|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 6, 2015 12:12:06 GMT
Zionism and the State of Israel are generally rejected and opposed by the Orthodox Jews.
www.truetorahjews.org/our_mission
While many Jews reject Zionism and Israel the Orthodox Jews are the largest and most identifiable group to my knowledge and oppose it far more than non-orthodox Jews. Many non-orthodox Jews accept Israel today but reject the expansion of Israel to the Palestinian territories (i.e. the Zionist agenda) and believe that Israel should comply with UN Security Council Resolution 242 to bring peace between the Palestine and Israel (which it would do).
The Palestinian "leadership"--such as it is--really does not want "peace" with Israel. It has demonstrated this over and over again. And to quote from a left-leaning website--which purports to establish the criteria for "[t]rue Torah Jews"--to (supposedly) prove that Jews "generally" have "rejected" the state of Israel, is simply disingenuous.
I did not claim that Jews in general reject the state of Israel but instead pointed out that Orthodox Jews are the most indentifiable opponents of the Jewish State of Israel. They're actually more anti-Israel than most Muslims. Using the term "Jewish Orthodoxy" in lieu of Zionist to address those Jews that have always advocated for the explusion of the Arabs from all of Palestine to make all of Palestine a Jewish state (i.e. Israel) would be juxtaposed to reality. Once again I'll ask what can we call those in Israel that still hold the same goal of expelling the Arabs from all of Palestine by any means necessary to make all of Palestine a Jewish State of Israel?
As for wanting peace I don't know if you caught this in the news over the last few days. The US just vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution that would have ended the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The vote in the Security Council was 8 members voting for the resolution, 2 members voting against the resolution, and 5 members abstaining. Australia joined the US veto in voting against the resolution.
"We voted against this resolution not because we are comfortable with the status quo. We voted against it because ... peace must come from hard compromises that occur at the negotiating table," U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said.
She criticized the decision to bring the draft resolution to a vote as a "staged confrontation that will not bring the parties closer." She added that the resolution was "deeply unbalanced" and didn't take into account Israel's security concerns. www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-12-30/un-to-vote-soon-on-resolution-to-end-israels-occupation
There are a few of problems with U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power's statement on the veto.
First and foremost is that Power's is lying about the issue of "security" for Israel and the Palestinians. The resolution expressly provides for "security arrangements, including through a third-party presence." The Palestinians have proposed that NATO forces be stationed between Israel and Palestine to prevent either side from attacking the other. We're not talking about willy-nilly UN Peace Keepers but instead hard-core NATO military troops. Neither Palestine or Israel would attack NATO troops and they couldn't attack each other without first attacking the NATO troops.
Next the text of the resolution does establish grounds for further negotiations that include "mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps" between Israel and Palestine.
The resolution also addresses the inherent problem of Jerusalem by the establishment of "Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two States which fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship" which is basically taking us back to the provision of UNGA Resolution 181 that's mentioned in the Israeli Declaration of Independence claims that the legitimacy of the State of Israel is based upon UNGA 181.
Another problem with Power's statement is that she calls for "hard compromises" but the "Israeli Jews with the goal of all Palestine being the Jewish State of Israel by any means necessary" (i.e. "Zionist" Jews) are not willing to abandon that goal. Prime Minister Netanyahu is the political leader of those that seek the ultimate goal of making all of Palestine a part of Israel. They don't want peace with the Palestinian Arabs because peace means they must give up the goal they've had since 1922. There can be no compromise with the Israeli Jews that seek to evict the Arabs from all of Palestine and peace is the last thing they really want. In truth far from being one-sided the agreement meets every condition that Israel desires and Israel give up nothing for it. It requires the mutual recognition of both nations, recognition of their international borders, and the right of both nations to live in peace without any threat of hostilities including any threat of terrorism. It establishes security for both nations, it resolved the Jerusalem issue for the mutual benefit of both nations, it is based upon the internationally recognized borders of Israel and Palestine while allowing for land swaps based upon negotiation, and it ends the conflict bringing peace for both Palestine and Israel. Even more important is that by establishing lasting peace between Palestine and Israel it will also end the hostility between the Muslim states in the Middle East where their primary opposition to Israel is based upon the military occupation of Palestine by Israel.
Bottom line there was no logical foundation for the US veto of the Security Council resolution. Below is a link to the full text and I challenge you to find any fundamental problems with it.
www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-palestinians-un-resolution-end-the-occupation-by-2017/
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 7, 2015 21:21:31 GMT
The Palestinian "leadership"--such as it is--really does not want "peace" with Israel. It has demonstrated this over and over again. And to quote from a left-leaning website--which purports to establish the criteria for "[t]rue Torah Jews"--to (supposedly) prove that Jews "generally" have "rejected" the state of Israel, is simply disingenuous.
I did not claim that Jews in general reject the state of Israel but instead pointed out that Orthodox Jews are the most indentifiable opponents of the Jewish State of Israel. They're actually more anti-Israel than most Muslims. Using the term "Jewish Orthodoxy" in lieu of Zionist to address those Jews that have always advocated for the explusion of the Arabs from all of Palestine to make all of Palestine a Jewish state (i.e. Israel) would be juxtaposed to reality. Once again I'll ask what can we call those in Israel that still hold the same goal of expelling the Arabs from all of Palestine by any means necessary to make all of Palestine a Jewish State of Israel?
As for wanting peace I don't know if you caught this in the news over the last few days. The US just vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution that would have ended the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The vote in the Security Council was 8 members voting for the resolution, 2 members voting against the resolution, and 5 members abstaining. Australia joined the US veto in voting against the resolution.
"We voted against this resolution not because we are comfortable with the status quo. We voted against it because ... peace must come from hard compromises that occur at the negotiating table," U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said.
She criticized the decision to bring the draft resolution to a vote as a "staged confrontation that will not bring the parties closer." She added that the resolution was "deeply unbalanced" and didn't take into account Israel's security concerns. www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-12-30/un-to-vote-soon-on-resolution-to-end-israels-occupation
There are a few of problems with U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power's statement on the veto.
