What makes you support one or the other?
- Thread starter Humanity
- Start date
- Status
Roudy
Diamond Member
- Mar 16, 2012
- 60,786
- 18,677
- 2,250
You want the occupation addressed, and the blockade removed. Whoop de doo.
Your OP had to do withy the why, not the what. When you tell us why you want the blockade lifted and the occupation addressed, which is kind of obvious, you can then do an exercise in honesty and tell us why they're there in the first place.
Oh, so now I limited my definition. Earlier, you said I made up the definition. So admit your accusation was false Weezle (goddamn the name suits you so well!)
Lets go back a little bit. In Monti's post that I responded to, I explained what an invasion is. You responded to me by accusing me of imposing my own definitions. I responded by posting a link for the definition of invasion, and it matched what I said therefore proving your accusation to be bullshit.
Your response is above.
I notice that when your lies are refuted, you respond by deflecting and posting complete drek. I guess that's one of your techniques that you use when you've just been made a fool of
And you tell me to get a grip ??? Oh Weezle Weezle Weezle
No sonny.
Your attempt to limit the definition failed. The dictionary included an armed invasion, but also many other types of invasion. You were wrong. It seems hard now, but you will feel better if you reread, understand, and admit it.
Go on. Give honesty a try Tossy. It will stand you in good stead for when you grow up.
Roudy
Diamond Member
- Mar 16, 2012
- 60,786
- 18,677
- 2,250
Oh, so now I limited my definition. Earlier, you said I made up the definition. So admit your accusation was false Weezle (goddamn the name suits you so well!)
Lets go back a little bit. In Monti's post that I responded to, I explained what an invasion is. You responded to me by accusing me of imposing my own definitions. I responded by posting a link for the definition of invasion, and it matched what I said therefore proving your accusation to be bullshit.
Your response is above.
I notice that when your lies are refuted, you respond by deflecting and posting complete drek. I guess that's one of your techniques that you use when you've just been made a fool of
And you tell me to get a grip ??? Oh Weezle Weezle Weezle
No sonny.
Your attempt to limit the definition failed. The dictionary included an armed invasion, but also many other types of invasion. You were wrong. It seems hard now, but you will feel better if you reread, understand, and admit it.
Go on. Give honesty a try Tossy. It will stand you in good stead for when you grow up.
Here's your title:
"What makes you support one or the other?"
I love how you tried to weezle your way out of your false accusation Weezle. Talk about deceit
Be a man , for once, and admit your accusation against me was false.
Humanity
Gold Member
- Jul 17, 2014
- 5,089
- 361
- 130
- Thread starter
- #168
Oh, so now I limited my definition. Earlier, you said I made up the definition. So admit your accusation was false Weezle (goddamn the name suits you so well!)
Lets go back a little bit. In Monti's post that I responded to, I explained what an invasion is. You responded to me by accusing me of imposing my own definitions. I responded by posting a link for the definition of invasion, and it matched what I said therefore proving your accusation to be bullshit.
Your response is above.
I notice that when your lies are refuted, you respond by deflecting and posting complete drek. I guess that's one of your techniques that you use when you've just been made a fool of
And you tell me to get a grip ??? Oh Weezle Weezle Weezle
No sonny.
Your attempt to limit the definition failed. The dictionary included an armed invasion, but also many other types of invasion. You were wrong. It seems hard now, but you will feel better if you reread, understand, and admit it.
Go on. Give honesty a try Tossy. It will stand you in good stead for when you grow up.
Here's your title:
"What makes you support one or the other?"
Yes, I know, I wrote it
You left out a whole bunch of stuff: List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Palestine isn't sucking up billions of US tax dollars because it can't exist on its own, Israel is and they don't really like us and probably not anyone else either, they just like our money. That kind of thing is an eons old tradition with them.
Make it "extremist radicals" and I will agree, radical thought is a necessary part of change.
There isn't suppose to be an Israel until Jesus comes back to personally found it, that which claims to be Israel is plain and simply a biblical abomination.
