Israel to bar UN fact-finding team from entering

It's not 'quite silly', it's a variation of the special pleading fallacy. I'm off to bed, nice chat.

What you'll never see in the MSM.

Goodnight Sir.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I honestly could care less about the flotilla, clearly it's not what we were told.

As for the the other link, it's really ironic, considering Israel has used that against Iran.

Case in point:

Israel: They can't have nuclear weapons!
Iran: Why don't you let inspectors see if you have nukes?
Israel: Cause we don't have to, were Israel.
Iran: Then how can you say that we aren't allowed to have them if you won't follow the rules that you are asking us to follow?
Israel: Nevermind what were doing, you're evil and bad, let's bomb you.
Iran: Well that doesn't make any sense, you're saying that we can't have them, yet you won't confirm or deny it, won't sign the NP treaty, or conform to any UN laws or resolutions, but you expect us to?

Israel: Yup, sucks don't it?

That's really what's happening here, so thank you for helping me further my point that Israel has no business telling soverign nations what to do, when they themselves won't be told what to do by other nations.

If it wants to spit on it's international obligations, and it's agreements it's made with international bodies, that's fine, but please don't pretend that it's for any other reason than the fact that they don't feel like the should have to, do anything, they don't want to do.

That's the only reason I see, that or guilt.

Either way, it makes them look very very silly.

~Tenth

Originally posted by seenavv
Ahhh Xcathdra. Always ready to defend the actions of Israel regardless of how illogical or absurd your arguments are
remember this?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The UN investigation into that stated the use of Phosphorus is permissible for illumination, which is what occurred.

Thanks for the reminder, Seenavv. That certainly casts Xcathdra's comments in a revealing light.

Truly unbelievable that any human with a heart would call the purpose of the Israeli government's use of white phosphorous in its attacks on the people of Gaza as being for "illumination". The only thing that was "illuminated" by that activity was the dark side of their soul for the world to see.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Actually they agreed to a moratorium on new settlements, as they have done a few times in the past. The goal was to promote good will and to bring all parties to the negotiation table. A move the Palestinians and arab countries refuse to do.

As far as the status of Gaza and the West Bank, that quagmire stems from UN Resolution 242, which cleary spelled out the conditions in which occupied land was to be returned to the origional countries with 2 exceptions.

* - Egypt - Agreed to relinquish all sovereign Egyptian claims to the Gaza strip in return for Israel handing the Sinai back to Egypt. The Gaza strip claims was transfered to the PLO.
* - Jordan - Gave up sovereign Jordanian claims to the West bank and agrred to the Jordan river as being the offical boundary between Israel and Jordan. The West Bank claims were, like Gaza, cede to the PLO.

It was under the land for peace program which started in UNR242 and moved forward with UNR 338.

The Golan Heights and Syria were mentioned in 242 but Syria never signed off on it until the late 70's and even then its invalid since the resolution mandates all nations in the ME acknowledge all countries right to exist. Syria has never recognized Israels right to exist (nor has Iran, or Hama,s or Hezzbullah), which is one of the main reason Israel still occupies that territory.

UNR 242, as the Brritish envoy pointed out, does not specifically state anything about Palestinians or how that was to be resolved. Egypt and Jordan relinquished all claims to the 2 land areas and ceded the issues / resolution to those lands to the PLO. It did not clarify any borders or status.

The argument about Israeli settlements is problematic since the UN's base argument is they violate the 4th geneva convention. The problem with that assertion is the exact same as the enemy combatents and Gitmo. A group / entity that is not a formally recognized and soverign government by the UN, or signatories to any treaties outside the conventions. Legalities involved and questions / positions for and against.

Coming back to the topic -
UN Human rights Body

The link below is an excel spreadsheet so when you click it will ask you to download and open. If you don't want to use this link, use the one above. The link will be on the right hand side in the box.
UN Human rights overview by country

There is no treaty in the Human rights area for the UN that requires a country to allow UN Inspectors into their country. That is supported by the recent actions in various countries and not just in the ME. The major supporting factor in the position was the creation of the international Criminal Court, which was mandated to deal with war crimes / crimes against humanity / Human rights etc.

Israel withdrew from the ICC and Rome Accords in 2002 because - wait for it.....

Israel

Israel voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute but later signed it for a short period. In 2002, the United States and Israel, "unsigned" the Rome Statute, indicating that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, they have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the statute.[22]

Israel states that it has "deep sympathy" with the goals of the Court. However, it has concerns that political pressure on the Court would lead it to reinterpret international law or to "invent new crimes". It cites the inclusion of "the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory" as a war crime as an example of this, whilst at the same time disagrees with the exclusion of terrorism and drug trafficking. Israel sees the powers given to the prosecutor as excessive and the geographical appointment of judges as disadvantaging Israel which is prevented from joining any of the UN Regional Groups.[23]

Does Israel, who is not a signatory to the treaties in question, have grounds to refuse UN inspectors into the country? In my opinion yes since they arent signatories as well as the argument Israel made about prosecutorial misconduct. The US is not a signatory either since it vilates our Constitution and national sovereignty.

