Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Freedom of Speech?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 calguy14
Joined: 8/17/2014
Msg: 101
Freedom of Speech?Page 5 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Israel was shelled from the heights so they took it.Simple military decision.
The Japanese couldn't understand why Americans were upset with their behavior in China when Americans had slaughtered natives till 50 years earlier.

Israel is late to the game for various reasons.The full story of their birth has been agreed to be kept quiet by the the British,The Israelis,the Italians,and the Germans in their supporting role.They are not going back and they have nukes.

Talking with a Lebanese shop owner yesterday.He said"The Saudis and the Israelis throw no stones at each other".He feels the Saudis will fund ISIS but allow the expansion of Greater Israel...the true oil bearing regions will remain outside of Israel's reach....which is what they really want.
 robaustralia
Joined: 12/1/2014
Msg: 102
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/1/2015 2:16:04 PM

Instead, they purchased land. Acquiring property dunam by dunam, farm by farm, house by house, lay at the heart of the Zionist enterprise until 1948. The Jewish National Fund, founded in 1901 to buy land in Palestine "to assist in the foundation of a new community of free Jews engaged in active and peaceable industry," was the key institution – and not the Haganah, the clandestine defense organization founded in 1920.

Zionists also focused on the rehabilitation of what was barren and considered unusable. They not only made the desert bloom but drained swamps, cleared water channels, reclaimed wasteland, forested bare hills, cleared rocks, and removed salt from the soil. Jewish reclamation and sanitation work precipitously reduced the number of disease-related deaths.

Only when the British mandatory power gave up on Palestine in 1948, followed immediately by an all-out attempt by Arab states to crush and expel the Zionists, did the latter take up the sword in self defense and go on to win land through military conquest. Even then, as the historian Efraim Karsh demonstrates in Palestine Betrayed, most Arabs fled their lands; exceedingly few were forced off.

This history contradicts the Palestinian account that "Zionist gangs stole Palestine and expelled its people" which led to a catastrophe "unprecedented in history" (according to a PA 12th-grade textbook) or that Zionists "plundered the Palestinian land and national interests, and established their state upon the ruins of the Palestinian Arab people" (writes a columnist in the PA's daily). International organizations, newspaper editorials, and faculty petitions reiterate this falsehood worldwide.

Israelis should hold their heads high and point out that the building of their country was based on the least violent and most civilized movement of any people in history. Gangs did not steal Palestine; merchants purchased Israel.


Danielpipes.org

Gee, it's like "if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it".

The Islamists even indoctrinate their kids to believe the falsehood "the Jews stole our land" , effectively indoctrinating them from birth that the Jews are their enemy.

So anytime Israel is forced to defend itself, the media puts out falsehoods like"we understand why the Arabs are angry, The Jews did steal their land"
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 103
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/1/2015 2:20:54 PM
Mungo--as I said, I don't think *any* of the involved parties are handling it well. But I also don't wish to be seen defending bad behavior no matter where it stems from. But I also find it, erm, odd to bring our virtuous wrath to bear, given our history. I used to think that when Arafat exited, there'd be a chance. But he was only replaced by Hamas. Fatah seems to do better--maybe we should study on how they do that?

I do know that I have a great deal of difficulty with people who wire their own children with bombs and send them out to blow up themselves and a few strangers that their parents dislike.
 _mungojoe_
Joined: 10/1/2014
Msg: 104
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/1/2015 3:14:23 PM

Danielpipes.org

Gee, it's like "if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it".

And all the other irrelevant tripe you just posted as well...

See... there you go being intellectually dishonest... again... and no little bit disingenuous and deceitful...

You are dishonestly trying to frame the comments here... regarding "stolen land"... in terms of the original partition... as if that is what people are talking about... in order to cast the comments in a false light... and make deceitful claims of antisemitism...

That is more than just intellectually dishonest... it is an intentional lie... Either that... or... you are just too fvcking stupid to understand what you read...

But I also find it, erm, odd to bring our virtuous wrath to bear, given our history.

I don't think it's a question of "virtuous wrath"... I think it's a question of "it has to start someplace"... If "skeletons in the closet" preclude people from criticizing... or acting to stop... such things... then such things will rarely be criticized... or stopped...

I do know that I have a great deal of difficulty with people who wire their own children with bombs and send them out to blow up themselves and a few strangers that their parents dislike.

It's hard to understand why some would do that...

