Easy. The difference is that Iran signed the NPT and Israel didn't. Thanks for playing!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe an EK post that gets at the heart of the matter.
As we can ask the same exact question about Iran!
If Israel has the right to refuse to disclose they have actually have nukes, why should anyone give any credibility to the Israeli contention that the larger world should embargo and punish Iran, for "POSSIBLY" trying to develop a nuclear weapons program?
As I await the EK answer to the this question? As earth to EK, you can't have it both ways. Especially when the larger world community is sick of Israeli bullshit regarding a Palestinian State.
When the real issue of this thread, is will Israel leadership finally start to change and become a peace partner or will Israel leadership stay stuck on an a unsustainable stupidity that cannot last much longer?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe an EK post that gets at the heart of the matter.
As we can ask the same exact question about Iran!
If Israel has the right to refuse to disclose they have actually have nukes, why should anyone give any credibility to the Israeli contention that the larger world should embargo and punish Iran, for "POSSIBLY" trying to develop a nuclear weapons program?
As I await the EK answer to the this question? As earth to EK, you can't have it both ways. Especially when the larger world community is sick of Israeli bullshit regarding a Palestinian State.
When the real issue of this thread, is will Israel leadership finally start to change and become a peace partner or will Israel leadership stay stuck on an a unsustainable stupidity that cannot last much longer?
He chickened out, that jewboy israel state sympathizer!
on top of this, reagan recently cast doubt on the holocaust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIqRnLQ2GCY
Would you trust Iran with a nuke?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Peace is a two way street.
I saw a video not long ago of a mob of Palestinians dragging other Palestinians they thought were Israeli sympathizers through the street behind motorcycles.
Does this sound like a fertile environment for peace to you? I do not think it is at all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly agent11, I too have seen too much Israeli brutality towards Palestinians, Iranians, Iraqis, Egyptians, Syrians, not to mention the recent rapes of Lebanon and Gaza that still leave war crimes charges handing over Israel, to some how believe your bogus reasoning.
When the facts are and remains, all sides are the bad guys. We can't change a rotten past agent11, or expect either the Israelis or their opposition to win, we can only hope restoring a fairer justice in a acceptable compromise can lead to a win win compromise for most of the people of all sides.
As I can only sadly note, the only people winning big in the mid-east now are the Stateless terrorists of Al-Quida.
Notice how LL plugs his fingers in his ears and does the equivalent of "La lalalalala, I can't hear you!" whenever someone brings up the brutality and atrocities of the Palestinians, and pretends that only Israel is the sole party at fault in the issue?Peace is a two way street.
I saw a video not long ago of a mob of Palestinians dragging other Palestinians they thought were Israeli sympathizers through the street behind motorcycles.
Does this sound like a fertile environment for peace to you? I do not think it is at all.
And you dodge again. Here was the real meat of my post, LL:As I too have to love chicken man, who states, " Yeah. You can't reason with that kind of fool. It's a comlete waste of time. You can only ridicule them for their blindered, one-sided pov which is why so many in here do just that. "
Go right ahead chicken man, blame only ME, while you fail to observe, your POV is now in a distinct and a steadily shrinking minority in the larger world.
Earth to chicken man, do you really think if I drop dead of shame tomorrow, it will change anything?
Maybe you should look at the past 11/2012 UN general assembly findings instead? Or wonder about what will happen in future about what the UN Human rights council will do in the near future?
Or dare I hope, you chicken man will enter thee international debate, on the unassailable TLC thesis that if I, Lemon Law take a position, everyone in the world will agree I must be 100% wrong. Saving the world any further debate. Lots of luck on that one TLC.
And you dodge again. Here was the real meat of my post, LL:
"Notice how LL plugs his fingers in his ears and does the equivalent of "La lalalalala, I can't hear you!" whenever someone brings up the brutality and atrocities of the Palestinians, and pretends that only Israel is the sole party at fault in the issue?"
Keep evading, LL. It's exactly what the useful idiots do. So long as the fools like you keep doing that and pretend that the Palestinians are faultless and that Israel is solely at fault nothing will ever change.
I'll ask you some simple questions, LL:EK and TLC are birds of a feather, pretending only they understand Israeli Palestinian issues. And also pretending that somehow, that Israeli critics like me, don't understand that the Palestinians are not perfect either.
But I find it incredibly odd that EK and TLC attack only me and also pretend I am the cause of current and increasing Israeli negative international scrutiny. When the larger world pays no attention to me, and for that matter the larger world pays no attention to EK or TLC either.
But still we are talking about the future and not the past, which of us will be proved right in the end?
Or we can ask another question, if TLC and EK maintain I am wrong in saying the current Israeli strategy is untenable and my predictions are always wrong, maybe EK and TLC, can explain why Israeli came up on the losing end of the 11/2012 UN general assembly vote. And how it was a clear Israeli victory and a clear sign everyone in the world sides with Israel and its refusal to quit settling on land in disputed territories.
