Re: Pressident Carter Answers Dershowitz's Libel before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Knessett on June 15, 2009
coaste...@yahoo.com
Transcript of President Jimmy Carter's Meeting with the Foreign
Affairs Committee of the Israeli Knesset
June 15, 2009
Committee Chair: Good morning. Mr. President, I would like to welcome
you and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before the
Knesset committee on Foreign Relations and Defense. We know you have
contributed much to the historic event, signing the peace treaty with
Israel and Egypt and we have on my left, the Egyptian ambassador who
is living proof of the success of this historic event and we have
celebrated this year the 30th anniversary of the peace treaty. It is
no secret, Mr. President, that we not only share your commitment and
devotion to the peace process (inaudible) Mr. Begin said on your first
visit to the Israeli Knesset on March 12 1979, "We have a beautiful
democracy," and you will be witness to democracy today. This is the
meaning of Knesset, the meaning of parliament, and we have many views
around this table. I think that most of the people here, maybe most
Israelis were, to say the least, frustrated with some of your remarks
about the Palestinian issue but respect your vision, commitment and
love for the state of Israel, and this is why we felt we have to
listen to you and also to share our feelings and thoughts with you
today. You are the first former American President visiting this
committee and we look forward to a fruitful discussion.
President Carter: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am deeply
honored and grateful for a chance to appear before this distinguished
group. I know that having been president of the US and dealt with the
Congress that this committee is certainly the highest level of public
service that can be expended in this great democratic nation. And I
remember vividly coming here. I looked at my notes from that period,
and I did appear with this committee 30 years ago in preparation for
my visit later to the Knesset. I don't remember you or anyone else
here but I remember your mother very distinctly. (laughter) You
mentioned that I appeared before a democratic body, and after your
mother's comments – (Chair: she was shouting), she didn't need a mic –
Mr. Begin turned to me and said "This is real democracy in action." I
hope you'll giver her my personal best regards. In many ways she
reminds me of my own mother who expressed her views without restraint
and never backed down from her deep personal beliefs, philosophically
and politically.
Very briefly, I come here with no authority, but just representing The
Carter Center, which we established after I left the White House, my
wife and I have been the leaders of it ever since. We have a number of
projects around the world, at this time in 71 nations. Preeminent
consideration is bringing good health to starving, destitute, poverty
stricken and forgotten people. It's not an accident that 35 of those
nations are in Africa, and my wife and I go there quite often. She's
the world's foremost proponent of mental health, and she deals with
this problem all over in many nations. Another very important aspect
of our life at The Carter Center is the monitoring of elections. We
only go to countries that have a problem with their election or
challenge to the results of their election. We just completed this
past week our 76th election observation mission in Lebanon. We had 60
people there, including my wife and my son, and we went to all parts
of the country, and the election turned out quite well. It was honest,
fair and open, and the results were accepted by the winners and the
losers gracefully. After that we drove from Beirut to Damascus. I met
with the president of Syria, whom I've known since he was a college
student in London; as a matter of fact he was studying to be an
ophthalmologist and surprisingly became the president of Syria. And
then after that as I always do lately when I'm in Damascus, I took an
opportunity to meet with the leaders of Hamas, with their politburo:
one is a physicist – that's s my background – one is a medical doctor,
one is an economist, one is an accountant. They speak very frankly
with me and I try to use their influence for promoting peace between
the Palestinian community in general and Israel. The last time I was
there my main hope was to get them to help me deliver a letter to
Gilad Shalit. They agreed to do so and I was able to deliver that
letter, and also to get a letter from him to his parents. So they have
ultimate responsibility for the policies of Hamas.
Since we've been here we've had a chance to meet with a number of
people, I won't go down the list, but yesterday I was able to go and
visit a group of settlers, as they call themselves. The mayor of Gush
Etzion was very nice to me and had a group there, and I was honored to
meet with them. Tomorrow I'll be going to Gaza, I'll be making a
speech at the graduation exercise of young children who are being
trained by the United Nations Relief and Welfare Agency (UNRWA).
Following that I'll be meeting with the Hamas leaders in Gaza.
Following that I will be going back home, finally. My wife and son
had to go back after the election in Lebanon.
I come here to meet with you with great appreciation. My own hope is
that we can see a repetition under the leadership of our new president
and your leaders of what happened 30 years ago when I first became
president of the United States. As you well remember, Anwar Sadat was
looked upon as the greatest opponent and terrorist in this region,
because he had been responsible for or participated in four wars in
the previous 25 years against Israel. The fourth was the October War
in 1973. I was able to induce him to be flexible on the subject, and
he later came to Israel as you know and spoke to the Knesset and gave
Menachem Begin, a great man whom I will always love as a political
brother, and together they were able to bring peace. I hope the same
thing can happen. I know we have a lot of differences about how it
should be done. I have been involved on the perimeter of the effort,
ever since I left office. I did work to some degree on developing the
terms of the so-called Geneva Accords. I was the keynote speaker in
Geneva, when about 200 Israelis and 200 Palestinians came to
commemorate that proposal which is on balance to me an acceptable
proposal on how the two sides might offer an acceptable formula. I
realize that any future agreement has to be the result of detailed and
extensive negotiations, so I'm not presuming anything in the future.
But as I was in the settlement yesterday, according to the Geneva
proposals those settlements near the '67 border will remain there, and
there will be a land swap of about 2 per cent. That may or may not
suit any of you, but that's just a possibility.
So let me say again that I'm grateful to come here. I was very
pleased, personally, with the speech President Obama gave in Egypt. I
happened to be in Syria the night he made his speech, and it was well
received, at least among the Arab nations I think, and maybe many of
the people here in your great country. So those are my comments. I
would be glad – I don't know, I'm not the presiding officer here – if
you have any comments to make to me I would be glad to receive them,
and if you have any questions I would be glad to try and answer them.
Thank you again, I'm honored to be here.
Chair: [speaking in Hebrew].
Mr. Ambassador?
Egyptian Ambassador: Good morning. It's an honor for me to be here
with you, honorable members of the committee. And again I'm always
glad to be beside President Carter. For sure, it was one of my dreams
to see him, and right now I am sitting beside him in the Knesset, in
Israel. I remember when I was young, in 1977, when President Sadat
came here. I was at that time at university. After the signing of the
agreement, I was graduated from university. I don't believe that after
30 years I would be here as the Ambassador of Egypt to celebrate 30
years of the peace treaty. Sitting by President Carter is a great
honor, and it proves that through dialogue we can achieve peace. I
wish you all the best, and I hope that I will be a witness to peace
here among all Arab countries, including the Palestinians. I wish you
all the best, thank you.
Chair: [speaking in Hebrew].
Mr. [?] is a former spokesperson for the Israeli Army and is now a
member of the Knesset, but he is known by every Israeli for his public
service. He is a member of the Kadima party.
Mr. [?]: Thank you very much Mr. Chair. First of all, thank you for
coming to the Committee, it's a great honor. I would like to raise
three points with you. One deals with Iran. You were the American
president when you let the Shah of Iran fall. You said "we won't
interfere," and the Ayatollah came with this change. In retrospect, if
you look backwards, and you see the outcome today, are you happy? Do
you like, I mean, if it was still for your judgment, what's better for
Iran: the Shah, with whatever policy he had, or the present government
which, as you all know, is threatening the entire Middle East? In this
context, what do you see as the chances of stopping Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons?
The second question deals with Hamas. I read your interview with
Haaretz on Friday when you said you are in favor of Israel negotiating
with Hamas. I would also like to know whether you are in favor of the
United States government talking to al-Qaeda and bin Laden. Which
means, are you in favor of talking to terrorists, terrorist
organizations or terrorists in general? Because you know where the
government of Israel stands, this government and the previous one.
And the third question is about the Prime Minister's speech last
night. What's your judgment? Do you think it will help Israel somehow
to promote chances for peace?
President Carter: I believe it is my privilege to take my choice of
the three questions, is that correct? (laughter) [Unidentified
speaker: "You don't have to answer all three of them."] First of all,
I was perhaps the most distressed foreigner in the world when the Shah
was overthrown. The Shah was a friend of the United States, he was a
friend of six presidents before me. He was a friend of mine, I visited
with the Shah in Tehran. After I became president he visited me. And
this brought about a tragedy for my country, and for me personally and
politically. When the American hostages were taken, it caused me all
during the year 1980 the worst months of my life. And there's no doubt
in my mind that the revolution that took place in Iran was not good
for the Iranian people. I think that answers your first question.
Your second question concerns Hamas. I never said that Israel should
negotiate with Hamas. What I said was that Israel should negotiate
with a unity government in what I call Palestine, in the West Bank and
Gaza, or Judea and Samaria, which includes Hamas. One of the elections
in which I was involved as an observer was in January 2006 when as you
know the United States approved the elections with Hamas candidates.
Israel approved that election reluctantly, and so did Fatah. It was an
honest and fair election. Hamas candidates won a majority of seats in
the Knesset. I stayed here two days longer than I had planned to try
to help form a unity government between Hamas and Fatah, but I was
unsuccessful. And then I went to meet the international Quartet in
London, I went home long enough to take a shower and change clothes,
flew immediately back to London and appealed to the Quartet to help
promote a unity government. The decision was made not to do so, and
not to let the elected members of the Palestinian authority to travel,
to convene, and since then, as you know, almost every member of the
Hamas party who won in the election have been imprisoned. A few of
them have been released. Thirty-five of them are still in Israeli
prisons because they won the election.
And so I still believe that the best approach to future substantive
peace talks, with Israel on one side and Palestinians on the other
side, is to negotiate with a unity government. The Hamas leaders have
always told me that they accept completely Abu Mazen, Mahmoud Abbas,
to be their spokesperson, since he's the head of the PLO. And as you
know the PLO is the only organization that Israel recognized
officially as representing the Palestinians, not the Palestinian
Authority. And Hamas has also always announced publicly and permitted
me to announce that they would accept any agreement that is reached
between Abu Mazen and your prime minister provided it's submitted to
the Palestinians in a referendum and is approved. So I think that the
involvement of Hamas is necessary, and I know that many members of
Hamas are not averse to accepting Israel as a neighbor in a future
peace.
As far as the third question, the speech of the prime minister last
night, I watched it very carefully. I think it raised many new
obstacles to peace. I appreciated what he had to say about the
possibility of a two-state solution, so-called. The two other
statements that were included in President Obama's speech was "no
expansion of settlements" -- my interpretation of the prime minister's
speech is that there would be expansion of settlements. The other item
raised by President Obama was that Jerusalem should be shared, and I
interpreted from the prime minister's speech last night that that was
not acceptable. That's his privilege of course. He also announced, I
think, in a departure from previous prime ministers, that the Arab
countries would have to acknowledge that this is a Jewish state. This
has not been a demand in the past. [Questioner: Wasn't it?]. Not for
the Arab countries to say this. The Arab nations with whom – and I
meet with their leaders quite often – are perfectly willing to
acknowledge Israel's right to exist within the so-called '67 borders,
that might be modified. And they reserve for Israel the right for you
to call yourself a Jewish state. They maintain that with 20 percent of
your population being Arabs, that they cannot acknowledge Israel to be
exclusively a Jewish state.
Break in Recording….
Question: I would like to ask you a question related to the United
Nations' two refugee organizations. One is UNHCR, which seems to be a
very bad organization because it does not keep any refugees… They lost
all their refugees. UNRWA, seems to be a very successful organization
because they grow all the time. They started with 500,000 [in 1948]
now they have maybe 4 million… why don't we have UNRWA to treat maybe
all the refugees in the world? You will have hundreds of millions of
refugees! (laughter) And the other question came to me… and please
don't think I'm impolite. There was a very strong [article] written
about you by Alan Dershowitz who wrote a lot of things about money
that was donated to your foundation by Arab states. I think your
meeting with Hamas or Hezbollah is legitimizing these organizations. A
previous president of the United States… these terrorist
organizations… would you be able to say how much money was donated by
Arab funds… and how can we be sure that this didn't influence your
judgment on the conflict here?
President Carter: I'll try to answer both of your questions. I can't
answer the first one because I can't speak for the United Nations. I
don't know why they'd have two organizations and why UNRWA and the
High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) are different and necessary. You
probably know more about it than I. I'll be going to Gaza tomorrow as
a guest, you might say, of the United Nations Relief and Welfare Agency
—UNRWA—because they are in the process of educating over 200,000
children in Gaza and I'll be going to a human rights graduation, but I
can't answer the first question. The second question is this: I don't
know Alan Dershowitz. I have seen him once at a meeting in Israel in
2006 when he was in the back of the room. I made a speech at Herzeliya
conference and he asked me a question from across the room. I'd never
seen him before or since. But his allegations are false. Not because
he's lying, but because he didn't have all the information.
I checked on this question about our receipt of funds from the Arab
world. The Carter Center has a budget that I have to raise personally,
of about $40 million a year to finance our humanitarian programs, most
of which goes to health care, which would be interesting to you. In
the third world, we deal with diseases only that the World Health
Organization (WHO) calls "neglected tropical diseases." You would be
familiar with them; most of the people here would not. This includes
trachoma, lymphatic filariasis, schistosomiasis, dracunculiasis, and
onchocerciasis. So, that's where almost all of our money goes. The
total amount—the percentage of money that has ever come to The Carter
Center from all Arab nations has been 2.3 percent of our total budget.
We receive a much greater percentage of that, as you would well
imagine, from the American Jewish community. And if you balance them,
we would be much more inclined to go against the Arabs. But that
doesn't affect my policies or my actions. I would be glad to give you
the exact figures, which I believe were in my latest book, but I'll be
glad to send you the exact figures of all the contributions that have
ever been received by the Carter Center. But it would be a very small
percentage from the Arab countries.
And you mentioned the fact that I meet with Hamas and Hezbollah and
legitimize them. I've never met with Hezbollah, so I'm not
legitimizing Hezbollah. I never met with Hamas leaders in 2006 until
after they were elected members of the Palestinian parliament. This
was contrary to my policy, because I generally try to meet with all
the major political parties before an election. But in 2006, I was in
partnership with the National Democratic Institute as an observer in
the elections. They have received almost all of their money from the
U.S. government, and one of their requirements was that we not meet
with Hamas before the election, so I had to comply with that. I did
not meet with Hamas before the election. I only met with Hamas after
the election, when they had won a majority of the seats. And so I
didn't legitimize them. I figured that they were legitimized by the
vote of their own people, given the majority in the polls. I think
it's important for someone who is interested in peace to at least
provide communication with Syria—we don't have a U.S. ambassador to
Syria now—and also to meet with Hamas, who I think has to play a role
in the future Palestinian Authority and, ultimately in a peace
agreement with Israel. I'm not apologizing; I'm trying to explain my
position.
Question: Mr. President, I would like to welcome you. I would like to
mention the biggest… of all the issue of Iran. I personally believe
that Iran is trying to buy time and so far they have been very
successful and are very close to achieving nuclear capability. And
having the example of North Korea… more than a few times negotiation
were tried. Having this result, my question is, will U.S. negotiations
not be successful… I believe they should be very short, in terms of
months, not in terms of years. What is your personal assessment of
Iran as the next step that the U.S. should take? The second issue is
Hamas. You mentioned the PLO and Hamas and the formal negotiations
between Hamas and the PLO. So far Hamas continues to support terror… I
believe that they need one government, one law, one "gun" or it will
be impossible to negotiate. Those in the West Bank and Gaza, it is
very important to explain to them that without having these two
elements implementing within the Palestinian side, it's really
impossible to negotiate with members of the Palestinian Authority…
without having one government, one "gun" it would be impossible.
President Carter: Well, the Iranian issue is one that's very
difficult. As I said in an earlier response, I have more grief
probably causing my defeat for re-election from the hostages being
held by Iran. I personally pray that Iran never has a nuclear weapon.
I believe that's a deep commitment, and Obama also has made it plain
that that's one of the goals of the United States. The Iranians, as
you know, are members of the group that have adopted the Non-
Proliferation Treaty. There are four countries that have not, as you
know: India, Pakistan, Israel, and lately, North Korea. North Korea
was a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty until recently, when
they disavowed it. Iran, so far, is in compliance with the Non-
Proliferation Treaty. I helped to initiate many aspects of it and I
know it almost by heart. They have a right, as all countries -
signatories - do to develop and enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
That is easy to say. The next step is, what are they going to use
there and enrich the uranium for? Their highest authority, Ayatollah
Khameini, swears, I presume before God, that they will not use their
rich uranium for nuclear weapons.
Audience member: Do you believe him?
President Carter: I'm not saying I believe him, I'm just telling you
that this is what they say, that it is against their religion. No one
in the western world believes it. I'm not saying I believe it, but
that opens up an avenue for a possible resolution of this problem. If
they can be put in a posture of cooperation with the United States,
instead of confrontation with the United States, then it may be
possible to negotiate an agreement which would require Iran to have
unlimited, unrestricted supervision by the IAEA. This would not
require any loss of face or embarrassment to the Iranian leaders,
because they could do it and say, "We have always felt this way. We
have always been against weapons. We are glad for the IAEA to come in
and assure, with intense observation of their uranium cylinders, that
they are not moving toward weapons." However, if there is no such
accommodation, and the Iranians are confronting the United States and
others, then there is no motivation for them to permit international
inspections from the IAEA to ensure that they have complied with the
agreement. So, I think—I've talked to Obama about this, and I'm
explaining to you his position. I'm not trying to speak for him, but
his hope is that through conversations with Iran and a demonstration
of mutual respect between one nation and another, that we can reach an
agreement with Iran so that they will fulfill their obligations under
the Non-Proliferation Treaty and permit inspections to ensure that
they don't move towards a nuclear weapon.
You asked me also about Hamas, I've forgotten…(question is restated).
My information… as of yesterday is that there are no rockets coming
out of Gaza now. They know that there will be very severe retaliation
if… I think… two things to answer your question. First, Hamas has made
it clear to me publicly that they accept the PLO as a negotiating
element with Israel, and that Abu Mazen represents them in the
negotiations, and, secondly, they would like the authority of the
Palestinian Authority itself to comply and that they would accept any
successful negotiation between the PLO and Israel if it's submitted by
a referendum and approved by the Palestinian people. I'm not speaking,
confirming what they say, I'm just telling you what they said.
Question: Well, thank you, I really appreciate that, and I think all
of us are appreciating very much the fact that you are almost three
decades after leaving the presidency, and you still work at an
increasing pace in global politics, so there is some expectation for
the next decade. Live until 120, and I really wish you all the best.
I'll try to focus my question about the Arab Initiative, because I
believe it's very interesting to understand, and maybe you can share
with us your thoughts, or maybe your plan concerns the Arab
Initiative, because when you mentioned the stable situation in
Lebanon, before and after the last elections, I'm sure that we are all
aware of the fact that in Lebanon the strongest force is not the
Lebanese army, but Hezbollah troops. And in the PA, the strongest
force is not the Palestinian troops, but Hamas troops in the Gaza
Strip, well-equipped by military weapons smuggled in from Egypt into
the Gaza Strip. And even until today, nobody succeeded to block it
totally, although there is a slight improvement. And therefore when we
go backward to understand who those two arms belong to, so we arrive
to Iran. Hezbollah in the north, Hamas in the south. Are both two arms
of the Iranian body? Concerned with the conventional threat, and a
number of questioners mentioned the nuclear threat, which is a serious
issue by itself. And we do accept or are waiting to understand what's
the real steps by the superpowers in general or the US in particular,
because we say boats are safe in the port, but that's not what they
were built for. And superpowers, I think they are very safe at home,
but that's not why we call them superpowers. And once we come to Iran
threat, and you mentioned about what they're trying to express about
their plans in the future, but just to remind all of us, in 1981, Iran
sent into battlefields against Iraq children of 12 years old -
thousands of Iranian children, in order to clean fields of mines. It's
Iranian behavior and I suggest all of us take it into account when we
are thinking or talking about the future steps taken by Iran. And I
return to my question: how do you see the Arab Initiative playing a
role here in the Middle East, not only in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, but in the Israeli-Syrian peace treaty in the future, maybe
Lebanon in the future, because we all understand that the axis, Iran
via Iraq, via Syria, to Lebanon, it's a disaster to the Middle East
and maybe more than the Middle East, and the nuclear threat by Iran is
a disaster, not only to Israel, but to many other countries including
Arab countries. I'm sure the Egyptian ambassador can elaborate much
better than me about the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons. And here
we go back to the Arab Initiative. Do you think that initiative can
lead us forward to maybe a more productive solution, or just another
plan that is going to evaporate over the years?
President Carter: Well, first of all, I think, in answer to your
first question, about Hezbollah and Hamas weaponry, the U.S. is trying
to build up the military capability of Lebanon. We've already
delivered 10 M60 tanks and I think there are fifty others on the way.
The only restriction on U.S. military aid to Lebanon is anti-aircraft
and anything that could impede Israeli overflights, which cause the
Lebanese great distress. I was down with the UNIFIL commander on the
border, what they call the Blue Line, between Lebanon and Israel last
December, in a helicopter… and the commander was explaining to me that
there's an average of twelve Israeli overflights over Lebanon every
day, and this is a problem for them. So the U.S. is not helping
Lebanon do anything that could interfere with your overflights—either
anti-aircraft weapons or military planes. I think, though, that,
except for that, the U.S. aid is trying to build up the military
strength of the Lebanese regular forces. And you know the strong
effort that's been made here for many years with an American general
in charge. I met with him yesterday. He trains people in Jordan and
Jericho, and with the graduating class of new young security people,
very soon they'll bring the total to 2,100. And we hope—the U.S. hopes—
that they will stabilize and strengthen the capability of the PA to
counteract at least partially, as you say, what Hamas is doing.