It's also hard to understand the level of desperation... after 45 years of occupation... often brutal... thousands of hectares of stolen land... bulldozed houses... and dead children... to which one might be driven...
 calguy14
Joined: 8/17/2014
Msg: 105
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/1/2015 6:44:02 PM
Wonder how often joey logs on to Stormfront?Getting a better look yet at your northern libs wooby?
Joey has presented no evidence whatsoever regarding his claims.Can you spell anti-semite?You fool no one.
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 106
view profile
History
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/1/2015 6:56:38 PM

You are dishonestly trying to frame the comments here... regarding "stolen land"... in terms of the original partition... as if that is what people are talking about... in order to cast the comments in a false light... and make deceitful claims of antisemitism.

Ok, so for the moment ignore the original partition. The rest of the lands are not stolen - they are Israeli lands by "right of conquest". I doubt that a single country in the entire world has not gained or lost lands that way in all of history. That's just reality.

it's also hard to understand the level of desperation... after 45 years of occupation... often brutal... thousands of hectares of stolen land... bulldozed houses... and dead children... to which one might be driven...

Just out of curiosity - when was the last time the Israeli's intentionally - or even accidentally - built military positions in the middle of a civilian population to try to use them as a shield? When was the last time either of the Palestinian authorities charged or prosecuted one of their "soldiers" for killing a civilian?

No country or people are unblemished. The entire middle east is a quagmire, and has been for centuries - and there's no reason to believe that it's going to change any time soon.

If the Israeli's keep building settlements, it''s going to cause trouble. If the Palestinians keep lobbing rockets, it's going to cause trouble. If the Israeli's keep blocking off the borders, it's going to cause trouble. (Throw some blame at Egypt and Jordan here too - they're trying just as hard to cut off the border).

I personally believe that the Palestinians - along with their fellow Muslim brethren in the neighborhood - are overwhelmingly the authors of their own misfortune. Neither side is blameless, and it's not as black and white as most people seem to believe.
 _mungojoe_
Joined: 10/1/2014
Msg: 107
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/1/2015 8:57:14 PM

Ok, so for the moment ignore the original partition. The rest of the lands are not stolen - they are Israeli lands by "right of conquest".

Nonsense... There is not an international authority in the world that recognizes that claim... Not even the Supreme Court of Israel agrees with that... having ruled it a "military occupation"... So agree the UNSC and General Assembly and the International Court of Justice... And the ICRC... the controlling-authority for the Geneva Conventions... asserts the same...
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 108
view profile
History
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/1/2015 10:37:51 PM

Nonsense... There is not an international authority in the world that recognizes that claim...

The US "stole" most of North America from the Native Americans - and yet, it is still US territory. Britain "stole" Quebec and much of the north from France - yet it remained a British land. The Arabs "stole" much of Spain from the Spaniards, and it remained theirs till Spain "stole" it back. The Zulus "stole" most of sub-Sarahan Africa - untill it was "stolen" back. The Romans "stole" much of Europe from the Europeans, as did Napoleon, and there it remained - until it was "stolen" back. Do you see a trend here?

I freely grant that international authorities didn't exist then - but if they had, do you really think they would have changed the reality one iota?


Not even the Supreme Court of Israel agrees with that... having ruled it a "military occupation"...

So are they stolen, or are they under military occupation? Pick one - but you can't have both.

And the ICRC... the controlling-authority for the Geneva Conventions... asserts the same...

Again - they are stolen, or they are under military occupation. Pick one.

The Geneva Conventions also require (among other things) that all combatants be identifiable, and that civilian populations should not be interfered with and left out of the fight. Given the Palestinian proclivity to employ suicide bombers against civilian targets, hide amongst the civilian population, intentionally launch rockets at civilian populations, and intentionally build rocket sites, arms depots, and tunnels leading into Israel itself, are you sure you want to try to use the Geneva conventions as authority?

As I said - it's not black and white, and the Palestinians have exactly zero moral authority.
 _mungojoe_
Joined: 10/1/2014
Msg: 109
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/1/2015 11:57:15 PM

So are they stolen, or are they under military occupation? Pick one - but you can't have both.

Well... actually... you can... particularly in this case... the West Bank is occupied... the portions on which Israel has settled Israeli citizens... the settlements... is stolen... under international law...

The US "stole" most of North America from the Native Americans - and yet, it is still US territory. ... The Arabs "stole" much of Spain from the Spaniards, and it remained theirs till Spain "stole" it back. The Zulus "stole" most of sub-Sarahan Africa - untill it was "stolen" back. The Romans "stole" much of Europe from the Europeans, as did Napoleon, and there it remained - until it was "stolen" back. Do you see a trend here?

