Personal musings on Israel, Jewish matters, history and how they all affect each other
This makes me glad that I always doubted the basis for that almost universal hate-mongering against Bush and that I always stuck to my simple maxime that he probably would be a nice neighbor to chat with over the fence i.e. a democrat on a personal level.(never mind that I considered without any help by the commissariat the Iraq-war and the fiddling with torture pure madness)BTW why can I understand and believe - as much as I am willing to trust any politician - Bush but never as yet have managed the same with Obama and Hillary? Could it be that Bush is sincerely believing in his text himself? I've heard one interview with Gates which made me like him.... despite my having been groomed all my life in a deep distrust of anybody from the right ...I hope Sharon is comfortable and hopefully hopefully even enjoys himself in whatever state he is in now. He btw turned me around to liking him quite a bit in an interview with the German lawyer/journalist Michel Friedman (maybe I'm a closet rightist;-)Silke
The disingeneousness continues, and all under the guise of your supreme rationality. Obama has never pretended that previous positions never existed; he's simply decided (as is his right) that he is not bound by them. What is the problem with this? Hag Sameach.
AlexIf you are right, then I wonder how he managed to create my wrong impression of him? and I am a devoted and almost exclusively so reader of MSM, No. 1 being the London Times with the NYT a close second plus a number of equally august other sourcesseems then like the great communicator has not run a quite successful PR operation doesn't it?Silke
Alex,I don't have time to do the digging today, but Hillary said very explicitly in summer 2009 that they'd checked in the files and no such agreement with Israel existed. Furthermore, Obama's entire "Stop all settlement" line, at Cairo and elsewhere, contradicts the understanding with Sharon of 2004 - and at the time, the understanding, put in writing as this film shows, was between two heads of government. Which means, it's binding on Obama even if he doesn't like it.
Yaacov, what you've illustrated is Israel cannot trust this Administration to keep any promises it makes. It not only tore up the Bush-Sharon understandings, it tore up last fall's agreement that Israel could still build in Jerusalem. So does Israel want to help it move the proximity talks forward with concessions that would endanger the basis for its very existence as a sovereign country?Of course not.
Alex, Clinton: No official Bush-era deal with Israel on settlementshttp://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3726920,00.html
Yaacov - are you seriously suggesting that a president is bound by every unofficial agreement (at most it was a presidential letter) his predecessor makes? On what basis are you making that claim?
Alex,You don't see a problem with Obama:1. Reneging on the Bush/Sharon deal which led to the Gaza pullout? 2. Reneging now on Jerusalem building, which was acceptable just months ago with the 10 month freeze agreement? What incentive does Israel have to make future risky deals with Obama?If you're for America ordering Israel around and guaranteeing nothing in return, that's one thing. Because if not, what is Obama really doing to build trust with Israel? All he's showing is that he can't be trusted with his allies and he won't make any demands of the Arabs.
Of course, Alex is right. Whatever Mr. Bush may have written in his ill-advised letter, all settlements, including those in East Jerusalem, are illegal under UNSC Resolution 446 of 22 March 1979, which was ratified by the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion of 9 July 2004. This opinion is legally binding and the American member of the ICJ, Judge Thomas Buergenthal, explicitly endorsed it.The leaders of Israel and America can't "agree" about the final status of territories that are neither Israeli nor American under international law; and their "understandings" don't supersede the resolutions of the United Nations' Security Council.
Ibrahim,Since you cite international law...According to international law, who do the territories in question legally belong?I look forward to reading your answer...
Anonymous - it's also disingeneous to claim that the Americans had no problems with building in East Jerusalem under the terms of the settlement freeze. It's true that they were pleased with the freeze, but this was because it was the first time the Israeli government had ever (aside from disengagement) unilaterally decided to pause with the settlement project. Claiming the Americans have given their consent to East Jerusalem building is like saying that a teacher gives consent to a pupil to disrupt the class only 10% of the time, after he manages to cut down on the other 30% of his disruptions.
