Settlements only "illegal" for Jews

[Dogmaphobe]

Gotta hand it to Tinmore,

Certainly. He has justified the mass murder of Jews on many an occasion, after all.

You took that out of my quote and out of it’s context, changing it’s meaning.

Do not do that.

That does not alter the fact that you just praised a poster who just so happens to advocate killing Jews. IMO, offering utterly vile and disgusting opinions with relative dispassion doesn't lessen the nature of what is being advocated, so I would never praise the delivery knowing the facts of the subject matter

You are certainly within your right to do so, yourself, of course, as I am a firm advocate of free speech even if you aren't.

 

[Coyote]

Gotta hand it to Tinmore,

Certainly. He has justified the mass murder of Jews on many an occasion, after all.

You took that out of my quote and out of it’s context, changing it’s meaning.

Do not do that.

That does not alter the fact that you just praised a poster who just so happens to advocate killing Jews. IMO, offering utterly vile and disgusting opinions with relative dispassion doesn't lessen the nature of what is being advocated, so I would never praise the delivery knowing the facts of the subject matter

You are certainly within your right to do so, yourself, of course, as I am a firm advocate of free speech even if you aren't.

It actually does matter since what I praised him for was not resorting to to personal attacks, an important context you removed when you altered my quote.

Altering a quote so as to change the meaning is against the rules. Do not do it. If you have a problem with that, take it up via PM.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Gotta hand it to Tinmore,

Certainly. He has justified the mass murder of Jews on many an occasion, after all.

You took that out of my quote and out of it’s context, changing it’s meaning.

Do not do that.

That does not alter the fact that you just praised a poster who just so happens to advocate killing Jews. IMO, offering utterly vile and disgusting opinions with relative dispassion doesn't lessen the nature of what is being advocated, so I would never praise the delivery knowing the facts of the subject matter

You are certainly within your right to do so, yourself, of course, as I am a firm advocate of free speech even if you aren't.

It actually does matter since what I praised him for was not resorting to to personal attacks, an important context you removed when you altered my quote.

Altering a quote so as to change the meaning is against the rules. Do not do it. If you have a problem with that, take it up via PM.

One can also praise Jeffry Dahmer for being punctual, Charles Manson for being a great speller or Osama Bin Laden for always smelling nice.

I shortened your posting just to highlight who it is you were praising, not to change any meaning. Yes, you praised him for his delivery style. I am pointing out what he stands for. I would like to live in a world where I am not prevented from pointing out truths.

I agree with you, however, is that context is very important. You have been ranting and raving against the fact that there are more active Jewish posters defending themselves against antisemitism than there are antisemites. With dripping sarcasm, you referred to them as indulging in a circle jerk. When you then immediately praise a cohort for the way he posts, the aforementioned context IS worth noting.

 

[sparky]

No, just one and that is Israel. How many Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Shinto countries are there, with no problem at all?

I've a problem with religmo's insisting America is a christian nation

Why can't the world tolerate just one Jewish country?

Because they're a theocracy , thus no better than their M.E. nemesis

That said , they've the right to exist in continual conflict zionist V islamic until armageddon

Just w/out the USofA being their 'big stick'

thx

~S~

 

[Shusha]

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.

Of course there is an argument that Israel does not have title to the OPTs. To dismiss it as you have shows a deeply entrenched position that will not even entertain the valid arguments of others

If you have a valid legal argument for Israel not having sovereign claim to the territory, then present it instead of making negative personal comments. I've been discussing this issue for decades and have NEVER seen one.

 

[Shusha]

Do you have a list of countries to which you are NOT PERMITTED TO TRAVEL? Because of your religious faith, your ethnicity or because you once visited Israel?

Do you have a list of countries your GOD permits you to occupy , because of your religious faith / ethnicity ?

~S~

Every peoples has the right to self-determination. That is the whole of my position on this topic.

 

[Coyote]

Gotta hand it to Tinmore,

Certainly. He has justified the mass murder of Jews on many an occasion, after all.

You took that out of my quote and out of it’s context, changing it’s meaning.

Do not do that.

