|New Civilization News: Citizen McCain
28 comments5 Feb 2008 @ 03:14 by jerryvest : If McCain had any sense, dignity
and respect for our soldiers and marines, he would listen to what they have to say about this war. He should visit with those who have returned as wounded Warriors following several tours in Iraq and Afghanastan. He should talk with their chilren and families and see how they have been injured by this war without any end in sight. I agree with you and with Johann Hari...McCain is a dangerous person who still thinks that this war can be won. What does he think we will win by continuing this debacle? I think if anyone listens carefully to his comments, his message and his voice, they will see that he is much like Bush. Who in their right mind wants to listen to 4 more years of war and fear mongering nonsense?
Thank you, Paul.
5 Feb 2008 @ 14:19 by vaxen : You're...
going to, anyway, jerry, regardless of what new clown graces the sacred halls of the big lie in Washington District of Criminals. Oh, and you're gonna like it compliments of Tavistock and the Frankfort School of mental slide merchants.
5 Feb 2008 @ 18:18 by Quinty @126.96.36.199 : McCain
is an emotionally unstable man. Watch him sometime on TV and you can easily see it. At the last debate he sat between Romney and Paul with this ugly condescending smile on his face. Feeling victory in the air he became hugely arrogant.
And then the next time I saw him, when I switched on, he was in the midst of this violent verbal rampage against "Islamo fascism." Hopping about the stage beating his chest. Promising America will never accept "defeat."
The guy looked nuts. I mean, he seems to represent the worst in the American people, as, frankly, all the Republican candidates do. And, what's more, the guy is a nasty piece of work. It comes out, and I've seen it from time to time over the years. His 95 year old mother got into some trouble recently for making some insensitive remarks. John smiled as he sat next to her and reminded the audience his mother was 95 years old. But this was no nanogeneric slip. She was simply being a McCain.
Yes, I agree with you, Jerry. A large majority of the American people have seen through the scales and Obama, if he gets the nod, should more easily quash McCain's belicose and dangerous fantasies. More easily than Hillary who has flirted with McCain's side. Now she's talking a new line, but she also promised a permanent presence in Iraq a month or two ago. Rhetorically she won't be as free as Obama in dealing with McCain. Though if she becomes president I hope she will do the sane thing.
But we're living with this terrible twisted fantasy in this country now: "Islamo fascism." Millions of Americans can not clarify in their minds just what is what in the Middle East, conflating Saddam with al Qaeda with suicide bombers with Islam and on and on. As we know, Bush planted many of these lies.
Oh, Vax: I removed your illustration. It was hurting my eyes and I couldn't bear looking at it.
11 Feb 2008 @ 06:22 by Elle @188.8.131.52 : mixed messages
You're mixing up several very different things: American imperalism, terrorism, and who is McCain. McCain has a bad temper, yes. I don't think he's the best we can have for a president. Laugh all you want about Al Qaeda and terrorism - it's an insult to those who are being attacked every day by these monsters (like Hamas) - just as Judih who lives in the middle of hell thanks to them. They are a real threat - and they're already on our doorstep, even though many of you laughed the past ten years of my warnings about it. You'll end up sounding like the moron archbishop in London who says get used to Sharia law - it's not so bad, after all, so many Muslims have moved to London and he's scared and stupid. Imperalism is not generally not a good ida. Stopping terrorism is a good idea, no matter who is president. This is not just about Iraq. It's about Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
11 Feb 2008 @ 19:17 by quinty : The Islamo fascists are coming!!!!
At the risk of sounding like the "moron archbishop of London" it would seem sane and sensible to maintain a cool and rational head regarding terrorism. And promising to extend the Iraq war in a violent bellicose manner is not very reassuring. Especially since the "war on terror" is not really connected to Iraq. And never was, though our occupation has certainly acted as a powerful recruiting poster, offering its attractions to those who would like to get in a few shots.
George Bush has offered a “defense” budget for fiscal 2009 of more than 700 billion dollars. Now what do we need such a large budget for? Certainly not to win a conventional war with another super power? Our atomic arsenal should act as a deterrent there. And if it doesn’t a mere mega military wouldn’t stop the self-destructive madmen from attacking us anyway.