Alex,The US congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of recognizing an undivided Jerusalem as the current and future capital of Israel. That is US law. The President can use an executive waiver to maintain his autonomy in conducting US foreign policy, but it is wrong to say that the US has always been against Israel building in East Jerusalem, which is consistent with US law.While we may disagree on whether the US should abide by the letter Bush gave to Sharon, we both are in agreement that there was such a letter. Obama, rather than explaining the reason he was changing US policy, claimed that there was no prior understanding between the US and Israel, and declared new building for Jews--even in East Jerusalem--illegitimate in the eyes of the US.I understand that you believe that it is in Israel's best interest for Israel to leave the West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, and you see Obama's pressure on Israel as perhaps resulting in the outcome you think would be best for your country. But be careful, as Obama doesn't mean Israel well. You can give up all the land that you think you should, but the Palestinians will find a pretext to continue the conflict (because nothing less than 100 % of Israel will satisfy them) and Obama will side with the Palestinians. Be careful what horse you attach your wagon to...as Obama's horse ain't likely to stop at the '67 border when its momentum is carrying it toward the sea.
wow Ibrahimall these facts and your conclusions to boot - very impressive - you must be an eminent and devoted scholar of international law if you can so easily strip all these resolutions and declarations of their ambiguities and reduce them to their bare indisputable facts.- what a bunch of nullities we must have been at my work place when we would debate for hours the implications of one simple sentence in one paragraph of UN regulations on intellectual property.SilkePS: are you maybe getting a bit weary of your not caring for your wishes "target audience" at your own place?
While we, in Israel, are focusing on sterile questions, whether or not there is continuity in the administration's policy toward Israel, dramatic changes are taking place in the region around us and that is what is relevant.Syria, who just one year ago was a pariah state with its President facing criminal charges for the assassination of Rafik Hariri, is now back on the driver seat and the strongest force in Lebanon, with the first American ambassador to Syria in five years due to arrive. And it seems like talks with Hamas are in the works. The last personnality to visit in Gaza was just this past Saturday, a very discrete visit by Congressman Keith Ellison, which has passed almost unnoticed. He came "to speak with human rights groups in Gaza" as if this couldn't have been done over the phone or via the Internet. And since Saturday evening, there has been and still is a continuing debate in Gaza whether to continue to fire rockets or not. So what is clear from that is that he came to tell them not to blow their chances with those rockets.As to Hizbullah, Nasrallah made a very unusual two hours speech last week. Apparently his movement will have to take at least in part the blame for the assassination of Hariri, and get Syria off the hook - it is now widely believed in Lebanon that it is Mughniyye, along with pro-Syrian Lebanese, who did the job. All this looks like the ground is being laid for the recognition of Hizbullah. So what we will have soon in place is that "Shiite Crescent" that moderate Sunni Arab States have been warning against all along: Qatar, Iran, Syria and Hizbullah, with Hamas as a bonus and working on Iraq.In short, a stronger Iran is emerging right here in our backyard.So you see, whether Obama has new peace plans for Israel and the Palestinians or not is utterly irrelevant. The ball is out of Israel's hands.Because if it comes to a vote at the UN on a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, I firmly believe that the Obama administration will vote for,freeze or no freeze, with the UN drawing the borders. And it looks like it's heading that way.
Sylviayou sound terribly right to me - my impression of Obama is that Israel is just an itch to him which he considers once gone, the itch, (of course completely for its own good) leaves him free to really do community organizing on a world wide scale and get a big big place in the history books so many of these guys crave. i.e. I think he is neither pro nor con Israel he is pro Obama saviour of the world via the doctrine of community organizing- and that giving up on what is right to gut feelings is terrible for Israel but it also abandons those March 14 people in Lebanon and abandoned democratic movements never provide good credentials to the mighty whether they are called superpower or empire. I don't know what status March 14 holds in the Arab world right now but once they yell "we are victims" that may have quite an impact outside the Shiite Crescent.- I personally keep consoling myself when things seem to look too bleak with the image that sometimes the eye of the storm is the safest place to be Silke
To Alex Stein,It doesn't matter that the Obami were against settlement buildup in E.Jerusalem when they agreed to and praised Netanyahu's freeze. The point is that the Obami are showing that prior agreements and promises the USA negotiates with Israel mean nothing and that the Obami will lie in order to weasel out of those past commitments. Meaning Israel cannot trust the USA in future moves (perhaps to get out of the W.Bank, or releasing more prisoners, dismantling the barrier, lifting the embargo on Gaza, Iran, etc). Of course, if you're all for the USA dictating terms to Israel while promising nothing in return for Israel's efforts, that would explain why you don't have a problem with the USA's integrity in the current peace process.
