The dreadfully stultified pageantry of the British state has been on full display the last couple of days, all mouldy ermine, fraying gold braid and musty velvet. But forms which evolved as a vibrant display of Imperial might have transmuted into rituals of obeisance, as the nonogenerian Prince Philip stumbles behind the Chinese President along lines of men wearing decaying bears on their heads. The sickness of Britain’s monarchical system was never more bluntly revealed than by the rictus grins of the aristocratic clowns balancing their tiaras at the state banquet.
The Chinese are the imperial masters now. Cameron begs them to build a nuclear power station for which the British state guarantees it will pay double the market price for electricity produced, for twenty years. And a government which has just announced the extension of thought crime to the expression of non-violent or anti-violent thought deemed “extreme”, has no locus to talk about human rights, a concept at least as alien to Teresa May as it is to the Chinese Communist Party. Britain has its own war criminals like Blair and Straw running around, immune and very wealthy.
The British state is an immoral entity which I view with disgust. That is what drives for me the imperative to early Scottish Independence to be rid of it. Every day as a British citizen is like bathing in sewage.
What on earth does this mean?
“certain defined human rights are universal…. …. all countries should guarantee those human rights in the way they organise life within their sovereign territory”.
What, precisely does this mean? “organise life”? It sounds vaguely socialist; or not, who knows? “certain defined human rights are universal”; precisely what rights, and defined by whom? The Propositions could mean anything. They could mean nothing. Frankly, prima facie, they appear fatuous.
Please provide a clear and full statement of what “organise life” means; precision please. This request does not allow you to answer by asking a question – you would obviously be “making smoke”, and there will be no reply, for it will deserve none; nor does it allow you to change the subject, or simply disappear from the thread. Of course you may use any or all the above evasive manoeuvres; but commenters will be free to draw their own conclusion, and it appears that you prize popularity, or at least being noticed on this site, for you certainly spend enough time commenting on it. For once, articulate a position; if you can.
Incidentally, you wrote yesterday: “there was a …. …. post from someone who said he only posted when he knew what he was talking about. Does that ring any bells – was it you?”. I may well have forgotten what I wrote before, but it at least sounds like me. In any case, I recommend the advice it implies; you should give it some thought.
7:38 pm, in which Habbakkukk vaguely parrots a propaganda line that even the USA has been forced to drop in its most recent human rights review – the old territoriality canard – and gussies it up with the comically inappropriate adjective sovereign, which sounds ever-so cosmo and oh courant (as in Do you like my hat? Indeed, it is dashing! I would venture to say, it is quite sovereign!) And lots and lots of meaningless verbiage, culminating in the pseudo-intellectual petite mort of his shiny new 25¢ word, otiose. Ahhhh.
Poorly-educated autodidacts are a hoot.
“Guess which UN member states* voted against that Resolution?”
_______________
Habb, guess which country abstained, here’s a clue, bathing in sewage.
EoS
The UK abstained because it was the Mandate power.
Now tell us which UN Member States voted against 181. 🙂
I’ve given you the clue.
On Saturday morning, 29 November 1947, and against the will of the Palestinian people, the General Assembly in New York voted for the partition of Palestine and accepted Resolution 181.
Although the U.N. Charter is considered a “law-making treaty”, the United Nations itself is not an international legislature that can make laws or pass legislations.
The United Nations had no business offering the nation of one people to the people of many nations. Its General Assembly had neither the legal nor the legislative powers to impose such a resolution or to convey title of a territory; Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the UN Charter bestows the right on the General Assembly merely to recommend resolutions.
I meant To say
well done Germany for not wasting a second in Denouncing the hate filled Holocaust Comment from mr N
The Arab League rejected the plan to partition Palestine by any outside power. The stage was thus set for the Zionists to make their dream a reality.
They dusted off the map they showed to UNSCOP in May 1947 and decided it was time to act. But they faced the problem of having 1 million Palestinians in the part of Palestine allocated to them in the Partition plan.
But, since the 1880’s, the Zionists had been preparing for such an eventuality.
