The Obama administration at the U.N.
Bookworm on Feb 18 2011 at 7:05 pm | Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, Israel, United Nations
I’m so upset about what happened at the UN today, I can’t speak (or write). Hot Air explains what happened: after casting a veto against the Security Council’s vote on Israeli settlements, the U.S.’s Ambassador, Susan Rice, launched into a vitriolic attack that would have come easily from the lips of the Syrian or Iranian representative.
Omri Ceren wonders what Rice was trying to accomplishment. While Rice and Obama may be confused in a hate-filled way, J.E. Dyer explains that the Islamic totalitarians in the Middle East understand that Rice just fired the starting gun in the race to Jerusalem.
And lastly, Jennifer Rubin points out that, whether because they were blinded by the Obama shell game (diddle around with the vote and then give an ugly speech) or because they’ve got their heads buried in their derrieres, Jewish groups in America haven’t made a peep about Rice’s appalling speech. (By the way, Rubin notes the silence; I editorialized about the heads going where the sun don’t shine.)
I’m just sick about this. I warned every Jew I knew what they could expect from Obama, but did they listen? No! Next to blacks, they were the largest single group to cast the majority of their votes for him. Idiots! Idiots!
But of course, if the semi-oil rich Middle East goes rogue on Obama’s watch, we all suffer, not just the Jews.
Idiots!
Email This Post To A Friend
96 Responses to “The Obama administration at the U.N.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you had any doubts, HRC, falls in line.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Israeli settlements “illegitimate” shortly before the United States vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning continued Israeli settlement expansion as illegal.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-israeli-settlements-illegitimate/story?id=12952834
Bookworm … I am beyond frothing at the mouth and livid beyond contempt. Only once in my life have I so detested (hated with such drive that I prayed and wished for death to a victim) YES, victim because within 90 days, my prayers were answered.
Excuse me … it’s time to pray, again.
“By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion. On the willows there we hung up our lyres”
“If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy.”
“Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem! Praise your God, O Zion!”
Posted to my facebook page with a link to here and the following message:
Dear Obama Democrats – how’s that social justice thing working for you now?
By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion. On the willows there we hung up our lyres.
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy.”
Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem! Praise your God, O Zion!
Thank you, SADIE, for reminding me of one of the most beautiful passages ever written.
Thank you, Charles, for setting the psalm in bold.
The vast majority of the world’s countries consider the settlements illegal, destabilizing and detrimental to the peace process. Do you have reason to think otherwise?
Stupidity never deserves to be dignified with a response.
A vast majority of the world’s countries consider you to be a non-muslim. Should we believe otherwise?
The vast majority of the world’s Muslims consider women to be inferior, sexually provocative and detrimental to men’s thinking process. Do you have reason to think otherwise?
Not bad for being to upset to write.
O/T, My apologies, but I can’t seem to find that e-mail button. JD Adams departed this life in the Lord at nine o’clock this evening. Thank you all for the prayers. He died at home, with his daughter and two of his nieces around him. He saw his son, grandson, and great grandson a little less than a week ago. He’d been alert and lucid until earlier today, and died without pain. His faith was deep and simple, with no room for frills. No service is planned.
Book, kindly delete this or move it to a more suitable location, at your convenience.
I will, of course, delete your comment if you want, Michael, but it seems to me that your friends here who prayed for him will want to offer you their condolences. You certainly have mine. I’m terribly sorry, although it sounds as if he lived as good a life, and died as good a death, as anyone could ever wish. We’ve already had one psalm on this string. Perhaps one of my readers knows of another that is appropriate to the circumstances.
Michael Adams, I am so sorry. May the Holy Spirit be of great comfort you family in this time of sorrow and transition.
I have not had time to statistically poll the vaste majority of the world to know how it thinks, but I suspect that the vaste majority of the world is either pretty oblivious or very much informed about the issue of Israeli settlements in the disputed territories. I also suspect that if I polled the average Mahmoud or Achmed in the Middle East or the average Buffy and Biff on your average American campus about the issues, they would be singularly ignorant thereof.
That being said, I frankly don’t give two figs about how the majority of the world thinks, especially not its elites, which I have found in general to be a pretty crass, greedy, self-absorbed, racist, misogynist, anti-semitic bunch.
