|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Israel is drunk on arrogance and flirting with disaster. |
I think you must have them confused with a certain theocracy that funds terrorist groups, is keen to develop nuclear weapons and has stated that Israel should be 'wiped off the map'. But, of course, it is Israel that is 'flirting with disaster'.
It is all Israel's fault isn't it? If only they would give the Palestinians there own state, everything would be fine. Well, it would be if you forget the fact that Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are committed to Israel's destruction, and so to is Iran. The committment by the other Arab states to peace with the Israelis is highly dubious.
I have little doubt that even if Israel did give up the West bank you are your ilk would quickly find another pretext to align yourselves, quite shamelessly, with the Jihadi soldiers in Tehran and across the Islamic world. Strange bedfellows indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Neither is flirting with disaster. Israel's biggest threat is the birth rate of muslims vs. jews.
No one is going to do squat to iran unfortunately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Neither is flirting with disaster. Israel's biggest threat is the birth rate of muslims vs. jews.
No one is going to do squat to iran unfortunately. |
Very true. US force is spent. Iran will prove why it belongs in the Axis of Evil because it has some opportunity. We might console ourselves with the fact that an invasion of Iran might have turned out ten times more cluster-fucked than Iraq, and it wouldn't be unwise. But on the other hand we might have held ourselves as a deterrent against both Iran and Iraq at full force. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robitusson
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Thailand
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sundubuman wrote: |
| robitusson wrote: |
Here we go again. The millions of Middle Easterners who emigrated to the places that you mentioned did not violently force the aboriginal inhabitants off their land, killing thousands and creating millions of refugees. They also did not illegally (under international law) further occupy the aboriginal peoples land and subject them to vicious and prolonged occupation. Fact: Israel is a colony. You might agree with it and thinks it's a marvellous idea but it is a colonising nation which is currently illegally occupying land exclusively for people of one race and not for any others. Good for you if you think it's great but the criticism levelled against Israel is well justified. For someone who is so insistent on being factual I doubt the Arabs of the region are "rabid", unless of course you're just being racist and ignorant. Go ahead, correct my view now. |
Seeing the world through "racism" glasses. If I called Germans in 1935 rabid, would I be racist?
And the people of Israel are speaking a language, Hebrew, that has been spoken and written in the land of Israel for more than 2000 years longer than Arabic. (there is no language written or spoken, called Palestinian)
Ponder that fact.
ALL OF the western hemisphere, and Australia and New Zealand are speaking European languages. Do you feel as vociferously against the presence of Australians in Australia, Canadians in Canada, Argentines in Argentina, Cubans in Cuba as you seem to be agitated by Israelis in Israel???
Because last time I checked nobody was speaking Spanish 3000 years ago in Chile, or English in Australia.....
And if you reserve your anti-colonialism fervor for Israel and not at all bothered by (most likely) the land of your birth....you are without doubt an anti-semite. |
So the Arabs in the Middle East are the same as the Germans in 1935??? Have I got that right? Secondly, what difference does it make that a certain language has been spoken in a certain area for a certain amount of time? Does this justify what the occupying forces are doing illegally in the West Bank? I never mentioned anything to do with Palestine or Palestinians so drop it. You're guess is wrong about the land of my birth and where I come from is irrelevant anyway. Why is being anti-colonial a bad thing? I don't understand why Israel is exempt from criticism and why the interests of people who choose to call themselves Palestinian, who have lived in the region for hundreds of years, are not worth considering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robitusson
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Thailand
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sundubuman wrote: |
and Robitusson...
Jews are not a race, and international law does not state it is illegal to settle population on a land won in war, unless the country that lost it, in this case Jordan, wants it back. Jordan has waved all claims to Judea and Samaria (the millenia old name for the land labeled West Bank for less than 40 years).
But these are FACTS, not anti-Israel lies that are so popular among leftist zombies.
