Israeli official admits to forcing Palestinians from West Bank

Those rules do not apply to Israel in the eyes of an antisemite. To an antisemite, Israel can do absolutely nothing to defend itself against anything and must let its citizens die rather than take the life of an innocent Arab.

In other words, Jews lives are worthless and they should be exterminated by any means possible.

Dehumanize them in any way, especially with using terms like partheid and Zionism.

How dare they exist after all?

So on and so forth.

For ever and ever and ever.

 

Completely irrelevant. It was Arab, not Jewish. And it certainly wasn't Western Jewish;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine#Demographics_in_the_Ottoman_period

So the Jews were a very small minority in Palestine until European Jews started immigrating to the country.

It's really simple:

Where is your evidence that the Palestinians are made up of "many" immigrants? You don't have any.

 

I'm glad you agree that Palestine was conquered by the Zionists. But of course, they did more than just conquer. They stole the land and cleansed the indigenous peoples from their homes.

 

It seems we agree that its always a treat to gain a bit of knowledge.

con·se·quence (kŏn′sĭ-kwĕns′, -kwəns)
n.
1. Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition. .
2. The relation of a result to its cause.
3. A logical conclusion or inference.
4. Importance in rank or position: scientists of consequence.
5. Significance; importance: an issue of consequence. See Synonyms at importance.

I always attempt to use the English language correctly.

The US funded the expansion and training of the PA presidential guard along with non lethal supplies while convincing several other arab nations to supply additional weapons. Egypt and Jordan hosted two battalions for training and Israel even allowed light weapons to be imported for this purpose. This was in DIRECT RESPONSE to Hamas formation of the Executive Force. I never denied these facts.

But again, you simply have to believe that Abbas, Fatah and the PLO weren't bitter enemies of Hamas nor were prepared to do whatever they could to derail the results of the election. Like every other event in the history of this conflict you simply want to blame the civil war on others, instead of the palestinian political factions themselves.

I would but its just so hard to find somebody less informed to dump my "dollop" on.

Seems you not only don't know the definition of consequence but of dollop either.
I am sensing a pattern in your angry responses.

 

So stop wallowing in it and take a shower.

Have you noticed that hatred has a way of forcing the hater out of balance by creating a singular intransigent perspective where their interpretation events and players are invulnerable to reason, common sense nor even a reasonable understanding of human nature?

I have.

 

You completely misinterpret this "advisory ruling". It was solely in relation to what we both agree is illegal, which is the acquistion of territory by force, in this specific case the security wall that encroached on Palestinan land.

Can't say I am much impressed with this ruling, as there was no defence, strictly prosecution. Has anyone ever been acquitted when they didn't even show up for the trial? don't they call things like that kangaroo courts - where the verdict is pre-determined and the defence is irrelevant?

Of course the ruling claims that the encroachment of palestinian rights is illegal and therefore the occupation is illegal, but one does not hold to the other. the occupation itself isn't illegal, its the administration of the occupation where illegalities have taken place from time to time.

If you can find ANYWHERE in ANY International treaty that says that belligerent military occupation is actually illegal, then please show it too me.

 

If it looks like nonsense, reads like nonsense and is preceded by similar nonsense......................it isn't necessarily nonsense, but in this case there no doubt whatsoever.

Naturally, it would facilitate the elimination of stupid exchanges such as this- one party claiming that violent occupation of somebody else's country is acceptable and legal and another trying to point out that the notion is absurd- if there was a defining precedent in international law which struck down the claim that invasion and occupation of a sovereign people was in any way an acceptable and legal form of behaviour. As it turns out there is no such fodder for the layman - as yet- but that in no way lessens the authority of the overriding legal principles which govern human behaviour and distinguish between Men and brutes. Those authoritative and overriding principles are found in Customary International Law.

Of course, there has always existed ' a conviction in the international community ' that self-determination and freedom of sovereign peoples is reflected in State practice. Occupation has never, and will never, enjoy a conviction in the international community that it is required as a matter of law. The Israeli occupation, as the case in point, is condemned annually by the United Nations. Why ? What a daft question. Because its illegal.

That will be hard to stomach for resolute supporters of the illegal practice of invading and subjugating sovereign people- but hey- they are violent and ignorant dinosaurs and evolution has not been kind to them.
Any claim that some are entitled to sympathy and immunity because they are violent and ignorant 'jewish' dinosaurs should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
So no more sectarian swill, please. Thank you.

Occupation is illegal.

Zionists, go home. And take Yanqui with you.

 

Goodness, in their hate for Israel, the pro-terrorist supporters tell lie after lie.

Show me pictures of starving people in Palestinian controlled area of the West Bank.

