U.S. State Department: Israel is not a tolerant society

[ThePickledPunk]

Every country has a right to exist.

I dunno about ignorant, although I assume the squalor they live in doesn't produce great thinkers.

Ask the ones that give murderers the means to attack Israel.

You are anti-Israel because you do not believe they have a right to exist, as stated earlier.

Just getting this straight, you took what I said out of context in spots, did not answer the majority of my questions, and made non-relevant points. So new and yet so good at ducking and dodging already!

Every country has a right to exist according to whom?

International law.

And if that is the case:

A.) Why don't you give your house back to the Native Americans?

Its not on the market.

B.) Palis have a right to their country that they had previously in that case.

The only reason why Palis may even live in "squalor" is because Israel bombs them back to the stone age.

Yeah. Thats the reason. It has nothing to do with their utter reluctance to accept Israel. Of course they, like you, believe they should be living in Israeli houses.

As for your thinking, I'm not Anti-Israel,

then why do you not believe they have a right to exist? Would it not be a violation of international law for the US to invade and take over Canada ?

especially because of that BS you're spewing. I said that no country so to speak has a right to exist



because there is no "right" anywhere in writing that says they have a right to exist.
the right for a nation to exists underlies every aspect of international law.


And if they do have a right to exist, which power gave them the right to exist?

Military might, generally speaking.


Furthermore, if the Arabs took over Israel and kicked out all the Jews, then that would be their country because according to you every country has a right to exist including theirs.

I am quite certain this is an action you would wholeheartedly support. Hence my contention that you are anti-Israel.

 

[elvis]

palestinians didnt have a country. you'd be giving it back to either Britain or the Ottoman Empire.
native americans didn't have a country either.

The Native Americans did in fact have the land though. You know the point I'm trying to get across.

I'm still trying to figure out who is the supreme authority on which countries have a "right to exist."

Did Poland and the Soviet Union have the right to exist? or did Hitler have the right to destroy them?

 

[Modbert]

International law.

Its not on the market.

Yeah. Thats the reason. It has nothing to do with their utter reluctance to accept Israel. Of course they, like you, believe they should be living in Israeli houses.

then why do you not believe they have a right to exist? Would it not be a violation of international law for the US to invade and take over Canada ?

the right for a nation to exists underlies every aspect of international law.[/B]

Military might, generally speaking.

I am quite certain this is an action you would wholeheartedly support. Hence my contention that you are anti-Israel.

Once again troll, you're dead wrong.

International Law according to whom? Please, do tell me. Because according to you, the U.N. is no good. So therefore, you can't use whatever laws they put forth.

Your house doesn't have to be on the market. Allow the Government to give it back to a family of Native Americans.

Israeli Houses? How do you define Israeli houses? Many of these houses that the Palis are living in they built themselves.

Violation of International Law if the U.S. were to invade Canada sure. However, that doesn't mean Canada has a right to exist. All that means is the other countries would step in to stop the U.S. However, considering the U.S.'s military might and nuclear weaponry, that's not going to happen.

And towards the end we get to my point, military might. Why does the Ottoman Empire no longer exist? Didn't they have a right? It's because of the military that these countries can exist. In reality, there is no true "right" because rights can't be taken away. Existence can be.

I wouldn't support the Arabs kicking the Jews out of the country just like I don't support the Jews kicking the Arabs out of the country. It goes both ways.

 

[elvis]

International law.

Its not on the market.

Yeah. Thats the reason. It has nothing to do with their utter reluctance to accept Israel. Of course they, like you, believe they should be living in Israeli houses.

then why do you not believe they have a right to exist? Would it not be a violation of international law for the US to invade and take over Canada ?

the right for a nation to exists underlies every aspect of international law.[/B]

Military might, generally speaking.

I am quite certain this is an action you would wholeheartedly support. Hence my contention that you are anti-Israel.

Once again troll, you're dead wrong.

International Law according to whom? Please, do tell me. Because according to you, the U.N. is no good. So therefore, you can't use whatever laws they put forth.

Your house doesn't have to be on the market. Allow the Government to give it back to a family of Native Americans.

Israeli Houses? How do you define Israeli houses? Many of these houses that the Palis are living in they built themselves.

Violation of International Law if the U.S. were to invade Canada sure. However, that doesn't mean Canada has a right to exist. All that means is the other countries would step in to stop the U.S. However, considering the U.S.'s military might and nuclear weaponry, that's not going to happen.