Now, the Arab initiative. I know Senator George Mitchell well. When I
was President, he was a young private lawyer in Maine. I appointed him
U.S. District Attorney, and then, later, I appointed him the U.S.
District Judge. Then later, I took the senior Senator of Maine, Edmund
Muskie, to be my secretary of state. And Muskie arranged with the
governor of Maine to appoint George Mitchell to the U.S. Senate. He
and I have known each other a long time and I have great admiration
for him. I can tell you that both he and Obama look on the Arab
initiative as a very wonderful first step to an ultimate peace
agreement that we all hope will occur. As you know, before Obama made
his speech in Egypt, he went to Saudi Arabia to meet with King
Abdullah. His major purpose there and I'm not going to get into
secrets, its been public, was to get the Arab initiative reconfirmed,
and to let the Arabs take tangible steps to show that they are
sincere. I've talked to King Abdullah about this myself, when I was
over there last April. I think he is the leader, in many ways, of the
Arab community of nations. I think he's sincere in saying that he
wants to have diplomatic relations with Israel. And when he was asked
about trade, commerce, and visitation, he said, "We'll treat Israel
just like we do each other. Just like I do other Arab countries.
That's a promise." It's predicated, though, on the same principles
that you know have been expressed by the International Quartet and by
the Geneva initiative that I mentioned earlier that has no official
status, and they have been expressed in the United Nations in
Resolutions 242, 338, 194, and so forth, which, early on, Israel
accepted, and which Menachem Begin reconfirmed in the Camp David
Accords where he signed and reconfirmed U.N. Resolution 242. So, I
don't see any incompatibility between the U.N. resolutions and the
Quartet's recommendations, or the roadmap and the Arab initiative. It
calls for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories—it doesn't say
"the," just "occupied territories—and to give the Palestinians full
autonomy. And, also at the Camp David Accords, Prime Minister Begin
committed, and the Knesset approved, by an 85% vote, the withdrawal of
Israeli military and political forces from the West Bank, or Judea and
Samaria. These are the basic international principles that the U.S.
espouses, and those will be the framework, at least, of an agreement.
But everybody knows that the final agreement would have to be
completely accepted by the PM of Israel and confirmed by the Knesset.
So all these hopes and dreams we know are just proposals on which
future negotiations can be predicated.
Question: (Labor) Thank you for your answers, Mr. President. I'd like
to welcome you... I was only ten years old during the Israeli-Egyptian
peace process, and we studied about it in school. So for me it's a
historical moment to be here as a member of the Israeli parliament,
and hopefully, be a part of the next peace process. I hope it won't
take thirty years longer, because, as you know, thirty years is
enough, and we must solve this problem. So, actually, I was very happy
to hear Mr. Netanyahu, for the first time, I think, saying "a
Palestinian state." I welcome him to also promoting the peace process.
I'd like to relate this to the Geneva initiative, I think the Geneva
initiative reflects to all of us that sometimes civilians and NGOs can
get together and have a lot of agreement, and maybe we can think about
our leaders as the obstacle to promoting any agreements. We must
encourage all these NGOs to work much harder to influence the decision
makers towards peace and towards agreement. I would like to ask you
about your attitude about the North Korean issues, because the eyes in
the western world and the Middle East, also, are looking forward to
the U.S. and their reaction to the nuclear weapons and process in
North Korea, and knowing that Iranian scientists were part of it. I
would like to hear your point of view on this issue.
President Carter: I have been personally involved with N. Korea, maybe
when you were too young to know. In 1994, I was convinced that North
Korea would attack South Korea if they were condemned by the U.N. and
additional punishments were imposed on them. So, with permission of
President Bill Clinton, I visited N. Korea, and I met with Kim Il-
Sung, the president and spiritual and political leader of North Korea,
worshiped by the people. My background is in nuclear physics. I was a
nuclear engineer, working under a great Jewish citizen, Admiral
Rickover. He was my mentor. Except for my father, Admiral Rickover
affected my life more than any other man. Anyway, I was sent to North
Korea because I knew nuclear engineering. While I was there, Kim Il-
Sung agreed to abandon their nuclear program and to bring back in the
IAEA inspector to stay full-time in their only small nuclear reactor.
That's where all of their weapons materials have come from since. And
we adopted this agreement. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
visited Pyongyang, and President Clinton planned to visit Pyongyang
also in the final months of his career as President. He was unable to
do so. But anyway, when President Bush came in office, he renounced
this agreement and condemned North Korea and withdrew the agreement
that I had helped negotiate. As a result of that Kim Il-Sung's son,
Kim Jong-Il, decided to re-initiate the purification of spent nuclear
fuel from their reactor. And now they have evolved enough nuclear fuel
we believe to make seven atomic explosives. They've already exploded
one partially, and more recently exploded one that was appropriate
strength—it was good. They have enough nuclear fuel for at least five
more nuclear weapons. So I think it's a tragedy that this has
happened, and it's a threat to that entire region, with the
possibility of encouraging South Korea and Japan and others to develop
nuclear capability. It opens up an opportunity for nuclear
confrontation, and it is very serious. My hope is that we can see this
threat abandoned by North Korea. I think it's increasingly difficult
to do. But this gives a preview of what can happen if Iran follows in
the footsteps of North Korea. The North Koreans are not a people to be
underestimated. They're tough, competent, dedicated, willing to do
anything to achieve their military goals and they are proving this.
Now Iran, has much more capability to develop nuclear weapons if that
is their desire... and I don't think I need to repeat my hopes that I
expressed with the earlier question, that with good faith and the best
expectations, Iran might do what Kim Il-Sung agreed to do with me, and
that's let the IAEA inspectors come in and in an unimpeded way
examination of all of their nuclear facilities. If they will agree to
that, I think we can prevent Iran from making this possibility become
a reality.
Question: (former Ethiopian) Thank you and welcome… I wanted to
comment and ask you two questions. I'd like to know, what is your
opinion of the issue of the refugees' solution? As you know, there is
not any way for Palestinians outside the country who are asking to
come inside the country. It doesn't go together, these two solutions
[two-states and right of return?] This concerns me. Because there is a
majority in Israel for a two-state solutions, but there's a big
consensus on this in Israel on the issue of refugees. My second
question is: your Center is active in international projects. I think
that you are the peacemaker and very well known in this region. What
is your Center's way to educate these people about peace? One of the
big problems in this region is the big propaganda against Israel, anti-
Jewish activities and so there is no environment of peace in this
region, it's very difficult. So is your Center acting to educate
people on peace? Its very important. My next problem, I think we have
talked about—your meeting with Khaled Meshaal and Hamas wrote letters,
because you said you met them after they came in power, after they got
a breakthrough. But… even Hitler came in power after the democracy
elections, so we have to be very careful when dealing with
dictatorships like Hamas and Hezbollah.
President Carter: Well, to address your last question first, my own
experience with Hamas has been their participating in a purely
democratic, fair, open, transparent, safe election in January 2006.
And they were not able to serve, as you know… I don't equate them with
Hitler, but you're welcome to do so if you wish… I was involved deeply
with Yitzhak Rabin earlier and when Colonel Mengistu was in power… in
your former country. I went there with a personal mission to get
Mengistu to let Ethiopian Jews come to Israel. He had refused until I
met with him and I've been very active in Ethiopia. We have not had a
Carter Center program to educate Palestinians. We have a massive
education program in Ethiopia and other places. We've just finished
training 7,000 highly trained Ethiopian health workers, plus 30,000
women in Ethiopia—that will permit one woman for every 2,500
Ethiopians. We have a massive program in Ethiopia to deal with the
tropical diseases I mentioned earlier.
I will participate tomorrow in a ceremony for the graduating class of
children in Gaza, many of whom are children of Hamas parents. And the
main thrust of the UNRWA education has been to teach them basic human
rights. They've had to almost memorize the thirty principles of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and part of my speech tomorrow
will be devoted to reminding them, as graduates, that when they expect
to be treated with respect and peacefully, they should do the same
thing with people with whom they disagree. But I can't claim to you
that The Carter Center played any role in the education of these
Palestinian children.
About the refugee solution—well, that has been addressed by many
people, and I think that some of your previous PMs here have agreed on
the acceptance of a token number of refugees that might actually come
into the state of Israel. But the way that I understand the Geneva
proposal is that each one of those returnees would have to be approved
individually and personally by the government of Israel, which may
mean zero, or it may mean a few thousand. And it would have to be
equated to some degree by a formula that would apply to European
nations and to Canada and the United States. But the primary principle
is that most of them would come to what I call Palestine, that is
Judea, Samaria, or the future Palestinian state nearby—or either go to
other countries, like our own, like the United States. The vast
majority of claims by Palestinians to return would be resolved by
financial compensation. This is a part of U.N. Resolution 194, as you
may know: either return or be compensated. I have made speeches about
this and answered questions, and in the past I've always said that 12
to 14 billion dollars would be created in an international fund to be
used for this purpose… to let a balanced, non-prejudicial court to
decide in each case how much money should be paid to a family that
can't return, and let this international fund pay that fee. That would
comply with the U.N. resolution that applies to the refugees' return.
I would envision very few, if any, coming back into the nation of
Israel.
Mr. Plessner: Question: Thank you, Mr. President. As I mentioned, I
think we had the opportunity and chance to meet during your last visit
here a year ago. And I appreciate, and I think I speak for all of my
friends and colleagues here, your commitment to bringing about peace
and stability to the region. We've been hoping for it for decades, and
nobody doubts the fact that it comes from a genuine and humanitarian
motivation, and it's well appreciated.
I'd like to ask a question about how you reconcile your regional
outlook and your specific policy prescriptions about the question of
the Israeli-Palestinian issue and specifically about Hamas. This
question was raised in different shapes and forms before, but I'd like
to inquire about a different dimension. In the region today, there's
obviously a major struggle between moderates and radicals. The
radical axis obviously led by Iran, which also affected your
presidency, so you know something about it. Obviously the basic
consensus in Israel today is that we should do as much as we can to
strengthen our moderate allies, the moderate axis, the understanding
and common denominator between the different and moderate actors and,
specifically in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, to try
and strengthen as much as we can the PA, and we want, to put it
simply, the West Bank to succeed and the Gaza attempt of Hamas to
fail. And, ideally, we would want you to use your political capital in
order to promote this worldview, which is important not only to
Israeli interests but to the interests of Europeans and Americans and
our allies. Another dimension to look at that is that you spoke about
democracy and you legitimized your actions vis-à-vis Hamas, or you
explained your actions vis-à-vis Hamas, in response to the question of
"Why are you legitimizing Hamas?" you said, "Well, they've been
legitimized by a democratic election." My question is, is your view of
democracy that democracy is just about being elected once, or because
democracy, as far as I understand it, is more about a political
culture of compromise, dialogue, the way you conduct yourself,
openness to deciding a certain fashion. Hamas is not democratic in
this sense, and therefore, why should you legitimize your dialogue
with Hamas on those grounds which they themselves don't accept?
Another speaker: Mr. President… I think that I want to join the MK Mr.
Plessner. I do not know better words to ask this question about your
approach towards Hamas.
Third Speaker: Labor Party: Mr. President, Mr. Ambassador, it's a
privilege and a pleasure, by the way, to have you here. And by the
way. I think that Israel owes you a great deal for having the peace
treat with Egypt and without you I do not believe that they would be
able to do so. I visited The Carter Center in Atlanta. It was very
impressive, and I would recommend that all of my colleagues to do so
in their own spare time.
Pres. Carter: They would be more than welcome.
Speaker: Now, I want to ask you about Hamas as well, but from a
different angle.
Other speaker: We want to know how you were invited, and we were not?
{laughter)
President Carter: I am extending all of you a personal invitation to
come.
Speaker: I have connections.
…I feel that because of your great experience and the things that you
did in the past all over the world, I feel that you can make a
difference vis-à-vis the release of Gilad Shalit. Now, the fact that I
feel that says nothing. I want to hear how you feel about that. If you
feel that it is possible that you can concentrate on that, you can
make a difference on the issue of Gilad Shalit.
President Carter: First of all, Hamas didn't enter the political arena
as candidates until 2005, under the approval of PM Ariel Sharon. They
sought, first of all, municipal and local elections, and they were
successful in 35% of the cities and towns of Palestine. Their taking
office was approved by Ariel Sharon, and I might say that, in general…
they performed well. They did not have corruption, they cleaned up
their city, they got the citizens to clean up their streets, the
planted vacant lots in gardens, and it was that experience as local
officials that gave them the reputation in the legislative election of
2006 of being less corrupt than Fatah. In 2006, their candidates were
permitted to seek office by PM Olmert and by President Bush and
obviously by Fatah. And they had to take an oath that they would
commit themselves to nonviolence. That was the only thing they had to
agree to, to be nonviolent. Every candidate did so. And they were
elected. I didn't have anything to do with the approval or disapproval
of the rules or regulations of the election. That was done by a very
high quality election commission, maybe the best I've ever seen in the
world—made up of judges, former presidents of universities, who didn't
want to sully their personal reputation. There was no corruption, no
cheating on the election. That's why I participate; I don't decide who
runs, who is elected, or anything. That's decided by the people who go
in and vote.
And I would say that the election was almost perfect. As far as the
Palestinians were concerned, the election was not perfect, because
those in East Jerusalem are not permitted to vote, except very few of
them. I argued this with later PM Olmert, who was mayor of East
Jerusalem when Arafat was elected in 1995. At that time, I believe,
Peres was PM. They said that they couldn't vote in East Jerusalem;
they could only mail their ballot, their votes, as foreigners to be
counted in the West Bank. I didn't agree with that, but I had to
accept. I never have any authority in an election. I never have wanted
to have any authority. We just try to observe what happens and try to
make sure that the election is honest and safe and fair. So that's my
involvement with Hamas. I didn't approve their candidacy; Ariel Sharon
did. And Olmert did.
Previous speaker: Mr. President, Hitler was also elected by democratic
election.
President Carter: And so was I. And so was I, and so were you. And
that doesn't mean that I'm Hitler, and that doesn't mean that you're
Hitler. It doesn't mean that anyone that's elected democratically—
Speaker: No, it doesn't, but democratic election doesn't explain the
terror attitude that comes from Hamas. This is the main problem.
President Carter: The point I'm trying to make, sir, is that I didn't
approve Hamas being candidates. It was your own Prime Ministers who
did so, because you obviously have control over what happens in the
West Bank.
Speaker: But you give, sir, legitimacy to the terror activity that
comes from Hamas.
President Carter: I'm not legitimizing Hamas. I don't have any
authority to legitimize anyone.
Asker of second-to-last question: The argument is that their post-
election conduct renders them undemocratic and therefore illegitimate.
President Carter: That's a judgment for you to make. I don't dispute
what you're saying. I didn't quite understand if you had a different
question?
Speaker of last question: I asked about Gilad Shalit.
President Carter: I have done as much for the Shalit family—I'm not
bragging—as anyone could possibly do, maybe as much as anyone in
Israel has done. And I've told you in the past what I did. I met with
Shalit's mother and father when I was here in April and I gave them my
word of honor that I would do the best I could to find out if their
son was alive, and they did not know if he was alive. I then went to
Cairo. The Hamas representatives who met me in Cairo would not tell me
if Shalit was alive or dead, and they denied—he wouldn't tell me if he
was even in Gaza. So that's the main reason I went from there to
Damascus. I met with the ultimate leaders of Hamas, and I told them
that this is very important to me and to the people of Israel, and
that it would be a good thing for them as far as international opinion
was concerned, if they would let me prove that Shalit was still alive.
And because of my arguments, they agreed, and they let me deliver the
letter I had in my pocket to them and they delivered it to the young
corporal, who has been there now almost exactly three years. Later, I
asked them also to let Shalit write a letter back, because there is no
proof that he's alive just for Hamas to take the letter from his
parents. When he wrote a personal letter back to his parents, Hamas
had it delivered to my office in Ramallah, and we delivered it
personally to his parents. I hope I can do the same thing on this
trip. But there's a limit to what a former president, who was
involuntarily removed from office, and who has no position in the U.S.
government, to do. I don't have any authority. I have to use my
ability to persuade people to do what's best for their interests. And
what I did in that case was to convince the Hamas leaders that it was
in their interest to let me prove that Gilad Shalit was still alive. I
can tell you personally that he is still alive now; he withstood the
bombardment of January.
Speaker: Maybe they would let you visit him?
President Carter: I would be delighted if they would. It has made it
more difficult for me—I have been very honest with you, and very
frank. I've said some things I know none of you agree with. But this
makes it more difficult when your PM says that he will open the gates
and let them have a bag of cement so that they can rebuild their
houses only if they prove that Shalit is alive. So now, if they prove
that Shalit is alive, that makes it appear as though they are
succumbing to the threats from Netanyahu. It would be much easier for
me to get proof that he's alive if Hamas didn't have to say, well, if
we do this, then we are yielding to threats from Netanyahu, but that's
a decision for him to make. I'm very gratified that he has now
appointed a representative of Israel to participate in the talks
between Hamas and Israel. We were in Egypt last week talking to Omar
Suleiman…he sent word to me, through my emissary, that nothing was
happening on the Shalit issue. But maybe now, with an Israeli
emissary, they can talk, and I pray that Shalit will be soon free.
Speaker: Mr. President, I want to thank you on behalf of each and
everyone of us.
Bolt Upright
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9fc486ee-e6d9-4007...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
June 15, 2009
Mr. Ambassador?
Break in Recording�.
democracy and you legitimized your actions vis-�-vis Hamas, or you
explained your actions vis-�-vis Hamas, in response to the question of
Speaker: I have connections.
difference vis-�-vis the release of Gilad Shalit. Now, the fact that I
Quick translation:
You can believe a genuinely decent and completely honest man or you can
listen to that fucking cannibal who is trying her damndist to slander his
name with nothing but bullshit accusations and outright kies.
Your choice...
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> explained your actions vis-à-vis Hamas, in response to the question of
Precisely. And as to her deceitful accusations about Carter's alleged
lack of sympathy for Blacks during the civil right ear, take a look at
this interview in which he speaks of his mother's influence in the
family:
http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/Larry%20King%20Live%20Transcript%20042808.pdf
Deb is immersed in deceit, but she is still far more intelligent than
Ratner.
dsha...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> Transcript of President Jimmy Carter's Meeting with the Foreign
> Affairs Committee of the Israeli Knesset
> June 15, 2009
"President" Jimmy Carter? June 15, 2009? Is this some sort of
alternate reality?
> Committee Chair: Good morning. Mr. President
Good heavens, the Knesset thinks Carter's President? But I voted for
Obama for president!
Where's President Obama? This calls for an investigation.
Deborah
Al Nakba
let the no account kenyan stay on vacation..
dsharavi
wrote:
> Precisely. And as to her deceitful accusations about Carter's alleged
> lack of sympathy for Blacks during the civil right ear,
Point to the post where I made "deceitful accusations about Carter's
alleged lack of sympathy for Blacks during the civil right ear".
> take a look at this interview in which he speaks of his mother's influence in the
> family:
> http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/Larry%20King%20Live%20Transcrip...
Result:
"Redirecting you to http://www.cartercenter.org/documents"
So? Point to the post where I made "deceitful accusations about
Carter's alleged lack of sympathy for Blacks during the civil right
ear".
> Deb is immersed in deceit, but she is still far more intelligent than
> Ratner.
And more intelligent than Hunter Watson, who has posted his heartfelt
wish that the Nazis had killed more Jews than they did, as often as I
have posted "Don't ya just love Benny Morris?"
Watson's claim that I made a "racist" remark about Al Sharpton has all
the validity of a post made by Watson describing what he feels every
time he fondles underage Mexican children.
Deborah
Deborah
Bolt Upright
> explained your actions vis-�-vis Hamas, in response to the question of
http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/Larry%20King%20Live%20Transcript%20042808.pdf
A retarded pigeon is far more intelligent than Ms Ratner.
Bolt Upright
"dsharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c3dcbdb-537d-4a69...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, I can read and I know that the cannibal didn't actually make the
implied accusation above, but perhaps she'd care to explain her choice of
words.
Deborah, you really do lack such virtues as shame and common decency, don't
you?
Quick translation:
You can believe a genuinely decent and completely honest man or you can
listen to that fucking cannibal who is trying her damndest to slander his
name with nothing but bullshit accusations and outright lies.
Your choice...
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
What calls for an investigation is what he says about Dershowitz's
lies.
Zev
wrote:
Can you guess why Carter doesn't call for such an investigation?
coaste...@yahoo.com
Subject: Dr. Finkelstein on 242. Partial or full withdrawal
Partial or full withdrawal?
In order to discredit Carter the media keep citing the inflammatory
rhetoric of his former collaborator at the Carter Center, Kenneth
Stein. On inspection, however, Stein's claims prove to be devoid of
content. Consider the main one of Carter's "egregious and inexcusable
errors" that Stein enumerates.[13] According to him, Carter
erroneously infers on the basis of U.N. Resolution 242 that Israel
"must" withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza. It is true that whereas
media pundits often allege that the extent of Israel's withdrawal is
subject to negotiations, Carter forthrightly asserts that Israel's
"borders must coincide with those prevailing from 1949 until 1967
(unless modified by mutually agreeable land swaps), specified in the
unanimously adopted U.N. Resolution 242, which mandates Israel's
withdrawal from occupied territories."[14]
In fact and to his credit Carter is right on the mark.