First and foremost is that Power's is lying about the issue of "security" for Israel and the Palestinians. The resolution expressly provides for "security arrangements, including through a third-party presence." The Palestinians have proposed that NATO forces be stationed between Israel and Palestine to prevent either side from attacking the other. We're not talking about willy-nilly UN Peace Keepers but instead hard-core NATO military troops. Neither Palestine or Israel would attack NATO troops and they couldn't attack each other without first attacking the NATO troops.
Next the text of the resolution does establish grounds for further negotiations that include "mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps" between Israel and Palestine.
The resolution also addresses the inherent problem of Jerusalem by the establishment of "Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two States which fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship" which is basically taking us back to the provision of UNGA Resolution 181 that's mentioned in the Israeli Declaration of Independence claims that the legitimacy of the State of Israel is based upon UNGA 181.
Another problem with Power's statement is that she calls for "hard compromises" but the "Israeli Jews with the goal of all Palestine being the Jewish State of Israel by any means necessary" (i.e. "Zionist" Jews) are not willing to abandon that goal. Prime Minister Netanyahu is the political leader of those that seek the ultimate goal of making all of Palestine a part of Israel. They don't want peace with the Palestinian Arabs because peace means they must give up the goal they've had since 1922. There can be no compromise with the Israeli Jews that seek to evict the Arabs from all of Palestine and peace is the last thing they really want. In truth far from being one-sided the agreement meets every condition that Israel desires and Israel give up nothing for it. It requires the mutual recognition of both nations, recognition of their international borders, and the right of both nations to live in peace without any threat of hostilities including any threat of terrorism. It establishes security for both nations, it resolved the Jerusalem issue for the mutual benefit of both nations, it is based upon the internationally recognized borders of Israel and Palestine while allowing for land swaps based upon negotiation, and it ends the conflict bringing peace for both Palestine and Israel. Even more important is that by establishing lasting peace between Palestine and Israel it will also end the hostility between the Muslim states in the Middle East where their primary opposition to Israel is based upon the military occupation of Palestine by Israel.
Bottom line there was no logical foundation for the US veto of the Security Council resolution. Below is a link to the full text and I challenge you to find any fundamental problems with it.
www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-palestinians-un-resolution-end-the-occupation-by-2017/
Perhaps the Neturei Karta and Satmer sects oppose the existence of the state of Israel. But not most orthodox Jews. Your assertion that those Israelis whom you refer to by the reprehensible "Z" word favor "expelling the Arabs from all of Palestine by any means necessary" is simply not supported by the facts. Perhaps some fringe elements are in favor of such widespread expulsions; but not most Israelis. (If you believe otherwise, please furnish me with a statement by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to this effect.) And you have deflected from my point that the Palestinians really do not want peace to a rant about America's vetoing a UN resolution. I really do not wish to get bogged down in a discussion of the merits (such as they are) of this resolution, while ignoring the central point, viz.: The Palestinians have never shown any interest in peace.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 8, 2015 13:16:18 GMT
Perhaps the Neturei Karta and Satmer sects oppose the existence of the state of Israel. But not most orthodox Jews. Your assertion that those Israelis whom you refer to by the reprehensible "Z" word favor "expelling the Arabs from all of Palestine by any means necessary" is simply not supported by the facts. Perhaps some fringe elements are in favor of such widespread expulsions; but not most Israelis. (If you believe otherwise, please furnish me with a statement by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to this effect.) And you have deflected from my point that the Palestinians really do not want peace to a rant about America's vetoing a UN resolution. I really do not wish to get bogged down in a discussion of the merits (such as they are) of this resolution, while ignoring the central point, viz.: The Palestinians have never shown any interest in peace.
It is true that only a few sects of orthodox Jews oppose the state of Israel but many Jews oppose the tyranny of Israel based upon the "Z-word" actions against the Palestinians.
"Zionism" itself is historically based upon the explusion of the Arabs to make all of Palestine the Jewish homeland. To cite Wikipedia:
Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, translit. Tziyonut) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (also referred to as Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
Prime Minster Netayahu has constantly supported the expulsion of Arabs from their homes to make way for the illegal immigration of Israeli citizens into the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and E Jerusalem. If we want to know the goal of the "Z-word" then we merely need to review a couple of quotations from it's supporters.
"Zionism demands a publicly recognized and legally secured homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people. This platform is unchangeable." - Theodor Herzl (1860-1904 - considered to be the founder of the modern Zionist movement)
"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple." - Yitzhak Shamir (1915-2012 - former head of the Lehi, a zionist terrorist organization, and a former Israeli prime minister)
The "Land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) refers to all of Palestine and the ultimate goal has always been to make all of Palestine a part of the Jewish State of Israel. This can only accomplished by the forced eviction of the Palestinian Arabs from their homeland and the "Z-word" Jews have been doing this since 1922 when the British authorized the mass immigration of European Jews to Palestine against the will of the Palestinian people.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 9, 2015 18:07:28 GMT
Perhaps the Neturei Karta and Satmer sects oppose the existence of the state of Israel. But not most orthodox Jews. Your assertion that those Israelis whom you refer to by the reprehensible "Z" word favor "expelling the Arabs from all of Palestine by any means necessary" is simply not supported by the facts. Perhaps some fringe elements are in favor of such widespread expulsions; but not most Israelis. (If you believe otherwise, please furnish me with a statement by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to this effect.) And you have deflected from my point that the Palestinians really do not want peace to a rant about America's vetoing a UN resolution. I really do not wish to get bogged down in a discussion of the merits (such as they are) of this resolution, while ignoring the central point, viz.: The Palestinians have never shown any interest in peace.
It is true that only a few sects of orthodox Jews oppose the state of Israel but many Jews oppose the tyranny of Israel based upon the "Z-word" actions against the Palestinians.
