Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you want to dismiss the opinion of the ICJ panel of experts regarding the legality of things applicable to the conflict feel free but it makes you look stupid yourself imho
The legendary Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once said about relations between the Arabs and Israel, “The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” and there have been many statehood opportunities that Palestinian leaders have wilfully missed.
Three so far?
When you study the history of the entire Middle East between all the Arab countries and then post WWII Balkans and post WWII Pakistan/India relations and learn the hypocrisy of the UN’s anti-Jew stance, get back to us.Because you (and OL) get up close and personal. Demanding that I argue on your terms.
The I/P discussions follow a circular direction, always the same old, same old. Personal bias. And no interest in facts, historical and otherwise.
I'm sure OL doesn't need anyone to talk for her here so I will just address the above as I see it
I have given a lot of facts and information that supports the views I hold and you chose to dismiss it as antisemitism. Then you claim others get " up close and personal ". You calling someone a bigot musn't count as being up close and personal I take it ?
WE all have biases and we are all not truly/perfectly objective on any given subject, it's a human thing we all suffer from but you are doing precisely what you accuse others of doing.
Asking you what information is supporting/influencing your opinions is legitimate behaviour in a discussion, that you seem to see this as " arguing on your terms " seems really odd to me.
You don't have to reply if it's so damaging ,no worries, just try to resist the urge to call people bigots if you don't want a negative response. Common sense really
Because you (and OL) get up close and personal. Demanding that I argue on your terms.
The I/P discussions follow a circular direction, always the same old, same old. Personal bias. And no interest in facts, historical and otherwise.
I'm sure OL doesn't need anyone to talk for her here so I will just address the above as I see it
I have given a lot of facts and information that supports the views I hold and you chose to dismiss it as antisemitism. Then you claim others get " up close and personal ". You calling someone a bigot musn't count as being up close and personal I take it ?
WE all have biases and we are all not truly/perfectly objective on any given subject, it's a human thing we all suffer from but you are doing precisely what you accuse others of doing.
Asking you what information is supporting/influencing your opinions is legitimate behaviour in a discussion, that you seem to see this as " arguing on your terms " seems really odd to me.
You don't have to reply if it's so damaging ,no worries, just try to resist the urge to call people bigots if you don't want a negative response. Common sense really
When you study the history of the entire Middle East between all the Arab countries and then post WWII Balkans and post WWII Pakistan/India relations and learn the hypocrisy of the UN’s anti-Jew stance, get back to us.Because you (and OL) get up close and personal. Demanding that I argue on your terms.
The I/P discussions follow a circular direction, always the same old, same old. Personal bias. And no interest in facts, historical and otherwise.
I'm sure OL doesn't need anyone to talk for her here so I will just address the above as I see it
I have given a lot of facts and information that supports the views I hold and you chose to dismiss it as antisemitism. Then you claim others get " up close and personal ". You calling someone a bigot musn't count as being up close and personal I take it ?
WE all have biases and we are all not truly/perfectly objective on any given subject, it's a human thing we all suffer from but you are doing precisely what you accuse others of doing.
Asking you what information is supporting/influencing your opinions is legitimate behaviour in a discussion, that you seem to see this as " arguing on your terms " seems really odd to me.
You don't have to reply if it's so damaging ,no worries, just try to resist the urge to call people bigots if you don't want a negative response. Common sense really
Grammar is good; facts out of context.When you study the history of the entire Middle East between all the Arab countries and then post WWII Balkans and post WWII Pakistan/India relations and learn the hypocrisy of the UN’s anti-Jew stance, get back to us.Because you (and OL) get up close and personal. Demanding that I argue on your terms.
The I/P discussions follow a circular direction, always the same old, same old. Personal bias. And no interest in facts, historical and otherwise.
I'm sure OL doesn't need anyone to talk for her here so I will just address the above as I see it
I have given a lot of facts and information that supports the views I hold and you chose to dismiss it as antisemitism. Then you claim others get " up close and personal ". You calling someone a bigot musn't count as being up close and personal I take it ?
WE all have biases and we are all not truly/perfectly objective on any given subject, it's a human thing we all suffer from but you are doing precisely what you accuse others of doing.
Asking you what information is supporting/influencing your opinions is legitimate behaviour in a discussion, that you seem to see this as " arguing on your terms " seems really odd to me.
You don't have to reply if it's so damaging ,no worries, just try to resist the urge to call people bigots if you don't want a negative response. Common sense really
Is that person a reincarnation? Or a sock?
