USA to Veto Peacful Resoluton to Conflict

[J.T]

The Obama administration has announced for the first time publicly that it will veto any bid by the Palestinians to seek statehood recognition later this month at the United Nations
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63090.html

:clap:

[Gaffer]

First sensible foreign relations decision this administration has made in three years.

[abso]

First sensible foreign relations decision this administration has made in three years.

and why is that ? :rolleyes:

[logroller]

and why is that ? :rolleyes:

Speaking solely to the public opinion, and NOT mine; recognizing a Palestinian State is viewed as a submission to what is considered by many to be one of the first terrorist organizations.

I disagree. Given the area's extensive history of civil unrest, continued violence is far less desirable; while a bid for sovereignty through diplomatic means demonstrates a preference to engage with sovereign nations in the interest of peaceful accord for all people. Awarding such sovereignty would demonstrate violence and bloodshed are not the means to acheiving peace; which would be a significant achievement in the war on terror.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg092111dAPR20110921044515.jpg

[Gaffer]

and why is that ? :rolleyes:

Because the PA and hamas want to set up a sovereign country for themselves from which to attack Israel using the "refugees" and getting themselves legitimized in the eyes of the rest of the world.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-new-palestinian-state-could-deny-citizenship-to-45-percent-of-all-palestinian-refugees/

Once again the pals will be used by a government as an excuse to start a war. This is nothing more than manipulation by a few terrorist elites.

Now I know zero has no love of Israel, but he has to appease them by vetoing this move because he wants the Jewish vote.

[J.T]

lol RSR negged me for posting the OP. i guess it hurts for him to say he agrees with the president

[red states rule]

lol RSR negged me for posting the OP. i guess it hurts for him to say he agrees with the president

You have an issue with facts don't you JT? You negged me for my post on this thread because you did not think it was worthy to be included on your thread - so I returned the favor

[red states rule]

Because the PA and hamas want to set up a sovereign country for themselves from which to attack Israel using the "refugees" and getting themselves legitimized in the eyes of the rest of the world.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-new-palestinian-state-could-deny-citizenship-to-45-percent-of-all-palestinian-refugees/

Once again the pals will be used by a government as an excuse to start a war. This is nothing more than manipulation by a few terrorist elites.

Now I know zero has no love of Israel, but he has to appease them by vetoing this move because he wants the Jewish vote.


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb110923_cmyk20110922080733.jpg

[Kathianne]

and how serious is the Palestinian leadership for a solution? Not very. It's obvious that it's a bid to strengthen their ability to destroy Israel, not help 'their people.' The 'right of return' has always been a sticking point, now they just want to ignore that problem.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/Sep-15/148791-interview-refugees-will-not-be-citizens-of-new-state.ashx


BEIRUT: Palestinian refugees will not become citizens of a new Palestinian state, according to Palestine’s ambassador to Lebanon.


From behind a desk topped by a miniature model of Palestine’s hoped-for blue United Nations chair, Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah spoke to The Daily Star Wednesday about Palestine’s upcoming bid for U.N. statehood.


The ambassador unequivocally says that Palestinian refugees would not become citizens of the sought for U.N.-recognized Palestinian state, an issue that has been much discussed. “They are Palestinians, that’s their identity,” he says. “But … they are not automatically citizens.”


This would not only apply to refugees in countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan or the other 132 countries where Abdullah says Palestinians reside. Abdullah said that “even Palestinian refugees who are living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens.”


Abdullah said that the new Palestinian state would “absolutely not” be issuing Palestinian passports to refugees.


Neither this definitional status nor U.N. statehood, Abdullah says, would affect the eventual return of refugees to Palestine. “How the issue of the right of return will be solved I don’t know, it’s too early [to say], but it is a sacred right that has to be dealt with and solved [with] the acceptance of all.” He says statehood “will never affect the right of return for Palestinian refugees.”


...

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb110922_cmyk20110921084440.jpg

[J.T]

and how serious is the Palestinian leadership for a solution? Not very.

Because they don't automatically grant citizenship to persons not currently in the area and say they'll need to come up witha workable policy for addressing the right of return?

Did it occur to you that perhaps they're simply being smart and they realize that a new Palestine would have difficulty handling a sudden mass influx of new citizens without first getting its internal affairs in order?

[Noir]

Standing ovation in the UNGA after Mahmoud Abbas’ announcement of submitting an application to be a UN member state.
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrziwyr6G71qaaipdo1_500.jpg

[jimnyc]

Standing ovation in the UNGA after Mahmoud Abbas’ announcement of submitting an application to be a UN member state.


The UN blows goats anyway, always have. IMO, they are worthless.

[Gaffer]

Standing ovation in the UNGA after Mahmoud Abbas’ announcement of submitting an application to be a UN member state.
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrziwyr6G71qaaipdo1_500.jpg

This was expected. After all the un is made up of tyrants and dictators. And they all hate Israel.

[Noir]

This was expected. After all the un is made up of tyrants and dictators. And they all hate Israel.

Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Holland, Norway, New Zealand, Portugal, Sweden, Swtizarland, and the UK to name some of those Tyranical members.

[jimnyc]

Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Holland, Norway, New Zealand, Portugal, Sweden, Swtizarland, and the UK to name some of those Tyranical members.

And were these members who stood? Have these members pledged to recognize a Palestinian state? Will they offer support and/or $$$ to their new friends?

[J.T]

So the Zionist occupiers imported during Operation Solomon deserve a State, but the native people who were living there prior to the invasion don't?

First you criticize them for rejecting the offer made by the occupiers [much as many Native American tribes first tried to resist the invading Americans who slaughtered and displaced their families]. Now, when they say they're ready to acknowledge that they cannot beat the invading force in battle, you attack them for saying they agree to the terms you put forward in the first place [like those Native American tribes who ultimately agreed to the resettlement and 'reservations' in order to stop the massacre of their people]?

Is there any solution other than the death of all the world's Arabs that would satisfy you?

Here's an idea: if the Europeans felt so strongly than the Jews needed their own country, why didn't they carve one out of Europe for them? They deserve their own land somewhere far far away?

And you accuse those who oppose your plan of antisemitism?

[Gaffer]

Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Holland, Norway, New Zealand, Portugal, Sweden, Swtizarland, and the UK to name some of those Tyranical members.

You left out a few but that pretty much covers the democratic countries in the un. The rest are dictators, communists or theocracies. And since we are basically talking anti-Israel here, how many of those you listed stood and applauded?

[Noir]

And were these members who stood? Have these members pledged to recognize a Palestinian state? Will they offer support and/or $$$ to their new friends?

Can't speak for other countries, but i know the UK hasn't yet said if it is pro or against acceptance into the UN, however we see a two state solution as the only possible answer, as i believe most do.

[Dilloduck]

So the Zionist occupiers imported during Operation Solomon deserve a State, but the native people who were living there prior to the invasion don't?

First you criticize them for rejecting the offer made by the occupiers [much as many Native American tribes first tried to resist the invading Americans who slaughtered and displaced their families]. Now, when they say they're ready to acknowledge that they cannot beat the invading force in battle, you attack them for saying they agree to the terms you put forward in the first place [like those Native American tribes who ultimately agreed to the resettlement and 'reservations' in order to stop the massacre of their people]?

Is there any solution other than the death of all the world's Arabs that would satisfy you?

Here's an idea: if the Europeans felt so strongly than the Jews needed their own country, why didn't they carve one out of Europe for them? They deserve their own land somewhere far far away?


And you accuse those who oppose your plan of antisemitism?
The Jews want that particular land for religious reasons--not because it makes any sense.

[Noir]

The Jews want that particular land for religious reasons--not because it makes any sense.

Indeed, for back in the day god dabbled in a bit i of real estate brokering lol.

[Missileman]

The Obama administration has announced for the first time publicly that it will veto any bid by the Palestinians to seek statehood recognition later this month at the United Nations
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63090.html

:clap:

Only a fool believes that a Palestinian state will result in peace.

[fj1200]

Can't speak for other countries, but i know the UK hasn't yet said if it is pro or against acceptance into the UN, however we see a two state solution as the only possible answer, as i believe most do.

Most probably do, but creating a new state today would do zero to achieve a peaceful solution tomorrow.

[SassyLady]

So the Zionist occupiers imported during Operation Solomon deserve a State, but the native people who were living there prior to the invasion don't?

First you criticize them for rejecting the offer made by the occupiers [much as many Native American tribes first tried to resist the invading Americans who slaughtered and displaced their families]. Now, when they say they're ready to acknowledge that they cannot beat the invading force in battle, you attack them for saying they agree to the terms you put forward in the first place [like those Native American tribes who ultimately agreed to the resettlement and 'reservations' in order to stop the massacre of their people]?

Is there any solution other than the death of all the world's Arabs that would satisfy you?

Here's an idea: if the Europeans felt so strongly than the Jews needed their own country, why didn't they carve one out of Europe for them? They deserve their own land somewhere far far away?

And you accuse those who oppose your plan of antisemitism?

