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.
Loose translation: Shusha is helpless to 'refute' one word
What's to refute? You aren't making a claim here, or posing a question for debate. You are just ranting about the evil of Jews.
If you want me to refute something -- make a claim. Here's one to start with: Israel has the right to defend her citizens against attacks. Yes or no?
Loose translation: Shusha is helpless to 'refute' one word
What's to refute? You aren't making a claim here, or posing a question for debate. You are just ranting about the evil of Jews.
If you want me to refute something -- make a claim. Here's one to start with: Israel has the right to defend her citizens against attacks. Yes or no?
By all indication someone missed class the day that 'refutation' was discussed...permit me to apply some remedial basics: when you respond to any posted claim that you disagree with you are obligated to offer an argument or refutation...simply dismissing the statement as "ranting about the evil of Jews." is no more than an admission that you cannot mount any argument whatsoever...
BTW: To the extent that Israel is a criminal occupier they inhere no such rights to 'defend their citizens against attacks" by the occupied---just the opposite in fact...according to article #51 of the UN Charter the occupied Palestinians enjoy a legal right of resistance...the Jews cannot merely make up fictive rights to obliterate their critics...
Loose translation: Shusha is helpless to 'refute' one word
What's to refute? You aren't making a claim here, or posing a question for debate. You are just ranting about the evil of Jews.
If you want me to refute something -- make a claim. Here's one to start with: Israel has the right to defend her citizens against attacks. Yes or no?
By all indication someone missed class the day that 'refutation' was discussed...permit me to apply some remedial basics: when you respond to any posted claim that you disagree with you are obligated to offer an argument or refutation...simply dismissing the statement as "ranting about the evil of Jews." is no more than an admission that you cannot mount any argument whatsoever...
BTW: To the extent that Israel is a criminal occupier they inhere no such rights to 'defend their citizens against attacks" by the occupied---just the opposite in fact...according to article #51 of the UN Charter the occupied Palestinians enjoy a legal right of resistance...the Jews cannot merely make up fictive rights to obliterate their critics...
Which is why your stuttering and mumbling tirades are met with ridicule.
You haven't a clue.
Loose translation: Shusha is helpless to 'refute' one word
What's to refute? You aren't making a claim here, or posing a question for debate. You are just ranting about the evil of Jews.
If you want me to refute something -- make a claim. Here's one to start with: Israel has the right to defend her citizens against attacks. Yes or no?
By all indication someone missed class the day that 'refutation' was discussed...permit me to apply some remedial basics: when you respond to any posted claim that you disagree with you are obligated to offer an argument or refutation...simply dismissing the statement as "ranting about the evil of Jews." is no more than an admission that you cannot mount any argument whatsoever...
BTW: To the extent that Israel is a criminal occupier they inhere no such rights to 'defend their citizens against attacks" by the occupied---just the opposite in fact...according to article #51 of the UN Charter the occupied Palestinians enjoy a legal right of resistance...the Jews cannot merely make up fictive rights to obliterate their critics...
Which is why your stuttering and mumbling tirades are met with ridicule.
You haven't a clue.
Do they honestly assume that this swag passes for a valid reply??? Who could possibly project this level of idiocy other than someone with zero polemical advantage?
To the extent that Israel is a criminal occupier they inhere no such rights to 'defend their citizens against attacks" by the occupied---just the opposite in fact...according to article #51 of the UN Charter the occupied Palestinians enjoy a legal right of resistance...the Jews cannot merely make up fictive rights to obliterate their critics...
Loose translation: Shusha is helpless to 'refute' one word
What's to refute? You aren't making a claim here, or posing a question for debate. You are just ranting about the evil of Jews.
If you want me to refute something -- make a claim. Here's one to start with: Israel has the right to defend her citizens against attacks. Yes or no?
By all indication someone missed class the day that 'refutation' was discussed...permit me to apply some remedial basics: when you respond to any posted claim that you disagree with you are obligated to offer an argument or refutation...simply dismissing the statement as "ranting about the evil of Jews." is no more than an admission that you cannot mount any argument whatsoever...
BTW: To the extent that Israel is a criminal occupier they inhere no such rights to 'defend their citizens against attacks" by the occupied---just the opposite in fact...according to article #51 of the UN Charter the occupied Palestinians enjoy a legal right of resistance...the Jews cannot merely make up fictive rights to obliterate their critics...
