Political Crossfire Forums

yojimbo22 · Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 511 Location: London, UK

A nation... or state to be more accurate, since a nation is nothing in international law, is a combination of four things:

1) A defined territory;
2) a Permanent population;
3) a government;
4) The capacity to enter into relations with other states as it sees fit.

For a state to become one legally, it should also be recognised by at least one other state as such...

Israel has all four/five of these, although territorially Israel is overstretching a little legally, as it would have to come back to pre six day war borders to possess all the territory it is legally allowed (war was outlawed as an instrument of national policy since the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928).

bob.appleyard · Joined: 15 Oct 2005 Posts: 7747 Location: Manchestar, innit

yojimbo22 wrote: A nation... or state to be more accurate

No, nations and states are not equivalent.

yojimbo22 · Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 511 Location: London, UK

bob.appleyard wrote: yojimbo22 wrote: A nation... or state to be more accurate

No, nations and states are not equivalent.

yep, that's what I said - states are legal entities, nations are not... if there is a state, there is a nation however since the state requires more to it...

battleax86 · Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 4997 Location: Texas

yojimbo22 wrote: A nation... or state to be more accurate, since a nation is nothing in international law, is a combination of four things:

1) A defined territory;
2) a Permanent population;
3) a government;
4) The capacity to enter into relations with other states as it sees fit.

For a state to become one legally, it should also be recognised by at least one other state as such...

Israel has all four/five of these, although territorially Israel is overstretching a little legally, as it would have to come back to pre six day war borders to possess all the territory it is legally allowed (war was outlawed as an instrument of national policy since the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928).
To which Israel was not a party...which is also besides the fact that the nations behind that pact were at war shortly thereafter.

yojimbo22 · Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 511 Location: London, UK

battleax86 wrote: yojimbo22 wrote: A nation... or state to be more accurate, since a nation is nothing in international law, is a combination of four things:

1) A defined territory;
2) a Permanent population;
3) a government;
4) The capacity to enter into relations with other states as it sees fit.

For a state to become one legally, it should also be recognised by at least one other state as such...

Israel has all four/five of these, although territorially Israel is overstretching a little legally, as it would have to come back to pre six day war borders to possess all the territory it is legally allowed (war was outlawed as an instrument of national policy since the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928).
To which Israel was not a party...which is also besides the fact that the nations behind that pact were at war shortly thereafter.

Israel did not have to be a party because the rule is now set in the UN Charter Article 2(4)

"all states shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of anystate, or in any other manner..."

and is also customary International Law... so all states, even ones not part of the UN, have to follow it.

and the nations did go to war, but the german command was tried for breaking this pact, to which it was a party... in fact, it was this pact that was used to find a lot of the german command guilty of aggression...

battleax86 · Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 4997 Location: Texas

yojimbo22 wrote: battleax86 wrote: To which Israel was not a party...which is also besides the fact that the nations behind that pact were at war shortly thereafter.

Israel did not have to be a party because the rule is now set in the UN Charter Article 2(4)

"all states shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of anystate, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Then you should have said the UN Charter instead of an irrelevant 78-year-old treaty. 8:)

At any rate, Israel's control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not illegal since peace treaties have already been signed with Jordan and Egypt and neither are wanting their territory back. Both have accepted their current sizes and the matter, as far as relations between states is concerned, is closed.

yojimbo22 wrote: and is also customary International Law... so all states, even ones not part of the UN, have to follow it.
There is no such thing as "international law" aside from each treaty that a country has signed.

yojimbo22 wrote: and the nations did go to war, but the german command was tried for breaking this pact, to which it was a party... in fact, it was this pact that was used to find a lot of the german command guilty of aggression...
Interesting...

Nico · Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 10827 Location: Auckland

moved

yojimbo22 · Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 511 Location: London, UK

battleax86 wrote: yojimbo22 wrote: and is also customary International Law... so all states, even ones not part of the UN, have to follow it.
There is no such thing as "international law" aside from each treaty that a country has signed.

Sady there is... it isn't just a bunch of treaties, it is a little bit more complicated than that...

Gnostic · Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:08 pm Post subject:

battleax86 wrote:

yojimbo22 wrote: and is also customary International Law... so all states, even ones not part of the UN, have to follow it.
There is no such thing as "international law" aside from each treaty that a country has signed.