Shortly after the June 1967 war the U.N General Assembly met in
emergency session. There was "near unanimity" on "the withdrawal of
the armed forces from the territory of neighboring Arab states,"
Secretary-General U Thant subsequently observed, because "everyone
agrees that there should be no territorial gains by military
conquest."[15]
When the General Assembly couldn't reach consensus on a comprehensive
resolution, deliberations moved to the Security Council. In November
1967 the Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 242, the
preambular paragraph of which emphasized "the inadmissibility of the
acquisition of territory by war." The main framer of 242, Lord Caradon
of the United Kingdom, later recalled that without this preambular
statement "there could have been no unanimous vote" in the Security
Council.[16] Fully 10 of the 15 Security Council members stressed in
their interventions the "inadmissibility" principle and Israel's
obligation to fully withdraw while none of the five other members
registered any disagreement.[17]
For its part the United States repeatedly made clear that it
contemplated at most minor and mutual border adjustments (hence
Carter's caveat of "mutually agreeable land swaps"). Jordanian leaders
were told in early November 1967 that "some territorial adjustment
will be required" on the West Bank but "there must be mutuality in
adjustments" and, on a second occasion, that the U.S. supported "minor
border rectifications" but Jordan would "obtain compensation...for any
territory it is required to give up."[18] When Israel first proposed
annexation of West Bank territory, the U.S. vehemently replied that
242 "never meant that Israel could extend its territory to [the] West
Bank," and that "there will be no peace if Israel tries to hold onto
large chunks of territory."[19]
In private Israeli leaders themselves suffered no illusions on the
actual meaning of 242. During a closed session of the Labor Party in
1968 Moshe Dayan counseled against endorsing 242 because "it means
withdrawal to the 4 June [1967] boundaries, and because we are in
conflict with the SC [Security Council] on that resolution."[20]
In its landmark 2004 advisory opinion, "Legal Consequences of the
Construction of a Wall In the Occupied Palestinian Territory," the
International Court of Justice repeatedly affirmed the preambular
paragraph of Resolution 242 emphasizing the inadmissibility of
territorial conquest as well as a 1970 General Assembly resolution
emphasizing that "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat
or use of force shall be recognized as legal." The World Court denoted
this principle a "corollary" of the U.N. Charter and as such
"customary international law" and a "customary rule" binding on all
member States of the United Nations. It merits notice that on this
crucial point none of the Court's 15 justices registered any dissent.
[21]
Carter's real sin is that he cut to the heart of the problem: "Peace
will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli
government is willing to comply with international law."[22]
TheZ
"The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity".
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ce419550-31d5-4feb...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Zev
wrote:
That's "near unanimity"???
Israel has always used 'territories' not 'the territories'
as justification for refusing to leave *all* of the territory.
They have the support of diplomats to the UN
who were involved in this resolution at the time,
who say that is exactly what they meant.
You don't seem to realize that diplomatic documents
of this sort are frequently ambiguous,
in order to get agreement on something.
That way each side points to the part they like and says
'the document is our favor because it says this'.
Analyzing the 242 preamble as if
it were of any importance in its own right
isn't any more useful for understanding today's world
than analyzing the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
Did the world community miss the Indian invasion of Goa?
Don't take these statements, found all over
UN documents, too seriously.
No one in the ME does.
Did the UN miss the Indian invasion of Goa?
Why wasn't there a similar resolution?
If you missed one crime, you don't have to ignore another, that's
true.
Establishing 'inadmissibility' is something else.
If you pick and choose, you won't be taken seriously.
BTW, why don't you make a fuss over Joseph's tomb?
Isn't the wanton destruction of historic/religious assets
of another people in an attempt to deny
the previous presence of that people a subject
that the UN should take a greater interest in?
TheZ
"Zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c91c7080-87d6-4804...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
RabbiJoekerr
>
> A retarded pigeon is far more intelligent than Ms Ratner.
And she's far more intelligent than you are- and more honest. Now if
you can stop cowering and running- point to these alleged statements
you worthless lying coward!
Bolt Upright
"RabbiJoekerr" <jokerso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a104fb36-d9ef-49d3...@r26g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Who's "cowering"?
Who's "running"?
What "alleged statements" are you blathering about"?
What "lies"?
What "cowardice"?
You seem to be fond of demanding cites from other posters, so let's have
have some from YOU to document the crap you posted above.
Hmmmm?
Zev
> news:c91c7080-87d6-4804...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 27, 5:58 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Dec 23, 11:04 pm, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > On Dec 23, 4:50 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
64527$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad...
> Well said rebuttal of much 242 misinformation
Thanks.
Have you noticed that whenever I try to make eye contact with Ico,
his eyes twitch as he lowers his gaze?
Do you suppose he's <gasp> *afraid* to confront plain facts,
presented in a respectful manner?
dsharavi
[snipped by H, so he could paste his usual irrelevancies, when caught
in another of his lies]
> On Dec 23, 11:04 pm, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[Also snipped by H, so he could paste his usual irrelevancies, when
caught in another of his lies]
On Dec 26, 8:58 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Subject: Dr. Finkelstein on 242. Partial or full withdrawal
And now begins H's post from so far out of left field, it's not even
in the ballpark.
And WTF has this to do with Carter's ongoing lie about his
"background" in nuclear physics, and H bolstering Carter's lie by
claming that Carter supervised construction of Admiral Rickover's
nuclear navy?
Obviously, not a thing.
Deborah
dsharavi
> The Arabs rejected 242 before it could be enacted.
> "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity".
And H never misses an opportunity to run from facts, and miss the
opportunity to learn from his errors.
Deborah
dsharavi
> Well said rebuttal of much 242 misinformation
It's excellent and it's a rebuttal that's been made several times
before, every time H posts his alternate reality version of SCR 242. I
hope Zev saves it; given H's record of repeating his errors, he will
probably need to repost his excellent rebuttal.
Deborah
>
> "Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > that the UN should take a greater interest in?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 27, 5:58 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
I apparently missed this one. Hence what you thought were downcast
eyes.
It's whatever it is. Don't pick nits.
> Israel has always used 'territories' not 'the territories'
> as justification for refusing to leave *all* of the territory.
> They have the support of diplomats to the UN
> who were involved in this resolution at the time,
> who say that is exactly what they meant.
This language has been interpreted by the world's highest court. There
is no longer an issue as to what 242 means. It's what we call res
judicata.
> You don't seem to realize that diplomatic documents
> of this sort are frequently ambiguous,
> in order to get agreement on something.
> That way each side points to the part they like and says
> 'the document is our favor because it says this'.
Courts use a "rule of construction" that no document will be
interpreted in a fashion which renders it meaningless or impotent. You
are swimming upstream.
> Analyzing the 242 preamble as if
> it were of any importance in its own right
> isn't any more useful for understanding today's world
> than analyzing the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
It has been interpreted by the highest court in the world. It is no
longer 'ambiguous'. We have case law on what it means.
No, there was no reason for doing anything about it.
> Don't take these statements, found all over
> UN documents, too seriously.
> No one in the ME does.
A throw-away, meaningless statement. You have a conflict of interest
and you don't and can't speak for everyone in the Middle East.
> Did the UN miss the Indian invasion of Goa?
Same reply.
> Why wasn't there a similar resolution?
Because decolonization was approved in that era still is. Israel is a
colonial-imperial power trying to recolonize the last 22% of
Palestine. It's against the the law and what you might call global
public policy.
> If you missed one crime, you don't have to ignore another, that's
> true.
It's more than just "true," it's the law pretty much the world over.
In the States it's called prosecutorial discretion. It applies to
Israel who's apologists keep pointing to occasions in previous eras
where no one was censured for an act of criminal aggression, such as
the Chinese incursion into Indian territory in the Himalayas.
> Establishing 'inadmissibility' is something else.
> If you pick and choose, you won't be taken seriously.
Inadmissibility is a function of the law, not whether violation of the
law can be prosecuted in a practical sense.
The law is one thing. Enforcement of it is another. In the case of
Palestine the effect of international law has been more the
delegitimization of Israel than her punishment for criminal behavior.
Zionist influence over our government has made us the UN member which
has most contributed over the last forty years to the undermining of
International law. We have prevented its enforcement in the case of
Israel. We've done it without justification.
BTW, look up "prosecutorial discretion."
> BTW, why don't you make a fuss over Joseph's tomb?
> Isn't the wanton destruction of historic/religious assets
> of another people in an attempt to deny
> the previous presence of that people a subject
> that the UN should take a greater interest in?
The UN does what it has the practical power to do and nothing more. We
have a shameful record of obstruction.
RabbiJoekerr
> "RabbiJoekerr" <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a104fb36-d9ef-49d3...@r26g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 24, 1:54 pm, "Bolt Upright" <HughGRect...@merde.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > A retarded pigeon is far more intelligent than Ms Ratner.
> >And she's far more intelligent than you are- and more >honest. Now if
> >you can stop cowering and running- point to these >alleged statements
> >you worthless lying coward!
>
> Who's "cowering"?
> Who's "running"?
you are
> What "alleged statements" are you blathering about"?
overloaded or are you spewing so many lies that you just can't
remember them? Bwahahahahr!
> What "lies"?
Bwahahahar I wish I could accusse you of playing stupid- but you're
not playing.
Keep running away!
> What "cowardice"?
See you own posting history coward!
> You seem to be fond of demanding cites from other posters, so let's have
> have some from YOU to document the crap you posted above.
> Hmmmm?
Hmmm you mean you cant even look in this very thread bwahahahahar!
Nice try liar!
RabbiJoekerr
> > "Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:c91c7080-87d6-4804...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Dec 27, 5:58 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Dec 23, 11:04 pm, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> > On Dec 23, 4:50 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>
> 64527$ZF3.3...@newsfe13.iad...
>
> > Well said rebuttal of much 242 misinformation
>
> Thanks.
>
> Have you noticed that whenever I try to make eye contact with Ico,
> his eyes twitch as he lowers his gaze?
> Do you suppose he's <gasp> *afraid* to confront plain facts,
> presented in a respectful manner?
No he's just too stupid... bolt neck is the full blown coward!
Bolt Upright
KOKOO!
Bolt Upright
On Dec 28, 8:03 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:c91c7080-87d6-4804...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Dec 27, 5:58 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Dec 23, 11:04 pm, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> > On Dec 23, 4:50 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>
> 64527$ZF3.3...@newsfe13.iad...
>
> > Well said rebuttal of much 242 misinformation
>
> Thanks.
>
> Have you noticed that whenever I try to make eye contact with Ico,
> his eyes twitch as he lowers his gaze?
> Do you suppose he's <gasp> *afraid* to confront plain facts,
> presented in a respectful manner?
No he's just too stupid... bolt neck is the full blown coward!
KOOKOO!
Zev
wrote:
OK, but it is a strange remark.
> > Israel has always used 'territories' not 'the territories'
> > as justification for refusing to leave *all* of the territory.
> > They have the support of diplomats to the UN
> > who were involved in this resolution at the time,
> > who say that is exactly what they meant.
>
> This language has been interpreted by the world's highest court. There
> is no longer an issue as to what 242 means. It's what we call res
> judicata.
>
> > You don't seem to realize that diplomatic documents
> > of this sort are frequently ambiguous,
> > in order to get agreement on something.
> > That way each side points to the part they like and says
> > 'the document is our favor because it says this'.
>
> Courts use a "rule of construction" that no document will be
> interpreted in a fashion which renders it meaningless or impotent. You
> are swimming upstream.
The UN is not a court.
Its resolutions are frequently ambiguous, *deliberately*,
in order to get some kind of agreement,
where it would otherwise have been impossible.
242 is a UN resolution.
It *is* ambiguous.
Sorry.
> > Analyzing the 242 preamble as if
> > it were of any importance in its own right
> > isn't any more useful for understanding today's world
> > than analyzing the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
>
> It has been interpreted by the highest court in the world. It is no
> longer 'ambiguous'. We have case law on what it means.
Ico, I'm not a lawyer.
I'd like to know more about this.
Can you tell me about it?
Sorry, this was a kind of typo.
> > Why wasn't there a similar resolution?
>
> Because decolonization was approved in that era still is. Israel is a
> colonial-imperial power trying to recolonize the last 22% of
> Palestine. It's against the the law and what you might call global
> public policy.
In a perverse way, that percentage is almost right.
Over 80% of Palestine is sovereign, Arab territory.
But what does decolonization mean when Spain
has property in Morocco (small islands just off the coast),
England has property in Spain, U.S. has property in Cuba,
China has property in Tibet, and Russia has property in Chechnya?
Decolonization never meant any more than sloughing
off of European colonies in Africa,
mostly because they were no longer worth the trouble.
> > If you missed one crime, you don't have to ignore another, that's
> > true.
>
> It's more than just "true," it's the law pretty much the world over.
> In the States it's called prosecutorial discretion. It applies to
> Israel who's apologists keep pointing to occasions in previous eras
> where no one was censured for an act of criminal aggression, such as
> the Chinese incursion into Indian territory in the Himalayas.
>
> > Establishing 'inadmissibility' is something else.
> > If you pick and choose, you won't be taken seriously.
>
> Inadmissibility is a function of the law, not whether violation of the
> law can be prosecuted in a practical sense.
>
> The law is one thing. Enforcement of it is another. In the case of
> Palestine the effect of international law has been more the
> delegitimization of Israel than her punishment for criminal behavior.
> Zionist influence over our government has made us the UN member which
> has most contributed over the last forty years to the undermining of
> International law. We have prevented its enforcement in the case of
> Israel. We've done it without justification.
>
> BTW, look up "prosecutorial discretion."
That's what I meant when I said:
"If you pick and choose, you won't be taken seriously".
Ico, there's a problem here, don't deny it.
coaste...@yahoo.com
We're too busy to spend time on "strangeness". There would be no end
to it in this snake pit.
> > > Israel has always used 'territories' not 'the territories'
> > > as justification for refusing to leave *all* of the territory.
> > > They have the support of diplomats to the UN
> > > who were involved in this resolution at the time,
> > > who say that is exactly what they meant.
>
> > This language has been interpreted by the world's highest court. There
> > is no longer an issue as to what 242 means. It's what we call res
> > judicata.
>
> > > You don't seem to realize that diplomatic documents
> > > of this sort are frequently ambiguous,
> > > in order to get agreement on something.
> > > That way each side points to the part they like and says
> > > 'the document is our favor because it says this'.
>
> > Courts use a "rule of construction" that no document will be
> > interpreted in a fashion which renders it meaningless or impotent. You
> > are swimming upstream.
>
> The UN is not a court.
Generally not. It's more akin to a legislature cum bureaucracy. But it
has an attached court system.
> Its resolutions are frequently ambiguous, *deliberately*,
> in order to get some kind of agreement,
> where it would otherwise have been impossible.
> 242 is a UN resolution.
> It *is* ambiguous.
> Sorry.
The concept is from the law. When a court resolves ambiguities in a
statute the result is that it is no longer ambiguous. It is read in
light of the decision or line of decisions interpreting it. The
highest international court has told us what it means. And as it is
the world's highest court with jurisdsiction over questions of
international law, there is no further appeal. The Opinion is on the
web. Look it up. for purposes of finding it, part of the context for
the decision was the apartheid or separation wall.
> > > Analyzing the 242 preamble as if
> > > it were of any importance in its own right
> > > isn't any more useful for understanding today's world
> > > than analyzing the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
>
> > It has been interpreted by the highest court of competent jurisdiction in the world. It is no
> > longer 'ambiguous'. We have case law on what it means.
>
> Ico, I'm not a lawyer.
> I'd like to know more about this.
> Can you tell me about it?
Sure. I'll look it up and give you the citation. I'll gather up some
other things. As it's a legal issue it might be better to discuss it
in a separate thread.
> > Because decolonization was approved in that era and still is. Israel is a
> > colonial-imperial power trying to recolonize the last 22% of
> > Palestine. It's against the the law and what you might call global
> > public policy.
>
> In a perverse way, that percentage is almost right.
> Over 80% of Palestine is sovereign, Arab territory.
I'm not sure I understand that. I thought we were debate opponents.
I'd put it this way: 78% of Palestine can *become* sovereign Israeli
territory recognized as such by all countries and organizations which
matter, but only if she negotiate's a settlement with the Palestinians
and quits her drive to take half of the West Bank. Legitimacy comes
from agreement and consent. I can not come from conquest and ethnic
cleansing. They are both outlawed.
>
> But what does decolonization mean when Spain
> has property in Morocco (small islands just off the coast),
> England has property in Spain, U.S. has property in Cuba,
> China has property in Tibet, and Russia has property in Chechnya?
> Decolonization never meant any more than sloughing
> off of European colonies in Africa,
> mostly because they were no longer worth the trouble.
It was more complex than that. WWII was the death knell of the
colonial era, but it took forty years to work it out. Churchill was an
imperialist who famously would not preside over the destruction of the
British Empire. FDR would not support [or tolerate] its continuation
and insisted on liberation and independence. Labour's Atlee obliged
Churchill by winning the first post-war election and becoming Prime
Minister. The Brits were exhausted but America was untouched by the
war. So it was a combination of factors. It's awful that it took so
long and that the process embroiled us in charming experiences such as
the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Decolonization wasn't systematically
planned and of course went badly. Chaotic partition in India, Mau Maus
in Kenya, separatist white independence in Rhodesia, apartheid in
South Africa, guerrilla war in Malaya and the Gloire-oriented French
trying to overcome their WWII humiliation by reimposing their rule in
Southeast Asia. And by that time we we made it much worse by changing
our anti-colonial policy because of new Cold War considerations and
*supported* the French. It wasn't a good show.
And while all this was going on the Israelis swam against this messy
historical tide fueled primarily by the Shoah. They based it on an
obviously faulty political ideology and failed to project its
consequences into the future. It was hubris which exceeded even that
of the French. We know the rest. We've watched it unfold for sixty
years.
The reputation and power of the United States of America have been
trashed, primarily through unrelenting efforts to help Israel prevail
in an illegitimate venture, the gobbling-up of the lands occupied in
1967. Israel's reputation is at the bottom of the "dust bin of
history." We Americans have been set against our most accomplished and
successful minority at the behest of its furthest right-wing. 9/11,
three fruitless anti-Muslem wars with another being ginned-up by our
own corrupted and intimidated Congress as we speak. And why? So Israel
can run her proportion of Palestine to roughly 89% leaving the
Palestinians without a viable homeland? Forgive me, but this makes no
sense at all from the point of view of American interests.
Israel can not have uncontested sovereignty of even a part of
Palestine without compromise and and an amicable settlement.
> > > If you missed one crime, you don't have to ignore another, that's
> > > true.
>
> > It's more than just "true," it's the law pretty much the world over.
> > In the States it's called prosecutorial discretion. It applies to
> > Israel whose apologists keep pointing to occasions in previous eras
> > where no one was censured for acts of aggression, such as
> > the Chinese incursion into Indian territory in the Himalayas.
>
> > > Establishing 'inadmissibility' is something else.
> > > If you pick and choose, you won't be taken seriously.
>
> > Inadmissibility is a function of the law, not whether violation of the
> > law can be prosecuted in a practical sense.
>
> > The law is one thing. Enforcement of it is another. In the case of
> > Palestine the effect of international law has been more the
> > delegitimization of Israel than her punishment for criminal behavior.
> > Zionist influence over our government has made us the UN member which
> > has most contributed over the last forty years to the undermining of
> > International law. We have prevented its enforcement in the case of
> > Israel. We've done it without justification.
>
> > BTW, look up "prosecutorial discretion."
>
> That's what I meant when I said:
> "If you pick and choose, you won't be taken seriously".
> Ico, there's a problem here, don't deny it.
The prosecutor's discretion is not complete. It's a balance between
autonomy in deciding whom to prosecute and a sworn obligation to
uphold the law and serve the interests of the people.
dsharavi
wrote:
> We're too busy to spend time on "strangeness".
And H is way too busy running from requests for substantiating facts,
like those contained in the following post. Naturally, H, running true
to form, ran from it.
Here it is again:
>>>>On Dec 22, 8:49 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>From his WIKI biography:
>>>>>Civil rights politics
>>>>>"Carter declared in his inaugural speech (as Governor of Georgia) that
>>>>>the time of racial segregation was over, and that racial
>>>>>discrimination had no place in the future of the state. He was the
>>>>>first statewide office holder in the Deep South to say this in public.
>>>>>[25] Afterwards, Carter appointed many African Americans to statewide
>>>>>boards and offices. He was often called one of the "New Southern
>>>>>Governors" – much more moderate than their predecessors, and
>>>>>supportive of racial desegregation and expanding African-Americans'
>>>>>rights."
>>>On Dec 23, 2:02 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>>It was still years after Jews were killed protesting American
>>>>apartheid, helped found the NAACP and draft the Civil Rights Act of
>>>>1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 (both at the Religious Action
>>>>Center of Reform Judaism). Where was Carter during these fights?
>>>>Serving in the Georgia Senate, then running for governor of Georgia, a
>>>>race which he lost.
On Dec 24, 7:34 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>You've answered your own question. Good girl, Deb.
Several posts ago.You only just noticed? And put to rest, one hopes,
your bolstering of Carter's lie that he was a nuclear physicist; the
lie that he supervised construction of Rickover's nuclear navy was
entirely your own; even Carter would never have dreamt of getting
away
with a whopper of those proportions.
>>On Dec 23, 3:00 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
>><coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>You know what his attitude was in 1965.
>On Dec 23, 11:01 pm, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>I don't recall it personally, no.
>You should as I provided you with information about the church
>integration incident of that year.
Try to recall, if that is possible, how I view "information" provided
by you.
>>>I've told you.
>>You've "told" me a lot of things. F'r instance --
>>You told me I made a "'filthy little big pig' comment about Al
>>Sharpton" which was "racist" as well as "very coarse and reflects
>>poorly on the quality of her upbringing, and that my "mother would be
>>horrified."