Did the people of Israel vow to wipe the Palestinians off the map prior to being granted the land? Perhaps that is the largest difference in why one should have the land and the other should not.

[J.T]

Did the people of Israel vow to wipe the Palestinians off the map prior to being granted the land?
Yep. Zionists have always felt the need for the ethnic cleaning and 'Judification' of the region. When the Americans did it against the natives, it was called relocation. Ben Gurion called it a transfer of the people from the land. Anywhere else, we call it ethnic cleansing. Theodor Herzl wrote (while still eying Valenzuela before the Zionists set their sights on Palestine):

When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly

(We) must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the (Arab) Tribes in possession as our forefathers did
-Israel Zangwill

http://www.geocities.com/savepalestinenow/websitematerials/mapsg/mapsg16zionistquotes.html

Perhaps that is the largest difference in why one should have the land and the other should not.

Oh? Do go on.

[red states rule]

Only a fool believes that a Palestinian state will result in peace.


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/110923beelertoon_c20110923121435.jpg

[J.T]

:rolleyes:

I've never heard a Palestinian leader openly push the Break the Bones Strategy or the ethnic cleansing of the local population from the land in the name of a racially pure state.

[abso]

Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Holland, Norway, New Zealand, Portugal, Sweden, Swtizarland, and the UK to name some of those Tyranical members.

don't bother, for most of the people around here, USA and Israel are the only two democracies in the world, sometimes i think that they even love israel more than they love their own country.

[abso]

The Jews want that particular land for religious reasons--not because it makes any sense.

so for that religious reasons of theirs, all the arabs must be moved away ???, does that really sound fair to you ???, if i tell you that your home is a sacred land in my religion, will you move away ?

[red states rule]

don't bother, for most of the people around here, USA and Israel are the only two democracies in the world, sometimes i think that they even love israel more than they love their own country.

I understand your fustration Abso. Look at how Israel provokes people like you into such hate towards them.

Day after day, the people of Israel breath, go to work, raise their kids, and continue to live their lives.

What an intolerable situation that must be for you

[abso]

Only a fool believes that a Palestinian state will result in peace.

and only a fool will believe that the current situation is fair and that israel is the victim, yeah, a victim with one of the most sophisticated armies in the world against some home made rockets that at maximum kills 2 or 3 israelian per year, while just 1 israelian rockets kills at least 5-10 palestinians each time it hits, for each israelian that dies, more than 100 palestinians dies, but israel is still the victim, right ?

[red states rule]

and only a fool will believe that the current situation is fair and that israel is the victim, yeah, a victim with one of the most sophisticated armies in the world against some home made rockets that at maximum kills 2 or 3 israelian per year, while just 1 israelian rockets kills at least 5-10 palestinians each time it hits, for each israelian that dies, more than 100 palestinians dies, but israel is still the victim, right ?

I wonder how oyu would react if someone started to fire rockets into your backyard Abso. Your numbers are way off since it helps promote your lame excuses to justify murder of civilians

I am sure you regret Hitler did not succeed in his plan to wipe out every Jew in Europe and somehow that would make your pitiful life better

[abso]

I understand your fustration Abso. Look at how Israel provokes people like you into such hate towards them.

Day after day, the people of Israel breath, go to work, raise their kids, and continue to live their lives.

What an intolerable situation that must be for you

yeah, you are right, very very intolerable, how dare they breath or go to work without my permission, i am going to kill them all for that ;)

[abso]

I wonder how oyu would react if someone started to fire rockets into your backyard Abso. Your numbers are way off since it helps promote your lame excuses to justify murder of civilians

I am sure you regret Hitler did not succeed in his plan to wipe out every Jew in Europe and somehow that would make your pitiful life better

you are right, i will get very angry if someone started firing rockets, but then how would you react if someone occupied your land ???, i bet you are going to fire rockets at him too.

about civilians, no i do not like the killing of any civilian on any side, but my numbers are not wrong, check yours.

and what about the palestinian civilians, don't you care how many of them die from the israelian rockets, or do you care only for non muslims ?

[red states rule]

you are right, i will get very angry if someone started firing rockets, but then how would you react if someone occupied your land ???, i bet you are going to fire rockets at him too.

about civilians, no i do not like the killing of any civilian on any side, but my numbers are not wrong, check yours.

and what about the palestinian civilians, don't you care how many of them die from the israelian rockets, or do you care only for non muslims ?


YOUR land? I did not know you had clear title to the property Abso. Again, your "tolerance" for Jews is shining thur very clearly

Cheer yourself up and go blow up a school, pizsa shop, or other valuable military target in your war for "freedom"

That should put a smile on your face

As far as the rockets Abso, I do not recall Israel starting any conflict. THEY were the ones who were attacked first, and because they kick your sides ass - your hate grows even more

[red states rule]

yeah, you are right, very very intolerable, how dare they breath or go to work without my permission, i am going to kill them all for that ;)


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/tmdsu11092220110922100503.jpg

[abso]

Did the people of Israel vow to wipe the Palestinians off the map prior to being granted the land? Perhaps that is the largest difference in why one should have the land and the other should not.

no they don't vow, they just do anything without vowing.

http://guardian.150m.com/palestine/israeli-massacres.htm

http://www.soundofegypt.com/palestinian/adult/massacres.htm


Hebron Massacre (February 25, 1994)
What happened: American-born West Bank settler Dr. Baruch Goldstein opened fire on Muslims praying at the Tomb of the Patriarchs. He killed 29 Palestinians before being beaten to death by the worshippers. Settlers established a shrine to him that was forcibly removed by the Israeli Government only in 1999. His father later wrote that "Perhaps someday our leaders will remove the blinders from their eyes, stop running with the deluded, persecuting pack and find the integrity to print the truth about Baruch's final act of self-sacrifice."


Shooting Down of Libya Airlines Flight 114 (February 21, 1973)
What happened: Disoriented in a sudden sandstorm on a regular flight from Tripoli to Cairo, Flight 114 entered airspace over the Sinai peninsula, then occupied by Israel. Within minutes, Israel shot the plane down, killing 106 of the 113 on board, including an American. The place crashed only 20 kilometers from the Egyptian-Sinai line. Prime Minister Golda Meir, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, and Transportation Minister Shimon Peres found no fault with the Israel's actions.


Forcing Down Syrian Civilian Airplane (December 12, 1954)
<tbody>
"On Dec. 12, 1954, Israeli warplanes forced a Syrian Airways Dakota passenger craft carrying four passengers and five crewmen to land at Lydda airport inside Israel. The passengers were interrogated for two days before international protests, including strong complaints from Washington, finally convinced Israel to release the plane and its passengers.

Moshe Sharett, who as Israel's foreign minister had to explain the incident to the international community, was privately appalled by it. He recorded in his diary:
'I have no reason to doubt the truth of the factual affirmation of the U.S. State Department that our action was without precedent in the history of international practice. What shocks and worries me is the narrow-mindedness and the short-sightedness of our military leaders. They seem to presume that the state of Israel may--or even must--behave in the realm of international relations according to the laws of the jungle.'"


</tbody>

[abso]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/tmdsu11092220110922100503.jpg

actually, Hamas is against it, they opposed that move from the start till now.

[abso]

YOUR land? I did not know you had clear title to the property Abso. Again, your "tolerance" for Jews is shining thur very clearly

Cheer yourself up and go blow up a school, pizsa shop, or other valuable military target in your war for "freedom"

That should put a smile on your face

As far as the rockets Abso, I do not recall Israel starting any conflict. THEY were the ones who were attacked first, and because they kick your sides ass - your hate grows even more

yeah, israel is always the victim, never starting any conflict.

well from my side, they are the one who are starting it.

israel says palestinians start, palestinians say israelian start, but look who was there first and who came to occupy, i guess it wasn't the palestinains who started it after all.

[Missileman]

no they don't vow, they just do anything without vowing.

http://guardian.150m.com/palestine/israeli-massacres.htm

http://www.soundofegypt.com/palestinian/adult/massacres.htm


Hebron Massacre (February 25, 1994)
What happened: American-born West Bank settler Dr. Baruch Goldstein opened fire on Muslims praying at the Tomb of the Patriarchs. He killed 29 Palestinians before being beaten to death by the worshippers. Settlers established a shrine to him that was forcibly removed by the Israeli Government only in 1999. His father later wrote that "Perhaps someday our leaders will remove the blinders from their eyes, stop running with the deluded, persecuting pack and find the integrity to print the truth about Baruch's final act of self-sacrifice."


Shooting Down of Libya Airlines Flight 114 (February 21, 1973)
What happened: Disoriented in a sudden sandstorm on a regular flight from Tripoli to Cairo, Flight 114 entered airspace over the Sinai peninsula, then occupied by Israel. Within minutes, Israel shot the plane down, killing 106 of the 113 on board, including an American. The place crashed only 20 kilometers from the Egyptian-Sinai line. Prime Minister Golda Meir, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, and Transportation Minister Shimon Peres found no fault with the Israel's actions.


