European Nations Consider Recognizing Palestinian State

[Dogmaphobe]

Clearly, they aren't smarter than a 5th grader.

What is so laughable is how Nazi Youth always think they are being so very clever when they reveal the degree to which they are ineducable.

 

[nat4900]

No time to educate right wing morons..........Stick to your guns , dingbats.

Soon it'll just be this right wing evangelicals and Israel' Zionists.....The rest of the sane world has seen the butchery, apartheid and despotism of both Netanyahu and those morons (like you) who would side with a killer just because you hate Obama.....and all those who look like him.

 

[nat4900]

What is so laughable is how Nazi Youth always think they are being so very clever when they reveal the degree to which they are ineducable.

The difference between YOUR ilk and Nazis is just that you found a new target with the Palestinian Arabs........scratch the surface and there's little difference between you and those crazed Germans; you're both still hate-filled; still racist; still war mongers.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What is so laughable is how Nazi Youth always think they are being so very clever when they reveal the degree to which they are ineducable.

The difference between YOUR ilk and Nazis is just that you found a new target with the Palestinian Arabs........scratch the surface and there's little difference between you and those crazed Germans; you're both still hate-filled; still racist; still war mongers.

Ah, so THAT'S why you hate Jews like you do.

....because some people don't.


Thanks for clearing that one up!

 

[BlindBoo]

[In 1990, as part of the reunification of Germany, West Germany recognised the "facts on the ground" and accepted clauses in the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany whereby Germany renounced all claims to territory east of the Oder-Neisse line.[2] Germany's recognition of the Oder-Neisse line as the border was formalised by the re-united Germany in the German-Polish Border Treaty on November 14, 1990.

Jordan recognized the facts on the ground and gave up its claim in the West bank in 1988, thereby ending any question regarding the disposition of the West Bank under international law.

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law. According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Jordan's attempted annexation has nothing to do with ultimate disposition of the West Bank.

I laugh at you.
If he West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?

There is no question about it. Israel is the Occupying Power in the West Bank.

 

[nat4900]

Ah, so THAT'S why you hate Jews like you do.

....because some people don't.


Thanks for clearing that one up!

Believe what you want...this isn't the platform to possibly reverse right wingers' stupidity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No capacity to educate right wing morons

Fixed that for you.
You've been wrong on every point you've tried to make here. Says all that needs to be said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[In 1990, as part of the reunification of Germany, West Germany recognised the "facts on the ground" and accepted clauses in the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany whereby Germany renounced all claims to territory east of the Oder-Neisse line.[2] Germany's recognition of the Oder-Neisse line as the border was formalised by the re-united Germany in the German-Polish Border Treaty on November 14, 1990.

Jordan recognized the facts on the ground and gave up its claim in the West bank in 1988, thereby ending any question regarding the disposition of the West Bank under international law.

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law. According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Jordan's attempted annexation has nothing to do with ultimate disposition of the West Bank.

I laugh at you.
If he West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?

There is no question about it. Israel is the Occupying Power in the West Bank.

To what state does the West Bank belong, under international law? What state has standing to contest the "occupation" under international law?
If the West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?
If Jordan gave up its claim in the West Bank - and then later ratified that concession by treaty w/ Israel - how can Israel "occupy" the West Bank? How can there be any any question or controversy under international law?

We both know you cannot answer these questions; we both know that your next response will only serve to prove this true.

 

[BlindBoo]

[In 1990, as part of the reunification of Germany, West Germany recognised the "facts on the ground" and accepted clauses in the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany whereby Germany renounced all claims to territory east of the Oder-Neisse line.[2] Germany's recognition of the Oder-Neisse line as the border was formalised by the re-united Germany in the German-Polish Border Treaty on November 14, 1990.

Jordan recognized the facts on the ground and gave up its claim in the West bank in 1988, thereby ending any question regarding the disposition of the West Bank under international law.

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law. According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Jordan's attempted annexation has nothing to do with ultimate disposition of the West Bank.

I laugh at you.
If he West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?

There is no question about it. Israel is the Occupying Power in the West Bank.