>Your mother would approve of your use of "filthy little big pig"
>language about a Black man in America? Surely not. Perhaps she and I
>should talk it over.
Perhaps you should provide the link to the exact post which will
validate your phony claim that I ever made such a statement. You've
been asked for that many, many times in the two and a half years
since
you made that allegation. You've sidedodged it every time, with your
patented stock response to requests for you to back your highly
dubious claims.
A pause for an aside here, into a few of
HUNTER WATSON'S STOCK RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR CITES AND FACTS:
==============================
>HHW wrote:
>>You know when and where I proved you a plagiarist.
drahcir wrote:
>If you had done it, you would have posted a link to it.
"I posted the proof that you are a plagiarist. You know insist that I
do it again. Remember I DON'T RUN ERRANDS FOR YOU.
I'm not going to posts it again. "
>Since the proof doesn't exist, you can't very well
provide a link to it, can you?
"You lie. How did you first come to know from me that
you had been caught plagiarizing another's work? I even
pasted you sin into one of my posts so as to rub your pretty
little nose in it. "
-- HHW <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>, 9 Jan 2009 08:18:36 -0800 (PST)
Mike Smith wrote:
>Find one of my posts where I call Bush a conservative
>or refer to him as conservative. You can go back at least 7 years,
>if you want to be especially diligent.
"I WON'T RUN ERRANDS FOR LOUDMOUTHS. But
you can do this research yourself. "
-- HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>, 8 Dec 2008 15:30:58 -0800 (PST)
‘
drahcir wrote:
>You think that by typing "toying with you", that you can
>make anyone forget that you accused me of a contradiction
"I've accused you of lots of things: a filthy sort of
arrogance, of having no significant life experience, of
having a poor and insufficient education, of not working
for a living, of generating awful music and parading it
before the public via a High School Orchestra, of using
a Canadian e-mail account as a sock and then not
even being able to coordinate it's "personality."
"I can dredge up more if you like."
>I asked you to illustrate it, and you are doing your usual
>tapdance to avoid specifying. Yawn...
"I DONT' RUN ERRANDS FOR YOU. OR DON'T YOU RECALL."
>And now, H is going to enter blahblah mode, where he
>thinks he can inundate with stream-of-unconsciousness
>verbiage to try to distract from the contradiction that has
>yet to be specified.
-- HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>, 23 Nov 2008 15:37:09 -0800 (PST)
"Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>you don't even try to state this as an opinion,
>you state this is a "fact".
"I'm supposed to run around trying to find something which
will please YOU? Not likely. I DON'T RUN ERRANDS FOR
ANYONE. This isn't a STEP 'N FETCHIT ROUTINE. But I'd
be very happy to actually debate you on the subject.
"it is a fact which I "find" in the sense that juries "find
facts" even though as with a jury those facts must be drawn
from disparate evidence."
-- HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>, 15 May 2008 13:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
"No deals, no slack, no errands, no quarter with that son of a bitch.
Just grind him down. There are lots of readers here who do not post.
That's what matters. They already know what Ratner and Deb Rosen and
Hillel are doing and that they've been doing it deceitfully. Let them
watch these filthy Neanderthals operate. "
-- HHW <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>, 10 Feb 2008 15:04:33 -0800 (PST)
>If you would like the message id's (there was more than one)
>of where you faded away about your lie about arabs being unable
>to purchase land in israel...
"You just lie about my not responding. It was quite elaborate
actually. Go find it. I DON'T RUN ERRANDS FOR YOU. NOT ANY. NONE."
-- HHW <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>, 9 Feb 2008 16:53:10 -0800 (PST)
‘
"You can't convince me to go back through it simply because you
use the word "lie". You do that in every post, usually more than
once. Your readers have long since come to understand your
tactic. You really only have one.
"I DON'T RUN ERRANDS FOR YOU. And besides, I'm not
especially interested in that event as the United States was neither
entangled in it nor responsible for it.
"However, I did point out the importance of the dates of the
initiation of Israeli ethnic cleansing in Palestine and then the
expulsions in the Arab countries.
"As I say I'm not much interested but maybe you can find
out so as to be able to further misrepresent the history of it. No
matter what you say it won't be believed."
-- HHW <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>, 7 Feb 2008 14:54:11 -0800 (PST)
"I'll be happy to take stands. And we can see who remains standing.
But I DON'T RUN OFF TO DO RESEARCH FOR ANYONE.
You do yours, I'll do mine."
"I DON'T RUN ERRANDS FOR YOU."
-- HHW <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>, 26 Jan 2008 10:49:15 -0800 (PST)
"I'M NOT GOING TO RUN ERRANDS FOR YOU. This
isn't A STEP 'N FETCHIT EXERCISE. When you attempt to engage
me on the issues ... we'll see what the results are."
drahcir wrote:
>Gosh, I must have missed it. Would you mind reposting the
>proof in your reply to this post?
"I DON'T RUN ERRANDS FOR YOU."
>Thus far you have posted zilch. I wonder why.
"Probably because I DON'T RUN ERRANDS FOR YOU."
-- HHW <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>, 16 Dec 2007 21:58:00 -0800 (PST)
On Jul 7, 5:35 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>You clip and evade. I almost never clip and almost never
>fail to answer.
hillelgwrote:
"I answer till you bore me too much. Say something new for a
change."
>We much overvalue the connection with Saudi Arabia.
"The Saudis have Carter on the payroll. You can't ognore
them
now... "
>why on Earth would they have repeatedly have
>elected these terrorist types like Begin and Sharon?
"Idiot.
Your understanding of Israeli politics is pretty close
to zero."
"Israel takes bad risks to keep the US happy.
"If you ever come with some really new idea write
again. So far you are pretty boring."
--From: hillelg...@yahoo.com, 07 Jul 2007 23:40:50 -0700
Subject: Re: Arrogance
>>Ariadne <ariadne....@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>Free association is a much better game
>>>than knocking down your Aunt Sallies.
>>Free association is a psychological term
>>and "Aunt Sallies" is meaningless. Say what you mean.
>Nonsense! Look it up and "suck it up", dhimmi!
"I DON´T RUN ERRANDS."
--HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>, 07 Jul 2007 17:37:59 -0700
Subject: Re: Arrogance
>>>On Jun 27, 10:32 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical
>>>>court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of
>>>>rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his
>>>>execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the
>>>>talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned.
>>On Jun 28, 3:09 am, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>Really?!
>>>Quote the Talmud and give the page number you idiot.
>On Jun 28, 7:42 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>Here's the two paragraph quote shorn of its provocative title. You too
>>clip it and delete the citation to Israel Shahak.
>>"According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical
>>court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of
>>rabbinical authority.
>Is English your second language, O Hooded and Sheeted One? Quote the
>portion of the Talmud which relatest that "Jesus was executed by a
>proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry,
>and contempt of rabbinical authority."
>What is so difficult to understand?
"IS IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THAT I DON´T RUNN
ERRANDS? Don´t play dumb. The burden has shifted to you. I
cited a famed scholar. You call his work bologna. I´m afraid you´ll
just have to explain why. What in that is so difficult to understand?
--HHW <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>, 29 Jun 2007 16:48:53 -0700
Subject: Re: Tolerance
>>HHW wrote:
>>>I cited a famed scholar.
>hillelg wrote:
>>Just because you "cite a famed scholar" claiming
>>that the Earth is flat does not make the Earth flat.
On Jun 30, 11:34 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Of course not, but it raises an issue of fact.
"Ha?
Experts don't establish facts, experts just explain how
the observed data may, or may not, fit into a theory
of what happened."
>The burden then shifts to you, the proponent of earthly
sphericalism.
"You have to establish the facts first.
Tell me what page of the Talmud your "scholar"
used and I'll check their data."
-- hillelg...@yahoo.com, 01 Jul 2007 21:51:23 -0700
Subject: Re: Tolerance
>"Cazador" wrote:
>>His Jewish "friends" on the moderated group have
>>been trying to discourage him by saying that you gotta
>>be born a Jew to be a real Jew, but he seems not to listen
>>even to them.
>The thread is called Let the Jews be delivered from their
>darkness. Now point out where someone told me you have to
>be born a Jew to be a real Jew.
"Go look for it yourself. I already gave you a good
response that covered most of your demands, Now you've clipped it.
YOU'RE NOT WORTH RUNNING ERRANDS FOR."
--Cazador <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>. 05 Jun 2007 22:38:07 -0700
>You have no argument.
>And with all your skirting the issues, you haven't shown
otherwise.
"I DON'T RUN ERRANDS FOR DEBORAH/ELIZABETH
OR SUFFER FOOLS LIKE YOU GLADLY."
-- Cazador <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>, 02 Jun 2007 19:48:45 -0700
>1) Point out EXACTLY where I made any such "filthy little
>big pig" comment regarding Al Sharpton, as you claim:
>"Deborah's "filthy little big pig" comment about Sharpton is
>hard to interpret as anything but racist. She is invited to try. She
>should not have said it. It was very coarse and reflects poorly on
>the quality of her upbringing. Her mother would be
>horrified."
"My, my, such a snit, my girl. But as you know I DON'T
RUN ERRANDS FOR YOU AND AM NOT GOING BACK TO
MUCK RAKE THAT PARTICULAR RACIST OUTBURST."
-- Cazador <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>, 15 May 2007 21:26:31 -0700
>the question to you was in this very thread. The questions to
>Westermeyer were in the thread before this one.
"I DON'T RUN ERRANDS FOR CHILDREN, DoD. I'll be
happy to answer every single question you address to me. But
NO STEP 'N FETCHIT FOR THE LIKES OF YOU."
-- Cazador <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>, 27 Apr 2007 21:26:31 -0700
"I DON'T RUN ERRANDS FOR YOU DEBORAH. LOOK IT
UP YOURSELF. It should not be hard to find. Why do you clip
You really are devious."
"You can find it. My memory is actually pretty good.
RUN YOUR OWN ERRANDS.
What I give you is what you will get from me."
" I DON'T RUN STEP 'N' FETCHIT ERRANDS FOR YOU."
--"Cazador" <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>, 12 Jan 2007 19:39:04 -0800
>Be weird give it a go.
"I doubt you can handle it, Dave. Bert and me at
the same time? ..Just remember WE WON'T RUN ERRANDS
FOR YOU."
HW
-- "Hunter Watson" <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>, 6 Nov 2005 14:37:07
-0800
==============================
END SAMPLES OF HUNTER WATSON'S STOCK RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR FACTS
AND CITES
Back to H's assertion that I made a "racist" comment about Al
Sharpton, and H's many, many sidedodges ("I DON'T RUN ERRANDS!!!") of
requests to produce that post. Naturally, H can't -- it doesn't exist
outside H's imagination.
>>You told me I've "got family in israel and that's all that matters to
>>you."
>Did I really say that? How about a cite?
rotflol
A request for a cite is pretty funny coming from Hunter "I DON'T RUN
STEP 'N' FETCHIT ERRANDS" Watson. I don't run step'n'fetchit errands.
Look it up.
>Well, do you and does it?
Do I what, and does what, what?
>That does sound a bit unkind of me--out of context. Perhaps an al het?
Al Who?
>>You told me I'm "simply are thrilled by crimes against humanity so
>>long as Israelis are dishing it out".
>That's the impression I have presently. I don't recall you ever having
>said a critical word about Israeli crimes against humanity. Most of
>the time you haven't been willing to admit they have taken place.
>You're an anti-Palestinian racist. You almost always cover for Israeli
>crimes with flat, unsupported denials. "Nope" she says.
You can keep your impression, since nothing I say to the contrary is
likely to change it.
>>You told me that I have "a bachelors degree in Jewish History" which
>>kept me "from getting an education."
>I don't have a very high impression of your level of education, Deb.
It's enough to have proven you wrong, time and again. No wonder you
like to deride it.
>Some one else here said you studied Jewish history at college. Was it
>inaccurate? Tell me you studied something else and I'll apologize for
>having been misled.
I hold a degree in a field other than Jewish history, which I did NOT
study in college. I'm almost certain whoever provided you with that
bit of "inaccuracy" also passed along a few other 'inaccuracies".
>>You told me I'm an "ignorant schnorrer", as well as "abandoned and
>>unemployed, filled with hate", and a "failure in attaining a decent
>>education."
>You're certainly filled with hate. That's characteristic of racists.
And you're filled with hate and ignorance -- hence the lack of
comment
over your hysterical misuse of "schnorrer". Chaim Weizmann was a
schnorrer; the "king of schnorrers" he called himself.
>It's my personal opinion that you failed to attain a decent education,
>but that is subjective. I tend to like breadth and patterns of life-
>long curiosity.
It's my personal - subjective, of course - opinion, as well as my
observation over the years, that you prefer bullshit to facts. And
you're a Jew hater, too, of course.
>You don't display them so far as I can see. Had I been
>inclined by your erudite charm to be more kind, that could easily have
>happened. But you are neither erudite nor charming. You consistantly
>attacked me in unimaginably foul fashion.
Unimaginably foul? Gee, and here I thought I was showing a bit of
havlaga -- especially after you called me a liar and stupid several
dozen times, accused me of making "racist" and other statements I
never made, and so on.
>I should treat you with kid
>gloves? Not likely. I don't even know for sure that you're a woman so
>even the vestiges of chivalry may not apply.
It's never mattered to you what you "know for sure", since you've
always shown yourself willing to bullshit about it -- isn't that so,
Hunter?
>>You told me "You know nothing" and "You don't know what you're talking
>>about" and "You know nothing".
>Comparatively, my dear, you are an ignoramous. But they know something
>so I do apologize for such mistaken zeal in the heat of battle.
>>You told me that I "once inadvisably exclaimed something like: "Don't
>>you just love Benny Morris?" before I "knew that he, like Pappe, is
>>considered a "New Historian" (23/3/08 )
>So? I have good reason to believe it.
Your "good reason" is that you've repeated your lie so often you've
come to "believe it".
>Given your disgusting flat denials of the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine
I've never made any such denials, flat or otherwise. Your wishful
thinking, and love of your own rhetoric, is blowing you over the edge
of reality again.
>it would have been ridiculous of you to say "Don't ya just
>love Benny Morris" had you actually read him.
It's ridiculous of you to keep claiming I did, when you can't cite a
single post to support your claim.
>>You told me I "Don't ya just love Benny Morris!?" Deborah. (26/3/08)
>I paraphrased you, closely, Deb.
You paraphrased yourself, Hunter. You can't even produce anything I
said that's even close.
>You've recently been pretending you
>didn't say it. That's deceitful.
It's deceitful of you to keep pretending that I said it, when you're
quite aware I didn't, and, like the post where you claim I made the
"racist" Al Sharpton remark, you can produce neither. Give it up,
Hunter. You're the liar here, and you know it.
>>and again,
>>"Don't you just love Benny Morris, Deborah?" (28/3/08), and again,
>>"Don't you just love Benny Morris," 31/5/08 and that I "'love him"and
>>that I "said it. Don't forget it."
>No apologies for the truth, Deb.
There's no truth in the words of yours cited above - and no apologies
from you, naturally, for your lies.
>But you're paraphrasing all the way
>through here when you could simply cut and paste.
Those ARE cut-n-pastes, Hunter, ole man -- from YOUR posts.
>I don't trust you an inch. Who knows what you've done with the text?
Look it up, if you're interested.
>>(It's difficult to see how one can forget something one never did.
>Have you had it deleted? Haha! Well there is always the subpoena duces
>tecum.
Care to go to the Google archives regarding the "racist" Al Sharpton
posts, to see what a liar you are?
>>Nevertheless, you went on to tel me that I "hadn't read his book and
>>didn't realize that he's the NEW HISTORIAN who first confirmed the
>>NAKBA took place, the forced expulsion of the Palestinian people, the
>>"catastrophe". If you had any moral fiber you could avoid such
>>humiliations. "
>Well, try telling the truth about Benny Morris.
You mean recite your opinion that "Benny Morris is not an honest
scholar", that he has "lost all credibility -- and that this has
somehow been "proved", beyond a shadow of a doubt, according to you,
by Mearsheimer and Walt. The fact that they based a good portion of
their little squib on factoids from Morris's work, and that I
repeatedly pointed this out to you as a basis for the reason they
would never seek to "prove" Morris is, according to you "not an
honest
scholar", repeatedly flew over your head.
>You have repeatedly denied the expulsions.
Post one of my "denials" -- if you can. It doesn't even have to be a
flat one. But of course, you can't.
>You now say that when you made these denials
>you had read his book? Are your denials now "inoperative"? Why not
>just tell us what's going on, Deb.
Would you mind translating that into intelligible English?
> >Be that as it may, you told I said.....
>>"Don't ya just love Benny Morris?" (Deborah)" (1/9/08) And again:
>>"Don't you just love Benny Morris." (Deborah) " 8/9/08.
>>You told me that I "famously said, "Don't you just love Benny Morris"
>>before having read him." (30/11/08). And again:
>>"Don't you just love Benny Morris?" (7/2/09)
>> Don't you just love Benny Morris?" (29/6/09)Hah
>>You told me that I "proclaimed, "Don't you just love Benny Morris?"
>>and "loved him before having read him." (28/11/09)
>I have reason to believe you now have his origin of the Palestinian
>Refugee Problem "revisited" volume.
That's "BIRTH of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949" and
"BIRTH of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited". I've corrected
you several times.
Do you also have reason to believe that you can paste the link to an
actual post where I wrote anything even RESEMBLING your oft-repeated
claim of "Dont you just love Benny Morris?" Put it up - IF you can.
>But I don't recall any sign that you ever read the first one.
I don't recall any sign that I ever posted anything resembling what
you've repeatedly claimed I posted.
>You can disabuse me of that error.
I read it years ago. I've quoted it here on these groups -- ten and
more years ago.
>But if you do so please explain your denials of the Naqba.
Post one of my so-called "denials" -- EXACTLY -- along with the link
-- and I'll explain it.
>>You told me that I "seldom post new content" and that my headers are
>>"inevitably filthy".
>For a long time it seemed so to me. Perhaps I'm a bit cruel here.
No, you're just being your usual obtuse self.
>It's
>hard to be even remotely generous to a person such as you. Not
>inevitably. Just so often as to make a decent person nauseous.
No doubt because your fantasies get in the way. As I've said before,
you don't even know me.
>>You told me there aren't "any actual Jews here who respect you."
>I have a pretty high opinion of Jews generally.
I'll continue to nurse my doubts about that. And so will others, I've
no doubt.
>Zionist activists
>excepted, perhaps, I can't believe that they would respect what you've
>done here. Especially early in our "relationship". That applies to
>Ratner too.
"They" meaning all Jews, of course. Right?
>>You told me "You're just in your sixties."
>You aren't in your sixties?
Not by a long shot.
>Tell us your age and I'll be happy to make
>a correction. It's impolite to ask a lady her age but then you might
>be male anyway. Or so we have been told by one long time-poster
>anyway.
I can imagine who that was.
>>These few of the many things you've "told" me are a few of the reasons
>>I take everything you "tell" me with a large dose of salt.
>Whatever you like, Deb.
>>>He was no racist. He and his family stood up to it locally. What more do you
>>>want?
>>Is anyone saying he's a racist?
>In my opinion you insinuated that with your angry political slanders
>of President Carter in connection with the Civil Rights Movement. You
>also accused him of cowardice, repeatedly. That was absolutely
>astounding.
Your claims are absolutely astonishing. What "angry political
slanders"? What "repeated" accusations of cowardice?
And BTW -- that's FORMER prez Carter, or, if you like, EX-prez
Carter.
The AKs been out of the political arena for three decades now, and
there have been seven administrations since his time.
And is anyone saying he's a racist?
>>>The Jewish kids who helped lead the Civil Rights Movement were
>>>heroes. No doubt about it. Why does their heroism somehow make Carter
>>>a bad person?
Let's back up and see what you snipped without noting it:
>>Does it?
>It doesn't, but that was your insinuation.
It wasn't MY insinuation -- it was your SUBJECTIVE impression.
>Where was he, you asked, when those Jewish kids were on the barricades?
I didn't ask that -- but as usual, you won't let FACTS get in your
way.
>Going to work every day in the Georgia Legislature. You know damned well where he was.
NOT going to work "every day" in the GA Legislature, that's fer
shure.
>After all he was roughly forty at the time.
38 - 41. So what? It's hardly an antediluvian age range, you know.
>You defamed him. In fact you
>essentially defame everyone opposite you here--unless they are allied
>with you. You are a very nasty person, Deb. Very nasty.
One may suppose liars might think so.
>>>You reason in the strangest and most unpleasant ways.
>Obviously true, Deb. You far too often fail to tell the truth or
>struggle to suppress it.
You're projecting your own aversion to facts and honesty, as well as
your preference for bullshit.
>>Your jumping to conclusions leaves you hanging, as usual, out on a
>>limb.
>That's true about you even if someone else said it.
Is not, nyah nyah nyah.
>>>You have no basis for defaming Carter on this issue.
>>That's pretty funny.
>You're not laughing.
I'm chuckling, though.
>You have no basis whatever. You have only one
>reason for your anger with Carter. He is a high profile critic of
>Israeli behavior and policy. Your default response to anyone in that
>category is an attempt to stigmatize with accusations of anti-Semitism
>and various other ad hominems. You've done it over and over again.
>You're also a spammer.
That's pretty funny, too.
>>>That he wasn't in a particular movement that other people were in means nothing.
>Why didn't you respond to that? Surely the logic isn't beyond you.
I responded. You need it spelled out?
