Protesters Regret 'From the River to the Sea' Chant Upon Learning Meaning

[Developereo]

Veto had nothing to do with UN Resolution for PP 1947, as no major power vetoed it.

We already discussed why China and Russia did not oppose Israel. It is an Arab and Muslim issue. No Arab or Muslim country had or has veto power.

UN Resolution on PP 1947 is not based on who has the strongest military power, but by the vote of the majority of UN members. Even if the UNSC members are all nations the result would have been the same.

33 countries voted in favor of the plan, 13 voted against, and 10 abstained. This was enough to pass the resolution, as it required a two-thirds majority of the valid votes, not counting abstentions and absent members.

Here's a breakdown of the vote:

• In favor: Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia.
• Against: Afghanistan, Albania, Cuba, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, and Yugoslavia.
• Abstained: Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States, USSR, and Venezuela.

And that voting tally itself tells you everything. The only Muslim country that voted in favor was Iran which was ruled by the American puppet Reza Shah.

Your own post proves my point that the creation of Israel was forced upon Arabs and Muslims by other countries.

P.S. I just noticed Saudi Arabia in there twice. Not sure where it belongs but you can read on this forum what people think of the GCC rulers in general regarding the Palestine issue.

 

[Antonius123]

We already discussed why China and Russia did not oppose Israel. It is an Arab and Muslim issue. No Arab or Muslim country had or has veto power.

Then why are you bragging "Veto right" since it was irrelevant for the passing of UN resolution PP 1947?

And that voting tally itself tells you everything. The only Muslim country that voted in favor was Iran which was ruled by the American puppet Reza Shah.

Your own post proves my point that the creation of Israel was forced upon Arabs and Muslims by other countries.

It was about political stance, nothing to do with laws.

All moslem against doesn't mean the resolution is unlawful.

 

[Developereo]

Then why are you bragging "Veto right" since it was irrelevant for the passing of UN resolution PP 1947?

To make the point that UN resolutions are meaningless because they are hostage to veto power. The only thing that will get through the UNSC is something that is not actively opposed by five countries who just happened to have the military power in 1945. The UN is frozen in time.

It was about political stance, nothing to do with laws.

All moslem against doesn't mean the resolution is unlawful.

It means the resolution was hammered through against the wishes of the people involved. Almost every single country in the region opposed it. It was an imposition by force -- military force -- of the reigning military powers of the time.

It was an act of cementing European colonialism into law.

 

[Antonius123]

To make the point that UN resolutions are meaningless because they are hostage to veto power. The only thing that will get through the UNSC is something that is not actively opposed by five countries who just happened to have the military power in 1945. The UN is frozen in time.

Like I said: if UNSC veto had nothing to do with UN resolution on PP 1947, then your claim the resolution was under hostage to veto power is irrational, also portraying how you are just making up thing.

It means the resolution was hammered through against the wishes of the people involved. Almost every single country in the region opposed it. It was an imposition by force -- military force -- of the reigning military powers of the time.

As you said: it was the wishes of moslem countries, not whole world.

Wishes is no laws, especially only voted by less than 30% of the UN members.

It was an act of cementing European colonialism into law.

Your claim become ridiculous more and more.
If it were true then your country and my country would have non been existent now - we are supposed to be still living under European colonialism.

 

[Developereo]

Like I said: if UNSC veto had nothing to do with UN resolution on PP 1947, then your claim the resolution was under hostage to veto power is irrational, also portraying how you are just making up thing.

You are being deliberately obtuse. I already explained that the UN is shown to be an irrelevant circus by virtue of the veto power.

As you said: it was the wishes of moslem countries, not whole world.

Wishes is no laws, especially only voted by less than 30% of the UN members.

But the wishes of the local people is entirely the point of the discussion. The residents of Canada and Brazil have no right to tell Palestinians what to do with their homes and land.

If the Europeans feel guilty about the Holocaust, let them make room in Europe for a Zionist homeland.