I can see that you are taking your cues from folks like Hamas. |
No, Sundubhuman, I'm not taking any cues from Hamas. All 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza have been illegal, put there in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Is the Geneva Convention an Anti-Semitic, rabid-Arabic piece of legislation? International law is very clear on two basic principles: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the prohibition of the transfer of civilians (Jewish people who come from outside of Israel mostly) of the occupying Power to the occupied territory. Can I ask why do you think it is unreasonable (or akin to being a "leftist zombie") to make reasonable, comprehensible criticisms against a very successful and powerful nation with very powerful allies that is well able to look after itself? (I'm not talking about Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| robitusson wrote: |
| sundubuman wrote: |
and Robitusson...
Jews are not a race, and international law does not state it is illegal to settle population on a land won in war, unless the country that lost it, in this case Jordan, wants it back. Jordan has waved all claims to Judea and Samaria (the millenia old name for the land labeled West Bank for less than 40 years).
But these are FACTS, not anti-Israel lies that are so popular among leftist zombies.
I can see that you are taking your cues from folks like Hamas. |
No, Sundubhuman, I'm not taking any cues from Hamas. All 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza have been illegal, put there in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Is the Geneva Convention an Anti-Semitic, rabid-Arabic piece of legislation? International law is very clear on two basic principles: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the prohibition of the transfer of civilians (Jewish people who come from outside of Israel mostly) of the occupying Power to the occupied territory. Can I ask why do you think it is unreasonable (or akin to being a "leftist zombie") to make reasonable, comprehensible criticisms against a very successful and powerful nation with very powerful allies that is well able to look after itself? (I'm not talking about Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments.) |
While the Geneva convention may not be Anti-Semitic, someone who supports...oh say Ernest Zundel quite likely is, wouldn't you agree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robitusson
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Thailand
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| robitusson wrote: |
| sundubuman wrote: |
and Robitusson...
Jews are not a race, and international law does not state it is illegal to settle population on a land won in war, unless the country that lost it, in this case Jordan, wants it back. Jordan has waved all claims to Judea and Samaria (the millenia old name for the land labeled West Bank for less than 40 years).
But these are FACTS, not anti-Israel lies that are so popular among leftist zombies.
I can see that you are taking your cues from folks like Hamas. |
No, Sundubhuman, I'm not taking any cues from Hamas. All 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza have been illegal, put there in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Is the Geneva Convention an Anti-Semitic, rabid-Arabic piece of legislation? International law is very clear on two basic principles: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the prohibition of the transfer of civilians (Jewish people who come from outside of Israel mostly) of the occupying Power to the occupied territory. Can I ask why do you think it is unreasonable (or akin to being a "leftist zombie") to make reasonable, comprehensible criticisms against a very successful and powerful nation with very powerful allies that is well able to look after itself? (I'm not talking about Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments.) |
While the Geneva convention may not be Anti-Semitic, someone who supports...oh say Ernest Zundel quite likely is, wouldn't you agree? |
Quite likely indeed. Someone who supports Ernst Zundels and Norman Finkelsteins and Noam Chomskys and Robert Faurissons rights to question anything they see fit in a peaceful manner is not anti-semitic. Instead it's a convenient label used by people to avoid listening to genuine criticism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why don't you just stand up and say what you mean?
You have defended Holocaust deniers, so now it's your turn. What is your opinion on the Holocaust?
I believe it happened. Do YOU? Yes or no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robitusson
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Thailand
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Why don't you just stand up and say what you mean?
You have defended Holocaust deniers, so now it's your turn. What is your opinion on the Holocaust?
I believe it happened. Do YOU? Yes or no? |
My opinion is the position of the Holocaust now is that it has become an ideology which is being exploited for political and financial gain, including people like Irving and Zundel, although largely by people who are not so obviously self-serving and bigotted as them. The actual historical holocaust is a seperate issue which nobody on this site, including me, has questioned as to whether it happened or not. So yes, of course it happened but it is not unique and does not entitle any one group or race to any kind of special morally-exempt victim status. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robitusson
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Thailand
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Why don't you just stand up and say what you mean?
You have defended Holocaust deniers, so now it's your turn. What is your opinion on the Holocaust?
