http://youtu.be/CvFH_6DNRCY

I am friends my past girlfriends sure - if they were close enough
to be a gf then they most definitely make good friends...

Behind the headlines: The Palestinian refusal to negotiate peace
4 Jan 2010

The consistent rejection by Palestinians of Israeli peace initiatives and its current refusal to negotiate leaves Israel questioning whether its neighbors are in fact committed to peace.

PM Netanyahu presents his vision of peace at Bar-Ilan University, June 2009 (Photo: Reuters)

A commitment to peace has been a central goal of every Israeli government. While Israeli efforts aimed at attaining peace have resulted in the conclusion of peace treaties with both Egypt and Jordan, Israel's endeavors to achieve an equitable negotiated peace agreement with its Palestinian neighbors have been repeatedly rebuffed by the Palestinian leadership.

The most recent example of this enigmatic pattern of Palestinian behavior is the refusal by the Palestinians to even renew peace negotiations with the new Israeli government since the Israeli elections in early 2009.

The consistent rejection by Palestinians of Israeli peace initiatives and its current refusal to negotiate leaves Israel questioning whether its neighbors are in fact committed to peace.

Peace initiatives of the new Israeli government
(April 2009 - the present)

Since its inauguration in April 2009, the present Israeli Government has sought ways to re-engage the leadership of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in peace negotiations, which were unilaterally suspended by the Palestinians following Israeli elections.

1. Two states for two peoples

Israeli initiative

In a speech given at Bar-Ilan University on June 14, 2009, PM Netanyahu clearly stated his acceptance of a Palestinian nation-state, living alongside a Jewish nation-state, in peace and security. In his speech, the PM made clear that a Palestinian state would have to be demilitarized so as not to endanger Israel's security. The PM called for the PA to begin negotiations immediately and without conditions in order to realize the vision of two states for two peoples.

International praise: World leaders praised this significant Israeli step.

The American administration welcomed the speech, calling it "an important step." (White House website, 14 Jun 2009)
Similar sentiment was expressed by Bernard Kouchner, French foreign minister (AFP, 15 Jun 2009).

Palestinian rejection: Netanyahu's speech was rejected by the Palestinians.

Saeb Erekat, Senior Palestinian Negotiator stated that: "The peace process has been moving at the speed of a tortoise. Tonight, Netanyahu has flipped it over on its back."(Al-Jazeera TV, 14 Jun 2009)
Similarly, PA Spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah, stated: "Netanyahu’s remarks have sabotaged all initiatives, paralysed all efforts being made." (Jerusalem Post, 14 Jun 2009)
Ahmed Bahar, acting chairman of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said that the speech proved that "'resistance' [i.e. terrorism] was the only way for Palestinians to receive the rights they deserved." (Al-Intiqad, 15 Jun 2009)
Following the speech, the sixth Fatah Conference, resolved to "totally reject recognition of Israel as a Jewish state", to "adopt all legitimate forms of struggle" against Israel, and "to be creative in finding new forms of struggle and resistance." (Fatah Political Program, al-Ayyam, 11 Aug 2009)

Despite these repeated rejections, PM Netanyahu has specifically reiterated his call for peace with the Palestinians several times since June. PM Netanyahu is yet to receive a positive response from the Palestinian Authority.


2. Israeli initiatives to improve the political climate vs. Palestinian delegitimization

Recognizing that calls for a Palestinian state are necessary, but not sufficient, for the realization of peace, extensive measures have been implemented by the current Israeli government in order to improve the political climate in the region, and to create facts on the ground which advance reconciliation.

The steps that Israel has taken include measures to enhance freedom of movement both within the West Bank, and between the West Bank and Israel. These moves not only improve the quality of life of Palestinian civilians, but also promote economic development. These measures have contributed to the impressive and encouraging World Bank statistics that show an 8% annual growth in the West Bank economy, and the projection by Quartet Representative Tony Blair in an interview with the New York Times of double digit annual rates of growth.