That does not alter the fact that you just praised a poster who just so happens to advocate killing Jews. IMO, offering utterly vile and disgusting opinions with relative dispassion doesn't lessen the nature of what is being advocated, so I would never praise the delivery knowing the facts of the subject matter

You are certainly within your right to do so, yourself, of course, as I am a firm advocate of free speech even if you aren't.

It actually does matter since what I praised him for was not resorting to to personal attacks, an important context you removed when you altered my quote.

Altering a quote so as to change the meaning is against the rules. Do not do it. If you have a problem with that, take it up via PM.

One can also praise Jeffry Dahmer for being punctual, Charles Manson for being a great speller or Osama Bin Laden for always smelling nice.

I shortened your posting just to highlight who it is you were praising, not to change any meaning. Yes, you praised him for his delivery style. I am pointing out what he stands for. I would like to live in a world where I am not prevented from pointing out truths.

I agree with you, however, is that context is very important. You have been ranting and raving against the fact that there are more active Jewish posters defending themselves against antisemitism than there are antisemites. With dripping sarcasm, you referred to them as indulging in a circle jerk. When you then immediately praise a cohort for the way he posts, the aforementioned context IS worth noting.

It is a circle jerk that has little to do with anti-semites. Get over it. Get over yourself. Try to return to the topic instead of continuing this derailment on what I said about Tinmore or what I said about IP being a circle jerk. Or, let's make it easy - take it to the Flame Zone.

Thank you

P.S. In one of my recent responses to you I provided some topical material and questions. How about tackling those?

 

[sparky]

Do you have a list of countries to which you are NOT PERMITTED TO TRAVEL? Because of your religious faith, your ethnicity or because you once visited Israel?

Do you have a list of countries your GOD permits you to occupy , because of your religious faith / ethnicity ?

~S~

Every peoples has the right to self-determination. That is the whole of my position on this topic.

It's how that 'right' is concluded Shusha

which quantifies both position and topic....

~S~

 

[sparky]

It is a circle jerk that has little to do with anti-semites

yet always ends up with that same old tired facade

why?

we're all socially engineered to cow down to it, along with what it's used to cloak

~S~

 

[Coyote]

No, just one and that is Israel. How many Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Shinto countries are there, with no problem at all?

I've a problem with religmo's insisting America is a christian nation

Why can't the world tolerate just one Jewish country?

Because they're a theocracy , thus no better than their M.E. nemesis

That said , they've the right to exist in continual conflict zionist V islamic until armageddon

Just w/out the USofA being their 'big stick'

thx

~S~

Honestly they are not a theocracy, and I'm saying that from a perspective that I have issues with religion being involved in governance (and I'm critical of Israel to that extent as well) - but that does not make it a theocracy.

Stating that it is a Jewish nation or the homeland of the Jewish people is not in and of itself making it a theocracy. Jewish is an ethnic distinction as well as a religious one, which makes it complicated.

Very few countries are theocracies, including most Muslim countries.

noun, plural the·oc·ra·cies.

• a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
• a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
• a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/theocracy-countries/
Today, there aren’t many theocracies in the world, but there are a few nations that have this type of government. These nations are:

• Vatican City
• Yemen
• Saudi Arabia
• Sudan
• Iran
• Mauritania
• Afghanistan

 

[Shusha]

For the charge to stand there would have to be an exact and comparable example from which to judge any claims of " special treatment " for Israel. Is there another state that claims it's policy of ongoing illegal settlement/annexation of the territory of another people is based on their security needs ? Is it based on religious grounds ? Does it seek to deny a people the right to self determination and supplant them with people from all over the globe based on nothing but religious denomination ?

First, we would have to decided what would be comparable. I reject the qualifications listed above.

1. You make the prior assumption that settlement is illegal, yet this is what we are trying to determine.
2. You bring up annexation with no definition of what is being annexed and from whom.
3. You fail to define the "territory of another people" and lay out the legal claim to such.
4. You throw in "security needs" without explaining how that is relevant to the legal claims.
5. You label the conflict as a religious conflict.
6. You claim, not in evidence, that Israel denies a people a right to self determination and seeks to supplant them.