I eagerly await the EK and TLC answers to those questions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe an EK post that gets at the heart of the matter.
As we can ask the same exact question about Iran!
If Israel has the right to refuse to disclose they have actually have nukes, why should anyone give any credibility to the Israeli contention that the larger world should embargo and punish Iran, for "POSSIBLY" trying to develop a nuclear weapons program?
As I await the EK answer to the this question? As earth to EK, you can't have it both ways. Especially when the larger world community is sick of Israeli bullshit regarding a Palestinian State.
When the real issue of this thread, is will Israel leadership finally start to change and become a peace partner or will Israel leadership stay stuck on an a unsustainable stupidity that cannot last much longer?
He chickened out, that jewboy israel state sympathizer!
Easy. The difference is that Iran signed the NPT and Israel didn't. Thanks for playing!
EK and TLC are birds of a feather, pretending only they understand Israeli Palestinian issues. And also pretending that somehow, that Israeli critics like me, don't understand that the Palestinians are not perfect either.
But I find it incredibly odd that EK and TLC attack only me and also pretend I am the cause of current and increasing Israeli negative international scrutiny. When the larger world pays no attention to me, and for that matter the larger world pays no attention to EK or TLC either.
But still we are talking about the future and not the past, which of us will be proved right in the end?
Or we can ask another question, if TLC and EK maintain I am wrong in saying the current Israeli strategy is untenable and my predictions are always wrong, maybe EK and TLC, can explain why Israeli came up on the losing end of the 11/2012 UN general assembly vote. And how it was a clear Israeli victory and a clear sign everyone in the world sides with Israel and its refusal to quit settling on land in disputed territories.
I eagerly await the EK and TLC answers to those questions?
No, no such Palestinian "attitude (all areas)" against what they have already achieved -- statehood. Fabricated fluff by you to retain a falsified argumentative basis.Does LL realize that given the current Palestinian attitude (all areas) that having statehood would be the worst thing that they can do.
More disconnect from reality, as international law could place context into that of the aggressor and the rightful acts of defence. The nature of the crimes and actions against civilians certainly also come into play. At will, Israel already attacks, occupies, controls movement, arrests, detains, forcefully removes legal land holders, and colonises non-combatant civilians at will. All high international crimes. The recent Palestinian achievement to statehood makes such actions legally more challenging, as Israel is now the prime instigator and consistently acting in aggression upon a fellow state that now has the access and ability to appeal to a greater variety of international courts.It completely legitimizes any Israeli attack against any land that is part of the Palestinians state for the slightest transgression.
Well, again you are wrong as statehood has already been achieved. Statehood is derived from the recognition of such by other states and notable international bodies. Never has this required the absolute concensus from every state on this globe. Legally, statehood has already been achieved and the rights for an external people's self determination most certainly do not require the assenting voice from the likes of a lonely and criminally aggressive state such as Israel.When the Palestinians actually want peace (leadership as well as population) then they deserve a state; not until.
During the negotiations that led to the Rome Statute, a large number of states argued that the Court should be allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction. However, this proposal was defeated due in large part to opposition from the United States.[46] A compromise was reached, allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction only under the following limited circumstances:
- where the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party (or where the person's state has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court);
- where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party (or where the state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court); or
- where a situation is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council.[21]
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 fulfilment 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 Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment 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;
In 2010 then foreign affairs minister Lawrence Cannon raised some eyebrows when he condemned Israel's announcement to build 1,600 apartments in east Jerusalem, saying that "we feel that this is contrary to international law and therefore condemn it.
Definition of racial discrimination
According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[12]This definition does not make any difference between discrimination based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists.[13] Similarly, in British law the phrase racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin".[14]
and more, in direct relation to the ICCArticle II of the ICSPCA defines the crime of apartheid as below:
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,
Article II[1]
For the purpose of the present Convention, the term 'the crime of apartheid', which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:
- Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
- By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
- By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
- By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
- Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
- Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;
- Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
- Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.
ICC definition of the crime of apartheid
Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as:
Later in Article 7, the crime of apartheid is defined as:
Article 7Crimes against humanity
- For the purpose of this Statute, 'crime against humanity' means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
- Murder;
- Extermination;
- Enslavement;
- Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
- Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
- Torture;
- Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
- Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
- Enforced disappearance of persons;
- The crime of apartheid;
- Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.[15]
The 'crime of apartheid' means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.[15]
What Settlement. The loser of a conflict does not dictate the terms; it is the winner that dictates the terms and the loser has a choice of accepting it or not.Israel cannot dictate the terms for a settlement against a legally independent state. As it is increasingly becoming more isolated, it is quickly running out of time for how it may continue its state policy for expansion and colonisation