Oh, my...this Ibrahim Omar Malade is a real treat. It is lovely when he takes the specialist-on-international-law-&-UN paladine-posture. Why not begin with the arab violation of the resolution on partition in 1948?Yeah, you won't answer, I know. Meanwhile, on more serious subjects: what about that dog biting Maradona's face? Do you think the dog was a disguised Mossad agent, or simply sensed a whiff of cocaine?Sergio
The US congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of recognizing an undivided Jerusalem as the current and future capital of Israel.Not legally binding.The US Congress called upon the President and the Secretary of State to affirm publicly as a matter of United States policy that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of the State of Israel. But the call was not heeded!It is not the same to call upon someone to declare something as to declare that thing.To this day, US foreign policy has NOT recognized Jerusalem as the undivided capitol of Israel.And despite his letter, Bush did NOT implement the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.it is wrong to say that the US has always been against Israel building in East JerusalemIt is not wrong, since the Congress has no say regarding that policy. "The US," foreign-policy-wise, is the President, not the Congress.In other words, an unconstitutional act passed by lawmakers fearful of losing AIPAC and Jewish-donor support does not override the presidential waiver, which has CONSISTENTLY and INVARIABLY been used to oppose recognition of the annexation of East Jerusalem.
Why not begin with the arab violation of the resolution on partition in 1948?Not legally binding.Meanwhile, on more serious subjects: what about that dog biting Maradona's face?Remember this, Sérgio?
Yeah, you decide, in your infinite wisdom and justice, what is legally binding or not.As the saying goes: "Para os amigos, tudo;para os inimigos, a lei."(Translation: To friends, everything; to enemies, the law."Hey, congrats, Omar. Argentina is always a great team, even though it sometimes goes overboard, like scoring with the hands...But that's ok, after Maradona is a poor drug-addict.Sergio
Sergioit looks like if we combine forces we make Argentinia look like a nullity - ;-) - link belowI know nothing about soccer except that it is about something they do with a ball in unbecoming to ridiculous looking clothes but somehow right now this moment experience great satisfaction that "we" are ahead of "them". Also Pele and Kaiser Franz (Beckenbauer) are much better looking than Maradona. Even Loddar (Matthäus) wins that competition not to mention Günther Netzer who makes me swoon even at my age.and if you and I add first and second places together then we are right next to you and Argentinia is ... auweia still on no 4 ... and if we count 3rd place in then we beat even you - never realized we really were a big one at that game, always thought nobody could even remotely come close to you - now I understand that bitter saying of the Brits? a game lasts 90 minutes and in the end the Germans win. SilkePS: btw I think Ibrahim is doing a great job as commentator on international, US and whatever else law. He seems to have no personal experience of working even with the most simple laws, probably never has plowed through comments on any of it, otherwise he would know that this strutting and parading a knowledge he possibly can't have makes him look more than a bit ridiculous. (Huge panels of experts are discussing it all over the world, but just listen to Ibrahim, he has figured it all out)http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fußball-Weltmeisterschaft#Rangliste_der_Weltmeister
Ibrahim,I think you are right about the Jerusalem resolution from Congress. You are also right that the partition UN vote of '48 was non-binding. You do know what remains binding international law adopted into the UN Charter? The League of Nations Mandate that encouraged close settlement of land by Jews...and part of that territory is Judea and Samaria.So would you like to answer my question this time regarding the issue you raised: Who does Judea and Samaria legally belong to?
I feel tergiversation is comiiiing!...:)Will Omar Malade:1) "forget" to answer;2) change subjects;3) call Maradona;4) all the above.Sergio
I forgot yet another answer: Marmaladewill say that the League had no authoritywhatsoever, because it was a bunch of imperialists coveting the land that belong from time imemorial to the caliphate, yada, yada, yada (not Yalta!):) Sergio
to add to those arguments about the UNhow can you continue to consider an organisation to be of consequence that establishes a Human Rights Council with the members it did? Are "they" maybe the new imperialists? or aspiring to be? and one non-taunting motherly advice to IBRAHIM:use a lot more "I" in your comments - makes you more attackable but will also let you (and the others and me around here) have a lot more fun - look at how good I had it on your blog - your "target audience" took almost every bait by going after me with the heavy weaponry - why not try that gimmick over hear and find out if you are as good at baiting as I am. Never knew I had such a talent for it - it is like having been given a new mission in life ;).Silke
Sergio,I was half expecting that Ibrahim would give the answer about the mandates being imperialist inventions and thus null and void.According to Israel haters, international law and UN resolutions only started to matter once the 57 Islamic bloc took over the institution. And we all know what paragons of virtue the IOC is...and Islam has never been, nor ever displays imperialistic designs.
