16
   

Trump's embassy move to Jerusalem 'self-destructive'

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 23 Dec, 2017 06:50 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
Having already shown you your predisposition to a bias in favor of the Israeli regime (remember your claim that misrepresenting one's nationality before having consensual sex is not a crime, and how you changed that common sense determination when Israelis entered the equation?)

You have not shown any bias on my part.

My determination on that issue did not change.


Glennn wrote:
I know you know that East Jerusalem is occupied territory. And I know you know international law and policy concerning occupied territory.

I know that Israel is only required to hand over land to the Palestinians if Israel is given peace in return for that land.


Glennn wrote:
I also know that you will deny these things because the equation includes Israel, and that anyone who points out these inconvenient facts to you is an anti-semite.

If I deny something, the reason is because it is untrue.

I do not find facts to be inconvenient. Facts are a great comfort to me.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Dec, 2017 07:45 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
You have not shown any bias on my part.

Glennn asked: If I went to town and had sex with a woman, but first told her that I was German when in fact I was American, and she soon learned that I was American, should I go to jail for that?

oralloy replied: I don't see why someone should go to jail for that.

Glennn said: Neither do I. Such a thing would certainly indicate racism.

A court in Jerusalem has made international legal history by jailing Sabbar Kashur, a 30-year-old delivery man from East Jerusalem, for 18 months.
He was convicted of "rape by deception" following a criminal trial that has drawn criticism from across Israel.

The court heard accusations that Mr Kashur misled the woman, whose identity has not been disclosed, by introducing himself with the traditionally Jewish name during a chance encounter on a street in central Jerusalem in 2008.

After striking up a conversation, the two went into a top-floor room of a nearby office-block and engaged in a sexual encounter, after which Mr Kashur left before the woman had a chance to get dressed. It was only later that she discovered Mr Kashur's true racial background, lawyers said.

oralloy replied: So in other words the Israeli people are speaking out against what they see as injustice. Good for them!
____________________________________________

You are playing blind to the fact that, during that exchange, you reversed your original opinion on the matter when a jew was involved. It is now a matter of record. Do you now see why it is futile to discuss this issue with you? You are not only biased, but you are in total denial of that fact, too.
Quote:
I know that Israel is only required to hand over land to the Palestinians if Israel is given peace in return for that land.

There you go again. International law, the Geneva Conventions, and others are clear on that matter. But Zionists have their own set of laws that are contrary to the rest of the world. The inconvenient fact of the matter is that East Jerusalem is occupied territory. And your position is that following International law and Geneva Conventions concerning that matter is anti-Semitic.

Saying that it isn't doesn't change that fact. And the Geneva Convention is clear on what an occupier can and cannot do in occupied territory.
Quote:
If I deny something, the reason is because it is untrue.

Wrong. You denied the reasonableness of putting a man in jail for misrepresenting his nationality to a woman with whom he has consensual sex. When I offered the exact same real life scenario with the exception that a jewish person is involved, you flip flopped. So . . .
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 23 Dec, 2017 10:38 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
You are playing blind to the fact that, during that exchange, you reversed your original opinion on the matter when a jew was involved.

That's not a fact. I did not reverse my original opinion on the matter.


Glennn wrote:
It is now a matter of record.

The record shows that I did not reverse my original opinion on the matter.


Glennn wrote:
Do you now see why it is futile to discuss this issue with you?

Because I insist on adhering to reality?


Glennn wrote:
You are not only biased, but you are in total denial of that fact, too.

It is not a fact. Therefore I am right to deny it.

I have no bias other than my preference for truth and reality.


Glennn wrote:
There you go again. International law, the Geneva Conventions, and others are clear on that matter.

Indeed they are. Israel has the right to live in peace, and the Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and anyone else are all required to make peace with Israel in exchange for Israel handing over that land.


Glennn wrote:
But Zionists have their own set of laws that are contrary to the rest of the world.

That is incorrect. Israel's adherence to international law is exemplary.


Glennn wrote:
The inconvenient fact of the matter is that East Jerusalem is occupied territory.