"Zionism" itself is historically based upon the explusion of the Arabs to make all of Palestine the Jewish homeland. To cite Wikipedia:
Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, translit. Tziyonut) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (also referred to as Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
Prime Minster Netayahu has constantly supported the expulsion of Arabs from their homes to make way for the illegal immigration of Israeli citizens into the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and E Jerusalem. If we want to know the goal of the "Z-word" then we merely need to review a couple of quotations from it's supporters.
"Zionism demands a publicly recognized and legally secured homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people. This platform is unchangeable." - Theodor Herzl (1860-1904 - considered to be the founder of the modern Zionist movement)
"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple." - Yitzhak Shamir (1915-2012 - former head of the Lehi, a zionist terrorist organization, and a former Israeli prime minister)
The "Land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) refers to all of Palestine and the ultimate goal has always been to make all of Palestine a part of the Jewish State of Israel. This can only accomplished by the forced eviction of the Palestinian Arabs from their homeland and the "Z-word" Jews have been doing this since 1922 when the British authorized the mass immigration of European Jews to Palestine against the will of the Palestinian people.
You seem to equate "the state of Israel" with "tyranny." And that is a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli narrative, if ever I heard one. And in support of your views, you have even quoted someone who was born prior to the American Civil War, and who died 111 years ago; which hardly seems pertinent. Oh, and to divvy up the city of Jerusalem, and award part of it to the Jews and part to the Palestinians, makes just about as much sense as it would to divide Washington, DC, and give part of it to whites, and part to blacks...
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 10, 2015 12:16:57 GMT
It is true that only a few sects of orthodox Jews oppose the state of Israel but many Jews oppose the tyranny of Israel based upon the "Z-word" actions against the Palestinians.
"Zionism" itself is historically based upon the explusion of the Arabs to make all of Palestine the Jewish homeland. To cite Wikipedia:
Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, translit. Tziyonut) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (also referred to as Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
Prime Minster Netayahu has constantly supported the expulsion of Arabs from their homes to make way for the illegal immigration of Israeli citizens into the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and E Jerusalem. If we want to know the goal of the "Z-word" then we merely need to review a couple of quotations from it's supporters.
"Zionism demands a publicly recognized and legally secured homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people. This platform is unchangeable." - Theodor Herzl (1860-1904 - considered to be the founder of the modern Zionist movement)
"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple." - Yitzhak Shamir (1915-2012 - former head of the Lehi, a zionist terrorist organization, and a former Israeli prime minister)
The "Land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) refers to all of Palestine and the ultimate goal has always been to make all of Palestine a part of the Jewish State of Israel. This can only accomplished by the forced eviction of the Palestinian Arabs from their homeland and the "Z-word" Jews have been doing this since 1922 when the British authorized the mass immigration of European Jews to Palestine against the will of the Palestinian people.
You seem to equate "the state of Israel" with "tyranny." And that is a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli narrative, if ever I heard one. And in support of your views, you have even quoted someone who was born prior to the American Civil War, and who died 111 years ago; which hardly seems pertinent. Oh, and to divvy up the city of Jerusalem, and award part of it to the Jews and part to the Palestinians, makes just about as much sense as it would to divide Washington, DC, and give part of it to whites, and part to blacks...
It is the ethnic purging of the non-Jewish people of Palestine to create the "Land of Eretz Yisrael" advocated by Theodor Herzl over 100 years ago and implemented by those like Yitzhak Shamir in the 20th Century and Benjamin Netanyahu in the 21st Century that is tyrannical.
My concern is for the people as opposed to the political or religious division of the people.
We seem to agree on the issue of Jerusalem. Dividing it up or giving it to either one side or the other makes no more sense that dividing Washington DC into black and whites or of ethnically cleansing it of either blacks or whites. I agree with following clause in the recently (US) rejected UN Security Council Resolution:
"Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two States which fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;"
www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-palestinians-un-resolution-end-the-occupation-by-2017/
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 12, 2015 18:35:50 GMT
You seem to equate "the state of Israel" with "tyranny." And that is a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli narrative, if ever I heard one. And in support of your views, you have even quoted someone who was born prior to the American Civil War, and who died 111 years ago; which hardly seems pertinent. Oh, and to divvy up the city of Jerusalem, and award part of it to the Jews and part to the Palestinians, makes just about as much sense as it would to divide Washington, DC, and give part of it to whites, and part to blacks...
It is the ethnic purging of the non-Jewish people of Palestine to create the "Land of Eretz Yisrael" advocated by Theodor Herzl over 100 years ago and implemented by those like Yitzhak Shamir in the 20th Century and Benjamin Netanyahu in the 21st Century that is tyrannical.
My concern is for the people as opposed to the political or religious division of the people.
We seem to agree on the issue of Jerusalem. Dividing it up or giving it to either one side or the other makes no more sense that dividing Washington DC into black and whites or of ethnically cleansing it of either blacks or whites. I agree with following clause in the recently (US) rejected UN Security Council Resolution:
"Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two States which fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;"
www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-palestinians-un-resolution-end-the-occupation-by-2017/
I would not wish to refer to approvingly the UN, as I have just about as much respect for that organization as I would have had for Germany's Third Reich, between 1933 and 1945, if I had been alive then. And to claim that Prime Minister Netanyahu's policies are "tyrannical" is simply to parrot the pro-Palestinian line...
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 13, 2015 16:56:05 GMT
I would not wish to refer to approvingly the UN, as I have just about as much respect for that organization as I would have had for Germany's Third Reich, between 1933 and 1945, if I had been alive then. And to claim that Prime Minister Netanyahu's policies are "tyrannical" is simply to parrot the pro-Palestinian line...
I would ask which part of this do you oppose:
www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml
The balance of the UN Charter is dedicated to these principles but that is not to claim that the United Nations has been able to fulfill these lofty goals. Predominate among it's failures is the refusal of member nations to honor their treaty obligations and the use of veto power by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council for nefarious political purposes.