The Palestinians rebelled as the Zionist underground forces attacked Palestinian villages and towns in order to secure more than their portion of Palestine allocated to them by the Partition Plan. As noted above,
The United States admitted around March 1948 that the partitioning of Palestine could not be carried out in a peaceful manner and proposed that Palestine be placed under a temporary UN Trusteeship. This plan and calls for a ceasefire fell on deaf ears.
The Jewish forces exerted all military efforts to achieve maximum land gains as the British prepared to end their Mandate in Palestine. By April 1948, they had achieved a military superiority and set in motion all political machinery to declare their Jewish State.
Herzl’s prediction to establish a Jewish State in Palestine within 50 years, was missed by only 1 year.
Mr Warren
You used a lot of words to ask a couple of simple questions. But thank you for your concern about whether I would answer or not.
The answers are:
1/. The human rights are those identified in a couple of UN charters/declarations and the ECHR; they have often been referred to on this blog and the texts are available on websites.
2/. “organise life” – nothing socialist about it, don’t worry ans I should have thought that the expression is clear enough as it stands. It simply means that states should possess the framework of laws (or not adopt any contrary laws) to ensure that the human rights identified in the UN/ECHR instruments are available. To take the simple example of the right to education: states make education (up to varying levels) compulsory. Or the right to life: this is interpreted at least in Europe as meaning, inter alia, no capital punishment and states which formerly had capital punishment on the statute books have abolished it.
Hope that helps.
As I read the debate between Habbs & KOWN habbs says its how you behave within your own borders, which counts and KOWN says that’s all well and good provided you’re not practising rank hypocrisy when you travel abroad.
These are both valid point.
The starting point must be that Habba’s position is presumed to be the correct starting point not least because we usually expect people to be themselves at home but put on a polite show when they go out.
KOWN must be said to have successfully rebutted the presumption if you accept that as a country we are akin to the diamond geezer family man at home, but everytime we go out we riot, plunder and kill.
Are we a nation of Dity Dens (not that he was necessary a family msn).
At the end of the day both Britain and China are keen on face whilst essentially being pragmatic. In Britain we don’t talk about face but to an outsider it is obviously a key British characteristic.
I need a bigger keyboard.
Republicofscotland
“Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the UN Charter bestows the right on the General Assembly merely to recommend resolutions.”
____________________
General Assembly Resolution 181 was a recommendation, you fool.
As the final couple of lines of its preamble make clear:
“The General Assembly
………….
Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;”
Fwl
Thank you.
What I offered was what I believe is meant when it is said that certain human rights are (or should be)universal – ie, that every state should ensure that those rights are available to its citizens (most of whom are by definition withing its borders). That concept is intimately linked, of course, to the concept of national sovereignty, the idea being that for example the UK is responsible for whether it provides those human rights for its own citizens but cannot be held responsible for the fact that another sovereign state does not provide them for its citizens.
La vita e’.. etc
“comically inappropriate adjective sovereign”
_____________________
That adjective is frequently used in the political and economic spheres and has a precise meaning. What is comical or inappropriate about it?
I still am amazed at how many are seduced into responding to the trolls. Hab’s many personalities used to vary in their power to prickle, but now it seems each incarnation, no matter how shallow and unimaginative has a contingent of once respected commentators biting at the hook.
Notice that I am talking ABOUT the troll, not addressing it directly, but I do understand there may be some confused about the difference.
They will continue to prattle on as though they had not read previous comments, as is their habit.
