Settlements only "illegal" for Jews

[Shusha]

The " Left " didn't make the setters criminal , the laws that Israel agreed to be bound by did and do

Nope. What made it "illegal" (cough, cough) for Jews to live in territory which is under their sovereignty by treaty (law), was a brand new, special interpretation of international law which -- to this day -- is applied only to Israel (read: to Jews).

 

[Spartacactcus]

Your post is factually incorrect. Is this a burner account for Tinmore? No Mostly Islamic country is even close to a Democracy.

Don't claim it to be so without having the conviction to actually try to show how , it just smacks of a bluff to me. What did I claim that is " factually incorrect " ?

Your attempt to try to have me down as a sock for some other is weak too. If you can't or don't want to argue your points or mine that's fine with me but claiming a sock is pathetic imho

Did the people of Gaza and the WB hold democratic elections in 2006 ?

Did the self proclaimed supporters of democracy accept the will of the people ?

 

[Spartacactcus]

The " Left " didn't make the setters criminal , the laws that Israel agreed to be bound by did and do

Nope. What made it "illegal" (cough, cough) for Jews to live in territory which is under their sovereignty by treaty (law), was a brand new, special interpretation of international law which -- to this day -- is applied only to Israel (read: to Jews).

It is inadmisible to acquire territory through warfare under international law and it is unlawful for the occupier to transfer parts of its population into the occupied territory. Yes or no ?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Your post is factually incorrect. Is this a burner account for Tinmore? No Mostly Islamic country is even close to a Democracy.

Don't claim it to be so without having the conviction to actually try to show how , it just smacks of a bluff to me. What did I claim that is " factually incorrect " ?

You attempt to try to have me down as a sock for some other is weak too. If you can't or don't want to argue your points or mine that's fine with me but claiming a sock is pathetic imho

Did the people of Gaza and the WB hold democratic elections in 2006 ?

Did the self proclaimed supporters of democracy accept the will of the people ?

Are you telling us that you are a Hamas supporter here?

To me, the election of a bloodthirsty terrorist group with genocide written into its very charter proves that The Arabs who now call themselves Palestinian are not ready for a state of their own.

You seem to think of it as a good thing.

What does a vow to kill Jews until they hide behind rocks and trees mean to you, anyway?

 

[Spartacactcus]

There were no such people as "Palestinian" a century ago. They just referred to themselves as Arabs, and sometimes when pressed, would call themselves Southern Syrians.

There were no Israelis a century ago either so where now ?

To infer that Palestinian nationalism surged as a result of Zionism is fine by me. To say there were no Palestinians , as in nobody there , you know the land without people nonsense is factually incorrect

 

[Spartacactcus]

Are you telling us that you are a Hamas supporter here?

To me, the election of a bloodthirsty terrorist group with genocide written into its very charter proves that The Arabs who now call themselves Palestinian are not ready for a state of their own.

You seem to think of it as a good thing.

What does a vow to kill Jews until they hide behind rocks and trees mean to you, anyway?

No, and don't try to put words into my mouth ,what I am saying is that the poster who claimed that there are no examples of Arab democracy in action must have forgotten or didn't know that the Palestinians held elections in 2006 and that the so called supporters of democracy showed themselves , like it is something new lol , to be guilty of supporting democracy ONLY when the people vote the way they want them to.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Your post is factually incorrect. Is this a burner account for Tinmore? No Mostly Islamic country is even close to a Democracy.

Don't claim it to be so without having the conviction to actually try to show how , it just smacks of a bluff to me. What did I claim that is " factually incorrect " ?

You attempt to try to have me down as a sock for some other is weak too. If you can't or don't want to argue your points or mine that's fine with me but claiming a sock is pathetic imho

Did the people of Gaza and the WB hold democratic elections in 2006 ?

Did the self proclaimed supporters of democracy accept the will of the people ?

The people "elected" Hamas. A terror regime and most who live there are miserable. You're trying to play with words. It won't work.

 

[Shusha]

The " Left " didn't make the setters criminal , the laws that Israel agreed to be bound by did and do

Nope. What made it "illegal" (cough, cough) for Jews to live in territory which is under their sovereignty by treaty (law), was a brand new, special interpretation of international law which -- to this day -- is applied only to Israel (read: to Jews).

It is inadmisible to acquire territory through warfare under international law and it is unlawful for the occupier to transfer parts of its population into the occupied territory. Yes or no ?

