.. it's ...
.. a bit ...
.. ordinary
[update, 15:51, [m-u]@17:51]
The very fact that Israel (= IL) exists at all proves that 'international law' is an unjust farce, and claiming that 'UNGA resolutions are not legally binding' is some (lying) hasbarah which illustrates both the blatant dishonesty and breathless hypocrisy of the Zionists (= Zs) at a single stroke, since a) they claim that UNGA181[1] gave the 'green-light' for IL's establishment (UNGAs = good), but then having promised to abide by UNGA181 and UNGA194 in order to be recognised in UNGA273, b) IL proceeds to defy all three and more (UNGAs = bad). In addition, IL ignores the UN at its whim[5], and when ignoring is not enough, calls on IL's 'wicked godfather' = the US to veto in the UNSC. UNSC242's preamble refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," yet the Z-trolls continue to claim that IL won territory by war, showing the Z-trolls' own particular brand of ignorance plus more dishonesty and hypocrisy, looping. One may combine IL, Jews (= Js) and Zs to form the I/J/Z-plex; the continued lies, cheating, theft and murder in and around IL reflects on the I/J/Z-plex as a group *and* on every individual in that group (excepting only those who resist the crimes/corruption to the maximum of their individual abilities), on the principle that things can only ever change for the better when some effective majority decides on reform.
Wikipedia ("the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit") is self-admittedly corrupt - since they depend on 'what someone said' (= publications they themselves deem 'authoritative') vs. the actual facts which may differ, and is therefore useless on exactly the topics where it matters most, here calling the 'conflict' in Palestine pre- and post- '47/48 (= continuing) a 'civil war,' when on one side were (& still are) the defending ELO/Os (= erstwhile legal owner/occupiers) and on the other, attacking side were the mostly newly-arrived Zs (often 'illegal' immigrants), making the 'conflict' an aggressive invasion = Nuremberg-class crime. The proof of (pre-meditated; see Jabotinsky) aggression being seen latest with Plan Dalet (Deir Yassin massacre + similar down through the years, right to the present moment.)
Consider 'A fair exchange is no robbery;' it is *obvious* that IL has *no* right to *any* Palestinian land/property, *excepting* the tiny amount that the Zs managed to purchase *before* the Zs went rogue and started to steal land/property by murdering force.
At any crime-scene, one examines 'means, motive, and opportunity,' modus operandi (= m.o.) plus 'cui bono?' The Z-motive was formalised latest by Herzl in 1897 (1st Zionist Congress), the m.o. developed by Jabotinsky[2] in 1923 ("Iron Wall"), the means partly provided by Meir ($US50mio for arms), the opportunity = cynical exploitation of WW2 ('holocaust') and as for cui bono? - we can all see, not 'just' the Zs but the whole I/J/Z-plex *and* the US rogue-regime, in its 'interference' in the ME to steal oil (more exactly, to rip-off the economic rent there-from, plus control (= hegemony) to 'challenge' Russia & China, say.)
[m-u] Returning to the aggressive-invasion crime-scene, it most resembles a burglary/home-invasion, whereby the correct response is to send in SWAT-teams to arrest the perpetrators and bring them to justice = try then imprison them, after which the crime-scene is returned to the legitimate owner/occupiers (see UNGA194, "right of return") = all stolen land/property to revest - or acceptable recompense/reparations, plus a sincere "Sorry!" - my proposed, as uniquely possible, *just* peace-plan. The UN never had any right to even suggest the ejection of rightful ELO/Os, and wrongs (= ghastly crimes) must be remedied. The area concerned could be declared a (demilitarised, A-weapon-free) non-state world-heritage reserve, a 'mecca' for all interested parties. That would be a peace to 'believe' in – (belief being what many do in the absence of, or even contrary to - evidence. Haw.) [end m-u]
Amongst other things, force is the resort of the 'mentally-challenged' (= handicapped if not outright psychopathic); lose the argument, kill the opponent? Hardly legal, let alone moral - and so the rogue Zs(+US) ignore/manipulate 'international law' to suit themselves.
Fazit: The absolute key is the status of Palestinian land/property[3]; it has been improperly alienated[4] (= stolen) by people-not-from-there (= invading Zionists), and the I/J/Z-plex loudly shouts lies (= hasbarah) in an attempt to conceal the cheating (manipulation of the UN) and theft by murdering force. This reflects *badly* on every non-objecting I/J/Z-plex member = most Js.
To dispel any remaining doubts, try looking here. That makes them the ultimate suicide-bomber/blackmailers.
Some proof - of Samson, or some analogue; google (without the {}): {Israel "would be prepared to take the region and even the whole world down with it" golda meir} [Meir to Hart, '71]
Her response (About 335 results, time of writing): "Golda replied, “Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying.“"
Extending the threat (About 28,700 results): "We possess several hundred atomic warheads ... Most European capitals are targets for our air force." [Creveld to Hirst, '03]
-=*end*=-
PS Note that only just law may earn respect - and that there can never be peace without justice.