Forcing Down Syrian Civilian Airplane (December 12, 1954)
<TBODY>
"On Dec. 12, 1954, Israeli warplanes forced a Syrian Airways Dakota passenger craft carrying four passengers and five crewmen to land at Lydda airport inside Israel. The passengers were interrogated for two days before international protests, including strong complaints from Washington, finally convinced Israel to release the plane and its passengers.

Moshe Sharett, who as Israel's foreign minister had to explain the incident to the international community, was privately appalled by it. He recorded in his diary:
'I have no reason to doubt the truth of the factual affirmation of the U.S. State Department that our action was without precedent in the history of international practice. What shocks and worries me is the narrow-mindedness and the short-sightedness of our military leaders. They seem to presume that the state of Israel may--or even must--behave in the realm of international relations according to the laws of the jungle.'"


</TBODY>


I have to say, that if you think these three links in someway proves your allegation that Israel is the agressor, you're deluded.

[ConHog]

yeah, israel is always the victim, never starting any conflict.

well from my side, they are the one who are starting it.

israel says palestinians start, palestinians say israelian start, but look who was there first and who came to occupy, i guess it wasn't the palestinains who started it after all.

The so called Palestinians didn't even exist until after 5 Muslim nations attacked Israel and got their asses handed to them.

Has Israel acted correctly in every situation? Of course not, BUT I'm fairly certain that if me and four of my friends surrounded you and threatened to kick your ass everyday and issued statements that we wouldn't rest until you no longer existed that you wouldn't act correctly in every situation either.

So don't even attempt to push the blame onto Israel. By the way if the Palestinians are in such bad shape and the rest of the ME is so sympathetic to their plight, why aren't they giving any money or material support to make their lives better? Oh that's right.

[Kathianne]

and once again the dilemma, who is a 'Palestinian?' According to those now there, not the refugees. No shock there, no one wants them:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/Sep-15/148791-interview-refugees-will-not-be-citizens-of-new-state.ashx


BEIRUT: Palestinian refugees will not become citizens of a new Palestinian state, according to Palestine’s ambassador to Lebanon.


From behind a desk topped by a miniature model of Palestine’s hoped-for blue United Nations chair, Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah spoke to The Daily Star Wednesday about Palestine’s upcoming bid for U.N. statehood.


The ambassador unequivocally says that Palestinian refugees would not become citizens of the sought for U.N.-recognized Palestinian state, an issue that has been much discussed. “They are Palestinians, that’s their identity,” he says. “But … they are not automatically citizens.”


This would not only apply to refugees in countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan or the other 132 countries where Abdullah says Palestinians reside. Abdullah said that “even Palestinian refugees who are living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens.”


Abdullah said that the new Palestinian state would “absolutely not” be issuing Palestinian passports to refugees.


Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/Sep-15/148791-interview-refugees-will-not-be-citizens-of-new-state.ashx#ixzz1YtPy1j8h
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb) ...

[ConHog]

and once again the dilemma, who is a 'Palestinian?' According to those now there, not the refugees. No shock there, no one wants them:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/Sep-15/148791-interview-refugees-will-not-be-citizens-of-new-state.ashx

Which makes the matter all the more confusing. IF they don't even know who would be citizens how would we? And since they don't know who would be citizens, who would their UN representative be representing?

[Kathianne]

Which makes the matter all the more confusing. IF they don't even know who would be citizens how would we? And since they don't know who would be citizens, who would their UN representative be representing?

Those that weren't kicked out or fled after the wars.

[ConHog]

Those that weren't kicked out or fled after the wars.

The way I read that, even those people aren't guaranteed citizenship.

[J.T]

I wonder how oyu would react if someone started to fire rockets into your backyard Abso.
His backyard. Or the home of the guy firing the rickets, which he invaded and built an illegal settlement on and continues to occupy more and more of every day?

And then you play the holocaust card, as though the displacement, disenfranchisement, and persecution of Jews in the past justifies an the Jews' displacement, disenfranchisement, and persecution of Arab Christians, Muslims, and Druze today. :rolleyes:

[J.T]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/tmdsu11092220110922100503.jpg

Do you have anything at all intelligent to contribute? Even your cartoons are simply retarded.

The reality:
The Palestinian Authority's push to achieve recognition of an independent Palestinian state in the United Nations has nothing to do with Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Hamas officials said on Monday, adding that the campaign was launched without consulting Hamas leaders. Speaking to the Palestinian Ma'an news agency on Monday, the leaders of several Palestinian factions voiced differing opinions on the Palestinian statehood bid at the UN, with both Hamas and Islamic Jihad representatives distancing themselves from the planned vote. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-distances-itself-from-palestinian-statehood-bid-at-un-1.384034

http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2011/09/23/hamas-tells-abbas-not-to-beg-for-palestinian-state

[abso]

I have to say, that if you think these three links in someway proves your allegation that Israel is the agressor, you're deluded.

and i have to say that if you think that your hate to arabs or muslims or your love to jews or israelian doesn't prove that Israel is the defender, and also doesn't prove that they have the right to occupy the lands of others and continue building settlements everyday on it, the last occupation on earth.

[J.T]

The way I read that, even those people aren't guaranteed citizenship.

So now you're criticizing them for saying that they'll have to get their internal affairs in order before they can address the right to return and a large influx of people?

[abso]

Do you have anything at all intelligent to contribute?

don't think so, he never had, and never will.

[ConHog]

and i have to say that if you think that your hate to arabs or muslims or your love to jews or israelian doesn't prove that Israel is the defender, and also doesn't prove that they have the right to occupy the lands of others and continue building settlements everyday on it, the last occupation on earth.

You know, IF those Mulsims countries who lost the land that the "Palestinians" now occupy and wish they could occupy in the future didn't want to lose that land to the Israelis , maybe they shouldn't have attacked Israel to begin with.

An analogy would be if Mexico attacked the United States and after beating their ass we took Baja away from then , and then they whined about us taking Baja from them. It is THEIR fault they lost it.

[abso]

Those that weren't kicked out or fled after the wars.

so you actually admit that there are palestinians who were kicked out ? :rolleyes:


Balad Esh-Sheikh (December 31-January 1 night, 1947)

What happened: 14 (perhaps as many as 60) civilians killed by the Haganah, most within their own houses.


<tbody>


"The Arab village of Balad es Sheik, which lies three miles southeast of Haifa, was attacked by a strong party of armed Haganah, who entered the village dressed as Arabs under heavy covering fire from the high ground. Firing sub-machine guns and throwing grenades into the houses, they succeeded in killing 14 Arabs, of whom 10 were women and children, and wounding 11. Their own casualties were slight."

Source:
Wilson, Cordon and Search, p. 158.



and that's how they were kicked out.

</tbody>

[abso]

You know, IF those Mulsims countries who lost the land that the "Palestinians" now occupy and wish they could occupy in the future didn't want to lose that land to the Israelis , maybe they shouldn't have attacked Israel to begin with.

An analogy would be if Mexico attacked the United States and after beating their ass we took Baja away from then , and then they whined about us taking Baja from them. It is THEIR fault they lost it.

you know, you should come to reality, and you should acknowledge that in law there is nothing called spoils of war, we are not living in the middle ages, if you are still living by the law of the jungle in US, then i guess the rest of the world isn't, thats why they are condemning israel.

and as i remember, in 67 it wasnt arabs who attacked first.

[abso]

The so called Palestinians didn't even exist until after 5 Muslim nations attacked Israel and got their asses handed to them.

Has Israel acted correctly in every situation? Of course not, BUT I'm fairly certain that if me and four of my friends surrounded you and threatened to kick your ass everyday and issued statements that we wouldn't rest until you no longer existed that you wouldn't act correctly in every situation either.

So don't even attempt to push the blame onto Israel. By the way if the Palestinians are in such bad shape and the rest of the ME is so sympathetic to their plight, why aren't they giving any money or material support to make their lives better? Oh that's right.


wooooooooooow, you actually admitting that Israel is not always right and doesn't always act correctly, well, thats a good start, at least you admitted that they are not GODs, i was starting to think that you worship israeli people.

finally someone admitted that Israel can do wrong thins too :laugh:, so they are humans afterall.


now, what about settlements, do you think that building settlements against every known law to UN and to humanity, against the calls of every nations in the whole world including US, so do you consider that a wrong thing too, or is that one of the justified things they do to protect their land like Gaza war which killed more than 250 kids ?

i already know that you consider killing the 250 kids and over 100 women justified, but i just wanted to be sure about the settlement thing, is that justified too or what ?

[ConHog]

you know, you should come to reality, and you should acknowledge that in law there is nothing called spoils of war, we are not living in the middle ages, if you are still living by the law of the jungle in US, then i guess the rest of the world isn't, thats why they are condemning israel.

and as i remember, in 67 it wasnt arabs who attacked first.

Oh, there isn't ? In EVERY case throughout history the winning side of a war has taken "spoils." There may be no law for it, but more importantly there is no law against it.

And yes of course you want to deny the aggressive actions which led to Israel attacking in 1967, which is kind of funny since in another thread you are all about claiming that alleged aggressive actions led to 9/11 here in the US. Funny how they don't count when Muslims do them , but they do count when done against Muslims. Why is that do you suppose?