I don't know how you can possibly claim that the forced eviction of Arabs to allow (illegal) immigration of Israeli citizens to the occupied territories (authorized by Prime Minister Netayahu) isn't tyrannanical. What would you call it if US government evicted you from your land without compensation and bulldozed your home so that it could allow someone else to live on your property? I'd call it tyrannical but that's just me.
Of note it has been the post WW II ethnic cleansing of the non-Jewish people in Palestine by the European "Z-word" Jews that most resembles the Nazi ethnic cleaning prior to the defeat of Nazi Germany. First they used coercion and murder to ethnically cleanse "Israel" of enough Arabs to establish a nation in 1948 and since then they've used war and forced explusions in an attempt to annex more of Palestine into the "Land of Israel" that encompasses all of Palestine by definition.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 14, 2015 18:58:41 GMT
I would not wish to refer to approvingly the UN, as I have just about as much respect for that organization as I would have had for Germany's Third Reich, between 1933 and 1945, if I had been alive then. And to claim that Prime Minister Netanyahu's policies are "tyrannical" is simply to parrot the pro-Palestinian line...
I would ask which part of this do you oppose:
www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml
The balance of the UN Charter is dedicated to these principles but that is not to claim that the United Nations has been able to fulfill these lofty goals. Predominate among it's failures is the refusal of member nations to honor their treaty obligations and the use of veto power by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council for nefarious political purposes.
I don't know how you can possibly claim that the forced eviction of Arabs to allow (illegal) immigration of Israeli citizens to the occupied territories (authorized by Prime Minister Netayahu) isn't tyrannanical. What would you call it if US government evicted you from your land without compensation and bulldozed your home so that it could allow someone else to live on your property? I'd call it tyrannical but that's just me.
Of note it has been the post WW II ethnic cleansing of the non-Jewish people in Palestine by the European "Z-word" Jews that most resembles the Nazi ethnic cleaning prior to the defeat of Nazi Germany. First they used coercion and murder to ethnically cleanse "Israel" of enough Arabs to establish a nation in 1948 and since then they've used war and forced explusions in an attempt to annex more of Palestine into the "Land of Israel" that encompasses all of Palestine by definition.
Yes, I quite agree that the state of Israel "encompasses all of Palestine by definition." The Israelis were the victims of two acts of aggression (in the late 1960s and the early '70s), which you have chosen to characterize otherwise. (No wonder that you have concluded--rather conveniently--that the Israelis have been engaging in "ethnic cleansing.") What you have quoted from the UN Charter is simply a congeries of empty platitudes. The fact remains that most UN member nations are viscerally anti-Western; and they are especially anti-Israeli and anti-American. Let us just say that I am certainly no fan of Woodrow Wilson (whose brainchild, the League of Nations--the predecessor to the United Nations--came into existence about 95 years ago.)
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 15, 2015 11:22:42 GMT
Yes, I quite agree that the state of Israel "encompasses all of Palestine by definition." The Israelis were the victims of two acts of aggression (in the late 1960s and the early '70s), which you have chosen to characterize otherwise. (No wonder that you have concluded--rather conveniently--that the Israelis have been engaging in "ethnic cleansing.") What you have quoted from the UN Charter is simply a congeries of empty platitudes. The fact remains that most UN member nations are viscerally anti-Western; and they are especially anti-Israeli and anti-American. Let us just say that I am certainly no fan of Woodrow Wilson (whose brainchild, the League of Nations--the predecessor to the United Nations--came into existence about 95 years ago.)
No, the "State of Israel" doesn't include all of Palestine nor did the "State of Germany" include Western Europe in the 1930's. The "Z-word" advocates decided the "Land of Israel" included all of Palestine just like the Nazis decided that all of Western Europe belonged to the Germans. There is little difference between the expansion of the "State of Israel" and the expansion of Germany under the Nazi rule.
In 1967 it was Israel that invaded Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. In 1973 Egypt and Syria attempted to liberate the Sinai and the Golan Heights from Israeli occupation and, except for a couple of minor military actions, all of the war was conducted in the Arab territories and there was no invasion of Israel.
Most UN member nations oppose violations of the UN Charter regardless of which nations violate the charter. Unfortunately the US and Israel are at the top of the list when it comes to violating the UN Charter.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 15, 2015 11:23:12 GMT
Yes, I quite agree that the state of Israel "encompasses all of Palestine by definition." The Israelis were the victims of two acts of aggression (in the late 1960s and the early '70s), which you have chosen to characterize otherwise. (No wonder that you have concluded--rather conveniently--that the Israelis have been engaging in "ethnic cleansing.") What you have quoted from the UN Charter is simply a congeries of empty platitudes. The fact remains that most UN member nations are viscerally anti-Western; and they are especially anti-Israeli and anti-American. Let us just say that I am certainly no fan of Woodrow Wilson (whose brainchild, the League of Nations--the predecessor to the United Nations--came into existence about 95 years ago.)
No, the "State of Israel" doesn't include all of Palestine nor did the "State of Germany" include Western Europe in the 1930's. The "Z-word" advocates decided the "Land of Israel" included all of Palestine just like the Nazis decided that all of Western Europe belonged to the Germans. There is little difference between the expansion of the "State of Israel" and the expansion of Germany under the Nazi rule.
In 1967 it was Israel that invaded Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. In 1973 Egypt and Syria attempted to liberate the Sinai and the Golan Heights from Israeli occupation and, except for a couple of minor military actions, all of the war was conducted in the Arab territories and there was no invasion of Israel.
Most UN member nations oppose violations of the UN Charter regardless of which nations violate the charter. Unfortunately the US and Israel are at the top of the list when it comes to violating the UN Charter.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 16, 2015 5:30:41 GMT
Yes, I quite agree that the state of Israel "encompasses all of Palestine by definition." The Israelis were the victims of two acts of aggression (in the late 1960s and the early '70s), which you have chosen to characterize otherwise. (No wonder that you have concluded--rather conveniently--that the Israelis have been engaging in "ethnic cleansing.") What you have quoted from the UN Charter is simply a congeries of empty platitudes. The fact remains that most UN member nations are viscerally anti-Western; and they are especially anti-Israeli and anti-American. Let us just say that I am certainly no fan of Woodrow Wilson (whose brainchild, the League of Nations--the predecessor to the United Nations--came into existence about 95 years ago.)