International law and treaties, even ones historically signed and ratified, hold no water in DC if they do not end up pandering to the corporatocracy's agendas...international law merely interferes with DC's globalist agendas and policies many times, and Washington usually sees fit in these circumstances to either circumvent such laws and treaties, or take these things as some sort of private contract that can be broken or revised at DC's will. That is why we have guys like Bolton in the UN....to "re-interpret" international law for us so that it more closely resembles their desires.....making signed treaties, instead of committments and obligations, into whimsically applied "guidelines" and at best political agreements which may be reneged on at any time if the oligarchs in DC choose to do so.....yet at the same time expect the letter of the law to be followed within these treaties and laws by every other country. Same reason most international treaties are never signed by Washington without a slew of exceptions and "RUD's" and other reservations making the United States and only the United States exempt from many of the obligations they expect everyone else to abide by under threat of sanctions and even military aggression, and Israel practices the same as exemplified in their stubborn refusals to open their WMD arsenals to UN inspection while demanding the same of their antagonists.

And Americans wonder why the world does'nt trust us as far as they could pick us up and throw us.

battleax86 · Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 4997 Location: Texas

yojimbo22 wrote: battleax86 wrote: yojimbo22 wrote: and is also customary International Law... so all states, even ones not part of the UN, have to follow it.
There is no such thing as "international law" aside from each treaty that a country has signed.

Sady there is... it isn't just a bunch of treaties, it is a little bit more complicated than that...
I don't see how. You can't accuse a nation of violating international law unless it has violated a treaty that it has ratified.

Gnostic wrote: International law and treaties, even ones historically signed and ratified, hold no water in DC if they do not end up pandering to the corporatocracy's agendas...international law merely interferes with DC's globalist agendas and policies many times, and Washington usually sees fit in these circumstances to either circumvent such laws and treaties, or take these things as some sort of private contract that can be broken or revised at DC's will. That is why we have guys like Bolton in the UN....to "re-interpret" international law for us so that it more closely resembles their desires.....making signed treaties, instead of committments and obligations, into whimsically applied "guidelines" and at best political agreements which may be reneged on at any time if the oligarchs in DC choose to do so.....yet at the same time expect the letter of the law to be followed within these treaties and laws by every other country.
You read too much Chomsky, friend. Much of what he writes is complete crap.

Gnostic wrote: Same reason most international treaties are never signed by Washington without a slew of exceptions and "RUD's" and other reservations making the United States and only the United States exempt from many of the obligations they expect everyone else to abide by under threat of sanctions and even military aggression,
And we have the right to request those exceptions...same as everybody else. 8:)

Gnostic wrote: and Israel practices the same as exemplified in their stubborn refusals to open their WMD arsenals to UN inspection while demanding the same of their antagonists.
They demand the same of their antagonists because their antagonists have signed treaties prohibiting themselves from having nuclear weaponry. Israel has not. Therein lies the difference. :wink:

yojimbo22 · Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 511 Location: London, UK

Does the US really make more reservations than other states? I know it's the normal process of IL, but I didn't know the US took it further?

as for the post after that.... customary international law is the perfect example - state sovereignty over its land, airspace... no state sovereignty over space... stuff like that, although mostly set down in treaties, is also a general rule that states must follow...

something like the use of torture is not allowed by any state, whether it has signed a treaty or not (called Jus Cogens), and is the most powerfull form of International Law as it applies to any state, reservation or not...

Gnostic · Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:26 pm Post subject:

battleax86 wrote: yojimbo22 wrote: battleax86 wrote: yojimbo22 wrote: and is also customary International Law... so all states, even ones not part of the UN, have to follow it.
There is no such thing as "international law" aside from each treaty that a country has signed.

Sady there is... it isn't just a bunch of treaties, it is a little bit more complicated than that...
I don't see how. You can't accuse a nation of violating international law unless it has violated a treaty that it has ratified.