Do you see that you are living in another century entirely...?

Since the 19th century... International law has dictated that... for such territorial claims... "right of conquest"... to be legal... there must be a cession of that land by peace treaty...

And since the end of WW2... every civilized nation in the world has abandoned "right of conquest" as legitimate... and it is no longer recognized in international law... but is now... an archaic uncivilized barbarism...

Because of that... Germany not split between a Crown Dependency... a department... an oblast... and an American Territory... And Japan is not now an American Territory...

It's the legal "why" the US doesn't "own" Afghanistan... Iraq... Panama... Granada... or the Dominican Republic... and it's the legal "why" behind removing Saddam from Kuwait...

Do you see a trend HERE...?

You condemn the archaic uncivilized barbarism of Palestinians... all the while... holding out your own archaic uncivilized barbarism... in defense of the Israeli theft of land they have no lawful right to...

Britain "stole" Quebec and much of the north from France - yet it remained a British land.

Ummm... not quite... that was a treaty cession... you know... like I mentioned above... as part of a larger "world war"... the Seven Years War... THAT'S why it remained British land... the Israeli's don't have anything like that to fall back on...
 robaustralia
Joined: 12/1/2014
Msg: 110
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 3:32:06 AM

Gee, it's like "if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it".

And all the other irrelevant tripe you just posted as well...

See... there you go being intellectually dishonest... again... and no little bit disingenuous and deceitful...

You are dishonestly trying to frame the comments here... regarding "stolen land"... in terms of the original partition... as if that is what peoplerd the term before are talking about... in order to cast the comments in a false light... and make deceitful claims of antisemitism...

That is more than just intellectually dishonest... it is an intentional lie... Either that... or... you are just too fvcking stupid to understand what you read...


Irrelevant tripe eh? Gee I was just pointing out that the blanket term"Jews stole Palestinian Land" is historically incorrect. But the best you can come up with is that I am ****ing stupid.Gee great way to make a point when you you would be better served coming up with some well resourced references.

Did you also react with the same amount of vitriol when you finally realised Santa wasn't real? You wouldn't even know what Intellectual Dishonesty is and I doubt whether you have even heard the term before.

You wouldn't even have the intelligence to realise how complicated the Israel/Palestine conflict is.

Anyway your "Knight in shining armour" tactics haven't fooled me for one second.

Here is a challenge for an anti-Semitic retard such as yourself,. Come up with some proof that Palestinian school textbooks do not promote the historically incorrect "Jews stole our land"
Come up with some proof that The Palestinian terrorists do not have in their creed the total destruction of Israel.

Until then I can only assume that are ****ing stupid.
 _mungojoe_
Joined: 10/1/2014
Msg: 111
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 4:43:38 AM

Irrelevant tripe eh?

Yep...

Gee I was just pointing out that the blanket term"Jews stole Palestinian Land" is historically incorrect.

Yeah... right...

The problem with that is... no-one here has argued the point... in such "blanket terms"... You may as well have told where the best place in Australia is to buy bagels... for all the relevance it would have had... At least then you could claim some intellectual honesty...

Gee great way to make a point when you you would be better served coming up with some well resourced references.

And what "well resourced references" would you like me to provide... to show that no-body here was talking about the original partition lands... and that you were just talking out of your a$$...

I could quote some of the posts... with reference to "stolen land"... if you like... but don't you think that would be a little like... rubbing salt in the wound...?

Anyway your "Knight in shining armour" tactics haven't fooled me for one second.





What a maroon

B. Bunny
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 112
view profile
History
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 5:06:07 AM

Well... actually... you can... particularly in this case... the West Bank is occupied... the portions on which Israel has settled Israeli citizens... the settlements... is stolen... under international law...

The international conventions and laws outlaw AGGRESSIVE war. With the exception of the 6 days war (which was preemptive), Arab-Israeli wars have been fought after Israel has been attacked, either by recognised states (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordon) or irregular insurgents.

Do you see that you are living in another century entirely...?

Not at all - I'm quite rooted in THIS century. That does not preclude the use of historical examples to explain a position. There are STILL Native American tribes in both Canada and the US that have never signed a treaty - and yet as stated, those lands are still considered part of Canada or the US. That's today.

It's the legal "why" the US doesn't "own" Afghanistan... Iraq... Panama... Granada... or the Dominican Republic... and it's the legal "why" behind removing Saddam from Kuwait...

All qualify as aggressive wars, don't you think?

