dagblog - Comments for "They burned him ALIVE??!!!"

The upgrade seems to have

Aaron Carine — Wed, 16 Jul 2014 22:12:11 +0000

The upgrade seems to have turned me into anonymous.

If the killing of Jewish

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Jul 2014 21:58:41 +0000

In reply to If the further immolation of

If the killing of Jewish children, rocket attacks on civilians, and a theocratic regime in Gaza are the price of Palestinian nationalism, we could just as well say that this is too high a price.

Other states have killed children, do you want to destroy them too? That would mean destroying a majority of the world's states, including Arab states.

I don't support the Israeli offensive, but perhaps Hamas shouldn't have been shooting rockets.

If the further immolation of

jollyroger — Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:33:56 +0000

In reply to The damn thing blocked my

If the further immolation of children is the price of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, does the price ever get too high?

Note tht the present four dead were not the victims of degenerate vigilantes, but of the IDF.

The damn thing blocked my

Aaron Carine — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:50:14 +0000

In reply to Continued reply to AC As to

The damn thing blocked my reply to one of Roger's comments, so I have to transcribe it again.

Roger says that the League and the United Nations had no legal right to mess around with Palestine. Might he mean that they didn't have a moral right? Because when it comes to legality, I don't think anything outranks the United Nations.

It would have been more just to give the Jews a state in Germany, but in the real world that wasn't an option. Either they got a state in Palestine or they got nothing.

Perhaps the Gypsies also had a right to a state to protect them. For it to have been equivalent to what was envisioned by General Assembly Resolution 181, it would have had to be a chunk of territory in which Gypsies were the majority(Jews were a majority in the area that the partition plan would have awarded to Jews). Manhattan would have been as good a place as any, if Gypsies had been a majority there.

Palestinian demands for Israel's destruction flout Resolution 242 as much as what Israelis have done. It is notable that one of the authors of 242 said that it didn't require a full withdrawal to the 1967 lines.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267

Are you talking about legal

Anonymous — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 17:56:03 +0000

In reply to Neither the League nor the UN

Are you talking about legal rights or moral rights? Because if it's a matter of legality,

what law would trump the resolutions of the League of Nations and the United

Nations?

I myself don't base the legitimacy of partition on the will of the United Nations. I think partition was the best and most moral solution.

The Palestinians who demand Israel's destruction are flouting 242 as much as Israelis. It is interesting to note that one of the authors of 242 said that it didn't require a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines, although he also didn't condone unilateral territorial expansion.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267

Continued reply to AC As to

jollyroger — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 14:56:05 +0000

In reply to They burned him ALIVE??!!!

Continued reply to AC

As to your cliam that "morality" justifies a "Jewish State" in Palestine, I presume you have reference to the events in Europe between 1932 and 1945, to which I repeat, Bavaria would have made a nice homeland.

Parenthetically, were the UN to have decided that the Romany deserved a homeland because of their persecution by Hitler, what would you have thought if they were given Manhattan?

Neither the League nor the UN

jollyroger — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 14:52:44 +0000

In reply to Also, General Assembly

Neither the League nor the UN ever achieved an assent to sovereignty from the population of the former Ottoman territory, (nor did the Ottomans, nor any other conqueror going back to the Romans--as the Jews themselves in glorifying Masada celebrate).

The League nor the UN had the legal right to dispose of the people living in this place.

That said, if you wish to base the Jewish claim to sovereignty on the UN, how then will you justify the persistent violation by Israel of Security Resolution 242?

If they are a creature of the UN, they cannot maintain their legal claim when they violate a UN resolution.

The text of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 reads as:

“The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment 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:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.”

Edit to add: continued at bottom for reformatting.

Also, General Assembly

Anonymous — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 13:08:32 +0000

In reply to My argument may be an "echo",

Also, General Assembly Resolution 181 would seem to provide a legal basis for partition, if you must have one. People have said that General Assembly resolutions are only recommendations, although that means that Resolution 194, which affirmed the right of Palestinians to return, was also a recommendation.

My argument may be an "echo",

Anonymous — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 10:08:42 +0000

In reply to Your Quebec analogy is

My argument may be an "echo", but that hardly refutes it. The fact that the League of Nations incorporated the Balfour Declaration into the mandate has been offered as a legal basis for Zionism, but I think the case for partition was more moral than legalistic(you probably wouldn't feel that Arabs were obliged to accept the British mandate because it was legal).

Your Quebec analogy is

jollyroger — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 23:37:47 +0000

In reply to The problem with your

Your Quebec analogy is inapposite--the right to a plebisicitary secession was built into the original Canadian confederation,

As for the ameliorative goals of a Jewish state, Bavaria should have been the locale.

Your cloaking the unlawful partition with urgent goals is merely an echo of the attitudes of the original seceders.

I will point out that you are silent on the fundamental legal questions raised,.

Edit to add: Try the pointy titty question, you might have better luck...