I certainly find no inconvenience in it.


Glennn wrote:
And your position is that following International law and Geneva Conventions concerning that matter is anti-Semitic.

That is incorrect. I have no objection to following international law (which again requires everyone to make peace with Israel in exchange for Israel giving up that land).


Glennn wrote:
Saying that it isn't doesn't change that fact.

I'm a little unclear what you are referring to here. I am not attempting to change any facts however.


Glennn wrote:
And the Geneva Convention is clear on what an occupier can and cannot do in occupied territory.

Israel can simply annex East Jerusalem (since the Palestinians are unwilling to make peace) and then it will no longer be occupied.


Glennn wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If I deny something, the reason is because it is untrue.

Wrong.

No. If I deny something, that is the reason for the denial.

I suppose since I am not infallible (and don't claim to be, even though I am sometimes wrongly accused of claiming it), we can say that if I deny something it is because I believe it to be untrue.

However, while I am not infallible, I am very seldom wrong, so it's a distinction not really worth making.


Glennn wrote:
You denied the reasonableness of putting a man in jail for misrepresenting his nationality to a woman with whom he has consensual sex.

Yes.


Glennn wrote:
When I offered the exact same real life scenario with the exception that a jewish person is involved, you flip flopped. So . . .

No I didn't.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Dec, 2017 11:55 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
That's not a fact. I did not reverse my original opinion on the matter.

Yes, you did. I provided the dialogue verbatim between us that clearly demonstrated your bias-fueled reversal of your opinion. Oddly, you are the only one here who does not understand that you have done this.
Quote:
The record shows that I did not reverse my original opinion on the matter.

Wrong. Here is what the record shows:

Glennn asked: If I went to town and had sex with a woman, but first told her that I was German when in fact I was American, and she soon learned that I was American, should I go to jail for that?

oralloy replied: I DON'T SEE WHY SOMEONE SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR THAT.

Glennn said: Neither do I. Such a thing would certainly indicate racism.

A court in Jerusalem has made international legal history by jailing Sabbar Kashur, a 30-year-old delivery man from East Jerusalem, for 18 months.
He was convicted of "rape by deception" following a criminal trial that has drawn criticism from across Israel.

The court heard accusations that Mr Kashur misled the woman, whose identity has not been disclosed, by introducing himself with the traditionally Jewish name during a chance encounter on a street in central Jerusalem in 2008.

After striking up a conversation, the two went into a top-floor room of a nearby office-block and engaged in a sexual encounter, after which Mr Kashur left before the woman had a chance to get dressed. It was only later that she discovered Mr Kashur's true racial background, lawyers said.

oralloy replied: SO IN OTHER WORDS THE ISRAELI PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING OUT AGAINST WHAT THEY SEE AS AN INJUSTICE. GOOD FOR THEM!
_______________________________________________

I've highlighted the segments that show the reversal of your position when a jew was involved.
Quote:
I have no bias other than my preference for truth and reality.

Maybe, but certainly not when it comes to Israel. See above.
Quote:

Indeed they are. Israel has the right to live in peace, and the Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and anyone else are all required to make peace with Israel in exchange for Israel handing over that land.

The Israeli regime did not own that land to begin with; it is an occupier.

VIOLATIONS OF U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS: Laws Violated: Israel has violated 28 resolutions of the United Nations Security Council (which are legally binding on member-nations U.N. Charter, Article 25 (1945); a few sample resolutions - 54, 111, 233, 234, 236, 248, 250, 252, 256, 262, 267, 270, 280, 285, 298, 313, 316, 468, 476, etc.

ILLEGAL TO TAKE LAND BY FORCE & CLAIM SOVEREIGNTY: Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 2(4) (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 1 (1970).

Israeli Actions: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
______________________________________________

In 1980, Israel passed the "Jerusalem Law", stating that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel", thereby formalising its annexation of East Jerusalem.

In response, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 478 in 1980, declaring the law "null and void". The illegal Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem violates several principles under international law, which outlines that an occupying power does not have sovereignty in the territory it occupies.