Do you see a trend HERE...?

Yes. It's pretty well the same one I pointed out, just on the other side of the equation.

Ummm... not quite... that was a treaty cession... you know... like I mentioned above... as part of a larger "world war"... the Seven Years War... THAT'S why it remained British land... the Israeli's don't have anything like that to fall back on...

You are ignoring the fact that there is no country or state to sign a treaty WITH. You are ignoring the fact that Israel DID give the land back once, and it made exactly zero difference. The Palestinian authorities can't even stop lobbing rockets or blowing themselves up long enough to hold to a cease fire. There is also the fact that the Palestinians seem to be too stupid to realize that they are accomplishing exactly nothing except getting their own people killed and digging a deeper hole for themselves. As a wise man once said, "The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result".

As I said (too many) times before - it's not as simple or as black and white as you make it out to be.
 calguy14
Joined: 8/17/2014
Msg: 113
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 6:37:24 AM
Suha is living in luxury in Paris.
Poor Yassir got sick after having a look see at his delivery of cash.
Oh well,life goes on.
Young Trudeau will bring a lot of trouble if he gets elected.He would need to bring his security detail up to snuff as well.Seemed pretty lax from the story of the intrusion incident.:)
 HFX_RGB
Joined: 7/26/2014
Msg: 114
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 6:37:44 AM

... As a wise man once said, "The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result".


Would that be like continuing to defend people who are practicing genocide?
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 115
view profile
History
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 9:00:03 AM
quote]Would that be like continuing to defend people who are practicing genocide?[/quote}
Genocide: The systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group.

If the Israelis wanted to be genocidal, the entire Palestinian population could be wiped out in a week. Israel has the military capability, and that's even without using their Nukes. Given the number that still exist over there, I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

Grow up.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 116
view profile
History
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 9:15:38 AM
...And...this thread, like many others, demonstrates so well how religion divides people, creates conflict, and sabotages human nature in general. THE source of the types of dilemmas and conflict that we see in this thread IS religion. Not intolerance of religion. But religion itself. That we should have tolerance for the very thing which creates all of this, is one of the most sadistic tricks of religion. The arguments in this thread are by design forever irreconcilable. They will always be heated, and never be resolved. Which of course perpetuates the source of this evil. If one can think of human knowledge as memes and mind-viruses, religion is the HIV/AIDS of mind-viruses, because of what it does to your mind and to groups of people collectively.
 HFX_RGB
Joined: 7/26/2014
Msg: 117
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 10:11:45 AM

If the Israelis wanted to be genocidal, the entire Palestinian population could be wiped out in a week. Israel has the military capability, and that's even without using their Nukes...


Yes because someone would be smart enough to use a nuke within its own boarders.

Do you even read this crap you write?




... Given the number that still exist over there, I'm pretty sure that's not the case.


When you understand you sound like a holocaust denier, you will be well on your way to understanding.
 _mungojoe_
Joined: 10/1/2014
Msg: 118
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 1:40:07 PM


Well... actually... you can... particularly in this case... the West Bank is occupied... the portions on which Israel has settled Israeli citizens... the settlements... is stolen... under international law...


The international conventions and laws outlaw AGGRESSIVE war. With the exception of the 6 days war (which was preemptive), Arab-Israeli wars have been fought after Israel has been attacked, either by recognised states (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordon) or irregular insurgents.

Which has absolutely no bearing on the issue you have addressed... The occupation of the West Bank is still a military occupation... under international law... and the settlements are still illegal... under international law... specifically... the provision prohibiting the relocation of the occupier's civilian population into occupied territories...

And... the prohibition against "aggressive" war still does not address the abandonment of the principle of "right of conquest"... which applies to all cases... there is no provision which excepts "defensive" wars... or subsequent occupations... and allows the "right of conquest" over the enemy territory... especially the way Israel has done it...

All qualify as aggressive wars, don't you think?

I would think that the US... would qualify them as "defensive"... or preemptive... especially Afghanistan and Iraq... and Grenada and the Dominican Republic... being as they were SUPPOSED to be about rescuing foreign nationals... would likely fall into the same category...

And Panama...? well... that was SUPPOSED to be "defensive" as well... in that it was SUPPOSED to be about interdicting drug trade into the US...
 _mungojoe_
Joined: 10/1/2014
Msg: 119
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 2:54:39 PM

Not at all - I'm quite rooted in THIS century. That does not preclude the use of historical examples to explain a position. There are STILL Native American tribes in both Canada and the US that have never signed a treaty - and yet as stated, those lands are still considered part of Canada or the US. That's today.

