Page 20 of 2295
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 5:25 pm
by eCat
next up for Obama
Korean Convenience Store Owners
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 5:34 pm
by Dora
eCat wrote:part of the justification for making Israel a state included that Jerusalem, a religious city of significance to Jews, Christians and Muslims was to be designated as an "international" city meaning that it would be an open city for everyone. Israel ended that notion in short order.
No, that would be Jordan who occupied the old holy city until 1967.
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 5:38 pm
by Red Bird
Note that possibly no one cares about, but offered as explanation for my sometimes confusing word choices.
I don't hate Jews. The Jew Bastard thing comes from my childhood. I don't hate Arabs although they piss me off as often as the Israelis do, and I have no connection with them to soften my opinions.
I sincerely wish these people would all learn to live together in peace, but I don't foresee that. If I thought that the Jews could trade that sliver of land for peace I'd be all for it, but I don't blame Israelis like Bibi from being skeptical, and I can't abide anyone here suggesting that we know better than they do what they should do.
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 5:59 pm
by eCat
Dora wrote:eCat wrote:part of the justification for making Israel a state included that Jerusalem, a religious city of significance to Jews, Christians and Muslims was to be designated as an "international" city meaning that it would be an open city for everyone. Israel ended that notion in short order.
No, that would be Jordan who occupied the old holy city until 1967.
the majority of UN member states and most international organisations do not recognise Israel's control of East Jerusalem which occurred after the 1967 Six Day War, nor its 1980 Jerusalem Law proclamation, which declared a "complete and united" Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 6:01 pm
by Dora
This quote is incomplete. Obama also said that the new Palestinian state must be continuous. He cleverly left that part out here. Meeting all of Obama's conditions would only be possible if the agreement bisected Israel or if the Arabs agreed to swap the entirety of Samaria and Judea for that part of Israel that Borders Egypt from Gaza to the Red Sea, or if Israel agreed to surrender all of Israel south of Shemesh to the Arabs.
This has already been discussed. When Barak was in office the plan was to connect Gaza & the West Bank with an overpass over the desert with no exits into Israel. It's doable
The main problem with Obama's statement is that it doesn't mention the settlements as Bush's letter did. It suggests that these settlements are now negotiable where Bush's statement clearly stated they are not. Essentially, Bush's letter states that the borders must reflect the conditions that exist on the ground today and Obama is suggesting that this isn't necessarily so.
Both Bush & Obama talk about negotiations & taking into consideration facts on the ground. Facts on the ground means settlement. The land swaps would mean giving Palestinians land to equal the land occupied by settlements.
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 6:05 pm
by Dora
the majority of UN member states and most international organisations do not recognise Israel's control of East Jerusalem which occurred after the 1967 Six Day War, nor its 1980 Jerusalem Law proclamation, which declared a "complete and united" Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Yes, I know. But you were talking about way back when Israel was created when the intent was to make Jerusalem an international city. Until 1967 East Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan.
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 6:34 pm
by Owlman
Red Bird wrote: The main problem with Obama's statement is that it doesn't mention the settlements as Bush's letter did.
No, the main problem was that you were wrong in your understanding of Obama's statement, went off without knowledge about it, maintained a false accusation despite it being pointed out to you on multiple occasions, until your accusation was no longer tenable. Now you are trying desparately to find something to save face without having to admit that you were just wrong, wrong, wrong.
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 6:38 pm
by Owlman
Red Bird wrote: Our dispute is over when this policy became the policy of the US government.
It's not a dispute. It's your lack of knowledge about this. The fact is Bush said that the basis for peace would start with U.N. resolution 242. You kept saying that Bush said this was no longer the case. NOT TRUE. The only way it's a dispute is that you won't acknowledge what is right in front of you, on paper, for all to see.
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 7:46 pm
by Red Bird
Spacer, if you're so bat-shit stupid that you can't interpret the meaning of Bush's letter, I can't help you. I've already explained it to you ten different ways. I have no interest in waging a war of attrition over this. So if you want to keep posting "I'm right and you're wrong", you'll have to follow yourself in the duet.