No, the "State of Israel" doesn't include all of Palestine nor did the "State of Germany" include Western Europe in the 1930's. The "Z-word" advocates decided the "Land of Israel" included all of Palestine just like the Nazis decided that all of Western Europe belonged to the Germans. There is little difference between the expansion of the "State of Israel" and the expansion of Germany under the Nazi rule.
In 1967 it was Israel that invaded Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. In 1973 Egypt and Syria attempted to liberate the Sinai and the Golan Heights from Israeli occupation and, except for a couple of minor military actions, all of the war was conducted in the Arab territories and there was no invasion of Israel.
Most UN member nations oppose violations of the UN Charter regardless of which nations violate the charter. Unfortunately the US and Israel are at the top of the list when it comes to violating the UN Charter.
Except that Israel did not invade a separate, sovereign nation in order to “expand” its territory, as Nazi Germany did when it invaded Poland. “Most UN member nations” are deeply, viscerally opposed to America and Israel. So it should probably come as no great surprise that they would claim that these two nations are perpetually in “violat[ion]” of its charter. (The best solution, in my opinion, would be for these two nations to simply remove themselves from the UN entirely, and let these rabid anti-American and anti-Israeli nations keep frothing at the mouth.)
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 16, 2015 9:23:40 GMT
Except that Israel did not invade a separate, sovereign nation in order to “expand” its territory, as Nazi Germany did when it invaded Poland. “Most UN member nations” are deeply, viscerally opposed to America and Israel. So it should probably come as no great surprise that they would claim that these two nations are perpetually in “violat[ion]” of its charter. (The best solution, in my opinion, would be for these two nations to simply remove themselves from the UN entirely, and let these rabid anti-American and anti-Israeli nations keep frothing at the mouth.)
With the division of Transjordan and Palestine at the end of WW I both were established as sovereign nations. The fact that European Jews invaded Palestine and carved out a part of it in establishing the State of Israel did not diminish the fact that the balance of Palestine remained the sovereign nation of Palestine and the home of the Palestinian people. The fact that first Great Britian, then Jordan and Egypt, and finally Israel militarily occupied the State of Palestine and imposed military authority over the people did not change the sovereignty of the State of Palestine as the home of the Palestinian People. Even prior to WW I when Palestine was under the military authority of the Turks it was still the soveriegn land of the Palestinian People. It is the "people" of the land that establish the soverienty of the territory. Sovereignty originates with the person and nations merely represent the cummulative soveriengty of all of the people within a territory. Try reading the Declaration of Independence that was based upon this principle.
By analogy Puerto Rico the sovereign nation of the Puerto Rican People currently under the adminstrative authority of the United States. The United States cannot annex Puerto Rico and make it a part of the United States.
It isn't a "claim" that the US and Israel routinely violate the UN Charter, it's a fact.
In 2003 the US invaded Iraq without UN Security Council authorization in violation of the UN Charter. In 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan without UN Security Council authorization in violation of the UN Charter. In 1967 Israel invaded Egypt, Jordan, and Syria without UN Security Council authorization in violation of the UN Charter. In Israel is maintaining a blockade of Gaza, an act of war, in violation of the UN Charter. The Vietnam War was a violation of the UN Charter. Every invasion of Lebannon has been without UN Security Council authorization in violation of the UN Charter.
Only the United Nations Security Council can authorize offensive military operations against any nation according to the United Nations Charter and it rarely does so. Many, such as Israel and the United States, like to cite Article 51 of the UN Charter as authorizing offense military operations against other nations but that is not what it states. What it actually says is: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." A nation, or alliance of nations, if actually can employ it's military for defensive purposes if attacked but only until such a time as the UN Security Council can address the situation. This negates claims such as the claim by the Bush Adminstration that the invasion of Afghanistan was authorized because individuals that may or may not have been in Afghanistan were behind the 9/11 attacks because the UN Security Council had already responded to the 9/11 attacks prior to the US invasion. Additionally Afghanistan had never attacked the United States and represented no threat of attacking the United States. Of course the US invasion of Iraq was in direct opposition to the UN Security Councils resolutions on Iraq where enforcement was being carried out by the UN Weapons Inspectors. Additionally, like Afghanistan, Iraq had not attacked the United States and represented no threat of attacking the United States in 2003.
The immigration of Israeli citizens to the occupied territories (i.e. Golan Heights, West Bank, and E Jerusalem) are in direct violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions that was created under the authority of the United Nations. Israel is the only nation that claims this is not a violation of Article 49 while every other nation, including the United States, condemns the Israeli immigration into the Golan Heights, West Bank, and E Jerusalem as a violation of Article 49.
No, it's not "claims of violations of the UN Charter" but instead actual violations of the UN Charter that other nations condemn the United States and Israel for. The member states of the United Nations don't just condemn the US and Israel though and instead condemn every nation that violates the UN Charter. It's just that the US and Israel tend to violate the UN Charter as a matter of course whereas most other nations do not.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 19, 2015 6:05:43 GMT
Except that Israel did not invade a separate, sovereign nation in order to “expand” its territory, as Nazi Germany did when it invaded Poland. “Most UN member nations” are deeply, viscerally opposed to America and Israel. So it should probably come as no great surprise that they would claim that these two nations are perpetually in “violat[ion]” of its charter. (The best solution, in my opinion, would be for these two nations to simply remove themselves from the UN entirely, and let these rabid anti-American and anti-Israeli nations keep frothing at the mouth.)