4infidels, it is called "selective application of international law", ascholarly device of common use by palestianian leaders.And everybody knows that Islam is the religion of peace and that Jerusalem wastaken in 638 CE (by the real Omar) not by a siege, but through friendly chit-chat, and generous servings of babaganush and sfihas. I wonder who lived there before? Byzantines, perhaps. Jews? Nah! Preposterous!And talking about legality, what about the Spanish "Reconquista"? Is it legally binding or muslims could claim a UN resolution intimating Zapatero to return Andaluzia, or else...Sergio
Argentina is always a great team, even though it sometimes goes overboard, like scoring with the hands...Granted, we're a nation of cheaters. The Brazilians, on the other hand...Also Pele and Kaiser Franz (Beckenbauer) are much better looking than Maradona.It's not the looks that counts; it's the substance. (The substance Maradona sniffs, that is.)Who does Judea and Samaria legally belong to?Why did you beat your wife?You see, things don't need to belong to someone not to belong to someone else. I don't need to know whom the West Bank belongs to in order to know that Israel can't build there.I was half expecting that Ibrahim would give the answer about the mandates being imperialist inventions and thus null and void.No; I prefer the easier answer that the Mandate didn't establish Jewish ownership over the West Bank. All it established was that a national home for the Jews would be created in Palestine -- not in all of Palestine.
SilkeIt seems the 14 Marchers have a problem. Roughly said, Walid Jumblatt and Hariri the son raised their finger in the air and realized that the Western winds were blowing in the direction of Syria. So they went and made peace with Asad. The Arab states are not too happy either. I don't think Mubarak wants to see the Northern branch of his Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza "engaged" by America because the whole movement would follow suit. Not to mention having Iran breathing in his neck.But you're right about being safer in the eye of the storm, it also has the advantage of being able to assess accurately the situation on the ground, which is more than can be said of the people in Washington. So who knows, Middle East politics can make real strange bedfellows .
Sergioto the best of my knowledge before the Muslim conquest Byzantines considered Jerusalem to be part of their empire - who lived there? I can't imagine the Byzantines cared as long as their taxes arrived - but if you want to equal empires to inhabitants than the southern Brits at least were all Italians in Claudius' time.but here is something from the much nearer past - during the Q&A he gives a very nice short selection of what was considered correct behaviour after WW2 i.e. just a wee bit more than 60 years ago. Silkehttp://itunes.apple.com/de/podcast/gerhard-weinberg-new-boundaries/id118681118?i=81507172
Ibrahimglad to see that you took my advice and said "I" - other than that could you explain this answer to me? "Why did you beat your wife?"I'm sure it relates to something a well-educated person should know but it happens to be beyond me.and how smart your remark about ownership, if the West Bank belongs to nobody than it is up for grabs. If it is up for grabs then I'd like to know why Israel should not be allowed to some or all grabbing? You experts really complicate a girl's life ...Silke
Sylviathanks - I really feel sorry for the March 14 - they had such high hopes at the time full of seeing a new blooming of their country coming and then Hisbollah spoiled it for themwannabe decent folk just have no luckSilke
The answer Ibrahim is that it belongs to Israel. 1. Since the Ottoman Empire is no more and Britain washed its hands of the Mandate, that leaves Judea and Samaria as disputed territory.2. International Law never recognized Jordan's illegal occupation...and Jordan surrendered its claim anyway.3. Most of the land in Judea and Samaria was owned by the Ottoman Empire...that state land passed to the Mandate for Palestine which called for close settlement on that land by Jews. 4. In creating a national home for Jews the Mandatory authority was not to do anything that would prejudice the rights of the existing local population.