Are hundreds of billions required to fight terrorism? An excess of aircraft carriers has never stopped a terrorist carrying a suitcase bomb. The “war on terror” requires something more subtle. Yes, police work. Intelligence. Perhaps some attack jets to take out some hidden mountain outposts. Subtle diplomacy and alliances.
And perhaps reducing the incentives to being hated by actually befriending the Arabic peoples would help? Rather than constantly adopting and befriending their hideous leaders? (Saddam, let’s not forget, was once a buddy of ours. Some might even logically say we double-crossed him.) We may claim expediency requires we make friends with some unsavory people, but then we have to expect the consequences.
Perhaps this immense defense budget is necessary to carry out George Bush’s Neocon dream of empire? Perhaps it exists to feed defense contractors and strengthen domestic alliances? Perhaps it’s intended to eventually break our entitlement programs such as Medicare?
No, “Islamo fascism,” in spite of the the appalling lessons of “appeasement” and the spirit of Winston Churchill the Neocons love, is an overblown paranoid fiction which has little to do with reality. it came in handy as a rationale for staying in Iraq (“if we don’t fight them there we’ll have to fight them here.” ) And among those who believe in scary creatures which go bump in the night it may serve as an excuse for a 700 billion plus “defense” budget.
We’ve been through this before. We always seem to require in this country a scapegoat or an enemy in an unending war. Just look back at the Cold War, how needless and foolish it all was. Two super powers depending upon fear and uncertainty to bolster their own influence and power. Exploited in the United States by the likes of Joe McCarthy and the America firsters. Leading us, for ideological reasons, eventually into Vietnam, an entirely unnecessary war. Now we are beginning all over again: John McCain promises to stay in Iraq a hundred years, or until “the job is done.”
Madness. I just hope that while we are engaged in such an enormous struggle someone in Washington remembers al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups which will surely get around to attacking us once again. For they most certainly will not be deterred by our 700 billion defense budget.
What you really care about, Elle, is Israel, isn't it? And you see the Arab world as Israel's enemy and my guess is that you are not all that fond of Arabs either. Israel is committing an ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians. They have jeopardized if not lost their moral standing as a nation by their actions against the Palestinians.
Since I can hear the “anti Semitism” slur forming on your lips (how about “self hating Jew?”) I will simply remind you there are many Jews who are appalled by the rightwing Likud government. I’m sure you must be familiar with them: JVP, Tikkun, Rabbi Lerner, Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, many others.
Your heart may be tied to Israel and you may hate Arabs, seeing some sort of evil mass Islamic surge which desires to destroy the west. (And, yes, there are dangerous groups of half crazed muslims fanatics who believe in all this stuff.) But this deep form of subjectivity is a poison, one employed recklessly by Israel Firsters to crush dissent. And under its rigid guise a crime against thousands of innocent people is being committed.
The two hundred thousand plus illegal settlers in the West Bank do not belong there. And the world is correct in pointing this out. But only a blind fanatic would call the world “anti semitic” for protesting against this crime. Those Jews, in fact, who employ this slur to quiet the world’s protests should be ashamed of themselves, for shamelessly exploiting the Holocaust dead in this manner.
13 Feb 2008 @ 00:15 by b : 2012
All of the religions of Earth are nutty. McCain at least has a clue what is going on in USA and keep the tiller steady. THey keep him well pumped up on vits, veggies, and sundries. Obama is a decent man. I will be surprised to see his face after they hip him up with some briefings about how things are daily in the world..
3 Mar 2008 @ 00:15 by Quinty @184.108.40.206 : McCain and the Times
What the Times Didn't Tell Us About McCain
By Robert Scheer, Truthdig. Posted February 27, 2008.
McCain was one of the few politicians brave enough to oppose a 1996 telecom bill that opened the way for large-scale media consolidation.
Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist in question, is praised on her company's Web site for her "extensive experience in telecommunications, representing corporations before the House and Senate Commerce Committees," and for "her work on the landmark 1992 and 1996 communications bills." Now that's a biggie, because the 1996 legislation, although you would never have learned this from the mainstream media at the time, opened the floodgates for massive media consolidation, thus rewarding media moguls for their many millions in campaign contributions. McCain was a big player on that Commerce Committee at the time, and I expected a Times revelation as to just how Iseman got McCain to help gift the media barons with their dream legislation.
