Hamas Win so what now

[rogue yam]

The illegality of the occupation is frequently reinforced by United Nations General Assembly Resolution and International Court ruling.

That you rely on these institutions for reinforcement of your claim disproves it.

It will be impossible for Israel ever to have a legal claim to any territory occupied since 1967, and very difficult for Israel to have a legal claim to territory occupied since 1948.

Israel will have its full sovereignty recognized by the U.N. Security Council eventually. They are in no hurry, being busy with more important matters like self defense and prosperity.

 

[moono]

That you rely on these institutions for reinforcement of your claim disproves it.

I can always spot a budding criminal by his disrespect for legal institutions.

Israel will have its full sovereignty recognized by the U.N. Security Council eventually. They are in no hurry

It's easy to air one's complacency from some distant safety. It is in nobody's interest, except the Israelis themselves , for them to annex any of Palestine. Time is also on the Palestinians side. In order to have the Israelis retreat Hamas need only to refuse to negotiate. Then there is Israel's growing demographic problem. Palestinians keep breeding faster than Israelis can kill them.

 

[mears]

what arguement?

All do is insult your opponent!

He is worthless. And I think he is of an advanced age ( if his age was 15 years old it might explain it) which is real scary.

He is the only person I have ever put on ignore. Think about doing the same

 

[ViolentPanda]

By whom?

Two fairly august bodies. One was the Kahane commission, an Israeli public enquiry into the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, which concluded on Sharon that:

" * In our view, the minister of defense made a grave mistake when he ignored the danger of acts of revenge and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population in the refugee camps ... It is our view that responsibility is to be imputed to the minister of defense for having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps, and having failed to take this danger into account when he decided to move the Phalangists into the camps.

* In addition, responsibility is to be imputed to the minister of defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps. These blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the defense minister was charged."

The other being the Belgian supreme court (chosen by relatives of victims of the massacres because of jurisdictional policy allowing Belgian citizens to bring legal actions for crimes committed in other countries), which found that Sharon (as defence minister at the time) and his generals in the region bore personal culpability (if you understand "chain of command" you'll understand why) and could be indicted for same.

No doubt you'll have a good ol' sneer, but that doesn't change facts, does it?

 

[AndyO'C]

Cheers VP

I knew about the Israeli Kahan commission, but not the Belgium court.

 

[nino_savatte]

l

You opted out of such a notion in favour of assassinating my character instead.... honourable debating tactics

I've attacked you straightaway because it saves time. In your case, the phrase "Jew hater" is always close to hand.

 

[nino_savatte]

Israel recognise Palestines right to exist....

Does it really? Your previous posts have always indicated the opposite. Of course those Israelis who were born in the region are also Palestinian....but I suppose that would be an insult to you.

The Palestinians - that is to say the people who were forced to live in the now occupied territories - have always been seen as schmutz by the Israeli settlers. I should like some proof of your assertion - if you would be so kind.

 

[nino_savatte]

Don't expect reason from a supporter of terrorist filth.

Nice line in discssion sass: if you can't win the argument call the other person a "supporter of terrorist filth" or a "Jew hater".

I asked you a question yesterday. Did you answer it? Or did you find it offensive? If your answer is the latter, then you know just how ridiculous your insults are. But then, you know nothing about me or my ancestry but suffice to say, I am not as 'pure' as you...does that mean you believe yourself to be ethnically superior to me? Because in one post you practically suggested that.

 

[nino_savatte]

You may deliver your messages with great aplomb, but there is never any subtance... Just playground name calling.

Sas stated he was jewish by blood, you made a huge assumption and suggested that he only knew of one ethnic jew (the same euro-jew slander you threw at me), you then went on to name drop other jewish ethnicitys insinuating his "jewish by blood" comment was erroneous.

No doubt you'll reply to this with more petty insults....

More white noise from someone whose sole line is "you're anti-Semitic". Are you ethnically superior to me, Joe? I'm just a darkie; but I'm the worst kind of darkie: I'm mixed race and I've got plenty of cultures to draw upon...including Jewish but then, like Sass, you're something of a purist.

 

[nino_savatte]

what arguement?

All do is insult your opponent!

And what do you do, Joe? You set out your stall in your first reply to me...or can you remember that far back. According to that post (and your thesis) this is an assymetrical affair where the Palestinians are the 'bad guys'. You accused someone on this thread of "dualism" or something like it. I believe the expression you are looking for is "binaries" and I see much of that in your posts: simplistic binaries.

 

[nino_savatte]

You've seen nothing from me on the Palestinians.

I've voiced some opinions about hamas.

I wish you'd go to the trouble of reading what people say instead of making the most ridiculous assumptions.

That was easy - wasn't it? It's a pity you can't see these things in yourself. It's much easier to project them onto others.

 

[nino_savatte]

He is worthless. And I think he is of an advanced age ( if his age was 15 years old it might explain it) which is real scary.

He is the only person I have ever put on ignore. Think about doing the same

That's funny coming from someone who has the debating skills of a speak-your-weight machine.

The only reason you have me on 'ignore' is because I have demolished plenty of your badly thought out arguments...but you can't deal with that. In fact, you can't cope with the truth and when it is presented before you, you turn nasty - as you did with me on many occasions...like the time you asked me how my sister was doing in Florida (who did you think you were...Michael Corleone?).

Do us all a favour and fuck off back to FreakRepublic where you belong.

 

[oi2002]

You are wrong...

