Anger at Israeli brutality grows

[Churchill]

Only if you count Romans.

What? Ancient Israel had a diverse population centuries before the Romans - WTF are you taling about?

In any case we live there dont like it try and do something about it

Oh I don't mind Jews living there, that's never bothered me in the slightest, but what's with the chip on your shoulder?

 

[Shusha]

Why does that categorization matter? it is a territory with people living on it.

Categorization matters because international law doesn't provide for "territories with people living on it" to become sovereign States without meeting the criteria for statehood. To do so would have international law descend into chaos. Ask the Kurds. Or the Catalans. Or any number of other "territories with people living on it". Why is there a special set of rules for Arab "Palestinians"?

 

[Churchill]

Categorization matters because international law doesn't provide for "territories with people living on it" to become sovereign States without meeting the criteria for statehood. To do so would have international law descend into chaos. Ask the Kurds. Or the Catalans. Or any number of other "territories with people living on it". Why is there a special set of rules for Arab "Palestinians"?

Why? because 157 countries recognize it as such, no special rules. There is no authority that defines the "rules for statehood" the UN members decide the matter.

The only reason Israel exists is because it was recognized by the UN security council, whereas Palestinian statehood is blocked by one country, Israel's emasculated servant.

 

[Shusha]

My statement is a statement of fact:

it is not Muslims, not Arabs, not Palestinians destroying Churches, bombing Christian villages

Your "fact" leaves out vital information as to the context, which twists the meaning. You want to pretend that churches and villages are immune from conflict (and we agree that they should be) but you ignore that Hezbollah is responsible for turning churches and villages into combat zones. So, in point of actual, contextual fact, it IS Hezbollah which is destroying churches and villages by their actions.

Yes, Israel is illegally occupying parts of Palestine,

There is no occupation. One of the reasons Palestine is NOT a State and is not eligible to BECOME one is that there is no way to tell where Israel ends and the fictional Palestine begins. Therefore, there is no such thing as "parts" of Palestine that Israel could be occupying. You can't occupy something that doesn't, and never did, exist.

The only way for Palestine to come into existence with respect to territory (only one of several required elements) is to negotiate a treaty with Israel. Preferably a treaty of peace.

the UN permits people to resist foreign occupation.

You lack understanding of international law. The UN does not create, define, nor enforce law. Its a schoolyard of states vying for the best toys in the playground.

And no, international law does not "permit" belligerent acts of force by non-state actors or third-party state-supported actors against the sovereignty, political independence, or territorial integrity of another State. To do so invokes the right of self-defense.

You are woefully undereducated in international law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Palestine wasn't a country it is a territory, the Arabs resisted and expelled the Turks during WW1.

The British.

Oh, not a country, I agree.

The British led the army that unsuccessfully resisted the initial Ottoman invasion of that territory?

Dude, that's funny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When did you decide to become an atheist anyway Toddsterpatriot ?

You must have me confused with someone else.

 

[Shusha]

Why? because 157 countries recognize it as such, no special rules. There is no authority that defines the "rules for statehood" the UN members decide the matter.

Sigh. Incorrect. The Montevideo Convention outlines four requirements for Statehood. Palestine meets none of them. As such they are not eligible for Statehood. The fact that they are recognized without meeting these criteria is an undermining of international law.

The only reason Israel exists is because it was recognized by the UN security council,

It exists because it met the criteria. Palestine never did.

 

[Churchill]

Your "fact" leaves out vital information as to the context, which twists the meaning. You want to pretend that churches and villages are immune from conflict (and we agree that they should be) but you ignore that Hezbollah is responsible for turning churches and villages into combat zones. So, in point of actual, contextual fact, it IS Hezbollah which is destroying churches and villages by their actions.

There is no occupation.

You invoke international law above in your remarks about statehod, yet choose to disregard international law in your remarks about military occupation, there's nothing more to say to you about all this, your methods are exposed.

One of the reasons Palestine is NOT a State and is not eligible to BECOME one is that there is no way to tell where Israel ends and the fictional Palestine begins. Therefore, there is no such thing as "parts" of Palestine that Israel could be occupying. You can't occupy something that doesn't, and never did, exist.

The only way for Palestine to come into existence with respect to territory (only one of several required elements) is to negotiate a treaty with Israel. Preferably a treaty of peace.

You lack understanding of international law. The UN does not create, define, nor enforce law. Its a schoolyard of states vying for the best toys in the playground.

And no, international law does not "permit" belligerent acts of force by non-state actors or third-party state-supported actors against the sovereignty, political independence, or territorial integrity of another State. To do so invokes the right of self-defense.

You are woefully undereducated in international law.

I never claimed to be a trained international lawyer, I might make mistakes sometimes and if I do I will admit that, but on this ocassion any intersted party can see for themselves that if a foreign military occupies a country, there is no law prohibiting violent resistance (within the bounds alluded to above).

 

[Churchill]

You must have me confused with someone else.

Nope, a man with no morality must be an atheist, one who doesn't belive in God but in their own judgement.

 

[Churchill]

Sigh. Incorrect. The Montevideo Convention outlines four requirements for Statehood. Palestine meets none of them. As such they are not eligible for Statehood. The fact that they are recognized without meeting these criteria is an undermining of international law.

It exists because it met the criteria. Palestine never did.

Israel has not even signed the Montevideo Convention so your argument kind of turns to vapor, try again.

 

[Shusha]

You invoke international law above in your remarks about statehod, yet choose to disregard international law in your remarks about military occupation, there's nothing more to say to you about all this, your methods are exposed.

Dude. So disingenuous. There is no occupation because under INTERNATIONAL LAW there is no STATE to be occupied. And the reason there is no STATE to be occupied is that the people desiring self-determination in someone else's sovereign territory have not met the internationally recognized legal CRITERIA for Statehood.

The "right" to self-determination DOES NOT INCLUDE the right to interfere with the sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity of another STATE. The Kurds have the right to self-determination but they don't have the right in INTERNATIONAL LAW to chop off portions of the surrounding States and declare that those territories are now Kurdish sovereign territory. You CAN"T TAKE LAND BY FORCE.

You understand that if people can just take whatever territory they think they should have, that this is END of international law, right? It becomes an anarchy of whoever can steal it, and control it, owns it. That way lies chaos.

I never claimed to be a trained international lawyer, I might make mistakes sometimes and if I do I will admit that

Start now.

but on this ocassion any intersted party can see for themselves that if a foreign military occupies a country, there is no law prohibiting violent resistance (within the bounds alluded to above).

There is no foreign military occupation in the territories formally under the British Mandate for Palestine. There is a CIVIL war.

 

[Shusha]

Israel has not even signed the Montevideo Convention so your argument kind of turns to vapor, try again.

Irrelevant. Customary international law.