USA Security Council abstention condemns neoZionism as illegal

moon2012 said:
Yes- Israel is a legitimate state protected by international law- but fewer and fewer politicians are supporting Israeli crime.
Click to expand...

When will you be returning your stolen land to the native Americans?????
 
moon2012 said:
That simply means that he's failed before he gets his feet under the table. Nobody expects anything else, surely.

Name-calling is a hallmark of under-development, incidentally.
Click to expand...
Effing ironic that Rune should thank this post, I have this mental image of him bashing his anvil (pun intended) whilst cursing and cussing.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Bigdog said:
When will you be returning your stolen land to the native Americans?????
Click to expand...

You should understand that international law regarding the inadmissibility of taking territory by force post-dates almost all of the major shifts in populations. It pre-dates the illegal Israeli occupation, however.
 
moon2012 said:
You should understand that international law regarding the inadmissibility of taking territory by force post-dates almost all of the major shifts in populations. It pre-dates the illegal Israeli occupation, however.
Click to expand...

So you will be keeping your stolen land. Got it!
 
Bigdog said:
So you will be keeping your stolen land. Got it!
Click to expand...

Prior to modern international law it wasn't ' stolen '. That's the legal position. Of course, morally-speaking that's a different matter- and there isn't one displaced indigenous population that I don't sympathize with.
 
moon2012 said:
Prior to modern international law it wasn't ' stolen '. That's the legal position. Of course, morally-speaking that's a different matter- and there isn't one displaced indigenous population that I don't sympathize with.
Click to expand...

maybe your arabs shouldnt have started all those wars then trying to wipe out the israelis.

Maybe we should finally rename the place outrejordain or something so the palestinians realize they are not wanted there.
 
moon2012 said:
Prior to modern international law it wasn't ' stolen '. That's the legal position. Of course, morally-speaking that's a different matter- and there isn't one displaced indigenous population that I don't sympathize with.
Click to expand...

Law? sympathize? ... LMAO. Are you really this ignorant?
 
tsuke said:
Maybe we should finally rename the place outrejordain or something so the palestinians realize they are not wanted there.
Click to expand...

Go right ahead. See if it catches on.

Best have a reality check first though;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine

On Thursday, 29 November 2012, in a 138–9 vote (with 41 abstaining) General Assembly resolution 67/19 passed, upgrading Palestine to "non-member observer state" status in the United Nations.[76][77] The new status equates Palestine's with that of the Holy See. The change in status was described by The Independent as "de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine".[78]
Click to expand...
 
moon2012 said:
Prior to modern international law it wasn't ' stolen '. That's the legal position. Of course, morally-speaking that's a different matter- and there isn't one displaced indigenous population that I don't sympathize with.
Click to expand...

Well, lol. Has there been a population that hasn't been displaced at one point or another?

The Jews were displaced not once, but several times from Israel.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Well, lol. Has there been a population that hasn't been displaced at one point or another?

The Jews were displaced not once, but several times from Israel.
Click to expand...

According to modern and customary international law- and that's the only law that's worth legal spit- it really doesn't matter who was evicted from which cave when or whose canoe landed where first. Boundaries are drawn and agreed by United Nations member states . Israel should not look its gift horse in the mouth.
 
moon2012 said:
Yes- Israel is a legitimate state protected by international law- but fewer and fewer politicians are supporting Israeli crime.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem, Israel isn't actually breaking the law, they're exploiting a legal loophole regarding stateless persons so while what they have been doing is morally reprehensible it's not technically illegal which is why this resolution means nothing.
 
Guille said:
Here's the problem, Israel isn't actually breaking the law, they're exploiting a legal loophole regarding stateless persons so while what they have been doing is morally reprehensible it's not technically illegal which is why this resolution means nothing.
Click to expand...

Of course Israel is breaking the law. Please read the Resolution .
 
moon2012 said:
Of course Israel is breaking the law. Please read the Resolution .
Click to expand...

I have read it. Israel wins because they're not technically occupying the land. Why do you think the UN insisted on using that word? It lets Israel off the hook. By any measure that matters the Palestinians are stateless so Israel does not have to function according to accepted international norms when dealing with them. If the land in question were annexed by Israel then we'd be having a different discussion.
 
Guille said:
I have read it. Israel wins because they're not technically occupying the land. Why do you think the UN insisted on using that word? It lets Israel off the hook. By any measure that matters the Palestinians are stateless so Israel does not have to function according to accepted international norms when dealing with them. If the land in question were annexed by Israel then we'd be having a different discussion.
Click to expand...

Which word is it that gives rise to this misunderstanding on your part ?
 
moon2012 said:
Which word is it that gives rise to this misunderstanding on your part ?
Click to expand...

There territory in question is *disputed* which means the dispute should be settled between the two parties: namely, the nation of Israel and the quasi-state of Palestine. But since the new resolution effectively makes Israel a criminal state, the dispute was settled by an outside party.
 
moon2012 said:
Which word is it that gives rise to this misunderstanding on your part ?
Click to expand...

The word is "occupied", and its variations and it is you who is misunderstanding what just happened. There is only one way to address this. If the Palestinians are recognized as a member or signatory nation by the international bodies and treaties that matter, in their case specifically Geneva, then everything Israel is doing to them becomes criminal overnight...until then Lucy is just going to keep pulling the football away from you because they are stateless. Filling a resolution with lots of tough talk but then including something that negates the whole resolution is a common political maneuver, the Dem House under Pelosi used to do this quite a bit.
 
Guille said:
The word is "occupied", and its variations and it is you who is misunderstanding what just happened. There is only one way to address this. If the Palestinians are recognized as a member or signatory nation by the international bodies and treaties that matter, in their case specifically Geneva, then everything Israel is doing to them becomes criminal overnight...until then Lucy is just going to keep pulling the football away from you because they are stateless. Filling a resolution with lots of tough talk but then including something that negates the whole resolution is a common political maneuver, the Dem House under Pelosi used to do this quite a bit.
Click to expand...

Palestine obtained de facto UN recognition of statehood in December of 2012. Also recognition by UNESCO and access to the international courts. The world at large- including the USA- accepts this now and full statehood is certain as a result. Arguments based upon false information are not worth pursuing- no matter what your affiliations with the criminal occupiers.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
There territory in question is *disputed* which means the dispute should be settled between the two parties: namely, the nation of Israel and the quasi-state of Palestine. But since the new resolution effectively makes Israel a criminal state, the dispute was settled by an outside party.
Click to expand...

No- it is only ' disputed ' by Israel- and that's a well-known punt in itself. The occupation was condemned - unanimously- as illegal. Even that is simply a reaffirmation of the existing legal position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top