does any of you know how "Friends' Pages" function in the blogging world? i.e. is it something open where anybody can show up like it seems to function with Google ads or is it something that Ibrahim put there deliberately or preferred not to delete?Sorry to sound very German but anybody who flirts with "Der Stürmer" is out for me - of course it's my fault I should have scrolled down on Ibrahim's site earlier and no the site linked to it isn't talking about a Stürmer in soccer context, it is talking about the Middle East and thus there is no wiggle room for any tongue in cheek - it is disgusting therefore my question to make sure there is no doubt left, is it Ibrahim's fault?SilkeFRIENDS' PAGESBuena PrensaEl País (Der Stürmer)8 months ago
Mr. Ibrahim Omar Maladeh,Wow, you managed to dig that Rivaldo dive,huh? That's the best you can do?? As your second nature is being a master of selectivity, it is funny that you don't mention that Rivaldo's (no doubt ridiculous) scene came after the adversary kicked the ball right on his face, in a provocative behaviour that, I should say, is not "legally binding" for a professional athlete.I think a better example is Pele breaking the jaw of that guy from Uruguay that was being kinda "rough" on him all the time (and the "poor" fella was expelled!!) I guess that explains why Pele's career didn't finish because of lesions, as with many other great players.No, back to your favorite tergiversation on international law...Sergio
Sergioas you seem to be still online, can you answer my question in the comment before yours? or do you know somebody who can?thank you!Silke
5. Despite all the lies, Israel respected Arab owned property in the West Bank, except in a few cases when Arabs threatened the rights of Jews to live in peace and security, and Israel needed to take actions to defend/protect its citizens.6. Israel didn't exercise/pursue its claim on Judea and Samaria from 1948-67. It acquired J/S in a defensive war in which its enemies threatened Israel with destroyed. All throughout history the aggressor has no claim on land lost when it starts and loses the war.7. J/S had always been ruled from the outside by empires that no longer exist ever since the Jews lost sovereignty there 2000 years ago. The Jews historic case is as strong as the legal case.
8. Israel needs J/S for its security and survival. Being that it legally belongs to no other entity, and Israel's enemies have refused to negotiate a solution that provided for recognition and secure borders for all states in the region as detailed in UNSC 242, Israel has a moral right and responsibility to hold onto J/S rather take actions that would jeopardize its future to the benefit of genocidal enemies whose aggression brought about the current borders.And if none of the strong legal, moral and historic claims work for you, then you can live with the knowledge that Israel took and has held J/S by force of arms like every other nation for thousands of years of human history.
Fake Ibrahim,You really ought to read up a bit on the San Remo Conference, which according to some experts is the most important event in the entire edifice (it's also the event that created the country of Iraq). Normally I'd suggest you stay away of matters you know very little about... but then, what would you write about?Silke - I haven't been to visit Fake Ibrahim's blog in a long time, but I think that friends annonce themselves. Bloggers make blogroll lists.
Silke,I'm not sure what answer you need...but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if Omar Maladeh had some such connections.4infidels, Don't worry: Omar al-Maladeh is not a bit concerned with facts or truth. After all, he's just a scholar with a doctorate on "selective international law, particularly when applied to jews". And to think that Phariseeswere the ones accused of law-quibblers...And what of this "all of palestine" nonsense. Wasn't most of palestine given to Jordan (aka, the real palestinian state)? What about the 1937Peel comission, which (correct me) proposed a partition with almost 80% to the Palestinians which refused (SURPRISE!). What about Israel proposal to return territories and the N0-NO-NOKhartum reply?In sum, Ibrahim Omar Maladeh is a major joke.Regards,Sergio
That anonymous post with points 1-4 was from me. It isn't easy to type long posts on a BlackBerry touch screen.