The revelation never came, because the annoying reality is that McCain was one of the rare Senate opponents of the telecom bill that Iseman was pushing -- as opposed to The New York Times, which like every other major media outlet pushed for the legislation (in the case of the Times, without ever conceding its own corporation's financial bias in the matter). McCain was one of five senators (and the sole Republican) who, along with Democrats Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, Paul Simon and the great Paul Wellstone, voted against the atrocious legislation, which President Bill Clinton signed into law.
The Times, which now has the temerity to question McCain's integrity on telecommunications policy, ran a shameful editorial back then, under the headline "A Victory for Viewers," insisting after the passage of the legislation that "there was one clear winner -- the consumer." Seven years later, the paper's "Editorial Observer," Brent Staples, bemoaned one direct consequence of the passage of the Telecom Act, under the title "The Trouble with Corporate Radio: The Day the Protest Music Died." Noting that "corporate ownership has changed what gets played -- and who plays it," Staples observed that the top two radio owners went from having a total of 115 stations before the act was passed to 1,400 between them afterward.
This concentration of ownership in all media was the inevitable result of the legislation that the media moguls sought. That far-reaching impact was obvious only one year after the act's passage, as Neil Hickey noted at the time in the Columbia Journalism Review: " ... Far and away the splashiest effect of the new law during the last year has been the historic, unprecedented torrent of mergers, consolidations, buyouts, partnerships and joint ventures that has changed the face of Big Media in America." He then offers a staggering list of massive multibillion-dollar mergers consummated during that first year.
One of the early winners was Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which quickly became the biggest owner of television stations, bolstering its lineup of media properties such as TV Guide, HarperCollins and Twentieth Century Fox; quite a gift from legislation signed by President Clinton, which perhaps explains the warm relationship that subsequently developed between Murdoch and Hillary Clinton. Murdoch sponsored a fundraiser for Clinton's senatorial re-election campaign in 2006, but when asked during the Iowa primary about Murdoch's vast media holdings, including Fox News, the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, Clinton ducked the question. Avoiding any reference to Murdoch, she conceded that " ... There have been a lot of media consolidations in the last several years, and it is quite troubling."
It's not easy to maintain an evenhanded appraisal of McCain as he appropriates the Bush mantle. Of course, I wouldn't vote for him; he is willing to let the Iraq war go on for a hundred years and, at the rate of at least $200 billion a year, that makes a mockery of his efforts to defeat earmarks and other wasteful government spending -- beginning with the massive waste in the Pentagon budget that he has done so much to expose. His capitulation on President Bush's use of torture is even more appalling. But it is absurd to attempt to pigeonhole McCain as a patsy for corporate lobbyists when he has been in the forefront of key efforts to challenge their power.
Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. See more of Robert Scheer at TruthDig.
18 Apr 2008 @ 23:12 by Quinty @220.127.116.11 : Fair and balanced
Go here if you would like to see McCain (the Republicans) get the same treatment as Obama (with Hillary's eager help) received..... Will McCain deserve this when the Republicans Swift Boat Obama in October?
At this point, I don't think it is unfair to ask Hillary if she is a Democrat or not? She has been singing soto voce from the Republican hymnal for quite some time now.
29 May 2008 @ 15:16 by Quinty @18.104.22.168 : A learning experience
"President Bush acknowledged that his administration is "learning as we go" in building democracy in Iraq..." From yesterday's Washington Post...
Our GWB is a most giddy fellow.
He smirks and smiles and loves being Commander in Chief (the "decider") but, lo'! Less you think he has no proper feelings corresponding to the occasion he has given up golf in consideration of the troops. Playing golf in these times of war would be most inappropriate.
Ah, there's a guy who really feels, doesn't he? A guy beset by pain and anguish over his huge life and death decisions, who realizes when he hiccups thousands can die. US troops and poor foreigners abroad alike. Who is truly tortured by these terrible decisions.
So we're learning as we go along?
And on that basis he led our country into an occupation in Iraq? On that basis he has sustained this occupation more than five years long? On that basis he felt confident we could achieve our overall victory?
