ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I think any 'tribunal' assembled to judge a sovereign nation should be made up of representatives known to be fair minded with good legal instincts from countries who as much as possible have no personal ax to grind with the country being judged. And I would want to see credible evidence that provided reasonable proof that a war crime was committed before any such tribunal was assembled.

I do not consider the UN to be a) fair minded b) credible or c) made up of people who are neutral re Israel and/or are not friendly to nations who have sworn to obliterate Israel.

Wouldn't a set of rules be necessary in order to determine whether or not those rules have been violated?

And, which nations would you consider to fulfill a), b) and c) ?

Sure a set of rules are necessary, but not rules that prohibit a nation from defending itself. Going back to the police analogy, should the police accept duty to serve and protect under a set of rules that prevent them from doing that and which put them at unacceptable risk while leaving the innocent completely unprotected? That is what I think the UN requires of Israel and I don't blame them for doing what they have to do to defend themselves. And until you can show me what they could do differently and still defend themselves, I will continue to defend them on that point.

What nations I would consider to fulfill it would be the USA and those nations who abstained from the condemnation of Israel on this last Gaza incident. There might be others. But those nations condemning Israel while comparatively giving Palestinian terrorists a pass should not ever be allowed to pass judgment on anybody.

What a contrast. Before it was obey or we bomb. Now its we bombed and can you please help us clear up the mess? If you dont help us we will isolate you [/b]

The axis of evil has been replace by the United States Britain and Israel forming the axis of pleading.

Using the police analogy, the police of a democratic state are not allowed to bomb a whole neighborhood to get one or two crooks.

Revel writes
Using the police analogy, the police of a democratic state are not allowed to bomb a whole neighborhood to get one or two crooks. el writes

The Police are allowed to do whatever is necessary to stop attacks on innocent victims even if it puts other innocent people at risk. If the police knew a mad bomber or arsonist or other mass murderer was holed up in an apartment building or a particular neighborhood and was plotting his next mass murder, do you think they would not go after the murderers just because civilians were present and somebody might get hurt or property might be damaged?

Foxfyre wrote:

Revel writes
Using the police analogy, the police of a democratic state are not allowed to bomb a whole neighborhood to get one or two crooks. el writes

The Police are allowed to do whatever is necessary to stop attacks on innocent victims even if it puts other innocent people at risk. If the police knew a mad bomber or arsonist or other mass murderer was holed up in an apartment building or a particular neighborhood and was plotting his next mass murder, do you think they would not go after the murderers just because civilians were present and somebody might get hurt or property might be damaged?

To get it clear: you, Foxfyre, say that in a democratic state the police is allowed to bomb a whole neighbourhood to get one or two crooks.

Thanks.

I've noticed the far-reaching differences of what the police is allowed in the USA and elsewhere.

That wasn't the question. But thanks for you sympathy.

The Police are allowed to do whatever is necessary to stop attacks on innocent victims even if it puts other innocent people at risk. If the police knew a mad bomber or arsonist or other mass murderer was holed up in an apartment building or a particular neighborhood and was plotting his next mass murder, do you think they would not go after the murderer just because other people were present and somebody might get hurt or property might be damaged?

Would you agree to the murderer having a say in what rules should apply in how the police should be allowed to come after him?

You didn't ask a question. You mischaracterized what I said and then presumably suggested that German police would act differently than American police in a situation in which people were being attacked. I don't really think they would, but that's what you seemed to be suggesting.

Thanks.

I've noticed the far-reaching differences of what the police is allowed in the USA and elsewhere.

I said the Police are allowed to do whatever is necessary to stop attacks on innocent victims.

obviously those things would be unnecessary then, huh?

obviously those things would be unnecessary then, huh?

Foxfyre wrote:

I said the Police are allowed to do whatever is necessary to stop attacks on innocent victims.

Well, I think you have to define that I but more. You seem to be saying that the police are not allowed to bomb a whole neighbourhood. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that the police are allowed to do, well, whatever is necessary. So where does "whatever is necessary" stop?

ican711nm wrote:

pachelbel wrote:

...

Britannica wrote:

2000 BC: First Canaanite Culture.
1400 BC: Eqypt conquers Palestine
1300 BC: First Israelite Culture.
1100 BC: First Philistine Culture (Philistra, evolved to the name Palestine).
1000 BC: Saul King of Israel (all Palestine except
................Philistra and Phoenicia).
0950 BC: Solomon King of Israel.
0721 BC: Israel conquered, but Judaea Continues.
0516 BC: 2nd Temple in Judaea.
0333 BC:The Greek, Alexander the Great Conquers
................Palestine.
0161 BC: Maccabaen Maximum Expansion of Judaea to
................conquer All Palestine Plus.
0135 BC: Maccabaen Maximum Expansion Ends.
0040 BC:The Romans conquer part of Palestine.
0073 AD: The Romans conquer Jerusalem and all resistance ceases.
0638 AD: Arabs conquer Jerusalem.
1099 AD: Crusaders conquer Palestine.
1187 AD: Saladin conquers Palestine.
1229 AD: Saladin/Crusader Treaty.
1244 AD: Turks conquer Palestine.
1516 AD: Ottoman Empire Begins Governing Palestine.
1831 AD: Egypt Conquers Palestine.
1841 AD: Ottoman Empire Again Conquers Palestine.
...
1918 AD: Ottoman Empire Ends Control of Palestine.
................British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.
1920 AD: 5 Jews killed 200 wounded in anti-zionist riots
................in Palestine.
1921 AD: 46 Jews killed 146 wounded in anti-zionist riots
................in Palestine.
1929 AD: 133 Jews killed 339 wounded
................116 Arabs killed 232 wounded.
1936 thru 39 AD: 329 Jews killed 857 wounded
.........................3,112 Arabs killed 1,775 wounded
............................135 Brits killed 386 wounded.
............................110 Arabs hanged 5,679 jailed.
1947 AD: UN resolution partitions Palestine into a Jewish
................State and into an Arab State.
1948 AD: Jews declare independence and establish the
................State of Israel.
................War breaks out between Jews defending Israel
................and Arabs attempting to invade Israel.
................State of Israel successfully defends itself and
................conquers part of Arab Palestine.