>>Carter wasn't in a nuclear submarine as an officer, either, nor did he
>>ever earn a "Nuclear Engineering degree", as you claimed.
>His degree was apparently in physics.
Apparently it wasn't, unless one can earn a physics degree on the
basis of one noncredit class.
>In his naval service that meant nuclear engineering.
Which training he never completed, retiring from the Navy four months
into it.
>>A large dose of salt, as I said.
>Dishonest, Deb. He supervised the construction of nuclear subs for
>Hymen Rickover.
Oh dear, apparently I did NOT put to rest your insistence on
bolstering Jimmy's lie that he was a nuclear physicist. But, as I
said, he'd neither the education nor the training nor the experience.
As it turns out, others have said it as well.
"Carter's overuse of superlatives seems closely relate to his
penchant
for exaggeration, which became another signature of his political
style, as we shall see. Exaggeration comes with the political trade;
it is an ineluctable and perhaps necessary component of that
overweening sense of self that all successful politicians
exhibit...In
this respect, Carter's occasional whoppers and frequent petty
exaggerations do not especially stand out. But they are incongruous
with his self-declared Christian wariness of the sin of pride and
profession of the virtue of humility.
"A small but telling Carter exaggeration had its origin in his period
during the Rickover program. When he ran for president in 1976,
Carter
would claim, among his other credentials, that he was a nuclear
PHYSICIST...
'Though Carter was later to call himself a nuclear scientist,
it is apparent that his formal training in that field was
limited; he had had no training in nuclear physics at
Annapolis and his subsequent graduate work at Union Col-
lege [in New York] consisted of a noncredit, one-semester
course. One professor who taught the course says that "No
one who took that program could be classed as a nuclear
engineer--it was at quite an elementary level.'"
"While Carter exaggerated his scientific credentials...his subsequent
experience with nuclear technology...included working a hazardous
cleanup at a Canadian nuclear reactor that had suffered a partial
meltdown in 1952."
"At this point, the twenty-nine year old Carter could have every
expectation of a distinguished naval career ahead of him...But just a
year into Rickover's nuclear [training] program, Carter received news
that bought his naval career to an abrupt end and resulted in the
second major turning point in his life. Back in Plains, his father
was dying of cancer."
- S.F. Hayward, The real Jimmy Carter , p 22-23
>Sad Deb. I've collected your posts too. Many of them are too filthy to
>reproduce.
rotflol
Yeah, right, but you collect these allegedly filthy posts anyway.
What
do you do with them? No, forget I asked.
>I haven't forgotten them, I assure you.
It's obvious you HAVE forgotten a good deal of them; otherwise, you
wouldn't keep lying about them.
You've also forgotten the many times you retreated from the facts I
posted with your tail tucked between your legs.
Care to produce that link to support your claim that I made a
'racist'
remark about Al Sharpton?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/a0033dc6dc963acb
Deborah
RabbiJoekerr
Bwahahahar look everyone the poor imbecile is stuck repeating the same
childish nonsense because he cant defend himself bwahahahahahaahr!
RabbiJoekerr
> "RabbiJoekerr" <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Bwahahahar now the moron is so desperate he has to cut- and - paste
the same lame response bwahahahaahr!
Bolt Upright
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"-
KOOKOO!
Bolt Upright
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
Zev
The "world's highest court" doesn't know that the Green Line
is not recognized as an international border
by any country in the world, or by either part of the PA?
Besides, I think the issue there is
the Geneva Conventions, not 242.
> > > > Analyzing the 242 preamble as if
> > > > it were of any importance in its own right
> > > > isn't any more useful for understanding today's world
> > > > than analyzing the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
>
> > > It has been interpreted by the highest court of competent jurisdiction
> > > in the world. It is no
> > > longer 'ambiguous'. We have case law on what it means.
>
> > Ico, I'm not a lawyer.
> > I'd like to know more about this.
> > Can you tell me about it?
>
> Sure. I'll look it up and give you the citation. I'll gather up some
> other things. As it's a legal issue it might be better to discuss it
> in a separate thread.
OK, I'll be sure not to miss it.
But in the meantime this legal clarification business
has me scratching my head.
The ambiguity is deliberate, it's an integral part of the document.
A court which removes it, rewrites it,
and arrogates a mission not assigned to it.
Look up a map of "Palestine" before 1918.
Estimate what part of that is now called "Israel".
I know that's not what you meant,
that's why I added: "In a perverse way".
But it's an important point, and I hope to return to it later.
> > But what does decolonization mean when Spain
> > has property in Morocco (small islands just off the coast),
> > England has property in Spain, U.S. has property in Cuba,
> > China has property in Tibet, and Russia has property in Chechnya?
> > Decolonization never meant any more than sloughing
> > off of European colonies in Africa,
> > mostly because they were no longer worth the trouble.
>
> It was more complex than that. WWII was the death knell of the
> colonial era, but it took forty years to work it out. Churchill was an
> imperialist who famously would not preside over the destruction of the
> British Empire. FDR would not support [or tolerate] its continuation
> and insisted on liberation and independence. Labour's Atlee obliged
> Churchill by winning the first post-war election and becoming Prime
> Minister. The Brits were exhausted but America was untouched by the
> war. So it was a combination of factors. It's awful that it took so
> long and that the process embroiled us in charming experiences such as
> the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Decolonization wasn't systematically
> planned and of course went badly. Chaotic partition in India, Mau Maus
> in Kenya, separatist white independence in Rhodesia, apartheid in
> South Africa, guerrilla war in Malaya and the Gloire-oriented French
> trying to overcome their WWII humiliation by reimposing their rule in
> Southeast Asia. And by that time we we made it much worse by changing
> our anti-colonial policy because of new Cold War considerations and
> *supported* the French. It wasn't a good show.
Reading this paragraph, I'm forced to admit
that my paragraph above was indeed simplistic.
But it doesn't change the fact that the UN
couldn't be symbolised by a blindfolded goddess
holding a scale of justice in her hand.
> And while all this was going on the Israelis swam against this messy
> historical tide fueled primarily by the Shoah. They based it on an
> obviously faulty political ideology and failed to project its
> consequences into the future. It was hubris which exceeded even that
> of the French. We know the rest. We've watched it unfold for sixty
> years.
>
> The reputation and power of the United States of America have been
> trashed, primarily through unrelenting efforts to help Israel prevail
> in an illegitimate venture, the gobbling-up of the lands occupied in
> 1967. Israel's reputation is at the bottom of the "dust bin of
> history." We Americans have been set against our most accomplished and
> successful minority at the behest of its furthest right-wing. 9/11,
> three fruitless anti-Muslem wars with another being ginned-up by our
> own corrupted and intimidated Congress as we speak. And why? So Israel
> can run her proportion of Palestine to roughly 89% leaving the
> Palestinians without a viable homeland? Forgive me, but this makes no
> sense at all from the point of view of American interests.
This is, of course, another issue,
and this time, you're the one who is simplifying.
> Israel can not have uncontested sovereignty of even a part of
> Palestine without compromise and and an amicable settlement.
But Abu Mazin, the "PLO moderate", says he will never
recognize Israel as the "Jewish" part of Palestine.
What's his "narrative"?
Why he can't he tell his people the truth,
that the coming, final partition is between Jews and Arabs?
dsharavi
H is just bee-essing, as usual. He's deliberately igoring the fact
that this subject was gone over, again and again, nearly two years
ago, and he was wrong on every count.
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
BTW, you have an answer from Dr. Finkelstein in this post. Why don't
you respond to it?
> the Korean ...
>
> read more »
coaste...@yahoo.com
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
The Opinion is not as as long as it looks. Every other page is in
French so that the document contains the same material in both
languages.
Read this immediately below:
coaste...@yahoo.com
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
Read immediately below:
> the Korean ...
>
> read more »
dsharavi
wrote:
> BTW, you have an answer from Dr. Finkelstein in this post. Why don't
> you respond to it?
Finkelstein's Answer:
Finkelstein and Pappe are strolling down a street in Jerusalem.
Suddenly, there's a loud KA-BOOOOOM!!!! A bomb has gone off nearby --
the latest Pallie terror attack (probably outside a family restaurant,
or a daycare center, the sort of places Pallie terrorists favor). The
couple rush over to see what's happening.
En route, they come upon one of the several bleeding Israeli
victims of the terrorist attack. Pappe turns Finkelstein in shock.
"Omigod, Normie!" Pappe exclaims. "What'll we do? What'll we
do?"
"Not to worry, Ilan, hamoodi," Finkelstein replies calmly.
"We'll find the Palestinians who did this and offer our help to the
poor sods!"
Film at 11.
Deborah
dsharavi
wrote:
> The Opinion is not as as long as it looks.
The "Opinion" as H likes to call it is actually an advisory opinion,
and not binding. H just can't get his mind around the fact that the
International Court at the Hague isn't about to issue an absolute
"ruling" on Israel's security barrier, for several reasons. But Poor H
wants so badly to belive that the Great White Father Court in Brussels
condemned those bad bad Jews, that he's willing to close his eyes to
any and all facts. Not that that's anything unusual for H, of course.
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 30, 12:35 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > BTW, you have an answer from Dr. Finkelstein in this post. Why don't
> > you respond to it?
>
> Finkelstein's Answer:
>
> Finkelstein and Pappe are strolling down a street in Jerusalem.
The last time Finkelstein flew to Israel he was arrested, jailed and
expelled from the country. So much for the right of return.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 30, 1:05 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The Opinion is not as as long as it looks.
>
> The "Opinion" as H likes to call it is actually an advisory opinion,
> and not binding.
False. It is binding international case law.
H just can't get his mind around the fact that the
> International Court at the Hague isn't about to issue an absolute
> "ruling" on Israel's security barrier, for several reasons.
Since it was issued the Israelis have stopped construction of the
Apartheid Wall and Palestinians have been working at knocking it down.
The next case will be on whether the latter is punishable as
"malicious destruction of property".
But Poor H
> wants so badly to belive that the Great White Father Court in Brussels
> condemned those bad bad Jews, that he's willing to close his eyes to
> any and all facts. Not that that's anything unusual for H, of course.
The circle tightens, Rozen. None of your bluster can change the
pattern. Time's getting short for Israel to save herself from her
right, her Likudish class of NS wannabes.
> Deborah
Zev
As I had guessed, this is not 242 at all.
But it's grotesque.
If these guys are judges, I'm a shoemaker.
dsharavi
It's an advisory opinion issued by the int'l court. Twatson
deliberately misleads as to the nature of an "advisory opinion".
> If these guys are judges, I'm a shoemaker.
They're judges, but you're not a shoemaker. Twatson is merely a liar,
and exercising his penchant for it, as usual.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > wrote:
> > > BTW, you have an answer from Dr. Finkelstein in this post. Why don't
> > > you respond to it?
> On Dec 30, 5:27 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Finkelstein's Answer:
>
> > Finkelstein and Pappe are strolling down a street in Jerusalem.
>
On Dec 30, 7:38 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> The last time Finkelstein flew to Israel he was arrested, jailed and
> expelled from the country. So much for the right of return.
According to the International Herald Tribune, the Jerusalem Post, and
Finkelstien himself, he was denied entry to Israel and deported a few
hours later. Officials said that the decision to deport him was
connected to his anti-Zionist opinions and meetings with Hizbullah
officials. His lawyer, Michael Sfarad, said he was interrogated for
several hours and told that he would not be allowed into the country
on security grounds. He was held overnight and placed on board a
flight to Europe early Saturday morning. Sfarad said that Finkelstein
would appeal the decision.
So much for Tipsy's version of events.
To conclude the Answer, which Tipsy so rudely interrupted:
dsharavi
>>wrote:
>>>The Opinion is not as as long as it looks.
>
>On Dec 30, 5:30 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>The "Opinion" as H likes to call it is actually an advisory opinion,
>>and not binding.
>
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>False. It is binding international case law.
You lie, O redeless one. It’s an ADVISORY OPINION. Shall we have a
brief CLE on what an ADVISORY OPINION is?
“An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court that does not
have the effect of resolving a specific legal case, but merely advises
on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law. Some countries
have procedures by which the executive or legislative branches may
certify important questions to the judiciary and obtain an advisory
opinion. In other countries or specific jurisdictions, courts may be
prohibited from issuing advisory opinions.
“The International Court of Justice is empowered to give advisory
opinions under Chapter IV of its Statute (an annex to the United
Nations Charter) when requested to do so by certain organs or agencies
of the United Nations. These opinions are essentially non-binding, but
Pieter H.F. Bekker has argued that this non-binding character does not
mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect, because the
legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the Court's authoritative
views on important issues of international law and, in arriving at
them, the Court follows essentially the same rules and procedures that
govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases submitted
to it by sovereign states. In his view, an advisory opinion derives
its status and authority from the fact that it is the official
pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.”
An ADVISORY OPINION remains, however, an ADVISORY OPINION. And a
hearing attended by none of the European states, not a single member
of the Quartet; just twelve states out of 191 UN member states, and
among those twelve were such human rights champions as Cuba, China,
Saudi Arabia, and Sudan.
>>H just can't get his mind around the fact that the
>>International Court at the Hague isn't about to issue an absolute
>>"ruling" on Israel's security barrier, for several reasons.
>Since it was issued the Israelis have stopped construction of the
>Apartheid Wall and Palestinians have been working at knocking it down.
In which alternate reality of yours have these events occurred? The
Jack Daniels or the Jim Beam version?
>The next case will be on whether the latter is punishable as
>"malicious destruction of property".
Rotflol
>> But Poor H
>>wants so badly to belive that the Great White Father Court in Brussels
>>condemned those bad bad Jews, that he's willing to close his eyes to
>>any and all facts. Not that that's anything unusual for H, of course.
>The circle tightens, Rozen.
But Poor H wants so badly to believe that he wasn’t bested by a woman,
again, that he's willing to close his eyes to any and all facts – and
to accept the ravings of Vera Perks as fact.
>None of your bluster can change the pattern.
None of your childish brainfarts can change facts, either, Tipsy. Get
real.
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
Sure it is. It's a lot of other things too and 242 must be seen in
light of them.
> But it's grotesque.
> If these guys are judges, I'm a shoemaker.
No, they are definitely judges, but you're a Zionist. That is always
accompanied by selective blindness caused by conflict of interest. I
am prepared to go through the opinion subject by subject with you.
Everything we need is on the web, all the Conventions and opinions,
etc. It's necessary to see it whole to really understand. I'll
accommodate you if you're willing to face it frankly, like the real
mensch we all hope you can become.
coaste...@yahoo.com
What do you say, Zev, that we agree to let Ed Rosen yap and nip at our
heels but to ignore him while we solve this problem? His conflict is
absolute, worse than yours. He's also a fanatic racist, anti-Black,
anti-Hispanic and anti-Arab. He hasn't your education or life
experience, that's obvious. He will be desperate to distract from any
discussion of international law as it relates to Israel, letting the
chips fall where they may. Sadly, he doesn't want anyone to candidly
discuss the situation Israel is actually in. He's here to shut that
down. He's afraid it might distract from consolidation of Zionism's
maximum territorial goals. I submit to you that that's very radical as
the more stubborn and increasingly violent these Likudish types are,
the greater the danger to the whole project.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> >>On Dec 30, 1:05 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>>The Opinion is not as as long as it looks.
>
> >On Dec 30, 5:30 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> >>The "Opinion" as H likes to call it is actually an advisory opinion,
> >>and not binding.
>
> On Dec 30, 7:45 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
> <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> >False. It is binding international case law.
>
> Pieter H.F. Bekker has argued that this non-binding character does not
> mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect, because the
> legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the Court's authoritative
> views on important issues of international law and, in arriving at
> them, the Court follows essentially the same rules and procedures that
> govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases submitted
> to it by sovereign states. In his view, an advisory opinion derives
> its status and authority from the fact that it is the official
> pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.”
Precisely, Mr. Bekker. And thank you too, Mister Ed. Advisory
opinions ARE cited as precedent when deciding subsequent cases wherein
the parties are actually subject to the jurisdiction of the court.
They are the official pronouncements of the principal judicial organ
of the United Nations. As we go through the wall opinion, we may even
find the Court citing other advisory opinions no where near so closely
connected. It is bizarre to think that the Court would issue such an
opinion if it were to have no effect whatever. The ring is closing.
Sooner or later the parties will be before the Court. Or one will and
the other will default.....
dsharavi
> > It's an advisory opinion issued by the int'l court. Twatson
> > deliberately misleads as to the nature of an "advisory opinion".
> > > If these guys are judges, I'm a shoemaker.
> > They're judges, but you're not a shoemaker. Twatson is merely a liar,
> > and exercising his penchant for it, as usual.
> > Deborah
>
On Dec 31, 12:50 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> What do you say, Zev, that we agree to let Ed Rosen yap and nip at our
> heels but to ignore him while we solve this problem? His conflict is
> absolute, worse than yours. He's also a fanatic racist, anti-Black,
> anti-Hispanic and anti-Arab. He hasn't your education or life
> experience, that's obvious. He will be desperate to distract from any
> discussion of international law as it relates to Israel, letting the
> chips fall where they may. Sadly, he doesn't want anyone to candidly
> discuss the situation Israel is actually in. He's here to shut that
> down. He's afraid it might distract from consolidation of Zionism's
> maximum territorial goals. I submit to you that that's very radical as
> the more stubborn and increasingly violent these Likudish types are,
> the greater the danger to the whole project.
Translation: Hunter Watson hasn't the cojones to face Deborah Sharavi
in an honest, fact-based discussion.
Deborah
dsharavi
wrote:
> On Dec 31, 1:28 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:> >>On Dec 30, 1:05 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > >>wrote:
> > >>>The Opinion is not as as long as it looks.
>
> > >On Dec 30, 5:30 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > >>The "Opinion" as H likes to call it is actually an advisory opinion,
> > >>and not binding.
>
> > On Dec 30, 7:45 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
> > <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > >False. It is binding international case law.
>
> These [advisory] opinions are essentially non-binding, but
>
> > Pieter H.F. Bekker has argued that this non-binding character does not
> > mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect, because the
> > legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the Court's authoritative
> > views on important issues of international law and, in arriving at
> > them, the Court follows essentially the same rules and procedures that
> > govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases submitted
> > to it by sovereign states. In his view, an advisory opinion derives
> > its status and authority from the fact that it is the official
> > pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.”
>
> Precisely, Mr. Bekker. And thank you too, Mister Ed.
No problem, kiddy-diddler.
> Advisory
> opinions ARE cited as precedent when deciding subsequent cases wherein
> the parties are actually subject to the jurisdiction of the court.
> They are the official pronouncements of the principal judicial organ
> of the United Nations. As we go through the wall opinion, we may even
> find the Court citing other advisory opinions no where near so closely
> connected. It is bizarre to think that the Court would issue such an
> opinion if it were to have no effect whatever. The ring is closing.
> Sooner or later the parties will be before the Court. Or one will and
> the other will default.....
blah blah blah
>Tipsy McKiddy-Diddler
coaste...@yahoo.com
Oh, is that what you'd like to do, Ed? That's unprecedented. Not your
style. But if this is what you're promising, an honest, step by step
journey through the Opinion, then let's us, you and I do that
separately. You know, page by page, bringing in all the related law.
What do you say?
dsharavi
> > > > It's an advisory opinion issued by the int'l court. Twatson
> > > > deliberately misleads as to the nature of an "advisory opinion".
> > > > > If these guys are judges, I'm a shoemaker.
> > > > They're judges, but you're not a shoemaker. Twatson is merely a liar,
> > > > and exercising his penchant for it, as usual.
> > > > Deborah
>
> > On Dec 31, 12:50 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > What do you say, Zev, that we agree to let Ed Rosen yap and nip at our
> > > heels but to ignore him while we solve this problem? His conflict is
> > > absolute, worse than yours. He's also a fanatic racist, anti-Black,
> > > anti-Hispanic and anti-Arab. He hasn't your education or life
> > > experience, that's obvious. He will be desperate to distract from any
> > > discussion of international law as it relates to Israel, letting the
> > > chips fall where they may. Sadly, he doesn't want anyone to candidly
> > > discuss the situation Israel is actually in. He's here to shut that
> > > down. He's afraid it might distract from consolidation of Zionism's
> > > maximum territorial goals. I submit to you that that's very radical as
> > > the more stubborn and increasingly violent these Likudish types are,
> > > the greater the danger to the whole project.
>
> On Dec 31, 5:50 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Translation: Hunter Watson hasn't the cojones to face Deborah Sharavi
> > in an honest, fact-based discussion.
On Dec 31, 4:24 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Oh, is that what you'd like to do, Ed? That's unprecedented.
Of course it's unprecedented, Tipsy. You always run from the facts I
post; or else you lapse into one of your drunken, childish side-
swishes, such as "you're really Ed Rosen -- Vera Perks said so".
Pointing out that your "Al Sharpton racist remark" was another of your
lies seems t have gotten your goat. Right, Tipsy?
Deborah
>Tipsy McKiddy-Diddler
Bolt Upright
"dsharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a7bfa79-bd48-46ef...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Deborah
Either that or he's just tired of your spin, propaganda and bald-faced lies
and is as disgusted with you as many of the rest of the decent people who
post here.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Only a libel in your quiver, eh?
coaste...@yahoo.com
You didn't answer, Ed. How about my proposal? You and I can go through
the law as it relates to Israel. We'll have our own thread. Everyone
else will be ignored. I'll be happy to do it separately with Zev.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Come on, Ed. Are you authorized to speak for him or do you feel he
needs coaching.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Bolt Upright
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a5ea953-a425-42a1...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Hunter, are you drunk?