If we cannot force Syria or Iran to conduct themselves and their internal affairs in a specific manner, shouldn;t that standard apply to all then?

I am a conservative jewish man, and i say # israel.

Did you know we American jews often have to apologize for the Israeli government?

My Rabbi wrote a letter to the iranian government apologizing for the Israeli government.

They are ultra orthodox lunatics.

it's safe to say easily 50% of israel thinks the same.

I say they have more to hide than iran

reply to post by dubiousone


I see once again you guys only see what you want. You are all for the UN to inspect Isreal, yet you reject UN findings when it came to the use of phosphorous. The UN allows the use of phosphorous at night as illumination and during the day to be used as a smokescreen. The UN also ruled civilians were not intentionally targeted by Israeli forces.

Do you ignore those facts because it doesn't support your claims?

You guys are so blinded by ignorance and hatred its just sad. My arguments on these topics has been consistent and fair on both sides. My argument, should you guys ever get around to reading them in full and understanding them, is all countries are either forced to comply with the various agreements they signed onto, or they aren't, in which case the arguments against Israel (and by extension on the flip side Iran / Syria) are baseless.

You are either in for a penny in for a pound, or you aren't.

So which is it? Apply to everyone or no one?

reply to post by MrRamblinRose


Honest self-appraisal is a defining characteristic of Judaism, at least from my perspective. There are IAF pilots who refuse to bomb the camps and become outcasts because of it. Grounded too, which is worse for a pilot.

So much hipocrisy in this thread, I wouldn't trust the UN either. I have serious doubts that the U.S would submit so openly to a "fact finding mission" such as this, You're leaders can't even submit to the ICC (its only for black fella's right?).

Originally posted by Esotericizm
So much hipocrisy in this thread, I wouldn't trust the UN either. I have serious doubts that the U.S would submit so openly to a "fact finding mission" such as this, You're leaders can't even submit to the ICC (its only for black fella's right?).

How about you read up on the ICC, including its charter and then compare that info to what the ICC has been doing, then come back and make your argument.

The ICC is not a part of the United Nations - You understand that right?
The United Nations is not a governing body of law - You understand that right?

A nation cannot be forced into abiding by a treaty they never signed. Any attempt to force that makes the people going off on Israel and the US hypocritical does it not?

ETA - Let me phrase this in a different manner. The ICC introduced and uses a legal term in international law called "universal jurisdiction". The concept behind it is to hold governments / leaders accountible to a defined / restricted set of laws. It states that a nation has one year to be notified of a violation and to conduct an investigation and to take legal actions against the accused.

If the nation refuses, then the term universal jurisdiction comes into play. It means a nation can take action on their own accord in order to prevent another nation from continual violations of the specific laws. Do you really want the US to be a signatory to a treaty that allows the use of military force against any nation who breaks the ICC law and refuses to take action.

Based on the ICC mandate we would not need Un approval to invade Syria since the Syrian government actions violate the standard in the ICC.

As I stated before, learn and research a topic an then apply those results to hypotheticals down the road. Making laws are easy.. enforcing them in a manner that doesnt violate the laws itself is something else entirely.

Being Choosen One is hard task, you dont understand it because you are not the Choosen One, in the end, its just the Choosen One that will prevail, all other and everyone else are pretty useless. These UN delegates are just nuisance, they are not pure Choosen One race in any way.


Of 6 billion people in the world, god only accept those few millions only. Thats a lot of hell fuel I think. Pretty much cruel god there I guess. Damn, what my luck not born as a Choosen One.

I really wonder, choosen one.... for what ?

Would you agree to an organisation lobbied by the Tripartite Pact to carry out a survey on your own people, this is what the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation is doing with the United Nations.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by dubiousone

 

I see once again you guys only see what you want. You are all for the UN to inspect Isreal, yet you reject UN findings when it came to the use of phosphorous. The UN allows the use of phosphorous at night as illumination and during the day to be used as a smokescreen. The UN also ruled civilians were not intentionally targeted by Israeli forces.

Do you ignore those facts because it doesn't support your claims?

You guys are so blinded by ignorance and hatred its just sad. My arguments on these topics has been consistent and fair on both sides. My argument, should you guys ever get around to reading them in full and understanding them, is all countries are either forced to comply with the various agreements they signed onto, or they aren't, in which case the arguments against Israel (and by extension on the flip side Iran / Syria) are baseless.

You are either in for a penny in for a pound, or you aren't.

So which is it? Apply to everyone or no one?

That's an easy challenge to accept. Apply the same standards to everyone. Cut through the smoke screens. Don't be diverted by the patently transparent misdirections. Call a spade what it is every time you see one and give no quarter to the liars regardless of the political influence they might wield. Before listening to Israel's protestations about Iran's alleged intent to acquire it's first nuke which many in the know say is a doubtful allegation, let's deal with the nukes which Israel has already stockpiled. Are you willing for the world and the U.N. to do that? Or are you just blowing the rhetorical smoke at us for the game of it?