With the division of Transjordan and Palestine at the end of WW I both were established as sovereign nations. The fact that European Jews invaded Palestine and carved out a part of it in establishing the State of Israel did not diminish the fact that the balance of Palestine remained the sovereign nation of Palestine and the home of the Palestinian people. The fact that first Great Britian, then Jordan and Egypt, and finally Israel militarily occupied the State of Palestine and imposed military authority over the people did not change the sovereignty of the State of Palestine as the home of the Palestinian People. Even prior to WW I when Palestine was under the military authority of the Turks it was still the soveriegn land of the Palestinian People. It is the "people" of the land that establish the soverienty of the territory. Sovereignty originates with the person and nations merely represent the cummulative soveriengty of all of the people within a territory. Try reading the Declaration of Independence that was based upon this principle.
By analogy Puerto Rico the sovereign nation of the Puerto Rican People currently under the adminstrative authority of the United States. The United States cannot annex Puerto Rico and make it a part of the United States.
It isn't a "claim" that the US and Israel routinely violate the UN Charter, it's a fact.
In 2003 the US invaded Iraq without UN Security Council authorization in violation of the UN Charter. In 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan without UN Security Council authorization in violation of the UN Charter. In 1967 Israel invaded Egypt, Jordan, and Syria without UN Security Council authorization in violation of the UN Charter. In Israel is maintaining a blockade of Gaza, an act of war, in violation of the UN Charter. The Vietnam War was a violation of the UN Charter. Every invasion of Lebannon has been without UN Security Council authorization in violation of the UN Charter.
Only the United Nations Security Council can authorize offensive military operations against any nation according to the United Nations Charter and it rarely does so. Many, such as Israel and the United States, like to cite Article 51 of the UN Charter as authorizing offense military operations against other nations but that is not what it states. What it actually says is: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." A nation, or alliance of nations, if actually can employ it's military for defensive purposes if attacked but only until such a time as the UN Security Council can address the situation. This negates claims such as the claim by the Bush Adminstration that the invasion of Afghanistan was authorized because individuals that may or may not have been in Afghanistan were behind the 9/11 attacks because the UN Security Council had already responded to the 9/11 attacks prior to the US invasion. Additionally Afghanistan had never attacked the United States and represented no threat of attacking the United States. Of course the US invasion of Iraq was in direct opposition to the UN Security Councils resolutions on Iraq where enforcement was being carried out by the UN Weapons Inspectors. Additionally, like Afghanistan, Iraq had not attacked the United States and represented no threat of attacking the United States in 2003.
The immigration of Israeli citizens to the occupied territories (i.e. Golan Heights, West Bank, and E Jerusalem) are in direct violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions that was created under the authority of the United Nations. Israel is the only nation that claims this is not a violation of Article 49 while every other nation, including the United States, condemns the Israeli immigration into the Golan Heights, West Bank, and E Jerusalem as a violation of Article 49.
No, it's not "claims of violations of the UN Charter" but instead actual violations of the UN Charter that other nations condemn the United States and Israel for. The member states of the United Nations don't just condemn the US and Israel though and instead condemn every nation that violates the UN Charter. It's just that the US and Israel tend to violate the UN Charter as a matter of course whereas most other nations do not.
Your assertion that “European Jews invaded Palestine,” thereby creating the state of Israel, is simply untrue. It was land granted to the Jewish people, following the Holocaust, as a homeland. To claim that the UN must give prior “authorization” before a nation may lawfully go to war against another nation is to claim, in essence, that UN authority supersedes national authority. And I firmly disagree. No sovereign nation should be expected to request a permission slip from the UN before it acts in whatever it perceives to be its own self-interest.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 19, 2015 11:38:42 GMT
Your assertion that “European Jews invaded Palestine,” thereby creating the state of Israel, is simply untrue. It was land granted to the Jewish people, following the Holocaust, as a homeland. To claim that the UN must give prior “authorization” before a nation may lawfully go to war against another nation is to claim, in essence, that UN authority supersedes national authority. And I firmly disagree. No sovereign nation should be expected to request a permission slip from the UN before it acts in whatever it perceives to be its own self-interest.
There are two fundamental errors in your first statement.
No individual, nation, or group of nations had the authority to "grant" Palestine to foreign Jews at anytime for any reason based upon any political agenda.
The national State of Palestine was created from a part of the former Turkish empire at the end of WW I under the authority of the League of Nations when Britian was assigned as the "mandatory" to establish a modern government for the people living in Palestine. It was a nation of Arabs, Jews, Christians, and other minorities that were all "Palestinians" regardless of race, religion, ethnic heritage, gender, social/economic status, or any other criteria. In the rest of this response I'm going to use the term "Palestinians" in reference to those living in Palestine regardless of race, religion, ethnic heritage or other invidious criteria.
Great Britian, in retrospect, was perhaps one of the worst possible choices to be assigned the role of establishing a "modern" government in Palestine. While it was the foremost Western power it was a colonialist nation commonly involved in subjugating "foreign people" to WASP Supremacy. People in India, South Africa and other British colonies were exploited as little more than slave labor as the British robbed those people of the natural resources of their nations. Added to this was the land of Palestine where Britian, instead of treating the people as the rightful citizens of the land, were treated as little more than chattel, and the nation of Palestine became just another British colonial territory that Great Britian felt it could do whatever it damn well pleased with regardless of the people living there.
Instead of treating the Palestinians (i.e. Arabs, Jews, Christians, etc. living in Palestine) as a people that were entitled to self-rule of their own nation based upon their citizenship they were disgarded under British colonialism. The designated role of Great Britian was to politically educate the Palestinians so that they could independenty govern themselves but that is not what Great Britian attempted to do.
In 1922 (not at the end of WW II) the British, without the consent of the Palestinian people, created the British Mandate for Palestine to facilitate the immigration of European Jews to Palestine to share Palestine as their homeland with the existing Palestinian people. It did not propose that Palestine should become a Jewish State and expressly prevented that by prohibiting any violations of the "civil rights" of the non-Jewish Palestinians that lived there already.