I agree that we should discuss the comparisons but offer a different set of criteria.

1. Who has legal title to the territory in question?
2. Is the "occupier" laying claim outside their own international borders?
3. Are the individuals moving into the territory voluntarily?
4. Is there an historical connection of the people with that territory?
5. Are there unresolved issues of self-determination for one or more peoples?

You mentioned Western Sahara but , although the situations are similar to a degree , there is a consistant rejection from the UN to recognize the Moroccan claims of sovereignty over WS with their view being similar to that of their view on Palestine with the call being that the people of WS should have the right to self determination.

Yes, I agree the UN does not recognize Moroccan claims to sovereignty in WS. In is an unsettled claim and the territory is disputed. I will look it up, but if memory recalls, it was not even called an occupation until very recently, though I may be mistaken about that. But, GCIV 49 has not been applied to that conflict and there is no international condemnation of illegal Moroccan settlements in WS. And as far as I know, no one is suggesting that Moroccan settlers be uprooted and returned to Morocco. They don't even call them settlers.

And yet, the actual movement of Moroccan citizens into WS is a much more egregious violation of GCIV 49, if you interpret it the way it is interpreted for Israel.

We could also comment that your view that the Arabs should not have the right to enter into negotiations with conditions but presumeably Israel should , as proof of your support for anti Arab bias/bigotry ?

Ah, no. Both sides should enter negotiations without pre-conditions. And it is disingenuous for you to presume to understand my position and then label your presumption as proof of my supposed bias.

 

[sparky]

No, just one and that is Israel. How many Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Shinto countries are there, with no problem at all?

I've a problem with religmo's insisting America is a christian nation

Why can't the world tolerate just one Jewish country?

Because they're a theocracy , thus no better than their M.E. nemesis

That said , they've the right to exist in continual conflict zionist V islamic until armageddon

Just w/out the USofA being their 'big stick'

thx

~S~

Honestly they are not a theocracy, and I'm saying that from a perspective that I have issues with religion being involved in governance (and I'm critical of Israel to that extent as well) - but that does not make it a theocracy.

Stating that it is a Jewish nation or the homeland of the Jewish people is not in and of itself making it a theocracy. Jewish is an ethnic distinction as well as a religious one, which makes it complicated.

Very few countries are theocracies, including most Muslim countries.

noun, plural the·oc·ra·cies.

• a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
• a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
• a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/theocracy-countries/
Today, there aren’t many theocracies in the world, but there are a few nations that have this type of government. These nations are:

• Vatican City
• Yemen
• Saudi Arabia
• Sudan
• Iran
• Mauritania
• Afghanistan

Coyote....

1)
They believe their right to exist in the 'holy land' comes from their God
2)
Their parliamentary rules were written by a zionist

so here we are circling semantic definitions yet again

in my view, this is no different than America being a christian nation, and the pope writting our constitution

in yours there just not enough 'religmo' in their system to stand out

that said, check out Trump's new WH 'God whisperer' , she's mad as an eel .....

~S~

 

[Shusha]

Do you have a list of countries to which you are NOT PERMITTED TO TRAVEL? Because of your religious faith, your ethnicity or because you once visited Israel?

Do you have a list of countries your GOD permits you to occupy , because of your religious faith / ethnicity ?

~S~

Every peoples has the right to self-determination. That is the whole of my position on this topic.

It's how that 'right' is concluded Shusha

which quantifies both position and topic....

~S~

Okay, I'll bite. How should a right to self-determination be concluded?

 

[sparky]

Do you have a list of countries to which you are NOT PERMITTED TO TRAVEL? Because of your religious faith, your ethnicity or because you once visited Israel?

Do you have a list of countries your GOD permits you to occupy , because of your religious faith / ethnicity ?

~S~

Every peoples has the right to self-determination. That is the whole of my position on this topic.

It's how that 'right' is concluded Shusha

which quantifies both position and topic....