If you want to dismiss the opinion of the ICJ panel of experts regarding the legality of things applicable to the conflict feel free but it makes you look stupid yourself imho
On the contrary, its quite common for legal experts to vary in their opinions on the same laws, treaties and customs. Taking the word of a single opinion as gospel and uniquely correct, with no basic understanding of those laws, treaties and customs, leaves one unable to provide coherent arguments, other than "this person said so".
There is no argument because context proves the argument is based on fiction.If you want to dismiss the opinion of the ICJ panel of experts regarding the legality of things applicable to the conflict feel free but it makes you look stupid yourself imho
On the contrary, its quite common for legal experts to vary in their opinions on the same laws, treaties and customs. Taking the word of a single opinion as gospel and uniquely correct, with no basic understanding of those laws, treaties and customs, leaves one unable to provide coherent arguments, other than "this person said so".
Have I not already stated a wish to see this argument take place on numerous occasions already ?
Was it not you that said " there is no argument " ?
And I am not taking a " single opinion " as gospel. I referred you to other groups that hold the same view in the HRs game , the ICRC , other legal experts outside of the ICJ panel that gave the opinion, social commentators with moral integrity that I hold in esteem etc etc
You are the one that has said there is no argument not me , my view is and has been all along to wish to see that debate take place by the revision of the US veto that solely blocks it
Clearly there is a misunderstanding. We were discussing that the Arab Palestinians got 78% of the Mandate (Jordan) and the Jewish people, therefore, would have the remaining 22%. By suggesting that the Jewish people were not entitled to the remaining 22% well .... you see, yes?
But apparently you are discussing different numbers. So, to clarify you DO agree that the Jewish people are entitled to some form of self-determination in some portion of their homeland?
The misunderstanding is that you are ascribing to me comments made on two different regions.
Read back and you will find that I only ever discuss in this thread the area the UN were given to control after the British wanted out of the mandate , the area given up for partition , note not Jordan.
imo the Jewish people have around 78% of that area as sovereign Israeli territory , the other 22% imo should be given to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The 78% mentioned above is the territory where Israelis enjoy self determination and I have no issue with that remaining that way from now until eternity. The same should be applied to Palestinian self determination ( not what you allow them ) in the remaining 22%
That is where negotiations should start , not where an idiot like Trump claims they should
Trumps plan has a pretty fair allocation of territory, imo. 70% of the "WB", all of Gaza, plus expansive territory in the Negev.
Good starting place, yes?
Don't hold out much hope. Look what happened last time.
Grammar is good; facts out of context.When you study the history of the entire Middle East between all the Arab countries and then post WWII Balkans and post WWII Pakistan/India relations and learn the hypocrisy of the UN’s anti-Jew stance, get back to us.Because you (and OL) get up close and personal. Demanding that I argue on your terms.
The I/P discussions follow a circular direction, always the same old, same old. Personal bias. And no interest in facts, historical and otherwise.
I'm sure OL doesn't need anyone to talk for her here so I will just address the above as I see it
I have given a lot of facts and information that supports the views I hold and you chose to dismiss it as antisemitism. Then you claim others get " up close and personal ". You calling someone a bigot musn't count as being up close and personal I take it ?
WE all have biases and we are all not truly/perfectly objective on any given subject, it's a human thing we all suffer from but you are doing precisely what you accuse others of doing.
Asking you what information is supporting/influencing your opinions is legitimate behaviour in a discussion, that you seem to see this as " arguing on your terms " seems really odd to me.
You don't have to reply if it's so damaging ,no worries, just try to resist the urge to call people bigots if you don't want a negative response. Common sense really
Is that person a reincarnation? Or a sock?
I think it’s someone new.
If you want to dismiss the opinion of the ICJ panel of experts regarding the legality of things applicable to the conflict feel free but it makes you look stupid yourself imho
On the contrary, its quite common for legal experts to vary in their opinions on the same laws, treaties and customs. Taking the word of a single opinion as gospel and uniquely correct, with no basic understanding of those laws, treaties and customs, leaves one unable to provide coherent arguments, other than "this person said so".
Have I not already stated a wish to see this argument take place on numerous occasions already ?
Was it not you that said " there is no argument " ?
And I am not taking a " single opinion " as gospel. I referred you to other groups that hold the same view in the HRs game , the ICRC , other legal experts outside of the ICJ panel that gave the opinion, social commentators with moral integrity that I hold in esteem etc etc
You are the one that has said there is no argument not me , my view is and has been all along to wish to see that debate take place by the revision of the US veto that solely blocks it
So a valid US vote bothers you?
