Israeli police will not face trial over death of Palestinian girl

reply to post by Zamini


People like me . . .

You mean people who debate using facts and not emotion?

You are correct. I will never be satisfied with BS answers that really answer nothing. I applaud you for figuring that out.

Oh, and I will tell you right now, that I most certainly DO NOT agree with everything Israel does (same goes of Palestinians). I would also have you know that I think the mainstream-Christian Zionists that support Israel no matter what are wrong in doing so, and are not actually reading their Bibles.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

You mean people who debate using facts and not emotion?

But you actually haven't debated what I brought up..

You have merely argued the use of a single noun..

Originally posted by meathed


SO,,,,,,,,,, I have a question for you.
Why do you think it is ok to kill a palistinian child?

Please quote where I said that.

I will give you a star when you do

Are you that stupid that you really need to ask this

But after reading your posts, well,,, i would have to answer my own question and say,,,,, yes, you are that stupid

[

Hey now. I thought I was the one calling people idiots. Oh well. You can have the fun of resorting to name calling without actually answering anything.

It is such a simple question. Shame.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


I gave you a star because in time you will realize you are arguing against yourself here

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Yes it is a simple question that I answered. Here is my post in case you overlooked it.

During the June-1967 war Israel seized land from Egypt (which it later retreated from), Syria and Jordan. The land which it seized from Jordan has long been recognized by many as the Palestinian territories. So are you denying there is an occupation now?

a little OT here but has anyone else noticed how forum posters use the word "troll" like the zioni$ts use the word "anti-semite"? It's kinda funny

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Please quote where I said that.

I will give you a star when you do

Well star me up big guy.
With your arguements and your condoning of Israel's illegal acts on the "State" of palestine you ARE condoning the sometimes murderous acts of the Zionists in Israel, and your condoning the murder of innocent Palestinian people.

So star me big guy, give it to me

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

Yes it is a simple question that I answered. Here is my post in case you overlooked it.

During the June-1967 war Israel seized land from Egypt (which it later retreated from), Syria and Jordan. The land which it seized from Jordan has long been recognized by many as the Palestinian territories. So are you denying there is an occupation now?

Yes, I do.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

During the June-1967 war Israel seized land from Egypt (which it later retreated from), Syria and Jordan. The land which it seized from Jordan has long been recognized by many as the Palestinian territories. So are you denying there is an occupation now?

yes.


simple as that.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

During the June-1967 war Israel seized land from Egypt (which it later retreated from), Syria and Jordan. The land which it seized from Jordan has long been recognized by many as the Palestinian territories. So are you denying there is an occupation now?

This is not part of my point, but a rabbit trail that could use some following. Anyone feel free to address it, or not. Whatever.

If Israel captured the land in 1967, and Jordan renounced ownership of it in 1988 (while it was still occupied by Israel), wouldn't logic dictate Israel would become the owner of the land?

Of course there was the declaration of independence made by the PNC, four moths later. But that meant (and technically still means nothing) as the Palestinians are not truly a sovereign state, according to the Montevideo Convention of 1933. Statehood without independence is not possible (Creation of States in International Law, Oxford, 2nd ed., 2006, p. 62.).

So If I was going to take that route, then you would be correct. There is no occupation. According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance. Jordan relinquished the captured land, giving it to Israel in the process. Therefore it no long became territory occupied during international hostilities or an occupation of state territory that meets with no armed resistance. It DID become the grounds for a defacto civil war, since legally, Israel owned the land. The Laws of Land do not come into effect unless Israel recognizes the the Palestinian rebels as belligerents.

I do not know if Israel has done that yet.

reply to post by backinblack


Because words have meaning. Pretty simple logic there

So you going to answer my next question, or beat around the bush some more?

reply to post by Zamini


Sweet. This will be a good argument though.

I wonder how I am typing to myself with 3 different ATS accounts, though.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


That does not have an answer. It is more beating around the bush. I beat around the bush with you and dismantled that idea though.

Good times were had by all.

So anyone going to actually answer my question now?

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


The PLO has laid claim to Palestine before 1988 and the Arab League recognized the Palestinian state. Israel declared that the PLO were beligerents.

reply to post by gravitational


Either you are living in self-denial or you don't understand what the term occupation means
"Belligerent military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory passes to a hostile army."
So if it is not an occupation then what is it? Has Israel been invited to take their land and build settlements upon them. I never got that memo. Your video dosen't prove there is no military occupation in the West Bank and is basically irrelevant and off topic (like most the things you post).

It is good to see you have shown your true colors once again.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


In my book, that's “liberation”

Second line...

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

The PLO has laid claim to Palestine before 1988 and the Arab League recognized the Palestinian state. Israel declared that the PLO were beligerents.

The PLO was founded in 1964. Before the so called “occupied territories” . (1967)

reply to post by gravitational


Liberation? Living under an UNWANTED occupation is liberation according to you? Military checkpoints and being evicted from your homes and having them buldozed to be replaced by Jewish settlements is liberation? Having your country divided by Jewish only roads ensuring that villages are encircled. Enjoying the benefits of unemployment and poverty brought by liberation. Being unreasonably detained is liberation?

Seriously if that is what you think liberation is then I don't want to know what you think an occupation is.

I have heard you same some daft and stupid things at times. But this honestly takes the cake. That's like me saying Hamas is bringing Israel peace and salvation.

Originally posted by gravitational

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

The PLO has laid claim to Palestine before 1988 and the Arab League recognized the Palestinian state. Israel declared that the PLO were beligerents.

The PLO was founded in 1964. Before the so called “occupied territories” . (1967)

Which only cements my point. Thankyou.

Reply to post by SpeachM1litant

Then the PLO should have taken it up with Jordan prior to 1988, since Jordan had ownership of the land.

Do you have a link to the Palestinians being named before the UN as belligerent rebels?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com