Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The " Left " didn't make the setters criminal , the laws that Israel agreed to be bound by did and do
Your post is factually incorrect. Is this a burner account for Tinmore? No Mostly Islamic country is even close to a Democracy.
The " Left " didn't make the setters criminal , the laws that Israel agreed to be bound by did and do
Nope. What made it "illegal" (cough, cough) for Jews to live in territory which is under their sovereignty by treaty (law), was a brand new, special interpretation of international law which -- to this day -- is applied only to Israel (read: to Jews).
Are you telling us that you are a Hamas supporter here?Your post is factually incorrect. Is this a burner account for Tinmore? No Mostly Islamic country is even close to a Democracy.
Don't claim it to be so without having the conviction to actually try to show how , it just smacks of a bluff to me. What did I claim that is " factually incorrect " ?
You attempt to try to have me down as a sock for some other is weak too. If you can't or don't want to argue your points or mine that's fine with me but claiming a sock is pathetic imho
Did the people of Gaza and the WB hold democratic elections in 2006 ?
Did the self proclaimed supporters of democracy accept the will of the people ?
There were no such people as "Palestinian" a century ago. They just referred to themselves as Arabs, and sometimes when pressed, would call themselves Southern Syrians.
Are you telling us that you are a Hamas supporter here?
To me, the election of a bloodthirsty terrorist group with genocide written into its very charter proves that The Arabs who now call themselves Palestinian are not ready for a state of their own.
You seem to think of it as a good thing.
What does a vow to kill Jews until they hide behind rocks and trees mean to you, anyway?
Your post is factually incorrect. Is this a burner account for Tinmore? No Mostly Islamic country is even close to a Democracy.
Don't claim it to be so without having the conviction to actually try to show how , it just smacks of a bluff to me. What did I claim that is " factually incorrect " ?
You attempt to try to have me down as a sock for some other is weak too. If you can't or don't want to argue your points or mine that's fine with me but claiming a sock is pathetic imho
Did the people of Gaza and the WB hold democratic elections in 2006 ?
Did the self proclaimed supporters of democracy accept the will of the people ?
The " Left " didn't make the setters criminal , the laws that Israel agreed to be bound by did and do
Nope. What made it "illegal" (cough, cough) for Jews to live in territory which is under their sovereignty by treaty (law), was a brand new, special interpretation of international law which -- to this day -- is applied only to Israel (read: to Jews).
It is inadmisible to acquire territory through warfare under international law and it is unlawful for the occupier to transfer parts of its population into the occupied territory. Yes or no ?
I never said nobody was there. Arabs were there.There were no such people as "Palestinian" a century ago. They just referred to themselves as Arabs, and sometimes when pressed, would call themselves Southern Syrians.
There were no Israelis a century ago either so where now ?
To infer that Palestinian nationalism surged as a result of Zionism is fine by me. To say there were no Palestinians , as in nobody there , you know the land without people nonsense is factually incorrect
The " Left " didn't make the setters criminal , the laws that Israel agreed to be bound by did and do
Nope. What made it "illegal" (cough, cough) for Jews to live in territory which is under their sovereignty by treaty (law), was a brand new, special interpretation of international law which -- to this day -- is applied only to Israel (read: to Jews).
It is inadmisible to acquire territory through warfare under international law and it is unlawful for the occupier to transfer parts of its population into the occupied territory. Yes or no ?
Oh boy, here we go again.
to first question: You point is a shallow and largely inaccurate reading of international law. Also irrelevant, since Israel did not acquire any territory from anyone except through legally through treaties.
to second question: GCIV Article 49 has NEVER been interpreted in such a way. Ever. To any country. It is a "special" interpretation of the law intended only to be used against Israel.
Wait, am I to understand that a poster is claiming Palestine to be a bastion of democracy when the elected leader is fourteen years into his four-year term and declaring an election where his is the only party to run and he is the only candidate?
Its the Palestinian mentality.
The " Left " didn't make the setters criminal , the laws that Israel agreed to be bound by did and do
Nope. What made it "illegal" (cough, cough) for Jews to live in territory which is under their sovereignty by treaty (law), was a brand new, special interpretation of international law which -- to this day -- is applied only to Israel (read: to Jews).