[Kathianne]

so you actually admit that there are palestinians who were kicked out ? :rolleyes:


Balad Esh-Sheikh (December 31-January 1 night, 1947)

What happened: 14 (perhaps as many as 60) civilians killed by the Haganah, most within their own houses.

<tbody>
"The Arab village of Balad es Sheik, which lies three miles southeast of Haifa, was attacked by a strong party of armed Haganah, who entered the village dressed as Arabs under heavy covering fire from the high ground. Firing sub-machine guns and throwing grenades into the houses, they succeeded in killing 14 Arabs, of whom 10 were women and children, and wounding 11. Their own casualties were slight."

Source:
Wilson, Cordon and Search, p. 158.



and that's how they were kicked out.

</tbody>


Whatever rhetoric points you think you are making fails. There can be no 'Palestinians' kicked out, since even the 'rulers' in 2011 say they are not Palestinians.

[ConHog]

wooooooooooow, you actually admitting that Israel is not always right and doesn't always act correctly, well, thats a good start, at least you admitted that they are not GODs, i was starting to think that you worship israeli people.

finally someone admitted that Israel can do wrong thins too :laugh:, so they are humans afterall.


now, what about settlements, do you think that building settlements against every known law to UN and to humanity, against the calls of every nations in the whole world including US, so do you consider that a wrong thing too, or is that one of the justified things they do to protect their land like Gaza war which killed more than 250 kids ?

i already know that you consider killing the 250 kids and over 100 women justified, but i just wanted to be sure about the settlement thing, is that justified too or what ?

I have said nothing that would ever lead anyone , except perhaps a total idiot, to think that I worship the Israelis.

I have already said that I think Israel does things wrong, that includes in some instances their settlement policies.

[abso]

Whatever rhetoric points you think you are making fails. There can be no 'Palestinians' kicked out, since even the 'rulers' in 2011 say they are not Palestinians.

so you are just parroting the words of politicians now ???, well, as i recall, you rarely consider what Obama say to be true, so why do you consider what palestinain politicians say to be completely true ???

or is your judgement based on what you like and what you dislike ?

and he didn't say that they are not palestinians, just that they will not be granted that right at the moment, they cant just bring millions back home to a devestated economy, when there is a country to return to, they will start taking applications for citizenship.

[ConHog]

so you are just parroting the words of politicians now ???, well, as i recall, you rarely consider what Obama say to be true, so why do you consider what palestinain politicians say to be completely true ???

or is your judgement based on what you like and what you dislike ?

and he didn't say that they are not palestinians, just that they will not be granted that right at the moment, they cant just bring millions back home to a devestated economy, when there is a country to return to, they will start taking applications for citizenship.



This is provable. Please point me to ANY map which has EVER shown the country of Palestine. If the country didn't exist then obviously no one could be from there , and if no one ever came from there well then there never has been any Palestinians.

[J.T]

Whatever rhetoric points you think you are making fails. There can be no 'Palestinians' kicked out, since even the 'rulers' in 2011 say they are not Palestinians.

Wrong. They say their nationality is Palestinian but they will not automatically be Palestinian citizens when Palestine is first recognized. Why can't you be honest?

[ConHog]

Wrong. They say their nationality is Palestinian but they will not automatically be Palestinian citizens when Palestine is first recognized. Why can't you be honest?

Why can't YOU disagree with someone without accusing them of being dishonest? You have a difference of OPINION with Kath here, not a difference in fact.

[abso]

This is provable. Please point me to ANY map which has EVER shown the country of Palestine. If the country didn't exist then obviously no one could be from there , and if no one ever came from there well then there never has been any Palestinians.

and please tell me who are the israeli and where did they come from ?

at least the palestinians which you consider to be just like any other arabs, they were living there from the start.

but who are the jews, where did they come from, who gave them the right to take the land of others, who gave them the right to start the israeli nation, who gave britian the right to promise them that land which didn't belong to britian, or is it common for the occupier to divide the sell the land that he occupies and create new nations on it !!!, and then the UN approve of such partition, how missed up is that ?

[abso]

Why can't YOU disagree with someone without accusing them of being dishonest? You have a difference of OPINION with Kath here, not a difference in fact.

maybe you should direct this question to you and most of the people around here who disagree with me, why cant you disagree with me without insulting me and usualy most of muslims on earth ?

or do you have double standards while talking to people ?

[ConHog]

and please tell me who are the israeli and where did they come from ?

at least the palestinians which you consider to be just like any other arabs, they were living there from the start.

but who are the jews, where did they come from, who gave them the right to take the land of others, who gave them the right to start the israeli nation, who gave britian the right to promise them that land which didn't belong to britian, or is it common for the occupier to divide the sell the land that he occupies and create new nations on it !!!, and then the UN approve of such partition, how missed up is that ?

Israel the country was named after the Israelite the people. It is documented throughout history that the Israelite have been around for nearly all of recorded history. The same can't be said about the "Palestinians."

As for the British, what did you want them to do, say "sorry Jews, the Arabs don't want you here, so you have to die?" I'm sure you do wish they had said exactly that. Notice even in 1947 The Jews were willing to negotiate and be happy with a 2 state solution, but that wasn't good enough for the Arabs who attacked the Jews and them ended up getting their own asses ran out of Israel. ]

And of course the UN was given the authority by signatory nations to do exactly what they did. The fact that YOU don't like it is tough shit.

[Missileman]

and i have to say that if you think that your hate to arabs or muslims or your love to jews or israelian doesn't prove that Israel is the defender, and also doesn't prove that they have the right to occupy the lands of others and continue building settlements everyday on it, the last occupation on earth.

You're operating under the misconception that I have either. I don't have to hold either of those positions to believe that Israel has the right to defend itself or to believe that the arabs should have been more careful before starting some shit with someone who was capable of kicking their ass and seizing some of their land in retaliation for an attack.

[ConHog]

maybe you should direct this question to you and most of the people around here who disagree with me, why cant you disagree with me without insulting me and usualy most of muslims on earth ?

or do you have double standards while talking to people ?

Apples to submarines, I didn't say a word about him calling people names. I was speaking only of calling opinions lies. If you can find a post where I have called your opinion a lie, then I'm your huckleberry. You stupid Muzzie. See how that works. :laugh2:

[abso]

I have said nothing that would ever lead anyone , except perhaps a total idiot, to think that I worship the Israelis.

I have already said that I think Israel does things wrong, that includes in some instances their settlement policies.

wow, you are actually admitting that their settlement policies are wrong, two miracles in one day.


look, leaving aside my sarcasm, all i want to tell you, is that i agree with many of the wrong things you hate about palestinians, i dont agree with them firing rockets, i dont agree with their suicide bombings, i dont agree with killing civilians.

but i also dont agree with you on justifying the death of the palestianin civilians, even if i was an israeli i wont agree with the death of more than 500 civlians just to be safe, safety that comes with blood is not safety at all, its just a delusion, only a delusional person would think that killing people will make him safe, they just created reason for thousand new young men to join hamas.

i dont agree with terrorism, but make me watch my mother, father, brother, sister, wife, or child die at your hand, and then dont expect anything from me, even i can never predict what i will do if one of my family dies at the hand of another country, maybe i will turn into a terrorist, maybe i will be consumed by vengence, none will ever predict what a man will do when his family dies.

you will never understand my words until your wife or one of your kids if you have any dies at the hands of someone.

[abso]

Apples to submarines, I didn't say a word about him calling people names. I was speaking only of calling opinions lies. If you can find a post where I have called your opinion a lie, then I'm your huckleberry. You stupid Muzzie. See how that works. :laugh2:

not sure about you, but i am sure that i have been called a liar about everything i said since i joined the forum, sometimes about things that i wasnt even the one who wrote it, sometimes i just post articles and also get called a liar, i think that the number of times i have been called a liar on this forum exceeds the number of my posts :laugh:

[ConHog]

wow, you are actually admitting that their settlement policies are wrong, two miracles in one day.


look, leaving aside my sarcasm, all i want to tell you, is that i agree with many of the wrong things you hate about palestinians, i dont agree with them firing rockets, i dont agree with their suicide bombings, i dont agree with killing civilians.

but i also dont agree with you on justifying the death of the palestianin civilians, even if i was an israeli i wont agree with the death of more than 500 civlians just to be safe, safety that comes with blood is not safety at all, its just a delusion, only a delusional person would think that killing people will make him safe, they just created reason for thousand new young men to join hamas.

i dont agree with terrorism, but make me watch my mother, father, brother, sister, wife, or child die at your hand, and then dont expect anything from me, even i can never predict what i will do if one of my family dies at the hand of another country, maybe i will turn into a terrorist, maybe i will be consumed by vengence, none will ever predict what a man will do when his family dies.

you will never understand my words until your wife or one of your kids if you have any dies at the hands of someone.


You know what if the so called Palestinians don't want women and children being killed, maybe they shouldn't hide behind women and children.

They put their OWN women and children in danger. I would NEVER do that.