Gnostic wrote: International law and treaties, even ones historically signed and ratified, hold no water in DC if they do not end up pandering to the corporatocracy's agendas...international law merely interferes with DC's globalist agendas and policies many times, and Washington usually sees fit in these circumstances to either circumvent such laws and treaties, or take these things as some sort of private contract that can be broken or revised at DC's will. That is why we have guys like Bolton in the UN....to "re-interpret" international law for us so that it more closely resembles their desires.....making signed treaties, instead of committments and obligations, into whimsically applied "guidelines" and at best political agreements which may be reneged on at any time if the oligarchs in DC choose to do so.....yet at the same time expect the letter of the law to be followed within these treaties and laws by every other country.
You read too much Chomsky, friend. Much of what he writes is complete crap.

Chomsky? This is just plain reality. Care to debunk me by using facts and intelligent debate instead of merely calling what I say crap and accusing me of reading too much Chomsky? What about the Israeli example. Care to explain that one for us? Why do they think they are exempt from the same international laws and treaties the rest of the world has signed onto? Don't you think that sort of agenda promotes states like Iran to persue a WMD program of their own? Faced with fascist hypocrisy coming from a neighbor like that, if I were prez of Iran, I'd be building myself a few nukes too. :roll:

Gnostic wrote: Same reason most international treaties are never signed by Washington without a slew of exceptions and "RUD's" and other reservations making the United States and only the United States exempt from many of the obligations they expect everyone else to abide by under threat of sanctions and even military aggression,
battleax86 wrote: And we have the right to request those exceptions...same as everybody else. 8:)

Then why bother with them at all? And why make yourself into one big honkin hypocrite by demanding these treaties be followed under threat of sanction on everyone else while you conveniently overlook or obfuscate or make exceptions to them? That does'nt necessarily make the rest of the world want to play fair with you either.

Gnostic wrote: and Israel practices the same as exemplified in their stubborn refusals to open their WMD arsenals to UN inspection while demanding the same of their antagonists.
battleax86 wrote: They demand the same of their antagonists because their antagonists have signed treaties prohibiting themselves from having nuclear weaponry. Israel has not. Therein lies the difference. :wink:

How convenient. Nice justification. Still does'nt answer the question, nor does it tackle the underlying problems with self-exemption from international law.

yojimbo22 · Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 511 Location: London, UK

I'll have to explain you how treaties work: reservations to certain aspects and articles in treaties are allowed, but only if that state has always believed in the reverse of what the article says... also, each treaty has an "object and purpose", and no reservation can be made to articles in a treaty that further the "object and purpose" of it... an example would be for the Kyoto protocol, a state would not be able to sign up and make a reservation about cutting carbon emissions, though it could about certain other articles - like deforestation...

This is actually beneficial because this allows states to sign up to most of a treaty they would have otherwise rejected...

hope it makes sense :)

programmusic · Joined: 22 Apr 2006 Posts: 1336

http://www.jinfo.org/

this is why

Rankor and Pissing · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 10235

thefranzkafkafront wrote:

If nazi's use wikipedia that makes wikipedia bad.

Piss poor logic.

Only if the Nazi's didn't validate their sources, or had non-nazi's edit the material without Nazi validation.

However, 1940's nazi's certainly wouldn't have had a reference such as wiki created by the public, run by the public and content provided by the public. The analogy of nazi's using wikipedia makes wikipedia bad is a lousy analogy... wiki's existence in it's current format alone is enough of a reason to make it bad...

Hijack over...

Gnostic · Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:05 pm Post subject:

yojimbo22 wrote: I'll have to explain you how treaties work: reservations to certain aspects and articles in treaties are allowed, but only if that state has always believed in the reverse of what the article says...

You mean as in, what they wish to impose on every other nation on the planet under threat of civilian-attacking sanctions, if not exactly what they have in mind for themselves, still applies to every other nation but them that practise self-exemption....just because, maybe, militarily they can. Cute.

That's the essence of pure arrogance. Arrogance breeds contempt.

yojimbo22 wrote: also, each treaty has an "object and purpose", and no reservation can be made to articles in a treaty that further the "object and purpose" of it... an example would be for the Kyoto protocol, a state would not be able to sign up and make a reservation about cutting carbon emissions, though it could about certain other articles - like deforestation...