Your claim become ridiculous more and more.
If it were true then your country and my country would have non been existent now - we were still living under European colonialism.

I already mentioned this before but I will repeat it again. When the colonialists left, every single nation was created around the people already living there.

The only exception was Israel.

Only in Palestine did the British declare that 8% of the population will take over that land, followed by mass migration of Jews and forced eviction of the local Palestinians.

Once again, the only exception in the entire world was Israel

 

[Antonius123]

You are being deliberately obtuse. I already explained that the UN is shown to be an irrelevant circus by virtue of the veto power.

It is you who are playing obtuse. I have refuted your claim regarding virtue of the veto power.

As i've told you many times Veto power had nothing to do with UN resolution 181 for Partition Plan 1947. No country vetoed it, and the resolution represent majority or 2/3 on UN members. Whether veto power exist or not influence NOTHING on that resolution.

But the wishes of the local people is entirely the point of the discussion. The residents of Canada and Brazil have no right to tell Palestinians what to do with their homes and land.

If the Europeans feel guilty about the Holocaust, let them make room in Europe for a Zionist homeland.

Wishes of locals to have free state has been granted by UN.

Their wishes to eradicate a sovereign nation Israel is obviously evil, and against law, then can't be granted.

I already mentioned this before but I will repeat it again. When the colonialists left, every single nation was created around the people already living there.

Yes. That was only Israel. None from arab Palestine took initiative to create single nation represent themself at that time.

The only exception was Israel.

Only in Palestine did the British declare that 8% of the population will take over that land, followed by mass migration of Jews and forced eviction of the local Palestinians.

Once again, the only exception in the entire world was Israel

Why twisting history?

No. It was 33% of population that took only 55% of the whole land, and it had nothing to do with British. UN Partition Plan was not initiated by British. Learn history please

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, commonly known as the UN Partition Plan for Palestine, was not initiated by the British. It was a proposal put forward by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which had been established by the General Assembly to investigate the situation in Palestine and make recommendations for its future.

The UNSCOP, composed of representatives from various member states, including the United States, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, and Uruguay, was tasked with examining the issue of Palestine and proposing a solution. The committee submitted its report on August 31, 1947, recommending the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem designated as an international city.

The UN General Assembly then considered the UNSCOP recommendations and ultimately adopted Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947. The resolution was a response to the recommendations of the committee and sought to address the complex situation in Palestine. The British Mandate for Palestine, which had been administered by the United Kingdom, was set to end, and the UN was involved in determining the future of the territory.

 

[Developereo]

It is you who are playing obtuse. I have refuted your claim regarding virtue of the veto power.

How can you refute something you don't even understand?

Veto power is not used to pass resolutions; it is not used to coerce votes; it is used to stop resolutions.

Why are you even debating when you don't understand the role of a veto in UNSC?

As i've told you many times Veto power had nothing to do with UN resolution 181 for Partition Plan 1947. No country vetoed it, and the resolution represent majority or 2/3 on UN members.

No kidding!

If a resolution passed then, ipso facto, it wasn't vetoed. It wasn't vetoed because that's what US/UK/France wanted anyway and it wasn't a big issue for Russia/China.

Wishes of locals to have free state has been granted by UN.

Their wishes to eradicate a sovereign nation Israel is obviously evil, and against law, then can't be granted.

The date that matters is 1917, not 1948. The machinery for the current State of Israel was set in motion in 1917 (8% Jewish population) Balfour Declaration. That is when the demographic engineering started. 1948 was merely the culmination of that strategy.

You keep going in circles so there is no point continuing this discussion.

 

[Antonius123]

How can you refute something you don't even understand?

Veto power is not used to pass resolutions; it is not used to coerce votes; it is used to stop resolutions.

Why are you even debating when you don't understand the role of a veto in UNSC?

The one who doesn't understand here is the one who claim veto power influence UN resolution 181 for Partition Plan on Palestine.

Learn history first! then you will know that resolution is purely based on votes of majority of the UN members, not because of role of major powers.