[J.T]

Why can't YOU disagree with someone without accusing them of being dishonest? You have a difference of OPINION with Kath here, not a difference in fact.

Wrong. She made a claim about what has been said. She was wrong. That is a matter of fact, not opinion. The fact is that Palestinian leaders have said that the refugees are Palestinian in nationality (making her claim factually incorrect) but will not automatically be granted Palestinian citizenship.

I'd say I was surprised at how stupid you can get, but since you linked a satirical article thinking it was a real poll, I fully expect you to prove yourself an idiot every time you join a thread- and you haven't disappointed.



but who are the jews, where did they come from
There was always a minority population of Jews in the region. They lived side by side with the Muslims, Christians, and Druze in peace prior to the rise of Zionism and the mass immigration of Zionist Jews to the region. To this day, there is still a minority population of anti-Zionist Jews in the region and elsewhere.



[QUOTE=ConHog;495644]Israel the country was named after the Israelite the people. It is documented throughout history that the Israelite have been around for nearly all of recorded history

Really? The Israelites have existed in continuation for the past 6000 years? What orifice did you pull that out of?


As for the British, what did you want them to do, say "sorry Jews, the Arabs don't want you here, so you have to die?"
You mean like they did in Europe? If the British thought the Jews deserved their own country, why didn't they carve it out of Britain instead of giving them someone else's land in the ME? Early Zionist leaders didn't even look to Palestine, considering Venezuela and Madagascar before setting their sights on Palestine and using the rhetoric of religion to justify the ethnic cleansing of the land and the creation of a State for their race.


I'm sure you do wish they had said exactly that. Notice even in 1947 The Jews were willing to negotiate and be happy with a 2 state solution, but that wasn't good enough for the Arabs
If, in the course of a home invasion, I offer to let you live in the garage while I keep your house, are you going to be inclined to accept?

[abso]

You know what if the so called Palestinians don't want women and children being killed, maybe they shouldn't hide behind women and children.

They put their OWN women and children in danger. I would NEVER do that.

you should go there yourself and check if such an info is true, or do you just believe everything the israeli army says to justify the killings of civilians ?

so you would never use your woman as a shield but you believe that palestinainas would do that ???, how do you imagine that someone would use their kid as a shield, how can you just believe that ???


anyway, if you were solider, and a terrorist is hiding behind child, what would you do, will you kill them both, please answer me ?

[J.T]

You know what if the so called Palestinians don't want women and children being killed, maybe they shouldn't hide behind women and children.

They put their OWN women and children in danger. I would NEVER do that.

If Zionists don't want their kids to be killed, they shouldn't take them along when they build illegal settlements in Palestinian territories. If I bring my son along when I kick in your door and rob your house and he gets shot, whose fault is it?

[ConHog]

you should go there yourself and check if such an info is true, or do you just believe everything the israeli army says to justify the killings of civilians ?

so you would never use your woman as a shield but you believe that palestinainas would do that ???, how do you imagine that someone would use their kid as a shield, how can you just believe that ???


anyway, if you were solider, and a terrorist is hiding behind child, what would you do, will you kill them both, please answer me ?

I HAVE been there. Your beloved Muslims are cowards who hide behind women and children while launching rockets then cry when those women and children become collateral damage.

[abso]

Whatever rhetoric points you think you are making fails. There can be no 'Palestinians' kicked out, since even the 'rulers' in 2011 say they are not Palestinians.

btw, its a surprise to see you calling the death of 10 women as a rhetoric point i am trying to make.

[abso]

I HAVE been there. Your beloved Muslims are cowards who hide behind women and children while launching rockets then cry when those women and children become collateral damage.

so your reaction when someone hide behind a kid is to kill the kid along with the man, brilliant idea, why havent i thought ot it before !!!

[ConHog]

so your reaction when someone hide behind a kid is to kill the kid along with the man, brilliant idea, why havent i thought ot it before !!!


As if that is what the Israelis are doing. You damn well know they go out of their way to avoid collateral damage as much as possible.


But way to refuse to accept Ahab responsibility for getting their own women and children killed.

[abso]

As if that is what the Israelis are doing. You damn well know they go out of their way to avoid collateral damage as much as possible.


But way to refuse to accept Ahab responsibility for getting their own women and children killed.

so when you fire a rocket into a building killing many children and women within it, that is called minimizing collateral damage ?

and how would you know that they avoid collateral damage, were you an israelian solider ?

[ConHog]

so when you fire a rocket into a building killing many children and women within it, that is called minimizing collateral damage ?

and how would you know that they avoid collateral damage, were you an israelian solider ?

Look shitbird. You don't get to hide behind women and children and then cry when those women and children get killed as a result. It's that simple.

No, I was A US soldier, I know Israeli soldiers though, and I know Israeli policies , and neither the soldiers nor the policies support killing civilians, THAT is the policy of the Muslims you support.

[abso]

Look shitbird. You don't get to hide behind women and children and then cry when those women and children get killed as a result. It's that simple.

No, I was A US soldier, I know Israeli soldiers though, and I know Israeli policies , and neither the soldiers nor the policies support killing civilians, THAT is the policy of the Muslims you support.

so i take it that when someone kidnaps a kid in US, the police just kills both and blame it on the kidnapper ?, real heroes :laugh:

the way i see it, when a terrorist hide behind an innocent, i would be more concerned to save the innocent than to actually kill the terrorist, because from my point of view, i prefer saving the innocent and letting the terrorist escape than to kill the terrorist along with the innocent, because then i would be just like him.

[ConHog]

so i take it that when someone kidnaps a kid in US, the police just kills both and blame it on the kidnapper ?, real heroes :laugh:

the way i see it, when a terrorist hide behind an innocent, i would be more concerned to save the innocent than to actually kill the terrorist, because from my point of view, i prefer saving the innocent and letting the terrorist escape than to kill the terrorist along with the innocent, because then i would be just like him.

IOW you're A giant pussy and you won't condemn the other pussies for hiding behind women and children.


What a pussy you are.

[abso]

IOW you're A giant pussy and you won't condemn the other pussies for hiding behind women and children.


What a pussy you are.

why would i bother speaking about terrorists whom we all already know that they are terrorists, while i have the chance to condemn a solider who agrees with killing children and women as collateral damage, unless of course they are his own.

[ConHog]

why would i bother speaking about terrorists whom we all already know that they are terrorists, while i have the chance to condemn a solider who agrees with killing children and women as collateral damage, unless of course they are his own.

you're a cowardly pussy abso, one who is not at all interested in an honest discussion. If you were you would admit that it is not all on the mean old zionists. But you're a pussy , so you can't even admit that your "side" does wrong to.

I'm done with you. You're a dishonest, cowardly pussy. And you wonder why people call you a liar.............:laugh2:

[J.T]

Look shitbird. You don't get to hide behind women and children and then cry when those women and children get killed as a result. It's that simple.
And you don't get to bring your children along for an invasion and then complain when they get killed.

[abso]

you're a cowardly pussy abso, one who is not at all interested in an honest discussion. If you were you would admit that it is not all on the mean old zionists. But you're a pussy , so you can't even admit that your "side" does wrong to.

I'm done with you. You're a dishonest, cowardly pussy. And you wonder why people call you a liar.............:laugh2:


well, if you review old posts, i have condemened Hamas more than 100 times, but you people choose to forget that.

and by saying "Terrorists", i guess i meant Hamas, but you ignored that too.

i condemn killing civilians on any side, and i condemn firing rockets at israeli civilian, i condemn suicide bombs, but i do not condemn killing as much israeli soliders as they can.

i am against terrorism in every side, i am against palestinian terror, and against israeli terror too, but its you who fails to condemn israel about killing children.

anyone who hides behind a child is a terroris, we already know that, but firing at him and killing that child does make you a terrorist too, don't you think so ?

[ConHog]

And you don't get to bring your children along for an invasion and then complain when they get killed.

Who's done that Just a Troll?

[J.T]

Who's done that

Are you claiming settlers don't have children? What's your source for this one, another link you're too stupid to realize is a satire despite the note at the top of the article?

[Missileman]

Are you claiming settlers don't have children? What's your source for this one, another link you're too stupid to realize is a satire despite the note at the top of the article?

Are you claiming that the settlers are violent invaders?

[ConHog]

Are you claiming that the settlers are violent invaders?

WHy, yes he is, he is also claiming that those settlers are then whining that the Palestinians are whining about having their women and children killed while they guard rockets.

[BoogyMan]

and why is that ? :rolleyes:

Because the Palestinians are looking to force Israel away from the bargaining table and into a position of "take what the UN gives you." Also, Abbas showed us his backside when he stated very clearly that the Palestinians will never recognize an Israeli state.

[ConHog]

so your reaction when someone hide behind a kid is to kill the kid along with the man, brilliant idea, why havent i thought ot it before !!!


Let me tell you something junior. I actually HAVE been in that situation before. 15 year old girl sold to a meth dealer by her step father. I happened to be who found them (me and a State Trooper) and no I actually took a bullet from the meth dealer before giving him one of my own without killing the girl. I could have shot right through her and killed him, saving myself a bullet in the leg. Obviously we don't operate that way, and neither do the Israelis. Only cowardly Muslims behave that way.