I believe it happened. Do YOU? Yes or no? |
My opinion is the position of the Holocaust now is that it has become an ideology which is being exploited for political and financial gain, including by people like Irving and Zundel, although largely by people who are not so obviously self-serving and bigotted as them. The actual historical holocaust is a seperate issue which nobody on this site, including me, has questioned as to whether it happened or not. So yes, of course it happened but it is not unique and does not entitle any one group or race to any kind of special morally-exempt victim status. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| may you rot in peace......... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| robitusson wrote: |
| No, Sundubhuman, I'm not taking any cues from Hamas. All 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza have been illegal, put there in violation of the Geneva Conventions. |
Perhaps we are reading different declared agreements of the conventions, but the ones I've read say nothing about settlers being illegal. Especially since the settlers in question are settling in land belonging to no-one.
The actual issue before the Geneva conventions is that of citizenship. The agreement calls for either returning the land the conquered people are living on to the original country, or making them full citizens of the conquering country. Jordan doesn't want the land back (since the area was involved in a minor uprising against Jordan before anyway), and Isreal doesn't want to incorporate the population or the territory as a whole into Isreal. So the whole area sits in legal limbo. A lot people would like the entire conquered region to be turned into a new country, but there is no legal requirement to turn it all over.
Though if I am have misread something, I would appreciate it if you could cite the passage I missed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robitusson
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Thailand
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
| robitusson wrote: |
| No, Sundubhuman, I'm not taking any cues from Hamas. All 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza have been illegal, put there in violation of the Geneva Conventions. |
Perhaps we are reading different declared agreements of the conventions, but the ones I've read say nothing about settlers being illegal. Especially since the settlers in question are settling in land belonging to no-one.
The actual issue before the Geneva conventions is that of citizenship. The agreement calls for either returning the land the conquered people are living on to the original country, or making them full citizens of the conquering country. Jordan doesn't want the land back (since the area was involved in a minor uprising against Jordan before anyway), and Isreal doesn't want to incorporate the population or the territory as a whole into Isreal. So the whole area sits in legal limbo. A lot people would like the entire conquered region to be turned into a new country, but there is no legal requirement to turn it all over.
Though if I am have misread something, I would appreciate it if you could cite the passage I missed. |
There's plenty of information on this on the net. Here's some quotes from various websites. The relevant part is about the transfer of an occupying powers citizens to occupied territories.
There is a specific body of international humanitarian law that governs Israel's administration of the Palestinian territories it has occupied since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. The law is codified in the Hague Regulations of 1907 (Regulations Appended to the Fourth Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Annexed Regulations, 1907) and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of War, 1949). The international community, including the United States as discussed in the State Department's annual survey of human rights violations, considers Israel's authority in the occupied Palestinian territories to be subject to these Conventions as a matter of customary international law. Customary law provides that even if a country is not a party to a particular treaty, it may still be bound by the terms of the treaty if it is intended for adherence by states generally and is in fact widely accepted in the international community. Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically states that it applies "to all cases of partial or total occupation."
Despite this international consensus regarding the applicability of these Conventions to Israel's occupation, and despite the explicit statement in Article 2 of the Geneva Convention that it applies "to all cases of partial or total occupation," Israel contends that the Fourth Geneva Convention is not fully applicable in the occupied territories. However, in recent decisions of the Israeli Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice, the Court has assumed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention and has based its decisions in part on the provisions of that Convention.(12) Israel has generally conceded the application of the Hague Regulations to its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
The rules governing the behaviour of an occupying power are laid down in the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), relating to the protection of civilians in time of war, to which Israel is a high contracting party. The convention is a cornerstone of international humanitarian law. It sets basic legal standards for the treatment of civilians during armed conflict or under occupation. It bans indiscriminate use of force against civilians, wanton destruction of property, torture, collective punishment, the annexation of occupied territory, and the establishment of settlements or colonies on occupied land. It requires that all high contracting parties ensure that the convention is respected and that those who commit war crimes are brought judicially to account.
Alone among the 189 high contracting parties (states signatory to the convention), Israel has throughout its 35-year occupation refused to recognize the legal applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN have consistently maintained that the convention applies fully to the occupied territories and that the Palestinians are a protected population under its terms. The abortive Oslo "peace process" has not changed their status in this regard. They may not be killed, tortured, ill-treated or suffer humiliating and degrading treatment. They may not be deported. Their property may not be destroyed unless "rendered absolutely necessary by military operations". Collective punishment and reprisals are prohibited. Israel may not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Article 147 spells out a list of "grave breaches" of the convention.