We're not talking Kyoto here, but since you brought it up, yes, let's just put this in a really simplified context. All of the uppity ups in this admin are oil company puppets of one stripe or another. Some, like Cheney, still recieve large amounts of funds from their past connections with these firms. Now why woud such people who have otherwise committed their entire lives to furthering the oil company's bottom lines all of the sudden turn around and say, well, we need Kyoto? Give me a break. Kyoto is just another example of an otherwise universally held and signed treaty that DC refuses to join without a million exemptions because it simply cuts into their profit margins.

yojimbo22 wrote: This is actually beneficial because this allows states to sign up to most of a treaty they would have otherwise rejected...

It's beneficial to the corporations who don't have to comply while making the rest of the world pay for it under threat of sanction. DC practically holds international law in a stranglehold now and backed into a militarized corner, being the only "superpower" left. So it justifies this with the "might makes right" concept, or what Bush has endeared as the "new laws of war", namely, uni-lateral aggression and self-exemption from international law. This makes the United States just as much an "outlaw" nation as much as North Korea or any other regime which practises such antagonistic, selfish and patently unfair foreign policies.

yojimbo22 wrote: hope it makes sense :)

Self-exemption from international laws DC expects everyone else to uphold will never make any sense to me at all, but it is easily explained.

battleax86 · Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 4997 Location: Texas

Gnostic wrote: Chomsky? This is just plain reality. Care to debunk me by using facts and intelligent debate instead of merely calling what I say crap and accusing me of reading too much Chomsky?
If you had presented any facts, then I would also use facts. Accusing Washington of disregarding treaties at the behest of a "corporatocracy" without presenting any facts whatsoever to back yourself up doesn't really allow for the possibility of an intelligent debate. I've quite often seen how your "reality" diverges from the truth to the point where I wonder if you're living in a parallel universe that somehow has access to PCF.

Gnostic wrote: What about the Israeli example. Care to explain that one for us?
I already have. It helps to read a post in its entirety before responding to it.

Gnostic wrote: Why do they think they are exempt from the same international laws and treaties the rest of the world has signed onto?
Um...maybe because EVERY nation is exempt from a treaty that it hasn't signed. :lol:

Gnostic wrote: Don't you think that sort of agenda promotes states like Iran to persue a WMD program of their own?
No, Israel's existence is what's promoting Iran to develop WMDs. They want to wipe them off the map.

Gnostic wrote: Faced with fascist hypocrisy coming from a neighbor like that, if I were prez of Iran, I'd be building myself a few nukes too. :roll:
"Fascist hypocrisy." I love how you leftists throw words like "fascist" around without knowing what they actually mean. :lol:

Iran has stated its goal to wipe Israel off the map. Iran is building nuclear weapons. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on. It has nothing to do with any supposed Israeli hypocrisy. It has everything to do with the fact that Israel exists.

Gnostic wrote: Gnostic wrote: Same reason most international treaties are never signed by Washington without a slew of exceptions and "RUD's" and other reservations making the United States and only the United States exempt from many of the obligations they expect everyone else to abide by under threat of sanctions and even military aggression,
battleax86 wrote: And we have the right to request those exceptions...same as everybody else. 8:)

Then why bother with them at all?
Because our situation sometimes requires a few exceptions, while the rest of the treaty is acceptable.

Gnostic wrote: And why make yourself into one big honkin hypocrite by demanding these treaties be followed under threat of sanction on everyone else while you conveniently overlook or obfuscate or make exceptions to them? That does'nt necessarily make the rest of the world want to play fair with you either.
There's no hypocrisy. If these nations wanted to request the same exception or choose not to ratify the treaty at all, they were free to do so.

Gnostic wrote: Gnostic wrote: and Israel practices the same as exemplified in their stubborn refusals to open their WMD arsenals to UN inspection while demanding the same of their antagonists.
battleax86 wrote: They demand the same of their antagonists because their antagonists have signed treaties prohibiting themselves from having nuclear weaponry. Israel has not. Therein lies the difference. :wink:
How convenient. Nice justification. Still does'nt answer the question, nor does it tackle the underlying problems with self-exemption from international law.
Yes, it does answer the question. Your argument is like saying that if you sign a contract with one of your neighbors, ALL of your neighbors must abide by that contract.