I rather like to be able to think for myself, rather than trying to keep up appearances with the herd. Others, of course, are welcome to huff and puff in frantic haste to conform to the herd’s command. But then, they should please not demand that we respect them for their conformism.
As far as I am concerned, the Palestinians (as a group) long ago relinquished any right to be respected or to have their own country. They (and I use this term in a very general term) have made it quite clear that their only objective is the destruction of the Jews.
They (and I use this term in a very general term) have made it quite clear that their only objective is the destruction of the Jews.
If they wish so mightily for war, war it shall be.
So what happens if a major war involving Israel breaks out, under circumstances that kindle Obama’s anger at that country? (And it seems that almost everything does.) Would Obama go so far as to cut off the flow of US-supplied ammunition, spare parts, etc? I think it’s definitely within the realm of possibility.
Don’t hold back, now, Danny. Your writing is good, but this was among the best.
Thanks for your kind words, both of you. He did have a good life and he left the way he wanted to leave. We recently restored the old home movies, in which he looked young and slim, and had the arrogant, graceful moves of a very good baseball player.. Fifty years on, I could kick myself that we never got a shot of him pitching. At any rate, just before I awoke this morning, I dreamed about him, looking that way. I hope that they let him throw knuckle balls in Heaven.
Until recent years I’ve wondered how a holocaust could happen assisted by those to be exterinated, but observing recent historical actions by American Jews it is no longer a mystery and indeed may happen again. The failure to recognize one’s true enemies and constantly insult and disparage the only allies you have lies heavily upon American Jews. Perhaps it is a genetic disorder such as Tay-Sachs. I remember remarks made in the film “Ship of Fools” when a Jewish man who did not fear Hitler commented; “after all what is he going to do, kill us all” and laughed. CHILLING! And the thousands of German Jews who had received decorations in the First World War feeling they had nothing to fear. FATAL!
“And the thousands of German Jews who had received decorations in the First World War feeling they had nothing to fear”
It’s especially chilling to realize that up through the late 1920s, Germany was viewed by East-European Jews as a **refuge**, and there was a significant influx of immigrants from such countries. Although there was certainly plenty of historical anti-Semitism in Germany, it’s doubtful that there was any more than there was, in, say, France. (Dreyfus case, for instance) The point being that cultures can change in bad directions with frightening speed: evil sparks are always burning somewhere, and bellows and forced draft can be applied to turn them into a conflagration.
I read somewhere about a remote village in Russia where the local Jews, in 1941, eagerly awaited the arrival of German troops. They remembered the polite and “correct” officers from the previous war, who were far preferable to the local drunken anti-Semitic officials, and didn’t realize that the sons of these men–indeed, in some cases the very same men–were now something entirely different.
It is very, very dangerous to assume (on a political level) that one’s friends will always be friends and one’s enemies will always be enemies.
I have often wondered how many Jews calmly marched into the gas chambers saying to themselves, “this isn’t happening”. It’s not a Jewish thing, it’s a human nature thing.
I often am amazed at the people living around me in comfortable suburbia who cannot mentally process the brutal realities under which most people exist. They live in castles of the mind.
“Castles of the mind”….reminds me of two quotes, one from Mark Steyn and the other from George Eliot:
Steyn:
‘Stability’ is a surface illusion, like a frozen river: underneath, the currents are moving, and to the casual observer the ice looks equally ‘stable’ whether there’s a foot of it or just two inches. There is no status quo in world affairs: ‘stability’ is a fancy term to dignify laziness and complacency as sophistication.
Eliot:
The sense of security more frequently springs from habit than from conviction, and for this reason it often subsists after such a change in the conditions as might have been expected to suggest alarm. The lapse of time during which a given event has not happened is, in this logic of habit, constantly alleged as a reason why the event should never happen, even when the lapse of time is precisely the added condition which makes the event imminent.
Zachriel: The vast majority of the world’s countries consider the settlements illegal, destabilizing and detrimental to the peace process. Do you have reason to think otherwise?
SADIE: Stupidity never deserves to be dignified with a response.
Certainly it does. Not an answer.
Charles Martel: The vast majority of the world’s Muslims consider women to be inferior, sexually provocative and detrimental to men’s thinking process. Do you have reason to think otherwise?
Until quite recently, that was a prevelent opinion in Christiandom. Not an answer.
