|
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 |
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| robitusson wrote: |
| 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. |
I agree that Israel has been pretty uncool with the way it collectively punishes, for example:
http://aog.2y.net/news_pics/WestBank1.jpg
http://aog.2y.net/news_pics/WestBank2.jpg
http://aog.2y.net/news_pics/WestBank3.jpg
Picture 1: Apartment building being blown up because a Hamas leader was barricaded inside and refused to come out. Everyone was warned that it was going to happen, and the building was evacuated.
Picture 2: The debris.
Picture 3: Father and daughter, now homeless.
However, the Fourth Geneva Convention, http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument , says that you aren't suppose to take personal property for kicks (rather it should be limited to military reasons). It says nothing about using formally state-owned land for new colonies. And it says nothing against establishing new colonies on the now state-owned land.
As I said before, perhaps I just missed it. Would you be so kind as to tell me the exact section that prohibits using state land for new colonies?
Though there is some dispute over property abandoned in Jerusalem. Specifically, the descendants of many people who fled because they feared prosecution want a "right of return" for all the descendants and their abandoned property returned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There would be no occupation if Arafat hadn't turned down Bill Clinton's offer.
95%of the settlements are illegal - however Israel's occupation probably isn't. It certainly wasn't illegal while Arafat was alive. The Palestinian side is under a military occupation but that is because there is a war going on.
Furthermore the occupation itself is the result of an arguably defensive war in 1967.
At any rate the tactics of Israel's army are far less harsh than the tactics of Israel's enemies.
The occupation is a consequence of war. If / and when the war is over then the occupation should end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robitusson
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Thailand
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
| robitusson wrote: |
| 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. |
I agree that Israel has been pretty uncool with the way it collectively punishes, for example:
http://aog.2y.net/news_pics/WestBank1.jpg
http://aog.2y.net/news_pics/WestBank2.jpg
http://aog.2y.net/news_pics/WestBank3.jpg
Picture 1: Apartment building being blown up because a Hamas leader was barricaded inside and refused to come out. Everyone was warned that it was going to happen, and the building was evacuated.
Picture 2: The debris.
Picture 3: Father and daughter, now homeless.
However, the Fourth Geneva Convention, http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument , says that you aren't suppose to take personal property for kicks (rather it should be limited to military reasons). It says nothing about using formally state-owned land for new colonies. And it says nothing against establishing new colonies on the now state-owned land.
As I said before, perhaps I just missed it. Would you be so kind as to tell me the exact section that prohibits using state land for new colonies?
Though there is some dispute over property abandoned in Jerusalem. Specifically, the descendants of many people who fled because they feared prosecution want a "right of return" for all the descendants and their abandoned property returned. |
I couldn't see anything about it either in the link you posted either. I don't know what section is relevant to which warcrime or illegal action. I presume you'd have to be a barrister or solicitor to fully understand the legal ins and outs of the situation. This article deals with dispute over whether or not the occupation is illegal or not. It's worth a look.
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/2411.htm
I think in reality the law of the jungle applies anyway. If you can take something off something else and if you can keep it, it's yours, although the person or people doing it can't claim to be very civilised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| UN resolution 242 says something like land for peace - what it does not say is unilateral withdrawal for nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran, whose president has labeled the attempt by Nazi Germany to exterminate Jews during World War II a "myth" and called for the destruction of Israel, announced Sunday it will hold a conference on the Holocaust.
"There will be a conference that will research the topic of the Holocaust and all its dimensions in the future," according to a statement on the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).
The statement did not say when the meeting would take place or who would be involved but said it would be sponsored by Iran's Foreign Ministry and the Organization of the Islamic Conference "and in consultation with other countries to pursue this issue."
Last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech, "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred, and place this above God, religions and the prophets."
He added, "The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews."
He argued that the "myth" of the Holocaust served as Europe's pretext for the existence of Israel.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, President Bush, and many European officials condemned the remarks. Israeli officials also said Iran was ignoring the biblical Jewish homeland and thousands of years of Jewish history.
Ahmadinejad's remarks about the Holocaust and calls for the destruction of Israel play out in the showdown over his nation's nuclear intentions.
