Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered

[P F Tinmore]

A bigot is some one who holds strong opinions that are not based on facts, his posts clearly demonstrate that his opinions are not based on facts, indeed, the show he has no interest in the facts, so calling him a bigot is properly descriptive.

Aside from the links I provide, there are no facts.

Including the links you provide, you present no facts. For example, you claim the ICC ruled that the buffer zone is not under Israeli jurisdiction and then provide a link that the ICJ made such a ruling and then lie and claim the ICJ and the ICC are the same organization. On top of that you demonstrate how utterly ignorant you are of the all the facts, since the ICJ made no such ruling but offered an advisory opinion on the barrier between Judea and Samaria and pre 1967 Israel and not on the Gaza fence or buffer zone.

The buffer zone is territory in Gaza controlled by Israel after they lied about leaving.

 

[Billo_Really]

It's not a question of disagreeing, you simply have not posted one honest word in this exchange. No ruling was issued by the ICJ or ICC on the Gaza fence or buffer zone. The advisory opinion you are referring to was about the barrier between pre 1967 and Judea and Samaria. The Gaza fence and buffer zone are nowhere near the barrier the ICJ was talking about. Again, you show yourself to be so ignorant tha if you had any personal integrity, you would acknowledge you do not know enough to hold any opinion at all.

It was a ruling and it was issued. You're just too ***** to admit it. Furthermore, 85% of that illegal Iron Curtain, is in the West Bank, which is land Israel DOES NOT OWN!

What would you do if someone tried to build a fence on your front lawn?

 

[Billo_Really]

I don't constantly attack others, just ignorant bigots like you.

You don't even have the balls to stand behind the things you say! Of coarse you attack others, you have reality issues. How can anyone possibly make a deal under these conditions? There is no negotiating with fuckheads like you.

 

[Billo_Really]

lol You just admitted what? You just said the ICJ is the same organization as the ICC.

You're one post behind, Mr. Cherrypicker.

 

[Billo_Really]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Again, you are confused. Unlike a Judgment, Advisory opinions are not necessarily the last word.


(COMMENT)

There are three things you need to know when you are talking about the Advisory Opinion:

Are decisions of the Court binding?

Judgments delivered by the Court (or by one of its Chambers) in disputes between States are binding upon the parties concerned. Article 94 of the United Nations Charter lays down that "each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party".

Judgments are final and without appeal. If either of the parties challenges their scope or meaning, it has the option to request an interpretation. In the event of the discovery of a fact hitherto unknown to the Court which might be a decisive factor, either party may apply for revision of the judgment.

As regards advisory opinions, it is usually for the United Nations organs and specialized agencies requesting them to give effect to them or not by whatever means are appropriate for them.​

EXCERPT from EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7. The request does not ask or require the ICJ to pronounce itself on Israel/Palestine boundaries. In order to answer the question the ICJ needs only to take account of the fact that the Wall is being built by Israel in the OPT, including in and around East Jerusalem, beyond the Armistice Line of 1949 (the “Green Line”). The essential facts are simple: wherever the precise boundaries of the OPT lie, there is no doubt that the greater part of the Wall has been built by Israel well inside occupied Palestinian territory. The facts upon which the ICJ can rely in responding to the Request are of public record and are well-documented, including in United Nations reports.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Whether you call it a ruling, or an advisory opinion, it means the same thing. The wall is illegal according to international law. You cannot build structures on someone else's property, without their permission.

 

[Billo_Really]

Last time I said something, in a public forum online, anti-muslim someone went to my boss about it and got me fired for it. I live in a right to work state, can't sue em for doing it.

I'm sorry that happened. That "anti-muslim someone", is a piece of shit and should have his ass kicked! One reason I've never used the "report button" (nor put people on ignore), is because I believe people have a right to speak their mind. Even if it is something I find disgusting, they still have a right to say it. I would never censor anyone. That includes Zionists and Neocons.

 

[Shusha]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Again, you are confused. Unlike a Judgment, Advisory opinions are not necessarily the last word.


(COMMENT)

There are three things you need to know when you are talking about the Advisory Opinion:

Are decisions of the Court binding?

Judgments delivered by the Court (or by one of its Chambers) in disputes between States are binding upon the parties concerned. Article 94 of the United Nations Charter lays down that "each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party".

Judgments are final and without appeal. If either of the parties challenges their scope or meaning, it has the option to request an interpretation. In the event of the discovery of a fact hitherto unknown to the Court which might be a decisive factor, either party may apply for revision of the judgment.

