quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Lots of red herrings about Kuwait etc, but the occupied territories are still just that. The settlers are still involved in ethnic cleansing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

You have three Arab armies sitting on your border and you believe that Isreal (sic)should have waited to be attacked at the Arabs convenience.

quote:

BS tweak, you're predjudice (sic), racist and uninformed with biased drivel.

quote:

And BS on your international law as well.

You're contintion (sic) that international law doesn't allow Isreal (sic) to take and keep land they won in a war and took because their neighbors were using it as a high point to lob artillery rounds into their populated area is pure BS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Red herrings being that real history doesn't conform to your pap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

You have three Arab armies sitting on your border and you believe that Isreal (sic)should have waited to be attacked at the Arabs convenience.

Your initial claim was that Israel's "expansions came from territory taken when they were attacked" That is very clearly not the case (ie a lie) in relation to the 1967 war, when most of the territorial expansion took place. Now it appears that you are abandoning your initial position and conceding that Israel initiated hostilities in 1967, but are implying it was pre-emptively, in 'self defence'.

Of course a pre-emptive attack is an attack that initiates hostilities, (or as I put it in my initial post "started the 1967 war"). Israel, by its own admission initiated hostilities and at the cessation of hostilities had, according to your link, "tripled" the area of land under its control. Israel has subsequently annexed parts of the lands it acquired, and almost half a century later, to this very day, refuses to vacate any of the remaining land it occupies, instead it is busy colonising the West Bank as fast as it feels it can get away with. Are these facts consistent with a war of self defence or a war of aggression?

Despite the elaborate spin and red herrings you have introduced to tyr and exculpate Israel, Israel's actions speak far louder than any words. Those actions, and subsequent history point unerringly to a war of aggression launched by Israel in 1967 to gain territory.

quote:

BS tweak, you're predjudice (sic), racist and uninformed with biased drivel.

Is it irony or hypocrisy when someone who defends the racist actions of a State that practices ethnic cleansing and apartheid accuses critics of that State's policies as racist? Of course it could be that Hunter doesn't know what the term 'racism' means - we have long ago established that Hunter doesn't need to know what terms mean before using them. Anyone who defends the racist actions of a racist State cannot avoid the label 'racist' themselves, especially when that person has proved themselves to be an ignorant pretentious fraud on these boards in the very recent past. At a minimal level, such people forego any moral right to use the term to criticise others and the criticisms they level at others are therefore meaningless.

quote:

And BS on your international law as well.

You're contintion (sic) that international law doesn't allow Isreal (sic) to take and keep land they won in a war and took because their neighbors were using it as a high point to lob artillery rounds into their populated area is pure BS.

There is a specific article in the Geneva Conventions that prohibits the acquisition of territory by military means. Judging from your post, it seems that you are completely unaware of its existence. Here's a tip: read the Geneva Conventions before you pretend to know what they may or may not contain. It will help you avoid looking ignorant and stupid.

The (unbiased by any standard) International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) comments:
" As long as hostilities continue the Occupying Power cannot therefore annex the occupied territory, even if it occupies the whole of the territory concerned. A decision on that point can only be reached in the peace treaty. That is a universally recognized rule which is endorsed by jurists and confirmed by numerous rulings of international and national courts."
https://www.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600054?OpenDocument

So what you claim is "BS" and "biased drivel" is in fact a specific article of the Geneva Conventions endorsed by the very neutral International Red Cross as a "a universally recognized rule" with multiple international judicial confirmations. So we can add international law to the long list of subjects on which you pontificate loudly but appear to know nothing about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

You have three Arab armies sitting on your border and you believe that Isreal (sic)should have waited to be attacked at the Arabs convenience.

Your initial claim was that Israel's "expansions came from territory taken when they were attacked" That is very clearly not the case (ie a lie) in relation to the 1967 war, when most of the territorial expansion took place. Now it appears that you are abandoning your initial position and conceding that Israel initiated hostilities in 1967, but are implying it was pre-emptively, in 'self defence'.