Perhaps the unctuous little schmuck could explain to us how every jot and tittle of his favorite resolution relates to the provisions of the following
Resolution 106: “…‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid”
Resolution 111: “…‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”
Resolution 127: “…‘recommends’ Israel suspend its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”
Resolution 162: “…‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”
Resolution 171: “…determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”
Resolution 228: “…‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control”
Resolution 237: “…‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”
Resolution 248: “…‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan”
Resolution 250: “…‘calls on’ Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem”
Resolution 251: “…‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250”
Resolution 252: “…‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital”
Resolution 256: “…‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation”
Resolution 259: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation”
Resolution 262: “…‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport”
Resolution 265: “…‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan”
Resolution 267: “…‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem”
Resolution 270: “…‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”
Resolution 271: “…‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”
Resolution 279: “…‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”
Resolution 280: “….‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”
Resolution 285: “…‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon”
Resolution 298: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”
Resolution 313: “…‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon”
Resolution 316: “…‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”
Resolution 317: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”
Resolution 332: “…‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”
Resolution 337: “…‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty”
Resolution 347: “…‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”
Resolution 425: “…‘calls on’ Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon”
Resolution 427: “…‘calls on’ Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon’
Resolution 444: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces”
Resolution 446: “…‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”
Resolution 450: “…‘calls on’ Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”
Resolution 452: “…‘calls on’ Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”
Resolution 465: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program”
Resolution 467: “…‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon”
Resolution 468: “…‘calls on’ Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return”
Resolution 469: “…‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians”
Resolution 471: “…‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”
Resolution 476: “…‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’
Resolution 478: “…‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’
Resolution 484: “…‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors”
Resolution 487: “…‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility”
Resolution 497: “…‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith”
Resolution 498: “…‘calls on’ Israel to withdraw from Lebanon”
Resolution 501: “…‘calls on’ Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops”
Resolution 509: “…‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon”
Resolution 515: “…‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in”
Resolution 517: “…‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon”
Resolution 518: “…‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon”
Resolution 520: “…‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”
Resolution 573: “…‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
Resolution 587: “…‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw”
Resolution 592: “…‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops”
Resolution 605: “…‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
Resolution 607: “…‘calls on’ Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
Resolution 608: “…‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians”
Resolution 636: “…‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
Resolution 641: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 672: “…‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
Resolution 673: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
Resolution 681: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 694: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
Resolution 726: “…‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 799: “…‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return
Resolution 904: “…‘strongly condemns’ the massacre in Hebron and its aftermath which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others”
Resolution 1073: “…‘calls for’ the immediate cessation and reversal of all acts which have resulted in the aggravation of the situation, ‘calls for‘ the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians to be ensured”
Resolution 1322: “…‘condemns’ acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life”
Resolution 1402: “…‘calls upon’ both parties to move immediately to a meaningful ceasefire; calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah”
Resolution 1403: “…‘demands’ the implementation of its resolution 1402 (2002) without delay”
Resolution 1405: “…‘emphasizes’ the urgency of access of medical and humanitarian organizations to the Palestinian civilian population”
Resolution 1435: “…‘demands’ that Israel immediately cease measures in and around Ramallah including the destruction of Palestinian civilian and security infrastructure”
Resolution 1544: “…‘calls on’ Israel to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law, and insists, in particular, on its obligation not to undertake demolition of homes contrary to that law”
Resolution 1860: “…‘calls for’ an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; ‘calls for‘ the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment”
Resolution 1937: “…‘urges’ the Government of Israel to expedite the withdrawal of its army from northern Ghajar without further delay”
Resolution 2004: “…‘urges’ the Government of Israel to expedite the withdrawal of its army from northern Ghajar without further delay”
Resolution 2064: “…‘urges’ the Government of Israel to expedite the withdrawal of its army from northern Ghajar without further delay”
Mr Warren
“Incidentally, you wrote yesterday: “there was a …. …. post from someone who said he only posted when he knew what he was talking about. Does that ring any bells – was it you?”. I may well have forgotten what I wrote before, but it at least sounds like me. In any case, I recommend the advice it implies; you should give it some thought.”
________________
As indeed I have – which is why I do not comment on various recurring themes on this blog (except, perhaps, to point to obvious factual errors). But you might have noticed that when I do remain silent there is usually someone (actually it’s often Mary) who chips in to point out the fact.
La vita non è originale:
“Perhaps the unctuous little schmuck could explain to us how every jot and tittle of his favorite resolution relates to the provisions of the following
Resolution 106: “…‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid”
(follows a long list of UN resolutions)
_________________________
I’m not sure I understand your question – if you can clarify what you mean I might give it a go.
