Friday 10 August 2012

Territorial concessions and return for 'sworn' enemies!!




Territorial concessions and ‘rights of return’ for sworn enemies!

SEE BACKGROUND MATERIAL BELOW
# 1 - 2 - 3
############################################################################################################


From: g87
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:03 AM
Subject: VER 2: Territorial concessions and 'rights of return' for sworn enemies!!


Territorial concessions and ‘rights of return’ for sworn enemies!
Never in history have a people waged war officially [1948, 1956, 1967, etc.] been constantly defeated by a benign nation [Israel] who plainly only wants to live in peace with them, then waged undeclared war AKA internicine, murderous terrorist campaigns murdering women and children, been given territorial concessions which they always refused, made clear their outrageous murderous intent via their unchanged constitutions and real - world actions - then have the temerity to suggest that ''The right of return of Palestinians is enshrined in law.''
Letters 10/8 Rights in Palestine.
Oh – and in between they reconfigure themselves as ‘refugees’ – and plunder the name ‘Palestinian.’ Plainly they have no relationship to either the Philistines or the British Mandate of 1922.
A home for the Jewish people..’’
Furthermore, what ‘law’? Not in the real world where intransigent enemies have been wiped out without demur! Note the common law right to self - defence which would have destroyed the terrorists overnight - if Israel exercised it.
There are too many examples:
  • Remember what the Sri Lankan government did to the Tamil people? 20,000 helpless people were murdered.
  • The Russians to Chechnya?
  • USA in Hiroshima: when no response - Nagasaki. Japan then - and only then sued for peace.
  • Carpet bombing of Berlin?
There are scores of recent examples of nation states acting to protect their people from murderous enemies.
Somehow Israel has never exercised this legal right of self - defence.
  1. The progenitor / activist for a continuum of this travestous mayhem should inform the reader where intransigent mortal enemies have ever been treated to so generously by any other nation? Name the people, time, place, treaty.
  2. In law there is the principle of the looser accepting whatever is offered - invariably a dimunition of previous positions. With the so - called Palestinians - every loss emboldens them to claim more! Plea – bargaining? Not for these people.
I have a dream that one day these activists will concede that Israel is a reality and their attempts to destroy her will gain them nothing except the sympathy of the politically, logistically and historically duplicitous or mere ignorant.

It will also cause their people heartache – whereas living in peace with Israel would enable them to generate wealth for their people.

Not in my lifetime.
Their ancestors have been doing derivations of ‘this’ for thousands of years.
Geoff Seidner
13 Alston Gr East St Kida 3183
03 9525 9299
British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British Mandate for Palestine, or simply the Mandate for Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros. The draft of the Mandate was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, amended via the 16 September 1922Transjordan memorandum[1][2] and which came into effect on 29 September 1923[1] following the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne.[3][4] The mandate ended at midnight on 14 May 1948.
The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.[1] The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syriafrom 1923–1948.
The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] The mandate document formalised the creation of two distinct British protectorates - Palestine, as a national home for the Jewish people under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain under the rule of the Hashemite family.[1]

########################################################################################################################################################################################################################

#1

Rights in Palestine

IT comes as no great surprise that the pro-Israel camp continues to cloak itself in revisionist theories to support its erroneous assertions (Letters, 7/8). The right of return of Palestinians is enshrined in law. Any expert can attempt to manipulate the language or intent of UN resolution 194, but that does not change the facts.
A just solution will only be found when the human rights of all those living in Israel and Palestine are recognised. If giving Palestinians basic human rights is such a threat to Israel, then what does that say about Israel as a democracy?
Moammar Mashni, Australians for Palestine, Melbourne, Vic

################

#2

Disgusted by BDS


I WAS disgusted to read the report on unions backing the asinine Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign ("Unions fuelling Israel protests", 6/8).
The insidious campaign that promotes the boycotting of Israeli businesses as a means of espousing solidarity with the Palestinians parallels the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses in 1933. It reeks of anti-semitism.
Israel is not a terrorist state. Quite the contrary. Israel is a beacon of democracy in a region dominated by autocratic and murderous regimes. One only needs to look at Syria and Iran as examples.
Nevertheless, it is Israel that consistently incurs the wrath of so-called human rights and peace activists.
Those unions and political groups supporting the BDS warrant condemnation for promoting such an abhorrent campaign. If these movements wanted to advocate on behalf of the Palestinian cause, they ought to lobby both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to abandon terrorism and urge them to promote democratic rights in the Palestinian territories.

Joel Feren, Elwood, Vic
##################################################################################################################################################################


#3
Unions fuelling Israel protests

MILITANT unionists and political groups prosecuting the anti-Israel boycott campaign are using official union facilities and resources to encourage anti-business protests and to sell the pro-Palestinian message.
Senior Victorian union figures have admitted growing support from some affiliates and some fringe political groups for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign.
It has emerged that along with key union backing, Victorian Trades Hall Council resources have been used for fundraising for the BDS campaign and to aid protesters arrested while backing the Palestinian cause.
VTHC secretary Brian Boyd would not comment on the BDS campaign yesterday.
The Baillieu government called for Labor to distance itself from the BDS campaign being waged from within sections of its industrial wing.
A Labor spokesman said yesterday the BDS campaign had "no role in a respectful and harmonious multicultural Victoria".

"Playing politics with this issue puts at risk the diversity that all Victorians value and cherish," the spokesman said.
But Maritime Union of Australia Victorian secretary Kevin Bracken, a former Trades Hall president, said the campaign was justified as it was a way of defending the Palestinian people.
"We support them because it's a non-violent way of ending the oppression of the Palestinian people, the persecution by Israel," he told The Australian.

Mr Bracken was photographed at a recent BDS protest outside the Max Brenner coffee shop in Melbourne, where the protesters accused the company of links with the Israeli defence forces. A large banner at the protest declared "Israel is a terrorist state".
Victorian Industrial Relations Minister Richard Dalla-Riva said Labor leader Daniel Andrews had not done enough to stamp out Labor links to the BDS campaign.
"The involvement of the Labor-affiliated MUA and the Victorian Trades Hall Council in September 11 conspiracy theories, and the discriminatory, anti-Israel BDS campaign would disgust decent Victorians who belong to those unions or to the Labor Party," he said.
"Last August, the Victorian government called on the Opposition Leader to take action against involvement and support for BDS extremism in the MUA, Victoria's peak union body and his own parliamentary caucus. Mr Andrews did nothing, ignored the problem and the BDS campaign has continued with ongoing support from within the Victorian labour movement."
Last month charges were dismissed against 16 BDS protesters after a rally outside the Max Brenner store in Melbourne's QV Centre. The magistrate ruled that the protest did not threaten public order or breach the peace.
The Baillieu government is considering changing the law to make it harder to disrupt businesses when protesting.
Mr Boyd wrote on his website of the potential implications of the protest and the magistrate's decision. He did not write that he supported the BDS but said the court decision could have significant implications for protesters.


No comments:

Post a Comment