No kidding!

If a resolution passed then, ipso facto, it wasn't vetoed. It wasn't vetoed because that's what US/UK/France wanted anyway and it wasn't a big issue for Russia/China.

No, it was wanted by majority of UN members.
Dont twist the history if you dont know.

The date that matters is 1917, not 1948. The machinery for the current State of Israel was set in motion in 1917 (8% Jewish population) Balfour Declaration. That is when the demographic engineering started. 1948 was merely the culmination of that strategy.

If year 1917 is the only matters to you then go ahead.

For sure for UN resolution 181, the population of Palestine territory from census 1947 that matters.

You keep going in circles so there is no point continuing this discussion.

The one who going in circle is the one who repeat claim that has been refuted and push his stand because not understanding things in discussion. It is you pals

 

[Developereo]

The one who doesn't understand here is the one who claim veto power influence UN resolution 181 for Partition Plan on Palestine.

Please show me where I claimed that veto power influences voting.

 

[Antonius123]

Please show me where I claimed that veto power influences voting.

When you keep bringing "veto power" on resolution 181 topic, then you are saying that the resolution was influenced by veto power.

 

[313Ghazi]

I debated with many people in Indonesia.

Some of them thinking free Palestine means Israel to remove restriction on her border with Gaza, some think means Israel to withdraw from West Bank zone C, some of them think it means Palestinian government rule from river to sea supplanting Israel.

It portray various understanding the meaning of freedom of Palestine. So I conclude even many of them are clueless.

Palestine stretches from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. It just so happens the jews stole land that shares the same borders. Look at a map.

 

[Developereo]

When you keep bragging "veto power" on resolution 181 topic, then you are saying that the resolution was influenced by veto power.

Firstly, I never bragged about veto power; what is there to brag about?

Secondly, I never mentioned veto in the context of any specific resolution. It is you who did that and I merely responded to say it was irrelevant.

Finally, I have consistently maintained that veto power is an anachronism that represents the balance of power in 1945 and undermines the legitimacy of the UN to represent humanity fairly and equitably.

 

[Antonius123]

Firstly, I never bragged about veto power; what is there to brag about?

OK. But you keep mentioning it when I am explaining you n the resolution 181 UN PP 1947.
That means you are saying veto power influence the resolution 181.

Secondly, I never mentioned veto in the context of any specific resolution. It is you who did that and I merely responded to say it was irrelevant.

I have reminded you that we are talking about resolution 181 and that veto power is irrelevant, but you keep bringing it.

If you talk about resolutions that have been vetoed then this is not the room otherwise you are derailing topic.

Finally, I have consistently maintained that veto power is an anachronism that represents the balance of power in 1945 and undermines the legitimacy of the UN to represent humanity fairly and equitably.

Again... resolution 181 was nothing to do with veto power.

 

[Musings]

Please show me where I claimed that veto power influences voting.

Sir

You can take the horse to water but you cant force it to drink.
I sense the development of a "circular argument" whereby you will continue flogging a dead horse.
The rest of the world according to the horse - decided to give Palestine to the Zionists and thats that. Clear from his understanding - he doesnt understand VETO from his posts.....

 

[mangekyo]

I understand all of that. And you understand that all of us have our own personal historical biases.

The Ashkenazi Jews are foreign to that land. The Palestinians are not.

But the faith of the Palestinians is foreign to that land. The faith of the Ashkenazis is not.

Blood

Faith

Soil

Ancient Abrahamic Hebrew thought borrowed greatly from and was impacted greatly by Aryan Zoroastrian beliefs.

I do not get into these debates coz I know it will go nowhere nice on a board with majority Muslims.

I have also said that the bloodshed needs to stop. It is despicable what was done to civilians on both sides.

Out of respect and love for you I shall make this my last post here. Regardless of whether Persian retorts or not.

Cheers, Doc

With respect, religion should not entitle anyone to own a piece of land, or in Israels case; rule over an entire country with apartheid and commit genocide on the local population.