I posted the comment that started with "Either that or he's just tired of
your spin" and the last time anyone checked, we were on the same side.
Explain yourself, please.
Bolt Upright
Misread that. Sorry..
Acepted, for now.
BUT if you EVER AGAIN confuse me with the rosen rectum I swear that I will
hunt you down and make you PAY SEVERELY for your grevious insult.
GOT IT?
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I do but I would look forward to meeting you nonetheless.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Here's a little present for you:
MORE QUOTES...
"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford
University Press, 1985.
"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was
that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have
stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
-- Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox),
pp. 121-122.
"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not
even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you
because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not
exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the
place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in
the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-
Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not
have a former Arab population."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann,
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.
"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are
the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs,
because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down,
and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle,
which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2
citing a 1938 speech.
"If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by
transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to
the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not
only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the
people of Israel."
-- David Ben-Gurion (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth's Ben-
Gurion in a slightly different translation).
David Ben Gurion
Prime Minister of Israel
1949 - 1954,
1955 - 1963
"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we
came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
-- Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.
"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return
them to."
-- Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.
"Any one who speaks in favor of bringing the Arab refugees back must
also say how he expects to take the responsibility for it, if he is
interested in the state of Israel. It is better that things are stated
clearly and plainly: We shall not let this happen."
-- Golda Meir, 1961, in a speech to the Knesset, reported in Ner,
October 1961
"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God
Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its
legitimacy."
-- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971
Golda Meir
Prime Minister of Israel
1969 - 1974
"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his
question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-
Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published
in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.
"[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years
conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the
refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve
this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with
Yasser Arafat."
-- Yitzhak Rabin (a "Prince of Peace" by Clinton's standards),
explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land
without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New
York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen's remarks to the Knesset's
foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)
Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel
1974 - 1977,
1992 - 1995
"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset,
quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman,
June 25, 1982.
"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be
recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz
Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for
Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.
Menachem Begin
Prime Minister of Israel
1977 - 1983
"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep
Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations,
for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people,
all of whom will be gathered into this country."
-- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv
memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem
Domestic Radio Service.
"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, Maariv, 02/21/1997.
"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads
smashed against the boulders and walls."
-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to
Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
Yizhak Shamir
Prime Minister of Israel
1983 - 1984,
1986 - 1992
"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in
China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass
expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
-- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former
Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University,
from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.
Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Minister of Israel
1996 - 1999
"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat,
they want more"....
-- Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000.
Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000
"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead
would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more
force...."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press,
November 16, 2000.
"I would have joined a terrorist organization."
-- Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz
newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been
born a Palestinian.
Ehud Barak
Prime Minister of Israel
1999 - 2001
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion,
clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten
with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism,
colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and
the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of
militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France
Presse, November 15, 1998.
"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as
they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we
take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the
Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.
"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no
one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on
trial."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC
News Online
Ariel Sharon
Prime Minister of Israel
2001 - present
Bolt Upright
And I you Hunter, but for sure I would want it to be under more pleasant
circumstances, hopefully involving a patio, sunshine, and beer.
Zev
We were talking about 242.
My claim is that its ambiguity is deliberate,
an integral part of the document.
Ico, this issue is too important to gloss over.
If you disagree, all discussion concerning 242 stops in its tracks,
we can only agree to disagree, and turn to something else.
But if we agree, it follows that you agree also that a court which
removes that ambiguity, rewrites the document,
and arrogates a mission not assigned to it.
Your reference to a legal opinion about the Wall/Fence
which deals with the implications of the
Geneva Conventions on Israel's right to build it,
confuses an issue which is already difficult enough.
> > But it's grotesque.
> > If these guys are judges, I'm a shoemaker.
>
> No, they are definitely judges, but you're a Zionist. That is always
> accompanied by selective blindness caused by conflict of interest. I
> am prepared to go through the opinion subject by subject with you.
> Everything we need is on the web, all the Conventions and opinions,
> etc. It's necessary to see it whole to really understand. I'll
> accommodate you if you're willing to face it frankly, like the real
> mensch we all hope you can become.
I'll admit I'm wary of accepting this invitation, for several reasons.
1) You've skipped over several of my posts addressed to you.
No one gets paid to post to the Usenet,
you're free to post whatever you like, whenever you like.
But this kind of behavior reduces my motivation
to take part in a discussion of a subject which
is not black and white, but shades of grey,
and requires thought to formulate arguments well.
If I'm going to talk to myself,
I don't have to work hard,
and I don't need Usenet.
2) A discussion based on documentation can't properly
take into account the hypocrisy the documents hide.
In the 1950's the UN censured Israel time after time.
Everyone knew it was just lip-service because
Israel had no choice but to respond with force
to fedayeen provocations from neighbor Arab countries,
but you'll never see a preamble which says
"this one isn't important, it's just lip service,
so the Arabs will shut up".
Another, more recent, example was in last year's war in Gaza,
in which PA-PLO (and others) urged Israel to destroy PA-Hamas,
but later insisted that the UN censure Israel for "war crimes".
Don't expect any of them to admit it.
3) A discussion of the letter of the law, without seeing the "big
picture"
has me at a certain disadvantage.
The last Geneva Convention convened in the aftermath
of WW2 and had Nazi atrocities in mind.
The threat to world tranquillity today is different,
and there is talk about somehow taking that
into account in a new formulation of the law,
but it's going to be difficult to argue for
a new law which says collateral damage is OK.
What happens in the meantime is that
powerful nations flout the rules with impunity
but when former Israeli minister Tzipi Livni wants to visit England,
she's threatened with arrest on "war crimes",
and has to change her plans
An Israeli court, judging the criminal behavior
of certain soldiers in the 1950's
(the case had to do Arabs who were breaking curfew,
but they were coming home from a day in the fields,
they couldn't possibly know that a curfew had been announced),
proclaimed "A soldier too must have a conscience".
The UN requests the opinion of international justices
who behave like local magistrates.
(none of the above should be construed to mollify
my previous claim that that opinion was grotesque)
And now a more personal reason.
4) I don't like the snotty language you use.
Believe me, I have opinions about my interlocuters,
as I have about Israel's armed enemies.
I *try* to keep them out of discussions.
It's something a "mensch" doesn't do,
and besides, it's counter-productive.
Here, you associate me with
"selective blindness",
"conflict of interest",
a possible unwillingness to "face it frankly",
and you imply that I am not *yet* a mensch.
And we haven't even begun to argue!
RabbiJoekerr
wrote:
> "RabbiJoekerr" <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ad6d1fb3-8d76-4570...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 29, 12:32 am, "Bolt Upright" <HughGRect...@merde.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "RabbiJoekerr" <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:6368dfc6-80d3-440a...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 28, 8:03 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:c91c7080-87d6-4804...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > > >> On Dec 27, 5:58 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>> On Dec 23, 11:04 pm, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> > <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>
> > > "TheZ" <T...@nospam.com> ??? ??????:gTOZm.
> > > 64527$ZF3.3...@newsfe13.iad...
>
> > > > Well said rebuttal of much 242 misinformation
>
> > > Thanks.
>
> > > Have you noticed that whenever I try to make eye contact with Ico,
> > > his eyes twitch as he lowers his gaze?
> > > Do you suppose he's <gasp> *afraid* to confront plain facts,
> > > presented in a respectful manner?
>
> > No he's just too stupid... bolt neck is the full blown coward!
>
> > KOOKOO!
> >Bwahahahar now the moron is so desperate he has to >cut- and - paste
> >the same lame response bwahahahaahr!
>
> "Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
> - Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"-
> KOOKOO!
BWAHHAHAR the kookoo clock has reverted to his dimwitted "On Golden
Pond" sig!!!
RabbiJoekerr
> On Dec 29, 12:31 am, "Bolt Upright" <HughGRect...@merde.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "RabbiJoekerr" <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > On Dec 27, 10:03 pm, "Bolt Upright" <HughGRect...@merde.com> wrote:
>
> > > "RabbiJoekerr" <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > On Dec 24, 1:54 pm, "Bolt Upright" <HughGRect...@merde.com> wrote:
>
> > > > A retarded pigeon is far more intelligent than Ms Ratner.
> > > >And she's far more intelligent than you are- and more >honest. Now if
> > > >you can stop cowering and running- point to these >alleged statements
> > > >you worthless lying coward!
>
> > > Who's "cowering"?
> > you are
> > > Who's "running"?
> > you are
> > > What "alleged statements" are you blathering about"?
>
> > bgwahahahar the ones you delusional claimed- is your tiny brain
> > overloaded or are you spewing so many lies that you just can't
> > remember them? Bwahahahahr!> What "lies"?
>
> > Bwahahahar I wish I could accusse you of playing stupid- but you're
> > not playing.
> > Keep running away!
>
> > > What "cowardice"?
>
> > See you own posting history coward!> You seem to be fond of demanding
> > cites from other posters, so let's have
> > > have some from YOU to document the crap you posted above.
> > > Hmmmm?
>
> > Hmmm you mean you cant even look in this very thread bwahahahahar!
> > Nice try liar!
>
> > KOKOO!
>
> Bwahahahar look everyone the poor imbecile is stuck repeating the same
> childish nonsense because he cant defend himself bwahahahahahaahr!
>
> "Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
> - Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"-
> KOOKOO!
Bwahahahr the imbecile did it again bwahahahar!!!!! Poor fool just
can't help himself- he's just too stupid!
RabbiJoekerr
Wrong again!!! They also ignore these advisory opinions and many other
non-binding resolutions....
kindly state for the record the exact legal standing of a security
council resolution- both binding and non-binding vs a General Assembly
version... try to do so without cut-n-pasting from one of your usual
delusional sources!
RabbiJoekerr
wrote:
> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
BWAAHHHAR poor bolt-neck the broken kookoo clock (his spelling) still
can't post an intelligent response so he simply lies as always- the
worthless coward!
RabbiJoekerr
wrote:
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
RabbiJoekerr
wrote:
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
LIAR!!! You're a coward- you's never have the nerve to do any such
thing stop fantasizing !!!!
Bolt Upright
"RabbiJoekerr" <jokerso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:77320190-2479-42cb...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
Fuck you.
RabbiJoekerr
> "RabbiJoekerr" <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Oh more of your gay fantasies bwahahahar!
Al Nakba
>
> - Show quoted text -
he's busy tripping the light grabasstic..
Bolt Upright
"Al Nakba" <william...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:2bbe646b-888c-4e17...@upsg2000gro.googlegroups.com...
If I were inclined that way, which I ain't I assure you that it wouldn't be
your usless sorry butt, Billy.
RabbiJoekerr
> "Al Nakba" <williamhubb...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
Oh do stop lying! Your posting history is there for all to see Nancy!
Bolt Upright
Fuck Off.
RabbiJoekerr
Awww you're so upset you've been reduced to your normal foul mouthed
dimwitted self bwahahahahahar!
coaste...@yahoo.com
I missed this post. Sorry. Been too busy.
Zev, be patient. I'm used to being attacked personally by Zionists
here. Not one has shown signs of actually wanting to be civil. The
flesh is weak. I occasionally show signs of irritability despite my
best efforts.
I'll try to get back to you tomorrow and consider how to respond to
your post here. It's late.
Bolt Upright
Upset? No.
Now fuck off, the header says it all.
dsharavi
You're changing the subject again, McKiddy-Diddler.
>How about my proposal?
How about your proof that I made a "racist remark" about Al Sharpton?
>You and I can go through the law as it relates to Israel.
That's fine, Tipsy, so long as you stop running from your errors, as
in your Al Sharpton slander, AND you sober up.
Deborah
dsharavi
<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 5:51 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 3:24 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 31, 1:28 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:> >>On Dec 30, 1:05 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > >>wrote:
> > > > >>>The Opinion is not as as long as it looks.
>
> > > > >>The "Opinion" as H likes to call it is actually an advisory opinion,
> > > > >>and not binding.
>
> > > > On Dec 30, 7:45 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
> > > > <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > > > >False. It is binding international case law.
>
> > > These [advisory] opinions are essentially non-binding, but
>
> > > > Pieter H.F. Bekker has argued that this non-binding character does not
> > > > mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect, because the
> > > > legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the Court's authoritative
> > > > views on important issues of international law and, in arriving at
> > > > them, the Court follows essentially the same rules and procedures that
> > > > govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases submitted
> > > > to it by sovereign states. In his view, an advisory opinion derives
> > > > its status and authority from the fact that it is the official
> > > > pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.”
>
> > > Precisely, Mr. Bekker. And thank you too, Mister Ed.
>
>
> > > Advisory
> > > opinions ARE cited as precedent when deciding subsequent cases wherein
> > > the parties are actually subject to the jurisdiction of the court.
> > > They are the official pronouncements of the principal judicial organ
> > > of the United Nations. As we go through the wall opinion, we may even
> > > find the Court citing other advisory opinions no where near so closely
> > > connected. It is bizarre to think that the Court would issue such an
> > > opinion if it were to have no effect whatever. The ring is closing.
> > > Sooner or later the parties will be before the Court. Or one will and
> > > the other will default.....
>
>
> > >Tipsy McKiddy-Diddler
>
> Only a libel in your quiver, eh?
Can you translate that into intelligible English, Tipsy, or do you
need more time to recover from boozing it up over the holidays?
Deborah
dsharavi
<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 5:50 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > On Dec 31, 12:58 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It's an advisory opinion issued by the int'l court. Twatson
> > > > deliberately misleads as to the nature of an "advisory opinion".
> > > > > If these guys are judges, I'm a shoemaker.
> > > > They're judges, but you're not a shoemaker. Twatson is merely a liar,
> > > > and exercising his penchant for it, as usual.
> > > > Deborah
>
> > On Dec 31, 12:50 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > What do you say, Zev, that we agree to let Ed Rosen yap and nip at our
> > > heels but to ignore him while we solve this problem? His conflict is
> > > absolute, worse than yours. He's also a fanatic racist, anti-Black,
> > > anti-Hispanic and anti-Arab. He hasn't your education or life
> > > experience, that's obvious. He will be desperate to distract from any
> > > discussion of international law as it relates to Israel, letting the
> > > chips fall where they may. Sadly, he doesn't want anyone to candidly
> > > discuss the situation Israel is actually in. He's here to shut that
> > > down. He's afraid it might distract from consolidation of Zionism's
> > > maximum territorial goals. I submit to you that that's very radical as
> > > the more stubborn and increasingly violent these Likudish types are,
> > > the greater the danger to the whole project.
>
> > in an honest, fact-based discussion.
>
>
> Oh, is that what you'd like to do, Ed?
Do you like making an ass of yourself by referring to me as Ed because
you hate women, or you hate Jews, or you're a latent homosexual, or
all three? Or maybe you're not such a latent homosexual, so make that
four.
Deborah
dsharavi
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Here's a little present for you:
>MORE QUOTES...
Which site did you paste these from, Tipsy? White Power, neo-Nazi,
David Duke, or PalArab sites? In any case, they’re all wrong. Your
site's gone them one better, Tipsy. The fake quote is attributed to
the wrong person who never said it. You're battin a thousand here, as
usual, Tipsy.
>"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
>-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford
>University Press, 1985.
“We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place.
All our aspiration is built on the assumption—proven throughout all
our activity in the Land - - that there is enough room in the country
for ourselves and the Arabs.”
Ben-Gurion, letter of 5th October 1937
>"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was
>that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have
>stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
>-- Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox),
>pp. 121-122.
Full quote from Nahum Goldmann, "The Jewish Paradox: A Personal
Memoir of Historic Encounters that Shaped the Drama of Modern Jewry
(1978)", pp. 99-100 [do note the final sentence]:
'One day, or rather night, in 1956 I sat up at [Ben-Gurion's]
house till three in the morning. That night, a beautiful summer
night, we had a forthright discussion on the Arab problem.
'"I don't understand your optimism," Ben-Gurion declared.
"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I
would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: they think
we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but
what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come
from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is
that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler,
Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing:
we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they
accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations'
time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it's simple:
we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our
whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out...
'"I'll be seventy years old soon. Well, Nahum, if you asked
me whether I shall die and be buried in a Jewish State I would
tell you Yes; in ten years, fifteen years, I believe there will
still be a Jewish State. But ask me whether my son Amos,
who will be fifty at the end of this year, has a chance of dying
and being buried in a Jewish State, and I would answer:
fifty-fifty."
'"But how can you sleep with that prospect in mind and be
PM of Israel too?" I responded. "Who says I sleep?" was
Ben-Gurion's simple reply.
'That was Ben-Gurion all over: he had told me that so as to
show me how well he knew in his heart that Israel could not exist
without peace with the Arabs, but his stubborn, aggressive
unbending character prevented him from following what his own
intelligence told him. The best proof of that is that having
lost his grip on power his intelligence reasserted itself; he
even became a 'Goldmannite', declaring that all the occupied
territories except Jerusalem should be restored. On this point
I am in agreement with him: Israel must keep Jerusalem.'"
>"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not
>even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you
>because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not
>exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the
>place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in
>the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-
>Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not
>have a former Arab population."
>-- David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann,
>Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.
ROTFLOL!!!! See Goldmann's Memoir, p 99, immediately above. This
"Jewish villages" is attributed to Dayan (or, as H has previously
spelled it, “Dyan”). Either way, it’s wrong.
What Dayan actually said:
"We came to a region that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a
Jewish state. In many places, WE PURCHASED THE LAND from Arabs and set
up Jewish villages where THERE HAD ONCE BEEN ARAB VILLAGES. You don't
even know the names and I don't blame you, because those geography
books aren't around anymore. Not only the books, the villages aren't
around."
The rest of the fake quote -- "Nahalal", "Mahlul", "Jibta", and so on
-- is pure Khalidi. Needless to say, it's not in Goldmann's Memoir.
>"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are
>the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs,
>because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down,
>and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
>-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle,
>which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2
>citing a 1938 speech.
This quote isn't in Chomsky, and it isn't from a 1938 speech either.
"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and
we defend ourselves – that is only half the truth, As
regards our security and life we defend ourselves...
But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict,
which is in its essence a political one. And
POLITICALLY we are the aggressors and they
defend themselves."
-Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, p 652
Expanded quote:
"I want to destroy first all the illusion among our comrades that
Arab terror is a matter of a few gangs, financed from abroad...
We are facing not terror but a war. It is a national war declared
upon us by the Arabs... This is an active resistance by the Arabs
to what they regard as usurpation of their homeland by the
Jews - that's why they fight. Behind the terrorists is a movement,
which though primitive is not devoid of Idealism and self-
sacrifice...
Sheikh Al Qassam was a zealot ready to sacrifice his life for an
ideal. Today we have not one, but hundreds perhaps thousands
[like him]. Behind them is the Arab people. In our political
argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us. But
let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. I insist on the truth,
not out of respect for scientific, but political realities...Let us
not build on the hope the terrorist gangs will get tired. If
some get tired, others will replace them... When we say that
the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves - that
is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we
defend ourselves and our moral and physical position is not
bad. We can face the gangs, and were we allowed to mobilize
all our forces we would have no doubts about the outcome...
But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict which is
in its essence a political one. And politically we are the
aggressors and they defend themselves. Militarily, it
is we who are on the defensive ... but in the political sphere
they are superior...Let us not think that the terror is a result of
Hitler's or Mussolini's propaganda - this helps but the source
of opposition is there among the Arabs."
Ben-Gurion, letter to Sharett, 7th June 1938
>"If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by
>transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to
>the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not
>only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the
>people of Israel."
>-- David Ben-Gurion (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth's Ben-
>Gurion in a slightly different translation).
In what language might that "slightly different translation" be?
Bullshitese?
Shabtai Teveth's Ben-Gurion pp 855-56:
'In April 1936 he had told Wauchope, "Were there a
possibility of transferring Polish Jewry to America or Argentina we
would have done so, regardless of our Zionist ideology. But the whole
world is closed to us. Had we not room in Palestine, our people would
have no choice but suicide."
'The Evian Conference of 1938 and the Bermuda Conference of
April 1943--the free world's two farcical attempts, at the initiative
of the United States, to find a refuge for the Jews -- proved Ben-
Gurion right. Not one country opened its gates to Hitler's victims.
[...]
Ben-Gurion's total dedication to "historic interest,"
sometimes to the exclusion of the individual, found extreme expression
in December 1938, when he told Mapai's Centra Committee, "Were I to
know that the rescue of all German Jewish children could be achieved
by their transfer to England and of only half their number by transfer
to Palestine, I would opt for the latter, because our concern is not
only the personal interest of these children, but the historic
interest of the Jewish people." Such was his custom, to state or
indeed overstate his position in stark alternatives. But this brutal
formulation may have been the result of his bitterness at the world's
indifference to Jewish misery revealed by the Evian Conference, at
Britain's betrayal of Zionism following the horrors of Kristallnach,
and at the blatant hypocrisy of Britain in claiming that the Jewish
question could be solved in Angda, British Guiana, or elsewhere and
refusing to allow the resue of the ten thousand German Jewish children
by sending them to Palestine. Although he very well knew that his
formulation was purely theoretical, and that there was no hope at all
of rescuing those children, his purpose in using this wording, to
which later events gave a different and unintended meaning, was to
hammer home the axiom that true rescue of the Jewish people was
possible only in Palestine.'
>David Ben Gurion
>Prime Minister of Israel
>1949 - 1954,
>1955 - 1963
>"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we
>came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
>-- Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.
What Golda actually said:
Frank Giles: "Do you think the emergence of the Palestinian
fighting forces, the Fedayeen, an important new factor in the Middle
East?"
Golda: "Important, no. A new factor, yes. There was no such
thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian
people with a Palestinian State? It was either southern Syria before
the First World War and then it was a Palestine including Jordan.