U.S. and European officials have expressed concern that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon under the guise of restarting its nuclear reactors for peaceful energy purposes. Tehran insists it has the right to build nuclear fuel.
Britain, France and Germany -- the so-called EU-3, which conducted failed negotiations with Iran -- along with the United States want the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, to turn the issue over to the U.N. Security Council.
"The current president of Iran has announced that the destruction of Israel is an important part of their agenda, and that's unacceptable," President Bush said Friday at the White House, at an appearance with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"And the development of a nuclear weapon, it seems like to me, would make him a step closer to achieving that objective." |
It looks to me like many people are treating the Iranian regime much like Chamberlain treated the Nazi regime in the 1930s, hoping to talk rather than take a firm position in the early stages.
Yet this regime has stated that it wants Israel gone, it is attempting, in its own way, to undermine what is sees as the premise underlying Western support for Israel, and it is developing nuclear weapons.
People criticize many Western European and U.S. leaders for having appeased Hitler after he had laid out his plans for Eastern Europe and the Jews in his diatribe/autobiography. Now people are hoping to negotiate with the Iranian regime over its nuclear weapons program, and not wanting to link it too directly with its overt calls for and premilinary steps designed to justify the destruction of Israel.
I am afraid this will probably end in war. Best to wage this war before the Iranian regime completes its nuclear weapons program.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/15/iran.holocaust/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
except
1. The US is stuck in Iraq (another reason it shouldn't have invaded)
2. The rest of the world is gutless
I don't think we'll be seeing war anytime soon. Israel might try to launch a strike against Iran, but that's about all I can forsee. I think arab countries would complain but secretly breath a sigh of relief. They don't want Iran to have nukes any more than anyone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right on the bogged down issue. Right that Iraq was a terrible idea to begin with and should never have been done. But there are other options.
If I were President, one thing I might consider is getting as many on board as I could, namely Britain, France, Germany. (Russia and China will most likely side with Iran.) Then I'd issue an ultimatum to Iran: we don't want to interfere in your politics or overthrow your regime, but we will not tolerate your nuclear weapons program. Close it down forthwith.
Failing to do that I'd send stealth aircraft armed with low-yield nuclear weapons to close it for them, permanently.
There would be serious negative consequences in doing this. It would harm us, exacerbate the situation in Iraq, exacerbate our already fragile position in the world, and cause oil-related problems without a doubt. But enough is enough. This guy's intent to arm his country with nukes and his intentions towards Israel are pretty clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jesus. H. Christ.
What's with the goddam noobs and their HUGE avatars, and posting the same long-ass post TWICE.
For f**k's sake, get a goddam clue. Damn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waggo
Joined: 18 May 2003
Location: pusan baby!
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
except
1. The US is stuck in Iraq (another reason it shouldn't have invaded)
2. The rest of the world is gutless
I don't think we'll be seeing war anytime soon. Israel might try to launch a strike against Iran, but that's about all I can forsee. I think arab countries would complain but secretly breath a sigh of relief. They don't want Iran to have nukes any more than anyone else. |
Er...If Israel does strike against Iran that is a war right there isnt it????
Was it the Russians who sold Iran nuclear technology? Or was it that pakistani guy?
Im sure I read it was the Russians.What on earth were they thinking off? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| waggo wrote: |
| Er...If Israel does strike against Iran that is a war right there isnt it???? |
They hit Iraq in 1981 for the same reason, and it did not turn into a war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| exactly. The US has launched strikes numerous times against other countries. Wouldn't consider those one-time actions as "war." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CNN has been thrown out of Iran...
| Quote: |
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's government banned CNN journalists from working in the country Monday after a translation error broadcast by CNN mistakenly quoted Iran's president as saying his nation has the right to build nuclear weapons, the state-run news agency said.
CNN was not informed directly by the Iranian government that it was banned from the country.
The dispute arises from a moment of simultaneous translation Saturday.
As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was speaking, an interpreter working for a translation company hired by CNN misquoted him as having said Iran has the right to build nuclear weapons.