Danny Lemieux: As far as I am concerned, the Palestinians (as a group) long ago relinquished any right to be respected or to have their own country. They (and I use this term in a very general term) have made it quite clear that their only objective is the destruction of the Jews.
So your answer is that Palestinians have lost their right to live on their own land because many of them refuse to accept that they have lost the right to live on their own land.
Ymarsakar: If they wish so mightily for war, war it shall be.
So your answer is by right of conquest.
Before this thread goes any further, I have a suggestion:
1. ‘It’ must first define the State of Israel.
2. Define its position.
We all realize that its approach to asking a question is not actually a debate but more akin to baiting a question. I see no reason to feed ‘it’ anything but contempt.
I do not know of any Israeli settlements that were built on land confiscated from Palestinians. If so, that is wrong. My understanding is that they were built on land purchased from Palestinians. Much of what is now the State of Israel sits on land that Jews purchased from the Turks during the Ottoman Empire.
“Palestine” was never a country, it was a region under the rule of others. The Palestinians have been given plenty of opportunities to have their own country. Every time, they spurned those opportunities in pursuit of their objective to destroy the Jews. As Abba Eban once said, “the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity”.
Besides, the Palestinians already have their own countries. They are called Jordan and Gaza. The Jews have only one country: Israel.
Danny
In a nutshell….
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/02/palestine-papers-jews-legally-own-land.html
I won’t bother you with what you already know (all the land, property, possessions and businesses) that were confiscated from the Jews throughout arab countries.
Ymarsakar, the expanding threat to the Jews goes back to our prevous discussion about whether Israel has the “killer instinct” to use nuclear weapons. You had your doubts. But I think when the very existence of Jewry is now in question, and with the once greatest defender of Jews hamstrung by an aliterate anti-Semitic president, Israel may soon have no choice. Its back could be to the wall very soon–a terrifically clarifying moment when it comes to kill or be killed.
SADIE, I’m in agreement with you. Jew haters like Zach inevitably expose themselves in a thread like this. His bad Watson imitation was once entertaining in its own ghastly way, but the kid has finally stepped over the line that we all knew he eventually would.
SADIE: I see no reason to feed ‘it’ anything but contempt.
Well, that’s the difference between us. We respect your on-topic opinions — when you make them. That’s why we reply.
Danny Lemieux: I do not know of any Israeli settlements that were built on land confiscated from Palestinians.
Some, but not in all cases. Land has been abandoned, then confiscated, in the aftermath of the many conflicts. Other times, tribal lands have been seized because they lack modern title. Still other land, because they are deemed a security risk. They block the view, or they want to build a wall through someone’s olive orchard. There are still people who have keys to their homes in Israel, but are denied the right to return.
Danny Lemieux: “Palestine” was never a country, it was a region under the rule of others.
But they are a people, with deep roots in the area and a right to self-determination.
Danny Lemieux: The Palestinians have been given plenty of opportunities to have their own country. Every time, they spurned those opportunities in pursuit of their objective to destroy the Jews.
Yes, there have been disastrous decisions, and plenty of bad blood. But the problem doesn’t go away by notiing that. There are legitimate grievances on both sides. Any plausible long term solution must address these concerns. Ultimately, Israel has to make peace with its neighbors, and they with Israel.
Danny Lemieux: Besides, the Palestinians already have their own countries.
So you suggest expelling millions of people from land they have lived on for generations. That is also illegal.
Zachriel: The vast majority of the world’s countries consider the settlements illegal, destabilizing and detrimental to the peace process. Do you have reason to think otherwise?
No one has seemingly offered a defense of the legality or wisdom of the settlements. So, what was wrong with the U.S. statement?
Charles Martel: Its back could be to the wall very soon–a terrifically clarifying moment when it comes to kill or be killed.
Israel has a right to self-defense. But that wasn’t the question.
Charles Martel: His bad Watson imitation was once entertaining in its own ghastly way, but the kid has finally stepped over the line that we all knew he eventually would.
What line is that, Charles Martel?
Uh oh! The Palestinians are being expelled from their land by the Jews? Who knew?
Of course, we know the Palestinians would do no such thing to the Jews…or Christians, for that matter.
Re. the settlements, I frankly don’t give much thought to that. Much bigger things happening in the world to worry about. Like I said, if the land was purchased from Palestinians, what’s the problem?
