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

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?)

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

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.

You have not shown any bias on my part.

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

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

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.

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.

oralloy wrote:

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 . . .

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

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

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

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.

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).

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

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.

Wrong.

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

Maybe, but certainly not when it comes to Israel.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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;

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."