Sorry Kenan but its a less known fact that Serbian leaders ordered the people to leave the area just before operation Storm.
I do know that. What happened is that Milosevic betrayed Serbs in Croatia. They were no longer useful to him hence Serbian forces under his command did not intervene in Croatia at that time.
That is the primary reason why people left - but they had a good reason to leave.
Croatian officers in charge of operation Storm general Ante Gotovina and general Mladen Markač were both indicted by ICTY in Hague and accused of a "joint criminal enterprise" in an effort to expel Krajina Serbs from Croatia in 1995 during Operation Storm and accused of aiding and abetting the murders of 324 Krajina Serb civilians and prisoners of war by "shooting, burning and/or stabbing" them and forcibly displacing almost 90,000 Serb civilians.
They were found guilty of murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war and of inhumane acts as a crime against humanity by ICTY in Hague and got 24 and 18 years respectively.
And our late president Franjo Tudjman called for Serbian people to stay and wait for the establishment of order under croatian forces.
Would that be the same guy who was under investigation by ICTY for alleged war crimes in Bosnia and Croatia. Had he not died it's quite likely that he would have indeed ended in Hague.
"Prosecutor Gregory Kehoe told the Hague-based war crimes tribunal earlier this week (July 26) that Croatian General Tihomir Blaskic, now on trial for war crimes, was only an instrument of the anti-Muslim policies of Croatian President Franjo Tudjman. Kehoe's statement raises the possibility that the tribunal may be preparing to indict the Croatian leader."
"The Hague prosecutor Kenneth Scott has accused Croatia’s first president Franjo Tudjman of masterminding the creation of Herzeg-Bosna, a self-proclaimed entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH) founded on ethnic cleansing."
"Had he lived, Croatian President Franjo Tuđman would today be in the Hague accused of war crimes, a former American ambassador to Croatia claims."
How is it a democracy when it won't allow democracy in places it lays claim to and has control over?
Easy.
The territories that are under illegal occupation are de facto not part of Israel therefore population living there is not entitled to participate in Israeli elections for example.
The conduct of Israel on occupied territories is bound by Geneva convention though.
If I am not mistaken Israel offered full citizenship to at least Palestinians living in Jerusalem but Palestinians for obvious reasons declined the 'offer'.
Btw Israel was classified as "flawed democracy" by The Democracy Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Countries like France, Italy and Greece were classified as flawed democracies as well and scored en par with Israel.
http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdfApparently the constitution of Pakistan guarantees freedom of worship and rights to non-muslims
Actions speak louder than words.
Pakistani constitution specifically discriminates against non-Muslims on many accounts for example in electoral process. Pakistan has blasphemy laws, legal segregation when it comes to legal and personal freedom, sexual freedoms, freedom of religion, etc.
As far as I know the only difference between a Jewish citizen and Arab citizen of Israel is that latter cannot do the compulsory military service.
A Jew in say California has more rights to that land than a Palestinian living in a refugee camp in Lebanon, equality my ass.
Many countries have special provisions for people which they consider to be of their own ethnicity when it comes to obtaining the right of residence or citizenship.
The discrimination is is state sanctioned, from the demolition of arab neighbourhoods and villages
You are referring to what happened during Arab-Israeli wars/conflicts?
to charging arabs with rape coz they slept with a jewish woman.
Are you saying that an Arab guy was found guilty of raping a Jewish girl after they had consensual sex?