In addition, recognizing the ease with which terror activities can torpedo progress on the ground and in the negotiating room, and can result in increased security restrictions in Palestinian areas, Israel has taken steps to promote security cooperation with the Palestinians.

Although life in the West Bank has improved significantly as a result of these combined Israeli efforts, Palestinian leaders continue to pursue an international campaign to delegitimize Israel, hurt its economy, and undermine its ability to defend itself.

Israeli initiative

The measures taken by the Israeli government to enhance freedom of movement within the West Bank and between the West Bank and Israel include:

The removal of checkpoints and roadblocks: Israel has decreased the number of checkpoints from 41 to fourteen; twelve of which are manned 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to facilitate movement. In addition, as of August 2009, Israel removed 147 unmanned road blocks.
The extension of operating hours at crossing points between Israel and the West Bank, including the Allenby Bridge Border Crossing to Jordan; and
The upgrade of the Gilboa/Jalama crossing to allow for vehicles and not simply pedestrians to use the crossing. This has led to a significant increase in traffic, and retail activity.

In addition, in order to further ease restrictions, and still preclude, to the extent possible, disruptions of the peace process by terrorist elements, Israel has closely cooperated with the PA in building the capacity of the Palestinian civil security forces and in improving coordination between the Israeli and Palestinian security services.

For example since 2008 there has been intensive ongoing coordination IDF and the Palestinian Police Forces; and, Israel has worked closely with U.S. General Dayton and his team in their efforts to organize, train and upgrade the PA's National Security Forces battalions.

Palestinian rejection

Despite Israeli confidence building measures, the PA has orchestrated a campaign in international fora to delegitimize Israel and undermine its economy and security. For example, the PA is a driving force behind the establishment of the politically motivated Goldstone Mission by the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), and has led the campaign to implement its one-sided conclusions both in the HRC (16 Oct 2009), and the UNGA (5 Nov 2009), in order to delegitimize the actions taken by Israel to protect its citizens.

Simultaneously, Palestinian groups are leading campaigns to arrest Israeli leaders abroad through the abuse of 'universal jurisdiction' clauses - the latest such incident being the arrest warrant issued in the UK (14 Dec 2009) against former FM Livni.

Moreover, the PA is leading a political initiative aimed to foster support in the UN Security Council for the unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, thus allowing the Palestinians to both bypass negotiations and unilaterally dictate its position regarding future borders.

A further international campaign involves introducing PA-sponsored resolutions condemning Israel at UN professional bodies such as the Commission on the Status of Women and the World Health Organization, where no other nation is singled out for criticism.

The PA is also leading an international effort to boycott, divest and sanction Israel. Indeed, at the sixth Fatah Conference a platform was adopted calling "to boycott the Israeli products inside the territories and abroad through popular moves... and work to escalate an international campaign towards boycotting Israel and its products and its institutions." (Fatah Political Program, al-Ayyam, 11 Aug 2009)


3. Israeli restraint of settlement activity

Israeli initiative

On November 25, 2009, the Israeli government announced an unprecedented ten month moratorium on new residential housing construction in the West Bank, which PM Netanyahu described as a step "designed to encourage the resumption of peace talks" and as "an opportunity to move forward in the path of peace."

International praise

The Israeli move was welcomed by the US. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the decision was a "helpful move toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,"(State Dept. website 25 Nov 2009).
The US special envoy for Mideast peace, former Senator George Mitchell, also welcomed the move, stating stated that "it is more than any Israeli government has done before and can help movement toward agreement between the parties," (State Dept. Website 25 Nov 2009)
Similar sentiment was expressed by France's Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who welcomed the move and called it a "step in the right direction." (EJPress, 26 Nov 2009)

Palestinian rejection

Palestinian spokesmen rejected the moratorium even before the official Israeli announcement (Fox News, 25 Nov 2009).
The Fatah Central Committee claimed that PM Netanyahu was trying to avoid peace, stated that the Israeli decision showed Netanyahu was: "continuing to avoid the peace process and ignore all opportunities to achieve peace," (Jerusalem Post, 26 Nov 2009)


Consistent Palestinian rejection of Israeli initiatives

The Palestinians rejections of PM Netanyahu's many initiatives in pursuit of peace are not unique: they are just the latest in a string of Palestinian rejections of Israeli peace initiatives in the past decade.