In general principle I don't disagree because I believe that people have the right of liberty that would ensure them the freedom to immigrate and become a citizen of another nation but there were two fundamental problems. First and foremost is that Britain didn't have the authority to make this decision as that rested with the People of Palestine based upon their right of self-determination. Next is that the Mandate established an invidious criteria (i.e. Judaism) in it's application. The Mandate didn't open the borders of Palestine for anyone to immigrate but instead only opened the borders for Jewish immigration.
Where the Mandate specifically failed was that the European immigrant Jews did not relocate to Palestine to share the nation with the citizens of Palestine where it was already their homeland but they came based upon the "Z-word Agenda" to evict the non-Jewish people. The "Z-word" agenda was the same in the 20th Century as it was over 2,000 years previously where foreign Jews entered the land of Canaan and slaughtered the people of Canaan and forced them out to create the original Land of Israel.
Instead of creating a modern nation of unified people where all are the same regardless of race, religion, ethnic heritage, social/economic status or other invidious criteria Great Britian divided the people and it resulted in civil war. While the European Jews did not enter Palestine as a massed army they did enter Palestine as an armed para-military force that employed terrorism as a tactic up until 1948 with the same goal that the Jews had over 2,000 years previously when they slaughtered the Canaanites to create the Land of Israel. Since 1948 the Israeli government, based upon the Z-word agenda, has continued that same campaign of eviction of the non-Jewish people, by any means necessary, from their (the non-Jew) homeland.
Let me provide an analogy for an example. The State of California is a sovereign state that voluntarily became a part of the United States under the US Constitution (unlike Palestine that was never a part of Great Britian) but I will use it as an example. What would your opinion be of the United Nations opening up the California-Mexican border to immigration so that the "Mexicans" could evict non-Hispanics from California to create a new nation of "Mexicana" from California?
I don't think I need wait for your reply because I'm relatively certain you'd oppose such an action citing the fact that the United Nations has no such authority and I'd agree with you 100%. Such an action would violate the sovereign rights of the existing Californians.
What has happened to the "Palestinians" (i.e. those living in Palestine at the end of WW I) is fundamentally no different than the UN authorizing the immigration of Mexicans to California to evict the non-Hispanics Californians and create a new Nation of Mexicana. So far the immigrant European Jews (and their heirs) have only managed to take control of "Southern California" and the "non-Hispanics" have been forced into "Northern California" but the agenda remains that they want all of "California" and I have a serious problem with that.
California belongs to the Californians regardless of whether they're Hispanic or not and the "Mexicans" don't have any right to violate the sovereignty of the "Californian" people by using force and violence to evict the non-Hispanics.
In Palestine it's already been divided but that doesn't not imply we should allow this eviction of the non-Jewish people from their homeland in the future. The Israel militarily occupied the remaining Palestinian territory (Northern California) in 1967 but they have no right to it and they don't have any right to force the Arabs (non-Hispanic Californians) from their remaining homeland (Northern California).
It would have been one thing for European Jews to immigrate to Palestine to share Palestine as a homeland with the existing Palestinian people but it was a completely different issue to allow European Jews to evict the non-Jewish citizens from their homeland to create a Jewish State.
******************************
Nations voluntarily agree to the UN Charter which establishes that diplomacy is to be used to resolve international disputes. It prohibits all nations from resorting to offensive wars of aggression and allows every nation to defend itself from acts of aggression by other nations. It is in the best interests of all nations to resolve disputes with other nations through diplomacy but if those efforts ultimately fail the UN, based upon intent acting as an unbiased political entity, can authorize the use of military force.
Let me use an another analogy to dispute your beliefs. Let's say I purchase a house with a great ocean view and later someone else purchases the land between me and the ocean and builds a house that blocks my view. It is in my personal best interest to have the ocean view so should I be allowed to take up arms, murder my neighbor, and bulldoze down his home to restore my ocean view just because it's in my "best interests" to do so?
My neighbor has the same rights that I have and just because he does something on his land that isn't in my best interests does not empower me to murder him. Your argument that the US can do whatever it pleases, including they murder of others, whenever it feels that it's own "self interests" are at stake is the same as me claiming that I can murder my neighbor just because he does something on his property that I don't considered to be in my best self interests.
That boat just don't float in my pond.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 21, 2015 19:55:07 GMT
Your assertion that “European Jews invaded Palestine,” thereby creating the state of Israel, is simply untrue. It was land granted to the Jewish people, following the Holocaust, as a homeland. To claim that the UN must give prior “authorization” before a nation may lawfully go to war against another nation is to claim, in essence, that UN authority supersedes national authority. And I firmly disagree. No sovereign nation should be expected to request a permission slip from the UN before it acts in whatever it perceives to be its own self-interest.
There are two fundamental errors in your first statement.
No individual, nation, or group of nations had the authority to "grant" Palestine to foreign Jews at anytime for any reason based upon any political agenda.
The national State of Palestine was created from a part of the former Turkish empire at the end of WW I under the authority of the League of Nations when Britian was assigned as the "mandatory" to establish a modern government for the people living in Palestine. It was a nation of Arabs, Jews, Christians, and other minorities that were all "Palestinians" regardless of race, religion, ethnic heritage, gender, social/economic status, or any other criteria. In the rest of this response I'm going to use the term "Palestinians" in reference to those living in Palestine regardless of race, religion, ethnic heritage or other invidious criteria.
Great Britian, in retrospect, was perhaps one of the worst possible choices to be assigned the role of establishing a "modern" government in Palestine. While it was the foremost Western power it was a colonialist nation commonly involved in subjugating "foreign people" to WASP Supremacy. People in India, South Africa and other British colonies were exploited as little more than slave labor as the British robbed those people of the natural resources of their nations. Added to this was the land of Palestine where Britian, instead of treating the people as the rightful citizens of the land, were treated as little more than chattel, and the nation of Palestine became just another British colonial territory that Great Britian felt it could do whatever it damn well pleased with regardless of the people living there.