[Kathianne]

so i take it that when someone kidnaps a kid in US, the police just kills both and blame it on the kidnapper ?, real heroes :laugh:

the way i see it, when a terrorist hide behind an innocent, i would be more concerned to save the innocent than to actually kill the terrorist, because from my point of view, i prefer saving the innocent and letting the terrorist escape than to kill the terrorist along with the innocent, because then i would be just like him.

So in effect you are agreeing that the Palestinians have been taking hostages, resulting in their deaths. Yet, you applaud those 'freedom fighters' and condemn the victims of children and the Israelis for defending themselves against savages. Good job.

The real deal though is that I do agree with your self-assessment, you ARE a moderate Muslim and that's downright scary.

[ConHog]

So in effect you are agreeing that the Palestinians have been taking hostages, resulting in their deaths. Yet, you applaud those 'freedom fighters' and condemn the victims of children and the Israelis for defending themselves against savages. Good job.

The real deal though is that I do agree with your self-assessment, you ARE a moderate Muslim and that's downright scary.


Yes indeed, he proves that even the so called moderate terrorists err I mean Muslims will NEVER recognize that the Israelis have both a reason to fight and a right to defend themselves. They just close their eyes and pretend like the Zionists are completely to blame for all the problems in that region.

[abso]

Are you claiming that the settlers are violent invaders?

well, you don't have to be violent to be an invader :D

doesnt matter if the invader is nice or violent, cause he still is an invader, i wont let someone occupy my house even if he is the nicest person in the whole world !!!, he doesnt have to try to kill me to be an invader !!!

[abso]

Because the Palestinians are looking to force Israel away from the bargaining table and into a position of "take what the UN gives you." Also, Abbas showed us his backside when he stated very clearly that the Palestinians will never recognize an Israeli state.

why would they recognize a state that is occupying their country ???

why do you want the people who are being occupied to prove they are peaceful at first ???, shouldnt israel be the one who needs to prove it first since it is the one who is occupying lands of others ??

USA asked israel to prove its peaceful intentions by stopping buliding illegal settlements on occupied lands, but israel ignored, UN asked the same, israel ignored, EU asked the same, israel ignored, arab league asked the same, israel ignored, but yet, its the palestinains who doesn't want peace.


i think its isreal that must stop building settlements, and it must remove all illegal settlements on occupied lands, and it must withdraw from all the occupied lands at once, then we can say that israel wants peace, but i never saw israel doing anything for peace.

can you tell me one thing that israel did that proves it wants peace, when did it do anything that lead us towards peace !!!!!

how can someone asks for peace while occupying lands at the same time and building more illegal settlements on it !!!!, where is the peace in that, and how can the palestinians trust israel word while it continue building on their land ???????????????????????????????

[Kathianne]

why would they recognize a state that is occupying their country ???

why do you want the people who are being occupied to prove they are peaceful at first ???, shouldnt israel be the one who needs to prove it first since it is the one who is occupying lands of others ??

USA asked israel to prove its peaceful intentions by stopping buliding illegal settlements on occupied lands, but israel ignored, UN asked the same, israel ignored, EU asked the same, israel ignored, arab league asked the same, israel ignored, but yet, its the palestinains who doesn't want peace.


i think its isreal that must stop building settlements, and it must remove all illegal settlements on occupied lands, and it must withdraw from all the occupied lands at once, then we can say that israel wants peace, but i never saw israel doing anything for peace.

can you tell me one thing that israel did that proves it wants peace, when did it do anything that lead us towards peace !!!!!

how can someone asks for peace while occupying lands at the same time and building more illegal settlements on it !!!!, where is the peace in that, and how can the palestinians trust israel word while it continue building on their land ???????????????????????????????

Do you doubt, for a nanosecond that Israel could and could have wiped many of your Islamic buddies off the face of planet earth? Indeed they could have. They didn't. Instead they are still begging for talks. Why? Beats the hell out of me. Bomb the suckers.

[abso]

Do you doubt, for a nanosecond that Israel could and could have wiped many of your Islamic buddies off the face of planet earth? Indeed they could have. They didn't. Instead they are still begging for talks. Why? Beats the hell out of me. Bomb the suckers.

let me ask you this...

if i come into your house, and take it by force and kick you out, will i have any right to complain when you throw rocks at me or burn the whole house with me inside it ?

i guess that i have to leave your house, and return it to its owner, which is you of course, then i can ask for any peace with you, but to ask you to make peace with me while i am still in your house, that looks very very very stupid to me, dont you think so ? :rolleyes:

unless of course you will agree to make peace with somone who refuses to return your house to you, and continue bringing more and more of his family to live in it, in a sign that tells you that he is never going to return it to you, that would be very very kind of you, you would be a wonderful person if you agree to that, but of course, you would be living in the streets ;)

[Missileman]

well, you don't have to be violent to be an invader :D

doesnt matter if the invader is nice or violent, cause he still is an invader, i wont let someone occupy my house even if he is the nicest person in the whole world !!!, he doesnt have to try to kill me to be an invader !!!

Apparently, it isn't your house anymore. It was lost in a gamble, and you can't have it back because of bettor's regret. Move on.

Was it the Palestinians who attacked Israel in the 60s and lost territory during their retreat? No? It sounds more like other arab nations are to blame for the current borders and the arabs should pony up a piece of ground for a Palestinian state. If it's a different piece of ground than what the Palestinians want, tough shit.

[J.T]

Apparently, it isn't your house anymore.
And why is that? Because the Zionists keep building settlements? Or because they invaded with guns?
\

Was it the Palestinians who attacked Israel in the 60s

Nobody attacked Israel. A loose confederation of nations, comprising a force half that of the Zionists', came to the defense of the Palestinian population.

And if you want to go with your 'might make right' argument that the Zionists own the land because they killed women and children and took it, then you have to apply the same logic to the other side: any street the PLO takes control of through any means, including bombings, is rightfully theirs.

[NightTrain]

Nobody attacked Israel. A loose confederation of nations, comprising a force half that of the Zionists', came to the defense of the Palestinian population..

WTF? If you are referring to the Six Day War or Yom Kippur War, you are sadly deluded. The Arab coalition far outnumbered the Israelis on both misadventures where they got their asses handed to them by the Israelis.

[ConHog]

well, you don't have to be violent to be an invader :D

doesnt matter if the invader is nice or violent, cause he still is an invader, i wont let someone occupy my house even if he is the nicest person in the whole world !!!, he doesnt have to try to kill me to be an invader !!!

I'm pleased as punch to hear that you oppose illegal immigration from our southern "friends"

[ConHog]

Do you doubt, for a nanosecond that Israel could and could have wiped many of your Islamic buddies off the face of planet earth? Indeed they could have. They didn't. Instead they are still begging for talks. Why? Beats the hell out of me. Bomb the suckers.

That's what cracks me the hell up. If not for US intervention Israel would just END those fuckers, and yet for some reason they hate us?

[ConHog]

WTF? If you are referring to the Six Day War or Yom Kippur War, you are sadly deluded. The Arab coalition far outnumbered the Israelis on both misadventures where they got their asses handed to them by the Israelis.

You must be new to JT. He doesn't frame his arguments around facts. Instead he makes up facts to support his arguments.

[abso]

Apparently, it isn't your house anymore. It was lost in a gamble, and you can't have it back because of bettor's regret. Move on.

Was it the Palestinians who attacked Israel in the 60s and lost territory during their retreat? No? It sounds more like other arab nations are to blame for the current borders and the arabs should pony up a piece of ground for a Palestinian state. If it's a different piece of ground than what the Palestinians want, tough shit.

first, war isn't a gamble, and no land acquired by war is legal since the formation of UN, you should read the international law sometimes,, Oh wait, i am sorry, because i forgot, that you never had any respect for the international law so why should you read it in the first place ???, its the same thing with israel.

and again i say, in 60's, Israel is the one who started the war, i have proven it before with quotes from Moshe Dayan himself, i will try to post them later, but for now read this.

In series of interviews conducted in 1976 with Moshe Dayan (which was later published in Yediot Ahronot after his death in 1981), he confessed that his greatest mistake was that, as a Minister of Defense in June 1967, he did not stick to his original opposition to storming the Golan Heights, and he described how the confrontation with the Syrian evolved to a war as the following:

"Never mind that [when asked that Syrians initiated the war from the Golan Heights]. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara [Zvi Tsur, Rabin's predecessor as chief of staff] did that, Yitzhak did that, but it seems to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado [David Elzar, OC Northern Command, 1964-69]." (Iron Wall (http://www.debatepolicy.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story594.html), p. 236-237)

[ConHog]

first, war isn't a gamble, and no land acquired by war is legal since the formation of UN, you should read the international law sometimes,, Oh wait, i am sorry, because i forgot, that you never had any respect for the international law so why should you read it in the first place ???, its the same thing with israel.

and again i say, in 60's, Israel is the one who started the war, i have proven it before with quotes from Moshe Dayan himself, i will try to post them later, but for now read this.