Israeli initiatives

Oslo (1993): The Oslo Accords constituted a series of interim agreements, intended to bring peace between Israel and her Palestinian neighbors.

International praise

US President Clinton referred to Oslo as "the peace of the brave" (BBC, September 13, 1993).

Palestinian rejection

The Palestinians fundamentally breached their obligations under the Oslo Accords, responding to the Israeli implementation of Oslo with a wave of suicide terrorism in Israel's cities.

Camp David: In 2000, at Camp David, then Israeli PM Ehud Barak offered PA Chairman Arafat a series of far-reaching Israeli concessions as part of a comprehensive peace offer. In exchange, Arafat was asked to put an end to the conflict.

International praise

Then U.S. President Bill Clinton described PM Barak's actions as "courageous".

Palestinian rejection

The Palestinians rejected the Israeli offer out-of-hand - no counter-offer was even made. In response to the Israeli offer of peace, the PA launched (Sept 2000) a pre-planned wave of violence, known as the Second Intifada, and characterized by unprecedented terrorist attacks killing 1,184 Israelis.

Disengagement: The Israeli government, under PM Sharon advanced a plan to disengage Israeli forces and remove settlements from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria. The plan was implemented in August 2005. Israel saw the disengagement as an initiative towards peace.

International praise

US President Bush praised The Israeli people for their "courageous and painful step" and stated: "now that Israel has withdrawn, the way forward is clear. The Palestinians must show the world that they will fight terrorism and govern in a peaceful way." (Radio Address, August 27, 2005)
UK PM Tony Blar called the disengagement a "historic step," stating: "I would like to reiterate the British government's full support. I greatly admire the courage with which you have developed and implemented this policy. I believe you are right to see disengagement as an historic opportunity to pursue a better future for Israelis and Palestinians." (Letter from Blair to PM Sharon, August 16, 2005)
Similar praise emanated from the U.N., Turkey, Morocco, Italy, South Africa and Norway.

Palestinian rejection

Despite Israel's disengagement, Palestinians continued to fire rockets on Israel from the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, rather than using disengagement as an opportunity to achieve peace, the Palestinians elected the Iran-backed terrorist group Hamas to power. In June 2007, Hamas seized full control of the Gaza Strip in a violent coup. Under Hamas, the constant barrage of rocket fire on Israel's southern communities increased dramatically with over 10,000 rockets and mortar shells fired at Israeli populated areas by Hamas and other terror groups.

2008: Israeli PM Ehud Olmert made PA President Abbas a sweeping and unprecedented peace offer.

Palestinian rejection

Abbas rejected the offers and explained to the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl that he had rejected Olmert's proposals because "the gaps were too wide," Abbas continued: " l will wait for Israel to freeze settlements…until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality…the people are living a normal life." (Washington Post, May 2009)


Conclusion

Israel has achieved negotiated peace agreements, which have turned previous avowed enemies, such as Jordan and Egypt, into peace partners. These agreements were made possible by the courageous leadership of Anwar Sadat and King Hussein, who prepared their people for peace, and made the compromises necessary to achieve peace at the negotiating table. The Palestinians, however, expect somehow to achieve peace, solely on their own terms, without even sitting down to talk.

Israel's current government has already demonstrated, in word and in deed, its commitment to advance peace and, like all Israeli governments in the past, is willing to make the compromises needed to reach that peace. Yet the Palestinians refuse to compromise or even to negotiate. It would be a tragedy if the Palestinian leadership once again choose the "all or nothing" approach and reject the possibility of forging an historic peace agreement.

Here are the radical Muslims and also a true enemy of religious
freedom and democracy.

http://youtu.be/AediQLpoGGM

I've read them and that is not what they say.
You probably misinterpret them to fit some preconceived antisemitic bias.

You only make the false claims because you refuse to accept the
genetic DNA evidence of the close genetic relationship among all
Jews which can be traced to common Mideastern ancestry!



