Good mornin'
there is a rap-metal band "Stuck Mojo", (although I am not a big fan of rap of any kind)
these dudes decided to wake up from their usual MTV style, took the red pill and went to the real world...
if you dont want to read long and boring articles, just watch this short clip...
now... watch it... and send it to all you know...
Ethiopia said on Tuesday it was halfway to crushing Somali Islamists as its
forces advanced on the religious movement's Mogadishu stronghold after a week of war in the Horn of Africa.
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said his forces supporting Somalia's
weak interim government had killed up to 1,000 Islamist fighters.
"We have already completed half our mission, and as soon as we finish the
second half, our troops will leave Somalia," Meles told a news conference in the Ethiopian capital.
"We will not keep a single fighter in Somalia once our
mission getting rid of the terrorists is completed."
"We vow that there will be no use (of these arms) in a civil war, as we
promise that should these arms reach us we will use them against the
occupation and the Zionist enemy,".
But not the whole week was in vain,
one of the YAHOO news writers stumbled over a truth that UN is a criminal organisation...
The UN gives validity to zealots and bigots. It helps to keep tyrannical
dictators in power. It gives a voice to international terrorists.The UN is buried under scandals. It has Oil-for-Food scandals. Smuggling
scandals. And theft scandals.the UN works to gain power for itself in order to become independent and
supreme over its member nations.Imagine a world run by the justice of China, with the economics of Cuba, and
the military might of the United States. Such is the world of the future under
UN global governance.
I hope he just don't pick himself up and go on, anyway.
Shabat Shalom.
This is a surprisingly original comic show...
very different from what we are accustomed to see, personally I find this one a genius...
Following the June 1967 Six-Day War, the situation in the Middle East was discussed by the United Nations General Assembly, which referred the issue to the Security Council.
After lengthy discussion, a final draft for a Security Council resolution was presented by the British Ambassador, Lord Caradon, on November 22, 1967. It was adopted on the same day.
Pro-Arab ( and uneducated leftists) sources often claim that UNSCR 242 requires Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, Gaza, and other areas.
This is not true! Lets see what UNSCR 242 actually means.
U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 242 states, in full, as follows:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967).
The
Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation
in the Middle East,
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,
Emphasizing further that all
Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have
undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter:
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the
establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should
include the application of both the following principles:
(i)
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent
conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and
respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in
peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of
force;
2. Affirms further the necessity:
(a) For
guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the
area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For
guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every
State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized
zones;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special
Representative to proceed to them Middle East to establish and maintain contacts
with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to
achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and
principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to
report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special
Representative as soon as possible.
Lets see of whom the resolution is talking...
"to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,"
every state in the area means: Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon.
lets look again... maybe some other state is hidden in the text?
"all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations"
Lets guess what countries in the region were member states of the charter of the UN... well you were right... its
Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon - no more, no less.
now when we understood of which parties the resolution speaks, lets see what does it says.
"establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:"
and I will translate: UNSCR 242 calls on all parties to the conflict to negotiate a solution, on what terms?
"the application of both the following principles: "
that means only if both of the principles are fulfilled, not one not zero not half,- BOTH.
and what are the principles?
the first:
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"
lets understand what is said in this line,
Israeli armed forces, not sovereignty, and not anything else.
territories occupied in the recent conflict, is it said "the territories"?- no, is it said "all the territories?" well, no.
so we learn that Israel is not required to withdraw from all the territories "occupied" in the recent conflict.
but from which territories Israel is required to withdraw then?
well we will learn in the second principle.
wait a minute... now a smart person like you will probably say "what the heck? you're just playing with semantics here! not with the "real" intention"
well, lets see what the real intention was:
The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that:
It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June
4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all,
they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the
day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we
didn't demand that the Israelis return to them.
and
The United States' UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that:
The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are
the words "the" or "all" and the "June 5, 1967 lines" ... the resolution speaks
of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of
withdrawal. [This would encompass] less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli
forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved
to be notably Insecure.