To what state does the West Bank belong, under international law? What state has standing to contest the "occupation" under international law?
If the West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?
If Jordan gave up its claim in the West Bank - and then later ratified that concession by treaty w/ Israel - how can Israel "occupy" the West Bank? How can there be any any question or controversy under international law?

We both know you cannot answer these questions; we both know that your next response will only serve to prove this true.

The Israeli views were questioned by an authority on international law, Prof. W. T. Mallison, according to whom the main goal of the Fourth Geneva Convention is to prove a basic or minimum standard of human rights protections for individuals, not to solve claims of sovereignty.

The purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 was to avoid a repetition of the atrocities and massive deprivations of human rights which were inflicted upon civilian populations during the Second World War by the Nazis in Europe and Russia and by the Japanese militarists in Asia".

Various international bodies have supported the legal consideration of applicability of the Geneva Convention to the territories occupied by Israel, among them:

-The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) which is of the opinion that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in toto in the occupied territories. Such view was clearly expressed in its 1973 and 1975 reports.

-The International Commission of Jurists.

-The United Nations through its various bodies, in particular the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.

Security Council resolution 465 of 1 March 1980 unanimously adopted affirms "once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention ... is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem."

The Legal Status of the West Bank and Gaza - CEIRPP DPR study - DPR publication 1 January 1982

 

[M14 Shooter]

Jordan recognized the facts on the ground and gave up its claim in the West bank in 1988, thereby ending any question regarding the disposition of the West Bank under international law.
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Jordan's attempted annexation has nothing to do with ultimate disposition of the West Bank.

I laugh at you.
If he West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?

There is no question about it. Israel is the Occupying Power in the West Bank.

To what state does the West Bank belong, under international law? What state has standing to contest the "occupation" under international law?
If the West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?
If Jordan gave up its claim in the West Bank - and then later ratified that concession by treaty w/ Israel - how can Israel "occupy" the West Bank? How can there be any any question or controversy under international law?
We both know you cannot answer these questions; we both know that your next response will only serve to prove this true.

The Israeli views were questioned by an authority on international law, Prof. W. T. Mallison....

As I said:
We both know you cannot answer these questions; we both know that your next response will only serve to prove this true.
Israel cannot be in violation of international law because there is no other nation with a claim to the land in question.

 

[nat4900]

Jordan's attempted annexation has nothing to do with ultimate disposition of the West Bank.

I laugh at you.
If he West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?

There is no question about it. Israel is the Occupying Power in the West Bank.

To what state does the West Bank belong, under international law? What state has standing to contest the "occupation" under international law?
If the West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?
If Jordan gave up its claim in the West Bank - and then later ratified that concession by treaty w/ Israel - how can Israel "occupy" the West Bank? How can there be any any question or controversy under international law?
We both know you cannot answer these questions; we both know that your next response will only serve to prove this true.

The Israeli views were questioned by an authority on international law, Prof. W. T. Mallison....

As I said:
We both know you cannot answer these questions; we both know that your next response will only serve to prove this true.
Israel cannot be in violation of international law because there is no other nation with a claim to the land in question.

What a moronic response (or yet another stupid question).........What you are stating is the proverbial catch 22 by Heller......

Since Palestine is NOT a nation, it cannot make claim to the land Palestinians have occupied for thousands of years, because it is not a nation.....

Let's see if I can phrase it in your inane way:
Palestine cannot become a nation because only nations can make that claim?

 

[BlindBoo]

Jordan's attempted annexation has nothing to do with ultimate disposition of the West Bank.

I laugh at you.
If he West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?

There is no question about it. Israel is the Occupying Power in the West Bank.

To what state does the West Bank belong, under international law? What state has standing to contest the "occupation" under international law?
If the West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?
If Jordan gave up its claim in the West Bank - and then later ratified that concession by treaty w/ Israel - how can Israel "occupy" the West Bank? How can there be any any question or controversy under international law?
We both know you cannot answer these questions; we both know that your next response will only serve to prove this true.

The Israeli views were questioned by an authority on international law, Prof. W. T. Mallison....

As I said:
We both know you cannot answer these questions; we both know that your next response will only serve to prove this true.
Israel cannot be in violation of international law because there is no other nation with a claim to the land in question.

Yawn, rinse and repeat!