It is inadmisible to acquire territory through warfare under international law and it is unlawful for the occupier to transfer parts of its population into the occupied territory. Yes or no ?
Oh boy, here we go again.
to first question: You point is a shallow and largely inaccurate reading of international law. Also irrelevant, since Israel did not acquire any territory from anyone except through legally through treaties.
to second question: GCIV Article 49 has NEVER been interpreted in such a way. Ever. To any country. It is a "special" interpretation of the law intended only to be used against Israel.
There is an argument regarding what the Mandate or other pre state agreements /proclamations confer and I would love to see it argued out today at the ICJ. We have to be honest about just how unique the creation of Israel ( and Palestine ) has been. It's not that it's because it's concerning Jewish people , some of whom are antizionists themselves , it's just something of a anomaly
Wait, am I to understand that a poster is claiming Palestine to be a bastion of democracy when the elected leader is fourteen years into his four-year term and declaring an election where his is the only party to run and he is the only candidate?
Its the Palestinian mentality.
At least try to be reasonable
The Palestinian situation is completely dominated by Israel and that includes their electoral system. The only reason Abbas is still there is because Israel wants him or some other subcontractor to the occupation there. Trying to switch the reality is disingenuous imo
I never said nobody was there. Arabs were there.
Arabs control vast expanses of land and resources. When Arabs attacked the fledgling state, many were displaced. Those displaced during the attack were Arab, so it is up to their fellow Arabs to deal with. They would have plenty of places to go were it not for the fact that their Fellow Arabs want to keep them miserable as a propaganda stunt to use against Jews.
Now, as to your implied support for a genocidal terrorist group, do you have nothing to say on that?
There is an argument regarding what the Mandate or other pre state agreements /proclamations confer and I would love to see it argued out today at the ICJ.
Right, so if they later wanted to be seen as Palestinian in a Palestinian state in the post colonial reality of the demise of the Ottomans then they are allowed that view and don't need or require your permission.
Your post is factually incorrect. Is this a burner account for Tinmore? No Mostly Islamic country is even close to a Democracy.
Don't claim it to be so without having the conviction to actually try to show how , it just smacks of a bluff to me. What did I claim that is " factually incorrect " ?
You attempt to try to have me down as a sock for some other is weak too. If you can't or don't want to argue your points or mine that's fine with me but claiming a sock is pathetic imho
Did the people of Gaza and the WB hold democratic elections in 2006 ?
Did the self proclaimed supporters of democracy accept the will of the people ?
The people "elected" Hamas. A terror regime and most who live there are miserable. You're trying to play with words. It won't work.
He sure does like championing the election of a genocidal terrorist group.he sure does keep championing the election of a genocidal terrorist group, and has cwYour post is factually incorrect. Is this a burner account for Tinmore? No Mostly Islamic country is even close to a Democracy.
Don't claim it to be so without having the conviction to actually try to show how , it just smacks of a bluff to me. What did I claim that is " factually incorrect " ?
You attempt to try to have me down as a sock for some other is weak too. If you can't or don't want to argue your points or mine that's fine with me but claiming a sock is pathetic imho
Did the people of Gaza and the WB hold democratic elections in 2006 ?
Did the self proclaimed supporters of democracy accept the will of the people ?
The people "elected" Hamas. A terror regime and most who live there are miserable. You're trying to play with words. It won't work.
The creation of Israel happened in exactly the same way as other Mandates at the time. There was no difference. Other than the differences people, like you, are trying to put on it by coloring it as something special. Because...well Jews.
If you think you have a legal basis for it as an anomaly, please provide some evidence.
Otherwise, it seems apparent to me that your inclusion of the term "antizionists" speaks for itself. You just want there to be different rules for Jews.
Right, so if they later wanted to be seen as Palestinian in a Palestinian state in the post colonial reality of the demise of the Ottomans then they are allowed that view and don't need or require your permission.
Agreed. Now, apply that to Israel.