And towards the end we get to my point, military might. Why does the Ottoman Empire no longer exist? Didn't they have a right? It's because of the military that these countries can exist. In reality, there is no true "right" because rights can't be taken away. Existence can be.

I wouldn't support the Arabs kicking the Jews out of the country just like I don't support the Jews kicking the Arabs out of the country. It goes both ways.

before the UN existed, everyone had the right to invade everyone else? Hitler was not a war criminal?

 

[Modbert]

Did Poland and the Soviet Union have the right to exist? or did Hitler have the right to destroy them?

Again, "right to exist" is not really a reality. Rights are things that can't be taken away. Existence can be taken away. The common argument I hear is that such rights are God given rights. Except if God really cared, he wouldn't of made people like Hitler exist in the first place.

Poland and the Soviet Union should be able to exist, yes. But a right according to whom?

Hitler proved the point that Military Might at the end of the day is above any sort of "right to exist". That "right to exist" is not going to help you out when you got tanks rolling into your country. It's your military might and allies that will do so. In the past, countries were totally destroyed and never put back into place. Now a days, we don't allow that.

My problem with the whole idea of "right to exist" is that it's not really a right. Plus, it could be easily argued that Hitler's Germany had a "right to exist" and to do whatever they want under their country's borders.

All in all, it is a complicated process. I don't like what Hitler did, certainly not. It was wrong beyond belief, that cannot debated. However, the whole idea of "right to exist" is debatable.

 

[Modbert]

before the UN existed, everyone had the right to invade everyone else? Hitler was not a war criminal?

They had a "right" to invade everyone else. However, it doesn't make it morally correct. Hitler was still a war criminal since he would be put on trial by those who opposed him if captured.

Let me give you a good example. I have the right to shoot you, and in return you have the "right" to shoot me in self-defense. If I kill you, it's still wrong. I may have a "right" to do whatever the hell I want, but it doesn't make it morally correct to do.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

International law.

Its not on the market.

Yeah. Thats the reason. It has nothing to do with their utter reluctance to accept Israel. Of course they, like you, believe they should be living in Israeli houses.

then why do you not believe they have a right to exist? Would it not be a violation of international law for the US to invade and take over Canada ?

the right for a nation to exists underlies every aspect of international law.[/B]

Military might, generally speaking.

I am quite certain this is an action you would wholeheartedly support. Hence my contention that you are anti-Israel.

Once again troll, you're dead wrong.

International Law according to whom?
Subscribing nations.

Please, do tell me. Because according to you, the U.N. is no good. So therefore, you can't use whatever laws they put forth.

Of course you can.

Your house doesn't have to be on the market. Allow the Government to give it back to a family of Native Americans.

I bought it. They could buy it from me if they wanted, though.

Israeli Houses? How do you define Israeli houses?

Houses on Israeli soil.

Many of these houses that the Palis are living in they built themselves.

Thats about what one would expect.

Violation of International Law if the U.S. were to invade Canada sure. However, that doesn't mean Canada has a right to exist.

It means they have a recognized right to exist. If not, they would not be recognized as a sovereign nation by other nations. Take it up with Obama. He's on my side

All that means is the other countries would step in to stop the U.S.

It would mean other countries have a legal obligation to step in.However, considering the U.S.'s military might and nuclear weaponry, that's not going to happen.

And towards the end we get to my point, military might. Why does the Ottoman Empire no longer exist? Didn't they have a right? It's because of the military that these countries can exist. In reality, there is no true "right" because rights can't be taken away. Existence can be.

The elimination of existence is the elimination of a right. Do you have a right to life? If I kill you, has that right not been taken away? Isn't that why murder is illegal?

I wouldn't support the Arabs kicking the Jews out of the country just like I don't support the Jews kicking the Arabs out of the country. It goes both ways.

Well, the Israeli's are there, and the Arabs are trying to kick them out.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

before the UN existed, everyone had the right to invade everyone else? Hitler was not a war criminal?

They had a "right" to invade everyone else.

They had the capability. Not the right.

However, it doesn't make it morally correct. Hitler was still a war criminal since he would be put on trial by those who opposed him if captured.

Let me give you a good example. I have the right to shoot you,

No, you don't. You have the ability.

and in return you have the "right" to shoot me in self-defense.

Self-defense is a right.


If I kill you, it's still wrong. I may have a "right" to do whatever the hell I want,

No, you don't.

 

[Shogun]

Every country has a right to exist.

I dunno about ignorant, although I assume the squalor they live in doesn't produce great thinkers.

Ask the ones that give murderers the means to attack Israel.

