ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Advocate wrote:

How silly! The fact that something is in the public domain does not add to its credibility.

True, but it makes it easily verifiable - an exercise which evidently you chose not to undertake.

You are living proof that a closed mind is impervious to new information.

0 Replies

Assuming Israel has been violating "international law" by the tactics it uses to defend itself, why hasn't that law been enforced by the UN?

Answer: the phrase "international law" is a euphemism for international consensus. Consensus alone has never been a legal substitute for law, nor should it be. Law must be legislated by a legislature or legislatures legally delegated the power to design and adopt law.

So let's cut the malarkey about "international law."

What's required is that both parties to the Palestine problem must voluntarily grant the other the right to exist and, to their people, the right to equal civil rights.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Answer: the phrase "international law" is a euphemism for international consensus. Consensus alone has never been a legal substitute for law, nor should it be. Law must be legislated by a legislature or legislatures legally delegated the power to design and adopt law.

But Israel was founded based on international consensus - manifested in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181.

I mean, if you're saying that there is no such thing as "international law" - aren't you basically agreeing with those who say that there is no basis for the existence of a Jewish state, no legitimacy to Israel's claim to the land?

0 Replies

Excellent point, old europe !

If, as Zionists do argue, the legitimacy of the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine was established by a resolution of the UN Security Council, then Security Council Resolution 242 (and others) that direct Israel to withdraw completely from all the territory of the West Bank carries equal force.

0 Replies

From today's Washington Post:

Quote:

Israel says move is meant to protect citizens; Palestinians contend that land is being seized.

Related report online: Mapping Israel's 456-Mile Barrier

0 Replies

Walter, Thank you for posting that map. It confirms what I've been saying about the inability of Palestinians to move freely in their own country. I wonder how ican, Advocate, et al, would feel if they didn't have freedom to move around in their state/ US because of their "color?"

0 Replies

Israel forcibly removes Jewish squatters from Hebron

holed up there illegally, hoping to expand the Jewish presence in the volatile biblical city.
Settlers spit and hurled stones, water, oil and concrete powder as police, backed by army troops, broke through fortified doors and carried out the squatters one by one. Three settlers sealed themselves inside a concrete bunker built for the standoff.

"This is a crime against justice and against Jewish history," said Noam Arnon, a spokesman for the Hebron settlers. "I am sure we will return. Hebron has a long history and we will return."

Danny Poleg, a police spokesman, said four soldiers, 14 police officers and 12 settlers were injured during the evacuation. One settler and six police were hospitalized. Eleven settlers were briefly detained and two arrested.

A watchdog group opposed to settlements accused the settlers of creating a media circus to try to deter the government from carrying out future evacuations.

"The next time the government will think twice about evacuating people," said Yariv Oppenheimer, a leader of the Peace Now group.

The operation Tuesday followed the highly publicized refusal of several Orthodox Israeli infantry soldiers to take part in the evacuation. The army sentenced a dozen soldiers, including two commanders, to brief jail terms for the rebellion.

Hebron, a frequent flashpoint of tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, is home to about 500 religious Jewish settlers living in heavily guarded enclaves among some 170,000 Palestinians. Clashes are frequent.

0 Replies

Is it a violation of international law when the Pals blow up a pizza parlor in Israel filled with women and children? Also, where is your outrage about the ethnic cleansing of Christian Pals from Palestine? It seems that what we have here is a hatred of Israel and Jews.

0 Replies

Advocate, You have a very bad memory; more innocent Palestinians have been killed by the Jews than the other way around. Dead is dead whether it's by suicide/car bombs or bullets and bombs from airplanes.

0 Replies

That might be true. And it would be because there are more Pals seeking to bomb and otherwise kill Israelis.

0 Replies

You couldn't prove that by the numbers, irregardless of your rhetoric.

0 Replies

I guess you are not going to answer my questions. See:

Is it a violation of international law when the Pals blow up a pizza parlor in Israel filled with women and children? Also, where is your outrage about the ethnic cleansing of Christian Pals from Palestine? It seems that what we have here is a hatred of Israel and Jews.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Is it a violation of international law when the Pals blow up a pizza parlor in Israel filled with women and children? Also, where is your outrage about the ethnic cleansing of Christian Pals from Palestine? It seems that what we have here is a hatred of Israel and Jews.

Depends. But yes, some of that could count as a violation of international law. Just as the IDF bombing Beirut last year would count as a violation of international law. For example.

So both sides are in violation of international law.

Now, your point seems to be: because both sides are violating international law, one side should get a free pass on it. Is that about right?

0 Replies

Lebanon is not a valid comparative.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Lebanon is not a valid comparative.

No? Why not? Your question was about the violation of international law, wasn't it?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Is it a violation of international law when the Pals blow up a pizza parlor in Israel filled with women and children?

I've just said that I think that was a violation of international law, but here's a question for you, Advocate... Look at this picture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/King_david_hotel_bombing.jpg

It's a picture of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. The picture was taken after the bombing of this British government building by Irgun, ordered by Menachem Begin as head of that organisation. 91 people were killed, 45 were injured.

Menachem Begin later became Prime Minister of Israel.

Now, Advocate: Do you think this kind of terrorist attack was legitimate?

0 Replies

OE, Israel didn't bomb and invade Lebanon until after there were hundreds, if not thousands, of attacks by Hezbollah, which was sheltered and supported by Lebanon. Israel then went to some pains to spare innocents. Nothing could be more legal than Israel's attack.

The King David hotel was British headquarters during the revolutionary war in Israel. The Brits were killing Jews, and the latter's attack was legal.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The King David hotel was British headquarters during the revolutionary war in Israel. The Brits were killing Jews, and the latter's attack was legal.

Britain then the legal government of Palestine. They were combatting Zionist terrorism and Arab retaliation. At that time the Zionists were quite willing to employ the exactly same tactics that are being used against Israel today.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The King David hotel was British headquarters during the revolutionary war in Israel. The Brits were killing Jews, and the latter's attack was legal.

And those 17 killed Jews were traitors, I suppose, executed legally by the revolutionary Zionists.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

OE, Israel didn't bomb and invade Lebanon until after there were hundreds, if not thousands, of attacks by Hezbollah, which was sheltered and supported by Lebanon.

That's an interesting claim. Can you back it up?

Advocate wrote:

Israel then went to some pains to spare innocents.

That's another interesting claim. What "pains" did Israel go to, exactly, to spare innocents?

Advocate wrote:

Nothing could be more legal than Israel's attack.

I know that's your opinion. You have yet to provide some facts to back it up.

Advocate wrote:

The King David hotel was British headquarters during the revolutionary war in Israel. The Brits were killing Jews, and the latter's attack was legal.

Well, thanks a lot for answering that question. I thought it might be interesting to see how you would see a Zionist terror attack against civilians of an occupying foreign country, compared to a Palestinian terror attack against civilians of an occupying foreign government.

So you're saying the former is legal, because the British have been killing Jews. I see.
And you seem to be saying the the latter is illegal, even though Israelis are killing Palestinians.

Do you think that's kind of a contradiction?

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know