...

Quote:

On November 29, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favor of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. Both the United States and Soviet Union agreed on the resolution. In addition, pressure was exerted on some small countries by Zionist sympathizers in the United States.[4]
END

So, following your logic, you'd be ok giving Texas back to the Mexicans?

Neither the Jews nor the Arabs owned Palestine at the time of the UN resolution in 1947. The Jews were conquered and stopped owning Palestine in the 1st century. The Arabs were conquered and stopped owning Palestine in the 11th century. Based on that fact, the Arabs in 1948 did not give Palestine to anyone, since it wasn't theirs to give.

Arabs were ruled by the Turks. The British promised to liberate them. Check Lawrence of Arabia. The British lied and made colonies instead. Finally the Brits gave up their control of the Arabs. So the Palestinians, just like the Syrians, Lebanese and Iraqis/Iranians wanted their freedom from the French and British colonial imperialists. The UN suggested that they not accept independence but rather have their real estate taken by Jewish immigrants.

Put yourself in the Palestinians shoes -as a Texan- and see how an Arab would feel, if some other nation claimed any part of Texas based on some historical occupation of that same area. There were people living in what is now ISRAEL before the Jews were sent there. Connect the dots.

The people living in Palestine before 1947 UN resolution were Arabs, Jews and others. Additional Jews and additional Arabs came subsequently.

Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California were conquered by the Americans in the 19th century, but no one has since conquered the Americans. So the Americans still own Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California . Based on that fact, I would not be ok giving Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California back to the Mexicans. However, at least Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California are owned by the Americans and therefore are theirs to give or not give as they are free to choose.

That argument is similar to Hitler's - might makes right? Would you like a UN 'suggestion' to have someone take over your state?

The Jews conquered Palestine in the 2nd century BC. The Romans conquered Palestine in the 1st century AD. The Arabs conquered Palestine in the 7th century AD. The Europeans conquered Palestine in the 11th century AD. The Syrians conquered Palestine in 12th centtury AD. All of it, not excluding the conquering of Palestine by the Arabs, is an argument similar to Hitler's - might makes right?

Finally, the UN in the 20th century tried to solve the problem by voting instead of by conquering.

The Arabs gave nothing and proceeded to try to solve the problem the old fashion way; by Hitler's way; by conquering.

I would consider it awfully generous of the Arabs to 'give' land to people who had not controlled it since Roman times. The Arabs got screwed over and they are pissed off. I don't blame them a bit.

The Arabs haven't owned Palestine since the 11th century. What's their problem? Entitlement psychosis?

The Arabs owned it until the Turks took it away in the 1500's. After that the Turks controlled the Arabs until the Brits took them over in 1918. What's your problem? Truth avoidance?

Saladin
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9065015/Saladin
born 1137/38, Tikrit, Mesopotamia [now in Iraq]
died March 4, 1193, Damascus [now in Syria]
...
Arabic in full Salah al-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub ("Righteousness of the Faith, Joseph, Son of Job") , also called al-Malik al-Nasir Salah al-Din Yusuf I Muslim sultan of Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and Palestine, founder of the Ayyubid dynasty, and the most famous of Muslim heroes. In wars against the Christian Crusaders, he achieved great success with the capture of Jerusalem (Oct. 2, 1187), ending its nearly nine decades of occupation by the Franks.

Saladin was born into a prominent Kurdish family. On the night of his birth, his father, Najm al-Din Ayyub, gathered his family and moved to Aleppo, there entering the service of 'Imad al-Din Zangi ibn Aq Sonqur, the powerful Turkish governor in northern Syria.

His formal career began when he joined the staff of his uncle Asad al-Din Shirkuh, an important military commander under the emir Nur al-Din, who was the son and successor of Zangi. During three military expeditions led by Shirkuh into Egypt to prevent its falling to the Latin Christian (Frankish) rulers of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, a complex, three-way struggle developed between Amalric I, the king of Jerusalem; Shawar, the powerful vizier of the Egyptian Fatimid caliph; and Shirkuh. After Shirkuh's death and after ordering Shawar's assassination, Saladin, in 1169 at the age of 31, was appointed both commander of the Syrian troops in Egypt and vizier of the Fatimid caliph there. His relatively quick rise to power must be attributed not only to the clannish nepotism of his Kurdish family but also to his own emerging talents. As vizier of Egypt, he received the title "king" (malik), although he was generally known as the sultan.
...

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9056520/Nur-al-Din
Nur-al-Din
born February 1118
died May 15, 1174, Damascus [Syria]

in full Nur al-Din Abu al-Qasim Mahmud ibn 'Imad al-Din Zangi , also called Nureddin Muslim ruler who reorganized the armies of Syria and laid the foundations for the success of Saladin.
...