As regards advisory opinions, it is usually for the United Nations organs and specialized agencies requesting them to give effect to them or not by whatever means are appropriate for them.​

EXCERPT from EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7. The request does not ask or require the ICJ to pronounce itself on Israel/Palestine boundaries. In order to answer the question the ICJ needs only to take account of the fact that the Wall is being built by Israel in the OPT, including in and around East Jerusalem, beyond the Armistice Line of 1949 (the “Green Line”). The essential facts are simple: wherever the precise boundaries of the OPT lie, there is no doubt that the greater part of the Wall has been built by Israel well inside occupied Palestinian territory. The facts upon which the ICJ can rely in responding to the Request are of public record and are well-documented, including in United Nations reports.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Whether you call it a ruling, or an advisory opinion, it means the same thing. The wall is illegal according to international law. You cannot build structures on someone else's property, without their permission.

Your argument is built on the premise that there is an existing international border which demarcates Israel from Arab Palestine. There is not. The border is under dispute and has never been settled between the parties involved. Your premise is incorrect and your argument has no validity.

Unless you want to argue for the Oslo Accords in which case Israel builds only on land which, by mutual agreement, is under her control.

 

[Billo_Really]

Your argument is built on the premise that there is an existing international border which demarcates Israel from Arab Palestine. There is not. The border is under dispute and has never been settled between the parties involved. Your premise is incorrect and your argument has no validity.

Unless you want to argue for the Oslo Accords in which case Israel builds only on land which, by mutual agreement, is under her control.

The internationally recognized borders are the pre-1967 lines. The Green Line. Israel seized territory during the '67 war. One of those territories is the West Bank. Israel has no sovereign title to that land. You cannot hold onto land seized in a war. Period. Saying you can, is the same as saying it was okay for Germany to annex Poland.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Again, you are confused. Unlike a Judgment, Advisory opinions are not necessarily the last word.


(COMMENT)

There are three things you need to know when you are talking about the Advisory Opinion:

Are decisions of the Court binding?

Judgments delivered by the Court (or by one of its Chambers) in disputes between States are binding upon the parties concerned. Article 94 of the United Nations Charter lays down that "each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party".

Judgments are final and without appeal. If either of the parties challenges their scope or meaning, it has the option to request an interpretation. In the event of the discovery of a fact hitherto unknown to the Court which might be a decisive factor, either party may apply for revision of the judgment.

As regards advisory opinions, it is usually for the United Nations organs and specialized agencies requesting them to give effect to them or not by whatever means are appropriate for them.​

EXCERPT from EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7. The request does not ask or require the ICJ to pronounce itself on Israel/Palestine boundaries. In order to answer the question the ICJ needs only to take account of the fact that the Wall is being built by Israel in the OPT, including in and around East Jerusalem, beyond the Armistice Line of 1949 (the “Green Line”). The essential facts are simple: wherever the precise boundaries of the OPT lie, there is no doubt that the greater part of the Wall has been built by Israel well inside occupied Palestinian territory. The facts upon which the ICJ can rely in responding to the Request are of public record and are well-documented, including in United Nations reports.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Whether you call it a ruling, or an advisory opinion, it means the same thing. The wall is illegal according to international law. You cannot build structures on someone else's property, without their permission.

Your argument is built on the premise that there is an existing international border which demarcates Israel from Arab Palestine. There is not. The border is under dispute and has never been settled between the parties involved. Your premise is incorrect and your argument has no validity.

Unless you want to argue for the Oslo Accords in which case Israel builds only on land which, by mutual agreement, is under her control.

I agree that there is no border there. That means it is the same place on both sides.The UN says it is Palestine.

 

[Billo_Really]

I agree that there is no border there. That means it is the same place on both sides.The UN says it is Palestine.

Here's a deal the Saudi prince didn't make...

...how 'bout Trump giving Netanfuckyou Wisconsin? Israel can move their entire country there and it could be known as The Jewish State of Wisconsin. We can't give them Utah, because the Mormons already got that one.

 

[Hollie]

A bigot is some one who holds strong opinions that are not based on facts, his posts clearly demonstrate that his opinions are not based on facts, indeed, the show he has no interest in the facts, so calling him a bigot is properly descriptive.

Aside from the links I provide, there are no facts.

Including the links you provide, you present no facts. For example, you claim the ICC ruled that the buffer zone is not under Israeli jurisdiction and then provide a link that the ICJ made such a ruling and then lie and claim the ICJ and the ICC are the same organization. On top of that you demonstrate how utterly ignorant you are of the all the facts, since the ICJ made no such ruling but offered an advisory opinion on the barrier between Judea and Samaria and pre 1967 Israel and not on the Gaza fence or buffer zone.

The buffer zone is territory in Gaza controlled by Israel after they lied about leaving.

Link?

 

[Hollie]

I agree that there is no border there. That means it is the same place on both sides.The UN says it is Palestine.

Here's a deal the Saudi prince didn't make...