Zackie, read it again:
SADIE, I’m in agreement with you. Jew haters like Zach inevitably expose themselves in a thread like this. His bad Watson imitation was once entertaining in its own ghastly way, but the kid has finally stepped over the line that we all knew he eventually would.
Danny Lemieux: Of course, we know the Palestinians would do no such thing to the Jews…or Christians, for that matter.
It’s a terrible injustice for Jews to be expelled from Muslim countries. It’s important that people continue to support Israel, but that is not the same as agreeing to whatever specific actions they may take.
Danny Lemieux: Re. the settlements, I frankly don’t give much thought to that.
It was the thread topic. Settlements are important to any resolution of the conflict in the Middle East.
Charles Martel: Jew haters like Zach inevitably expose themselves in a thread like this.
We don’t hate Jews, and believe that a solution can be found so that Israel can live with its neighbors in peace and security.
Zackie the non-Jew hater, here is your moment of truth: Propose to us a solution that “we believe can be found.” Surely you’ve given long and sober thought to this.
(Hilarity ensues.)
Zachriel: It’s a terrible injustice for Jews to be expelled from Muslim countries.
It’s also a terrible loss for a Muslim country to expel its own citizens, many of whom have contributed to the country for generations.
Charles Martel: here is your moment of truth: Propose to us a solution that “we believe can be found.” Surely you’ve given long and sober thought to this.
Do you know what the phrase “can be found” means? But one thing that we do know. The solution will not be perfect, much will have to be forgiven, and it will have to be accepted by all the parties involved.
Zach, sometimes we have to accept that there is no solution. Maybe there will be in the future, but not now. For outsiders to think they can enforce a solution is the ultimate hubris.
The British and the French fought wars over centuries. Now they are at peace. It took time. A lot of time.
Danny Lemieux: sometimes we have to accept that there is no solution. Maybe there will be in the future, but not now.
The future is coming on fast.
Danny Lemieux: For outsiders to think they can enforce a solution is the ultimate hubris.
Ultimately, all parties have to agree to peace, and no one can force it on them. That is not the same as not having a role in the process. The democratization movement is a good sign. Ultimately, Israel needs to make peace with neighboring peoples, not with authoritarian rulers of neighboring countries.
Zach says: “The democratization movement is a good sign. Ultimately, Israel needs to make peace with neighboring peoples, not with authoritarian rulers of neighboring countries.”
On the first point, Zach is very optimistic.
On the second point, they have it exactly backwards. It’s the other countries that need to make peace with Israel.
Zach, you would make a splendid politician. You are incapable of offering an opinion that either does not bow to (dubious) authority or that requires you to commit to exposition that would reveal the true depths of your power to reason, rather than regurgitate.
I’ll ask the question in simpler terms: If you were in a position to broker a peace between Israel and its neighbors, what specific steps would you propose that you believe would achieve that peace?
Danny Lemieux: On the first point, Zach{riel} is very optimistic.
Realistic. Peace is a necessity, for Israel’s survival, and the future of the Palestinian people.
Danny Lemieux: It’s the other countries that need to make peace with Israel.
Agreements require two parties, at least. Both sides have grievances.
Danny Lemieux: If you were in a position to broker a peace between Israel and its neighbors, what specific steps would you propose that you believe would achieve that peace?
Same answer as above. No one knows what a final peace accord will look like, but it must include security for Israel, and a Palestinian state with reasonable borders. It can’t be one where there are fortified pockets throughout the West Bank. Which returns us to the topic. What was wrong with the American statement?
The last comment misattributed Charles Martel’s question.
No one knows what a final peace accord will look like, but it must include security for Israel, and a Palestinian state with reasonable borders.
Nice evasion. I asked you what you think it should look like, with specifics. What does “security for Israel” mean? What are “reasonable borders” for a Palentinian state? If you posit those elements, you must have some idea of what they’d entail.
Does anyone really think that if all the Israelis moved to Oklahoma the leaders of the Palestinian territory and its various factions would settle down to peaceful government and economic development—that people who have spent their entire lives on the promotion of hatred and violence would happily become farmers, merchants, factory workers, and teachers (of subjects other than jihad)? This is about as unrealistic as thinking that better trade deals with Nazi Germany, and a slight adjustment of its territorial boundaries, would have led Hermann Goering to a happy second career as an airline president and Joseph Goebbels to become a professor of rhetoric at a university.