~S~

Okay, I'll bite. How should a right to self-determination be concluded?

many ways

however, if any nation subscribes to by way of deity, then they are pose themselves as a theocracy

~S~

 

[Shusha]

They believe their right to exist in the 'holy land' comes from their God

The Jewish people believe that they, like all other peoples, have a right to national self-determination and self-government. That right arises from moral and legal principles developed by the international community over the past hundred years or so.

If we were to respectfully discuss tenets of faith (and no, I don't think its possible with you), I would say your comment above is a terrible misinterpretation of the Jewish beliefs concerning their relationship with Eretz Israel.

Their parliamentary rules were written by a zionist

Their parliamentary rules were written by a person who believes in the right of self-determination for the Jewish peoples? The HORROR!

 

[Coyote]

No, just one and that is Israel. How many Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Shinto countries are there, with no problem at all?

I've a problem with religmo's insisting America is a christian nation

Why can't the world tolerate just one Jewish country?

Because they're a theocracy , thus no better than their M.E. nemesis

That said , they've the right to exist in continual conflict zionist V islamic until armageddon

Just w/out the USofA being their 'big stick'

thx

~S~

Honestly they are not a theocracy, and I'm saying that from a perspective that I have issues with religion being involved in governance (and I'm critical of Israel to that extent as well) - but that does not make it a theocracy.

Stating that it is a Jewish nation or the homeland of the Jewish people is not in and of itself making it a theocracy. Jewish is an ethnic distinction as well as a religious one, which makes it complicated.

Very few countries are theocracies, including most Muslim countries.

noun, plural the·oc·ra·cies.

• a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
• a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
• a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/theocracy-countries/
Today, there aren’t many theocracies in the world, but there are a few nations that have this type of government. These nations are:

• Vatican City
• Yemen
• Saudi Arabia
• Sudan
• Iran
• Mauritania
• Afghanistan

Coyote....

1)
They believe their right to exist in the 'holy land' comes from their God

To some extent yes. I agree. That is true. BUT - there is also no question that that region is where they originated, formed their culture, and where they have maintained a continuous presence tying them to that area for thousands of years. So...why can't they have self determination and a right to a nation just the same as the Arab nationalists have to theirs?

2)
Their parliamentary rules were written by a zionist

I can't answer to this because I don't know anything about it OR how that would make it a "theocracy" which it isn't

so here we are circling semantic definitions yet again

in my view, this is no different than America being a christian nation, and the pope writting our constitution

in yours there just not enough 'religmo' in their system to stand out

that said, check out Trump's new WH 'God whisperer' , she's mad as an eel .....

~S~

Definitions matter - it's not a splitting hair definition, it's a pretty basic definition.

Yes...she's nutcase...

 

[Dogmaphobe]

They believe their right to exist in the 'holy land' comes from their God

The Jewish people believe that they, like all other peoples, have a right to national self-determination and self-government. That right arises from moral and legal principles developed by the international community over the past hundred years or so.

If we were to respectfully discuss tenets of faith (and no, I don't think its possible with you), I would say your comment above is a terrible misinterpretation of the Jewish beliefs concerning their relationship with Eretz Israel.

Their parliamentary rules were written by a zionist

Their parliamentary rules were written by a person who believes in the right of self-determination for the Jewish peoples? The HORROR!

Here we have nearly all countries where Islam prevails calling themselves Islamic Republics, yet here he is continuously stating that Israel is a theocracy despite the obvious fact it is not.

In thinking of the reasons for this, I have whittled down the possibilities to one explanation. I can think of no others.

 

[sparky]

No, just one and that is Israel. How many Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Shinto countries are there, with no problem at all?

I've a problem with religmo's insisting America is a christian nation

Why can't the world tolerate just one Jewish country?

Because they're a theocracy , thus no better than their M.E. nemesis

That said , they've the right to exist in continual conflict zionist V islamic until armageddon

Just w/out the USofA being their 'big stick'

thx

~S~

Honestly they are not a theocracy, and I'm saying that from a perspective that I have issues with religion being involved in governance (and I'm critical of Israel to that extent as well) - but that does not make it a theocracy.

Stating that it is a Jewish nation or the homeland of the Jewish people is not in and of itself making it a theocracy. Jewish is an ethnic distinction as well as a religious one, which makes it complicated.