Oh boy, here we go again.

to first question: You point is a shallow and largely inaccurate reading of international law. Also irrelevant, since Israel did not acquire any territory from anyone except through legally through treaties.

to second question: GCIV Article 49 has NEVER been interpreted in such a way. Ever. To any country. It is a "special" interpretation of the law intended only to be used as a weapon against Israel.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There were no such people as "Palestinian" a century ago. They just referred to themselves as Arabs, and sometimes when pressed, would call themselves Southern Syrians.

There were no Israelis a century ago either so where now ?

To infer that Palestinian nationalism surged as a result of Zionism is fine by me. To say there were no Palestinians , as in nobody there , you know the land without people nonsense is factually incorrect

I never said nobody was there. Arabs were there.

Arabs control vast expanses of land and resources. When Arabs attacked the fledgling state, many were displaced. Those displaced during the attack were Arab, so it is up to their fellow Arabs to deal with. They would have plenty of places to go were it not for the fact that their Fellow Arabs want to keep them miserable as a propaganda stunt to use against Jews.


Now, as to your implied support for a genocidal terrorist group, do you have nothing to say on that?

 

[Shusha]

Wait, am I to understand that a poster is claiming Palestine to be a bastion of democracy when the elected leader is fourteen years into his four-year term and declaring an election where his is the only party to run and he is the only candidate?

Its the Palestinian mentality.

 

[Spartacactcus]

The " Left " didn't make the setters criminal , the laws that Israel agreed to be bound by did and do

Nope. What made it "illegal" (cough, cough) for Jews to live in territory which is under their sovereignty by treaty (law), was a brand new, special interpretation of international law which -- to this day -- is applied only to Israel (read: to Jews).

It is inadmisible to acquire territory through warfare under international law and it is unlawful for the occupier to transfer parts of its population into the occupied territory. Yes or no ?

Oh boy, here we go again.

to first question: You point is a shallow and largely inaccurate reading of international law. Also irrelevant, since Israel did not acquire any territory from anyone except through legally through treaties.

to second question: GCIV Article 49 has NEVER been interpreted in such a way. Ever. To any country. It is a "special" interpretation of the law intended only to be used against Israel.

There is an argument regarding what the Mandate or other pre state agreements /proclamations confer and I would love to see it argued out today at the ICJ. We have to be honest about just how unique the creation of Israel ( and Palestine ) has been. It's not that it's because it's concerning Jewish people , some of whom are antizionists themselves , it's just something of a anomaly

 

[Spartacactcus]

Wait, am I to understand that a poster is claiming Palestine to be a bastion of democracy when the elected leader is fourteen years into his four-year term and declaring an election where his is the only party to run and he is the only candidate?

Its the Palestinian mentality.

At least try to be reasonable

The Palestinian situation is completely dominated by Israel and that includes their electoral system. The only reason Abbas is still there is because Israel wants him or some other subcontractor to the occupation there. Trying to switch the reality is disingenuous imo

 

[Shusha]

The " Left " didn't make the setters criminal , the laws that Israel agreed to be bound by did and do

Nope. What made it "illegal" (cough, cough) for Jews to live in territory which is under their sovereignty by treaty (law), was a brand new, special interpretation of international law which -- to this day -- is applied only to Israel (read: to Jews).

It is inadmisible to acquire territory through warfare under international law and it is unlawful for the occupier to transfer parts of its population into the occupied territory. Yes or no ?

Oh boy, here we go again.

to first question: You point is a shallow and largely inaccurate reading of international law. Also irrelevant, since Israel did not acquire any territory from anyone except through legally through treaties.

to second question: GCIV Article 49 has NEVER been interpreted in such a way. Ever. To any country. It is a "special" interpretation of the law intended only to be used against Israel.

There is an argument regarding what the Mandate or other pre state agreements /proclamations confer and I would love to see it argued out today at the ICJ. We have to be honest about just how unique the creation of Israel ( and Palestine ) has been. It's not that it's because it's concerning Jewish people , some of whom are antizionists themselves , it's just something of a anomaly

The creation of Israel happened in exactly the same way as other Mandates at the time. There was no difference. Other than the differences people, like you, are trying to put on it by coloring it as something special. Because...well Jews.

If you think you have a legal basis for it as an anomaly, please provide some evidence.

Otherwise, it seems apparent to me that your inclusion of the term "antizionists" speaks for itself. You just want there to be different rules for Jews.

 

[Shusha]

Wait, am I to understand that a poster is claiming Palestine to be a bastion of democracy when the elected leader is fourteen years into his four-year term and declaring an election where his is the only party to run and he is the only candidate?

