Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3266
  • Joined

Everything posted by hpslugga

  1. Was this a reference to Labour? If so, prior to Bibi's second term, Labour actually had a worse human rights record with the Palestinians than Likud. It's perhaps paradoxical to say that, but consider: -Begin was the only Israeli PM to suspend torture as a national policy (brief, but a suspension nonetheless) -Rabin once boasted that he destroyed more houses than any Likud government (not true any more since Bibi has far surpassed him, mostly due to the length of his tenure) -Rabin was also worse on the question of settlement expansion than Shamir, and Barak was worse than Bibi had been previously -Speaking of Barak, he was the PM at the very peak of settlement expansion from the period of 1967-2001 It's true that Bibi is the absolute worst that they've had since 1967, but again, that mostly has to do with the fact that his heinous ass has been in that position considerably longer than anyone else. He has spent more than twice the amount of time in that position than Shamir (15 vs. 7).
  2. That's a nice fairy tale but it has precious little to do with the established diplomatic record that goes back to the 1970's. In 1971, Sadat offered a full peace treaty to Israel (with nothing as a concession to the Palestinians). Israel refused it, and the US backed them in that refusal. That refusal led directly to the 1973 war. They reluctantly accepted Sadat's offer at Camp David, but by then, the Palestinian question had reached the international agenda and they were also included in it. In January 1976, the US (obviously with Israel's blessing) vetoed a Security Council resolution, which was advanced by the non-aligned countries, the Arab states, and endorsed by the PLO, that called for a two-state settlement along the pre-June 4 1967 borders. They would do so again in 1980. The US has also annually vetoed a GA resolution, which is called the "Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question," every year since it started in 1988 after Arafat had issued the Algiers Declaration. Every year, the vote is something along the lines of 165 or so in favor and 5-7 against, the "no's" being Australia, the United States, Israel, Nauru, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Notice, the whole of the Arab League and the whole of the OIC votes in favor of that resolution, as well as in their own conferences. In other words, the Arab League countries convene 3 times in 3 different arenas to affirm their support for the two-state settlement as dictated by UN Resolution 242, 194, and most recently the ICJ's 2004 Advisory Opinion. Israel and the US have, to this day, refused to endorse such a settlement. As to the idea of Israel's goal not being the destruction of the Palestinians, that's a bad joke. Of course it is. I mean since you're here tacitly referring to that stupid ass 1988 Hamas Charter (which has since been rebuked by its present leadership's willingness to join the international consensus more than a decade ago), I guess it's only fair that I directly refer to the charters of Likud and their predecessors (Herut), which explicitly forbid the idea of the creation of an independent Palestinian state and, in fact, calls for their destruction. And they not only put that forth in foundational rhetoric, they implement it in real policy. Nobody who's sympathetic with the Palestinians even bothers to point that out. Nobody serious says "oh they shouldn't negotiate with Bibi because his party has this charter that explicitly forbids a Palestinian state." That would be extremely stupid, and yet as extremely stupid as it would be, it would read like the Declaration of fucking Independence when juxtaposed with these complaints, whines and bitches about the Hamas charter. "This side of the Jordan, that side also." That was a Herut slogan...yet you'll never see a single Hamas leader make any sort of hay about it. Why? He wouldn't have to. The actions of the present are far more important than founding documents. To argue otherwise is to insist on rhetoric over reality. That is the folly of the superficial-minded. That's irrelevant. Neither Mexico nor Texas were created vis a vis a partition resolution by an international governing body in the way that Israel was. You're comparing apples to oranges, and as someone else pointed out, it's not even a flattering comparison anyways. Again, apples and oranges. Yes, Texas and the US together stole about 1/3rd of Mexico, but it is not maintaining that territory via military occupation. Israel is militarily occupying the West Bank, the Gaza, and East Jerusalem. They've been in flat contradiction of international law in doing so for the last 54 years and they're the ones that have incurred the obligation to cease such activities. They have no obligation to leave the West Bank and Gaza. That would be the IDF. That's what you don't get.
  3. The totality of relevant international law. -Article 2 of the UN Charter: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” -Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory” -UN Resolution 242 Preamble: “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security” And why am I invoking it? Because that’s, at least nominally speaking, how international relations work in the real world. What you’re talking about speaks nothing to that. You’re talking about the “might makes right” falderal that created this nightmare in the first place.
  4. Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with the law. That prediction/hypothetical is about as useful as an asshole on an elbow.