In series of interviews conducted in 1976 with Moshe Dayan (which was later published in Yediot Ahronot after his death in 1981), he confessed that his greatest mistake was that, as a Minister of Defense in June 1967, he did not stick to his original opposition to storming the Golan Heights, and he described how the confrontation with the Syrian evolved to a war as the following:

"Never mind that [when asked that Syrians initiated the war from the Golan Heights]. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara [Zvi Tsur, Rabin's predecessor as chief of staff] did that, Yitzhak did that, but it seems to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado [David Elzar, OC Northern Command, 1964-69]." (Iron Wall (http://www.debatepolicy.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story594.html), p. 236-237)




Can you please post the law that makes it illegal to keep land that is won in a war? Further can you please tell the class who would enforce such a law if it DID exist?

[abso]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/secret-memo-shows-israel-knew-six-day-war-was-illegal-450410.html


Secret memo shows Israel knew Six Day War was illegal

A senior legal official who secretly warned the government of Israel after the Six Day War of 1967 that it would be illegal to build Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories has said, for the first time, that he still believes that he was right, The declaration by Theodor Meron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's legal adviser at the time and today one of the world's leading international jurists, is a serious blow to Israel's persistent argument that the settlements do not violate international law, particularly as Israel prepares to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the war in June 1967.

The legal opinion, a copy of which has been obtained by The Independent, was marked "Top Secret" and "Extremely Urgent" and reached the unequivocal conclusion, in the words of its author's summary, "that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." , Judge Meron, president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia until 2005, said that, after 40 years of Jewish settlement growth in the West Bank - one of the main problems to be solved in any peace deal: "I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."

Judge Meron, a holocaust survivor, also sheds new light on the aftermath of the 1967 war by disclosing that the Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, was " sympathetic" to his view that civilian settlement would directly conflict with the Hague and Geneva conventions governing the conduct of occupying powers, Despite the legal opinion, which was forwarded to Levi Eshkol, the Prime Minister, but not made public at the time, the Labour cabinet progressively sanctioned settlements. This paved the way to growth which has resulted in at least 240,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank today.

[abso]

Can you please post the law that makes it illegal to keep land that is won in a war? Further can you please tell the class who would enforce such a law if it DID exist?

i will try posting that later, but lets mention as an example the Golf war, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, i think it was US who went there to return the land to its owner, but when israel is the occupier, the rules of course changes, and the Veto starts to take its place in Security Council to prevent anything against israel.

guess US only has conscience when its not about israel.

[NightTrain]

first, war isn't a gamble, and no land acquired by war is legal since the formation of UN, you should read the international law sometimes,, Oh wait, i am sorry, because i forgot, that you never had any respect for the international law so why should you read it in the first place ???, its the same thing with israel.

Where do you make this shit up?


and again i say, in 60's, Israel is the one who started the war, i have proven it before with quotes from Moshe Dayan himself, i will try to post them later, but for now read this.


You haven't proven shit. I educated you more than once about the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Remember what I told you about where you get your "history facts"? Getting it from the sheepish Egyptians that got their asses whipped in a matter of hours isn't prudent.

Oh, and spare me the bullshit liberal authors, both American and Israeli. Just because you find some tripe a liberal puke dreamed up and posted on the internet doesn't make it fact.

Review the other threads if you have forgotten how it all went down.

[ConHog]

i will try posting that later, but lets mention as an example the Golf war, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, i think it was US who went there to return the land to its owner, but when israel is the occupier, the rules of course changes, and the Veto starts to take its place in Security Council to prevent anything against israel.

guess US only has conscience when its not about israel.

No see, IF Iraq could have beaten the US in 1991 they could have kept Kuwaiti. They of course couldn't , so they didn't get to keep Iraq. You think that if the Muzzies had won in 1967 and kicked the Israelis out of Jerusalem that they wouldn't now be screaming that they won fair and square? Hell, I guarantee you would be on here posting that now.

You don't get to start a fight with someone and then scream no fair when they kick your ass and take something from you.

[abso]

No see, IF Iraq could have beaten the US in 1991 they could have kept Kuwaiti. They of course couldn't , so they didn't get to keep Iraq. You think that if the Muzzies had won in 1967 and kicked the Israelis out of Jerusalem that they wouldn't now be screaming that they won fair and square? Hell, I guarantee you would be on here posting that now.

You don't get to start a fight with someone and then scream no fair when they kick your ass and take something from you.

so its the stronger who determines the law now ???, sorry, but last time i checked, we werent living in the jungle, that was the whole point of creating UN and Security Council, to end the time of wars and occupation.


the international law was created for such thing, not for you to come and say that the winner takes all.

[abso]

Where do you make this shit up?



You haven't proven shit. I educated you more than once about the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Remember what I told you about where you get your "history facts"? Getting it from the sheepish Egyptians that got their asses whipped in a matter of hours isn't prudent.

Oh, and spare me the bullshit liberal authors, both American and Israeli. Just because you find some tripe a liberal puke dreamed up and posted on the internet doesn't make it fact.

Review the other threads if you have forgotten how it all went down.

so when Moshe Dayan says that they started the war themself, you still think that your opinion is better than his ? ;)

[abso]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/secret-memo-shows-israel-knew-six-day-war-was-illegal-450410.html


Secret memo shows Israel knew Six Day War was illegal

A senior legal official who secretly warned the government of Israel after the Six Day War of 1967 that it would be illegal to build Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories has said, for the first time, that he still believes that he was right, The declaration by Theodor Meron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's legal adviser at the time and today one of the world's leading international jurists, is a serious blow to Israel's persistent argument that the settlements do not violate international law, particularly as Israel prepares to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the war in June 1967.

The legal opinion, a copy of which has been obtained by The Independent, was marked "Top Secret" and "Extremely Urgent" and reached the unequivocal conclusion, in the words of its author's summary, "that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." , Judge Meron, president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia until 2005, said that, after 40 years of Jewish settlement growth in the West Bank - one of the main problems to be solved in any peace deal: "I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."

Judge Meron, a holocaust survivor, also sheds new light on the aftermath of the 1967 war by disclosing that the Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, was " sympathetic" to his view that civilian settlement would directly conflict with the Hague and Geneva conventions governing the conduct of occupying powers, Despite the legal opinion, which was forwarded to Levi Eshkol, the Prime Minister, but not made public at the time, the Labour cabinet progressively sanctioned settlements. This paved the way to growth which has resulted in at least 240,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank today.

didn't see anyone replying on that, guess a holocaust survivor is still a liar if he says anything against israel, anyone on earth is a liar and anti simitic if he says anything against israel, be it a muslim, christian, jew or an atheist.

[abso]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10816818

Six Day War: Legality of Settlements Debated

[ConHog]

didn't see anyone replying on that, guess a holocaust survivor is still a liar if he says anything against israel, anyone on earth is a liar and anti simitic if he says anything against israel, be it a muslim, christian, jew or an atheist.


Well, you certainly won't ever see a Muzzie go against the grain like that because some of the other Muzzies would chop his damn head off. That being said, one man's OPINION does not make something fact.

[abso]

Well, you certainly won't ever see a Muzzie go against the grain like that because some of the other Muzzies would chop his damn head off. That being said, one man's OPINION does not make something fact.

i guess that applies to your OPINION too, right ?

about me, if i was to choose between your opinion and the opinion of an International Criminal Tribunal President, who also happens to be a jew and a holocaust survivor, i think his OPINION will be alot more credible than yours.

[ConHog]

i guess that applies to your OPINION too, right ?

about me, if i was to choose between your opinion and the opinion of an International Criminal Tribunal President, who also happens to be a jew and a holocaust survivor, i think his OPINION will be alot more credible than yours.

How shocking that you would believe the OPINION that conforms to your own. Does that even remotely make it right? No. In fact I would say a good measure of all things Muzzie would be to ask 100 Muzzies what they think and believe the opposite of whatever the majority believe.

[abso]

How shocking that you would believe the OPINION that conforms to your own. Does that even remotely make it right? No. In fact I would say a good measure of all things Muzzie would be to ask 100 Muzzies what they think and believe the opposite of whatever the majority believe.

btw, IT IS NOT AN OPINION, its the law that says whats legal and illegal, and he is a judge and he says it is illegal, so who are you to say it is legal ?

[ConHog]

btw, IT IS NOT AN OPINION, its the law that says whats legal and illegal, and he is a judge and he says it is illegal, so who are you to say it is legal ?

If it was illegal, you should have no problem posting the law that was violated.

[abso]

If it was illegal, you should have no problem posting the law that was violated.

The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel is in breach of international law by establishing settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The Court maintains that Israel cannot rely on its right of self-defense or necessity to impose a regime that violates international law. The Court also ruled that Israel violates basic human rights by impeding liberty of movement and the inhabitants' right to work, health, education and an adequate standard of living.
International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention), major organs of the United Nations (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_Nations), the European Union (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/European_Union), and Canada (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Canada), regard the settlements as a violation of international law. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Raci al_Discrimination#Committee_on_the_Elimination_of_ Racial_Discrimination) wrote that "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention, which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There is a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, is an imperative norm of international law."Amnesty International (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Amnesty_International), and Human Rights Watch (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch) have also characterized the settlements as a violation of international law. In 1978, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Legal_Adviser_of_the_Department_of_State) reached the same conclusion.