Oh well, it's not him or his daughters or most of his friends' sons and daughters, by far, who will die as we learn how to occupy an Arabic country where, yes, we're not wanted. And even if we didn't know what we were doing or had any plan or foresight or saw anything that was coming (looting, sectarian strife, an overall collapse) we're learning.
Hey, it's all a learning experience! So smile! We're the good guys. We will come out on top all right!!!!!
4 Jul 2008 @ 19:24 by Quinty @22.214.171.124 : Should Nader debate?
Ah, a real debate. With McCain, Obama, and Nader just to add the spice of reality into the mix. That would be nice.
We know it will never happen. But let’s review some of the reasons why?
First, truth telling in the mainstream media world is considered impolite. Only people with dirty minds ever say unkind things about the president or American intentions. For good manners and decorum are considered far more important than truth. So if your patriotism hasn’t been brought into question the attitude police will get you on the grounds of filthy mindedness. Good enough.
Nader has a most “filthy” mind. He learned something quite different at the Harvard Law School than Barack Obama did. That you can use the law to go after corporate criminals, for the better good of the American people. Even some Republicans admire him for that. But as for running for president we all know he is an eccentric crank, an old man who outlived his usefulness, a spoiler, a funny looking guy in an ill-fitting badly tailored suit. A regular party pooper.
So bringing Nader in would be a distraction. A presidential debate, after all, is a serious matter and we don’t want some goofy participant who may block the real candidates’ unending cliches, lies, and avoidances from taking root. The real candidates after all will uphold all the myths we live by. They have been in training a long time and are most politic when it comes to shaping our vision of ourselves. Look at Bush? He even sold the country on a stupid needless war. And will he get away with this little presidential gaff and breach of trust? If the Democrats and Republicans have any say in the matter he will. For impeachment is off the table. Impeachment would be impolite. Something grubby people with dirty minds make a big fuss about. The great unwashed who question the good intentions of the president. And Nader, over there on the fringe, is their man.
I was for Obama until a couple of days ago. I still clung onto the hope in spite of all the evidence. I still hope since it appears he will probably be the next president of the Untied States. But right now Nader looks very good to me. At least I can agree with him.
10 Jul 2008 @ 05:09 by Vibe @126.96.36.199 : in his own words
From Obama's "Dreams of My Father": 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'
From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
And FINALLY the Most Damming one of ALL of them!!!
From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
P.S. Who would really vote for Nader? Like always, he will bust the Democrats and help the Republicans.
10 Jul 2008 @ 14:44 by Quinty @188.8.131.52 : Obama and Muslims
Yeah, we wouldn't want to see anyone interfering if the number of hate crimes against Muslims should increase. He apparently didn't display a sufficient amount of bigotry in that comment.
As for the bildungsroman above, sure he would stupidly portray himself in that unflattering manner. What else can you expect from a President of the Harvard Law Review?
11 Jul 2008 @ 15:08 by Vibe @184.108.40.206 : blinders on
Don't you think it's wrong for a person running for president to say he would stand with just one group, in addition to knowing who carried out 9/11? What if the political winds shifted in an ugly way towards another group of people? He's biased. It's like you refuse to see this side of Obama, Quinty. Well, that's your choice, and if you do vote for him, don't come crying to everybody later on about what a jerk he is. A president of the Harvard Law Review doesn't mean the guy comes without his own garbage.
11 Jul 2008 @ 15:26 by Vibe @220.127.116.11 : the way things are showing themselves
I used to think that most often people chose leaders because they shared their ideals and values, did what was the right thing to do. Now I have come to see that many people blindly choose leaders who share and reflect their own prejudices, yet they prefer to believe that it's the other way around. I think people are voting base on their fear of being called biased. Obama's fans are bringing that into the open. Those who will be honest with themselves, will see that as a gift to understanding themselves a little better.
11 Jul 2008 @ 15:47 by quinty @18.104.22.168 : But Vibe
Obama has never said he would stand with one group. That's silly.
11 Jul 2008 @ 16:50 by Quinty @22.214.171.124 : Hold on,
I take that back. Obama has been one sided.
Upon receiving the nomination he went and shamelessly pandered to AIPAC, forgetting all Palestinian rights whatsoever. Even offering up the whole of Jerusalem to Israel, in violation of international agreements, law, and the possibility of any eventual peace settlement.