Lets see in the second principle from which territories Israel is obligated to withdraw:
"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and
acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political
independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within
secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"
that means that the real intention is: that Israel will decide according to negotiations with the other parties to which borders to withdraw in order to achieve peace, and those borders must be secured "free from threats or acts of force", no more, no less.
Does Israel have to withdraw its forces even if the other parties don't want to negotiate? lets see:
Eugene V. Rostow (Distinguished Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, and former US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs), Rostow was one of the US officials involved in drafting 242 so he knows first hand what was and was not intended. He states:
Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs
between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and
allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just
and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved
that means , if the "other" parties (i.e. Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon) will not negotiate, Israel has the right to ADMINISTER the territories.
Paragraph 2 in the UN resolution add more topics to negotiate between the parties, and paragraphs 3 and 4 are strictly administrative, and has no interest for us.
of course back in 1967 no Arab country wanted to negotiate with Israel because they didn't recognized the state. so the territories were administered by Israel until the "Yom Kippur" war broke, after the war, (when Israel has captured more territories in Egypt and in Syria almost reaching the capitals of these states) UN came with resolution 338:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 338 (October 22, 1973).
The Security Council
1. Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease
all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12
hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they
now occupy;
2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after
the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in
all of its parts;
3. Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the
cease-fire, negotiations start between the parties concerned under appropriate
auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.
the UNSCR 338 says that all the "parties to the present fighting" which means Israel, Syria and Egypt have to negotiate peace.
Israel unconditionally withdraw its forces Kuneitra district in vicinity to Damascus ( Syria), and from Cairo vicinity to the east bank of the Suez canal (Egypt).
Later in 1979 Israel eventually signed peace agreement with Egypt, and withdrew from Sinai peninsula territories to secure borders, thus withdrawing from 91% of the territories achieved in the last two wars. Gaza strip remaining as an Israeli territory (satisfying the Resolution's nonspecific withdrawal component).
in 1994 Israel signed a peace agreement with Jordan, withdrawing from some land near river Jordan and leasing some portions of agriculture land in the Jordan valley. (satisfying the Resolution's nonspecific withdrawal component) Judea and Samaria stays under Israel's sovereignty.
the Syrian border is still unresolved, since Syria's initial acquisition of the Golan Heights was illegal under international law!
Syria was created by the French mandate, while the Golan heights were under British mandate and part of the Trans-Jordania and part of the Jewish state as agreed in San Remo Conference. so the Golan heights were not legally Syrian in the first place. Israel's reacquisition of this territory was, and its present retention thereof is, lawful under international law.
Sources:
the UN document
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
What was United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and what does it say?
The San Remo Conference, 1922
The Golan Heights Law
the British mandate 1920-1946
When you go to a movie, which supposed to be based on a novel,
(a kind of a bestseller, I must say) with wonderful actors like John Malkovich and Jeremy Irons (a true giants of the industry).
and the movie supposed to include dragon wars, dragon riders, beautiful princess, knights of valour and arch-villains, you really think to yourself:
"what can possibly go wrong in this movie?"
well...
EVERYTHING!
the plot is shallow like a Kineret on a drought year, no twist, not even a real leading theme, the movie has no start and no ending (as it is a part of a trilogy).
There is no smooth flow of the scenes, it feels like a big part of the movie was cut out at the editing - and that's bad.
The acting is less than competent (and that is a huge understatement), the main hero character is artificial, not credible and don't get empathy from the audience.
(if this is some kind of a "directors trick" to make confusion in the audience in order to identify with the chaos in the movie, he did it right...)
The dialogues are... are... well... how can I say it?... the dialogues are utter nonsense- full of "chewed" cliches, contribute absolutely nothing to the plot, (it is really hard to contribute to something which doesn't exist...).
John Malkovich (the arch-villain) seen three times in the movie, for less than a minute each time... he is really lost in this movie.