no Ibrahim isn't a joke anybody who posts "Der Stürmer" as a friend is one thing only and to me that isn't some such connection that is the connection, just like somebody sporting a swastika tattooI will refrain from calling Ibrahim any names, name calling is the speciality of his "target audience" but for me he is a very definite "case closed"Silke
Sergiojust in case you want a better nickname for Ibrahim here is my suggestion:Julius Streicher After the war, he was convicted of crimes against humanity and executed.and that, mind you. for "just" having been a publisher of "Der Stürmer"Surely our expert on international law is aware of this but in his book it lists probably as a violation of the freedom of speech by the victors.Silke
Silke,I meant Ibrahim Omar Maladeh Abu Fake al-Streicher is a "joke" in the sense of his"air" of expert on international law andsuch. As someone whose hobby is Israel-bashing, one cannot but suspect he's an antisemite, under the traditional anti-zionist/"Israel-critic" mask.Sergio
For God's sake, Silke, that was a post by an ultra-Zionist blogger who was comparing the Spanish daily El País to Der Stürmer because of the newspaper's anti-Zionist line.That blogger, Buena Prensa, is no longer active, so I'll probably delete him from my blogroll. I'll replace him with Lozowick's ruminations.You really ought to read up a bit on the San Remo ConferenceAs usual, you talk vaguely and generally and fail to indicate precisely where I am wrong.All throughout history the aggressor has no claim on land lost when it starts and loses the war.Israel started the 1967 war and modern international law doesn't recognize land acquisition through war.The Jews historic case is as strong as the legal case.Unfortunately, legality under international law is not decided by article writers or by commenters on blogs. Legality under international law is decided by the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the bodies that most countries, including Israel, accept as the authority in matters of international disputes.Both bodies have decided and confirmed several times that Israeli construction in territories occupied after 1967 has no legal validity, regardless of who owns the land. Kudos to Obama for returning to the rule of law, from which the Bush-Sharon "understanding" had sought to steer clear.If you don't like it, call Netanyahu and tell him to pull out of the United Nations.
Hey, Marmalade, you should open a consultancy firm "Abu Mazen & Sons: selective application of international law (jews, pigs and apes not allowed)" Your pal Omar al-Bashir could be your first client.To be consistent in your little lawyer-of-the-world game, as the arch-villain Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza was not legally binding, Israel should return to Gaza *immediately*.Later, with the help of Ahmadinejad et caterva, the UN will decide what is legally binding or what's not, as convenient. Maybe a return of the caliphate should be discussed with utmost urgency.And so said the wiseIbrahim Omar Maladeh of blessed memory.Sergio
that's all you can come up with Mr. wannabe Buster?Friend of Israel did it to full of good intentions you?come on, you can do better than that - something in international law must provide a solutionor ask your "target audience" they'll sure help you to come up with something and don't you dare put Yaacov at such a soiled placeSilke
IbrahimTo say that Israel started the 1967 war is childish.
Ibrahim,In the case of the West Bank, Jordan attacked Israel first, while Israel had been begging Jordan not to get involved. So regardless of the childish claim that Israel started the Six Day War, in which you confuse aggressor with firing the first shot in a declared war, Jordan went to war with Israel and lost the West Bank. So even by your moronic standards Israel could not be the aggressor vs. Jordan.Now to claim Israel was the aggressor vs. Egypt and Syria, you would have to ignore the constant shelling of Israeli civilians from the Golan Heights, Egypt asking the UN peacekeepers to leave its border with Israel and then remilitarizing the Sinai and Egypt cutting off Israel's access to waterways...all acts of war. You would also have to ignore the constant calls for the destruction of Israel, the fired up crowds throughout Cairo and Damascus yelling to slaughter the Jews and radio broadcasts from Arab leaders claiming that the day of bloodshed was near and the end of the Zionist entity was imminent.This is a favorite argument of anti-Zionists who can't refute Israel's legitimate claims. Do you really believe there would have been a war in 1967 if the Arabs had not taken all the hostile acts, including putting their troops on a war footing?
Ibrahim,You didn't address any of the legal, moral or historic arguments I made with the exception of the childish claim that "Israel started it," which they most certainly did not with the country that controlled the West Bank.Now besides saying that the ICC and UN disagree, what is that stronger claim to Judea and Samaria that you believe in? What is the legal, moral or historic basis for your "expert" opinion?Please do make the case for the other side...I'm sure you can do better than Israel started the '67 war and the ICC said so...