Very few countries are theocracies, including most Muslim countries.

noun, plural the·oc·ra·cies.

• a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
• a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
• a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/theocracy-countries/
Today, there aren’t many theocracies in the world, but there are a few nations that have this type of government. These nations are:

• Vatican City
• Yemen
• Saudi Arabia
• Sudan
• Iran
• Mauritania
• Afghanistan

Do you have a list of countries to which you are NOT PERMITTED TO TRAVEL? Because of your religious faith, your ethnicity or because you once visited Israel?

Do you have a list of countries your GOD permits you to occupy , because of your religious faith / ethnicity ?

~S~

Every peoples has the right to self-determination. That is the whole of my position on this topic.

It's how that 'right' is concluded Shusha

which quantifies both position and topic....

~S~

Okay, I'll bite. How should a right to self-determination be concluded?

Here we have nearly all countries where Islam prevails calling themselves Islamic Republics, yet here he is continuously stating that Israel is a theocracy despite the obvious fact it is not.

Israel does everything to dismiss the label

and for good reason...

In thinking of the reasons for this, I have whittled down the possibilities to one explanation. I can think of no others.

easy, neither the USofA nor UN are NOT big on supporting theocracies , and Israel would be in dire straights w/out that support

~S~

 

[Shusha]

They believe their right to exist in the 'holy land' comes from their God

The Jewish people believe that they, like all other peoples, have a right to national self-determination and self-government. That right arises from moral and legal principles developed by the international community over the past hundred years or so.

If we were to respectfully discuss tenets of faith (and no, I don't think its possible with you), I would say your comment above is a terrible misinterpretation of the Jewish beliefs concerning their relationship with Eretz Israel.

Their parliamentary rules were written by a zionist

Their parliamentary rules were written by a person who believes in the right of self-determination for the Jewish peoples? The HORROR!

Here we have nearly all countries where Islam prevails calling themselves Islamic Republics, yet here he is continuously stating that Israel is a theocracy despite the obvious fact it is not.

In thinking of the reasons for this, I have whittled down the possibilities to one explanation. I can think of no others.

IMO, he is misunderstanding and misrepresenting Judaism and its beliefs. Its pretty easy for people raised in a Xtian culture, to see Judaism through Xtian-colored glasses, and make the incorrect assumption that Judaism is just like Xtianity and Islam in worldview. Therefore, he boils the Jewish peoples relationship to Eretz Israel as "G-d said so" without giving consideration to history, ancestry, the origins of Jewish culture in that place, the thousand years old monuments, the agriculture and the turning of the seasons, and all the other connections.

 

[sparky]

They believe their right to exist in the 'holy land' comes from their God

The Jewish people believe that they, like all other peoples, have a right to national self-determination and self-government. That right arises from moral and legal principles developed by the international community over the past hundred years or so.

If we were to respectfully discuss tenets of faith (and no, I don't think its possible with you), I would say your comment above is a terrible misinterpretation of the Jewish beliefs concerning their relationship with Eretz Israel.

Their parliamentary rules were written by a zionist

Their parliamentary rules were written by a person who believes in the right of self-determination for the Jewish peoples? The HORROR!

Here we have nearly all countries where Islam prevails calling themselves Islamic Republics, yet here he is continuously stating that Israel is a theocracy despite the obvious fact it is not.

In thinking of the reasons for this, I have whittled down the possibilities to one explanation. I can think of no others.

IMO, he is misunderstanding and misrepresenting Judaism and its beliefs. Its pretty easy for people raised in a Xtian culture, to see Judaism through Xtian-colored glasses, and make the incorrect assumption that Judaism is just like Xtianity and Islam in worldview. Therefore, he boils the Jewish peoples relationship to Eretz Israel as "G-d said so" without giving consideration to history, ancestry, the origins of Jewish culture in that place, the thousand years old monuments, the agriculture and the turning of the seasons, and all the other connections.

One could copy / paste that onto any mono-culture that's ever existed Shusha

Perhaps you should review it's history >>>

Israel has evolved from democracy to theocracy

~S~