Under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions constitute war crimes.
Apart from the Geneva Convention breaches here's some information on the UN resolutions which Israel breaches also.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ba123cded3ea84a5852560e50077c2dc!OpenDocument
http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robitusson
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Thailand
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
| robitusson wrote: |
| No, Sundubhuman, I'm not taking any cues from Hamas. All 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza have been illegal, put there in violation of the Geneva Conventions. |
Perhaps we are reading different declared agreements of the conventions, but the ones I've read say nothing about settlers being illegal. Especially since the settlers in question are settling in land belonging to no-one.
The actual issue before the Geneva conventions is that of citizenship. The agreement calls for either returning the land the conquered people are living on to the original country, or making them full citizens of the conquering country. Jordan doesn't want the land back (since the area was involved in a minor uprising against Jordan before anyway), and Isreal doesn't want to incorporate the population or the territory as a whole into Isreal. So the whole area sits in legal limbo. A lot people would like the entire conquered region to be turned into a new country, but there is no legal requirement to turn it all over.
Though if I am have misread something, I would appreciate it if you could cite the passage I missed. |
There's plenty of information on this on the net. Here's some quotes from various websites. The relevant part is about the transfer of an occupying powers citizens to occupied territories.
There is a specific body of international humanitarian law that governs Israel's administration of the Palestinian territories it has occupied since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. The law is codified in the Hague Regulations of 1907 (Regulations Appended to the Fourth Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Annexed Regulations, 1907) and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of War, 1949). The international community, including the United States as discussed in the State Department's annual survey of human rights violations, considers Israel's authority in the occupied Palestinian territories to be subject to these Conventions as a matter of customary international law. Customary law provides that even if a country is not a party to a particular treaty, it may still be bound by the terms of the treaty if it is intended for adherence by states generally and is in fact widely accepted in the international community. Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically states that it applies "to all cases of partial or total occupation."
Despite this international consensus regarding the applicability of these Conventions to Israel's occupation, and despite the explicit statement in Article 2 of the Geneva Convention that it applies "to all cases of partial or total occupation," Israel contends that the Fourth Geneva Convention is not fully applicable in the occupied territories. However, in recent decisions of the Israeli Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice, the Court has assumed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention and has based its decisions in part on the provisions of that Convention.(12) Israel has generally conceded the application of the Hague Regulations to its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
The rules governing the behaviour of an occupying power are laid down in the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), relating to the protection of civilians in time of war, to which Israel is a high contracting party. The convention is a cornerstone of international humanitarian law. It sets basic legal standards for the treatment of civilians during armed conflict or under occupation. It bans indiscriminate use of force against civilians, wanton destruction of property, torture, collective punishment, the annexation of occupied territory, and the establishment of settlements or colonies on occupied land. It requires that all high contracting parties ensure that the convention is respected and that those who commit war crimes are brought judicially to account.
Alone among the 189 high contracting parties (states signatory to the convention), Israel has throughout its 35-year occupation refused to recognize the legal applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN have consistently maintained that the convention applies fully to the occupied territories and that the Palestinians are a protected population under its terms. The abortive Oslo "peace process" has not changed their status in this regard. They may not be killed, tortured, ill-treated or suffer humiliating and degrading treatment. They may not be deported. Their property may not be destroyed unless "rendered absolutely necessary by military operations". Collective punishment and reprisals are prohibited. Israel may not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Article 147 spells out a list of "grave breaches" of the convention.
Under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions constitute war crimes.
Apart from the Geneva Convention breaches here's some information on the UN resolutions which Israel breaches also.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ba123cded3ea84a5852560e50077c2dc!OpenDocument
http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
c1204887
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:58 am Post subject: jacko |
|
|
Is that where Jacko is going next then. I couldn't believe what I read about him on another thread, hating Jews. He is on a PR suicide mission, do him and Tom Cruise have the same publicist now?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