Which is why your stuttering and mumbling tirades are met with ridicule.
You haven't a clue.
Do they honestly assume that this swag passes for a valid reply??? Who could possibly project this level of idiocy other than someone with zero polemical advantage?
It's a reply consistent with valid consideration of your limitations.
To the extent that Israel is a criminal occupier they inhere no such rights to 'defend their citizens against attacks" by the occupied---just the opposite in fact...according to article #51 of the UN Charter the occupied Palestinians enjoy a legal right of resistance...the Jews cannot merely make up fictive rights to obliterate their critics...
Point of clarification: What portion(s) of Israel/Palestine is occupied, according to you?
Citation: Article 51, UN Charter Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Refutation: Israel, as a Member of the UN has both the individual and collective right to self-defense against armed attack. To claim that Israel has no such right is clearly just incorrect.
Also note that the INTENT of the UN is to "maintain or restore international peace and security". It is not to uphold or prevent national aspirations of any particular people.
What's to refute? You aren't making a claim here, or posing a question for debate. You are just ranting about the evil of Jews.
If you want me to refute something -- make a claim. Here's one to start with: Israel has the right to defend her citizens against attacks. Yes or no?
By all indication someone missed class the day that 'refutation' was discussed...permit me to apply some remedial basics: when you respond to any posted claim that you disagree with you are obligated to offer an argument or refutation...simply dismissing the statement as "ranting about the evil of Jews." is no more than an admission that you cannot mount any argument whatsoever...
BTW: To the extent that Israel is a criminal occupier they inhere no such rights to 'defend their citizens against attacks" by the occupied---just the opposite in fact...according to article #51 of the UN Charter the occupied Palestinians enjoy a legal right of resistance...the Jews cannot merely make up fictive rights to obliterate their critics...
Which is why your stuttering and mumbling tirades are met with ridicule.
You haven't a clue.
Do they honestly assume that this swag passes for a valid reply??? Who could possibly project this level of idiocy other than someone with zero polemical advantage?
It's a reply consistent with valid consideration of your limitations.
How long do you assume that you can get by with this bullshit? You actually relieve me of any obligation to respond to the extent that you post sub-juvenile swagger...
Israel illegally occupies Palestinian land, hence Palestinians inhere a legal right of resistance...
Israel illegally occupies Palestinian land, hence Palestinians inhere a legal right of resistance...
Israel is not committing armed attacks against "Palestine". Israel does -- rightly -- defend herself and her citizens when she is the target of an armed attack.
The presence of Israel, or Israelis or Jews is NOT an armed attack. Thus the "occupation", of itself, would not count as self defense as noted in Article 51, which describes responses to armed attacks.
And you didn't answer my question concerning exactly which areas of the territory are "occupied" by Israel. Specifically: Israel "proper", Area A, Area B, Area C, Gaza. Which of those are "occupied"?
Ventura77 , I would also suggest that if the presence of Jews on part of the territory is considered something to be defended agains -- then Israel has every right, according to your own belief system, to "resist" any Arabs on Israeli land. Those are the conditions you are setting up with your claims.
#1: Not only do Arab/Palestinians have residency rights dating back to the 7th Century. FALSE! Residency rights? Is that like another recent Arab invention?! Ha ha ha.True or False?
True or False?
True or False?
True or False?
#2: The British Empire had no authority to return anything to Jews False!---most especially a politically suspect pack of Eastern European descendants of Khazar-converts to Judaism Debunked garbage. ...Brits did not assume colonial authority until after the WW1 break-up of the Ottoman Empire..False! Brits conquered the remains of the fallen Ottoman Empire. The land was not under the control of Arabs for the last 700 years of Ottoman rule, and the Ottomans who were MUSLIMS did not recognize a Palestine or Palestinian people.
Wrong again F-student...the Ottoman authority did indeed recognize the residency rights of the Palestinian population---hence there was no attempt to shift or tamper with the demographic...
No such thing as a Palestine or Palestinian during the 700 years of the Ottoman Empire, Madrassa honors student.
Why not test the water with a smaller lie like....uuhhhhhhh the Palestinians are really Martians? Once again I can only stand back and marvel at the orchestrated idiocy of the Zio-trash...