The international community officially regards East Jerusalem as occupied territory.

Moreover, no country in the world recognises Jerusalem as Israel's capital, with the exception of the US and Russia, the latter which announced its recognition of West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and East Jerusalem as "the capital of the future Palestinian state."
_____________________________________________

So, as you can now see, the Israeli regime is in violation of International Law, the Geneva Conventions, and other bodies.
Quote:
I have no objection to following international law (which again requires everyone to make peace with Israel in exchange for Israel giving up that land).

I hope the above makes clear to you that occupied territory is not something that the occupier can use as a bargaining tool.
Quote:
Israel can simply annex East Jerusalem (since the Palestinians are unwilling to make peace) and then it will no longer be occupied.

No. This is one of the laws that the Israeli regime made up that is in direct contravention of International Laws and Geneva Conventions, as I have shown you above.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2017 02:42 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
Yes, you did.

No I didn't.


Glennn wrote:
I provided the dialogue verbatim between us that clearly demonstrated your bias-fueled reversal of your opinion.

You quoted dialog where I did not reverse my opinion or exhibit bias in any way.


Glennn wrote:
Oddly, you are the only one here who does not understand that you have done this.

That is unlikely. But if more people do side with your claim, those people are wrong as well.


Glennn wrote:
Wrong.

No. The record is clear that I showed no bias and did not reverse my opinion.


Glennn wrote:
I've highlighted the segments that show the reversal of your position when a jew was involved.

Nothing that you highlighted showed any reversal of opinion. Nor was there any reversal of opinion elsewhere.


Glennn wrote:
Maybe, but certainly not when it comes to Israel.

Wrong. I am completely just and fair when it comes to Israel.


Glennn wrote:
The Israeli regime did not own that land to begin with; it is an occupier.

That's nice. So what?


Glennn wrote:
VIOLATIONS OF U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS: Laws Violated: Israel has violated 28 resolutions of the United Nations Security Council (which are legally binding on member-nations U.N. Charter, Article 25 (1945); a few sample resolutions - 54, 111, 233, 234, 236, 248, 250, 252, 256, 262, 267, 270, 280, 285, 298, 313, 316, 468, 476, etc.

ILLEGAL TO TAKE LAND BY FORCE & CLAIM SOVEREIGNTY: Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 2(4) (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 1 (1970).

Meh. Illegal for Palestinians to wage perpetual war against Israel and refuse to ever make peace.


Glennn wrote:
Israeli Actions: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

I guess the Arabs shouldn't have kept waging war against Israel if they didn't want to suffer the consequences of defeat.


Glennn wrote:
In 1980, Israel passed the "Jerusalem Law", stating that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel", thereby formalising its annexation of East Jerusalem.

That wasn't really a formal annexation.


Glennn wrote:
In response, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 478 in 1980, declaring the law "null and void". The illegal Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem violates several principles under international law, which outlines that an occupying power does not have sovereignty in the territory it occupies.

If the 1980 "Jerusalem Law" had truly been a formal annexation, East Jerusalem would no longer be occupied territory.


Glennn wrote:
The international community officially regards East Jerusalem as occupied territory.

Moreover, no country in the world recognises Jerusalem as Israel's capital, with the exception of the US and Russia, the latter which announced its recognition of West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and East Jerusalem as "the capital of the future Palestinian state."

Meh. So what?


Glennn wrote:
So, as you can now see, the Israeli regime is in violation of International Law, the Geneva Conventions, and other bodies.

So are the Palestinians and anyone else who refuses to make peace with Israel.


Glennn wrote:
I hope the above makes clear to you that occupied territory is not something that the occupier can use as a bargaining tool.

It does not make any such thing clear. And in fact, the only way that Israel will ever relinquish any more land is in exchange for a true and lasting peace.


Glennn wrote:
No. This is one of the laws that the Israeli regime made up that is in direct contravention of International Laws and Geneva Conventions, as I have shown you above.

You quoted me laws about occupied territory. Upon annexation East Jerusalem will no longer be occupied territory and will no longer fall under those laws.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2017 01:58 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
You quoted dialog where I did not reverse my opinion or exhibit bias in any way.