There is no question that there are many *individual* Palestinians who would prefer peaceful pursuits, but they are not setting the tone of the society.
What is the land mass of Israel? what is its population?
What is the land mass of the “surrounding countries”?
I believe the muslim surrounding countries are significantly larger, both in mass and population.
So why haven’t they wiped out Israel? Generosity of spirit??
suek: So why haven’t they wiped out Israel? Generosity of spirit??
Technology, adept tactics, and support from the U.S.
David Foster: Does anyone really think that if all the Israelis moved to Oklahoma the leaders of the Palestinian territory and its various factions would settle down to peaceful government and economic development—that people who have spent their entire lives on the promotion of hatred and violence would happily become farmers, merchants, factory workers, and teachers (of subjects other than jihad)?
Most would. Some wouldn’t. People can become addicted to having a cause. They have thus far stymied every opportunity for peace.
Bernard Shaw: “Governor, if Kitty Zachriel were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”
Gov. Zachriel: “No, I don’t, and I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life.”
Bernard Shaw: “Governor, if the Palestinians declared that their goal is the destruction of the state of Israel, would you condemn them for it?”
Gov. Zachriel: “No, I wouldn’t, you know that I’ve been opposed to Israel during all of my life.”
Bernard Shaw: “Governor, if the denizens of Bookwom Room ever asked you a direct question about what you, and not your handlers, think about any number of subjects, would you give an original and well-argued answer?”
Gov. Zachriel: “No, I wouldn’t. You know that I have been opposed to original thought all my life. That is why I depend unions, anti-Semites, socialists and other progressives.”
Bernard Shaw: “Governor, will you ever open your pod bay doors?”
Gov. Zachriel: “I’m sorry, Dave, Bernard—whoever you are. I can’t.”
BS: Governor, if Mrs. Z were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?
Gov. Z: There is no Mrs. Z, but most normal people would want to skin the perpetrator and slowly roast them over an open fire. Most of the time, they are held back by their friends.
BS: Governor, if the Palestinians declared that their goal is the destruction of the state of Israel, would you condemn them for it?
Gov. Z: They have so declared, and we condemn them for it.
BS: Governor, if the denizens of Bookwom Room ever asked you a direct question about what you, and not your handlers, think about any number of subjects, would you give an original and well-argued answer?
Gov. Z: We always try to answer relevant questions.
BS: Governor, will you ever open your pod bay doors?
Gov. Z: Sure. Anything to help.
Zachriel:
Yes, there have been disastrous decisions, and plenty of bad blood. But the problem doesn’t go away by notiing that. There are legitimate grievances on both sides. Any plausible long term solution must address these concerns. Ultimately, Israel has to make peace with its neighbors, and they with Israel.
I suggest that you read the Hamas Charter. How can Israel make peace with those who are not seeking peace and with those use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as proof of the veracity of their beliefs?
Here are some excerpts.
Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)…..
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. “Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know.”….
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with…..
The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.
What “legitimate grievances” can be inferred from the above passages from the Hamas Charter? Yes, the Hamas that has a hammerlock on Gaza. Certainly the KKK thought it had “legitimate grievances.” Yes, the comparison is apt. Just substitute in “whites” for Moslem or Palestinian, and “negroes” for Jews into the appropriate passages.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp Hamas Charter
Zach can’t even make peace between himself and others. Now he wants to claim he knows how to do it with Israel. Laughable.
Gringo: How can Israel make peace with those who are not seeking peace and with those use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as proof of the veracity of their beliefs?
The Israelis has already made peace with Muslim-predominate nations, but the underlying problem remains unresolved.
The “underlying problem” is this case being that the Israelis are Jews and the Qu’ran hates ‘em.
Oy…against better judgment, I’ll state the obvious:
There is a difference between peace and a treaty.
Had there actually been peace between Israel and muslims, there would be no funerals and Gilad Shalit would be home with his wife.
Revolutions ….
Iran before
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g3ynNvbQPg
….Create revulsion
Iran after
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qrp63L1R4Y
Charles Martel: The “underlying problem” is this case being that the Israelis are Jews and the Qu’ran hates ‘em.
As usual, you ignored the point raised. Turkey and Egypt are both predominately Muslim, and have entered into peace treaties with Israel.
SADIE: Had there actually been peace between Israel and muslims, there would be no funerals and Gilad Shalit would be home with his wife.