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] UNGA181 contains "The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date ..."
Comment: This clearly specifies 'ethnic cleansing' = illegal/immoral, and invalidates UNGA181 as a whole; the dispossession was subsequently carried out via the genocidal terrorism of the invading Zs, see Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin etc..
[2] Jabotinsky [my comments]: “No native population would stomach the intrusion of another nation into their territory. So the gloves have to be off [= rogue; if nothing else, this implies no respecting of law]. Unremitting force is viewed as the only answer to Arab objections to Zionist control of the territory.” [= perpetual war - just what we can observe.]
[3] Property (or owndom) is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people or a legal entity like a corporation.[citation needed] Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy it, or to exclude others from doing these things.
[4] Alienation, in property law, is the capacity for a piece of property or a property right to be sold or otherwise transferred from one party to another. Although property is generally deemed to be alienable, it may be subject to restraints on alienation.
Aboriginal title is one example of inalienability (save to The Crown) in common law jurisdictions.
Note: "Save to The Crown" illustrates our 'sovereign problem' whereby 'regimes' (and their militaries) declare themselves different to 'us, we the people.' Following 'just law,' only laws/actions desired and properly acceded to by we the *sovereign* voters can have legitimacy/force; WHEN "All politicians lie!" (most seem to) THEN they are deceiving the electorate AND thus lose any remit.
No remit -> no law -> no taxation & NO MORE WAR!
-=*=-
^
[5] Update, 15:51; PPS ... It's utterly *stupefying*, how *bad* = immoral, criminal, the Zs were and are, shamefully *not* prevented from being; an extract (long) from a recent article (thnx):
Ron Paul’s Position on Israel is a Betrayal of His Values
by Jeremy R. Hammond
April 14, 2012
«... The truth is that following the Zionists’ unilateral declaration of the existence of the state of Israel in May 1948, [key ->] an act prejudicial to the rights of the majority inhabitants and for which there was absolutely no legal basis [<- key], Palestine was ethnically cleansed. More than 700,000 Arab Palestinians were expelled or fled from their homes, never allowed to return. The Zionist forces captured Jerusalem, and when an armistice was finally reached in 1949, Israel controlled the west and Jordan the east of the city.
In 1967, Israel invaded and occupied the West Bank and claimed to annex East Jerusalem. Subsequently, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 242, which emphasized “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, emphasized that member states have a commitment to abide by the U.N. Charter, and called for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied” during the June 1967 war.
In May 1968, the Security Council passed resolution 252, which declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “invalid” and called upon Israel “to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem”.
In July 1969, the Security Council passed resolution 267, noting that Israel had since “taken further measures tending to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”. It reaffirmed “the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible” and deplored Israel’s further violations of U.N. resolutions, censured “in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, and confirmed “that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status”, and urgently called on Israel to rescind the measures taken to annex Jerusalem.
Security Council 271 of September 1969 again reaffirmed the principle of the inadmissibility under international law of the acquisition of territory by war, describing Jerusalem as being under “military occupation” by Israel and condemning Israel’s continued violation of previous resolutions.
Resolution 298 of September 1971 again reaffirmed the principle, deplored Israel’s continued violation of U.N. resolutions, and confirmed that Israel’s attempts to annex Jerusalem “are totally invalid”.
Resolution 446 of March 1979 affirmed “once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention ... is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel, including Jerusalem“, determined “that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity” (emphasis added).
Resolution 452 of July 1979 again deplored Israel’s continued violation of Security Council resolutions and again emphasized that Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”. It again also noted that Jerusalem is included in “the occupied Arab territories”.
Resolution 465 of March 1980 again condemned Israel’s settlement policy, which violates the Fourth Geneva Convention and U.N. Security Council resolutions, and again reaffirmed that Israel’s annexation attempts “have no legal validity” and constitutes “a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
Resolution 471 of June 1980 once again reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention “to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem“, and once again called upon Israel to end its illegal occupation of those territories, including Jerusalem.
Resolution 476 of June 1980 again deplored Israel’s continued violation of international law and reaffirmed “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, and reaffirmed Israel’s annexation measures “have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention” and were “null and void”.
Resolution 478 of August 1980 again censured Israel’s continued violation of international law and again reaffirmed that its annexation attempts were “null and void”.
Resolutions 592 of December 1986, 605 of December 1987, 607 of January 1988, 636 of July 1989, 694 of May 1991, 726 of January 1992, 799 of December 1992 all again reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to occupied Arab territory, including Jerusalem.
In July 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s decision to build a wall in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, which concluded that “all these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and that Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power”, that the construction of the wall in those territories is “illegal”, and that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, similarly “have been established in breach of international law.”
...
One must keep in mind that of the candidates, Ron Paul is also the only one who has said he would cut off all foreign aid, including the $3 billion plus given annually to Israel. This is not trivial, given the fact that [key ->] without U.S. support, Israel’s criminal policies against the Palestinians could not continue [<- key].»
[foreignpolicyjournal/Hammond]
Comment: What I said.
[«back»]
