Definitions within the Israeli palestine issue

[Boston1]

The term palestine would be most accurately defined as a convenience. It originated as an insult to the Judaic people but today it is used more in the revisionist sense in an attempt to lend legitimacy to their diatribe.

Like the terms occupy and colonists, palestine is a term thats meaning has been so twisted by the revisionists its difficult to know what various people intend when they use the term.

There is no such place as palestine any more. Gaza Israel or Jordan is what its called now. There are no people of palestinian nationality as there was never a palestinian nation. There is no palestinian culture, language or even customs unique to the Arab Muslims that remained in any of the states mentioned. OK Gaza isn't a state but only because the Arab Muslim colonists aren't really all that interested in statehood. The goal seems to be the destruction of Israel and not the creation of a place called palestine.

 

[iolo]

There is no 'disputed territory'. The last survivors of Hitler are imposing a racist colonial regime on Palestine and must be stopped.

 

[fanger]

Israeli governments have preferred the term "disputed territories" in the case of the West Bank
everyone else refers to the occupied territories
Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Israel does not figure on the list of territorial disputes
List of territorial disputes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Humanity]

Israeli governments have preferred the term "disputed territories" in the case of the West Bank
everyone else refers to the occupied territories
Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Israel does not figure on the list of territorial disputes
List of territorial disputes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court of Israel considers the land as "belligerent occupation"....

Israel is the ONLY country in the world to consider the territory 'disputed' and not 'occupied'...

Even the mighty Israel supporter, the USA, considers the territories 'occupied'!

I think that is a closed case on whether territory is 'occupied' or 'disputed'

 

[iolo]

What conceivable right have the Nazis to ANY land in this area?

 

[Boston1]

Israeli governments have preferred the term "disputed territories" in the case of the West Bank
everyone else refers to the occupied territories
Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Israel does not figure on the list of territorial disputes
List of territorial disputes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again WIKI has proven itself to be rather bias. One must remember when reading WIKI that the site isn't peer reviewed for accuracy. Just about anyone with an agenda can be an author.

other groups do consider the area in dispute rather than occupied

6 of the World's Most Worrisome Disputed Territories

Mapping Every Disputed Territory in the World - Metrocosm

8 Hotly Disputed Borders of the World | Britannica.com

Lets try and keep it real people ;--)

 

[Humanity]

Israeli governments have preferred the term "disputed territories" in the case of the West Bank
everyone else refers to the occupied territories
Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Israel does not figure on the list of territorial disputes
List of territorial disputes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again WIKI has proven itself to be rather bias. One must remember when reading WIKI that the site isn't peer reviewed for accuracy. Just about anyone with an agenda can be an author.

other groups do consider the area in dispute rather than occupied

6 of the World's Most Worrisome Disputed Territories

Mapping Every Disputed Territory in the World - Metrocosm

8 Hotly Disputed Borders of the World | Britannica.com

Lets try and keep it real people ;--)

OH!
MY!
GOD!

Keep it real?

When did NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC become a leading world political commentator?

Metrocosm? Ah yes another leading commentator in world politics...

Your third link, well, I didn't even bother...

Since being on this board you have achieved laughingstock level faster than anyone!

You choose to "deny" WIKI.... Rather than reading simply what is written by 'anyone' try reading the factual links that are written by authority AND are available outside if WIKI should you choose to look...

Israel "Occupies" territory, as clearly stated by THE SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL.... Use that as your benchmark!

 

[Boston1]

Once again you are unable to address the specific subject and instead choose to distract from the issue.

And I notice not provide any references for this latest barrage of revisionist views

 

[Humanity]

Once again you are unable to address the specific subject and instead choose to distract from the issue.

And I notice not provide any references for this latest barrage of revisionist views

There's no distracting from the issue...

Let's see if you can understand...

The Supreme Court of Israel has declared that Israel is the "belligerent occupier"...

That is a pretty damning "Definition within the Israeli Palestine Issue"...

Is that not reference enough for your zionut opinions?

 

[Shusha]

Israel is the ONLY country in the world to consider the territory 'disputed' and not 'occupied'...

Even the mighty Israel supporter, the USA, considers the territories 'occupied'!

I think that is a closed case on whether territory is 'occupied' or 'disputed'

Logical fallacies (argumentum ad populum) do not create or define or provide proof of law.

 

[Boston1]

Once again Humani you have failed to provide any references in support of your position. What Israeli supreme court decision, when, concerning what issue, regarding what case ?

Obviously your position is pretty week if you can't even support it with one single citation

;--)

 

[Humanity]

Israel is the ONLY country in the world to consider the territory 'disputed' and not 'occupied'...

Even the mighty Israel supporter, the USA, considers the territories 'occupied'!