^ Kopelman NM, Stone L, Wang C, et al. (2009). "Genomic microsatellites identify shared Jewish ancestry intermediate between Middle Eastern and European populations". BMC Genetics 10: 80. doi:10.1186/1471-2156-10-80. PMC 2797531. PMID 19995433.

^ Hao L, Atzmon G, Velez C, et al. (2009). "Abraham's children in the genome era: Major Jewish diaspora populations comprise distinct genetic clusters with shared middle eastern ancestry". American Society of Human Genetics.

^ Tracing Jewish roots by Tina Hesman Saey, ScienceNews, June 3, 2010

^ Genes set Jews apart, study finds, by Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times, June 3, 2010

^ a b Atzmon, G.; Hao, L.; Pe'er, I.; Velez, C.; Pearlman, A.; Palamara, P. F.; Morrow, B.; Friedman, E. et al. (2010). "Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry". American Journal of Human Genetics 86 (6): 850–859. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.04.015. PMC 3032072. PMID 20560205.

Like Yesterday.

From the CDC

Myths and misinformation about vaccine safety can confuse parents who are trying to make sound decisions about their children's health care.

Vaccination is a common, memorable event, and association of events in time often signals cause and effect. While some of the sickness or reactions that follow vaccination may be caused by the vaccine, many are unrelated events that occur by coincidence after vaccination. Therefore, the scientific research that attempts to distinguish true vaccine adverse events from unrelated, chance occurrence is important.

Is thimerosal safe?

Thimerosal has a proven track record of being very safe. Data from many studies show no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines.

Does thimerosal cause autism?

Research does not show any link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder. Although thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in 2001, autism rates have gone up, which is the opposite of what would be expected if thimerosal caused autism.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html

Nice....

Mine above is an Eastern Tailed Blue.
A present of sorts once upon a time....

Oh No of course not. That is why DNA is generally
inadmissible as evidence. No one would pay any attention to
genetic information!

Didn't miss anything - just thought it was too silly to deserve
comment!

The ludicrous assertion that the Jewish Zionists persecuted Jews
rather than working for a state in which all Jews could live free
of persecution hardly deserves a response.



I will point out however that the genetic evidence shows all Jews
have common ancestry because you have repeated a false canard about
Jewish ancestry.

Jewish communities in Europe and the Middle East share many genes inherited from the ancestral Jewish population that lived in the Middle East some 3,000 years ago, even though each community also carries genes from other sources — usually the country in which it lives.

That is the conclusion of two new genetic surveys, the first to use genome-wide scanning devices to compare many Jewish communities around the world.

A major surprise from both surveys is the genetic closeness of the two Jewish communities of Europe, the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim. The Ashkenazim thrived in Northern and Eastern Europe until their devastation by the Hitler regime, and now live mostly in the United States and Israel. The Sephardim were exiled from Spain in 1492 and from Portugal in 1497 and moved to the Ottoman Empire, North Africa and the Netherlands.

The two genome surveys extend earlier studies based just on the Y chromosome, the genetic element carried by all men. They refute the suggestion made last year by the historian Shlomo Sand in his book “The Invention of the Jewish People” that Jews have no common origin but are a miscellany of people in Europe and Central Asia who converted to Judaism at various times.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html?_r=0

Basics and Common Questions:
Why Immunize?
For Parents

Why immunize our children? Sometimes we are confused by the messages in the media. First we are assured that, thanks to vaccines, some diseases are almost gone from the U.S. But we are also warned to immunize our children, ourselves as adults, and the elderly.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/why.htm

Right on.



Best to leave it at that.