Hamas and the Red Cross admit there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Israel is absolutely and fully entitled to stay in areas Israel gained during a war of defense until negotiations are settled. But the victim mentality of the Palestinians don't want a settlement - they want to play victim forever. At least people are coming to realize the Palestinians are their own worst enemy. And still Israel keeps cooperating and helping them.

I really don't know how much simpler it can be to understand.

 

Enlightenment follows determination.

 

Its entirely relevant because palestine was just a region of the ottoman empire, known to the arabs as greater syria. It was indeed the majority arab at this point in history as a result of, you said it yourself, arab conquests. I don't see why it matters that the jews living there were western jews, some of them were, some of them weren't. Jews are jews and its historically jewish land. Safed, Tiberias, Jerusalem etc. If the zionist movement wanted to set up a state in Arabia, I would have a problem with this because Arabia is the land of the arabs and muslims. But this is jewish land, just like northern iraq is homeland to the kurds and assyrian peoples. Nineweh is arab? Will you admit that the assyrian and kurdish regions of Iraq are not native to the arab peoples? Will you admit that Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria are native to the berbers, not the arabs? Even some of the Jews have lived in north africa longer than arabs.

So what? It wasn't just european jews, iraqi jews and yemenite jews also immigrated to palestine. Why? Because its historically jewish land and the jews wanted a national homeland in historically jewish land. They wanted their capital to be jerusalem, not mecca. Several of Israel's chief rabbis were native to the land or came from Iraq before many european jews did. What does it matter what denomination a jew follows anyway? Some eat rice on passover, some don't. Whats the big point?

Its common knowledge, even palestinians admit it. There are black palestinians from sub-saharan africa for godsake, just like their are black ethiopian israelis. I have talked to palestinian arabs about this very issue, and some, the ones that are open, admit that many, gazans especially have roots in egypt. Even arafat was egyptian and spoke with an egyptian accent. Many palestinians, especially in gaza do as well. If Palestine was part of greater Syria, you really think that no syrians, or other arabs came into the country? I have cited sources many times on other forums, I will try to do so again if you insist. But this is again common knowledge. SOME palestinians never left the country, but there were waves of immigrations of other arab or arabized islamic peoples that came. Why do you think the Al-Aqsa mosque is there? It was made by muslim arabs from arabia. They aren't native to the region like the palestinians that lived there who predated the islamic conquests.

 

Afro (black) palestinians. I have no problem with them living there, but they are just one of several immigrant groups to settle, which is their right. But to make up this fantasy that they are indigenous and israelis are not is simply historically false. Ethiopian jews have just as much of a right to live in the land as do black african palestinians.







This group alone numbers 10,000 I believe. There are other immigrants that blended in with the palestinians better and faced less discrimination. The black palestinians face racism from other palestinians.

 

no doubt whatsoever that what I posted isn't nonsense, but your response sure as hell is.

So there isn't a single legal document that states that belligerent military occupation is illegal.

Invasion is not illegal either. In fact, that is how almost all wars are fought, at least one side invades the other, or haven't you noticed that little historic fact?

Actually according to Customary International law, invasion and occupation are not illegal. Unless of course according to this unwritten law war is considered illegal. Which of course is an absurd notion.

Occupation of varying lengths have followed almost all wars. America is still in Korea. Its still in Germany. Its still in Afghanistan. It was in Iraq for 10 years. Japan occupied portions of russia and china. and on and on and on.

What ends occupations? Peace treaties end occupations. Not unilateral withdrawal without an agreement that settles the dispute once and for all. (despite the islamic concept of hudna).

sorry to burst your bubble, but the Palestinans were NOT even remotely a sovereign people until the formation of the PA. Prior to that they were an occupied people. The ottomans, the british, the jordanians, the egyptians and finally the Israelis.

"jewish dinosaur". your slip is showing.

I look forward to you ending your incessant torrent of swill.

Yes zionist go home. Do you mean behind the green line? I didn't think so.

 

Occupation is proven to be illegal. A defining ruling is not even necessary.

It follows that the Israelis have no shred of an excuse for the ethnic cleansing- by live fire- of any of the territory which they term ' Area C ' and which they believe they can illegally annex. It is illegal.

 

Anti-zionists hold long held stereotypes about middle eastern people. Most of them, virtually none of them have any idea that there are black palestinian arabs, black iraqi arabs, chechen jordanians, circassians, etc. They think everyone in the middle east is arab and looks like Saddam Hussein. They have tried to arabize everyone including the persians, assyrians, kurds, and yes, even the jews. My ancestors were Ottoman Jews, that is jews who lived in and were subjects to the ottoman empire. Now they are Israeli jews, its really that simple. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. The arab caliphates haven't ruled for over 500 years anyway. The arab and islamic conquests went all the way into Spain, or Al-Andalus as they called it, berber north africa, and as far as Kurdistan and Persia, or modern day Iran.