Yes they are... both stolen... in a manner that would be contrary to international law if it occurred in the present... and still part of Canada and the US...

Why is that...? Certainly... "quite rooted" in THIS century... you should know why that is... Here's the hint... read up on International Humanitarian Law (the body of law that includes the Geneva Conventions)... the answer is right there... it isn't a "nice" answer... in fact it was done for entirely self-serving purposes... but it is none-the-less international law...

Unfortunately for Israel... it is not an aspect of international law on which Israel can "hang it's hat"... They're "a day late and a dollar short" for that (that's another really big hint)...

If you really need me to provide the answer... not that I think you do... I will... just ask...
 calguy14
Joined: 8/17/2014
Msg: 120
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 3:24:09 PM
Yes late to the game.Largely because of circumstances beyond their control.A nasty little man with a funny stache comes to mind,and so many other factors.The Arabs attacked.This isn't a computer chess game...no take backs.Sorry.

Israel is not giving any chances to people that want to continue the work of the Third Reich....get over it and forget about it.
 robaustralia
Joined: 12/1/2014
Msg: 121
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 4:02:57 PM

The Legal Status of Land Taken in 1967

1) Israel’s Legitimate Claims:

Some parts of the West Bank would have been part of Israel as defined by the UN Partition Plan, but were overrun in 1948. There were Jewish communities such as Kfar Etzion, not to mention the Old City of Jerusalem, that fell in the fighting of 1948. Jews were either killed or expelled from these areas conquered by invading Arab armies.

The League of Nations Mandate explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement in all territory allocated to the Jewish national home in the context of the British Mandate. The British Mandate covered the area that is currently Israel, all the disputed territories (and even what is now Jordan). These rights under the British Mandate were preserved by the United Nations, under Article 49 of the UN Charter.

2) Defensive War:

Military control of the West Bank was clearly the result of a defensive war. According to Dr. Dore Gold, Director of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs:

“International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel’s case: “Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.”

3) Forced Transfer of Civilian Populations:

There are mistaken claims that Israel’s control of these territories violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Fourth Geneva Convention was adopted August 12, 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities during World War II. It outlaws the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control, specifically “individual or mass forcible transfers.”

The only forced mass transfers were against Jewish communities in 1948. After the Six Day War, Israel did not expel a single Arab community from land it now controlled.

The “Occupying Power” may also not “deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population” to territories taken in conflict. Israel has never forced Jews to move to the territories. However, there is no obligation for Israel to prevent voluntary settlement by its civilian population.

4) United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

After the war, there were many opinions as to what a peace agreement should require of the parties. The view of the Soviet Union and Arab bloc was that Israel should be forced to withdraw from all lands taken in the war. However, this view did not prevail in the United Nations.

According to the American Israel Cooperative Enterprise:

“The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for “termination of all claims or states of belligerency” and the recognition that “every State in the area” has the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”




MSG 101

Hey stupid, did you digest all that? Must be a shock realising that "Jews stole Palestinian land" is only a myth.
 HFX_RGB
Joined: 7/26/2014
Msg: 122
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 4:31:15 PM

Hey stupid, did you digest all that? Must be a shock realising that "Jews stole Palestinian land" is only a myth.


Did you just copy and paste from "Honest Reporting" and then call someone stupid?

Because if you did, that is some quality irony.




Following a 2004 article published in the British Medical Journal which criticised Israel for a high level of Palestinian civilian casualties and claimed that the pattern of injuries suggested routine targeting of children in situations of minimal or no threat, the journal received over 500 responses to its website and nearly 1,000 sent directly to its editor. In an analysis of the responses published in the journal, Karl Sabbagh concluded that the correspondence was orchestrated by Honest Reporting and aimed at silencing legitimate criticism of Israel. In his analysis Sabbagh pointed to evidence that that the correspondents had not read the article. Sabbagh also documented a significant proportion of offensive, abusive and racist insults among the correspondence. An editorial by the BMJ referred to the campaign as bullying and said that the best way to counter such behaviour was to expose it to public scrutiny. Daniel Finkelstein, associate editor of The Times, responded that Sabbagh's piece was "anti-Israel propaganda" that did not meet even "basic academic standards" of scientific analysis.


http://www.thejc.com/comment/columnists/medical-journal-made-me-ill

http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.a2066

http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b500
 _mungojoe_
Joined: 10/1/2014
Msg: 123
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 5:13:43 PM

Hey stupid, did you digest all that? Must be a shock realising that "Jews stole Palestinian land" is only a myth.