4infidels,Dr. Pseudo-Ibrahim (aka Omar Maladeh), famous attorney-at-(selectively applied against Israel)-international-law, andfounding member of the Argentinian section of the "Abu Mazen & SonsPiss Process Consultants" (soon to open a branch on the Moon!) will not answer your questions. He has that hit-and-run style, with his pseudo-rational hectoring air, posing as justice-seeker and defender of the oppressed. But in fact, he's not interested in that at all. In fact, he probably gets the greatest kick out of watching reasonable people trying to engage in a dialogue with him. His usual tactic: won't answer questions directly, will change subjects quickly and, with a bit of luck, will vanish for a couple of months(hopefully even more), till he gets bored and crave for that kick again...In sum, he is a pathetic clown, who only deserves ridicule.Regards,sergio
Sergiothanks for making me laugh - it helps against the nausea Silke
You didn't address any of the legal, moral or historic arguments I made with the exception of the childish claim that "Israel started it," which they most certainly did not with the country that controlled the West Bank.Jordan had a defense treaty with Egypt; and, more relevant still (and unaddressed by you), modern international legislation does not support land acquisition through military conquest.Now besides saying that the ICC and UN disagree, what is that stronger claim to Judea and Samaria that you believe in? What is the legal, moral or historic basis for your "expert" opinion?We've got a problem in a debate when one of the sides (normally, the minoritarian one) is asked too many and too irrelevant questions; and, further, the relevant points he makes go unresponded to.You can't ask me to present legal arguments because that has already been done by people who are more knowledgeable than you or me. For instance, in the ICJ's advisory opinion about the Israeli wall, even Judge Buergenthal, the American member, who supported the erection of the wall, explictly declared that Israeli settlements beyond the green line violate the provisions of the Geneva Convention and are, thus, illegal.Let us remember that Yaacov's point was that Obama is backing down on a promise made by Bush. Alex pointed out, correctly, that Bush's letter was nonbinding. Although he didn't mention it, it's worth recalling that the letter caused perplexity among observers. It's a sort of Balfour Declaration II, with the difference that the US is not the victor in a Middle East war; on the contrary, it seems to be losing one, and is in no position to dictate terms. I added that, while the Bush-Sharon understandings are nonbinding, there are other documents the US and Israel (and the rest of the world) are bound by, such as the several UNSC resolutions that have described the settlements, including those in East Jerusalem, as illegal.You mentioned other documents, such as the US Congress act, passed by AIPAC-scared lawmakers, that calls on the President to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. Again, I made a point which hasn't been responded to: despite that peculiar Congressional call, which infringes on the Chief of State's prerogative to decide foreign policy, and despite his own letter to Sharon, Bush stopped short from officially recognizing Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem. He, or his advisors, realized that changing a longstanding US position would be a big blunder. Therefore, until further notice, Obama is right to ask Netanyahu to refrain from building where both the US and the UNSC say he can't.Other points could be made. For instance, that while the Bush-Sharon understandings "acknowledged" that in a final agreement part of the West Bank would remain in Israel, they didn't authorize construction there in the meantime, which is forbidden under the Road Map and all the other documents mentioned above.In short, a letter written, as they say, in the heat of the moment by an immature president frustrated by the WTC attacks and the mounting casualties in Iraq, can't override international consensus, UNSC resolutions and the positions the US itself has always held.The arguments in support of Obama's refusal to subscribe to Bush's personal position, set forth in a nonbinding letter, are overwhelming.
Ibrahim wrote:"Jordan had a defense treaty with Egypt; and, more relevant still (and unaddressed by you), modern international legislation does not support land acquisition through military conquest."This is dodging the question.What is your evidence - in simple terms that I can understand - that Israel started the 1967 war as you claim?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUY1k7B7hgM&feature=channelfast forward to when AliG goes into his 999...tirade - for me it is a perfect image of Ibrahim's and his buddies' style of arguing"the relevant points he makes go unresponded to."and pray whoever is going to answer Ibrahim don't fall for this gimmick - that's a favourite or rather a standard with all of his audience (is that taught in rhetoric 101?)- they will answer any of your arguments with that claim, apparently expecting you to be worthy to be taken notice of by them i.e. read only AFTER you have written not one but several PhD-thesis on any one of their arguments and I'm pretty sure if you fulfill their demands they will promptly resort to the 999... routine. Is there a word for a writing logorrhöe? but come to think of it, they probably do it by copy and paste.you can make the most elaborated and delightful to read fun of them like Sergio did yesterday it will be like Heracles' fight with the Hydra, for every deflated bubble two new ones will pop up - if these random facts together cobbling rumour mongers faking it as experts have an immortal head/a central bubble that would stop the spectacle I haven't found it. maybe we should ask Archimedes for help - wasn't he the one who said a firm place to stand on made all the difference? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79vdlEcWxvMSilke
Post a Comment