By far the funniest aspect of the Zio-drills are the noted contradictions between the hilarious lies, and the stated aims and innumerable public statements of leading 20th century Zionists like Ben Gurion...Begin...Dayan...Rabin...etc. This is akin to an American contradicting the stated aims of Jefferson and Madison...too funny
Ventura77 , I would also suggest that if the presence of Jews on part of the territory is considered something to be defended agains -- then Israel has every right, according to your own belief system, to "resist" any Arabs on Israeli land. Those are the conditions you are setting up with your claims.
You seem to excel in sheer paradox...you spin in impossibly stupid concentric cycles...you continue to invoke a fictional right...Israel illegally occupies Palestinian land...routinely abuses and kills Palestinian men, women and especially children...article #51 stipulates expressly the Palestinian right of resistance, conversely as an illegal occupier Israel has zero rights...
Ha ha ha! So Arab terrorist animals have the right to kill Israeli civilians and it's called resistance but the Israelis cant defend themselves against said animals? Which ISIS or Hamas propaganda page are you copying this from? What a fookin' nutjob!Ventura77 , I would also suggest that if the presence of Jews on part of the territory is considered something to be defended agains -- then Israel has every right, according to your own belief system, to "resist" any Arabs on Israeli land. Those are the conditions you are setting up with your claims.
You seem to excel in sheer paradox...you spin in impossibly stupid concentric cycles...you continue to invoke a fictional right...Israel illegally occupies Palestinian land...routinely abuses and kills Palestinian men, women and especially children...article #51 stipulates expressly the Palestinian right of resistance, conversely as an illegal occupier Israel has zero rights...
Israel illegally occupies Palestinian land, hence Palestinians inhere a legal right of resistance...
Israel is not committing armed attacks against "Palestine". Israel does -- rightly -- defend herself and her citizens when she is the target of an armed attack.
The presence of Israel, or Israelis or Jews is NOT an armed attack. Thus the "occupation", of itself, would not count as self defense as noted in Article 51, which describes responses to armed attacks.
And you didn't answer my question concerning exactly which areas of the territory are "occupied" by Israel. Specifically: Israel "proper", Area A, Area B, Area C, Gaza. Which of those are "occupied"?
Shusha: Israel is not committing armed attacks against "Palestine". Israel does -- rightly -- defend herself and her citizens when she is the target of an armed attack.
( Wrong again princess: Israel is a criminal occupier which routinely foments retaliation through repeated offenses against a civilian population )
The presence of Israel, or Israelis or Jews is NOT an armed attack. Thus the "occupation", of itself, would not count as self defense as noted in Article 51, which describes responses to armed attacks.
( Actually to the extent that said Jews occupy Palestinian land, and inflict collective-punishment on Arab/Palestinians they do indeed enjoy a legal right of resistance...the occupation thus inheres collective-punishment thereby justifying violent retaliation )
And you didn't answer my question concerning exactly which areas of the territory are "occupied" by Israel. Specifically: Israel "proper", Area A, Area B, Area C, Gaza. Which of those are "occupied"?
( The international community has made it clear that virtually the entire world considers the Israeli occupied territories to be illegal and contrary to the principles of international law. Every year since 1967 (up until the Oslo Process started), the UN General Assembly passed the same resolution (always with lopsided votes like 150-2), stating that Israel is obligated to vacate the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, in accordance with UN Resolution 242.
The only reason that Israel is able to maintain its occupation of Palestinian land is that the U.S. routinely vetoes every Security Council resolution that would insist that Israel live up to its obligations under international law. )
Actually to the extent that said Jews occupy Palestinian land, and inflict collective-punishment on Arab/Palestinians they do indeed enjoy a legal right of resistance...the occupation thus inheres collective-punishment thereby justifying violent retaliation.
The international community has made it clear that virtually the entire world considers the Israeli occupied territories to be illegal and contrary to the principles of international law. Every year since 1967 (up until the Oslo Process started), the UN General Assembly passed the same resolution (always with lopsided votes like 150-2), stating that Israel is obligated to vacate the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, in accordance with UN Resolution 242.
The only reason that Israel is able to maintain its occupation of Palestinian land is that the U.S. routinely vetoes every Security Council resolution that would insist that Israel live up to its obligations under international law.
