Germany to Pakistan: Terror for political goals unacceptable

[Solomon2]

Tyranny and occupation are not the same, but they are both systematically used by Israel and India in the Palestinian territories -

O.K., you are pretty much off the wall here. There are no Israeli troops in Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority prevails in Arab-dominated areas of the West Bank. Asserting Israeli "systematic use of tyranny and occupation" is (1) poor English and (2) an empty pretense.

The UNSC resolutions are clear about ending occupation and the conditions under which that is to happen - A refusal by both Israel and India -

The two situations are not the same, either on the ground or in the UNSC. Consider my refutation in the previous paragraph. Why don't you "clear" things up yourself a bit, examining the record and arguments pro- and con-, demonstrating your research before us all, before you commit to such labels as I see in the rest of your post?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Trade deals..... Yes. We are not some country who has to beg IMF for the next tranche of loan to do even trade.

Forgetting India's past of Mega loans and defaults so quickly?

And yes, Pakistan is obtaining loans from IFI's under certain conditionalities- that is why banks and those IFI'S exist. I fail to see the problem here, given that some European nations are looking at far larger 'bailouts' from the EU and IFI's.

For what? killing your own people in the Northwest. And you are quite comfortable about it.. Great its up to you.

Are you suggesting that Pakistan let terrorists carrying out suicide bombings against civilians and children get away Scot free instead of using force against them to eliminate them?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

O.K., you are pretty much off the wall here. There are no Israeli troops in Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority prevails in Arab-dominated areas of the West Bank. Asserting "systematic use of tyranny and occupation" is (1) poor English and (2) an empty pretense.

My statement is accurate. Occupation and tyranny are both practiced by Israel given continued Israeli blockades, settlement expansion and military strikes.

The two situations are not the same, either on the ground or
in the UNSC. Consider my refutation in the previous paragraph. Why don't you "clear" things up yourself a bit, examining the record and arguments pro- and con-, demonstrating your research before us all, before you commit to such labels as I see in the rest of your post?

The 'record' of occupation, and State sponsored violence and oppression in both Palestine and Indian Occupied Kashmir is clear - the tens of thousand tortured, raped and murdered and their continued occupation in violation of the UNSC resolutions makes that clear.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

BTW Solomon, has Merkel or the US officially condemned and repudiated Albrights statement of 500,000 Iraqi children dying as bring an acceptable cost in the pursuit of Western Strategic and geo-political goals?

Because if they haven't, then condemning a few thousand casualties in attacks by 'non-state groups', in the pursuit of their own strategic and geo-political objectives, looks really misplaced and hypocritical.

 

[Solomon2]

My statement is accurate. Occupation and tyranny are both practiced by Israel given continued Israeli blockades, settlement expansion and military strikes.

Your examples themselves disprove your assertion. To be a tyrant one has to rule people One imposes a blockade against people one does not rule. Military strikes are not themselves proof of tyranny. And settlement expansion...what is that? Jews are supposed to be able to settle in the West Bank under the terms of the Mandate that is still the recognized law of the land for the territory. (Only Pakistan recognized Jordan's claim to sovereignty over the area, something Jordan finally gave up in the 1980s, much to Pakistan's embarrassment.)

The 'record' of occupation, and State sponsored violence and oppression in both Palestine and Indian Occupied Kashmir is clear -

Is it? Haven't we been over this before? In order to seek justice you must evaluate arguments from both the prosecution AND the defense. Pakistanis rarely can cite cases where they have heard pro-Israeli or pro-India Kashmir arguments. Therefore if nothing else Pakistanis can be certain that whatever they are committing to in Kashmir or Israel, they cannot call it justice.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

So Israelis who kill innocent women and childern and block them from accessing basic health and other necessities of life are not tyrant ..?

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

People who uncovered the holocaust of Palestinian Muslims in Gaza are more deserving for a Nobel Peace Prize than the Chinese Liu Xiaobo or at least should be nominated for a Pulitzer ...!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Your examples themselves disprove your assertion. To be a tyrant one has to rule people One imposes a blockade against people one does not rule. Military strikes are not themselves proof of tyranny. And settlement expansion...what is that? Jews are supposed to be able to settle in the West Bank under the terms of the Mandate that is still the recognized law of the land for the territory. (Only Pakistan recognized Jordan's claim to sovereignty over the area, something Jordan finally gave up in the 1980s, much to Pakistan's embarrassment.)

Settlement construction in fact illustrates why Israeli occupation and tyranny continue - were this not occupation and tyranny, then the Palestinian authority would be making decisions on settlements in Palestinian land, as define by UNSC resolutions.

Is it? Haven't we been over this before? In order to seek justice you must evaluate arguments from both the prosecution AND the defense. Pakistanis rarely can cite cases where they have heard pro-Israeli or pro-India Kashmir arguments. Therefore if nothing else Pakistanis can be certain that whatever they are committing to in Kashmir or Israel, they cannot call it justice.

I fail to see what arguments in violation of UNSC resolutions accepted by the world community and by all parties involved, as well as arguments in support of atrocities by these States to perpetuate their occupation, have any validity.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

People who uncovered the holocaust of Palestinian Muslims in Gaza are more deserving for a Nobel Peace Prize than the Chinese Liu Xiaobo or at least should be nominated for a Pulitzer ...!

The Nobel peace prize is predominantly issued for causes that the West approves of, and that do not significantly clash with the Wests geo-political goals.