...how 'bout Trump giving Netanfuckyou Wisconsin? Israel can move their entire country there and it could be known as The Jewish State of Wisconsin. We can't give them Utah, because the Mormons already got that one.

Why would the Israelis move? Just to placate your Jew hatreds?

Grab a tire and some kite string. Give your life some purpose.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why would the Israelis move? Just to placate your Jew hatreds?

Grab a tire and some kite string. Give your life some purpose.

Troll woman and her drive by off topic attacks.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A bigot is some one who holds strong opinions that are not based on facts, his posts clearly demonstrate that his opinions are not based on facts, indeed, the show he has no interest in the facts, so calling him a bigot is properly descriptive.

Aside from the links I provide, there are no facts.

Including the links you provide, you present no facts. For example, you claim the ICC ruled that the buffer zone is not under Israeli jurisdiction and then provide a link that the ICJ made such a ruling and then lie and claim the ICJ and the ICC are the same organization. On top of that you demonstrate how utterly ignorant you are of the all the facts, since the ICJ made no such ruling but offered an advisory opinion on the barrier between Judea and Samaria and pre 1967 Israel and not on the Gaza fence or buffer zone.

The buffer zone is territory in Gaza controlled by Israel after they lied about leaving.

Link?

Where does Israel get its "right" to shoot Palestinians on Gaza land?

 

[Hollie]

A bigot is some one who holds strong opinions that are not based on facts, his posts clearly demonstrate that his opinions are not based on facts, indeed, the show he has no interest in the facts, so calling him a bigot is properly descriptive.

Aside from the links I provide, there are no facts.

Including the links you provide, you present no facts. For example, you claim the ICC ruled that the buffer zone is not under Israeli jurisdiction and then provide a link that the ICJ made such a ruling and then lie and claim the ICJ and the ICC are the same organization. On top of that you demonstrate how utterly ignorant you are of the all the facts, since the ICJ made no such ruling but offered an advisory opinion on the barrier between Judea and Samaria and pre 1967 Israel and not on the Gaza fence or buffer zone.

The buffer zone is territory in Gaza controlled by Israel after they lied about leaving.

Link?

Where does Israel get its "right" to shoot Palestinians on Gaza land?

When Islamic terrorists wage attacks from Islamic terrorist’istan.

Simple enough even for you?

 

[Hollie]

Why would the Israelis move? Just to placate your Jew hatreds?

Grab a tire and some kite string. Give your life some purpose.

Troll woman and her drive by off topic attacks.

You just didn’t like the response to your pointless babbling.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Aside from the links I provide, there are no facts.

Including the links you provide, you present no facts. For example, you claim the ICC ruled that the buffer zone is not under Israeli jurisdiction and then provide a link that the ICJ made such a ruling and then lie and claim the ICJ and the ICC are the same organization. On top of that you demonstrate how utterly ignorant you are of the all the facts, since the ICJ made no such ruling but offered an advisory opinion on the barrier between Judea and Samaria and pre 1967 Israel and not on the Gaza fence or buffer zone.

The buffer zone is territory in Gaza controlled by Israel after they lied about leaving.

Link?

Where does Israel get its "right" to shoot Palestinians on Gaza land?

When Islamic terrorists wage attacks from Islamic terrorist’istan.

Simple enough even for you?

Ooooo, you played the terrorist card.

Good girl.

 

[Hollie]

Including the links you provide, you present no facts. For example, you claim the ICC ruled that the buffer zone is not under Israeli jurisdiction and then provide a link that the ICJ made such a ruling and then lie and claim the ICJ and the ICC are the same organization. On top of that you demonstrate how utterly ignorant you are of the all the facts, since the ICJ made no such ruling but offered an advisory opinion on the barrier between Judea and Samaria and pre 1967 Israel and not on the Gaza fence or buffer zone.

The buffer zone is territory in Gaza controlled by Israel after they lied about leaving.

Link?

Where does Israel get its "right" to shoot Palestinians on Gaza land?

When Islamic terrorists wage attacks from Islamic terrorist’istan.

Simple enough even for you?

Ooooo, you played the terrorist card.

Good girl.

Your usual retreat to cartoons when you're befuddled.

 

[Slyhunter]

I agree that there is no border there. That means it is the same place on both sides.The UN says it is Palestine.

Here's a deal the Saudi prince didn't make...

...how 'bout Trump giving Netanfuckyou Wisconsin? Israel can move their entire country there and it could be known as The Jewish State of Wisconsin. We can't give them Utah, because the Mormons already got that one.

The Jews homeland is Israel. The Jews ancient historical crap is in Israel, not Wisconsin.

 

[Slyhunter]

There was never a State of Palestine until after Israel was created and then it was only created to counter Israel. Once Israel is gone so will the state of Palestine vanish and the lands will go back to Jordan and Egypt.