The "hot chick" (Sienna Guillory from Resident Evil) doesn't "deliver the goods" (spoiler: she doesn't get naked).
The only person who saves the picture from total loss is Jeremy Irons who carries on his back half of the movie (why half? figure it out yourself...)
but, there are dragons in the movie, (and wonderful scenes of a vast forests and mountain landscape) and because of that, everything I said above is irrelevant, and you will go and see it anyway.
if you like quality cinema, good plot, good acting and good action; go and see James Bond "Casino Royal"
if you love dragons, you just can't miss Eragon.
I have been told that my blog is too "heavy"...
so I will lighten it up a little:
Женщина - как дорогой мобильник. Наворотов много, а функция всего одна.
או קיי,
עכשיו נדון קצת על המצב בארץ הקודש בשפת הקודש... 1
אז כך, נתחיל בשיטה שבה ממנים אנשים לתפקידים בכירים במדינה הזאת:1
נתחיל ברצף עובדות, ואתם תחברו את הקווים.1
מקרה א
שר המשפטים ( לאותו הזמן) היה ידוע כמתנגד
(אישית או מקצועית? לעולם לא נדע
למינויה של השופטת ביניש לנשיאת בית משפט העליון.1
ציטוט מהאתר השמאלני קיצוני "במבילי"1
לפני כארבעה
חודשים הפך כינוס של לשכת עורכי הדין באילת לזירת התגוששות בין בייניש ובין שר
המשפטים לשעבר, חיים רמון. בעקבות ביקורתה הנוקבת על יוזמתו להכתיב לשופטים
עונשים קבועים, הסיר רמון את הכפפות ורמז - מקומה של בייניש בכס הנשיאות אינו
מובטח.
רמון תקף את בייניש כשדיבר על מינוי שופטים לעליון. "זה הנושא הכי דרמטי,
ומבחינתי הכל פתוח", הוא הטיל פצצה. "אני לא כבול לשום דבר, לשום נוהג. אני לא
אומר שלא אכבד מנהגים, אבל אבדוק את כל המינויים מבית המשפט העליון ומטה".
כמו כן אמנון רובינשטיין ( שלא ידוע במיוחד כאיש ימין...) התנגד למינויה של השופטת בייניש בגלל נושאים
זניחים" כגון יושר אישי, והתנהלות משפטית".1
אין צורך לומר כי במקרה זה אמנון רובינשטיין הושתק ולא ניתנה לו במה, כפי שניתנת לו כאשר צריך להתנגח במתנחלים.1
כאשר אזל הזמן של בייניש וחיים רמון עדיין לא התקפל, היה צריך להזיז אותו מהמקום, כדי ש"פושטק" כמוהו לא יעמוד מול "טובת הכלל" .