Its the Palestinian mentality.

At least try to be reasonable

The Palestinian situation is completely dominated by Israel and that includes their electoral system. The only reason Abbas is still there is because Israel wants him or some other subcontractor to the occupation there. Trying to switch the reality is disingenuous imo

So you are trying to sell me on the idea that Palestine HAD a democratic election in 2006, but CAN'T have one today. Because Israel actively prevents it?

And you are asking ME to be reasonable?

 

[Spartacactcus]

I never said nobody was there. Arabs were there.

Right, so if they later wanted to be seen as Palestinian in a Palestinian state in the post colonial reality of the demise of the Ottomans then they are allowed that view and don't need or require your permission

Arabs control vast expanses of land and resources. When Arabs attacked the fledgling state, many were displaced. Those displaced during the attack were Arab, so it is up to their fellow Arabs to deal with. They would have plenty of places to go were it not for the fact that their Fellow Arabs want to keep them miserable as a propaganda stunt to use against Jews.

Too simplistic a view imo Europeans controlled vast areas and had everyone elses resources as well as their own , should someone have the right to claim one of their countries for a Muslim state ?

Now, as to your implied support for a genocidal terrorist group, do you have nothing to say on that?

The only implying is being done by yourself and for obvious reasons. Argue the points not the person

Did the Palestinians have elections in 2006 ? Were the wishes of those elections respected by the self proclaimed champions of global democracy ?

 

[Shusha]

There is an argument regarding what the Mandate or other pre state agreements /proclamations confer and I would love to see it argued out today at the ICJ.

There is nothing to argue. Israel exists in point of fact. And the very idea that an existing State should be "undone" after nearly a hundred years only confirms the special rules which appear to be applied solely to Israel.

 

[Shusha]

Right, so if they later wanted to be seen as Palestinian in a Palestinian state in the post colonial reality of the demise of the Ottomans then they are allowed that view and don't need or require your permission.

Agreed. Now, apply that to Israel.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Your post is factually incorrect. Is this a burner account for Tinmore? No Mostly Islamic country is even close to a Democracy.

Don't claim it to be so without having the conviction to actually try to show how , it just smacks of a bluff to me. What did I claim that is " factually incorrect " ?

You attempt to try to have me down as a sock for some other is weak too. If you can't or don't want to argue your points or mine that's fine with me but claiming a sock is pathetic imho

Did the people of Gaza and the WB hold democratic elections in 2006 ?

Did the self proclaimed supporters of democracy accept the will of the people ?

The people "elected" Hamas. A terror regime and most who live there are miserable. You're trying to play with words. It won't work.

Your post is factually incorrect. Is this a burner account for Tinmore? No Mostly Islamic country is even close to a Democracy.

he sure does keep championing the election of a genocidal terrorist group, and has cw
Don't claim it to be so without having the conviction to actually try to show how , it just smacks of a bluff to me. What did I claim that is " factually incorrect " ?

You attempt to try to have me down as a sock for some other is weak too. If you can't or don't want to argue your points or mine that's fine with me but claiming a sock is pathetic imho

Did the people of Gaza and the WB hold democratic elections in 2006 ?

Did the self proclaimed supporters of democracy accept the will of the people ?

The people "elected" Hamas. A terror regime and most who live there are miserable. You're trying to play with words. It won't work.

He sure does like championing the election of a genocidal terrorist group.

It must be just a coicinence that he has said nothing to ddistance himself from their agenda.

 

[Spartacactcus]

The creation of Israel happened in exactly the same way as other Mandates at the time. There was no difference. Other than the differences people, like you, are trying to put on it by coloring it as something special. Because...well Jews.

If you think you have a legal basis for it as an anomaly, please provide some evidence.

Otherwise, it seems apparent to me that your inclusion of the term "antizionists" speaks for itself. You just want there to be different rules for Jews.

Playing the Jew card and treating your assumptions as fact shows me reasonable discussion might be a bridge too far for you.

If you want to know my views then ask If you want to play the antisemite card talk to those in your echo chamber for a good old dose of confirmation bias

What do you want to do ? It's late here and I'm off to bed. If you want to discuss things say so and I will pick it up again tomorrow but on the terms stated.

 

[Spartacactcus]

Right, so if they later wanted to be seen as Palestinian in a Palestinian state in the post colonial reality of the demise of the Ottomans then they are allowed that view and don't need or require your permission.

Agreed. Now, apply that to Israel.

I already have but you wouldn't know because you assume to know my thoughts better than I know them myself lol