But I'm sure all the Israel firsters were delighted. Yes, he can be one sided. Though let's hope when the bigots rev up the hate crimes against Muslims in this country he will still be clearheaded enough to uphold the rule of law. For there already have been numerous hate crimes here against Muslims.
12 Jul 2008 @ 13:44 by Vibe @126.96.36.199 : aha
Quinty, Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel. Obama can't offer it up - it's not his to give.
12 Jul 2008 @ 14:12 by Quinty @188.8.131.52 : No, no, no...
East Jerusalem does NOT belong to Israel. Nor does the West Bank or Gaza. Or any of the lands the settelements of those Jewish religious fanatics are located on.
In the law of the jungle the largest ape can take whatever tree it wants from the smaller apes. And call it his own. But that applies only to the law of the jungle. Not in any civilized society.
To be fair to Obama, here's an update to his remarks on Jerusalem.....
From Jewish Voice for Peace
Obama Walks Back Jerusalem Remarks
Robert Naiman, Huffington Post
Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama "quickly backtracked" from his remarks in a speech to AIPAC that Jerusalem "must remain undivided," a statement that had drawn widespread criticism from Palestinians, the Washington Post reports.
In a interview Thursday with CNN, Obama said:
"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city."
Jewish Voice for Peace welcomed Senator Obama's clarification, noting that his original statement "undermined the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that Obama promises to promote," adding "Indeed, declaring Jerusalem as Israeli-ruled-only violates U.S. policy and international standards. It ignores Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem and the more than 240,000 Palestinian residents there, while implicitly supporting Israel's continued land expropriation, demolition of Palestinian homes, and expansion of settlement building, such as the 900 tenders issued to new housing for Jewish Israelis in East Jerusalem this week."
While Obama's clarification certainly undoes some of the damage of his original statement, it's undoubtedly still the case that the net effect of Senator Obama and Senator McCain's appearances at AIPAC last week and their remarks there made the prospects of a constructive U.S. role in promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace more remote.
Indeed, the same day Obama spoke to AIPAC, Palestinian President Abbas called for a resumption of dialogue between his Fatah movement and Hamas. While in terms of Palestinian interests, this is a very sensible policy, it's also a symptom of the breakdown of the current diplomatic process. President Abbas' statement has been interpreted among Palestinians as an admission that he's not getting anything out of diplomacy with the U.S. and Israel. Senator Obama's and Senator McCain's remarks at AIPAC have added weight to the widespread belief in the region that U.S. policy is beholden to the right-wing in Israel, there is no prospect of change on the horizon, and those who wish to secure Palestinian rights will have to look for friends elsewhere.
Senators Obama and McCain could easily do something about this. They could take this opportunity to affirm their support for Palestinian rights, as they have both done in the past -- McCain, most famously, when in an apparently unscripted burst of empathy he explained to an interviewer his understanding of why Palestinians voted for Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections.
If you agree that Senators Obama and McCain should affirm their support for Palestinian rights, Jewish Voice for Peace and Just Foreign Policy encourage you to ask them to do so.
12 Jul 2008 @ 20:04 by Vibe @184.108.40.206 : Israel
You're trying to teach ME about what Jerusalem is or isn't? Now that's a laugh, Quinty.
Here - feast your eyes upon this archival film of Tel Aviv in 1936. Gee, what's that I see, 99% non-Arabs, street signs in Hebrew - as if Jewish people had lived there a long time. Imagine that, Quinty. ;-)
12 Jul 2008 @ 20:04 by Vibe @220.127.116.11 : short film (no sound)
Here's the link to the film:
12 Jul 2008 @ 20:14 by Vibe @18.104.22.168 : Jerusalem
Now, for an ACCURATE history of Jerusalem and what it means to Muslims and Jews - I recommend you read this:
After the Oslo Agreement, when the PLO felt it could get the upper hand, these facts were denied, even suppressed. Let me bring here a conversation I had on the subject in 1996 with one of the new PA appointed guides there (it took place on the Temple Mount in an office room of the Waqf, in the presence of the Imam of the El Aqsa Mosque, Sheikh Y.):
Q: "Do you really deny that the First and the Second Temple were located here?"