Beelzebub
VIP Member
- May 6, 2014
- 1,953
- 244
- 80
I love how you tried to weezle your way out of your false accusation Weezle. Talk about deceit
Be a man , for once, and admit your accusation against me was false.
Let me clarify for you toasty.
You made up the definition. You claimed in your made up definition that the invader had to be armed to be an invader. That is not true. It is false. It is a lie. You are a liar.
Which bit don't you understand?
It's not that simple and it's not non-discriminatory.
Israel s dilemma Who can be an Israeli - Los Angeles Times
Israeli citizenship is designed very differently from the American model. Here, if you are born in the country or become an American citizen, you retain your citizenship unless you seek to renounce it. U.S. citizenship is not conditioned on ethnic or religious origin, and every citizen has the same rights and responsibilities.
In Israel, it's more complicated, with a variety of pathways to different categories of citizenship. All Jews in the world are eligible, under Israel's 1950 Law of Return, to be fast-tracked to Israeli citizenship. And yet even citizenship for Jews is not simple.
Those born to a Jewish father rather than mother or converted to Judaism by non-Orthodox rabbis may qualify for citizenship according to the Law of Return, but do not qualify as Jews in the eyes of Israel's Ministry of Religious Affairs. Accordingly, they are precluded from marrying those registered by the ministry as Jewish because marriage in Israel is controlled by religious authorities. In fact, these Jews are, in some respects, accorded second-class citizenship in terms of their personal status.
Palestinian Arabs and Druze born in Israel are citizens by birth. But residents of East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed after the 1967 Six-Day War, are not. They are conditional residents, not citizens — conditional on living in East Jerusalem continuously or, for those able to travel abroad for the purposes of study or work, maintaining a regular return schedule to ensure their residency is not endangered.
East Jerusalem Palestinians may apply for Israeli citizenship (with no guarantee of success), but the number who have had their permanent residency revoked by the Israeli government since 1967 is as large as the number who have been successful in attaining citizenship. For this reason, Palestinians in East Jerusalem live in constant fear of losing the right to live in their homes.
Similarly grim are the prospects of citizenship for migrant workers in Israel, who come from places like Thailand and the Philippines. Often, their children speak Hebrew as their first language, attend Israeli schools and even do military service. But this does not qualify them for citizenship. Nor do the thousands of African refugees in Israel have a path to citizenship, or even access to social benefits such as healthcare and work permits, under a government that seeks to expel them as "infiltrators."
In Israel, it's more complicated, with a variety of pathways to different categories of citizenship. All Jews in the world are eligible, under Israel's 1950 Law of Return, to be fast-tracked to Israeli citizenship. And yet even citizenship for Jews is not simple.
Those born to a Jewish father rather than mother or converted to Judaism by non-Orthodox rabbis may qualify for citizenship according to the Law of Return, but do not qualify as Jews in the eyes of Israel's Ministry of Religious Affairs. Accordingly, they are precluded from marrying those registered by the ministry as Jewish because marriage in Israel is controlled by religious authorities. In fact, these Jews are, in some respects, accorded second-class citizenship in terms of their personal status.
Palestinian Arabs and Druze born in Israel are citizens by birth. But residents of East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed after the 1967 Six-Day War, are not. They are conditional residents, not citizens — conditional on living in East Jerusalem continuously or, for those able to travel abroad for the purposes of study or work, maintaining a regular return schedule to ensure their residency is not endangered.
East Jerusalem Palestinians may apply for Israeli citizenship (with no guarantee of success), but the number who have had their permanent residency revoked by the Israeli government since 1967 is as large as the number who have been successful in attaining citizenship. For this reason, Palestinians in East Jerusalem live in constant fear of losing the right to live in their homes.
Similarly grim are the prospects of citizenship for migrant workers in Israel, who come from places like Thailand and the Philippines. Often, their children speak Hebrew as their first language, attend Israeli schools and even do military service. But this does not qualify them for citizenship. Nor do the thousands of African refugees in Israel have a path to citizenship, or even access to social benefits such as healthcare and work permits, under a government that seeks to expel them as "infiltrators."
Arab citizens of Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Citizenship and Entry Law
On 31 July 2003, Israel enacted the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Provision), 5763-2003, a one year amendment to Israel's Citizenship Law denying citizenship and Israeli residence to Palestinians who reside in the West Bank or Gaza Strip and who marry Israelis; the rule has been waived for any Palestinian "who identifies with the State of Israel and its goals, when he or a member of his family has taken concrete action to advance the security, economy or any other matter important to the State". Upon expiration the law was extended for six months in August 2004, and again for four months in February 2005.[180] On 8 May 2005, the Israeli ministerial committee for issues of legislation once again amended the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, to restrict citizenship and residence in Israel only to Palestinian men over the age of 35, and Palestinian women over the age of 25.
Defenders of the Citizenship and Entry Law say it is aimed at preventing terrorist attacks and preserving the "Jewish character" of Israel by restricting Arab immigration.[181] The new bill was formulated in accordance with Shin Bet statistics showing that involvement in terror attacks declines with age. This newest amendment, in practice, removes restrictions from half of the Palestinian population requesting legal status through marriage in Israel. This law was upheld by a High Court decision in 2006.[181]
Although this law theoretically applies to all Israelis, it has disproportionately affected Arab citizens of Israel;[182] Arabs are far more likely to have Palestinian spouses than other Israelis.[183] Thus the law has been widely considered discriminatory[184] and the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has unanimously approved a resolution saying that the Israeli law violated an international human rights treaty against racism.[185]
Also: AdvertisementDefenders of the Citizenship and Entry Law say it is aimed at preventing terrorist attacks and preserving the "Jewish character" of Israel by restricting Arab immigration.[181] The new bill was formulated in accordance with Shin Bet statistics showing that involvement in terror attacks declines with age. This newest amendment, in practice, removes restrictions from half of the Palestinian population requesting legal status through marriage in Israel. This law was upheld by a High Court decision in 2006.[181]
Although this law theoretically applies to all Israelis, it has disproportionately affected Arab citizens of Israel;[182] Arabs are far more likely to have Palestinian spouses than other Israelis.[183] Thus the law has been widely considered discriminatory[184] and the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has unanimously approved a resolution saying that the Israeli law violated an international human rights treaty against racism.[185]
So no, I do not think it is "non-discrimminatory" and while yes, they can "just apply for it" it is unlikely they will get it.
So they remain - citizens of no state, in a no-man's land in regards to rights.
Israel hasn't existed for eons so there isn't an "eons old tradition". Nice try though.
Yeah, they weren't called Israel back then, but they were the same people. Nice try at obfuscation though.
Ok, let me get this straight - you aren't talking about Israel but instead regurgitating one of the many stereotypes about Jews?
Can you explain why you support one side or the other in this conflict or do you even support a side or do you just hate Jews?
Beelzebub
VIP Member
- May 6, 2014
- 1,953
- 244
- 80
As any good Zionist will try to make people conflate Judaism and Zionism, I think you are either a little behind in education, a little careless in your thinking, or trying to support the Zionism by being a poor advocate against Zionism.
Judaism has not been a recipient of US handouts for eons, as even the USA is a recent invention. And apart from that Jews have generally been more taxed through Christendom than subsidised.
Where are you getting your history from? Walt Disney?
Dogmaphobe
Diamond Member
The truth of the matter is that it is the very low IQ antisemites who think they are being oh, so clever when they substitute the term "Zionist" for "Jew" as they rail away with their hatred.
Quality humans see through this stupid ruse that only works on morons.
Beelzebub
VIP Member
- May 6, 2014
- 1,953
- 244
- 80
Nah.
- Status
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Colombian presidential candidate in critical condition after being shot in the head- Started by JGalt
- Replies: 1
-
-
The Modern Weaponization of Our National Security System Is The Lasting Legacy of Barack Obama and Eric Holder
- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 2
-
-