As to the notion that Israel used white phosphorous for illumination by night and a smokescreen by day, you know as well as everyone else that's just nonsense. The evidence to the contrary is indisputable. Because the U.S. and Britain blindly condone anything Israel does no matter how despicable, the U.N. is precluded from holding Israel responsible for anything it does, your assertion that any rational person should blindly accept a U.N. finding that Israel's use of white phosphorous was limited to illumination by night and smokescreen by day is feeble indeed.

Who is behind the fact-finding mission?

Bolivia, Cuba, Mauritania (on behalf of the League of Arab States) Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and Venezuela.

Israel will never have a favourable vote at the United Nations with the huge amount of Islamic countries and their allies.

If you look at the recent request into looking at the basic human rights in Iran, not even a fact-finding mission, most Islamic countries and their allies voted against it.

Regardless of who signed what treaty...shouldn't a U.N. member state allow U.N. inspectors in to do their job?

If they don't want to comply maybe they should get the heck out of the U.N.

reply to post by MissConstrood


No, Israel is being unfairly targeted by a pack of rogue nations through the U.N.

The UNHRC should inspect every nation on a recurring basis, without lobbying.

reply to post by Arrowmancer


I agree with your assessment because it is not just a passionate "I HATE Israel" reply like most do on this site. I am Muslim and an American/Iranian, but Israel is the worlds and the ATS forum's whipping boy, actually add the US to that as well.

So many anti-American's and anti-Israeli's on this forum, its almost as though you will support anything regardless of what it is just as long as it is negative to the US or Israel...

Sniper...

reply to post by 010203


So surely it makes sense for Isreal to 'be the bigger man' so to speak and let the inspectors in. Then maybe other states will follow their example.

Seems to me they're all behaving like kindergarteners!

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Double standard? In what way? Please show us where Israel is required to allow Human rights inspectors into their country?

As far as Irans program they are signatories to a treaty, and as such are required by those treaties to allow inspections. You guys really need to get the facts correct before trying to make a comparison. Constantly rehashing the same comparison after it has been debunked / destroyed time and time again does not make it true.

Iran - signatory to the NPT
Israel - Not a signatory to the treaty.

Iran - foreign intelligence states Iran has a weapons program - result - People dismiss intelligence.
Israel - The people from above accuse Israel of having nukes, yet ignore the fact that info is from intelligence sources.

So long as is directed at Israel, you guys could care less where the info is coming from.

that is the only double standard I am seeing, both in your post and others int he thread.

Umm.. seriously you must have a VERY selective memory.

Iraq
Libya
Syria
Iran

Shall I continue to go on? I guess because Israel didn't sign the NNPT they are exempt from everything right? But are you aware that the United States is breaking the Symington Amendment by giving a single dime to Israel? Under the NNPT we SHOULD be helping Iran and should NOT be helping Israel. Yet its the other way around. Hmm.. curious.

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections. This provision, as amended, is now contained in Section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).

But lemme guess. This is completely OK because poor Israel HAS to defend itself right? Holocausts and Anti-Semites and Nazi's oh my.

Please show me what foreign intelligence says Iran has a nuclear weapons program? And if you quote the Mosad or anything related to Israel I will laugh you out of this discussion. All 16 of the United States intelligence programs have stated Iran is NOT after a nuclear weapon and DOES NOT have a nuclear weapons program. The IAEA has also stated the same. So go ahead and prove it.

If you have nothing to hide, everyone can visit.
If you have something to hide, you know what to do.

There are reasons why people hate a country while they never ever been there. When you have nuke, and you ban people from even inspecting it, people think you're up to something bad. When you start building walls, its sooo wrong in term of human rights already. As a country fully supported by another big superpower, you should shut your mouth and stop showing off. People hate that. Stop showing of you moron people.

Worst country in the world!

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by dubiousone

 

I see once again you guys only see what you want. You are all for the UN to inspect Isreal, yet you reject UN findings when it came to the use of phosphorous. The UN allows the use of phosphorous at night as illumination and during the day to be used as a smokescreen. The UN also ruled civilians were not intentionally targeted by Israeli forces.

Do you ignore those facts because it doesn't support your claims?

You guys are so blinded by ignorance and hatred its just sad. My arguments on these topics has been consistent and fair on both sides. My argument, should you guys ever get around to reading them in full and understanding them, is all countries are either forced to comply with the various agreements they signed onto, or they aren't, in which case the arguments against Israel (and by extension on the flip side Iran / Syria) are baseless.

You are either in for a penny in for a pound, or you aren't.

So which is it? Apply to everyone or no one?

Well....I've been consistent in saying we should simply leave the Middle East and just let those fools kill one another if they want over the rocks and sand and whatnot.

Why do you want to go get involved in yet another war in Iran again?