I may be a former Maoist but the parallel with China in Tibet was ironically intended. Tibet fought its invaders poorly and even less effectively than the similarly hapless Palestinians. I've not much sympathy with this reactionary monkish people but point it out as a bit of similar colonial freebooting. If only the Tibetans had the stones of Hezbollah or the VC. The Peoples Army was not as gentle as the Israelis maybe half a million died, about 1 in 15. The IDF didn't have much Palestinian civilisation to destroy but I do hear they routinely smash any sink they find. Unfortunately this won't make a Brad Pitt movie just shape the next generation of suicide bombers.

 

[laptop]

Speaking for the "Quartet" of Mid-East mediators, Mr Annan said Hamas must commit to non-violence violence and recognition of Israel.

here

So... that'd be Gandhian violence, then?

 

[Serguei]

The occupied territories are illegally occupied. Only temporary occupation is legally allowed and it can be demonstrated that Israel has long passed the point of what might reasonably be considered 'temporary' occupation.

What is "international law"? It is just some rules made by powerful countries and from time to time voted in UN based on some political preferences of the time. But reality is different. There was no “international law” when the majority of today’s borders were drawn, if there were “international law” the Muslims would still be living in the confinement of Arabian peninsular and Istanbul would be called Constantinople. Should everything be always return to the previous owner? So why not start and return Turkey to Christian Orthodox Greeks?
If Hamas could they would not care about "international law", they would simply wipe Israel from the face of the Earth. As Arabs tried to do it in 1967 that is resulted in them to loose the territory. If Naser did not push for the war in 1967 and Jordanian had not supported him, West Bank would still be part of Jordan so Arabs have only themselves to blame for this.

The current border is the reality. Arabs can negotiate the independence only because they have the right for their own place in Palestine, but they cannot expect that the "international law" they did not observe in 1967 can now be used to regain what they have lost then because of their aggression. It is too late now.

 

[rogue yam]

Two fairly august bodies. One was the Kahane commission, an Israeli public enquiry into the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, which concluded on Sharon that:

<snip>

The other being the Belgian supreme court...

The Kahane commission quotes you provide fall far short of establishing that "Sharon was held to be 'personally responsible' for the murder of over 2,000 in sabra and chatila", which was the original claim. As for the Belgian supreme court, you're right: BWAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! Seriously though, you leftists are constantly spewing false charges of U.S. imperiousness and unilateralism, yet when the Belgians (for fuck's sake, man, the Belgians!] do that which the U.S. has never done, you dive to your knees in a rush to fellate the lying, poncey bastards. What the fuck is up with that?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

What is "international law"? It is just some rules made by powerful countries and from time to time voted in UN based on some political preferences of the time. But reality is different. There was no “international law” when the majority of today’s borders were drawn, if there were “international law” the Muslims would still be living in the confinement of Arabian peninsular and Istanbul would be called Constantinople. Should everything be always return to the previous owner? So why not start and return Turkey to Christian Orthodox Greeks?
If Hamas could they would not care about "international law", they would simply wipe Israel from the face of the Earth. As Arabs tried to do it in 1967 that is resulted in them to loose the territory. If Naser did not push for the war in 1967 and Jordanian had not supported him, West Bank would still be part of Jordan so Arabs have only themselves to blame for this.

The current border is the reality. Arabs can negotiate the independence only because they have the right for their own place in Palestine, but they cannot expect that the "international law" they did not observe in 1967 can now be used to regain what they have lost then because of their aggression. It is too late now.

erm and what about isreal?

in terms of places reverting wouldn't you say that the arabs that lived there have more of a recent history than the people who allegeldy left the area some thousand or so years previous?

btw dose 1947? mean anything to you?

 

[AndyO'C]

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles556.htm

The subsequent Israeli Kahan commission of enquiry into this atrocity provided absolute proof that Israeli soldiers saw the massacre taking place. The evidence of a Lieutenant Avi Grabovsky was crucial. He was an Israeli deputy tank commander and reported what he saw to his higher command. "Don't interfere," the senior officer said. Ever afterwards, Israeli embassies around the world would claim that the commission held Sharon only indirectly responsible for the massacre. It was untrue. The last page of the official Israeli report held Sharon "personally responsible"....

There was a story told to me by one of the men investigating Sharon's responsibility for the Sabra and Chatila massacre, and the story is that the then Israeli defence minister, before he sent his Phalangist allies into the camps, announced that it was Palestinian "terrorists" who had murdered their newly assassinated leader, President-elect Gemayel. Sharon was to say later that he never dreamed the Phalange would massacre the Palestinians.

So, as defence minister, and at the top of the command chain, he is personally responsible for this attrocity.
I know you might not trust a journalist with Fisk's credentials/bias, but I can't find the total report online, so hope that'll do.
This is obviously way off topic from the original point, but don't these things always get spun around?

Peace

 

[ViolentPanda]

The Kahane commission quotes you provide fall far short of establishing that "Sharon was held to be 'personally responsible' for the murder of over 2,000 in sabra and chatila", which was the original claim. As for the Belgian supreme court, you're right: BWAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! Seriously though, you leftists are constantly spewing false charges of U.S. imperiousness and unilateralism, yet when the Belgians (for fuck's sake, man, the Belgians!] do that which the U.S. has never done, you dive to your knees in a rush to fellate the lying, poncey bastards. What the fuck is up with that?

Oh dear, your prejudice and jingoism blind you to the point, as usual.

The point is that within the bounds of accepted law the Fat assassin has been found culpable.

Now you can make all the ridiculous comments you like (and I'm sure you will, you seem to use abuse much too often in place of rational argument), but that doesn't change facts, does it?

Oh, and btw, don't call me a "leftist", I'm not, not that I expect an idiot like you to understand that someone disagreeing with you or showing up your tissue-thin attempts at disguising prejudice for reason doesn't reveal themselves as a "leftist" by doing so, merely as someone with a somewhat better grasp on reality than yourself (which isn't difficult, given your extremity).