חקירת משטרה...1
כשהאיומים על חקירת משטרה לא הפחידו את חיימק'ה, הגיע הזמן להשתמש בתותחים הכבדים...1
הגשת כתב אישום. שהוביל אחריו את התפטרותו של רמון ממשרת שר המשפטים.1
למשרתו ה"לשעבר" של חיים רמון מונה מאיר שטרית, 1
שהדבר הראשון שהוא עשה כאשר נבחר לתפקיד, הוא כמובן
להמליץ את דורית בייניש לתפקיד נשיאת בית משפט העליון...1
כל זה נעשה בצורה כזאת בוטה וחצופה שאפילו אתרי חדשות מסויימים שמו לב שמשהו כאן "מסריח"...1
( כאן רק נגיד שתרגיל דומה, נעשה כנגד
השר יעקב נאמן, שדרך למישהו שם על הזנב, ולא ירדו ממנו עד שהתפטר ממשרתו, לאחר
שהתפטר , יצא זכאי.... 1
דיעה נוספת בנושא ניתן למצוא כאן. וכאן
לשם ההגינות נומר כי גם נגד השר שטרית היה כתב אישום על שימוש בכספי הסוכנות כאשר היה הגזבר.1
את כתב האישום המלא אפשר למצוא כאן:1
מקרה ב
החשב הכלל ירון זליכה, 1
לכאורה פקיד אפור, שלא היינו שומעים עליו אילולי היה לוחם בשחיתות השלטונית,1
הדוקטור ירון זליכה היה חוד החנית במלחמה בשחיתות בראשויות המקומיות שהתחיל בניימין נתניהו.1
למי שלא יודע מה זאת שחיתות של ראשויות מקומיות, אני אסביר:1
מנהל ראשות מקומית, ( שבדרך כלל נבחר כמינוי פוליטי) ממנה אנשים משלו לרשות, יותר מהתקן, 1
ומשלם להם משכורות עתק. אותם האנשים ברוב המקרים הינם חסרי השכלה מתאימה לתפקיד, 1
לכן לא מתפקדים בצורה יעילה.(וכמובן האלמנט של מינוי מקורבים עושה את שלו על תפוקת העובדים...)1
ראשות כזאת נכנסת לגרעונות אדירים עקב חוסר תפקוד, ניהול כושל וכו, 1
ולא יכולה לעמוד בתשלום המשכורות. כמובן ששרי העוצר לדורותיהם הקשורים
לראשויות המקומיות בקשרים אלקטורליים, מזרימים להם כסף חדש לקופה.1
אם השר לא מסכים להזרים כסף לקופה, אזי העובדים פותחים במסע תקשורתי מיוחצ"ן על הלנת שכר לעובדים העמלים, התקשורת הלוחמת נכנסת לפעולה, ואותו השר מתקפל ומזרים כספים, כי הוא לא רוצה להצטייר בתקשורת כ
"מלין שכר" ואחד ש"פוגע בשכבות החלשות"
בניימין נתניהו ניסה להלחם בתופעה, ע"י תוכנית ההבראה המפורסמת שלו,1
כלומר, ראשות מקומית שתפעל בעתיד לצמצום הגרעון, תפטר עובדים מיותרים ו"תאחד" סגנים, יקבלו כסף, 1
כל השאר לא. למה שאנשים שעובדים ומשלמים המון מיסים ( אני ואתה)1
יממנו כל שנה ושנה את השחיתויות של הראשויות המקומיות?)1
אותו דבר ניסה לעשות גם ההחשב הכללי ירון זליכה,1
וסירב להעביר בלי גבול תקציבים לראשויות המקומיות, אולם"כבוד השר" הירשנזון, חושב שלמינויים
פוליטיים בראשויות המקומיות מותר למצוץ לנו את כסף....1
ומכיוון שאין מסמכותו לפטר את החשב הכללי הוא פשוט נטל ממנו את הסמכויות...1
והעביר את הכסף...1
מקרה ג
ולאחרונה, ממש אתמול, עמיר פרץ, האיש והשפם מכה שוב!1
הכשלון חש כי ימיו הפוליטיים קצרים (עקב כשלונו המוחלט בתפקיד שר הבטחון) 1
ומנסה לבסס את כוחו במפלגת העבודה ע"י מינוי מקורבים לתפקידי מפתח.1
לפי ההשקפה הבולשביקית של עמיר פרץ, 1
אפשר להדיח את אביגדור קהלני (המבצע את תפקידו נאמנה) בגלל שאין לו גב פוליטי חזק. 1
ולמנות את יואל מרשק, מהתנועה הקיבוצית, כדי לזכות בבלוק פוליטי במפלגת העבודה...1
איפה ... מה... למה....?1
באיזו מדינה אנחנו חיים? ואיפה 1
התקשורת? "כלב השמירה של הדמוקרטיה" בסיפורים הללו?1
( שאלה רטורית אתם לא חייבים לענות...)
P.S.
writing in Hebrew on this blog engine sucks , if you know some patent to work the alignment, please let me know.