In 1967, Theodor Meron (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Theodor_Meron), legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Israeli_Foreign_Ministry) stated in a legal opinion to the Prime Minister, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." The legal opinion, forwarded to Prime Minister Levi Eshkol (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Levi_Eshkol), was not made public at the time, and the Labor cabinet progressively sanctioned settlements anyway; this action paved the way for future settlement growth. In 2007, Meron stated that "I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Illegality_arguments

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The international community (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/International_community) considers the establishment of Israeli settlements (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Israeli_settlements) in the Israeli-occupied territories (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories) illegal under international law, but Israel (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Israel) maintains that they are consistent with international law because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention) applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Six-Day_War). However, the United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice affirm that the Fourth Geneva Convention does indeed apply. The majority of legal scholars also hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views.
Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/West_Bank), East Jerusalem (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/East_Jerusalem) and the Golan Heights (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Golan_Heights) are a violation of international law. UN Security Council Resolution 446 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446) refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention) as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice).
The position of successive Israeli governments is that all authorized settlements are entirely legal and consistent with international law. Despite Israel's armistice agreements having all being with High Contracting Parties, Israel's stance has been backed by a number of legal scholars. In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure, but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UN.
EU.
Security Council.
International Court of Justice.
Canada.
Amnesty International.
Human Rights Watch.
Legal Adviser of the Department of State.
Legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry.


enough or do you need more ?


so, can you find me one country in the whole world that does not characterize the settlements as a violation of international law ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

btw, you can read that too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasson_Report


show that many settlements was funded by the israeli government, while they were illegal according to the israeli law itself, and built on lands owned by palestinians, the report is an official Israeli government report, very ironic, isn't it ??? ;)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fourth Geneva Convention

Section III. Occupied territoriesArticles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


so, any more of your OPINIONS about the legality of the settlements ?

[abso]

After World War II, the principles of international law that upheld the territorial integrity of states were incorporated in the Charter of the United Nations, and subsequently reaffirmed in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Granting_of_Independence_to_Col onial_Countries_and_Peoples), the Organization of African Unity charter respecting the integrity of inherited boundaries, and the 1975 CSCE Helsinki Final Act which contained a proscription that boundaries could only be altered by consent.

The Chapter on Fundamental Rights and Duties of States in the Charter of the Organization of American States provides that:

The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever. No territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained either by force or by other means of coercion shall be recognized.

[ConHog]

The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel is in breach of international law by establishing settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The Court maintains that Israel cannot rely on its right of self-defense or necessity to impose a regime that violates international law. The Court also ruled that Israel violates basic human rights by impeding liberty of movement and the inhabitants' right to work, health, education and an adequate standard of living.
International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention), major organs of the United Nations (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_Nations), the European Union (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/European_Union), and Canada (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Canada), regard the settlements as a violation of international law. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Raci al_Discrimination#Committee_on_the_Elimination_of_ Racial_Discrimination) wrote that "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention, which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There is a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, is an imperative norm of international law."Amnesty International (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Amnesty_International), and Human Rights Watch (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch) have also characterized the settlements as a violation of international law. In 1978, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Legal_Adviser_of_the_Department_of_State) reached the same conclusion.

In 1967, Theodor Meron (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Theodor_Meron), legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Israeli_Foreign_Ministry) stated in a legal opinion to the Prime Minister, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." The legal opinion, forwarded to Prime Minister Levi Eshkol (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Levi_Eshkol), was not made public at the time, and the Labor cabinet progressively sanctioned settlements anyway; this action paved the way for future settlement growth. In 2007, Meron stated that "I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Illegality_arguments

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The international community (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/International_community) considers the establishment of Israeli settlements (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Israeli_settlements) in the Israeli-occupied territories (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories) illegal under international law, but Israel (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Israel) maintains that they are consistent with international law because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention) applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Six-Day_War). However, the United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice affirm that the Fourth Geneva Convention does indeed apply. The majority of legal scholars also hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views.
Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/West_Bank), East Jerusalem (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/East_Jerusalem) and the Golan Heights (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Golan_Heights) are a violation of international law. UN Security Council Resolution 446 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446) refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention) as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice).
The position of successive Israeli governments is that all authorized settlements are entirely legal and consistent with international law. Despite Israel's armistice agreements having all being with High Contracting Parties, Israel's stance has been backed by a number of legal scholars. In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure, but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UN.
EU.
Security Council.
International Court of Justice.
Canada.
Amnesty International.
Human Rights Watch.
Legal Adviser of the Department of State.
Legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry.


enough or do you need more ?


so, can you find me one country in the whole world that does not characterize the settlements as a violation of international law ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

btw, you can read that too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasson_Report


show that many settlements was funded by the israeli government, while they were illegal according to the israeli law itself, and built on lands owned by palestinians, the report is an official Israeli government report, very ironic, isn't it ??? ;)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fourth Geneva Convention

Section III. Occupied territoriesArticles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


so, any more of your OPINIONS about the legality of the settlements ?

oh, so now you've switched the argument from keeping the territory won in 1967 was illegal to oh well sending settlers into occupied land is illegal huh? How dishonest of you.

Further, the Geneva Convention is talking about land occupied DURING the course of a war, so yes in 1967 for about a week it would have been illegal for Israel to send settlers into the area; but once the Muzzies sued for peace the war was over and each side gets what they had, meaning the land NOW belongs to Israel and hence there can be no illegal settlements.

So either way you fail, just like Muzzies always fail.

[abso]

oh, so now you've switched the argument from keeping the territory won in 1967 was illegal to oh well sending settlers into occupied land is illegal huh? How dishonest of you.

Further, the Geneva Convention is talking about land occupied DURING the course of a war, so yes in 1967 for about a week it would have been illegal for Israel to send settlers into the area; but once the Muzzies sued for peace the war was over and each side gets what they had, meaning the land NOW belongs to Israel and hence there can be no illegal settlements.

So either way you fail, just like Muzzies always fail.

:laugh2:

so now you think you understand law, but the whole world doesn't ???

and i didn't switch to anything, i was talking about settlements from the start btw, you can review my posts carefully.

and btw, the arguments i just made, applies to both, the land and the settlements, since the UN charter recognize no land annexation, whatever the reason.

its not me who is being dishonest, its you, i just posted enough prove about the illegality of the settlements, but you still want to see it as legal..


the security council and UN said that Geneva Convention applies to those lands, so excuse me for not caring about what you have to say since its just YOUR OPINION, and sorry, but OPINIONs dont count for anything, specially when the whole world agrees with me, while no country agrees with you.

AGAIN i say, find me one country that officially recognize those settlements to be legal ?, even US doesnt btw.

[ConHog]

:laugh2:

so now you think you understand law, but the whole world doesn't ???

and i didn't switch to anything, i was talking about settlements from the start btw, you can review my posts carefully.

and btw, the arguments i just made, applies to both, the land and the settlements, since the UN charter recognize no land annexation, whatever the reason.

its not me who is being dishonest, its you, i just posted enough prove about the illegality of the settlements, but you still want to see it as legal..


the security council and UN said that Geneva Convention applies to those lands, so excuse me for not caring about what you have to say since its just YOUR OPINION, and sorry, but OPINIONs dont count for anything, specially when the whole world agrees with me, while no country agrees with you.

AGAIN i say, find me one country that officially recognize those settlements to be legal ?, even US doesnt btw.


Israel.

Game, set, and match.

By the way, I FULLY support the Muzzies going in and trying to take over the territories by force. That would turn out well.

[abso]

Israel.

Game, set, and match.

By the way, I FULLY support the Muzzies going in and trying to take over the territories by force. That would turn out well.


so, now you realise that israel is the only country in the world with the same OPINION as yours, anyway, you are welcome at any time to come back to reality and realise what the whole world already knows, that Israel actions ARE illegal. :thumb:

btw, you are a jew, right ?

[ConHog]

so, now you realise that israel is the only country in the world with the same OPINION as yours, anyway, you are welcome at any time to come back to reality and realise what the whole world already knows, that Israel actions ARE illegal. :thumb:

btw, you are a jew, right ?

You asked me to name ONE country that considered the settlements legal. I did so. Then you want to try to play that off as I was saying ONLY Israel considers them legal? Laughable.

I'm not a Jew. Nor am I related to any Jews. Hell, I don't even encounter any Jews in my day to day life. Doesn't matter, right is right.

[red states rule]

so, now you realise that israel is the only country in the world with the same OPINION as yours, anyway, you are welcome at any time to come back to reality and realise what the whole world already knows, that Israel actions ARE illegal. :thumb:

btw, you are a jew, right ?



http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg110911dAPR20111109054629.jpg