You’re looking dumber with every post.
Tell us why the US has so much power.So a valid US vote bothers you?
You’re looking dumber with every post.
It is the solitary single vote that has stopped the overwhelming world consensus for application of international law and a resolution of the conflict , it should bother people. That it doesn't bother you doesn't come as a surprise either.
Yet you keep ignoring the one relevant factor in the debate: that the Green Line forms some sort legal territorial demarcation between Israel and ... something labelled the "Occupied Palestinian Territories".
Without that crucial point, all further debates are operating on false premises.
It’s obvious that you prefer opinions over facts.
Yet you keep ignoring the one relevant factor in the debate: that the Green Line forms some sort legal territorial demarcation between Israel and ... something labelled the "Occupied Palestinian Territories".
Without that crucial point, all further debates are operating on false premises.
Recall that is I that welcomes the debate and it is you that states there is no debate to be had , correct ?
Recall too I gave you the words of the legal advisor to the 1967 Israeli government who urged them not to illegally settle the territories captured with civilian settlers and warned not to get into a legal battle
And, I am sure that all of the experts are aware of such things as the green line and still they rule that there are OPTs
I welcome the debate , you appear not to but claim I am somehow the pigheaded one here
I’m not the only one responding to your posts in like manner.It’s obvious that you prefer opinions over facts.
Projection central
I'm not clear on what "application of international law", means. If you're suggesting the UN issuing opinions as law, that doesn't make sense. The UN ha no authority that would override domestic law. Further, you seem to be suggesting that if Israel complied with UN opinions, the islamic terrorist attacks would magically end. One of the glaringly obvious realities, in my opinion, is that the UN has become a biased, political entity with little concern for its original goals.So a valid US vote bothers you?
You’re looking dumber with every post.
It is the solitary single vote that has stopped the overwhelming world consensus for application of international law and a resolution of the conflict , it should bother people. That it doesn't bother you doesn't come as a surprise either.
Are suggesting that all violence from Israel’s Jewish citizens is simply responding to Arab hostility and therefore they can not be held responsible for their acts? If so, I strongly disagree. There are strong racial overtones in the violence coming out of both sides.The situation on the ground has changed.
I am morally against it. But if terrorist acts - and I mean ACTS are performed (as defined by life threatening acts against people because of their ethnic identity) then sure - expel THAT person - not the family, not the tribe, not anyone else. Or - put them through the criminal justice system. Actually that might be better.
But it has to be applied equally - that means Jews committing acts of violence against Palestinians should get the same treatment.
What I'm afraid of though is that this will be abused and used as a reason for mass expulsions much the way demoliting the family homes of Palestinians is abused as a group punishment.
How can such abuse be prevented?
So, here's the thing. Such "abuse" can be prevented by Arabs refraining from being hostile and committing acts of terrorism. Full stop.
In a one state solution, Israel will have a significant minority of Arab citizens who are hostile to Israel and to Israel's Jewish citizens. Any hostilities, overt, covert, incitement, actual acts of harm or terrorism are the responsibility of those committing the violations. Full stop.
The question being asked here is not, "How can we prevent Israel from abusing Arabs?" The question is, "In the face of a hostile and violent minority population, how should Israel respond to acts of violence, threats of violence and a culture of violence and hostility?"
Is the answer expulsion? Its a bigger question than just "what to do with individuals who commit acts of terror". Its a question of managing that hostile culture.
How can we prevent them from abusing each other and creating a state where all can feel ownership in.
Here is a thought. Maybe Israel can sell the Palestinians on the benefits of citizenship. Less corruption, investment, better schools, political accountability, jobs? Maybe they should start actively investing in the Palestinian areas of Area C prior to annexation?
I'm not clear on what "application of international law", means. If you're suggesting the UN issuing opinions as law, that doesn't make sense. The UN ha no authority that would override domestic law. Further, you seem to be suggesting that if Israel complied with UN opinions, the islamic terrorist attacks would magically end. One of the glaringly obvious realities, in my opinion, is that the UN has become a biased, political entity with little concern for its original goals.So a valid US vote bothers you?
You’re looking dumber with every post.
It is the solitary single vote that has stopped the overwhelming world consensus for application of international law and a resolution of the conflict , it should bother people. That it doesn't bother you doesn't come as a surprise either.
Where has the UN taken a position on islamic terrorist attacks from Gaza or the actions of Fatah and its promotion and enabling of mass murder / suicide aimed at israelis?