Instead of treating the Palestinians (i.e. Arabs, Jews, Christians, etc. living in Palestine) as a people that were entitled to self-rule of their own nation based upon their citizenship they were disgarded under British colonialism. The designated role of Great Britian was to politically educate the Palestinians so that they could independenty govern themselves but that is not what Great Britian attempted to do.
In 1922 (not at the end of WW II) the British, without the consent of the Palestinian people, created the British Mandate for Palestine to facilitate the immigration of European Jews to Palestine to share Palestine as their homeland with the existing Palestinian people. It did not propose that Palestine should become a Jewish State and expressly prevented that by prohibiting any violations of the "civil rights" of the non-Jewish Palestinians that lived there already.
In general principle I don't disagree because I believe that people have the right of liberty that would ensure them the freedom to immigrate and become a citizen of another nation but there were two fundamental problems. First and foremost is that Britain didn't have the authority to make this decision as that rested with the People of Palestine based upon their right of self-determination. Next is that the Mandate established an invidious criteria (i.e. Judaism) in it's application. The Mandate didn't open the borders of Palestine for anyone to immigrate but instead only opened the borders for Jewish immigration.
Where the Mandate specifically failed was that the European immigrant Jews did not relocate to Palestine to share the nation with the citizens of Palestine where it was already their homeland but they came based upon the "Z-word Agenda" to evict the non-Jewish people. The "Z-word" agenda was the same in the 20th Century as it was over 2,000 years previously where foreign Jews entered the land of Canaan and slaughtered the people of Canaan and forced them out to create the original Land of Israel.
Instead of creating a modern nation of unified people where all are the same regardless of race, religion, ethnic heritage, social/economic status or other invidious criteria Great Britian divided the people and it resulted in civil war. While the European Jews did not enter Palestine as a massed army they did enter Palestine as an armed para-military force that employed terrorism as a tactic up until 1948 with the same goal that the Jews had over 2,000 years previously when they slaughtered the Canaanites to create the Land of Israel. Since 1948 the Israeli government, based upon the Z-word agenda, has continued that same campaign of eviction of the non-Jewish people, by any means necessary, from their (the non-Jew) homeland.
Let me provide an analogy for an example. The State of California is a sovereign state that voluntarily became a part of the United States under the US Constitution (unlike Palestine that was never a part of Great Britian) but I will use it as an example. What would your opinion be of the United Nations opening up the California-Mexican border to immigration so that the "Mexicans" could evict non-Hispanics from California to create a new nation of "Mexicana" from California?
I don't think I need wait for your reply because I'm relatively certain you'd oppose such an action citing the fact that the United Nations has no such authority and I'd agree with you 100%. Such an action would violate the sovereign rights of the existing Californians.
What has happened to the "Palestinians" (i.e. those living in Palestine at the end of WW I) is fundamentally no different than the UN authorizing the immigration of Mexicans to California to evict the non-Hispanics Californians and create a new Nation of Mexicana. So far the immigrant European Jews (and their heirs) have only managed to take control of "Southern California" and the "non-Hispanics" have been forced into "Northern California" but the agenda remains that they want all of "California" and I have a serious problem with that.
California belongs to the Californians regardless of whether they're Hispanic or not and the "Mexicans" don't have any right to violate the sovereignty of the "Californian" people by using force and violence to evict the non-Hispanics.
In Palestine it's already been divided but that doesn't not imply we should allow this eviction of the non-Jewish people from their homeland in the future. The Israel militarily occupied the remaining Palestinian territory (Northern California) in 1967 but they have no right to it and they don't have any right to force the Arabs (non-Hispanic Californians) from their remaining homeland (Northern California).
It would have been one thing for European Jews to immigrate to Palestine to share Palestine as a homeland with the existing Palestinian people but it was a completely different issue to allow European Jews to evict the non-Jewish citizens from their homeland to create a Jewish State.
******************************
Nations voluntarily agree to the UN Charter which establishes that diplomacy is to be used to resolve international disputes. It prohibits all nations from resorting to offensive wars of aggression and allows every nation to defend itself from acts of aggression by other nations. It is in the best interests of all nations to resolve disputes with other nations through diplomacy but if those efforts ultimately fail the UN, based upon intent acting as an unbiased political entity, can authorize the use of military force.
Let me use an another analogy to dispute your beliefs. Let's say I purchase a house with a great ocean view and later someone else purchases the land between me and the ocean and builds a house that blocks my view. It is in my personal best interest to have the ocean view so should I be allowed to take up arms, murder my neighbor, and bulldoze down his home to restore my ocean view just because it's in my "best interests" to do so?
My neighbor has the same rights that I have and just because he does something on his land that isn't in my best interests does not empower me to murder him. Your argument that the US can do whatever it pleases, including they murder of others, whenever it feels that it's own "self interests" are at stake is the same as me claiming that I can murder my neighbor just because he does something on his property that I don't considered to be in my best self interests.
That boat just don't float in my pond.
If your hypothetical "neighbor" were especially interested in the ocean view, he really should have considered the possibility that someone might purchase the adjoining property and improve it, thereby destroying his view, before he purchased the property in question. (In any case, you have equated his "murder[ing]" you with an act of war; and, unlike you, I simply do not regard killing in war as "murder.") You seem to believe that the League of Nations had a perfect right to act as it did in 1922; but that its successor had no such right in 1948. Interesting... Yes, the British people, almost 100 years ago--like most Americans, also--did, indeed, believe in "WASP Supremacy." Or, as it was then phrased, "the white man's burden." Nowadays, I find such thinking utterly repellent--as do most others--but I would not wish to superimpose today's way of thinking upon those who lived much earlier, and thereby judge them harshly. (If one were to do that, Abraham Lincoln would not be "The Great Liberator," but an enormous racist.) And I really do not wish for the left-leaning UN to establish what is (or is not) a "war of aggression." I much prefer the moral authority of either the US or Israel to the moral authority (?) of the UN.
|
|