It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine
considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them
out and took their country away from them. They did not exist."
- Times of London, June 15, 1969
>"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody
>to return them to."
>-- Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.
Jordan illegally annexed Judah and Samaria in 1950 and turned it into
the "West Bank" of the kingdom of Jordan, formerly the kingdom of
Transjordan, which became the "East Bank". Indeed there was no state,
then, and there is still no state, to give it up to. And the Palestine
Arabs are still in no rush to create a state even now.
>"Any one who speaks in favor of bringing the Arab refugees back must
>also say how he expects to take the responsibility for it, if he is
>interested in the state of Israel. It is better that things are stated
>clearly and plainly: We shall not let this happen."
>-- Golda Meir, 1961, in a speech to the Knesset, reported in Ner,
>October 1961
Reported in what?
>"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God
>Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its
>legitimacy."
>-- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971
Pretty funny "quote" from an irreligious old socialist like Golda.
>"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his
>question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-
>Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
>-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published
>in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.
As if anyone was mentioning "the Palestinian population" in 1948 as
pertaining exclusively to Arabs.
Quote from Rabin's Memoirs, pp 383-384:
"While the fighting was still in progress, we had to grapple
with a troublesome problem, for whose solution we could
not draw upon any previous experience: the fate of the civilian
population of Lod and Ramle, numbering some 50,000. Not
even Ben-Gurion could offer any solution, and during the
discussions at operational headquarters, he remained silent, a
s was his habit in all such situations. Clearly, we could not
leave Lod's hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it
could endanger the supply route to Yiftach (another brigade),
which was advancing eastward. We walked outside, Ben-Gurion
accompanying us. Allon repeated his question: "What is to be
done with the population?" B.G. waved his hand in a gesture
which said, "Drive them out!"
"Allon and I held a consultation. I agreed that it was essential
to drive the inhabitants out. We took them on foot toward the
Bet Horon Road, assuming that the legion would be obliged
to look after them, thereby shouldering logistic difficulties which
could burden its fighting capacity, making things easier for us.
"'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring. Psychologically, this
was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population
of Lod did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding
the use of force and warning shots in order to make the
inhabitants march the ten to fifteen miles to the point where
they met up with the legion. The inhabitants of Ramle watched
and learned the lesson. Their leaders agreed to evacuate
voluntarily, on condition that the evacuation was carried out
by vehicles. Buses took them to Latrun, and from there they
were evacuated by the legion.
"Great suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in
the eviction action. Soldiers of the Yiftach Brigade included
youth-movement graduates, who had been inculcated with
values such as international brotherhood and humanness.
The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used
to. There were some fellow who refused to take part in the
expulsion action."
Evidently H forgot that he pasted this crap last March, and it was
rebutted.
>"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."
>-- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset,
>quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman,
>June 25, 1982.
Begin did not say this. Chumpsky wrote that someone
wrote that Begin said it, as follows:
'He added bitterly, why be surprised? "After all, who are
they [the victims]. Araboushim, two-legged beasts" (the
latter a reference to Prime Minister Menachem Begin's
characterization of "terrorists").'
- Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle, p 131
Chomsky appears to cite, in part, Yoram Peri in Davar,
Dec 10, 1982; Peri, however, cites Amnon Kapeliouk in
June 1982. Chomsky conflates the two and deliberately
obfuscates who said what.
Note: Citing the same, some Palliebull sites claim Begin
characterizes terrorists as "beasts walking about on two
legs", as opposed to Chomsky's claim he called them
"two-legged beasts."
>"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be
>recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz
>Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for
>Ever."
>-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.
Politicians say all kinds of things. Begin wasn't in charge in 1947,
and it wasn't as if anyone cared what Begin had to say the day after
the partition vote anyway.
>"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, Maariv, 02/21/1997.
So? Shamir had his opinion of what Zionism was, others had their
opinions.
>"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads
>smashed against the boulders and walls."
>-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to
>Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
Shamir didn't say anything about "Palesitnians". He said the rioters
would be crushed, and that they "are like grasshoppers." PalArabs were
up in arms, shooting people left and right, to commemorate a visit of
the then-Secretary of State.
New York Times
April 1, 1988
P A3
SHAMIR PROMISES TO CRUSH RIOTERS
'They Are Like Grasshoppers", He Says
Tel Aviv March 31 (Reuters)
As Israel prepares to lift a three-day
blockade of the West Bank and Gaza
Strip, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir
warned today that rioters would be
crushed "like grasshoppers."
[...]
Mr. Shamir, standing atop an ancient
West Bank castle, told reporters:
"Anybody who wants to damage this
fortress will have his head smashed
against the boulders and the walls."
In an exception to the restrictions on
news coverage in the occupied territor-
ies, reporters were taken by bus to the
inauguration of an Israeli tourism site
at the fortress near Bethlehem built by
Herod the Great in the time of Jesus.
In remarks aimed at Arab rioters,
the Prime Minister said: "We say to
them from the heights of this mountain
and from the perspective of thousands
of years of history that they are like
grasshoppers compared to us."
[...]
The Arabs have 22 states, including Jordan, which is Eastern
Palestine. Their whole plan is merely to deny the Jews their country,
as if they haven't enough land to go around. Jews have no other land
of their own elsewhere.
Hunter's also confused about his original thread header. Contrary to
what H believes, EX-"Pressident" Carter did NOT answer any facts
Dershowitz presented about him, to the Knesset's Foreign Affairs
Committee, or to any other body, on June 15, 2009, or at any other
time.
Deborah
Zev
wrote:
> On Jan 1, 8:57 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 31 2009, 9:02 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
> > <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Dec 31, 8:52 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 30, 10:05 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
> > > > <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
<heavily snipped>
> > 4) I don't like the snotty language you use.
> > Believe me, I have opinions about my interlocuters,
> > as I have about Israel's armed enemies.
> > I *try* to keep them out of discussions.
> > It's something a "mensch" doesn't do,
> > and besides, it's counter-productive.
> > Here, you associate me with
> > "selective blindness",
> > "conflict of interest",
> > a possible unwillingness to "face it frankly",
> > and you imply that I am not *yet* a mensch.
> > And we haven't even begun to argue!
>
> I missed this post. Sorry. Been too busy.
>
> Zev, be patient. I'm used to being attacked personally by Zionists
> here. Not one has shown signs of actually wanting to be civil. The
> flesh is weak. I occasionally show signs of irritability despite my
> best efforts.
I know what you mean, we're all fallible,
it happens to me too.
When it happens gratuitously, it's totally counter-productive,
and reflects only on ourselves.
Same goes for mindless non-answers.
If we keep this in mind, it happens less.
> I'll try to get back to you tomorrow and consider how to respond to
> your post here. It's late.
No problem, take your time.
We all have a life and responsibilities outside of the Internet.
coaste...@yahoo.com
>
> read more »
I'm not reading you, Rosen.
dsharavi
wrote:
I'm sure you're not, Tipsy. You've already made it clear, time and
again, that you detest truth -- especially concerning women who best
you in factual knowledge, along with the truth about those legal
malpractice charges.
Deborah
dsharavi
wrote:
> I missed this post. Sorry. Been too busy.
Translation: H missed this post because he's been too busy posting
nonsense while drunk."
> I'm used to being attacked personally by Zionists
> here.
No, he isn't. H continually attacks, belittles, derides, and insults
those who disagree with him -- rather than argue from the fact-based
position he lacks -- then posts his shock and awe when those he has so
insulted take exception to his insults.
>Not one has shown signs of actually wanting to be civil.
Most have shown many signs of wanting to be civil. But "civility" in
H's lexicon apparently enjoins absolute agreement with his dogmatic
beliefs.
>The
> flesh is weak. I occasionally show signs of irritability despite my
> best efforts.
lol
If that's the case, then H needs to raise the standard of his dismal
"best efforts".
IOW, H can dish it out, but he can't take it, as his numerous posts
prove.
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
We can leave this if you like, but for what it's worth my position is
that in thirty-three years of reading the law I never ran across a
statute or other equivalent of a state document which was alleged to
be deliberately ambiguous. That doesn't rule out the possibility but
it makes me very doubtful. Unless there is some legislative history
which supports the conclusion that 242 was intended as a sham and that
the purpose was to hoodwink the world community, the approach is the
opposite. Judges are guided by canons of construction which in modern
systems are distilled from hundreds of years of experience For us it
is found in the English and American common law. The first rule is
what they call a presumption, that unless proved otherwise an
ambiguous document will not be interpreted so as to render it
ineffective. So I'm curious as to whether you have something which
rebuts the presumption.
> Ico, this issue is too important to gloss over.
> If you disagree, all discussion concerning 242 stops in its tracks,
> we can only agree to disagree, and turn to something else.
> But if we agree, it follows that you agree also that a court which
> removes that ambiguity, rewrites the document,
> and arrogates a mission not assigned to it.
I do disagree but I might as well explain myself before we move on.
For one thing 242 is not the only source of the obligation for Israel
to withdraw from the West Bank. That's why I brought up the wall/fence
opinion. In fact the Court reached withdrawal conclusion without
relying expressly on 242. Its decision, and this too is too important
to gloss over, is consistent with your opponents' reading of 242. And,
based on the presumption described above, it will not be read as
meaningless. Unless, of course, you have evidence rebutting the
presumption mentioned above.
> Your reference to a legal opinion about the Wall/Fence
> which deals with the implications of the
> Geneva Conventions on Israel's right to build it,
> confuses an issue which is already difficult enough.
>
> > > But it's grotesque.
> > > If these guys are judges, I'm a shoemaker.
They are eminent jurists whose specialty is international law. The
opinion is tightly reasoned and written. And Israel, given the
history, doesn't have much to work with to defend the issues. In fact
she didn't even participate. She in essence said, okay they've issued
their opinion, now let them enforce it. There is a big problem with
that. It may take a while longer to unfold, but she won't be able
stiff the rest of the world forever.
> > No, they are definitely judges, but you're a Zionist. That is always
> > accompanied by selective blindness caused by conflict of interest. I
> > am prepared to go through the opinion subject by subject with you.
> > Everything we need is on the web, all the Conventions and opinions,
> > etc. It's necessary to see it whole to really understand. I'll
> > accommodate you if you're willing to face it frankly, like the real
> > mensch we all hope you can become.
>
> I'll admit I'm wary of accepting this invitation, for several reasons.
>
> 1) You've skipped over several of my posts addressed to you.
I apologise for that but I'm overworked. If you point them out I shall
surely respond. It is not a matter of casual disregard.
> No one gets paid to post to the Usenet,
> you're free to post whatever you like, whenever you like.
> But this kind of behavior reduces my motivation
> to take part in a discussion of a subject which
> is not black and white, but shades of grey,
> and requires thought to formulate arguments well.
> If I'm going to talk to myself,
> I don't have to work hard,
> and I don't need Usenet.
Frankly, I'd like to see a thread of our own in which we respond only
to each other, ignoring the rest. I think it would be stimulating and
extensively read.
> 2) A discussion based on documentation can't properly
> take into account the hypocrisy the documents hide.
> In the 1950's the UN censured Israel time after time.
> Everyone knew it was just lip-service because
> Israel had no choice but to respond with force
> to fedayeen provocations from neighbor Arab countries,
> but you'll never see a preamble which says
> "this one isn't important, it's just lip service,
> so the Arabs will shut up".
Objectively Israel declared war on the Palestinian people in 1947-48.
It was driven by Zionist theory. She first expelled @750,000 and did
it by force. In 1967 she succeeded in occupying 100% of Mandatory
Palestine and in the process drove out at several hundred thousand
more. I ran across an estimate of 1.3 million total not long ago.
These are the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem. The history
is not ambiguous. Those people were natives of Palestine, but now they
and their descendants live in the surrounding countries as stateless
people. It is unjust to describe their young men who resisted the
Israelis as "provocateurs". They were *responding* to a great
injustice, not perpetrating a new one. They were and their descendants
are the Resistance Movement of the Palestinian People.
As for the UN I see no reason to believe that the overwhelming
majorities in the General Assembly were insincere or cynical. What
Israel had done was contrary to international law and obviously
unjust, not to say criminal. If they had appropriated Bavaria instead
of Palestine it might have made more sense but would still have been a
crime. It was not the GA's fault that the United States lent Israel
its unwavering support and vetos in the Security Council. The US
ultimately cast more obstructionist vetoes than the totalitarian
Soviet Union. And almost all of them, to our shame, were leveled
against a helpless, ethnically cleansed population mostly of peasant
farmers.
> Another, more recent, example was in last year's war in Gaza,?
> in which PA-PLO (and others) urged Israel to destroy PA-Hamas,
> but later insisted that the UN censure Israel for "war crimes".
> Don't expect any of them to admit it.
How can we accept something like this based only on Israel's say-so?
She has a very long history of issuing disinformation and even of
overt violence against Americans. She corrupts our Congress and runs
the world's largest espionage effort against the U.S., stealing
military, business and government secrets and compromising our
communications system. She has a vested interest in fomenting
rivalry among the various resistance movements, of dividing to
conquer. In fact she made no attempt to destroy PA-Hamas. The effort
was aimed at destruction of the will to resist among the Gazan people.
The only way for Israel to destroy PA-Hamas is to kill them all, in
the end using infantry, house to house, street by street. But Israeli
military doctrine now days is to suffer no casualties and to rely on a
combined arms approach, killing indiscriminately at a distance. She
paid a very big political price for that in the aftermath and it's
only going to get worse as the Israelis are said to be "not looking
back".
> 3) A discussion of the letter of the law, without seeing the "big
> picture"
> has me at a certain disadvantage.
Perhaps, but it can be overcome. The law is written in English while
the notation of other disciplines frequently is not.
> The last Geneva Convention convened in the aftermath
> of WW2 and had Nazi atrocities in mind.
> The threat to world tranquillity today is different,
> and there is talk about somehow taking that
> into account in a new formulation of the law,
> but it's going to be difficult to argue for
> a new law which says collateral damage is OK.
Where is this talk coming from? If you want millions of Americans and
Europeans in the street the idea couldn't be better conceived.
Wouldn't Israel's interests be better served by simply becoming a
normal nation with respect for the rights of others? She could easily
achieve that were she willing to settle for only 78% of Mandatory
Palestine.
> What happens in the meantime is that
> powerful nations flout the rules with impunity
> but when former Israeli minister Tzipi Livni wants to visit England,
> she's threatened with arrest on "war crimes",
> and has to change her plans
Israel is not a powerful nation vis a vis the Palestinians?I believe
in international criminal jurisdiction on the theory that it deters
international criminality on the part of government officials. Off to
the Hague with Tzipi and Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld too. You do the crime
you do the time, whoever, wherever.
> An Israeli court, judging the criminal behavior
> of certain soldiers in the 1950's
> (the case had to do Arabs who were breaking curfew,
> but they were coming home from a day in the fields,
> they couldn't possibly know that a curfew had been announced),
> proclaimed "A soldier too must have a conscience".
> The UN requests the opinion of international justices
> who behave like local magistrates.
Israeli courts have frequently been ignored by government. They are in
a terrible position. They really can't protect human rights and the
practical needs of Zionism at the same time. The two are
contradictory. They often nibble around the edges looking for face
saving compromises which allow government abuses to continue. Take
torture of prisoners for example. Did they declare it unlawful? No,
they mumbled something like don't overdo it.
> (none of the above should be construed to mollify
> my previous claim that that opinion was grotesque)
You unsupported claim. I'm a humanist; I have no tribal allegiances.
> And now a more personal reason.
> 4) I don't like the snotty language you use.
> Believe me, I have opinions about my interlocuters,
> as I have about Israel's armed enemies.
> I *try* to keep them out of discussions.
> It's something a "mensch" doesn't do,
> and besides, it's counter-productive.
> Here, you associate me with
> "selective blindness",
> "conflict of interest",
> a possible unwillingness to "face it frankly",
> and you imply that I am not *yet* a mensch.
> And we haven't even begun to argue!
I vote for civility and don't doubt that you and I can achieve it, but
I also vote for candor and against all forms of political correctness.
I like addressing the difficult questions which many people avoid.
That's the way you get somewhere. Occasionally one can accomplish
something almost unprecedented.
I suggest that instead of the legal question (which I feel I've
covered adequately anyhow) we might address matters of policy and
national interest. For examples of what I'm very serious about:
Resolved, that the the American and Israeli national interests, though
overlapping somewhat, are overall profoundly different.
Or: Resolved, that an alliance with the superpower United States
requires as the price of admission that the tiny and dependent Middle
Eastern power, Israel, acknowledge and to adhere to American interests
when they differ from those of Israel.
Or: Resolved, that AIPAC and its associated PACs present a clear and
present danger to American democracy.
Or: Resolved, that continuation of the special relationship between
the US and Israel should be conditioned upon Israeli withdrawal from
the West Bank and acceptance of a settlement with the Palestinians
which is consistent with American policy.
Or: Resolved, that continuation of the special relationship between
the US and Israel should be conditioned upon the complete cessation of
espionage against the US.
Or: Resolved, that overall the present relationship between Israel and
the United States has proved very detrimental to the latter and should
be reviewed comprehensively and changed fundamentally.
Or: Resolved, as the vigor and vigilance of the Third Estate is
critical to the maintenance of American democracy, and as the
unchecked power and concentration of ownership in a tiny minority is
inimical thereto, such concentrations shall be broken up and sold off
so as to balance such power by analogy to the anti-trust legislation
already on the books.
Or: Resolved, that through acts of humane generosity the United States
has become the true Zion of the Jewish people, and as the Jewish
people are in no danger in the United States, and also given the fact
that they have prospered and are now the most talented, productive and
powerful minority in our history, it is time that they disband their
huge apparatus for manipulation of the American government and public
opinion, dismantle all but one of their Holocaust museums, acknowledge
that Americans are not responsible for Hitler's crimes and begin
living like typical citizens of the great American democracy.
You can of course contribute to this effort.
Best,
Hunter
drahcir
Actually he's not too good at dishing it out, either.
>
>Deborah
dsharavi
> > We were talking about 242.
> > My claim is that its ambiguity is deliberate,
> > an integral part of the document.
>
wrote:
> We can leave this if you like, but for what it's worth my position is
> that in thirty-three years of reading the law I never ran across a
> statute or other equivalent of a state document which was alleged to
> be deliberately ambiguous.
Either H is being deliberately obfuscatory, or he doesn't know what
he's talking about and is trying to conceal it, as he tried (and
failed) in all his previous flounderings over 242.
H knows what it states, and what it does NOT state; (for example, see
his posts over some eleven months where he continuously sidedodged all
requests for him to point out the provision of 242 which supported his
claim that 242 REQUIRED Israel to "return lands to the
Palestinians").
H just does not like facts, particularly those which contravene his
opinions.
As for his claim of never having run across deliberate ambiguity, he's
either lying or he's the only attorney in North America -- or the
world -- who hasn't.
>That doesn't rule out the possibility but
> it makes me very doubtful. Unless there is some legislative history
> which supports the conclusion that 242 was intended as a sham and that
> the purpose was to hoodwink the world community
Deliberate obfuscation, again. Poor H, can't stick to the subject --
especially when he's wrong.
[snip standard HHW slavering over Jews and Israel]
"In the case of a doubtful or AMBIGUOUS LAW, the contemporaneous
construction of those who have been called upon to carry it into
effect is entitled to great respect, and ought not to be overruled
without cogent reasons."
24 Am. Bar Ass'n Rep. (1901) pp. 349, 350.
02 1 Lindley on Mines (2d Ed.) 96.
http://www.archive.org/stream/handbookonameric00costrich/handbookonameric00costrich_djvu.txt
"When a vague or AMBIGUOUS LAW or regulation is at issue, the courts
generally have been willing to find the government's position
reasonable. For example, the Eighth Circuit denied an EAJA award to a
prevailing plaintiff where the government was forced to interpret a
group of facially conflicting regulations regarding procedural matters
in a Small Business Administration soliciation. The Fifth Circuit
denied fees to a prevailing party, finding that the government's new
interpretation of an existing regulation which cured possible due
process defects was substantially justified, since it had a reasonable
basis in law. The Seventh Circuit denied an EAJA award to a Cuban
national who was granted a writ of habeas corpus after having been
held by the Immigration and Naturalization Service for over fifteen
months without a hearing."
---
See, e.g., Cinciarelli v. Reagan, 729 F.2d 801, 806 (D.C. Cir.
1984)...Southern Or. Citizens Against Toxic Sprays v. Clark, 720 F.2d
1475 (9th Cir. 1983)...Foley Construction Co . v. United States Army
Corps of Eng'rs, 716 F.2d 1202, 1206 (1983), cert. denied, 104 S. Ct.
1908 (1984)...S&H Riggers & Erectors v. Occupational Safety & Health
Comm'n, 672 F.2d 426, 431 (1982)...Ramos v. HAig, 716 F.2d 471, 472
(1983)
--L.L. Hill, Equal Access to Justice Act - Paving the Way for
Legislative Change, Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 36:50, p
17-18, 37
"When interpreting an AMBIGUOUS LAW, courts often look at the
statute's legislative history, debate and testimony, to see what
Congress intended it to mean."
http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2006/04/index.html
"In civil law jurdisdictions, the first step in interpreting an
AMBIGUOUS LAW is to discover the intention of the legislator by
examining the legislation as a whole...."
A Stranieri and J Zeleznikov, Knowledge Discovery from Legal Databases
(2005)
"In the recent case, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme
Court ...'missed a golden opportunity to clarify the approach to
clarify the approach to deciding such matters," and today litigants
are still left with uncertain and AMBIGUOUS LAW."