Muslims is not a country. There is no peace treaty between the Palestinians and Israel. Shalit is an Israeli soldier and was captured by Palestinians.
Gaza, zacho, Gaza is a fully separate entity. They have no intention of ever making peace – just pieces, for every reason Gringo (thank you) outlined for you.
You don’t get to cherry pick zip zach until you define the State of Israel.
>>Shalit is an Israeli soldier and was captured by Palestinians. >>
Shalit was not “captured”, he was kidnapped.
Or, as another option, he was captured in an act of invasive aggression. He was not in the Palestinian territories – he was in Israel when they took him prisoner.
Islam, whose adherents are muslims, is both a religion and a political system. They desire the world to be subject to the Caliphate – which is islam imposed on all people of the world. Any country which has ever been under islamic control is considered to already and forever part of the islamic caliphate. So you can say that it is not a country, but it behaves like a political body, which is effectively a country.
By the say, Zach, do you know what “hudna” is?
SADIE: Gaza is a fully separate entity.
Not fully separate. It certainly isn’t Egyptian or Turkish territory. You’re not making a lot of sense. Do you really think Islam is a single political entity?
SADIE: You don’t get to cherry pick zip zach until you define the State of Israel.
It’s hard to know what you are asking. The State of Israel is a parliamentary republic on the Eastern Mediterranean. It’s government defines itself as a “a Jewish and democratic state”.
SADIE: By the say, Zach{riel}, do you know what “hudna” is?
Yes. There have been periodic hudna’s, or ceasefires, in the Palestinian conflict. The treaty with Jordan was a peace treaty that recognised each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence.
“The Israelis has [sic] already made peace with Muslim-predominate nations, but the underlying problem remains unresolved.”
Sorry, what problem is that?
SADIE, nice try. Notice that he will not address the deceptive nature of a hudna.
Firstly, suek asked you about a ‘hudna’.
Yes, I assumed that you would have a problem defining the State of Israel, so do the muslims.
Normally, I do not weigh in with my opinion on Israel; especially in regards to the West bank and Gaza as I know my opinion is different from some here.
However, there is one critical FACT that is so often overlooked by commenters in the mainstream media, and especially by those on the far left.
Forget for a minute all the following: Israeli settlements in the West bank, Whether Jews “stole” arab lands or not, Arabs forced Jews out of their centuries-occupied homes, Jews and other non-muslims are/have been treated as second-class, whether there should nor should not be a state called Palestine, whether Israel has a future or if it will be “wiped off the map.”
I say forget all that because this one fact, to me, represents the true heart of Israel. In spite of the “bad neighbhood” that Israel is, in spite of its less-than-peaceful history, in spite of its struggle to simply survive; Israeli Arabs have MORE freedom in Israel than most Arabs have of all the Arab/Muslim countries combined. And that’s a fact only a fool would argue with.
Charles Martel: Sorry, what problem is that?
Sorry, we thought you were somewhat aware of the issues. The primary issue is recognition of Israel’s right to exist, the right of return for refugees, and the borders of any new Palestinian state.
Charles Martel: Notice that he will not address the deceptive nature of a hudna.
Hudna is, by definition, temporary. However, keep in mind that many countries break treaties. Consider the U.S. behavior towards Native Americans. Or on this very blog, where people have advocated that America ignore its solemn promises on war and its treatment of prisoners. That doesn’t mean treaties have no value. Most countries do attempt to live up to their obligations, and Israel has enjoyed peace with Egypt and Jordan for many years now.
SADIE: I assumed that you would have a problem defining the State of Israel, so do the muslims.
We provided the very definition the Israeli government uses. If you wish to propose something different for the edification of our readers, please do.
What you don’t understand, Zach, is that “hudna” is a term defined in the Koran as a temporary cease-fire designed only to let Muslim forces regain their strength for the next assault.
CharlesM set a trap for you that you sprung.
You might want to take the time to read the Koran.
Next word lesson…’takiyeh”.
Charles, you are right. Muslims in Israel enjoy far more freedom than they do in any other Middle Eastern or North African country.
Zach says, “…or on this very blog, where people have advocated that America ignore its solemn promises on war and its treatment of prisoners.”
Examples, please.
Danny Lemieux: What you don’t understand, Zach, is that “hudna” is a term defined in the Koran as a temporary cease-fire designed only to let Muslim forces regain their strength for the next assault.