In fact, he said Iran has the right to nuclear energy, and that "a nation that has civilization does not need nuclear weapons." He added, "Our nation does not need them."
The incorrect translation was aired on CNN later Saturday.
As soon as it was alerted to the error, CNN on Sunday corrected the translation and clarified Ahmadinejad's remarks. The network also apologized.
In a written statement, CNN said it "apologized on all its platforms which included the translation error, including CNN International, CNNUSA and CNN.com, and also expressed its regrets to the Iranian government and the Iranian ambassador to the U.N."
But the Iranian government, in the report by the state news agency IRNA, said it took a punitive measure against CNN, invalidating press cards of CNN journalists in Tehran.
The Foreign Press Department of the Ministry of Culture and the Islamic Guidance said it will not extend permits to CNN journalists because of the violation of "professional ethics," the IRNA report said.
The network, in its statement, said, "CNN is very disappointed that this action has been taken."
The translation company, Lesley Howard Languages, apologized to CNN.
"Obviously, we're taking it very, very seriously. We will never use him again," said owner Lesley Howard, referring to the interpreter.
She said the same interpreter, who like other interpreters is contracted for individual projects, has done good work in the past, including for CNN.
She added that there is no reason to believe the interpreter purposely gave the wrong translation.
"We pride ourselves on having incredibly high standards," Howard said. |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/16/iran.cnn/index.html
Just wanted to put this story here for future ref...
| Quote: |
(CNN) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has expressed "dismay" over the Iranian president's comments urging the destruction of Israel.
Annan, in a statement issued Thursday, reminded "all member states that Israel is a long-standing member of the United Nations with the same rights and obligations as every other member."
It added that "under the United Nations Charter, all members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday lambasted Israel and Zionism and quoted the late Ayatollah Khomeini calling for Israel to be "wiped out from the map."
In response, Israel's prime minister has suggested that Tehran should be expelled from the United Nations.
Ariel Sharon, in remarks issued Thursday by the Israeli government press office, said he believes any country that calls for the destruction of another cannot be a member of the United Nations.
The U.N. statement didn't address that contention.
But it said Annan "had already decided to visit Iran during the next few weeks, to discuss other issues.
"He now intends to place the Middle East peace process, and the right of all states in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force, at the top of his agenda for that visit."
Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday called comments by Iran's president "completely and totally unacceptable."
"I felt a real sense of revulsion at those remarks," said Blair, who spoke at a press briefing after a European Union summit near London.
"There has been a long time in which I've been answering questions on Iran with everyone saying to me 'tell us you're not going to do anything about Iran,'" he said.
"If they carry on like this, the question people are going to be asking us is, 'When are you going to do something about this,' because you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having a nuclear weapon."
Ahmadinejad comments were made during a meeting with protesting students at Iran's Interior Ministry.
He quoted a remark from Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."
The president then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by Iran's state news outlet, the Islamic Republic News Agency.
The remarks by Ahmadinejad coincided with a month-long protest against Israel called "World Without Zionism" and with the approach of Jerusalem Day.
In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Ahmadinejad's views "underscores our concern and the international community's concerns about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons."
Ottawa also issued a strong rebuke, with Canadian Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew saying: "We cannot tolerate comments of such hatred, such anti-Semitism, such intolerance. These comments are all the more troubling given that we know of Iran's nuclear ambitions."
'Completely unacceptable'
Across Europe, the reaction was equally strong.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said Thursday he condemned the Iranian statement "absolutely."
"It is a completely unacceptable statement, of course. We should respect borders and respect the integrity of Israel, and we want Israel to live in peace with its neighbors," he told BBC radio.
Asked whether he believed that Iran should be expelled from the U.N., Barroso said: "I condemn absolutely that statement, but I will not make any concrete proposal now."
In Paris, Ahmadinejad's comments prompted the French foreign minister to summon the Iranian ambassador for an explanation. France, along with Germany and Britain, has been involved in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said he learned about Ahmadinejad's comments from news reports.
"If these comments are correct, they are unacceptable. I greatly condemn them and have asked for the Iranian ambassador in Paris to be summoned to the Foreign Ministry to demand explanations," Douste-Blazy said.