You seem to excel in sheer paradox...you spin in impossibly stupid concentric cycles...you continue to invoke a fictional right...Israel illegally occupies Palestinian land...routinely abuses and kills Palestinian men, women and especially children...article #51 stipulates expressly the Palestinian right of resistance, conversely as an illegal occupier Israel has zero rights...
Actually to the extent that said Jews occupy Palestinian land, and inflict collective-punishment on Arab/Palestinians they do indeed enjoy a legal right of resistance...the occupation thus inheres collective-punishment thereby justifying violent retaliation.
The international community has made it clear that virtually the entire world considers the Israeli occupied territories to be illegal and contrary to the principles of international law. Every year since 1967 (up until the Oslo Process started), the UN General Assembly passed the same resolution (always with lopsided votes like 150-2), stating that Israel is obligated to vacate the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, in accordance with UN Resolution 242.
The only reason that Israel is able to maintain its occupation of Palestinian land is that the U.S. routinely vetoes every Security Council resolution that would insist that Israel live up to its obligations under international law.
1. International law is not a popularity contest nor is it subject to a vote. Therefore the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum will be automatically dismissed by me.
2. Neither the "international community" nor the UN has the right to create or establish borders. That can ONLY happen by treaty between the parties involved.
3. The 1949 Armistice lines are not borders. Thus, there is no such thing as "67 borders". And anything that discusses "1967 anything" can be dismissed as a failure of the poster to understand international law. Israel is under no obligation to vacate territory on the far side of the Green line without a peace treaty in place after negotiations, which is fully in accordance to all actual international law. Don't forget 242 also requires safe and secure borders.
4. Oslo exists. It happened. It is a treaty (read: international law) between the State of Israel and the legal representatives of the Arab Palestinians. You intentionally neglected to discuss Areas A, B and C in the context of that legal agreement. You are trying to ignore the Oslo Accords (international law).
5. Let's break this down:
- Arab Palestinians have no right to "resist" in Areas A and B, because they are under Arab Palestinian authority. There is nothing to resist. They have achieved authority over those areas. They have the right to self-defense IF and only IF Israel makes an unprovoked armed attack on Areas A and B - something Israel has never done.
- Arab Palestinians have no right to "resist" in Gaza, because it is under Arab Palestinian authority. There is nothing to resist. They have achieved authority over that area. They have the right to self-defense IF and only IF Israel makes an unprovoked armed attack on Gaza -- something Israel has never done.
- Arab Palestinians have no right to "resist" in Area C because Area C is -- by treaty (international law) -- under the control of Israel until a peace treaty is negotiated between the two parties.
- Arab Palestinians have no right to "resist" in the sovereign territory of Israel -- the sovereignty of which you recognize in your response to my direct question above.
- Any "resistance" in the sovereign territory of Israel is an armed attack against Israel which falls under the Article 51 provision you claimed in your posts against which Israel is entitled to defend herself and her citizens.
- Any "resistance" in Area C under Israeli control is an armed attack against Israel which falls under the Article 51 provision you claimed in your posts against which Israel is entitled to defend herself and her citizens.
- Any "resistance" from Gaza or Areas A and B is a violation of the peace treaty between Israel and the provisional government of Palestine and therefore also falls under the Article 51 provision you claimed in your posts against which Israel is entitled to defend herself and her citizens.
The correct way forward for the Arab Palestinians is to follow the intent of the UN Charter which is to establish peaceful, negotiated solutions to conflicts.
You seem to excel in sheer paradox...you spin in impossibly stupid concentric cycles...you continue to invoke a fictional right...Israel illegally occupies Palestinian land...routinely abuses and kills Palestinian men, women and especially children...article #51 stipulates expressly the Palestinian right of resistance, conversely as an illegal occupier Israel has zero rights...
Um. No. Article 51 says nothing about "resistance to occupation". It says that UN member States have the right to defend themselves when they are targets of an armed attack.
But let's say that Article 51 says that peoples have a right to "resist occupation". That would mean that Israel -- the Jewish people -- have the right to resist the occupation by the Arab Palestinians on ALL land under the sovereign control of Israel. So where's your problem? If its good for the goose, its good for the gander.