The Legal Status of the West Bank and Gaza - CEIRPP DPR study - DPR publication 1 January 1982

 

[M14 Shooter]

What a moronic response (or yet another stupid question)

Says he who has no sound response to it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I laugh at you.
If he West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?

There is no question about it. Israel is the Occupying Power in the West Bank.

To what state does the West Bank belong, under international law? What state has standing to contest the "occupation" under international law?
If the West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?
If Jordan gave up its claim in the West Bank - and then later ratified that concession by treaty w/ Israel - how can Israel "occupy" the West Bank? How can there be any any question or controversy under international law?
We both know you cannot answer these questions; we both know that your next response will only serve to prove this true.

The Israeli views were questioned by an authority on international law, Prof. W. T. Mallison....

As I said:
We both know you cannot answer these questions; we both know that your next response will only serve to prove this true.
Israel cannot be in violation of international law because there is no other nation with a claim to the land in question.

Yawn, rinse and repeat!
The Legal Status of the West Bank and Gaza - CEIRPP DPR study - DPR publication 1 January 1982

Nothing from 1982 is valid, given the events of 1988 and 1991, where Jordan gave up its claim to the West Bank.
If you had been paying attention, you;d know that.
Israel cannot be in violation of international law because there is no other nation with a claim to the land in question

 

[nat4900]

Jordan's attempted annexation has nothing to do with ultimate disposition of the West Bank.

I laugh at you.
If he West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?

There is no question about it. Israel is the Occupying Power in the West Bank.

To what state does the West Bank belong, under international law? What state has standing to contest the "occupation" under international law?
If the West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?
If Jordan gave up its claim in the West Bank - and then later ratified that concession by treaty w/ Israel - how can Israel "occupy" the West Bank? How can there be any any question or controversy under international law?
We both know you cannot answer these questions; we both know that your next response will only serve to prove this true.

The Israeli views were questioned by an authority on international law, Prof. W. T. Mallison....

As I said:
We both know you cannot answer these questions; we both know that your next response will only serve to prove this true.
Israel cannot be in violation of international law because there is no other nation with a claim to the land in question.

Perhaps an even BETTER question may be as to the WHY, Israel is too embarrased to make her own claim to, as you state, "the land in question."

 

[M14 Shooter]

I laugh at you.
If he West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?

There is no question about it. Israel is the Occupying Power in the West Bank.

To what state does the West Bank belong, under international law? What state has standing to contest the "occupation" under international law?
If the West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?
If Jordan gave up its claim in the West Bank - and then later ratified that concession by treaty w/ Israel - how can Israel "occupy" the West Bank? How can there be any any question or controversy under international law?
We both know you cannot answer these questions; we both know that your next response will only serve to prove this true.

The Israeli views were questioned by an authority on international law, Prof. W. T. Mallison....

As I said:
We both know you cannot answer these questions; we both know that your next response will only serve to prove this true.
Israel cannot be in violation of international law because there is no other nation with a claim to the land in question.

Perhaps an even BETTER question may be as to the WHY, Israel is too embarrased to make her own claim to, as you state, "the land in question."

To what state does the West Bank belong, under international law? What state has standing to contest the "occupation" under international law?
If the West Bank was never part of Jordan, how can there be any question or controversy under international law?
If Jordan gave up its claim in the West Bank - and then later ratified that concession by treaty w/ Israel - how can Israel "occupy" the West Bank? How can there be any any question or controversy under international law?

We both understand that you have not addressed the questions asked here because you know you cannot.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What should we do with all the Palestinian people?
Send them to the moon?
Dig a big hole & bury them?
Bring them to Detroit?

I'm all ears

 

[M14 Shooter]

What should we do with all the Palestinian people?

If -I- were Israel...
Once they proved they could act like rational, decent human brings, incorporate the land and the people into Israel proper.

 

[nat4900]

Let's see if I can make any sense of M14penis extension's question.....

Palestinians cannot make claim to the "land in question" because they are not a nation........

Israel (who is a nation) will not make claim to the "land in question" because they're too damn embarrased to legally claim what isn't theirs?

Do I have it even remotely correct?

 

[g5000]

European Nations Consider Recognizing Palestinian State

SWEDEN: I am positive I know you from somewhere! Were you on that CNN reality show?