Best response ever to the stupidest question ever: Does Israel have the right to exist?

[hondo 50]

We agree that "Does Israel have a right to exist" is the stupidest question. The best response, though, was from Natasha Hausdorff, who said (paraphrased because I can't find a short clip), "Israel exists. Demanding it be dismantled isn't akin to preventing a pregnancy, it is akin to murdering a man in his 70s". Natasha is a brilliant international legal expert and recently offered to debate international law with Francesca. Francesca declined. Shame, that. It would have been epic.

The framing Francesca gives, does leave her position on slippery ground, though. Because Palestine is NOT a State. And can't yet be a State because it does not fulfill the requirements of a State.

The term "occupation" refers to territory, not to a people. A "people" are not occupied, territory is occupied. Since there is no territory belonging to a State of Palestine, there can be no occupation.

There are only two legal ways forward: 1. Arabs negotiate a border agreement with Israel and secede. 2. Arabs accept Israeli sovereignty over the whole of the territory.

I suppose those American Indians never really existed much either. Something, something, Manifest Destiny.

 

[Shusha]

Incorrect. Nation-states have legal frameworks. They have structures that obligate themselves to protect rights.

Inherent rights apply to individuals because they are human beings. This is the concept of human rights law. These rights are protected regardless of nationality or citizenship. Human rights transcend artificial collectives.

You are confusing "rights" with "human rights". Different areas of law. Both exist and have validity.

 

[hondo 50]

Your point? The fact that Greta and friends want to create a spectacle

That's your opinion, not a fact.

 

[hondo 50]

You are confusing "rights" with "human rights". Different areas of law. Both exist and have validity.

You are confusing law versus order. Different foundations.

 

[Shusha]

I suppose those American Indians never really existed much either. Something, something, Manifest Destiny.

You are conflating a peoples with a State and deliberately misunderstanding or misinterpreting my comments. Of course, American Indians exist as a people with cultural, ethnic, and national identities. American Indians do not have a State. (Though the Haudenosaunee government issues passports which are recognized by some States, indicating they have some recognition as sovereign.) American Indians could have a State, should they make treaty negotiations with respective States for territory and secession.

Just so, as I've already mentioned and you perverted, the Arabs could have a State of Palestine by entering into negotiations to secede from Israel and sign a border treaty.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Now Cherry is changing his tune. lol

Get over yourself.

 

[Shusha]

You are confusing law versus order. Different foundations.

Not so. Treaties and other agreements are instruments of law.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

That's your opinion, not a fact.

It's a fact, and your opinion is not worthy of a human.

 

[hondo 50]

You are conflating a peoples with a State and deliberately misunderstanding or misinterpreting my comments. Of course, American Indians exist as a people with cultural, ethnic, and national identities. American Indians do not have a State. (Though the Haudenosaunee government issues passports which are recognized by some States, indicating they have some recognition as sovereign.) American Indians could have a State, should they make treaty negotiations with respective States for territory and secession.

Just so, as I've already mentioned and you perverted, the Arabs could have a State of Palestine by entering into negotiations to secede from Israel and sign a border treaty.

Uh, Manifest Destiny was declared many, many decades ago.

And if you can't express yourself clearly, then maybe you shouldn't try pseudo-intellectualism with words like "conflate."

 

[hondo 50]

It's a fact, and your opinion is not worthy of a human.

lol. Learn fact versus opinion, Cherry Zafry.

 

[Shusha]

That's your opinion, not a fact.

It is the verbal testimony of those involved, as demonstrated in the video posted. Verbal testimony is factual evidence.

 

[hondo 50]

Not so. Treaties and other agreements are instruments of law.

lol. Law versus order are two different concepts.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

lol. Learn fact versus opinion, Cherry Zafry.

Oh, I get it. No, I am not a soc. And, no, you are not able in the defense of mass murderers.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

lol. Law versus order are two different concepts.

You support mass murder.

 

[Shusha]

Uh, Manifest Destiny was declared many, many decades ago.

And if you can't express yourself clearly, then maybe you shouldn't try pseudo-intellectualism with words like "conflate."

I fully support the sovereignty of all indigenous peoples, in all places where they seek it.

 

[hondo 50]

It is the verbal testimony of those involved, as demonstrated in the video posted. Verbal testimony is factual evidence.

Your portrayal of the verbal is opinion, not fact.

 

[hondo 50]

You support mass murder.

Try the crochet forum, Cherry girl.

 

[hondo 50]

I fully support the sovereignty of all indigenous peoples, in all places where they seek it.

Sure, I can see that.

 

[Shusha]

lol. Law versus order are two different concepts.

You are using nonsense words. Contract law is law. What? Are you going to call your orderyer when you are sued for breach of contract?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Your portrayal of the verbal is opinion, not fact.

You are lying. You support mass murder.