Yes, that’s a common purpose of a ceasefire, often due to mutual exhaustion or distraction with other matters; otherwise, the parties would normally press the advantage.
Zach, it would be interesting to learn how you juxtapose a “hudna” in terms of the Palestinians vis-a-vis Israel and the U.S. vis-a-vis Iraq after the Gulf War.
Danny Lemieux: it would be interesting to learn how you juxtapose a “hudna” in terms of the Palestinians vis-a-vis Israel and the U.S. vis-a-vis Iraq after the Gulf War.
That would be the U.N. v. Iraq.
I stand corrected. The U.S.-led coalition, which attacked Iraq after the go-ahead by the U.N.
Danny Lemieux: The U.S.-led coalition, which attacked Iraq after the go-ahead by the U.N.
You’re still missing the point. The cease-fire was between Kuwait, Iraq and the U.N. Member States, not the U.S. The Iraq invasion was not under the U.N. mantle, and was seen by many countries as a breach of the peace. That the U.S. ended the inspections regime, and didn’t find WMD only makes the original justification even more tenuous. If you burn your neighbor’s house down, even if your motives were pure (albeit deranged), you’re still responsible for the damage.
If a bank robber enters a bank and hands the teller a note that says, “give me your money, I have a bomb”, and the bank guard shoots him dead, it was justified. If later it was found he/she was bluffing, the shooting is still justified.
The second Iraq invasion also happened because Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire between the U.S-led coalition and Iraq. Oh well. End of hudna!
Iraq and the world is far better off today than before. Or, do you miss Saddam?
Danny Lemieux: If a bank robber enters a bank and hands the teller a note that says, “give me your money, I have a bomb”, and the bank guard shoots him dead, it was justified. If later it was found he/she was bluffing, the shooting is still justified.
That’s correct. But unlike your analogy, Saddam said he had disarmed his WMD per the U.N. mandate.
Danny Lemieux: The second Iraq invasion also happened because Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire between the U.S-led coalition and Iraq.
The cease-fire was between Kuwait, Iraq and the U.N. Member States, not the U.S.
If you burn your neighbor’s house down, even if your motives were pure (albeit deranged), you’re still responsible for the damage.
Saddam’s payments to Palestinian suicide bombers
$10,000 per family
$25,000 for family of a suicide bomber
$35m paid since September 2000
PALF figures
Apparently, according to Zach, the United States is not a “UN member state” and the UN did not approve of the U.S. request to enforce the terms of the cease-fire on bahlf of the organization to which it did not belong.
The convolutions keep coming!
Charles Martel
When you’re Jovian, the cognitive distance between Earth and outer space cannot be bridged even with the Hubble telescope.
Ich bin ein Jovian. Di ist eine Jovial.
Di = Du
But unlike your analogy, Saddam said he had disarmed his WMD per the U.N. mandate.
Saddam’s ceasefire was between the US and Iraq. Not between Iraq and the UN.
Ymarsakar: Saddam’s ceasefire was between the US and Iraq. Not between Iraq and the UN.
Resolution 687. If Saddam violated the terms of the ceasefire, then it was on the U.N. to determine the appropriate course of action.
Understandably, the U.S. was nervous after 9-11. Those who counseled patience were vilified by many right-wing elements within the U.S. government. But it is quite obvious that the war was an avoidable disaster for the U.S. and for Iraq.
Charles Martel: the UN did not approve of the U.S. request to enforce the terms of the cease-fire on bahlf of the organization to which it did not belong.
Resolution 1441, concerning disarmament. Weapons inspectors were within Iraq, but withdrawn due to the impending U.S. invasion. There were no WMD.
The U.S. invasion was unauthorized. Far worse, it was unwise, and undercut U.S. credibility across the board.
Those without power to do what they say, have no “right” to determine anything.
It’s called a fiction on paper. Only good so long as people pretend it has value.
The UN does not Determine A Damn Thing nor does it do anything even if it makes resolutions determining things.
That’s just to make things crystal clear in the face of Zach’s obfuscations.
Ymarsakar: Those without power to do what they say, have no “right” to determine anything. It’s called a fiction on paper. Only good so long as people pretend it has value.The U.S. has made promises concerning the conduct of war. Are American promises meaningful, or are they “fiction on paper”?