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 8:45 pm
by eCat
Spacer is alot of things, batshit stupid isn't one of them.
He is a bit too zealous in his defense of his homeboy Obama sometimes but I have my cross to bear with Ron Paul
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 8:50 pm
by Owlman
Red Bird wrote:Spacer, if you're so bat-shit stupid that you can't interpret the meaning of Bush's letter, I can't help you. I've already explained it to you ten different ways. I have no interest in waging a war of attrition over this. So if you want to keep posting "I'm right and you're wrong", you'll have to follow yourself in the duet.
And you've been wrong as many times as you've tried to explain it. Read it again. Dora has tried to explain it to you. It's there in front of you. If you don't understand what you are reading, say so. Because there is no difference between Obama's policy and that of the previous 5 Presidents. You can call a duck a chicken, a rat, a pig, a dog or any other animal all you want. But just because you call them something different doesn't mean it's correct. It's still a duck and the President's speech was not a change in long-standing U.S. policy.
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 8:52 pm
by Owlman
Red Bird wrote: So if you want to keep posting "I'm right and you're wrong", you'll have to follow yourself in the duet.
Don't lie to yourself.
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 8:53 pm
by Owlman
eCat wrote:He is a bit too zealous in his defense of his homeboy Obama sometimes but I have my cross to bear with Ron Paul
I like Ron Paul. I'd love for him to be in the Senate and drive both parties nuts. I just think he'd be a terrible President (but we've been over that).
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 8:59 pm
by innocentbystander
Owlman wrote:Red Bird wrote:Spacer, if you're so bat-shit stupid that you can't interpret the meaning of Bush's letter, I can't help you. I've already explained it to you ten different ways. I have no interest in waging a war of attrition over this. So if you want to keep posting "I'm right and you're wrong", you'll have to follow yourself in the duet.
And you've been wrong as many times as you've tried to explain it. Read it again. Dora has tried to explain it to you. It's there in front of you. If you don't understand what you are reading, say so. Because there is no difference between Obama's policy and that of the previous 5 Presidents.
As far as the Middle East goes, this is pretty much the case.
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 9:21 pm
by Red Bird
This discussion has led me to examine the details of the conflict more closely. It may not surprise people to know that the various parties disagree about the exact meaning of UNR 242 and 338. So in the interest of clarity I offer UN Resolution 242 for all to read and digest with eyes open:
(November 22, 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 the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(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:
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) 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.
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 9:25 pm
by Jungle Rat
Kara is a Jew. No doubt.
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 9:38 pm
by Red Bird
There are two sections that are critical and were hotly debated by members of the Security Council. First section i:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Their was great debate over the exact wording of this section. The debate focused on the word "all". You'll notice that the word is not included in the text. This was apparently critical as the Arabs wanted the word "all" to precede "territories" and the US and Israel did not. A literal reading of the text does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up.
This may seem like nitpicking, but such is the nature of diplo-talk. The Security Council expressly avoided saying that Israel must withdraw from "all" territories occupied after the Six-Day war. And this omission was deliberate.
(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;
This part is critical because it expressly demands 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"
The critical word here is "State." At the time, Egypt, Syria, Jordon and Israel were states. The rights of all have been duly satisfied save the ongoing dispute between Israel and Syria.
Nothing in this statement implies or suggests right's conferred on Arabs living in territories that once were under the control of Jordan and Egypt.
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 9:50 pm
by Red Bird
The other point often in dispute is section "b"
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
Note that the Palestinians are not mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. They are only alluded to in this clause, which calls for "a just settlement of the refugee problem." Nothing here requires that the Arab refugees be given any political rights or territory. In fact, use of the generic term "refugee" seems to have been a deliberate acknowledgment that there were refugees on both sides.
Truth be told, almost as many Jews fled Arab countries during these wars as Palestinian Arabs left Israel. As far as I can tell, not a single Jew was compensated by the Arab states, nor were any territories set aside to shelter them.
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 9:53 pm
by Owlman
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 10:06 pm
by Red Bird
UNCR 338:
The Security Council,
Calls upon all parties to present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy;
Calls upon all parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;
Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.