Ban Ki-moon calls Israeli settlement expansion an 'affront' to the world

moon2012 said:
For starters- Israel doesn't have any legal borders at this point in time. Some experts in international law state that Israel's only legal claim to territory is the division of Palestine described under UNGAR 181 of 1947. Any other territory it occupies has been taken by force- which is not permissible under the UN Charter. So- and all supporters of passive Zionism ought to grasp this- when the international community recognises Palestine's borders on the pre-1967 line- which the overwhelming majority do- then they are also recognising Israel's borders on the pre-1967 line. This is vastly more territory than was offered to Israel under Resolution 181 and they are actingly remarkably stupidly in turning it down.
The trouble is that neoZionists believe that they will achieve their ' dream ' a ' Greater Israel' if they just keep on doing what they do, with US support. That's not going to happen. The brakes are being applied.
Click to expand...

But didn't Israel acquire the post-'67 territory after it was attacked by its Arab neighbors?
 
moon2012 said:
International law will protect Israel when Israel starts to comply with it. Even the Palestinians would feel the need to have a secure neighbor which respected borders, as would Lebanon and Syria. It's neoZionism's hunger for other people's territories which is the root of the problem. They will say that they haveto occupy other people's territory in order to protect themselves. That is a lie. The occupation creates the enemies they fear.
Click to expand...

here here
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
But didn't Israel acquire the post-'67 territory after it was attacked by its Arab neighbors?
Click to expand...


No. Israel actually started the 1967 war. That's a fact. The only war which Israel didn't initiate was the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Remember- so-called 'pre-emptive ' wars are illegal . Self-defense must never comprise wars of aggression in themselves- and Israel attacked first.

Another myth broken. Prepare to repel Ziontrolls.
 
moon2012 said:
No. Israel actually started the 1967 war. That's a fact. The only war which Israel didn't initiate was the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Remember- so-called 'pre-emptive ' wars are illegal . Self-defense must never comprise wars of aggression in themselves- and Israel attacked first.

Another myth broken. Prepare to repel Ziontrolls.
Click to expand...

So, Israel was supposed to let the Arabs have the first shot lol. As if it would have mattered. Israel would still be expected to give the land back.
 
moon2012 said:
No. Israel actually started the 1967 war. That's a fact. The only war which Israel didn't initiate was the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Remember- so-called 'pre-emptive ' wars are illegal . Self-defense must never comprise wars of aggression in themselves- and Israel attacked first.

Another myth broken. Prepare to repel Ziontrolls.
Click to expand...

Uh, Israel was also attacked right after it was created...
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
So, Israel was supposed to let the Arabs have the first shot lol. As if it would have mattered. Israel would still be expected to give the land back.
Click to expand...

If Israel hadn't attacked then there might never have been a 1967 war. Those that attack want war- and the law exists to thwart them. The pre-1967 borders are already recognised as the borders so all those deaths were for nothing. Israel loses long-term
 
Last edited:
moon2012 said:
Israel had already razed hundreds of Palestinian villages before it made its unilateral declaration of statehood. You do need to see beyond accepted propaganda.
Click to expand...

The unilateral declaration made possible by your precious UN and its international law? :cof1:
 
moon2012 said:
No- without Zionism there wouldn't be a ' political Islam ' nor ' islamists ' of the variety we are currently experiencing. You can lay the blame for that squarely at the door of the British government of the time and its abrogation of its Mandate for Palestine responsibilities. Introducing a non-muslim state into the heart of Islam was a mistake at best, a calculated strategic failure at worst.
Click to expand...

yeah right, and pink unicorns only make love under the full moon2012:palm:
 
moon2012 said:
The UN doesn't facilitate unilateral declarations of statehood. It forbids them.

Incidentally, only losers are anti-law.
Click to expand...

I might be inclined to be "anti international law" if I viewed it as intrusive rather than irrelevant. However, since international law is pretty much an irrelevant toy that those silly Europeans play with, I can't say that I care to be anti-law in this case.
 
Eno L. Camino said:
I might be inclined to be "anti international law" if I viewed it as intrusive rather than irrelevant. However, since international law is pretty much an irrelevant toy that those silly Europeans play with, I can't say that I care to be anti-law in this case.
Click to expand...

Really ? So you've no objection to Chinese fishing fleets in the Gulf ? How about American diplomats being arrested overseas for non-payment of traffic tickets ? What about the US navy being barred from international waters ? Consider Airforce One being buzzed over the open Pacific ? Give stuff a good think before speaking.
 
moon2012 said:
Israel relies very, very heavily on USA arms, political support and tax-payers money. As America approaches having a Latino majority, a little under thirty years away they say, then that support is going to wither. Don't you think that Israel should start NOW to comply with international law while it still has the opportunity ?
Click to expand...

Good old US of Mexico lol!

It's hard to take the UN seriously when the OIC is behind so many of the anti-Israel sanctions. Nations like Syria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia need to clean up their own houses before they go to moralizing about Israels role in the 'plight of the Palestinians', which everyone knows they don't give a crap about. A place like Syria doesn't care about its own people and we're supposed think they care about Palestinians?

Horse-hockey. It's nothing but a pretext to indulge their anti-Semitic inclinations.

And I have a real hard time taking anyone named ban Ki-Moon seriously lol.
 
I wonder if America's forthcoming Latino majority will exploit the white evangelist minority ? Interesting times. Maybe there will be a rush to Tel Aviv to wait for ' the Rapture '.
 
moon2012 said:
Willful ignorance and stupidity are not my strengths so I'll ask again the question that you HOPE to ignore. What is the context of the word ' Israel ' in the artifact which you cite ?
It's a very reasonable question requiring a satisfactory answer. Surely, you're not going to demonstrate your powers of wilful ignorance over such a triviality ? We'll see.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't sell yourself short; because you've shown great strengths, in those two areas. :D

You stated that Israel wasn't Israel, before 1848 and I provided irrefutable evidence that you're wrong; you should therefore own your failure and take comfort in it. :chesh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top