Are American promises meaningful, or are they “fiction on paper”?
Who the hell do you claim made a promise on my behalf?
Ymarsakar: Who the hell do you claim made a promise on my behalf?
If you are an American, the U.S. has signed and ratified a number of treaties with respect to war and the treatment of prisoners, including the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on Torture, the Geneva Conventions. Ratification of treaties is by two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate, which the U.S. Constitution says is “the Supreme Law of the Land”.
So, are American promises meaningful, or are they “fiction on paper”?
Eliminate the Geneva Conventions. They were made as an agreement between signatory nations. They do not apply to non-signatories, although the US generally applies them as policy even with non-signatory peoples.
suek: Eliminate the Geneva Conventions. They were made as an agreement between signatory nations. They do not apply to non-signatories, although the US generally applies them as policy even with non-signatory peoples.
You’re probably referring to the issue of “unlawful combatants”. Though terrorist organizations, such as al Qaeda, do not qualify as prisoners of war, the Geneva Conventions require that prisoners “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”.
Law of War. That part of international law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities and occupation. It is often called the “law of armed conflict” and encompasses all international law applicable to the conduct of hostilities that is binding on the United States or its individual citizens, including treaties and international agreements to which the United States is a party (e.g., the Geneva Conventions of 1949), and applicable customary international law.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/231001p.pdf
For Democrats, I would say they treat it as fiction most of the time, except when it conveniences them not to.
For Republicans, their promises last about the time when a new administration turns in at the WH.
The only meaning question you should ask, Zach, is “are your promises meaningful or “fiction on paper”.
Also, civilians have nothing to do with enforcing or obeying the Geneva Conventions. We’re not combatants, nor are we under military law. Are you a bit confused here, Zach.
So basically, you believe you are and the Left aren’t totalitarian because people, like us, have a duty or obligation to obey you because you have some words on paper that says we should.
Ridiculous. Of course
Ymarsakar: Who the hell do you claim made a promise on my behalf?
Zachriel: If you are an American, the U.S. has signed and ratified a number of treaties with respect to war and the treatment of prisoners,
Ymarsakar: Also, civilians have nothing to do with enforcing or obeying the Geneva Conventions.
You didn’t seem to answer the question. Treaties, according to the U.S. Constitution, are the supreme law of the land. Are these promises “fiction on paper”?
Ymarsakar, we never saw an answer to that last question.
Zach pontificates: “The U.S. invasion was unauthorized. Far worse, it was unwise, and undercut U.S. credibility across the board.”
Such a broad sweeping statement with no basis in fact. Libya, for one, determined that U.S. credibility was so high that it gave up its WMD programs.
I would be curious to know under what legitimate court of law the U.S. invasion of Iraq was deemed to be “illegal”. Also would be interested in knowing under what legitimate court of law the detention of unlawful combatants at Guantanamo has been adjudicated as “illegal”.
Oh, wait. Zach has determined that these actions are illegal. Thus spake Zacharoosta!
Danny Lemieux: I would be curious to know under what legitimate court of law the U.S. invasion of Iraq was deemed to be “illegal”.
We can discuss that once Ymarsakar;s answers the simple question as to whether the promises of the Americans are meaningful. If they aren’t, then it doesn’t matter what the U.S. does or doesn’t do.
Zachriel: The U.S. invasion was unauthorized. Far worse, it was unwise, and undercut U.S. credibility across the board.
Danny Lemieux: Such a broad sweeping statement with no basis in fact.
It’s rather odd to claim that the U.S. can go to war based on a false claim without undermining its credibility. It’s the very definition of credibility.
“We can discuss that once Ymarsakar;s answers the simple question as to whether the promises of the Americans are meaningful. If they aren’t, then it doesn’t matter what the U.S. does or doesn’t do.”
Danny, I’ll translate: I can’t answer your question, therefore I won’t. (Also good to know that the smartest kid on this blog writes stuff like “once Ymarsakar;s answers” and expects us to take him seriously.)
Charles Martel: Danny, I’ll translate: I can’t answer your question, therefore I won’t.
The answer to the legality of U.S. actions depends on whether or not the U.S. can and has made binding commitments.
[...] Obama’s association with the angry left has been one of his formative influences, and even if his expressed attitudes on Israel are not as extremely negative as some, it should be clear by now that he is no friend of that country. See Bookworm: [...]