"For France, the right for Israel to exist should not be contested. This state was created by a decision of the U.N. General Assembly. International law applies to all. The question of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be used as a pretext to put into question the fundamental right for Israel to exist."
Foreign ministries in Berlin, Madrid and Rome also made their opposition to Ahmadinejad's remarks known to Iran's representatives in their countries, AP reported.
Spain summoned the Iranian ambassador in Madrid to protest the comments, while the German Foreign Ministry summoned a representative of the Iranian Embassy to underline Berlin's opposition to the remarks.
Italy said the remarks confirmed concerns over Tehran's nuclear program, and that the Foreign Ministry had expressed "discomfort and concern to the Iranian ambassador in Rome."
"The contents and tone of such unacceptable statements confirm worries over the political positions pursued by the new Iranian leadership, especially concerning the nuclear dossier," a statement from Rome said. |
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/ahmadinejad.reaction/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4382594.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ahmadinejad comes across as an immature hothead without international experience, a village idiot thrust into global spotlight. Pity for Iran to have such an irrational leader, trying to make a name for himself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sooke
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Location: korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| Ahmadinejad comes across as an immature hothead without international experience, a village idiot thrust into global spotlight. Pity for Iran to have such an irrational leader, trying to make a name for himself. |
Hmmmm. Where have I heard that before?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ahmadinejad's friends
Lunatic Jews who visited Tehran must have dressed up as rabbis for Purim
Noah Kliger
Five crazy Jews traveled to Iran Monday to show support for another lunatic, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Apparently in honor of Purim, they dressed up as rabbis.
They shook hands with the madman of Tehran, in support not only of his calls to destroy Israel, but also of his frequent Holocaust denial.
Iran Visit
Neturei Karta in Iran: Zionists use Holocaust / Roee Nahmias
In statements to Iranian radio, locals, anti-Zionist rabbis circulated their ideas against Israel. ��We came to Teheran to clarify that Israel does not represent all Jews,' said one of visiting rabbis
If I hadn't read the words of this group of Neturei Karta folks myself, I would never have believed that a Jew, even an insane one, would have had the gumption to utter such frightening, libelous statements against his own brethren – against the millions who were slaughtered by the Germans, simply because they were Jews, and against the all the women, children and elderly who choked to death in gas chambers or were shot at point-blank range into self-dug graves.
Holocaust manipulation?
How could five extremists support Holocaust denial and completely close their eyes to the hundreds of thousands of Jews, haredim (ultra-Orthodox) like them, whose faith failed to save them?
Their claim that "the Zionists have manipulated the Holocaust" also doesn't hold, for the mere fact that Ahmadinejad claims the Holocaust was a fictitious invention of the Jews, intended to bribe the world. That is to say, by voicing their support, these clowns have lent their support to the opinion that the Holocaust never happened.
The group also claims that "What the Zionists are doing with the Holocaust angers the Arabs, who bear no guilt for the what the Europeans did to the Jewish people." But there is a fundamental contraction here: either there was no Holocaust, as Ahmadinejad says, or there was a Holocaust, but it is a European-Jewish issue that is unrelated to the Arabs. But what do fanatics care about logic?
Arabs and the Holocaust
And lest I remind here that there was, in fact, a connection between the Arabs and the Holocaust. As far as I know Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was both Arab and a fervent supporter of Adolf Hitler. He not only visited Hitler and spoke to him many times; he also established a unit of Arab volunteers to assist the S.S. in its work.
By the way, it's not only the Holocaust denier in Iran these lunatics support. They also support David Irving, the Briton who was recently sentenced to three years imprisonment for Holocaust denial.
In my opening paragraph I wrote that these men had dressed up as rabbis. I'll tell you why I think so: As a Jew, whose roots lead to Auschwitz and as a direct descendant of Rabbi Yonatan Eibschitz and Rabbi Shlomo Kliger, I simply refuse to believe that rabbis could act and speak in the manner of these Jewish Holocaust deniers.
Jewish history has known no shortage of vile lunatics such as these men. It has vomited all of them out.
(03.13.06, 16:45)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3227231,00.html |
|
| 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