You are anti-Israel because you do not believe they have a right to exist, as stated earlier.

Just getting this straight, you took what I said out of context in spots, did not answer the majority of my questions, and made non-relevant points. So new and yet so good at ducking and dodging already!

Every country has a right to exist according to whom? And if that is the case:

A.) Why don't you give your house back to the Native Americans?

B.) Palis have a right to their country that they had previously in that case.

The only reason why Palis may even live in "squalor" is because Israel bombs them back to the stone age.

As for your thinking, I'm not Anti-Israel, especially because of that BS you're spewing. I said that no country so to speak has a right to exist because there is no "right" anywhere in writing that says they have a right to exist. And if they do have a right to exist, which power gave them the right to exist? Furthermore, if the Arabs took over Israel and kicked out all the Jews, then that would be their country because according to you every country has a right to exist including theirs.

palestinians didnt have a country. you'd be giving it back to either Britain or the Ottoman Empire.
native americans didn't have a country either.

yea dude. thousands of years living in North America doesn't count because their cultural definitions do not match yours.


Isn't it nice to enjoy living in a culture that doesn't treat you less than the "officially" state sponsored ethnicity?

 

[elvis]

Just getting this straight, you took what I said out of context in spots, did not answer the majority of my questions, and made non-relevant points. So new and yet so good at ducking and dodging already!

Every country has a right to exist according to whom? And if that is the case:

A.) Why don't you give your house back to the Native Americans?

B.) Palis have a right to their country that they had previously in that case.

The only reason why Palis may even live in "squalor" is because Israel bombs them back to the stone age.

As for your thinking, I'm not Anti-Israel, especially because of that BS you're spewing. I said that no country so to speak has a right to exist because there is no "right" anywhere in writing that says they have a right to exist. And if they do have a right to exist, which power gave them the right to exist? Furthermore, if the Arabs took over Israel and kicked out all the Jews, then that would be their country because according to you every country has a right to exist including theirs.

palestinians didnt have a country. you'd be giving it back to either Britain or the Ottoman Empire.
native americans didn't have a country either.

yea dude. thousands of years living in North America doesn't count because their cultural definitions do not match yours.


Isn't it nice to enjoy living in a culture that doesn't treat you less than the "officially" state sponsored ethnicity?

we're talking about the rights of NATIONS (not groups of people) to exist and whether or not they have them. we have a country here. the Indians did not. the palestinians did not.

 

[Modbert]

No, you don't.

Yes, I do. I have a "right" to do whatever I want. However, whatever actions I take, I must also face whatever repercussions from those actions.

I would recommend watching this video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E]YouTube - YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS - George Carlin[/ame]

Fast Forward to 4:24, watch it, then get back to me.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Just getting this straight, you took what I said out of context in spots, did not answer the majority of my questions, and made non-relevant points. So new and yet so good at ducking and dodging already!

Every country has a right to exist according to whom? And if that is the case:

A.) Why don't you give your house back to the Native Americans?

B.) Palis have a right to their country that they had previously in that case.

The only reason why Palis may even live in "squalor" is because Israel bombs them back to the stone age.

As for your thinking, I'm not Anti-Israel, especially because of that BS you're spewing. I said that no country so to speak has a right to exist because there is no "right" anywhere in writing that says they have a right to exist. And if they do have a right to exist, which power gave them the right to exist? Furthermore, if the Arabs took over Israel and kicked out all the Jews, then that would be their country because according to you every country has a right to exist including theirs.

palestinians didnt have a country. you'd be giving it back to either Britain or the Ottoman Empire.
native americans didn't have a country either.

yea dude. thousands of years living in North America doesn't count because their cultural definitions do not match yours.


Isn't it nice to enjoy living in a culture that doesn't treat you less than the "officially" state sponsored ethnicity?

We whooped them injins, son. And gave em some scraps of land to live on. And made em walk to it.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

No, you don't.

Yes, I do. I have a "right" to do whatever I want. However, whatever actions I take, I must also face whatever repercussions from those actions.

I would recommend watching this video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E]YouTube - YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS - George Carlin[/ame]

Fast Forward to 4:24, watch it, then get back to me.

No, dipstick, you dont have the right to do whatever you want. You might have the ability, but not the right. If you had the right- there would be no legal repercussions. And you point to a comedian (albeit a brilliant one) as your authority? I point to codified law, you point to George Carlin.....priceless.

 

[Shogun]

palestinians didnt have a country. you'd be giving it back to either Britain or the Ottoman Empire.
native americans didn't have a country either.

yea dude. thousands of years living in North America doesn't count because their cultural definitions do not match yours.