 

[Yeti]

After 26/11 Elite German police wing started to train NSG showing actions speak louder than words.

 

[Solomon2]

Settlement construction in fact illustrates why Israeli occupation and tyranny continue - were this not occupation and tyranny, then the Palestinian authority would be making decisions on settlements in Palestinian land, as define by UNSC resolutions.

You appear very confused by the notion of "Palestinian land". Sixty years ago the "Jerusalem Post" was called the "Palestine Post". Jews settled in Palestine were called "Palestinians", Arabs were called Arabs. You need to sort out who is referring to what, as well as the legal impact of different forms of U.N. resolutions, none of which over-ride the Mandate aspect of sovereignty.

Why do you think Israel has never been taken to court on this? Because courts rely on legal arguments so Israel would be exonerated, and Israel's opponents don't want to see that happen.

If you want to rely on moral arguments then let me point out that Palestine was conditionally promised to the Jews by one Caliph and deeded to the Jews by his successor in the Treaty of Sevres. You might want to ask a Pakistani imam if solemn decisions made by a Caliph were considered binding by Pakistani Muslims. If so, how can the Jews act of settling Palestine be considered wrong?

You do not challenge my notions about justice, either. How can you not accept, therefore, that without a full hearing and consideration on an issue Pakistanis are acting based upon prejudice and bigotry, not justice?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You appear very confused by the notion of "Palestinian land". Sixty years ago the "Jerusalem Post" was called the "Palestine Post". Jews settled in Palestine were called "Palestinians", Arabs were called Arabs. You need to sort out who is referring to what, as well as the legal impact of different forms of U.N. resolutions, none of which over-ride the Mandate aspect of sovereignty.

Why do you think Israel has never been taken to court on this? Because courts rely on legal arguments so Israel would be exonerated, and Israel's opponents don't want to see that happen.

Under the 'mandate', who or what is the governing authority in 'Palestine'?

If you want to rely on moral arguments then let me point out that Palestine was conditionally promised to the Jews by one Caliph and deeded to the Jews by his successor in the Treaty of Sevres. You might want to ask a Pakistani imam if solemn decisions made by a Caliph were considered binding by Pakistani Muslims. If so, how can the Jews act of settling Palestine be considered wrong?

Links to susbtantiate that as well as what borders were being referred to.

You do not challenge my notions about justice, either. How can you not accept, therefore, that without a full hearing and consideration on an issue Pakistanis are acting based upon prejudice and bigotry, not justice?

I have challenged your notions of justice- they cannot be based on arguments justifying tyranny, occupation and atrocities to perpetuate that occupation. The UNSC resolutions are clear on both the boundaries of a Palestinian State as well as the means of resolution of J&K. The nations refusing to abide by the dispute resolution principles articulated in those resolutions, denying the Kashmiris the right to self determination in one case, simply have no grounds on the basis of 'justice' to stand on.

 

[ARSENAL6]

You appear very confused by the notion of "Palestinian land". Sixty years ago the "Jerusalem Post" was called the "Palestine Post". Jews settled in Palestine were called "Palestinians", Arabs were called Arabs. You need to sort out who is referring to what, as well as the legal impact of different forms of U.N. resolutions, none of which over-ride the Mandate aspect of sovereignty.

Why do you think Israel has never been taken to court on this? Because courts rely on legal arguments so Israel would be exonerated, and Israel's opponents don't want to see that happen.

If you want to rely on moral arguments then let me point out that Palestine was conditionally promised to the Jews by one Caliph and deeded to the Jews by his successor in the Treaty of Sevres. You might want to ask a Pakistani imam if solemn decisions made by a Caliph were considered binding by Pakistani Muslims. If so, how can the Jews act of settling Palestine be considered wrong?

You do not challenge my notions about justice, either. How can you not accept, therefore, that without a full hearing and consideration on an issue Pakistanis are acting based upon prejudice and bigotry, not justice?

Erm i think not ! even with its own people they are quite heavy handed.

and who could forget the fortiller incident

others:

Israel can't claim to be democrated or even start crying to the world to get sympathy. Solomon2, I keep putting more and more fresh video of the brutility of what Isreal do. Do you enjoy them like how a nazi enjoys seeing jews gassed ? because you don't seem to say anything on how disgusting those atrocities are.
ANd if you agree with atrocities or even make excuses then please accept the sedimental enjoyment not from Pakistanis, Muslims or Arabs but the world when Hamaz fires its fire -crackers on isreal soil which doesn't harm any Israeli citizern.
Its an act of defiance that even some israelis agree.

 

[ARSENAL6]

Under the 'mandate', who or what is the governing authority in 'Palestine'?

Links to susbtantiate that as well as what borders were being referred to.

I have challenged your notions of justice- they cannot be based on arguments justifying tyranny, occupation and atrocities to perpetuate that occupation. The UNSC resolutions are clear on both the boundaries of a Palestinian State as well as the means of resolution of J&K. The nations refusing to abide by the dispute resolution principles articulated in those resolutions, denying the Kashmiris the right to self determination in one case, simply have no grounds on the basis of 'justice' to stand on.

FYI: Arab citizens of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Parthvi]

Lets stay on topic please. I agree in Principle with Merkel's statement but strongly disagree with the venue and timing. If we are to resolve our issues with Pakistan then we should address them with the Pakistanis directly instead of getting others involved. It only hightens the animosity and decreases the chances for understanding between these unfortunate neighbours.