Let me break it down into very simple terms: If you don't ratify a treaty, YOU ARE NOT BOUND BY IT. If you do ratify a treaty, YOU ARE BOUND BY IT. If you violate a treaty that you're bound by, you are guilty of violating international law. It's not a very difficult concept to understand.

yojimbo22 wrote: I'll have to explain you how treaties work: reservations to certain aspects and articles in treaties are allowed, but only if that state has always believed in the reverse of what the article says... also, each treaty has an "object and purpose", and no reservation can be made to articles in a treaty that further the "object and purpose" of it... an example would be for the Kyoto protocol, a state would not be able to sign up and make a reservation about cutting carbon emissions, though it could about certain other articles - like deforestation...

This is actually beneficial because this allows states to sign up to most of a treaty they would have otherwise rejected...

hope it makes sense :)
It does, thanks. I'm still not sure what this had to do with the topic, but thanks. 8:)

Gnostic · Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject:

battleax86 wrote: Gnostic wrote: Chomsky? This is just plain reality. Care to debunk me by using facts and intelligent debate instead of merely calling what I say crap and accusing me of reading too much Chomsky?
If you had presented any facts, then I would also use facts. Accusing Washington of disregarding treaties at the behest of a "corporatocracy" without presenting any facts whatsoever to back yourself up doesn't really allow for the possibility of an intelligent debate. I've quite often seen how your "reality" diverges from the truth to the point where I wonder if you're living in a parallel universe that somehow has access to PCF.

How many facts do you want? How many examples of this hypocrisy do you need? Any of them that I bring up you'll just poo-poo anyway with your RW rhetoric one way or another and spin it into whatever agenda best fits your argument. Like the following;

Gnostic wrote: What about the Israeli example. Care to explain that one for us?
yojimbo22 wrote: I already have. It helps to read a post in its entirety before responding to it.

You have what? All you said was that Israel has'nt signed onto the NPT. That in itself is the primest example of self-exclusionary tactics I can think of, while they demand the same exact compliance they refuse to give from everyone else in the region, and that includes DC globally as well as Tel Aviv. "We won't sign this treaty because it's inconvenient to us, but you better and you better follow it otherwise we'll sanction you to death by proxy with DC and maybe even aggressively attack you pre-emptively and without real provocation in order to enforce our corporate agendas on you and your entire population, because we CAN" is what they are basically saying, don't you think?

Gnostic wrote: Why do they think they are exempt from the same international laws and treaties the rest of the world has signed onto?
yojimbo22 wrote: Um...maybe because EVERY nation is exempt from a treaty that it hasn't signed. :lol:

lol real funny. that's just a hoot.

Gnostic wrote: Don't you think that sort of agenda promotes states like Iran to persue a WMD program of their own?
yojimbo22 wrote: No, Israel's existence is what's promoting Iran to develop WMDs. They want to wipe them off the map.

Yawn. More RW propaganda. Like Iran is stupid and naive enough to think they could attack Israel with a nuke without being obliterated off the planet in retaliation, considering Israel has an extensive collection of nukes going back to the 60's. Maybe Iran sees the self-exclusionary stance of the Zionists, coupled with their brutal repressions of the Palestinians, and maybe they merely desire protection and self defense and military parity and balance in the region. Shame on them. Since when did soveriegn nations ever have the right to defend themselves if they are'nt politically aligned with DC? How dare they!

Gnostic wrote: Faced with fascist hypocrisy coming from a neighbor like that, if I were prez of Iran, I'd be building myself a few nukes too. :roll:
yojimbo22 wrote: "Fascist hypocrisy." I love how you leftists throw words like "fascist" around without knowing what they actually mean. :lol:

well, Cap'n lol, in this context I use the term "fascism" to denote a political philosophy which condones brutal and blatant colonialization, intervention and aggression, and the outright contempt for international law that does'nt appease it.

yojimbo22 wrote: Iran has stated its goal to wipe Israel off the map. Iran is building nuclear weapons. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on. It has nothing to do with any supposed Israeli hypocrisy. It has everything to do with the fact that Israel exists.

