied territories (over 70%) and its natural resources for its own use and economic benefit, at the expense of the native population.

ILLEGAL ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ON OCCUPIED LAND:
Laws Violated: Geneva Conventions IV, Article 49(6) (1949). It is illegal to colonize occupied land or transfer non-indigenous population to that land.

Israeli Actions: Immediately following the 1967 war, Israel began building Israeli civilian settlements on Palestinian lands, eventually building over 200 settlements throughout the occupied territories, and settling over 450,000 Israeli civilians in them, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians from their own legally owned lands. In addition, Israeli citizens live in hundreds of Israeli settlements on occupied land not originally given to them in the UN Partition Plan, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. ILRC article.

ILLEGAL TO TAKE LAND BY FORCE & CLAIM SOVEREIGNTY:
Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 2(4) (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 1

The list goes on and on