Israel's Reality

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

No nation have ever given a **** about the UN or international laws when the matters involved their national interests nor have the UN save anyone.

In the middle of the cold war the USSR invaded Hungary for example in 1956 and of course there was the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

The UK taking back the Falkland Islands in 1982 and so on.

The UN had always been toothless and it have nothing to do with the US actions in Iraq.

The UK Falkland war was perfectly legitimate even without a UN security council vote since it was in self-defense. Argentina's invasion was illegal though.

In the case of Afghanistan, the USSR came on a request of the national (communist) government. I think that too is legal and does not require a SC vote. The French did so in Mali recently.

Hungary is yet another case. Not sure I remember well the details but the soviets tried to get a request in vain until they got it by force (post invasion, which shouldn't count), IF memory serves. Illegal, I agree.

I also agree the UN is toothless. The UN is a club, only a place for nations to meet and agree or disagree... But I think that's ok. Nobody REALLY want a world government. Maybe in a century or two it'll be different, but not in the foreseeable future... What we need is a genuine effort and commitment toward a set of rules agreed by the players plus some collective enforcement mechanism. It's not going to work always but often enough to make it worth the effort.

That has long been the US policy towards the UN, which after all was originally an American project.

And for a very long time the US and the USSR played or at least pretended to play by the rules, with occasional cheating on both sides. That is one factor, among others, that helped keep the cold war cold.

Now what? A return to unmitigated 'might is right' approach to international relations? A nice world you want to leave to our children...

1 Reply

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/pics/large/592.jpg

1 Reply

@buttflake,

Hmmm, this cartoon need the guy on the left to be in a tank and the guy on the right to have a pistol. Also you need to squeeze in 4 kids on a beach being killed by an air strike.

2 Replies

@hingehead,

Quote:

Hmmm, this cartoon need the guy on the left to be in a tank and the guy on the right to have a pistol. Also you need to squeeze in 4 kids on a beach being killed by an air strike.

The Fogel children were cutup in their sleep.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

People see what they want to see, and ignore what they want to ignore.

If a person's beliefs are contrary to reality, that person is delusional and their beliefs are invalid.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

The vast majority of Jews hail from ancestors that converted to Judaism. The idea of Jewish hereditariness is religious, it's not borne out by historical or biological facts.

DNA says otherwise.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

In the case of Afghanistan, the USSR came on a request of the national (communist) government. I think that too is legal and does not require a SC vote. The French did so in Mali recently.

You got to be kidding me as there was a coup to overthrow the then communist government of Afghanistan and that coup was engineer as a part of the invasion and was in no way "legal" if "legal" have any real meaning in nations actions.

Quote:

The UK Falkland war was perfectly legitimate even without a UN security council vote since it was in self-defense. Argentina's invasion was illegal though.

Like the Palestinians Argentina was claiming rights to those islands base on history and the actions of Israel is in self defense.

As I said legal and not legal is a very silly concept to try to apply to international matters.

Quote:

Hungary is yet another case. Not sure I remember well the details but the soviets tried to get a request in vain until they got it by force

If I remember correctly they got some very low level government official to ask them to come in and used that as their cover excused.

1 Reply

@buttflake,

There have been individual atrocities on both sides, and I bet I can match any you throw at me - that you can't see the big picture and only focus on one that suits your worldview is definitive proof that you have earned your A2K handle.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Quote:

There have been individual atrocities on both sides, and I bet I can match any you throw at me - that you can't see the big picture and only focus on one that suits your worldview is definitive proof that you have earned your A2K handle.

There is no view but the one dictated by Islamists. They are relentless and the world doesn't see that, or is scared to acknowledge it. Or is complicate. The Jews are only the beginning.

2 Replies

@buttflake,

700 years ago the world said the same thing about the christians. Hopefully the evolutionary process will be faster with this religion.

But you are going off topic - I don't see Israel/Palestine as a religious conflict, it's more about self-determination, nationhood, cultural survival.

0 Replies

@buttflake,

Ps even pro israeli sites state that the Palestinian death toll has been at least 3 times that of the Israelis since 1948.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

If a person's beliefs are contrary to reality, that person is delusional and their beliefs are invalid.

In the context of different people holding differing perspectives, a ridiculously pointless reply.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Ps even pro israeli sites state that the Palestinian death toll has been at least 3 times that of the Israelis since 1948.

That doesn't make it true.

But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that it was proven that the ratio was 1000 Palestinians to one Israeli. What would it matter?

Israel would still be entirely within their rights to defend themselves from Palestinian aggression.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

oralloy wrote:
If a person's beliefs are contrary to reality, that person is delusional and their beliefs are invalid.

In the context of different people holding differing perspectives, a ridiculously pointless reply.

No. The truth matters. If someone believes something that is not true, their belief is invalid.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Also you need to squeeze in 4 kids on a beach being killed by an air strike.

That's covered by the crib being in front of the gunman.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

No. The truth matters. If someone believes something that is not true, their belief is invalid.

Truth is a matter of perspective too. You show this every time you post. Hence why I said your other post was ridiculously pointless.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Truth is a matter of perspective too.

No. Truth is a matter of reality. Perspective has nothing to do with it.

vikorr wrote:

You show this every time you post.

I am fairly skilled at being correct when I speak. However, I am not infallible.

Those times when I am wrong about something, I am wrong. Reality does not bend itself just because I've said some words.

vikorr wrote:

Hence why I said your other post was ridiculously pointless.

Reality matters. Truth matters.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Like the Palestinians Argentina was claiming rights to those islands base on history and the actions of Israel is in self defense.

The colonisation of the West Bank and Golan is an act of aggression, not self-defense. The Israelis are just stealing land.

Quote:

As I said legal and not legal is a very silly concept to try to apply to international matters.

Then let Iran develop its nukes. Let Saddam invade Kuwait, etc. Doing otherwise would be "silly"...

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Then let Iran develop its nukes. Let Saddam invade Kuwait, etc. Doing otherwise would be "silly"...

Let???

It having any of the above happen is not in the best interest of the nations with the military and other powers to stop it then it will be stop.

So call international laws have nothing to do with it just as the Russian invasions of late is just as "illegal" as Saddam actions but no one is in a good position to stop those actions by military force so one invasion stand and one did not.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Let me give you an example of the real world and the limitations of so call international laws.

If for whatever reason the US decided to invade the friendly Canadians again and turn their lands into a US territory that would be completely illegal under so call international laws but there would be nothing at all that the UN or the rest of the world could or would do to reverse that seized.

So call international laws does not and can not be apply to powerful nations such as Russian or the US or Israel.

0 Replies

Israel's Reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know