A: "If there was ever such a thing like Jewish Temples, they were probably located over there (he pointed to the Western Hill which the Byzantines established as the "Christian Mount Zion", then with its Hagia Zion Church, and now its Dormition Church).
Q: "Why then did Rassoul Mohammed in his "Night Journey" and for his Ascension, come to this hill according to your tradition, not to that Western Hill?"
A: "He wanted to establish this place for us."
Q: "Why exactly this place? It must have been known to him beforehand, as it says (in Surah "Bani Israel", verse 1): '...by night from the Holy Mosque [=Mecca] to the El-Aqsa [=Further Mosque; lit. the mosque at the other end]."
A: "Allah knows everything beforehand, and He guided his Messenger here."
Q: Why did King Malik build this beautiful Dome of the Rock here, after the El-Aqsa Mosque was already established?"
A: "Perhaps he simply liked it."
Q: "The Dome of the Rock has four entrance gates. Why do you, in Muslim tradition, call its eastern gate the "Baab haqmat Daoud" (the Gate of David's Judgment)? And why does your tradition say that the small structure just outside that gate, the "Silsileh", marks the place where King David - described as Allah's servant (in Surah Zad, 16), and his viceroy [Khaliph] on earth (in verse 25) - will once judge mankind? King David, the Founder of Zion! How does that fit into your denials of the Jewish background of the site?"
A: Oh. oh.... that is ... sorry, I have to ask my superiors.."
Ceding the Temple Mount or its surface structures to the PA would not only be equal to waiving Jewish history and future; it would be equal to an endorsement of blunt lies. True peace can never be based upon lies, and not at all upon lies about such crucial matters as the Temple Mount and what it stands for.
By Dr. Asher Eder
Root & Branch Association, Ltd.
P.S. The dome of the rock was built to be a shrine, not a mosque.
12 Jul 2008 @ 20:16 by Vibe @22.214.171.124 : as for the rest
It is common parlance to refer to the so-called West Bank as "occupied territories." Mr. Moshe Zak uses these terms in his article, "The dangers of the Roman Statute" (Jerusalem Post, Aug. 26, 2000, p. A8). But both these terms--West Bank and occupied territories--were invented for purposes of Arab propaganda.
The term West Bank describes a certain geographic entity, a small strip of land west of the Jordan River, roughly the area known as Judea and Samaria. In contrast, the term occupied territory (or territories) is generally applied to the occupied part, or the whole of, another nation. Since 1967, Arab propaganda, and in its wake the media of the world, have applied it to the West Bank, without justification.
The Turkish (Ottoman) Empire collapsed in 1917, and its former territory became independent nations: Turkey proper, Egypt, Trans-Jordan, etc,--with one exception: the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. In 1922 the League of Nations granted Great Britain a "Mandate" to pursue the "Balfour Declaration" of l917 and to administer that land accordingly. The British named it Palestine, taking this name from the Romans. (In the 2nd c. C.E., the Emperor Hadrian wished to erase the term "Land of Israel" (cf. Matt. 2:20) and renamed the country after Israel's arch-enemy, the Philistines.
Interestingly enough, "Palestine" was legally never part of the British Empire (although the British treated it as if it were, particularly Haifa). It remained administered territory, but legally ownerless.
When Arab hostilities against Jewish immigration reached new peaks after WWII, the United Nations came forward with their "Partition Plan" of Nov.29, 1947. In the ensuing civil war, England gave up its "Mandate" and withdrew its last soldiers on May 14, 1948. The following day, Israel declared its independence, and 24 hours later the armies of seven Arab nations attacked the newly born state.
These nations did not declare war, as that would have implied recognition of Israel's existence as a state. They saw--and still see--the whole land (of Palestine) as part of the Dar-es-Salam (the "Residence of Peace/Islam") which the PLO (=Palestine Liberation Organization) has vowed to restore to the rule of Islam. The concept of Dar-es-Salam, however, is an internal theological concept of Islam which may entail political consequences for its adherents, but there is no political entity, not even the Arab League, which would or could represent it in an international forum.*
Israel emerged from this war with cease fire lines with its neighbors determined by the armistice agreements of 1948/9 . Later, these lines became known as the "1967 borders," a term which outlines Israel's territory before the Six Day War).