Of course a pre-emptive attack is an attack that initiates hostilities, (or as I put it in my initial post "started the 1967 war"). Israel, by its own admission initiated hostilities and at the cessation of hostilities had, according to your link, "tripled" the area of land under its control. Israel has subsequently annexed parts of the lands it acquired, and almost half a century later, to this very day, refuses to vacate any of the remaining land it occupies, instead it is busy colonising the West Bank as fast as it feels it can get away with. Are these facts consistent with a war of self defence or a war of aggression?

Despite the elaborate spin and red herrings you have introduced to tyr and exculpate Israel, Israel's actions speak far louder than any words. Those actions, and subsequent history point unerringly to a war of aggression launched by Israel in 1967 to gain territory.

quote:

BS tweak, you're predjudice (sic), racist and uninformed with biased drivel.

Is it irony or hypocrisy when someone who defends the racist actions of a State that practices ethnic cleansing and apartheid accuses critics of that State's policies as racist? Of course it could be that Hunter doesn't know what the term 'racism' means - we have long ago established that Hunter doesn't need to know what terms mean before using them. Anyone who defends the racist actions of a racist State cannot avoid the label 'racist' themselves, especially when that person has proved themselves to be an ignorant pretentious fraud on these boards in the very recent past. At a minimal level, such people forego any moral right to use the term to criticise others and the criticisms they level at others are therefore meaningless.

quote:

And BS on your international law as well.

You're contintion (sic) that international law doesn't allow Isreal (sic) to take and keep land they won in a war and took because their neighbors were using it as a high point to lob artillery rounds into their populated area is pure BS.

There is a specific article in the Geneva Conventions that prohibits the acquisition of territory by military means. Judging from your post, it seems that you are completely unaware of its existence. Here's a tip: read the Geneva Conventions before you pretend to know what they may or may not contain. It will help you avoid looking ignorant and stupid.

The (unbiased by any standard) International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) comments:
" As long as hostilities continue the Occupying Power cannot therefore annex the occupied territory, even if it occupies the whole of the territory concerned. A decision on that point can only be reached in the peace treaty. That is a universally recognized rule which is endorsed by jurists and confirmed by numerous rulings of international and national courts."
https://www.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600054?OpenDocument

So what you claim is "BS" and "biased drivel" is in fact a specific article of the Geneva Conventions endorsed by the very neutral International Red Cross as a "a universally recognized rule" with multiple international judicial confirmations. So we can add international law to the long list of subjects on which you pontificate loudly but appear to know nothing about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I just confined myself to correcting some of your many lies Hunter, and further exposing your propensity to pontificate royally about things you know nothing about. I also note that you are unable to challenge a single fact in my posts, not that that is any surprise to me, or indeed, anyone else who is well informed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I just confined myself to correcting some of your many lies Hunter, and further exposing your propensity to pontificate royally about things you know nothing about. I reserve the right to do so again if I so choose.

I also note that you are unable to challenge a single fact in my posts, not that that is any surprise to me, or indeed, to anyone else who is reasonably well informed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I just confined myself to correcting some of your many lies Hunter, and further exposing your propensity to pontificate royally about things you know nothing about. I reserve the right to do so again if I so choose.

I also note that you are unable to challenge a single fact in my posts, not that that is any surprise to me, or indeed, to anyone else who is reasonably well informed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I just confined myself to correcting some of your many lies Hunter, and further exposing your propensity to pontificate royally about things you know nothing about. I reserve the right to do so again if I so choose.

I also note that you are unable to challenge a single fact in my posts, not that that is any surprise to me, or indeed, to anyone else who is reasonably well informed.

You know what? I think anyone reasonably informed show be able to do thermodynamic questions. But, since I'm not a racist I don't insist on it.

