I do not see any comedy in denying the rights of millions of refugees, and I find it disturbing that you do.:rofl: :rofl: (i assume you meant to be funny! )
What you quoted doesn't even mention the status of the rights affermed by UN resolutions, let alone does it mention the distinction in status you claim.Good question … Articles 10 to 17 (constituting the section "FUNCTIONS and POWERS"), in Chapter IV of the UN charter, at http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter4.shtml [Broken], sets out the powers of the General Assembly.
It is my understanding that the UNGA resolution 181 partition plan established the legal right for Israel to exist. If I am to accept your claim of a distinction betwen rights, then I will be left with no knowledge of any legal basis for Israel's right to exist. So, while I'm still looking for you to substantiate your claim that the UN makes any such distinction of rights; I am also curious to know what, if anything, do you believe gives Israel any legal right to exist at all?UNGA Resolution 194, like all other General Assembly Resolutions, confers no legal rights.
First off, there is no racial connotation to the term. More directly, the majority of shysters in this world aren't Jews, and the majority of Jews in this world aren't shysters.What do you mean "reaching"? A racist word was used, with no apparent reason other than racist insult. Are you seriously suggesting that one should remain silent in the face of racist insult?
And the word was deliberately mis-spelled to bring out the insult even more graphically … from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shyster …
That said, you are reaching when you ascribe a racial connotation to a word which doesn't have one. You are reaching even further when you post a link that doesn't suggest any racial connotation to the word you claim has one. You are even more reaching when you allege a misspelling of that word is a deliberate attempt to amplify that nonexistent racial connotation. You may not have done any of this deliberately, but you have been making reaching attempts to play the racism-card here just the same.
I didn't quote what you did there because it has no bearing on my point. Again, the fact that the vast majority of the nations of the world's constant reaffirmation of the rights of Palestinians misleads some to belive world is racist against Jews. Since you have been perpetuating similar sophistry, I am curious to know how far you go with it, and presented that website as an example of the exteme to people who aren't aware of the this phenomena.I assume you're referring to the allegation that some people accuse any criticism of Israel as racist … my accusation (not against you) wasn't about any criticism of Israel, it was about a personal insult that had nothing to do with Israel.
Sorry … what is the point you're making about UN Watch?
You haven't quoted, from the same page
Regardless, I don't see how anything less than racism could have facilitated Israel's violent uprooting of masses of Palestinians, and the decades long and ongoing denial of the rights of those resulting refugees and Palestinians as a whole. How else could Israel have committed that original injustice against those refugees, and continue perpetrating that injustice and others against Palestinians in general to this day, other than though deeply ingrained bigoty against them? Is that why you found my previous question on the immorality of denying Palestinians refugee rights humorous?
There difference here is that Israel is has continued to maintain military occupation over Palestinian territory for decades, while colonizing across that territory with Israeli civilian settlements. This leaves millions of Palestinians stateless, including many refugees of what is now Israel, permanently denied civil rights by Israel martial law, as Israel kills off anyone who stands in the way of their ongoing conquest over what little of Palestine is left. Furthermore, all one has to do is check the documentation to see that, aside from the US, all the permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as Canada and the rest of the world, often demonstrate their respect for this difference with UNGA resolutions affirming the rights of Palestinian refugees, such as this one I posted previously:China, Russia, and the United States (permanent members of the UN Security Council) are not very likely to ever order the return of Palestinians since it would set a very bad precedent for them. Canada wouldn't be very happy, either. (Generally, the larger a country's area, the more indigenous 'nations' that were displaced completely or placed under some other nation's rule).
The United States might support a monetary settlement, since that's how the US has generally handled dealing with its past (the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, for example).
That resolution was adopted with a vote of 173-1-6, as recounted here:
If our US government had any real interest in supporting a monetary settlement, we could have done so decades ago rather than vetoing any Security Counsel resolutions directed at imposing such a just conclusion to this conflict. Unfortunately, in the US and Israel, we've been flooded with masses of propaganda to blame the victims of Israels conquest over Palestine. I doubt many of our leaders in both nations even realise they are misguiding themselves with such chicanery, and I am sure most of the population doesn't, but that is exactly what allows Israel to deny the rights of Palestinians, refugees and otherwise. Again, is Israel's conquest over Palestine nothing more than a manifestation of racism, or where anyone find any actual justice in continuing this?
Last edited by a moderator: