Why does israel get a free pass when it comes to apartheid?

[P F Tinmore]

Ah, your usual copy paste youtube videos.

Are you not capable of answering the questions yourself ??

It doesn't matter what I post. You don't believe it anyway.

Not true. There were many incidents where I believed what you said.

The same can be said for you too, however.

Sure, you always question what I say and when I provide links you blow them off.

 

[toastman]

It doesn't matter what I post. You don't believe it anyway.

Not true. There were many incidents where I believed what you said.

The same can be said for you too, however.

Sure, you always question what I say and when I provide links you blow them off.

That's because when you are asked to provide a link to back up your statement, it's always a link that doesn't prove what you said at all.

You however do exactly this. I remember when I provided the links that gave indisputable evidence that Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan. You blew them off and said there wasn't enough backround information to prove it

Then there's the link I provided that showed Israel was the clear winner in the 1948 war (not that a link was needed for this claim, it's pretty obvious that Israel won)
Of course, you blew it off like usual.

The two examples above not only proved your claims wrong, but they literally said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said

 

[Phoenall]

Sweet_Caroline, Victory67, et al,

I think there is some confusion behind the San Remo Convention. The Convention gave no clear advantage to either Jews or non-Jews. It protected the rights of both cultural divisions.

Essentially, once the Covenant and Mandate were approved and in place, within the parameters of these key points. The San Remo Agreement was fulfilled.

Now, there are questions as to what it means when it says: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." And this is language that was included in nearly every important document there after.

Even as the San Remo Agreement faded away, the terms and conditions set down in the San Remo Agreement lied on in the Covenant and Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

They fail to understand that the San Remo Conference, the Balfour Declaration, and the Mandate for Palestine are now dead agreements.

Even more striking is that they think that the promises to the Jews must be respected but the guaruntees to non-Jews can be ignored.

It is such attituded that breeds resentment and hostility towards Israel.

Have the guarantees to the Jews been respected is the question, have they been allowed to continue to live in their homes free from aggression and belligerence safe in the knowledge that their rights have been protected in law by the UN. Or have they once again been made into the scapegoats and whipping boys for all the worlds ills because they have dared to think of freedom and self determination.
Why should they treat the Palestinians with anything other than the derision and hatred the Palestinians treat the Jews with. When the Palestinians stop being belligerent and breaching the Geneva conventions then Israel will stop doing the same to them. They have tried being nice to the Palestinians and all it got them was dead children, so they now treat them harshly so they wont forget who are the under dogs.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Not true. There were many incidents where I believed what you said.

The same can be said for you too, however.

Sure, you always question what I say and when I provide links you blow them off.

That's because when you are asked to provide a link to back up your statement, it's always a link that doesn't prove what you said at all.

You however do exactly this. I remember when I provided the links that gave indisputable evidence that Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan. You blew them off and said there wasn't enough backround information to prove it

Then there's the link I provided that showed Israel was the clear winner in the 1948 war (not that a link was needed for this claim, it's pretty obvious that Israel won)
Of course, you blew it off like usual.

The two examples above not only proved your claims wrong, but they literally said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said

Israel claims borders on land that it has never legally acquired. You failed to provide proof that Israel did legally acquire that land.

Israel won? You posted a Wikipedia and I refuted it with actual legal documents.

So yes, I don't agree with you on those issues.

 

[Phoenall]

Dead? Only if Israel wants to accept they are dead

And you have yet to prove that promises to non-Jews are ignored.

Israel isn't the arbeter of which international laws are and aren't still in effect.

They surely don't get to pick and choose which parts of laws are to be respected and which are to be ignored.

As for the violations of Arab civil rights in the West Bank, anyone with an internet connection knows all about that.

The settlements, the land confiscations, the walls, the curfews, the demolitions, are all evidence of a discriminatory regime in the West Bank that treats Jews like citizens and non-Jews like dirt.

Lets take each point separately shall we

Right of return means that the land can be taken back

The walls are a valid defensive method allowed by the Geneva conventions

The curfews are a valid method allowed by the Geneva conventions

The demolitions are a valid method allowed by the Geneva conventions

So no evidence of anything but full compliance with the Geneva conventions in regards to occupied land as a defensive measure and International law with regards to the right of return.

 

[toastman]

Sure, you always question what I say and when I provide links you blow them off.

That's because when you are asked to provide a link to back up your statement, it's always a link that doesn't prove what you said at all.

You however do exactly this. I remember when I provided the links that gave indisputable evidence that Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan. You blew them off and said there wasn't enough backround information to prove it

Then there's the link I provided that showed Israel was the clear winner in the 1948 war (not that a link was needed for this claim, it's pretty obvious that Israel won)
Of course, you blew it off like usual.

The two examples above not only proved your claims wrong, but they literally said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said

Israel claims borders on land that it has never legally acquired. You failed to provide proof that Israel did legally acquire that land.

Israel won? You posted a Wikipedia and I refuted it with actual legal documents.

So yes, I don't agree with you on those issues.

Another lie. It is not Israel who CLAIMS these borders. Learn how to read:

Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt - Non-UN document (26 March 1979)

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II - See more at: Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt - Non-UN document (26 March 1979)

A/50/73-S/1995/83 of 27 January 1995

The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

Your statement that Israel claims these borders is a MASSIVE lie.
And what does Israel aqcuiring land have to do with anything??? That stupid claim has been flushed down the toilet so many times. However, thanks for proving that Israel DOES have land. If they didn't, how could they have international borders??

You see Tinmore, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You are trying to argue things that are not up for debate. Your constant denial makes you look very immature.
Israel has intrnational borders with Egypt and Jordan, regardless of what you say. You cannot refute those links.


Israel Map - Israel Satellite Image - Physical - Political

I even have a map with those INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BOUNDARIES

 

[toastman]

Sure, you always question what I say and when I provide links you blow them off.

That's because when you are asked to provide a link to back up your statement, it's always a link that doesn't prove what you said at all.

You however do exactly this. I remember when I provided the links that gave indisputable evidence that Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan. You blew them off and said there wasn't enough backround information to prove it

Then there's the link I provided that showed Israel was the clear winner in the 1948 war (not that a link was needed for this claim, it's pretty obvious that Israel won)
Of course, you blew it off like usual.

The two examples above not only proved your claims wrong, but they literally said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said

Israel claims borders on land that it has never legally acquired. You failed to provide proof that Israel did legally acquire that land.

Israel won? You posted a Wikipedia and I refuted it with actual legal documents.

So yes, I don't agree with you on those issues.

What legal documents did you post to refute the FACT that Israel won the war??

And btw, it doesn't matter if you don't agree with me. It's not ME making these claims. I'm just posting the facts.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That's because when you are asked to provide a link to back up your statement, it's always a link that doesn't prove what you said at all.

You however do exactly this. I remember when I provided the links that gave indisputable evidence that Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan. You blew them off and said there wasn't enough backround information to prove it

Then there's the link I provided that showed Israel was the clear winner in the 1948 war (not that a link was needed for this claim, it's pretty obvious that Israel won)
Of course, you blew it off like usual.

The two examples above not only proved your claims wrong, but they literally said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said

Israel claims borders on land that it has never legally acquired. You failed to provide proof that Israel did legally acquire that land.

Israel won? You posted a Wikipedia and I refuted it with actual legal documents.

So yes, I don't agree with you on those issues.

Another lie. It is not Israel who CLAIMS these borders. Learn how to read:

Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt - Non-UN document (26 March 1979)

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II - See more at: Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt - Non-UN document (26 March 1979)

A/50/73-S/1995/83 of 27 January 1995

The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

Your statement that Israel claims these borders is a MASSIVE lie.
And what does Israel aqcuiring land have to do with anything??? That stupid claim has been flushed down the toilet so many times. However, thanks for proving that Israel DOES have land. If they didn't, how could they have international borders??

You see Tinmore, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You are trying to argue things that are not up for debate. Your constant denial makes you look very immature.
Israel has intrnational borders with Egypt and Jordan, regardless of what you say. You cannot refute those links.


Israel Map - Israel Satellite Image - Physical - Political

I even have a map with those INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BOUNDARIES

Of course none of that addresses the question of Israel legally acquiring that land.

Political recognition does not prove legality.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That's because when you are asked to provide a link to back up your statement, it's always a link that doesn't prove what you said at all.

You however do exactly this. I remember when I provided the links that gave indisputable evidence that Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan. You blew them off and said there wasn't enough backround information to prove it

Then there's the link I provided that showed Israel was the clear winner in the 1948 war (not that a link was needed for this claim, it's pretty obvious that Israel won)
Of course, you blew it off like usual.

The two examples above not only proved your claims wrong, but they literally said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said

Israel claims borders on land that it has never legally acquired. You failed to provide proof that Israel did legally acquire that land.

Israel won? You posted a Wikipedia and I refuted it with actual legal documents.

So yes, I don't agree with you on those issues.

What legal documents did you post to refute the FACT that Israel won the war??

And btw, it doesn't matter if you don't agree with me. It's not ME making these claims. I'm just posting the facts.

1949 UN armistice agreements.

 

[toastman]

Israel claims borders on land that it has never legally acquired. You failed to provide proof that Israel did legally acquire that land.

Israel won? You posted a Wikipedia and I refuted it with actual legal documents.

So yes, I don't agree with you on those issues.

Another lie. It is not Israel who CLAIMS these borders. Learn how to read:

Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt - Non-UN document (26 March 1979)

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II - See more at: Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt - Non-UN document (26 March 1979)

A/50/73-S/1995/83 of 27 January 1995

The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

Your statement that Israel claims these borders is a MASSIVE lie.
And what does Israel aqcuiring land have to do with anything??? That stupid claim has been flushed down the toilet so many times. However, thanks for proving that Israel DOES have land. If they didn't, how could they have international borders??

You see Tinmore, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You are trying to argue things that are not up for debate. Your constant denial makes you look very immature.
Israel has intrnational borders with Egypt and Jordan, regardless of what you say. You cannot refute those links.


Israel Map - Israel Satellite Image - Physical - Political

I even have a map with those INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BOUNDARIES

Of course none of that addresses the question of Israel legally acquiring that land.

Political recognition does not prove legality.

acquiring land is a real estate issue. Israel legally declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan.
The whole 'Israel acquiring land' is just your bullshit claim. Where did you read that Israel never legally acquired land? You really make no sense.

Lets look at the facts. You say Israel has no borders. I provided you with the two U>N peace treaties that CLEARLY STATE ISRAEL HAS INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS WITH EGYPT AND JORDAN

I showed you a map that shows Israel with its internationally recognized borders.

You provided..well...nothing

This is exactly what the OP was talking about in the 'Useless debate' thread.

 

[toastman]

Israel claims borders on land that it has never legally acquired. You failed to provide proof that Israel did legally acquire that land.

Israel won? You posted a Wikipedia and I refuted it with actual legal documents.

So yes, I don't agree with you on those issues.

What legal documents did you post to refute the FACT that Israel won the war??

And btw, it doesn't matter if you don't agree with me. It's not ME making these claims. I'm just posting the facts.

1949 UN armistice agreements.

you provided legal documents, yes. But none of those refute the fact that Israel won the war.

Your claim is that there was no winner because the war ended with armistice agreements. I've asked you several times to provide me with a link says that because of the armistice agreements, there was no winner.

 

[Phoenall]

Israel isn't the arbeter of which international laws are and aren't still in effect.

They surely don't get to pick and choose which parts of laws are to be respected and which are to be ignored.

As for the violations of Arab civil rights in the West Bank, anyone with an internet connection knows all about that.

The settlements, the land confiscations, the walls, the curfews, the demolitions, are all evidence of a discriminatory regime in the West Bank that treats Jews like citizens and non-Jews like dirt.

Awww isn't Israel great not to enforce the Resolutions of 1922.

Settlements are legal as the West Bank was won in a defensive war. Perhaps you didn't know that?.

The settlements are illegal as per the 4th Geneva Conventions. [MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION]

Well, at least those built on confiscated property and supposed "state" land.

Only if the Palestinians can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the land was not Jewish pre 1948. If they cant then the Jews have the right of return as enshrined in International Law. You cant differentiate between the Jews right of return and the muslims right of return

 

[Phoenall]

Awww isn't Israel great not to enforce the Resolutions of 1922.

Settlements are legal as the West Bank was won in a defensive war. Perhaps you didn't know that?.

The settlements are illegal as per the 4th Geneva Conventions. [MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION]

Well, at least those built on confiscated property and supposed "state" land.

Jesus, why don't you change your username to 4th Geneva Convention.

Settlements are not illegal as they are built (by Palestinian bricklayers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers etc) on land won in a defensive war. If the land was gained in an attacking war and Israel moved its population into that area then they would be illegal. That is the third time in the last two days I have typed that. You certainly are a one-trick pony.

It does not matter how the land was gained it cant be used by the occupying power. But individuals can use their right of return to take back what was stolen from them and use it for their own benefit. If any person bequeaths their land to the state then the state becomes the recipient of the right of return. As the UN charter and Geneva convention show you cant gain land by war, whether defensive or aggressive. The land can be occupied for defensive purposes and military structures built, buildings demolished and curfews imposed on the inhabitants. Even checkpoints and fences are legal under the terms of the Geneva conventions as defensive measures. This is why the pro islamonazis are wrong to try and re-write International Law.

 

[Phoenall]

Jesus, why don't you change your username to 4th Geneva Convention.

Settlements are not illegal as they are built (by Palestinian bricklayers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers etc) on land won in a defensive war. If the land was gained in an attacking war and Israel moved its population into that area then they would be illegal. That is the third time in the last two days I have typed that. You certainly are a one-trick pony.

How land is won in a war is irrelevent. All Occupied Land is covered by the 4th Geneva Conventions, which Israel signed.

Why you keep ignoring this is very odd. You ignore the 4th Geneva Conventions which Israel signed and claims to abide by, but you constantly wave the San Remo resolutions even though Israel never mentions them nor do they claim to abide by them.

Very odd indeed.

Why do you keep ignoring the Geneva conventions that don't support your POV. The ones that deal with the use of occupied land in a defensive role. How buildings that could be used for military purposes can be demolished, how check points to catch militants and militia can be put in place, how military structures can be built. Then the Jews right of return that you want to withdraw because it does not suit your POV. If you are going to preach the Geneva conventions and International Law then at least get them right and apply them all to both sides.

VERY VERY odd indeed to manipulate which aspects of International Law you want to use to demonise the Jews and Israel. As bad as the German government of the 1930's and 1940's when it had its final solution to the Jewish problem, in fact using the same methods to racially abuse a whole religion.

 

[Phoenall]

Victory67, ive read your posts, and you seem to be one of the few in this topic that has their head screwed on properly.

Most people are in the "israel can do no wrong" bunch. If they were throwing black babies off roof tops, most people would still support them. They'd use "Oy vey! holocaust" - that gives israel the right to get away with murdering anyone they want to. Which sums up the argument ive heard from quite a few people here.

I know for a fact most of the support from the "israel can do no wrong" bunch is 100% racial. And these people are some of the most vicious white supremacists there is.

Yet even though the Palestinians are targeting Israeli children with their chemical and biological weapons you and others stay silent about these crimes against humanity, war crimes and very serious breaches of the Geneva conventions. You see no wrong in the Palestinians LYING about alleged murders that are just actors setting up a scene to demonise the Jews. You act in a manner that would not be out of place in Hitlers Germany of the 1930's and 1940's with regards to the Jews and Israel. What gives the Palestinians the right to constantly target unarmed and defenceless children and for you to claim that they are doing no wrong because they are only firing at filthy Jews who deserve all they get. Isn't that right

 

[Phoenall]

Victory67, ive read your posts, and you seem to be one of the few in this topic that has their head screwed on properly.

Most people are in the "israel can do no wrong" bunch. If they were throwing black babies off roof tops, most people would still support them.

I know for a fact most of the support from the "israel can do no wrong" bunch is 100% racial.

I don't believe it is racial. I believe it is a combination of religious, ethnic, and nationalist chauvinism combined with a bit of brainwashing and willful ignorance. And with a good helping of dishonesty.

That's why they give Israel a free pass when it comes to their discriminatory policies. Its a very entrenched state of mind.

It is religious as the Palestinians have it written into their religion that they must kill the Jews

That is why you give them a free pass to ignore International Law and the Geneva conventions when they target unarmed innocent children. After all it is your biased opinion that the Palestinians are doing no wrong by fighting a 65 year old war that has the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews as its aim.

So how about applying your HATRED to the muslims and looking at just what aspects of International Law and the Geneva conventions they are in breach of. Should make for a very interesting exercise when you realise that it is not the Jews being given a free pass but the Palestinians.

 

[Phoenall]

I don't believe it is racial. I believe it is a combination of religious, ethnic, and nationalist chauvinism combined with a bit of brainwashing and willful ignorance. And with a good helping of dishonesty.

That's why they give Israel a free pass when it comes to their discriminatory policies. Its a very entrenched state of mind.

I used to think "jewish" was just a religion, but I learned they actually use that to describe a racial/ethnic group. A lot of jews arent even religious in the usa, but they still maintain their "jewish" heritage. Discrimination toward someone of a different ethnicity = racism. The nazis were called racist for killing jews, even though germans and jews are both white people.

Also they say being jewish means being born from a jewish mother, but I know a black man who had a white jewish mother, and a black father, and they didn't accept him as being a jew. That seems racist to me.

And you are perpetuating the Nazi philosophy of racism and Jew hatred, your remarks above show this to be a self evident fact. You would not have been out of place with the other Nazis attacking elderly Jews in 1930's Germany.

 

[Phoenall]

As for black vs. white, there are many Ethiopian black Jews in Israel. The last Miss Israel was black. This subject has nothing to do with white supremacy.

Yeah, well the usa has a black president, but that doesnt really make racial tensions any better. It makes things worse because white people are pissed and starting to be even more aggressively racist toward black people.

Last I head israel was getting rid of its black refugees and shipping them to sweden.

Sweden accepts dozens of Eritrean asylum seekers from Israel - National Israel News | Haaretz

Not refugees at all but failed asylum seekers who are also illegal immigrants, just like the Mexicans in your country. So the Israelis are well within their rights under International Law and the Geneva conventions to deport the illegal immigrants

 

[P F Tinmore]

What legal documents did you post to refute the FACT that Israel won the war??

And btw, it doesn't matter if you don't agree with me. It's not ME making these claims. I'm just posting the facts.

1949 UN armistice agreements.

you provided legal documents, yes. But none of those refute the fact that Israel won the war.

Your claim is that there was no winner because the war ended with armistice agreements. I've asked you several times to provide me with a link says that because of the armistice agreements, there was no winner.

The key aspect in an armistice is the fact that fighting ends with no one surrendering.

Armistice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the 1949 UN armistice agreements showed that neither the borders of Palestine nor the borders of any of the surrounding countries changed from before the war.

So Israel "winning" the 1948 war seems to be mere say so.

 

[Phoenall]

Israeli Apartheid gets a free pass due to nationalistic individuals who are brainwashed by religious irredentism.

Prove Israeli apartheid if you can, and deporting illegal immigrants is not apartheid. Unless you want to be a citizen of an apartheid nation ?