In the meantime, I should point out that Resolution 181 was introduced into the conversation by someone else and so I’m not sure why you consider it to be my favorite Resolution?
_________________
And a question to you – which website did you cut-and-paste that long list from? You should at least have acknowledged the source.
Let’s see though whether that list was your own work pr not.
Which of those Resolutions are Security Council as opposed to General Assembly? 🙂
It’s amazing how small powerful men (and women) can be. Not small in size, but in character, intellect. The state-capitalist communist party in China is run by men who are part businessman, part ideologue, and part gangster, and here we are, treating them like royals. It is indeed fairly disgusting.
When I came to Australia, I heard a story about China, from a Chinese traveller. Apparently, Chinese security services come to Australia, and pick up dissidents, Falun Gong or whatever. They pick them up, and take them back to a delightful Chinese prison. The Australian security services – no mugs, you can be sure – can’t do anything about it, they are aware, but completely impotent. There are also representatives of the Falun Gong in Sydney, often old sad-looking ladies handing out leaflets, telling us how there is a trade in human organs in China, taken, it is said, from dissidents. Even I was surprised to hear this, it sounded so science-fiction, but there it is. Welcome to the Chinese century.
Well, you certainly took the easy option; clearly you think like a diplomat, not a philosopher. But no it isn’t rigorous enough; “a couple of UN charters/declarations and the ECHR” discussed in this blog is (let us be honest) rather loose. But of course you know that. I shall leave aside the issue of interpretation, for I can see this is form over substance. It is progress to establish that the UN and ECHR establish a framework; but are there any exceptions of any kind, or is it absolutely everything in every charter/declaration that touches on human rights produced by the UN or European Convention? Or if there are exceptions what are they? Then I shall gladly leave you in peace.
Incidentally I was not worried by socialism; I am not a socialist, but it is a perfectly respectable position. I was being whimsical.
‘Ben-Outraged by the Cannabigots’, the verbiage from trolls is purely directed at those who read these blog comments, and not at fellow commentators to whom the trolls are apparently responding.
I would guess that most people who read these comments will see the trolls input for the childish garbage that it is.
As I always say, the dead give-away of a troll is that they never post links to back-up what they are saying.
The other dead give-away is the 1950s-style Soviet rhetoric, in the sense that the trolls always stick rigidly to the ‘party line’.
And also, of course, trolls always ‘play the man and not the ball’ (ie, character assassination), because trolls arguements rarely, if ever, stand-up to even the feeblest of intellectual scrutiny.
I would say that readers of these comments are most probably more amused than anything at the totally clumsy attempts by government agents to ‘steer the conversation’.
Most pertinent, of course, is the fact that we live in a society where such government agents are allowed to disrupt and pervert free and open public discourse, and these vermin do it all on tax payer’s money.
Not to stray too far from the topic but it is curious how different cultures treat internal and external behaviours. Western cultures, or at least contemporaneous ones tend to praise spouses and families when conversing with outsiders whilst letting rip at home. In Japan the opposite is the norm (perhaps it used to be here). In either scenario we always put on an act in public but are ourselves at home. Its just the act which changes.
So you can tell most about a people by observing how they treat their own not by how they behave in public.
What do you conclude if their lovely at home and monsters on the outside. Either watch out and keep your head down until they learn their lesson (or teach them that lesson) or you might want to look more closely at how they are at home because you would be wondering (as must KOWN) that if they are that bad outside maybe they are really monsters at home too?
The UN had no right in 1947 to even debate the idea of partitioning any country or to dispose of any part of it, or deprive the majority of its indigenous population of their territory or to transfer it to the exclusive use of illegal immigrants. The General Assembly had no right or jurisdiction to destroy the territorial integrity of Palestine or to propose its partition.
When the time to vote arrived, the British Government, perhaps under the weight of its guilt for abusing the trust which the League of Nations had bestowed upon it to protect, guide and assist Palestine to achieve its independence at the end of its mandatory period, opted to abstain from voting. A typical cop-out.