It's so funny to see you spew hate and then define what everyone should know as what your twisted mind believes. Let me explain something to you, the only people who pay attention to the Geneva convention are the people who lose wars and the lawyers sent in to follow US troops by lefty loonies. So, using the Geneva convention to justify your hate just makes you loony as well as racist. Had Isreal wanted to they could have rolled up the entire Middle East in 1967 and kept it all. They didn't. They kept the Golan Heights because Syria was using it to deprive Isreal of water (against international law) and shelling Isreal with artillery (against international law), Jerusalem where the Arabs were not allowing Jews to their most Holly place and were killing Jews (both, also against international law), and the Sinai where Egypt was always rolling in to invade(against international law).

So, it's your contention that the only one that has to adhere to international law is Isreal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Some hypocrisy flying about today I dont recall israel exisiting on any maps before 1922 either. One would wonder why they were left off of any list posted on here as fact. Not that that list is correct anyhow, as a simple map of 1914 will show you.

We have some of those suggesting Israel is the Historical Jewish homeland so they must be given it back, also claiming conqoured lands from 1948 and 1967 are now Isreals because they conquered it.

I have mentioned the occupied territories (according to the Israeli Courts) yet no one is challenging that fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Some hypocrisy flying about today I dont recall israel exisiting on any maps before 1922 either. One would wonder why they were left off of any list posted on here as fact. Not that that list is correct anyhow, as a simple map of 1914 will show you.

We have some of those suggesting Israel is the Historical Jewish homeland so they must be given it back, also claiming conqoured lands from 1948 and 1967 are now Isreals because they conquered it.

I have mentioned the occupied territories (according to the Israeli Courts) yet no one is challenging that fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Some hypocrisy flying about today I dont recall israel exisiting on any maps before 1922 either. One would wonder why they were left off of any list posted on here as fact. Not that that list is correct anyhow, as a simple map of 1914 will show you.

We have some of those suggesting Israel is the Historical Jewish homeland so they must be given it back, also claiming conqoured lands from 1948 and 1967 are now Isreals because they conquered it.

I have mentioned the occupied territories (according to the Israeli Courts) yet no one is challenging that fact.

Follow the thread old boy, I'm sure you'll eventually figure it out and when you do you can take back the hypocrisy comment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The official term the Israeli Govt uses to describe Occupied Palestine is the "Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs)" (Unofficially it refers to the OPTs as "Judea and Samaria"). Occupied Palestine is also referred to as the OPTs by the UN, and almost all of the world's Governments. Nor has Israel stated or declared that the OPTs are a part of Israel, nor has it made a claim to sovereignty over the OPTs (with the exception of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, both of which were illegally annexed by Israel. These unilateral annexations were declared "null and void" by the UN Security Council, which has demanded that Israel desist on numerous occasions and in numerous resolutions).

That ought to remove any ambiguity about the status of the West Bank. The Red Cross quote I cited in post 43 is also relevant here - the effect of international law is that Israel cannot gain sovereignty over the West Bank in any manner other than as part of a peace treaty with Palestine. In short Israel has no legal claim to OPTs, though it does have some rights and responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions arising from its legal status as the "Occupying Power".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The official term the Israeli Govt uses to describe Occupied Palestine is the "Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs)" (Unofficially it refers to the OPTs as "Judea and Samaria"). Occupied Palestine is also referred to as the OPTs by the UN, and almost all of the world's Governments. Nor has Israel stated or declared that the OPTs are a part of Israel, nor has it made a claim to sovereignty over the OPTs (with the exception of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, both of which were illegally annexed by Israel. These unilateral annexations were declared "null and void" by the UN Security Council, which has demanded that Israel desist on numerous occasions and in numerous resolutions).

That ought to remove any ambiguity about the status of the West Bank. The Red Cross quote I cited in post 43 is also relevant here - the effect of international law is that Israel cannot gain sovereignty over the West Bank in any manner other than as part of a peace treaty with Palestine. In short Israel has no legal claim to OPTs, though it does have some rights and responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions arising from its legal status as the "Occupying Power".

Careful there with posting a few pertinent fact Tweakable. You will get labelled racist by those who insist Semites are not a race (More hypocrisy).

It must gall them to see the facts posted time after time so they resort to bullshit links, and red herrings etc, all the time avoiding the issue.