1. There is no such thing as pre-Israel Palestine.
2. But certainly the antisemitism did not come from the Zionists!



MYTH

“Jews who lived in Islamic countries were well-treated by the Arabs.” top

FACT

While Jewish communities in Islamic countries fared better overall than those in Christian lands in Europe, Jews were no strangers to persecution and humiliation among the Arabs. As Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis has written: “The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam.”17

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, traveled to Medina in 622 A.D. to attract followers to his new faith. When the Jews of Medina refused to recognize Muhammad as their Prophet, two of the major Jewish tribes were expelled. In 627, Muhammad’s followers killed between 600 and 900 of the men, and divided the surviving Jewish women and children amongst themselves.18

The Muslim attitude toward Jews is reflected in various verses throughout the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic faith. “They [the Children of Israel] were consigned to humiliation and wretchedness. They brought the wrath of God upon themselves, and this because they used to deny God’s signs and kill His Prophets unjustly and because they disobeyed and were transgressors” (Sura 2:61). According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels (2:97-98).

Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews. In the ninth century, Baghdad’s Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi Germany.19

At various times, Jews in Muslim lands lived in relative peace and thrived culturally and economically. The position of the Jews was never secure, however, and changes in the political or social climate would often lead to persecution, violence and death.

When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, anti-Semitism would surface, often with devastating results. On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in “an offensive manner.” The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.20

Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by the Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830; and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.21

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854­-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran’s prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).22

The situation of Jews in Arab lands reached a low point in the 19th century. Jews in most of North Africa (including Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Morocco) were forced to live in ghettos. In Morocco, which contained the largest Jewish community in the Islamic Diaspora, Jews were made to walk barefoot or wear shoes of straw when outside the ghetto. Even Muslim children participated in the degradation of Jews, by throwing stones at them or harassing them in other ways. The frequency of anti-Jewish violence increased, and many Jews were executed on charges of apostasy. Ritual murder accusations against the Jews became commonplace in the Ottoman Empire.23

As distinguished Orientalist G.E. von Grunebaum has written:

It would not be difficult to put together the names of a very sizeable number Jewish subjects or citizens of the Islamic area who have attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment; and the same could be done for Christians. But it would again not be difficult to compile a lengthy list of persecutions, arbitrary confiscations, attempted forced conversions, or pogroms.24

The danger for Jews became even greater as a showdown approached in the UN. The Syrian delegate, Faris el-Khouri, warned: “Unless the Palestine problem is settled, we shall have difficulty in protecting and safeguarding the Jews in the Arab world.”25

More than a thousand Jews were killed in anti-Jewish rioting during the 1940’s in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen.26 This helped trigger the mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries.

MYTH

“As ‘People of the Book,’ Jews and Christians are protected under Islamic law.” top

FACT

This argument is rooted in the traditional concept of the “dhimma” (“writ of protection”), which was extended by Muslim conquerors to Christians and Jews in exchange for their subordination to the Muslims. Yet, as French authority Jacques Ellul has observed: “One must ask:‘protected against whom?’ When this ‘stranger’ lives in Islamic countries, the answer can only be: against the Muslims themselves.”27

Peoples subjected to Muslim rule usually had a choice between death and conversion, but Jews and Christians, who adhered to the Scriptures, were usually allowed, as dhimmis, to practice their faith. This “protection” did little, however, to insure that Jews and Christians were treated well by the Muslims. On the contrary, an integral aspect of the dhimma was that, being an infidel, he had to acknowledge openly the superiority of the true believer — the Muslim.

In the early years of the Islamic conquest, the “tribute” (or jizya), paid as a yearly poll tax, symbolized the subordination of the dhimmi.28

Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi. Dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Muslims, or to touch a Muslim woman (though a Muslim man could take a non-Muslim as a wife).

Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were forced to wear distinctive clothing and were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices — as that might offend Muslims. The dhimmi also had to show public deference toward Muslims; for example, always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim.29

By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Muslim lands had not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice Consul in Mosul, wrote in 1909:

The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.30

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFtreatment.html

The Palestinians are not like American Indians. They did not have
nations and regions they governed in the Mideast. Palestinians also
are not native peoples but immigrants from all over the Mideast.

The issue is simply bigotry and antisemitism.

Arabs did not want Jews there - even when they bought land legally and
left their neighbors alone. It was then and is now discrimination.

It is not about borders. Many Palestinians don't accept Israel with
any border - because they are Jewish.