The United Kingdom did not own Palestine and had no relationship whatsoever with it in 1916 when it agreed with Zionist leaders to issue the Balfour Declaration in November 1917. This Declaration remains illegal, invalid and inapplicable even though it was injected into the Mandate for Palestine through power politics.
The International Law Digest defines a state as “ a people permanently occupying a fixed territory, bound together by common law, habits, and customs into one body politic, exercising, through the medium of organised government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries”.
In the area labelled Israel today, the majority of the people, at the time of the Balfour Declaration and later when Palestine was partitioned in 1947, were indigenous Palestinians.
In International Law, the territory of any state must belong to the people of that state. The possession of the territory must be a legitimate possession and could not have been acquired by war, conquest or through annexation.
9:33, in which our pet intellectual tries to recover from his humiliating sovereign territory faceplant, only to parade his ignorance of erga omnes obligations. (Perhaps our nutty professor could reconcile his little disquisition with the HRC’s comments and recommendations regarding the crucial criterion of control.)
9:50, in which the passive-aggressive shtik breaks down, leading to the secondary reflex, facile questions.
9:52, in which the obsessive-compulsive traits bust out and he has to come back and buff up his rhetorical turds a bit.
Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention states that an entity cannot be considered a state until it possess the following qualifications: a) A permanent population; b) A defined territory; c) A government; d) The capacity to enter into relations with other states.
What existed in the so-called Jewish state in 1948 were illegal immigrants from Europe and Russia, three Zionist terrorist organisations: the Irgun, the Hagana and the Stern gangs and undefined illegal borders.
Despite this miscarriage of justice, the so-called State embarked on a massive military project to ensure the total and final expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland.
To achieve this objective, they had their Village Files ready.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_files
The files were effectively hit lists.
Here, have a second opinion:
Obama has vetoed the funding bill. This bill includes $1 billion funding for rebels in Syria and Ukraine.
That’s serious investment, right on Russia’s pressure points. How will the bombing, jamming Bear take it?
Oh what’s the worst that could happen !
Maybe POTUS is a saint after all, only of the grubby shop-soiled variety. He might have bought us another year; maybe’s there’s still time for the passing Empire to see sense. Fingers crossed. Here’s hoping the neocon/Zionist psychos don’t ventilate his neo-cortex first.
Agent Cameron says no to Public Health England’s suggestion for a sugar tax.
Wonder why? See what goes on. Donors even?
There are 99 members/organisations listed on the register of professional lobbyists.
https://registerofconsultantlobbyists.force.com/CLR_Search
On the same link, the list of their clients is very long. There are 714 such organisations.
Many of the major food and drink manufacturers are there, such as Kellogg’s, PepsiCo, Tate and Lyle, Coca Cola and so on as are some of the supermarkets.
~~~~
Interesting lists on other counts too.
No chance of him being assassinated. He’s already thrown in the towel after being warned in a cryptic, but descriptive way. Someone found his Day-Timer in the gutter with the words ‘Don’t be like Kennedy’. As I recall that was seven years ago.
Reverting back to the topic of Chinese investment in British nuclear infrastructure and agreeing a 20 year fixed price leaving aside the obvious security questions my point is that the most important concern is that payments should be fixed in pound sterling and on no account be calculated by reference to any other currency. If that has been achieved then there should be no problem with paying for inflation to sure to occur at some point in the next 20 years (unless we follow the 20 years of deflation in Japan). Let the wheel turn and see what comes. The other little worry would be if in 15 years we are still paying China at the fixed price, but because of inflation or QE the money is worthless and China seeks to renegotiate and then we remember who had control of our nuclear infrastructure…..
To think that evil is despoiling your seas and shores Brian. I was trying to get the cost. Massive I should guess. What other junk have they dumped?
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirach_100&prev=search
Keep going Republic of Scotland and others.
Simply put, Israel is NOT a state. It has NO boundaries and knows NO laws.