If Peace Never Comes, This Will Be the Reason

[Scootaloo]

8. I love this argument, and how you think it strengthens your position

Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2013, 09:39 AM - Edit history (1)

The Annan plan was, as you noted, rejected. And rightly so, because.. .well, read it. Apply it in your head. It's fucking bizarre, and surely degrades my opinion of Kofi Annan even further.

Second, the "ruling" from the UCHR on the issue of Greek Cypriot claims is not what you are told it is. First off, most of what you quoted isn't even a ruling.

Some 35 years have elapsed since the applicants lost possession of their property in Northern Cyprus in 1974. Generations have passed. The local population has not remained static. Turkish Cypriots who inhabited the north have migrated elsewhere; Turkish-Cypriot refugees from the south have settled in the north; Turkish settlers from Turkey have arrived in large numbers and established homes. Much Greek-Cypriot property has changed hands at least once, whether by sale, donation or inheritance.

That part? Not a ruling. That's an observation of the socio-political climate within the island of Cyprus. Here's the whole sub-segment;

83. The Court observes that the arguments of all the parties reflect the long-standing and intense political dispute between the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey concerning the future of the island of Cyprus and the resolution of the property question.

84. In the present applications, some thirty-five years have elapsed since the applicants lost possession of their property in northern Cyprus in 1974. Generations have passed. The local population has not remained static. Turkish Cypriots who inhabited the north have migrated elsewhere; Turkish-Cypriot refugees from the south have settled in the north; Turkish settlers from Turkey have arrived in large numbers and established their homes. Much Greek-Cypriot property has changed hands at least once, whether by sale, donation or inheritance.

85. Thus, the Court finds itself faced with cases burdened with a political, historical and factual complexity flowing from a problem that should have been resolved by all parties assuming full responsibility for finding a solution on a political level. This reality, as well as the passage of time and the continuing evolution of the broader political dispute must inform the Court's interpretation and application of the Convention which cannot, if it is to be coherent and meaningful, be either static or blind to concrete factual circumstances.

86. The Court will proceed, in light of all the above considerations, to examine the two main branches of objections by the applicants and the intervening Government to the procedure before the IPC: firstly, whether the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies applies at all to the situation of Greek-Cypriot owners of property under the control of the “TRNC”; and then, secondly, whether or not the respondent Government in these cases have furnished a remedy in the IPC capable of providing effective redress.

(yes, sub-segment, there's a lot there)

This part?

It is not enough for an applicant to claim that a particular place or property is a 'home'; he or she must show that they enjoy concrete and persisting links with the property concerned.

is indeed a portion of the ruling... directed at one of the joined cases. Why? Well, because the lady making the claim had nothing backing up her claim. No documentation at all. That case was dismissed, leaving seven under the aegis of Demopoulos et al v. Turkey.
Those other seven were simply declared inadmissible to the ECHR, owing to the fact they had not exhausted domestic judicial options (in other words, they were told to take it to a back Cypriot court.)

Do note that the observations come before the rulings (quite a deep gulf of text between the two in this case). Yet somehow, a fragment of the court's finding has ended up not only placed before a fragment of the observations, but actually joined whole to it... and then that gestalt is falsely sold to you as the ruling itself.

It's terrible how Zionists even lie to each other. Sociopathy isn't curable, but I believe it is treatable.

And yes, the ECHR has complied with UN standards on this issue.. .which is why there is ruling after ruling in favor of Greek Cypriots against Turkey. Read up on Loizidou vs. Turkey, for a good example.

Lastly, your issue is with the way the world (International Law at the time) carved up the mid-east. They created the states that exist there, including the Jewish homeland.

Yes on the first part, no on the second. I challenge you to find me a map that has "Jewish homeland" on it. Such a place was promised by Britain, but was never actually penciled in anywhere. And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. I suppose you've never actually thought about it, have you? Okay, here goes.

It's 1917, and you're great Britain. You're fighting on two fronts against the Hun and the Turk, and it's not going too well. You're not losing, but you're not winning either... and since the Central powers control sea routes to your most prosperous holding, it's REALLY starting to pinch. You need a loan, but the rest of Europe is either as broke as you are, or trying to kill you - and the Yanks have already told you they're not interested. What you need is a domestic loan from someone, some wealthy, connected British person, oh, but who? You've got it! How about that wealthy-as-fuck dude, Baron Walter Rosthchild? Banker, business magnate, he's got thousand-pound notes hidden up his moustaches, you hear!

So you go to this guy, and ask him for a loan. He agrees, conditional on you entertaining this political notion of his, something about a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Fair enough, you figure - you take his check, and have your foreign secretary, one Arthur James Balfour write up and publish a letter announcing the agreement. Yeah it's a little premature since your campaign in the orient is still bogged in the Sinai, but whatever, right?

And then happy day! a little over a year later, the war is over and Great Britain is on the winning side! Now you have to make good on those promises you made to the Jews about that homeland, and the Arabs about their independence, and the Indians about membership in parliament., and you're like "pfft, whatever. You shuffle the Jews back to the bottom of the stack, you backstab the Arabs and split their land up with the French, and you tell the Indians to get back to making socks for you or they get the fusillade again. You're motherfucking Great Britain, and don't let anyone forget it!

...Point I'm making is that the Balfour Declaration was intended to be bullshit, Shira. Straight up, grade-A bullshit. It was a promise (and a non-binding promise at that! For someone who argues "a resolution is not law" you surely understand that personal correspondences aren't, either?) regarding a parcel of land that Great Britain hadn't yet captured. had Britain lost the war (which was certainly a possibility at the time) it could not have possibly expected to be held to its promise. And since Britain won, it was in a position to just ignore the promise... which it did in a steadfast manner all the way to 1948. Just as it did with several other promises made in the course of the war (the Arabs and Indians I mentioned.) Had it not been for the horror of the Holocaust, I imagine that Britain probably would have just kept smothering the promised homeland until people just stopped asking.

You don't seem to have a problem with those other fabricated nations; only Israel. Why is that?

Really? 'cause I've expressed my antipathy for the Sykes-Picot frankensteining fairly frequently... well, frequently compared to how often the opportunity appears, I guess. I've also expressed it in response to colonial map-lines throughout Africa and Asia in general.

I've heard of these people who deny Palestinians are a people/nation and undeserving of self-determination. Their counterparts feel the same way about Jews....

I'm typing a response to such a person right this minute. I'm glad that you've managed to recognize yourself in a mirror Shira, now we know you at least have the self-awareness of the average porpoise.

As to your claim of "ethnic cleansing", I wonder if you believe Jews have a RoR to the areas from which they were ethnically cleansed prior to 1948. I don't see you fighting for their rights guaranteed by this mythical International Law you refer to....

You've asked this a few times, and I've answered it each time. I suggest you write it down or something. Yes, they absolutely have such a right. As do those so expelled from their homes after 1948. They also have right to compensation for property lost in such. You keep trying for these sad, sorry little "gotcha" questions Shira. I don't think you fully comprehend the notion of someone whose opinion is grounded in ethics, rather than team sports.