I don’t think there are very many (I recall a poll taken a while back where (int eh event of a two state solution) would want to be part of the Palestinian state. however, the Israelis seem to think there might be a lot of people who would want to exercise the right of return given their reluctance to put it on the table in the two state solution.
The post did not fail in any respect. The purpose of the post was to dismiss your insinuation that I was making it all up. An insinuation which now cannot be pursued.
On the other hand you have made up this term “legitimate judicial entities” out of thin air to define arguments out.
Do we need a sticky: The special rules for Israel threads?
You posted a desire to see people killed to satisfy your own personal beliefs about the situation, then you rationalized your claim because you interpret different laws and declarations in a way that suits your prejudices. My point regarding “legitimate judicial entities,” (not a term of law, but simply a way to keep you from citing some kangaroo court of your choosing that has no recognition outside your own band of partisans), simply noted that no actual international court has supported your position. There are partisans of your side that support your interpretation, but no court has issued a decision to support it. You are, thus, not justified in your calls for murder.
Any more carping on this point is nothing more than you trolling to keep the issue alive.
Damuri,
Climb down off your cross. No one accused you of being anti-Semitic so please stop with these fantasies of false claims of anti-Semitism being used to stifle debate.
Why don’t you just cut to the chase and say ZOG is behind this nefarious plan to censor you from loudly proclaiming your desire to have all of the Israeli settlers murdered? You’ve already started 2 ATMB threads claiming mods are making special rules for Israel and Jews.
This kind of language is not appropriate for Great Debates. Knock it off.
Not at all. The israeli SC is one which, for the sake of not getting into another pointless argument I’ll just state a fact here, has come up with various rulings at odds with those of the International Court of Justice and international law in general in cases concerning the Palestinians.
But in the case of whether the West Bank is under belligerent occupation, even the Israeli Supreme Court – a court not known for agreeing with international law/rulings in cases concerning the Palestinians! – in this case agreed with the rest of the world that the West Bank is under belligerent occupation by Israel.
Again, I believe it is a legal definition and the Court is deciding whether or not it applies.
What did I say wrong?
Damuri falsely claimed that I was accusing him of being an anti-Semite when I clearly wasn’t.
I’m a bit confused as to why he can mischaracterize what I say and play the victim card, but I’m not allowed to call him on that.
Because that’s how it is on the SDMB.
It was worse back in the day when not agreeing with Ariel Sharon meant you were an anti-Semite - when he was just playing domestic party politics.
Are we playing “let’s pretend” now? Cool.
I hated the Straight Dope back in the day when people called you a neanderthal for denying that cavemen had totally bitching fights with dinosaurs.
Okay, your turn.
Well they decided that the legal definition of belligerent occupation applied to Israel’s belligerent occupation of the West bank.
Fire rockets at me, and I’ll want to occupy the area where they are coming from, too.
It’s fairly basic. I’m not sure Dick’s argument even contains a point… perhaps it should revert to talk about how the ADL are “Likudnicks” but never provide a cite to that effect.
It’s a common error, actually. Most people don’t know that a “belligerent” - the noun, not the adjective - means a party taking part in a war. Cite:
Thus, “belligerent occupation” simply means “occupation by a belligerent”.
Hrm. I wasn’t aware that was a common mistake. Seemed pretty obvious to me, but ah well. Such is life.
Oh, if you get a minute and you can check your PM’s Alessan I had a small favor to ask for someone fluent in Hebrew. But if it’s too much of a problem then no worries.
This is in no way reflective of the principled and disinterested reasoning leading to my conclusions.
That is probably because the reasoning leading to your conclusions is not particularly principled or disinterested.
Just sayin’.
Not addressing who did wrong first…
But having a belligerent occupying what I see as my home makes want to continue firing rockets as well…
And I saw Alessan’s note as well…that’s interesting fact to note - I learnt something today..
What would you say though I wanted to contrast a belligerent occupation with a benign occupation (is there such a thing?)