In the War of 1948, the Emirate of Trans-Jordan conquered the greater portion of the area that the UNO's Partition Plan of 1947 had designated to become an Arab Palestinian state. Trans-Jordan then annexed this territory, including East Jerusalem, and re-named itself The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. As it had previously existed for two years already on the East bank of the Jordan River, it coined the term West Bank to lend legitimacy to this land grab.
While the majority of the United Nations recognized the State of Israel officially and accepted her as a member state, no nation of the world, not even Arab nations, officially recognized Jordan's annexation of the "West Bank." The sole exceptions were England and Pakistan, and the legality of the recognition by the latter seems to have some serious question marks.
In other words, the so-called West Bank is still ownerless from the legal point of view. Israel's military operation in 1967 against Jordan was triggered by the latter's hostilities (shelling of West Jerusalem, etc), and as self-defense, was legal within the frame of international law. The new cease fire lines brought Judea and Samaria-- the so-called West Bank--under Israel's military and later civil administration.
If the West Bank was ever occupied illegally, it was done so by Trans-Jordan in 1948, as pointed out above.
We should not senselessly repeat Arab propaganda slogans. Under the prevailing circumstances, we should refer to Judea and Samaria, as administered territory.
Seen from this angle, the "Rome statute" poses no danger for Israel.
(Also by Dr. Eder)
13 Jul 2008 @ 08:31 by Vibe @126.96.36.199 : and before you jump to post a response
Years ago I wrote an article (and posted it here back then) about my vision for a future Jerusalem - that it be governed by four, to reflect the people who live in Jerusalem. My article can be read here http://www.vibrani.com/jfuture.htm
13 Jul 2008 @ 14:37 by Quinty @188.8.131.52 : I'll let you have
the last word.....
12 Aug 2008 @ 11:24 by Vibe @184.108.40.206 : aha
A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.
29 Jan 2015 @ 08:19 by Ileana @220.127.116.11 : LFtJqbHxoCp
Why does everyone like this guy? Pleae i need to know? I am the most least polaiictl person in the world but even I know a bullshitter when i see one. Change? There has been no change! I listen to talk radio. Jesus this world is going down the tubes quicker than people even f'e'n realize. George Bush may have lacked alot but at least he was sincere and he didn't knock his own goddamn country. Open your goddamn eyes. People you are being taking for a ri e and if you don't get it now ur fucked.
29 Jan 2015 @ 15:21 by Reni @18.104.22.168 : igNFhujLzbsVHPr
Why does everyone like this guy? Pleae i need to know? I am the most least poitalcil person in the world but even I know a bullshitter when i see one. Change? There has been no change! I listen to talk radio. Jesus this world is going down the tubes quicker than people even f'e'n realize. George Bush may have lacked alot but at least he was sincere and he didn't knock his own goddamn country. Open your goddamn eyes. People you are being taking for a ri e and if you don't get it now ur fucked.
29 Apr 2016 @ 06:01 by Bandar Togel @22.214.171.124 : brilliant! I would like to share this ar
Togel Online Singapore
Togel Online Hongkong
Bandar Togel Singapore
Togel Online Terpercaya
Bandar Togel Online Terpercaya
Agen Togel Online Terpercaya
Agen Togel Online
Other entries in Politics
1 Jul 2010 @ 02:21: PHILIPPINES’ NEW PRESIDENT: AKBAR OR NERO?
4 Jun 2010 @ 08:30: SCUTTLE EU NOW, BEFORE 4TH REICH OPTION AWAKENS!
17 Nov 2008 @ 10:11: My 'story' I just uploaded to change.gov
8 Nov 2008 @ 16:06: A Boy Named Sue and the False American Dream
7 Nov 2008 @ 16:01: No He Can't...
6 Nov 2008 @ 09:16: History is NOW
5 Nov 2008 @ 16:58: Obamas World - Africa and the World beyond Poverty !? - but how? - what world?
5 Nov 2008 @ 14:02: Proud to be An American
26 Oct 2008 @ 15:26: Systemic Intelligence: How to teach Systemic Thinking effectively
26 Oct 2008 @ 10:27: OBAMA IS AMERICA’S MAN OF THE HOUR