Hey stupid... do you realize that is just an opinion... one that is rejected by... wait for it... the ICRC... the controlling authority for the Geneva Conventions... the UNSC and General Assembly... the enforcing authority for the conventions... plus... the International Court of Justice... and EVEN... the Supreme Court of Israel...

Since every international body with competent authority declares the opposite... INCLUDING the Supreme Court of Israel... that makes your tripe... well... wrong... as a question of fact...

Now... putting that little bit of fact... which shows your tripe to be wrong... aside... Let's just break down that tripe... a bit... shall we...?

1) Israel’s Legitimate Claims:

Some parts of the West Bank would have been part of Israel as defined by the UN Partition Plan, but were overrun in 1948. There were Jewish communities such as Kfar Etzion, not to mention the Old City of Jerusalem, that fell in the fighting of 1948. Jews were either killed or expelled from these areas conquered by invading Arab armies.

The League of Nations Mandate explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement in all territory allocated to the Jewish national home in the context of the British Mandate. The British Mandate covered the area that is currently Israel, all the disputed territories (and even what is now Jordan). These rights under the British Mandate were preserved by the United Nations, under Article 49 of the UN Charter.

2) Defensive War:

Military control of the West Bank was clearly the result of a defensive war. According to Dr. Dore Gold, Director of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs:

“International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel’s case: “Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.”

This only applies to... wait for it... those parts of the original Jewish portion which had been retaken... and that doesn't include Jerusalem... it was declared a "corpus separatum"... it was not part of the original Jewish portion... and they are lying when they say it was...

These original Jewish portion lands... at least the ones that aren't just fictional claims... are not part of the occupied... non-Jewish... partition portion... they have nothing to do with that part of the mandate... and are not under discussion... when the occupied territories are referenced...

And the League of Nations nonsense... is just that... nonsense... a lot of noise intended to confuse the subject... first... it is entirely dependent on... wait for it... "territory allocated to the Jewish national home"... a condition which was satisfied by the partition plan...

As such... this is just more of that intellectual dishonesty... around the original partition...

3) Forced Transfer of Civilian Populations:

There are mistaken claims that Israel’s control of these territories violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Fourth Geneva Convention was adopted August 12, 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities during World War II. It outlaws the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control, specifically “individual or mass forcible transfers.”

The only forced mass transfers were against Jewish communities in 1948. After the Six Day War, Israel did not expel a single Arab community from land it now controlled.

The “Occupying Power” may also not “deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population” to territories taken in conflict. Israel has never forced Jews to move to the territories. However, there is no obligation for Israel to prevent voluntary settlement by its civilian population.

This is entirely and deceitfully... misquoted and misconstrued... the operative section... "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."... is completely independent of any forcible transfers in the other direction... contrary to what the claim falsely asserts... and this has been the position of every body of competent authority to speak on the matter...

4) United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

After the war, there were many opinions as to what a peace agreement should require of the parties. The view of the Soviet Union and Arab bloc was that Israel should be forced to withdraw from all lands taken in the war. However, this view did not prevail in the United Nations.

According to the American Israel Cooperative Enterprise:

“The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for “termination of all claims or states of belligerency” and the recognition that “every State in the area” has the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

This has absolutely zero bearing on any right to establish settlements on any land which was not part of the original Jewish portion... none what-so-ever...

This is just another load of intellectually dishonest tripe... noise intended to confuse the subject...

When every competent authority says you are wrong... guess what... probability strongly points to you being wrong... but that's just about facts... and intellectual honesty... and sh!t like that... stuff you can't seem to be bothered with...

I guess we know who the saying... "Don't try to confuse things with the facts, I've already made up my mind"... was making reference to...
 calguy14
Joined: 8/17/2014
Msg: 124
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 6:03:12 PM
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer.....
Russia moved their citizens into the recently disputed section of the Ukraine up until at least 1950,and deported other Ukrainians of the region to northern gulags.Britain employed forced villigization within barbed wire compounds of hundreds of thousands of Kikiyu in 50s Kenya.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 125
view profile
History
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 2/2/2015 7:20:16 PM

Gee, it's like "if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it".
Yeah ... I can think of few of those. But that's just "freedom of speech" ... eh? Only certain people really know the truth ... right?

Only certain people have access to the real truth ... and the rest of the people are just ... "stupid".


... "Jews stole Palestinian land" is only a myth.
In your dreams!
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Freedom of Speech?