It's Da Jews moonie, Da Jews.
The Jew Hating white lib LEFT ban Pro Israel speakers at Berkeley - Jew free zones
- Thread starter Bigdog
- Start date
It's Da Jews moonie, Da Jews.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
"U.S. Department of State
ANTONY J. BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE
MARCH 3, 2021
Today, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose term ends in June, confirmed the opening of an investigation into the Palestinian situation. The United States firmly opposes and is deeply disappointed by this decision. The ICC has no jurisdiction over this matter. Israel is not a party to the ICC and has not consented to the Court’s jurisdiction, and we have serious concerns about the ICC’s attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel. The Palestinians do not qualify as a sovereign state and therefore, are not qualified to obtain membership as a state in, participate as a state in, or delegate jurisdiction to the ICC.
The Prosecutor’s statement acknowledges some of the many reasons why the ICC will first take its time to determine its priorities, given its limited resources and other challenges, and not proceed to conduct any investigative activity related to this situation. She has previously recognized that “it would be contrary to judicial economy to carry out an investigation in the judicially untested jurisdictional context of this situation only to find out subsequently that relevant legal bases were lacking.” As she acknowledges, that very possibility remains as likely today as ever. The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I’s decision of February 5 did not resolve the serious legal questions arising from any exercise of territorial jurisdiction in this matter, suggesting potential temporal, territorial, and nationality gaps in the finding of jurisdiction in future cases, leaving it to the Prosecutor to navigate such complicated circumstances.
The United States remains deeply committed to ensuring justice and accountability for international atrocity crimes. We recognize the role that international tribunals such as the ICC can play—within their respective mandates—in the pursuit of those important objectives. The ICC was established by its States Parties as a Court of limited jurisdiction. Those limits on the Court’s mandate are rooted in fundamental principles of international law and must be respected.
Moreover, the United States believes a peaceful, secure and more prosperous future for the people of the Middle East depends on building bridges and creating new avenues for dialogue and exchange, not unilateral judicial actions that exacerbate tensions and undercut efforts to advance a negotiated two-state solution.
https://www.state.gov/the-united-st...investigation-into-the-palestinian-situation/
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Jordan has fuck all to do with it. It's just another prosemitic canard by thieving Zionists who want Palestine ethnically cleansed of Palestinians. Good luck with that.
There will be a reckoning.
Of course Jordan is significant. It's border, established under the Brit Mandate, is the last legally drawn boundary.
Jordan violated the mandate, broke the law and stole the West Bank.
moon
Satire for Sanity
So the US, supporter of Israeli fascism, is ' deeply disappointed ' that the victims have been given a voice. Tough tittie.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Resolution 181 defined the Jewish Homeland and the Palestinian Homeland. If you want to un-define Israel, go right ahead. You'll have a few billion supporters.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Again, No, it did NOT.
"UN, General Assembly resolutions/decisions are not binding for Member States."
https://ask.un.org/faq/14484
Again, Ben-Gurion and the People's Administration declared their Independence as the State of Israel. The UNGA had absolutely no role, or authority to create a State or draw new State borders.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Yes, it did- and the Zionists accepted the division.
The resolution did not have to be binding. The borders between the two states were set by Resolution 181 and the General Assembly agreed it. Both parties were contained by other binding international laws and so any attempt by either to encroach upon the other was illegal then and remains illegal today. International law- to which all states are subject- forbade the Zionists to land-grab Palestine.
From the Northwest School of law;
Your boys are criminals. Only US support is keeping them in place- and that will change.
moon
Satire for Sanity
I admire your efforts to legitimize neo-Zionist fascism, Bigdoggie- streets ahead of the forum's prosemitic assholes- but you're never going to break out. The world depends upon international law- and the world will never allow Israeli criminality to be normalized. It's an existential threat for all nations. It's a great shame that the US has to drag this millstone about , a millstone which embarrasses America on every international moral issue- but America will change.