  5. Kellen Moore took the wins record. It was kinda like when Ricky had the rushing yardage record: eclipsed very quickly
  6. I mean one could argue that the most fringe elements of the BDS movement tacitly supports that, but they constitute a very small percentage and pale miserably in comparison to their counterparts, which of course are Israeli Jews who get a woody thinking about a Greater Israel.
  7. Has nothing to do with the law.
  8. it’s not just their conduct inside of Israel that makes them an apartheid state, although that alone qualifies. There’s also the aspect of how they’ve militarily occupied the whole of the West Bank, the whole of Gaza, and the whole of East Jerusalem. Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over those area, but they pretend to vis a vis their actions. The label of “apartheid state” is just understood to mean both Israel and Palestine as both are defined by the pre-June 4 1967 borders. As to such conduct being necessary for survival, that’s absurd and any honest military expert would tell you that.
  9. Yeah, there aren't a lot of Texas fans who'd consider aggy the top rival, and those who do most likely started following the Horns between 1984-1994, a.k.a the decade where A&M FedExed itself into the conversation.
  10. Eighty five cents in a taxi from one end to the other. I'm...talking...small.
  11. That's actually a microcosm of American Jews in general. And you worded it perfectly, too. It's not so much that they suddenly support Palestinian self-determination, but their active support for the Zionist government has certainly become less active.
  12. In fact it couldn't be a "violent and brutal apartheid state" without the US.
  13. Right I mean NDSU managed to get in there...and it wasn't even a reference to the Nickel Trophy game, either.
  14. Right, I expect 16 to be used as a lever to arrive at 8 as well. I personally would like to see campus games in the quarters in the first place. Hell, I'd be in favor for the fucking semis to be at home venues too, but that's a pipe dream for another generation to deal with. I've never understood this issue and for the following reasons: 1. Regarding the NFL, they don't start the postseason until January the 15th. 2. Regarding the New Year's tradition...just don't have a fucking month-long layoff between regular and postseason. There has never been a demonstrated necessity for that. If anything, it's a detriment to the players to re-acclimate themselves to an actual competition environment. High schools don't wait for their playoff, neither do the pro's, neither do the other collegiate ranks. This is a stupid problem. 3. Let's suppose it's indeed 16 teams. Ok that's 4 rounds. Say they just start with the CCG's. [Ron White]Let's just say[/Ron White]. So that's: Round of 16-December 4th Round of 8-December 11th Round of 4-December 18th Bye-December 25th NCG-January 1st Not that fucking difficult as long as we stop pretending that it's just a given that FBS players are so physically (and mentally, for those who want to invoke the "FINAL EXAMS!" fallacy) delicate that they need to be taking 3-4 weeks off after CCG's. All these alleged "constraints" that FBS "faces" in making 8-16 a workable deal to be completed by New Year's are fictitious.
  15. Yep. I remember both those Oregon games quite well. That semi was the game where Jameis Winston slipped backwards and fumbled the living shit out of the ball for a scoop score for the Ducks. If you watch the replay, it looks like the returner and the blocker right next to him were saying to each other "...did that...really just happen?"
  16. Yeah they haven't made it since that time Washington got hammered by Bama. ousux is the only team west of the Mississippi River to qualify for the CFP since that 24-7 snoozefest.
  17. Yep. Confirmation bias being presented as a doctrine of unfalsifiability. Also known as "bullshit being presented as even bigger bullshit"
  18. https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/12/us/north-carolina-baptists-sever-ties-to-wake-forest.html "North Carolina Baptists voted to sever formal ties to Wake Forest University today, ending decades of dispute over academic freedom and moral constraints at the church-related school. ''Why spend our resources to hold onto this empty shell?'' asked the Rev. M. O. Owens of Gastonia, N.C. ''Wake Forest long ago left the fold.''"
  19. You know, whenever you guys post some video tweet on this thread, the first sound that pops into my head is
  20. Exactly. The right to pray has never been fucked with in virtually any context. The obligation to pray has been, it should have been, and the fact that hardly any religitards can appreciate the difference speaks either to their ignorance (i.e. they can't see the difference) or their immorality (they see the difference but think they nonetheless should have that right to impose).
  21. I get in similar conversations when they prattle on about "they [whoever "they" are] outlawed prayer in school!" Who did? And what outlawing? The only prayer that's been outlawed is compulsory prayer, and that absolutely should be outlawed..and it also proves my point.
  22. Nah just a stupidity and laziness thing. They think they’re having a lively discussion about a concept that involves them manually switching clock hours twice a year.
×
×
  • Create New...