Aside from the valid argument over whether Israel even in reality has a right to exist in the first place, by the confiscation of land that belonged to someone else and further expansions, annexations and occupations after that, and the building of a world-wide condemned and land-grabbing wall meant to separate and disconnect and surround any future Palestinian state, as well as grabbing up all the water rights.....whew....I'll just say that I don't condone or agree with the nutcases in power in Iran or their rhetoric at times, but they have the right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression and furthermore the entire Islamic Revolution's existence can be traced straight back to American/Brit interventions and coups that always, inevitable, backfire and bite the RW'ers right in the ass and make the next generation pay for it.

Gnostic wrote: Gnostic wrote: Same reason most international treaties are never signed by Washington without a slew of exceptions and "RUD's" and other reservations making the United States and only the United States exempt from many of the obligations they expect everyone else to abide by under threat of sanctions and even military aggression,
battleax86 wrote: And we have the right to request those exceptions...same as everybody else. 8:)

Then why bother with them at all?
yojimbo22 wrote: Because our situation sometimes requires a few exceptions, while the rest of the treaty is acceptable.

How pat and neat that is. Convenient. Nice flowery rhetoric designed to veil the true monster which lurks inside....self-exclusion and self-justified aggression.

Gnostic wrote: And why make yourself into one big honkin hypocrite by demanding these treaties be followed under threat of sanction on everyone else while you conveniently overlook or obfuscate or make exceptions to them? That does'nt necessarily make the rest of the world want to play fair with you either.
yojimbo22 wrote: There's no hypocrisy. If these nations wanted to request the same exception or choose not to ratify the treaty at all, they were free to do so.

Oh, but since they showed good faith in ratifying such treaties it's ok for DC/Tel Aviv to refuse to do so themselves while remaining insistent those good faith nations adhere to the agreements tooth and nail. Funny, that.

Gnostic wrote: Gnostic wrote: and Israel practices the same as exemplified in their stubborn refusals to open their WMD arsenals to UN inspection while demanding the same of their antagonists.
battleax86 wrote: They demand the same of their antagonists because their antagonists have signed treaties prohibiting themselves from having nuclear weaponry. Israel has not. Therein lies the difference. :wink:
How convenient. Nice justification. Still does'nt answer the question, nor does it tackle the underlying problems with self-exemption from international law.
yojimbo22 wrote: Yes, it does answer the question. Your argument is like saying that if you sign a contract with one of your neighbors, ALL of your neighbors must abide by that contract.

Noooo....nice try though. What is actually being said here, by your side, is that if I enter into an agreement with my neighbor and sign it, and then later find some of that agreement is inconvenient to my goal of taking over my neighbor's land and restricting his access to defend himself from me, if I have bigger guns I can just ignore the agreement and threaten my neighbor with pre-emptive violence if he decides now not to abide himself.

yojimbo22 wrote: Let me break it down into very simple terms: If you don't ratify a treaty, YOU ARE NOT BOUND BY IT.

heh, then you should'nt be up there demanding others abide by it either. Can you say hypocrisy?

yojimbo22 wrote: If you do ratify a treaty, YOU ARE BOUND BY IT. If you violate a treaty that you're bound by, you are guilty of violating international law. It's not a very difficult concept to understand.

Israel has broken more UN resolutions, and refused to sign onto or submit to more international treaties and regulations, than any other nation on PLANET EARTH. That's an easy concept to understand, since it's a reality.

I really can't debate this anymore or the rest of your post because, simply, you refuse to see any hypocrisy or detriment or consequences to the faulty and aggressive self-exclusionary policies of DC and Israel. There is a million justifications for every one of their blatant transgressions and contempt for any laws or treaties which do not appease them. They feel free to ignore any provisions, or entire treaties themselves, that the rest of the entire civilized world has embraced as basic standards of decency among nations.

programmusic · Joined: 22 Apr 2006 Posts: 1336

Israel has also had more U.N resolutions passed against it then China, Sudan, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Russia COMBINED. In fact, Israel has had more resolutions passed against it than any other country in the world combined. if Israel followed the resolutions passed against it, it would cease to exist.

Gnostic · Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:49 am Post subject:

programmusic wrote: if Israel followed the resolutions passed against it, it would cease to exist.

Extreme way of saying that Israel may face the horror of horrors of needing to comply with the same resolutions it wants to pass on everybody else.

There's also many valid reasons behind why Israel holds those dubious distinctions, but I suppose it will merely be passed off as antisemitic propaganda by the RW as usual.