Currently, most US politicians don't even realize that they ARE embarrassed. Ignorance is bliss ...for them........but as they posture and rage over Ukraine half of the world looks at the US record and simply shakes its collective head at the hypocrisy.
Currently, most US politicians don't even realize that they ARE embarrassed. Ignorance is bliss ...for them........but as they posture and rage over Ukraine half of the world looks at the US record and simply shakes its collective head at the hypocrisy.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
I used to believe the media BIG LIE that UNGAR 181 was inviolate international law. But with a little research, it turns out it's just a RECOMMENDATION for when the British mandate ENDED.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
Kellogg-Briand? ... no, when the Mandate ended on May 14, the territory from the river to the sea became self governing.
Because the Muslims refused to agree to 181, it became null and void. The recommendations were NEVER international borders. . As evidenced by 5 Muslim State Armies invading to annex the whole territory, militarily, ... the instant British rule ended.
The only violation of KB, is Jordan annexing the West Bank.
Last edited:
moon
Satire for Sanity
Nah- you're just regurgitating hasbara canards.
181 PASSED even though Arab states objected. The Jews accepted the division.
181 delineated the Jewish Homeland and the Arab Homeland. The borders are inviolate under international law as outlined again below.
Any attempt by either to capture part of the other is illegal under international law as outlined again below
The Jews must return to their ascribed territory as demanded by Resolution 242- which is based upon the inarguable illegality of taking of territory by force.
Zionism has no valid arguments.
Every year the UN confirms its resolutions against Israel.
Palestine is a UN-recognized state
Last edited:
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Res 242 is very vague and further complicated by French and English versions. It had to be vague or it would not have gotten the votes.
Show me in 242 where specifically it says the Jews must withdrawal from the West Bank
242 was a 'land for peace" deal. No peace and security, no land. No peace treaty, no land. Israel looked like this when 242 was passed ...
IIRC, it took until 1979 before Egypt agreed to peace.
Show me in the UN charter where the UNGA has the legal authority to grant sovereign Statehood.
Your quote on KB, without a source, is just a blogger's opinion.
Last edited:
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Ha Ha.
"Between 10-18 May, during the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, more than 4,340 rockets were fired toward Sderot, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Jerusalem and other communities. Ten Israelis were killed. More than 90% of the rockets heading toward populated areas were intercepted by the Iron Dome.
List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2021 - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_Palestinian_rock...
Da Jews Moonie Da Jews. Start a thread and ban everyone from responding.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Haw, haw- you think that thr UN doesn't speak both English and French. Haw, haw.
Wishful speculation
That would be the bit where it says that the Jews must withdraw from the West Bank.
1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles
requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace
in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
242 is not a ' deal '- it's a Chapter VI ruling.
It doesn't. I haven't suggested that it does. Again ( again ) 181 is the partition resolution. The parties are tied to their divisions by the international rulings so described. The Jews agreed to the borders described therein. It doesn't matter that the Arabs didn't- the Resolution PASSED.
No, it's the legal opinion by a Leighton Professor at Law. Just search with the given text and you'll happen across the full paper.
However, if you want to challenge the rulings of ' the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948' then you're going to have to do it without me- as I'm not going to get drawn into such abject silliness.
Last edited:
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
You have crumbled.
You're starting to sound like your boy Biden, just babbling gibberish, using undefined terminology, and contradicting yourself. (and no source links for your quotes).
And your KB quote is still just an OPINION ... of some white lib nazi professor ... not a ruling.
Last edited:
moon
Satire for Sanity
You've collapsed in the face of international law- just as Zionism will.
Your attempts to fudge responses are juvenile forum horseshit.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Interesting article from PBS
The Two positions on Res 242
"The Israeli Position
Israel contends that Resolution 242 requires each of its neighbors to recognize Israel's right to exist and to negotiate bilaterally a secure border. That procedure, followed with Egypt in 1977-79, led to Egypt's recognition of Israel and Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai.
Israel always declared its readiness for a similar process with Jordan and Syria. But Israel generally insisted on bilateral negotiations with each of its neighbors. It rejected for years international negotiating formats that would have given a role to the Soviet Union or to the United Nations, arguing that in such a format Israel's adversaries would gang up and force a settlement inconsistent with Israel's security needs. One of the shortcomings of Resolution 242 was that it implied the need for a negotiated settlement, and suggested an endpoint for the negotiations, but it didn't establish a mechanism or a forum for negotiations.
In the decade after 1967, it was widely believed that if Jordan or Syria had engaged in bilateral talks, Israel would have offered territorial concessions in exchange for recognition and peace. Neither Arab neighbor put Israel to the test on this possibility. But in recent years, the Likud government has specified that it has no plans to withdraw from any more of the land captured in 1967.
Arab states have argued that Israel's position defies the language of Resolution 242 that calls on Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied in recent conflict." But Israeli officials reply that the resolution does not specify that Israel must withdraw from "all territories" or even from "the territories" captured in 1967. This was no linguistic accident, Israel argues. It contends that the word "the" was deliberately omitted to leave open the possibility that Israel could fulfill its part of the resolution by withdrawing from some, but not all of the territory it occupied in 1967.
Several U.S. officials who participated in the birth of the resolution have sided with Israel on this issue. The late Arthur Goldberg, who was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 1967, and Eugene Rostow, who was undersecretary of state, have written articles agreeing with Israel's interpretation of the meaning of the missing "the."
The Sinai Peninsula, representing more than 90 percent of the acreage Israel occupied in the war, was returned to Egyptian sovereignty in the 1979 Egypt-Israel treaty. Therefore, Israel argues, it already has met its obligation to return some of the territory and is in compliance with Resolution 242. The parties in violation of the resolution are those Arab states who have refused to end their state of war and recognize Israel's "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries."
» The Palestinian Position
Palestinian leaders were outraged by Resolution 242 when it was adopted. Palestinians had no voice at the United Nations. But the PLO gained great impetus from the feeling of betrayal that Palestinians felt over Resolution 242 and the belief that this was what came from letting non-Palestinians lead the Palestinian cause. The PLO built its popularity in the years after the war partly on its rejection of 242.
The resolution doesn't mention the Palestinians. Instead, it mandates "a just settlement of the refugee problem." Many Palestinians resent being identified as nothing more than a problem. Furthermore, on a practical level, the resolution offers no basis for a settlement. Nothing in the resolution so much as hints at what would constitute "a just settlement of the refugee problem."
The resolution also encourages the states of the Middle East to recognize one another's sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and right to live in peace. Since Israel is the only state in the region whose right to exist is in dispute, the resolution seems to call on the Arab states to recognize Israel. And since the Palestinians had no state, it doesn't call on anyone to recognize their right to national self-determination.
For all of these shortcomings, the PLO rejected Resolution 242 for 20 years. In 1988, the Reagan administration announced that it would drop the long-standing U.S. refusal to talk to the PLO if that organization met several conditions, including an endorsement of Resolution 242. Arafat accepted Resolution 242, which led to a brief and ultimately fruitless U.S.-PLO dialogue. But at the same time, the PLO issued a declaration of independence for a Palestinian state to be formed from the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.
Palestinians acknowledge that nothing in the language of Resolution 242 suggests the creation of a Palestinian state, but contend that the resolution requires Israel to withdraw from all of the territory it occupied in 1967, which would lead to the creation of a Palestinian state.
Palestinians generally dismiss Israel's argument about the missing "the" as legalistic, hair-splitting and note that the definite article is present in the official French translation of the resolution. Palestinians prefer the language in the first sentence of the resolution that emphasizes "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." This clearly suggests that Israel must withdraw from all of the land it captured in 1967."
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oslo/parallel/8.html