I think that is a closed case on whether territory is 'occupied' or 'disputed'

Logical fallacies (argumentum ad populum) do not create or define or provide proof of law.

Strangely enough, if you read my post, you will see that I made NO claim of "proof of law"...

Simply pointing out a fact that seems to be overlooked on a frighteningly regular basis...

It's fine with me...

If Israel and ONLY Israel considers that the territories are "disputed" doesn't affect me personally...

What it does is extends the violence and fear for the Israelis and Palestinians...

Israel can do what the hell it likes... However, choosing the current path is not going to be healthy for anyone!

 

[Shusha]

Israel is the ONLY country in the world to consider the territory 'disputed' and not 'occupied'...

Even the mighty Israel supporter, the USA, considers the territories 'occupied'!

I think that is a closed case on whether territory is 'occupied' or 'disputed'

Logical fallacies (argumentum ad populum) do not create or define or provide proof of law.

Strangely enough, if you read my post, you will see that I made NO claim of "proof of law"...

Simply pointing out a fact that seems to be overlooked on a frighteningly regular basis...

It's fine with me...

If Israel and ONLY Israel considers that the territories are "disputed" doesn't affect me personally...

What it does is extends the violence and fear for the Israelis and Palestinians...

Israel can do what the hell it likes... However, choosing the current path is not going to be healthy for anyone!

You said: it is a closed case on whether territory is 'occupied' or 'disputed', appealing to a logical fallacy to prove your point. Do better.

 

[Boston1]

The complete failure of the revisionist to actually provide any references in support of their wilder claims or to cite case study is more than obvious.

If you can't provide any evidence to support your claim that the Israeli supreme court ruled the Israeli's belligerent occupiers of palestinian lands then you are just blowing more smoke.

The simply reality is the revisionists have consistently refused to provide a shred of evidence to support their historical revisions.

Israel cannot be occupying territory designated for the creation of the state of Israel in the last legally binding agreement.

 

[montelatici]

The complete failure of the revisionist to actually provide any references in support of their wilder claims or to cite case study is more than obvious.

If you can't provide any evidence to support your claim that the Israeli supreme court ruled the Israeli's belligerent occupiers of palestinian lands then you are just blowing more smoke.

The simply reality is the revisionists have consistently refused to provide a shred of evidence to support their historical revisions.

Israel cannot be occupying territory designated for the creation of the state of Israel in the last legally binding agreement.

Let me suggest that we stop feeding the Hasbara troll. Let him think (no one else does except fanatical Zionists) that the Occupied Territories are not occupied under International Law. Ask him, now what?

 

[Boston1]

Let me suggest that you not make baseless claims

Claims that are easily exposed as the racism they are by simply asking you if you can support them through citation.

Which we can all see you are not able to do ;--)

 

[montelatici]

Let me suggest that you not make baseless claims

Claims that are easily exposed as the racism they are by simply asking you if you can support them through citation.

Which we can all see you are not able to do ;--)

All your claims have been debunked. Ours have been proven. The references provided (have been official source documents stored at academic and governmental or international organization archives. The fact that you are in denial, is your problem, not ours.

 

[Boston1]

Yeah, you've proven your point alright ;--)

I did really like that whopping lie in your last though

Quote
Ours have been proven. The references provided
End Quote

You failed completely to provide a single instance within international law that supported your claim that the Israeli's were legally obligated to vacate the disputed territories.

You also failed completely to prove Israel was occupying palestinian land LOL

But yeah, I'm the troll ;--)

Sorry but While i've used countless citations and references you've consistently failed to provide much of anything in support of your arguments. Instead I hear a lot of claims like this last, but don't see much substance

 

[montelatici]

Yeah, you've proven your point alright ;--)

Of course I have, I always win.

 

[Humanity]

Israel is the ONLY country in the world to consider the territory 'disputed' and not 'occupied'...

Even the mighty Israel supporter, the USA, considers the territories 'occupied'!

I think that is a closed case on whether territory is 'occupied' or 'disputed'

Logical fallacies (argumentum ad populum) do not create or define or provide proof of law.

Strangely enough, if you read my post, you will see that I made NO claim of "proof of law"...

Simply pointing out a fact that seems to be overlooked on a frighteningly regular basis...

It's fine with me...

If Israel and ONLY Israel considers that the territories are "disputed" doesn't affect me personally...

What it does is extends the violence and fear for the Israelis and Palestinians...

Israel can do what the hell it likes... However, choosing the current path is not going to be healthy for anyone!

You said: it is a closed case on whether territory is 'occupied' or 'disputed', appealing to a logical fallacy to prove your point. Do better.

HCJ 316/03