 

Confirmation from the Israeli press;

 

And to all those who say Jews had it great in the arab world before zionism or that only 'european jews' lived in palestine (greater syria), get real and read this.:

Friction between Jews and Turks was less common than in the Arab territories. Some examples: During the reign of Murad IV (1623–40), the Jews of Jerusalem were persecuted by an Arab who had purchased the governorship of that city from the governor of the province. In 1660 or 1662, under Mehmet IV (1649–87), the city of Safed, with a substantial Jewish community, was destroyed by Arabs.[21][22][23] In 1678, Mehmet IV ordered the banishment of the Jews of Yemen to the Mawza Desert, an event which remains in the collective memory of Yemeni Jews as a great tragedy.[2

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

 

Criminal brutes.

 

In fact the etymology of 'Jerusalem' began much, much earlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Etymology

Ultimately though it really matters not an iota who was where first; the simple fact is that right now Israel is being condemned globally for its actions against the Palestinian people. Even Israel's so-called 'ally', the United States, has come right out in the open to condemn the settlement programme. Seems everyone but Israel recognises the illegality and moral corruption of its continuing land grabs.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/01/britain-us-condemn-israel-settlement
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-provocative-Israel-settlement-building.html

 

Yes, and as it happens each of those condemnations reinforces the illegality of occupation under customary international law. Satisfyingly put- each and every condemnation of Israeli criminality is an active opposition.

 

The international community made Qadhafi chair of the human rights watch and Syria was part of the UN security council. Secondly, europe and the arab world were against both the jews and jewish nationalism (zionism) during the holocaust, so the majority isn't always right. I don't agree with all Israeli settlements, but we do have a right to our own state, especially after the countless pogroms in the arab world and of course the holocaust. A state in our own land. Some of my ancestors never even left palestine/eretz yisrael, although most of my roots are baghdadi jewish and kurdish jewish (at least on my dad's side).

But hey at least MLK got it right. He said anti-zionism is anti-semitism, and it is, in most cases, not all of course.

 

You have a right to your own state and you have one; it's called Israel. Palestine belongs to the Palestinians. Leave it and go home, and take your squatters with you.

 

So what?

It matters because the Ashkenazi Jews, who have been living in Europe for more than a millennium, don't have any legitimate connection to Palestine, despite them being Jews. And of the few Jews who lived in Palestine in the 19th century, an extremely small minority of them were Ashkenazi, as Jews from Europe began to arrive in Palestine in the late 19th century. And I will prove this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah#Zionist_Aliyah_.281882_on.29

It was clearly Arabs vs Ashkenazi. The latter was completely alien to the Arab country. They may have wanted a home, but they were more than a thousands year late.

Jews may be Jews to you, but the reality is that the Palestinian people (the indigenous people of the land) did not view the Jews coming from Europe as being just like the Jews in Palestine.

Rice? The culture of the Ashkenazi Jews was totally different from that of the Palestinians. The Western Jews played predominant role in forming the Israeli state. This explains why Israel is a liberal democracy.

The first Western Jews set up communist communes:

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

So, yes, denomination matters here.

Provide us with the evidence. Here is some more to support mine:

Clearly, only an extremely small and insignificant number of Arabs immigrated to Palestine in the modern period, as opposed to the Jews.

Really, and how many are there? Posting a picture of a one supposedly black Palestinian means noting.

This is another Zionist myth. Arafat's father was Palestinian, and his mother's family came from Jerusalem. Only his grandmother was Egyptian. Arafat was not Egyptian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...uestion_of_late_Arab_immigration_to_Palestine

How much is "some?" Let's see the stats.

Arab Caliphs ordered it to be constructed, and the Arabized, indigenous Palestinians obliviously built it.

 

would you prefer they be a Fascist Arab state like Syria?

 

Hmmm...

Antisemites go on and on about the claim to Palestine by non Jews.

What they seem to ignore is that the first people there were ancient Egyptians, and they called it the land of Canaan. There were no Palestine then.

Here's a map of Israel at the time of Christ in 33 AD:

http://www.bible.ca/maps/maps-palestine-33AD.htm

Then the Jews conquered Canaan under the orders of God because this was the promised land to the Jews:

http://www.bible-history.com/geography/maps/map_canaan_tribal_portions.html

It was never called Palestine in ancient times before Mohammed.

Hmmmm... ze game is afoot!

 

It's not unlike you to cherry-pick one point in isolation in order to formulate a disconnected and irrelevant question.