The Israeli nuclear program pre-dated the NPT but was undeclared
and Israel felt the best approach to the situation was simply to
not sign on the NPT as they did not wish to either proclaim or to
deny their nuclear activities. So they never signed on initially
and that is the way it remains today.

The US unsigned its membership in the court because it became
overrun by the Kangaroos. The ICJ has all sorts of problems making
it arguably even more of a joke than the UN.

The International Court has been criticized with respect to its rulings, its procedures, and its authority. As with United Nations criticisms as a whole, many of these criticisms refer more to the general authority assigned to the body by member states through its charter than to specific problems with the composition of judges or their rulings. Major criticisms include:

"Compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision, and, as such, instances of aggression tend to be automatically escalated to and adjudicated by the Security Council. According to the sovereignty principle of international law, no nation is superior nor inferior against another. Therefore there is no entity that could force the states into practice of the law or punish the states in case any violation of international law occurs. Therefore, due to the absence of binding force, although there are 191 member states of the ICJ, the members do not necessarily have to accept the jurisdiction. Moreover, the membership of the UN and ICJ does not give the automatic jurisdiction over the member states, but it's the consent of each states to follow the jurisdiction that matters.
Organizations, private enterprises, and individuals cannot have their cases taken to the International Court, such as to appeal a national supreme court's ruling. U.N. agencies likewise cannot bring up a case except in advisory opinions (a process initiated by the court and non-binding). Only the states can bring the cases and become the defendants of the cases. This also means that the potential victims of crimes against humanity, such as minor ethnic groups or indigenous peoples.
Other existing international thematic courts, such as the ICC, are not under the umbrella of the International Court. Unlike ICJ, international thematic courts like ICC work independently from United Nations. Such dualistic structure between various international courts sometimes makes it hard for the courts to engage in effective and collective jurisdiction.
The International Court does not enjoy a full separation of powers, with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement of even cases to which they consented in advance to be bound.[29] Because the jurisdiction does not have binding force itself, in many cases the instances of aggression are adjudicated by Security Council by adopting a resolution, etc.. Therefore it is very likely for the member states of Security Council to avoid the responsibility brought up by International Court of Justice, as shown in the example of Nicaragua v. United States

Birobidzhan? That was a place in the middle of nowhere where the
old Soviet Union sent the Jews to get them out of the way. It was
never anything but a semi-Siberian gulag. Of course Stalin killed
a lot of them in purges and there are a few Jews who remain but
there were never many Jews there and they were persecuted badly.
Doesn't really compare to the Jews historical ties to their home
country where they originated and where they ruled thousands of
years before Christ.



The Israelis have shown again and again that they will make peace
whenever possible. They accept a 2-state solution and have offered
very explicit and generous options for this to come about. For
example in the Oslo accords and also the Camp David offer. They
left Gaza giving the Palestinians a wonderful opportunity to show
how they would live side by side in peace if they so choose and I
guess it was really fabulous how Hamas took advantage of that
opportunity.



Arafat of course refused to forego violence in launched Intifadas
and stupidly turned down the extremely generous Camp David offer
and there was a good reason. The reason is of course that Pals are
ideologically opposed to the State of Israel. And have no intention
of accepting Israel in any case.

This is really the heart of the conflict.

There are innumerable examples of Arabs and Palestinians
denying that Israel has any right to have their own government or
to live peacefully no matter what the borders are.

So, Palestinians preach hate and kill themselves trying to repeatedly
destroy Israel and live in a Palestinian self-created hell of bigotry,
hate and hopelessness.

Oh yes, there are innumerable examples of Arabs and Palestinians
denying that Israel has any right to have their own government or
to live peacefully no matter what the borders are.

The example above is just one instance.

The Jewish Agency, precursor to the Israeli government, agreed to the plan, but several Arab states rejected it and attacked Israel after its May 14, 1948 declaration of independence, escalating a civil war into the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

This is really the heart of the conflict.

The Israelis readily accept a 2-state solution and have offered
very explicit and generous options for this to come about. For
example in the Oslo accords and also the Camp David offer.