S.D. Schonfeld, A Failing Grade: The Court in Zelman and Its Missed
Opportunity to Clarify the Confusing State of Establishing Clause
Jurisprudence (2003)
http://www.cooley.edu/publications/benchmark/m03benchmark.pdf.
WHEN THE LAW IS AMBIGUOUS: Governor Paterson’s Power to Appoint a
Lieutenant Governor
By Laura Seago – 07/07/09
Brennan Center for Justice
at New York University School of Law
http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/when_the_law_is_ambiguous_governor_patersons_power_to_appoint_a_lieutenant_/
AMBIGUOUS LAWS increase likelihood of racial profiling
In the News: Forensic psychology, criminology, and psychology-law
http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2007/09/ambiguous-laws-increase-likelihood-of.html
Fixing an Ambiguous Medical Marijuana Law
By Kellyn Brown , 12-10-09
http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/fixing_an_ambiguous_medical_marijuana_law/14632/
Deborah
dsharavi
That's true, too. He rarely rises above the gutter level of a Mirelle
or Benzonah Cramer.
Deborah
RabbiJoekerr
Yes the header says you're a kook and your posts show you're a crybaby
bwahahahahar!!! Run away coward just like you always do!
RabbiJoekerr
wrote:
apparently you dont read anything that doesnt fit your racist views!
RabbiJoekerr
All of these racists are alike whether they throw crass garbage at
every turn or whether the try desperately to pretend they're being
civil they are uncouth dishonest hateful cowards!
coaste...@yahoo.com
>
> WHEN THE LAW IS AMBIGUOUS: Governor Paterson’s Power to Appoint a
> Lieutenant Governor
> By Laura Seago – 07/07/09
> Brennan Center for Justice
>
> AMBIGUOUS LAWS increase likelihood of racial profiling
>
> Fixing an Ambiguous Medical Marijuana Law
>
> Deborah
My, all this spam which BTW supports me, and not a whiff of a
"deliberately ambiguous" statute.
Bolt Upright
Not me Kooko, I'm right here. Shit, such as yourself may disgust me, but
it's hardly anything to flee from. I just scrape off my shoe and move on.
coaste...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Here's one of the rules punishing deliberate ambiguity. It comes from
contract law.
Interpretation of Contracts
When interpreting contracts courts tend to avoid questions regarding
the intent of the parties involved in the contract and rely on the
contract itself, particularly when the contract is in written form.
Under the "plain meaning" rule, the words of a contract are to be read
according to their plain, everyday meanings, with the exception of
terms that have been specifically defined in the contract. To
discourage the drafting of deliberately ambiguous language, any
ambiguous terms in a contract is interpreted in a way that penalizes
the party that drafts the document. In other words, if "party X"
deceptively drafts a contract with ambiguous language such that the
terms of the contract benefit the interests of "party X" over "party
Y," the ambiguous language of the contract will deliberately be
interpreted to benefit "party Y."
Read more: Contract Law http://law.jrank.org/pages/12504/Contract-Law.html#ixzz0btH6azZ8
dsharavi
wrote:
> Here's one of the rules punishing deliberate ambiguity. It comes from
> contract law.
No one cares. Where's your "proof" that I ever made any "racist"
remark about Al Sharpton?
Deborah
dsharavi
wrote:
You can't even comprehend the definition of "spam". And BTW, speaking
of support - where's yours that I ever made a "racist" remark about Al
Sharpton, as you claimed repeatedly?
Deborah
> "deliberately ambiguous" statute.
dsharavi
> to withdraw from the West Bank. That's why I brought up the wall/fence
> opinion.
H "brought it up" - repeatedly - as a sidedodge in lieu of proving his
repetitious claim that 242 "required" Israel to return land taken in
the Six Day War to the Palestinians. Despite numerous requests made to
him over an eleven month period, that he point to the exact provision
of whih requires Israel to return anything to the Palestinians, he
sidedodged every request with his usual empty palaver, as we see
here.
The framers of 242, quite naturally, held far different opinions of
their resolution than H, but H never lets facts get in his way. See
the following article from American Foreign Policy:
Resolution 242 After Twenty Years
Arthur J. Goldberg
Twenty years have elapsed since the adoption of Resolution 242 by the
United Nations Security Council. It is timely and appropriate
therefore to reassess this resolution, which has been called one of
the most important in the history of the United Nations, and to
speculate about whether it can continue to serve as the basis for a
comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East. Such an analysis
requires both a review of the events that led to the adoption of the
resolution and an attempt to answer the question whether the
resolution remains viable.
Background
In May 1967 the late President Nasser of Egypt moved a substantial
number of Egyptian armed forces into the Sinai, ejected the U.N.
peacekeeping forces, reoccupied and remilitarized the strategically
important Sharm-el-Sheik, and proclaimed the closing of the Straits of
Tiran. In so doing, President Nasser shattered the status quo that had
prevailed in the area since the 1956-1957 war.
These were ominous measures. Israel, which had responded to American
pressure by withdrawing its forces from Sinai and Sharm-el-Sheik in
1957, had continued to assert that any action that prevented its ships
and cargoes from passing through the Straits of Tiran would be
considered an act of war. Moreover, faced with well-armed Egyptian
forces on its borders and the provocative statements of Nasser and
other Arab leaders, Israel had little choice other than to order the
mobilization of its predominantly civilian army. Tension in the area
became acute.
Justified concern prompted the Western powers, including the United
States, to take the initiative in promptly convening the United
Nations Security Council in order to attempt to avert a conflict by
restoring the status quo ante. The attempts made in the Security
Council and those made through private diplomatic channels failed
because of Arab objections that were supported by the Soviet Union.
Apparently, both the Arab states and the Soviet Union were willing to
risk war.
When the war broke out on June 5, 1967, the Western powers renewed
their attempts to bring about an effective cease-fire on the first day
of battle, hoping to stabilize the situation before it could be
radically altered. Because of faulty intelligence or an unwillingness
to face the facts, the Arab states, supported by the Soviet Union,
refused to permit a cease-fire resolution to be voted on that day even
though the cessation of hostilities would have conduced to the
advantage of the Arabs. It should be recalled that in the first few
hours of the fighting, the Egyptian Air Force was effectively
destroyed, thereby determining the outcome of the war.
Only on the second day of the war, after it became apparent to all
objective observers and analysts that Israel had won the war, was
agreement reached in the Security Council on a resolution calling for
a cease-fire. Although Egypt accepted the resolution immediately,
Jordan and Syria delayed their acceptance despite the fact that
Israeli forces were advancing on all Arab fronts.
The cease-fire resolutions adopted during and after the Six Day War
differed in substance from Security Council resolutions relating to
the Israeli-Arab wars waged during the preceding nineteen years. In
the earlier resolutions, calls for a cease-fire were invariably
accompanied by demands for the withdrawal of troops to positions held
before the conflicts erupted. In June 1967, however, provisions for
withdrawal were not incorporated in the cease-fire resolutions. This
provision was not omitted by accident. Instead, the omission reflected
the reaction by a majority of the members of the Security Council to
the events that led to the outbreak of war. As the debates revealed,
the majority of the members of the Security Council were unwilling to
vote for the unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces because of
their conviction that a return to the armistice regime would not serve
the goal of securing a just and lasting peace between the parties.
This conviction was evidenced by the action that the Security Council
took with respect to a resolution introduced by the Soviet Union. The
Soviet resolution not only affirmed the Council's call for a cease-
fire but also condemned Israel as the aggressor and demanded the
withdrawal of its forces to positions held on June 5, 1967, before the
conflict erupted. The Soviet resolution was supported by six of the
fifteen members. (Nine are required to adopt a resolution.)
Israel was not condemned as the aggressor because of the widely shared
conviction that President Nasser's actions—particularly the eviction
of the U.N. peacekeeping forces, the movement of Egyptian troops into
the Sinai, and the closing of the Straits of Tiran—provoked the war.
Further, the unwillingness of a majority of the members of the
Security Council to support the Soviet resolution for a withdrawal of
Israeli forces to the positions they held before June 5, 1967, was
based on the conviction that the withdrawal of troops should be made
in the context of a peace settlement that would ensure secure
boundaries for Israel, replacing the violated and provisional
armistice lines.
The Soviet Union did not allow the matter to rest after its initial
defeat in the Security Council. It called for an emergency special
session of the General Assembly, which convened on June 17, 1967. The
General Assembly failed to adopt by the requisite two-thirds majority
a resolution (offered by Yugoslavia and several other members and
supported by the Soviet Union and the Arab states) that differed in
tone but not in substance from the Soviet resolution that was rejected
by the Security Council.
The Adoption of Resolution 242
When the special session of the General Assembly adjourned in
September 1967, the matter reverted to the Security Council and again
became the subject of further public debate as well as intensive
private negotiations and finally culminated on November 22 in the
adoption of Resolution 242.
The draft resolution was presented by the British ambassador, Lord
Caradon, who was selected as a sponsor because of his acceptability to
the Arab states. It was based on a resolution that had been offered by
Latin American states to the special session of the General Assembly
and a United States resolution that was introduced when the Security
Council meeting was resumed.
The unanimous support garnered for Resolution 242 was the result of
intensive diplomatic activity undertaken by the United States both at
the United Nations and in foreign capitals throughout the world. This
is not to say that Great Britain, Latin American countries, India, and
other states were not actively engaged in negotiations and diplomatic
activity; but the United States took the primary role in facilitating
the adoption of the resolution. In fact, Resolution 242 parallels the
U.S. draft resolution.
It should be noted that before the vote was taken, the Soviet Union
offered another draft resolution that condemned Israel as the
aggressor and called for the withdrawal of Israeli troops to the June
5 lines. The Soviets did not press this resolution to a vote because
majority support was lacking. The United States followed a similar
course of action not because its draft resolution lacked majority
support but because it regarded Resolution 242 to be satisfactory.
Before the vote on Resolution 242 was taken, it was determined by an
unofficial count that not only the members of the Security Council but
also Israel, Egypt, and the other concerned Arab states did not object
to the resolution. Resolution 242 was adopted unanimously after a
minimum of speech making.
The Rationale Behind the Arab-Israeli Acceptance of Resolution 242
Having been rebuffed both in the Security Council and in the General
Assembly, the Arab states came to the conclusion that the language of
Resolution 242 was the best that they could hope to obtain at the
time. They obviously counted on its ambiguities to enable them to
assert their own interpretations of the language. Further, they
calculated that the passage of time would erode the support of the
United States and like-minded states for Israel, and, of course, they
did not foresee President Sadat's courageous initiative in going to
Jerusalem and in participating in the negotiations that culminated in
the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.
To a certain extent, their calculations proved to be prescient. World
opinion, overwhelmingly supportive of Israel as the "underdog" at the
time of the 1967 war, has shifted to produce a measure of sympathy for
the defeated and now "underdog" Arab states, and some Western
countries have watered down their support for the principles embodied
in the resolution.
The Israelis accepted Resolution 242 for some of the same reasons as
those subscribed to by their Arab antagonists. It was the best
resolution that Israel could hope to get from the United Nations under
the circumstances. The Israelis were fearful that their diplomatic
support would erode if they proved to be intransigent. Like the Arab
states, Israel concluded that the ambiguities of the resolution would
enable it to assert its own interpretation. Most important, Israel
recognized the danger of an overly inflexible position in light of its
need for American military hardware and economic assistance, which
were provided.
The Provisions of Resolution 242
Resolution 242 is a carefully—some would say artfully—drafted set of
guidelines designed to promote agreement and to assist the parties to
achieve a settlement. Certain key aspects were designed to be
ambiguous in order to allow flexibility in negotiations.*
The stated goal of the resolution is the establishment of a just and
lasting peace that would enable every state in the area to live in
security. In the resolution, the Security Council expressly repudiated
the concept of an imposed peace and called for "agreement"—an
"accepted settlement" by and between the parties. Thus the experience
of the 1957 imposed settlement was to be avoided. The council
supported instead a consensual peace agreement to be negotiated by the
parties—an endorsement that was scarcely surprising in light of the
collapse of the 1957 imposed settlement and the shattering of
armistice agreements.
The resolution stipulates respect for and acknowledgement of the
sovereignty of every state in the area. Because Israel has never
denied the sovereignty of its neighbors, this provision obviously
requires those countries to acknowledge the sovereignty of Israel and
its right to exist. The negotiating history of Resolution 242, as
reflected in the debates and votes in the Security Council and in the
special session of the General Assembly that was held in 1967, shows
that there was little support in the U.N. community for the view that
after two decades, Israel's existence could still be denied by its
Arab neighbors.
The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the
lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the
war. The Arab states urged such language; the Soviet Union proposed
such a resolution to the Security Council in June 1967, and Yugoslavia
and other nations made a similar proposal to the special session of
the General Assembly that followed the adjournment of the Security
Council. But those views were rejected. Instead, Resolution 242
endorses the principle of the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from
territories occupied in the recent conflict" and juxtaposes the
principle that every state in the area is entitled to live in peace
within "secure and recognized boundaries." In light of Arab
unwillingness to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, this language,
thought applicable to all states, was designed primarily to ensure
Israel's right to existence within secure boundaries recognized by its
Arab neighbors.
The notable omissions in language used to refer to withdrawal are the
words the, all, and the June 5, 1967, lines. I refer to the English
text of the resolution. The French and Soviet texts differ from the
English in this respect, but the English text was voted on by the
Security Council, and thus it is determinative. In other words, there
is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all
the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967. Instead,
the resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without
defining the extent of withdrawal. And it can be inferred from the
incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the
territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace
settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli
forces from occupied territories.
To buttress their claim that the resolution calls for a complete
Israeli withdrawal, the Arab states contend that this interpretation
is overly restrictive. They point to such language as "the
inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." This
language, the Arab states argue, calls for the complete withdrawal of
Israeli forces from all of the territories occupied by them in the Six
Day War. Further, the Arab states contend that the U.N. Charter
supports their contention that the military conquest of territory is
inadmissible. It is arguable whether under international law this
argument applies to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. It seems
clear that under the circumstances, Israel exercised the right of self-
defense in the 1967 war. It should be noted that Jordan occupied the
West Bank by war in 1946, contrary to the United Nations partition
resolution. (Only two states recognized this annexation: Great Britain
and Pakistan.) On the other hand, Israel has occupied the West Bank by
war since 1968. By principles of prescription, Israel has occupied the
West Bank for approximately the same period as Jordan. Thus the status
of the West Bank under international law is questionable, although in
realistic and demographic terms, the rights of Palestinians must be
resolved short of Israeli annexation. The most that can be said of the
withdrawal and related language of Resolution 242 in light of this
negotiating history is that it neither commands nor prohibits
territorial adjustments in the peace agreements contemplated in the
resolution.
As recognized in the Camp David Accords, there is a difference between
international boundaries, presumably intended to be permanent, and
provisional armistice lines. Furthermore, the withdrawal language of
the resolution seems to indicate that its patent ambiguities and the
differing interpretations of the parties only can be resolved by
settlements concluded after negotiations between the parties.
On certain aspects the resolution is less ambiguous than the language
pertaining to withdrawal. Resolution 242 specifically deals with free
passage through international waterways. In precise language it
affirms "the necessity for guaranteeing freedom of navigation through
international waterways," which include the Gulf of Aqaba. This
language underscores the fact that blocking Bab el Mandeb and other
points of access to the Red Sea is prohibited. The principle of
international law that governs free passage through international
waters was also acknowledged in the Camp David Accords.
Resolution 242 contains the phrase "respect and acknowledgment of ...
the territorial integrity of every state in the area." This language
has been cited in support of the demand for the complete withdrawal of
Israeli forces from all of the occupied territories. That demand
overlooks the fact that for many years the Israelis have sought
respect for their territorial integrity, which has been withheld from
them by the Arab states and the PLO.
The resolution refers to the utility of the establishment of
demilitarized zones in ensuring peace and guaranteeing territorial
inviolability. The location of the demilitarized zones was left to the
parties to negotiate, as was done at Camp David between Egypt and
Israel.
Resolution 242 strongly supports the view that a peace settlement is
not to be imposed and that the resolution is not to be self-
implementing. Instead, it stipulates that third-party assistance, the
parties are to negotiate with third and to agree to an acceptable
settlement. (This provision was confirmed by U.N. Resolution 338,
which was unanimously adopted on October 22, 1973, during the Yom
Kippur War. This resolution "decides that negotiations start between
the parties concerned under appropriate auspices, aimed at
establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.")
A notable omission in 242 is any reference to Palestinians, a
Palestinian state on the West Bank or the PLO. The resolution
addresses the objective of "achieving a just settlement of the refugee
problem." This language presumably refers both to Arab and Jewish
refugees, for about an equal number of each abandoned their homes as a
result of the several wars. Of course, time works changes, and the
Camp David Accords recognize that the rights of Palestinians will have
to be recognized in a comprehensive peace settlement.
Another notable and purposeful omission from Resolution 242 is any
specific reference to the status of Jerusalem and the reaffirmation of
past U.N. resolutions calling for the internationalization of the
city. Resolution 242 thus realistically recognizes the desuetude of
the internationalization resolutions and leaves open the possibility
of an agreement for a unitary Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty that
would provide appropriate safeguards for Muslim and Christian holy
places and possible Vatican-type enclaves or boroughs for the Arab
population of Jerusalem. No Israeli, dove or hawk, will ever surrender
any part of Jerusalem.
Resolution 242 and Camp David
In the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, the product of Camp
David, Resolution 242 was acknowledged to be the basis for the
settlement. It should be recognized, however, that the boundaries
between Israel and Egypt before the 1967 war were internationally
recognized boundaries, not provisional armistice lines. Those
boundaries were recognized in the Camp David Accords and served as the
rationale for Prime Minister Begin's agreement to remove all Jewish
settlements from the Sinai. Since then, the United States has made
several attempts to mediate a comprehensive peace settlement based on
Resolution 242 and the Camp David Accords. They have all failed.
Resolution 242 in the Context of an International Peace Conference
Recently King Hussein of Jordan proposed an international peace
conference to be composed of the concerned parties and the five
permanent members of the United Nations Security Council: China,
France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States. The
terms of reference presumably would be Resolution 242. It is not clear
whether King Hussein visualizes the international conference to be a
shield for direct negotiations with Israel or a conference in which
the permanent members would play a substantive role. It is also not
clear in what manner the PLO would participate and the extent of its
participation.
The United States and Prime Minister Shamir of Israel first joined in
opposing such a conference because of their belief that it would open
the door to the Soviet Union to play a significant role in the area.
Prime Minister Shamir and his Likud party still firmly oppose any
international conference, and Secretary Shultz said recently that "an
international conference in and by itself is of no interest to the
United States. The way to go is through direct negotiations. If there
is some way to construct an international conference that meets the
results we are seeking, we are willing to examine that possibility."
After King Hussein, the most ardent proponent of an international
conference is Shimon Peres, deputy prime minister of Israel. He has
thus far avoided the dissolution of the coalition government over this
issue by stating that his support is subject to several conditions:
The participation in the conference of the permanent members of the
Security Council will be symbolic; direct negotiations will take place
between the concerned parties; the PLO will have to accept Resolution
242 in order to participate; its representatives cannot be members of
the PLO hierarchy; they must be members of the Jordanian delegation;
the status of Jerusalem as an undivided city under Israeli sovereignty
is not negotiable, although agreement can be reached on appropriate
measures to safeguard the security and autonomy of Muslim and
Christian holy places; and the Soviet Union will have to agree to
reestablish diplomatic relations with Israel.
Peres is an astute politician who knows that these conditions are not
acceptable to the Arab states, the Soviet Union, and the PLO. He is
apparently willing to assume the risk that if an international
conference were to be convened and negotiations ensued, the deep
yearning of the people of Israel for peace would impel Shamir to
support a reasonable compromise. But it is questionable whether Peres
and his Labor party will win the next election, which would alone
empower Peres as prime minister to attend an international conference
and conduct negotiations.
The Uncertain Future of Resolution 242
The ultimate questions are whether the United States is prepared to
exercise to the fullest extent its great influence to facilitate the
peace process; whether the PLO will continue its fruitless role of
rejection and terror or agree to a sensible compromise; and whether
the leaders of Israel and its neighboring Arab states are mere
politicians or statesmen who possess vision and courage.
Two things are certain in this volatile and dangerous matter. The
United States must take the lead rather than play a passive role in
pursuing the difficult objective of a comprehensive peace in the
Middle East, and if a settlement is negotiated, it will be based on
Resolution 242.
Note
*Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967
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,
1. 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 of the following principles:
1. Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories
occupied in the recent conflict;
2. (ii) 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;
2. Affirms further the necessity
1. For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through
international waterways in the area;
2. For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
3. For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and
political independence of every State in the area, through measures,
including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. 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;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council
on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon
as possible.
About the Author
The late Arthur J. Goldberg was a justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (1965-1968), and
ambassador-at-large and chairman of the United States delegation to
the Belgrade follow-up conference (1977-1978).
Deborah'
RabbiJoekerr
wrote:
>
> We can leave this if you like, but for what it's worth my position is
> that in thirty-three years of reading the law
<SNORT>
so you'll have no problems explaining the difference between binding
and non-binding resolutions
Laws and resolutions
Security Council vs General Assembly resolutions
Citation vs law(s)
The legal principle that allows a non-legal (not having the force or
gravitas of law) citation to be used in an argument or ruling.
The difference between judgment and verdict.
The difference between judgment and law.
Finding of fact vs law...
International law vs sovereign law (be very careful on this on)
And lastly the difference between what you claim the resolution and
the ruling says and what has been posted by others!