Isn't it nice to enjoy living in a culture that doesn't treat you less than the "officially" state sponsored ethnicity?

we're talking about the rights of NATIONS (not groups of people) to exist and whether or not they have them. we have a country here. the Indians did not. the palestinians did not.

And the NATION of Cherokee might just differ with you on their heritage on the land despite your non-inclusive definitions of what it means to be a nation. Each tribal culture was, in and of themselves, nations by their own definition even if you have a different opinion of what it takes to be one. Their validity doesn't hinge on if they wear shoes and trade paper currency like yours does.

and, the palis have been there for ages. Non-jews are still semites. They still count. do i need to remind you that canaanites predated jews? Should I HAVE to remind you that the pali presence on that land is just as valid as the jews? Again, isn't it nice to live in a nation that doesn't prop up a specific ethnicity as if they are the only ones that matter?

 

[Modbert]

We whooped them injins, son. And gave em some scraps of land to live on. And made em walk to it.

And what about their "right to exist"? Especially since plenty of them died when we "made em walk to it. You seem to support what we did to the Native Americans and what Israel is seemingly doing now.

 

[Shogun]

palestinians didnt have a country. you'd be giving it back to either Britain or the Ottoman Empire.
native americans didn't have a country either.

yea dude. thousands of years living in North America doesn't count because their cultural definitions do not match yours.


Isn't it nice to enjoy living in a culture that doesn't treat you less than the "officially" state sponsored ethnicity?

We whooped them injins, son. And gave em some scraps of land to live on. And made em walk to it.

genocide doesn't validate itself or you wouldn't have such a negative reaction to the holocaust.


enter double standard.

 

[elvis]

yea dude. thousands of years living in North America doesn't count because their cultural definitions do not match yours.


Isn't it nice to enjoy living in a culture that doesn't treat you less than the "officially" state sponsored ethnicity?

we're talking about the rights of NATIONS (not groups of people) to exist and whether or not they have them. we have a country here. the Indians did not. the palestinians did not.

And the NATION of Cherokee might just differ with you on their heritage on the land despite your non-inclusive definitions of what it means to be a nation. Each tribal culture was, in and of themselves, nations by their own definition even if you have a different opinion of what it takes to be one. Their validity doesn't hinge on if they wear shoes and trade paper currency like yours does.

and, the palis have been there for ages. Non-jews are still semites. They still count. do i need to remind you that canaanites predated jews? Should I HAVE to remind you that the pali presence on that land is just as valid as the jews? Again, isn't it nice to live in a nation that doesn't prop up a specific ethnicity as if they are the only ones that matter?

so at what point does a "nation" have a right to exist? Dogbert doesn't think they have a right to exist at ANY level.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

yea dude. thousands of years living in North America doesn't count because their cultural definitions do not match yours.


Isn't it nice to enjoy living in a culture that doesn't treat you less than the "officially" state sponsored ethnicity?

we're talking about the rights of NATIONS (not groups of people) to exist and whether or not they have them. we have a country here. the Indians did not. the palestinians did not.

And the NATION of Cherokee might just differ with you on their heritage on the land despite your non-inclusive definitions of what it means to be a nation. Each tribal culture was, in and of themselves, nations by their own definition even if you have a different opinion of what it takes to be one. Their validity doesn't hinge on if they wear shoes and trade paper currency like yours does.

and, the palis have been there for ages. Non-jews are still semites. They still count. do i need to remind you that canaanites predated jews? Should I HAVE to remind you that the pali presence on that land is just as valid as the jews?

Then why is Israel recognized as a nation, while Palestine is not?

 

[elvis]

and just to add to that, shogie, dogbert said the palis had a country before Israel did, and that is false.

 

[Modbert]

No, dipstick, you dont have the right to do whatever you want. You might have the ability, but not the right. If you had the right- there would be no legal repercussions. And you point to a comedian (albeit a brilliant one) as your authority? I point to codified law, you point to George Carlin.....priceless.

Don't you notice I keep putting "rights" the way I am? It's because you have no rights. Nobody has any real rights. Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. Which is why the whole "right to exist" argument is bullshit.

You can point to whatever codified law you like, however, in many places in the world, some people have no rights at all. So your whole international law with the U.N. (who you call poof Liberals ironically) doesn't seem to be working like it should be in that case. The U.N is not the supreme authority on what goes in countries. And if you want such a thing, then you are more stupid then I could imagine.