Arafat of course refused to forego violence in launched Intifadas
and stupidly turned down the extremely generous Camp David offer
and there was a good reason. The reason is of course that Pals are
ideologically opposed to the State of Israel. And have no intention
of accepting Israel in any case.

So, Palestinians preach hate and kill themselves trying to repeatedly
destroy Israel and live in a Palestinian self-created hell of bigotry,
hate and hopelessness.

In other words, Israel will defend themselves when they are attacked and
will take adequate steps to safeguard their security in the future. As
proven in Camp David, with their peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt
and in previous negotiations with the PLO, Israel is also more than ready
to negotiate peace but they rightfully insist on partners who will at the
very least agree to forego violence against Israeli citizens and accept
Israel's right to exist as they are - a permanent free Jewish state.

Also, sadly, the UN is a joke. (Durban II and Durban III)



The Durban Review Conference is the official name of the 2009 United Nations World Conference Against Racism (WCAR), also known as Durban II. The conference ran from Monday 20 April to Friday 24 April 2009, and took place at the United Nations Office in Geneva, Switzerland.[1] The conference was called under the mandate of United Nations General Assembly resolution 61/149 (passed in 2006) with a mandate to review the implementation of the The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action from the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance which took place in Durban, South Africa.

The conference was boycotted by Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and the United States. The Czech Republic discontinued its attendance on the first day, and twenty-three other European Union countries sent low-level delegations. The western countries had expressed concerns that the conference would be used to promote anti-Semitism and laws against blasphemy perceived as contrary to the principles of free speech,[2][3][4][5][6] and that the conference would not deal with discrimination against homosexuals.[7] European countries also criticized the meeting for focusing on the West and ignoring problems of racism and intolerance in the developing world.

Controversy surrounded the attendance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the conference due to his past statements on Israel and the Holocaust. On the first day of the conference, Ahmadinejad, the only head of state to attend, made a speech condemning Israel as "totally racist"[8] and accusing the West of using the Holocaust as a "pretext" for aggression against Palestinians.[9] The distributed English version of the speech referred to the Holocaust as an "ambiguous and dubious question". When Ahmadinejad began to speak about Israel, all the European Union delegates left the conference room, while a number of the remaining delegates applauded the Iranian President.[10] UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed dismay at both the boycotts and the speech.[11]

Durban III, a follow-up conference that took place on 22 September 2011 in New York, was boycotted by the ten aforementioned countries (including the Czech Republic), along with Austria, Bulgaria, France and the United Kingdom.

I am self taught. It can be done but lessons are more efficient.
If you have a friend who plays they can show you how to get started
but there are many good free instructional videos also now.

To a certain extent it depends on what style of playing you like.
There are quite a few different techniques.

Having a good starter instrument is also very nice. They are not
at all expensive with many good used guitars available for $100-$200.

There have been threads in music about this before...just a sec...

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/273914

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/272358

It is a fun time. Very relaxing.

Personally I like Travis-picking but I also flat pick and
enjoy a wide variety of styles. I like everything from Delta Blues
to classical and jazz. Acoustic and electric.

Ask around and find a HS or college student who plays well who
gives some private instruction if you like. There is no question
that personal instruction of some sort is the fastest way to learn.

If you want to write song melodies then you want to learn first
to play chord progressions in a key which is easy for you to sing.
You certainly can watch some videos and go to the music store and
try to tune and play some of their guitars which are for sale and
talk to the sales staff. This is all free and these people often
play guitar and will often be happy to talk to you as they show you
their instruments. Plus its free and you can always get the books
from the library too.

To think that Israel was not being attacked in 1967 by the armies
discussed above is just being silly. Moshe Dayan did not put hundreds
of thousands of Arab troops on the borders of Israel with orders
to attack Israel.

No point in going to the Kangaroo Court.

One can't put on face paint, floppy shoes and a red ball nose and
join the circus if one doesn't want to become a clown.



There is nothing to prevent the Palestinians and Israelis from
settling this dispute today except for the Palestinians unwillingness
to accept Israel as a permanent Jewish state coexisting peacefully
next door.