Really? Let's look again.

I DON'T SEE WHY SOMEONE SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR THAT.

That was your position on the situation. However, when I presented you with the exact same scenario with the exception that a jew was involved and the man went to jail, your position changed to: GOOD FOR THEM!

That is called a reversal of opinion. And the reason for your reversal of opinion is your bias.

This also explains your denial concerning International law and pertinent Conventions as they apply to stealing occupied territory.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2017 03:50 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
Really? Let's look again.

Sure. But note that one of the really neat things about facts is, they don't change if you go back and look at them another time.


Glennn wrote:
I DON'T SEE WHY SOMEONE SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR THAT.
That was your position on the situation.

Yes.


Glennn wrote:
However, when I presented you with the exact same scenario with the exception that a jew was involved and the man went to jail, your position changed to: GOOD FOR THEM!

Context is everything. My full reply was:
"So in other words the Israeli people are speaking out against what they see as injustice. Good for them!"

"Good for them" is praise for the Israeli people who are openly condemning injustice.

We often do this (openly condemn injustice) in America as well. It turns out that it is difficult for a democratically elected government to continue to perpetrate an injustice if most of the voters are openly talking about how wrong it is.


Glennn wrote:
That is called a reversal of opinion.

No. "Referring to something as injustice and giving praise to people who condemn it" is an expression of opposition to the injustice that is being condemned.


Glennn wrote:
And the reason for your reversal of opinion is your bias.

No such reversal of opinion. No such bias.


Glennn wrote:
This also explains your denial concerning International law and pertinent Conventions as they apply to stealing occupied territory.

I am not denying international law. I am pointing out the reality that international law only requires Israel to hand over this land if and when the Palestinians agree to a true and lasting peace.
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2017 03:57 pm
@oralloy,
So your position is that the man should not go to jail for that. But you applaud others who have put him in jail for that. I see. Now there is no doubt concerning your position.
Quote:
I am not denying international law. I am pointing out the reality that international law only requires Israel to hand over this land if and when the Palestinians agree to a true and lasting peace.

Can you direct me to the segment of International Law that confirms that stipulation?
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2017 04:58 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
So your position is that the man should not go to jail for that.

Correct.


Glennn wrote:
But you applaud others who have put him in jail for that.

No. I applaud those who speak out against sending him to jail for that.


Glennn wrote:
I see. Now there is no doubt concerning your position.

I hope so. It's getting kind of silly.


Glennn wrote:
Can you direct me to the segment of International Law that confirms that stipulation?

The UN Security Council wrote:
The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

http://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136

I bolded and underlined the word "both".
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Mon 25 Dec, 2017 08:55 am
Pope Francis calls for two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians at Urbi et Orbi
Quote:
Pope Francis called for a "negotiated" two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict in his annual Christmas Day address in Rome on Monday.

Tens of thousands of people gathered in the Vatican to listen to the head of the Catholic Church deliver his fifth "Urbi et Orbi" ("to the city and the world") message in which he called for peace in Jerusalem.

"We see Jesus in the children of the Middle East who continue to suffer because of growing tensions between Israelis and Palestinians," he said. "Let us pray that the will to resume dialogue may prevail between the parties and that a negotiated solution can finally be reached, one that would allow the peaceful coexistence of two states within mutually agreed and internationally recognized borders."
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Dec, 2017 10:49 am
@oralloy,
I owe you an apology. I misinterpreted your words to mean that you supported the racist decision and action of the Israeli court when you were actually supporting the Israelis' condemnation of that decision. While I stand by my assertion that the court's decision exposes a racist mindset concerning the powers that be in Israel, I did expose my own negligence in that I did not read the entire article I posted with an open mind. In so doing, I perhaps exposed my own bias and will leave this discussion.

I hope your holiday is warm.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Dec, 2017 03:00 pm
@Glennn,
That's ok. Apology accepted. There's no reason for you to leave the conversation.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2018 at 11:18:42