What's new

Israel is the legal occupant of the West Bank, Court of Appeal of Versailles

Leave rest asides. You know and I know the question of legality is vested in

f_22_israel_1_by_agnott-d3fs29n.jpg


I would prefer instead if you could educate me the 'linguistic fallacy behind might is right'. Least I will learn something new.
Lol nice question
 
.
I would prefer instead if you could educate me the 'linguistic fallacy behind might is right'. Least I will learn something new.
"Right" is an absolute whereas "might" is a relevant term. So "might is right" is a kind of cheat, as what is "right" will change with the level of "might". Thus a person who holds "might is right" does not hold any truths to be absolute for all can be challenged. "Might is right" is the very vehicle of injustice.
 
Last edited:
. .
middle_east_map.jpg

It is our country Israel has to stop the occupation and return it to Pakistan
 
.
Slavery used to be 'legal'. South Africa's Apartheid was 'legal'. The Holocaust was 'legal' as well.
http://www.un.org/en/holocaustremembrance/docs/paper13.shtml

Legal does not mean moral.

And It's interesting how most of the arguments in this 'judgement' are based on 'the law doesn't apply in this case because the PLO is not a state'. Very similar to how certain laws didn't apply to 'Untermenschen' because they weren't 'really human'.

Goes to show how anti-Semitic Zionism is.

"The PLO relies on article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, which states that « the occupant power may not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population in the Territory he occupies »"
This still applies as it is still an occupation according to this judgement. The right to ensure "public order" does not allow for the transfer of population.
 
.
So a French appeals court ruled that Israel had the right to pay two French companies to construct railway lines in the West Bank.

Why am I not surprised?
 
.
lol however plastine can manage country?
another fiald arab country sure that why i dont care im soppurt there country when we will stop give them jobs and electricty and water in one week they collapse
think why israell arabs so dont want to move to palstine with
All kinds of excuses
they see them self palastenies and not israelis so why they do affraid move to palastine?
Because they are afraid of losing their high standard of living they have in Israel even though they hate the country
 
.
lol however plastine can manage country?
another fiald arab copuntry sure that why i dont care im soppurt there country when we will stop give them gobs and electricty and water in one week they collapse

Oh god your grammar and spelling are horrendous. Please for reference sake if your going to belittle a people do it right.
 
. .
Slavery used to be 'legal'. South Africa's Apartheid was 'legal'. The Holocaust was 'legal' as well.
The Holocaust was not "legal" in the slightest. Not in international law. Not even in German law.

Legal does not mean moral.
Correct. Don't confuse the terms, then.

And It's interesting how most of the arguments in this 'judgement' are based on 'the law doesn't apply in this case because the PLO is not a state'. Very similar to how certain laws didn't apply to 'Untermenschen' because they weren't 'really human'.
Not at all. The PLO is an organization. The 'Untermenschen" was a label applied to a group of people. So the only "similarity" is that "PLO" and "Untermenschen" are both nouns.

"The PLO relies on article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, which states that « the occupant power may not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population in the Territory he occupies »"
This still applies as it is still an occupation according to this judgement. The right to ensure "public order" does not allow for the transfer of population.
You can see why Israel isn't violating Article 49 here.

(On the other hand, you examine the precise text of 49 here. Then consider how many OTHER nations have violated it since 1949 - and muse on the fact that no one talks about not recognizing or exterminating them like so many do with Israel and its Jews.)
 
. .
The Holocaust was not "legal" in the slightest. Not in international law. Not even in German law.
So you didn't read the paper I linked to. Here it is again: The Law as an Accelerator of Genocide
"The mask of legality prevented the clear and unequivocal exposure of wrong doing"

Here's an article from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which makes the same points:
http://jcpa.org/article/contemporary-legal-lessons-from-the-holocaust/
Not at all. The PLO is an organization. The 'Untermenschen" was a label applied to a group of people. So the only "similarity" is that "PLO" and "Untermenschen" are both nouns.
The PLO is an organisation representing Palestinians. Palestinians are a group of people. If the law doesn't apply to them in the same way it does to other people, they are being treated as Untermenschen'
You can see why Israel isn't violating Article 49 here.

(On the other hand, you examine the precise text of 49 here. Then consider how many OTHER nations have violated it since 1949 - and muse on the fact that no one talks about not recognizing or exterminating them like so many do with Israel and its Jews.)
Your article just repeats the same nonsense about Palestine not being a 'sovereign state' - therefore doing anything to them is justified.
"He asserted that Article 49 only relates to the invasion of sovereign states, a title the Palestinians never possessed."
This establishes the point that Article 49 of the Geneva Convention refers to forced transfers of population that result in endangering a conquered nations’ existence, not voluntary settlement to open areas, even for cases when an occupation does indeed take place.
Conveniently forgets that the Palestinians are often transferred forcefully to make way for Israeli settlements.

Then consider how many OTHER nations have violated it since 1949 - and muse on the fact that no one talks about not recognizing or exterminating them like so many do with Israel and its Jews.
So the argument boils down to "but others are doing it too."

No one here wants to exterminate Israel's Jews. All that's wanted is an end to the brutal occupation of Palestine.
 
.
So you didn't read the paper I linked to. Here it is again: The Law as an Accelerator of Genocide
"The mask of legality prevented the clear and unequivocal exposure of wrong doing"

Here's an article from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which makes the same points:
http://jcpa.org/article/contemporary-legal-lessons-from-the-holocaust/
Thank you. I only had time for a quick scan, but the emphasis is that the legal process is what became corrupted, I didn't see laws that overtly promoted murder of Jews.

The PLO is an organisation representing Palestinians. Palestinians are a group of people. If the law doesn't apply to them in the same way it does to other people, they are being treated as Untermenschen'
Batting zero there.

Your article just repeats the same nonsense about Palestine not being a 'sovereign state' - therefore doing anything to them is justified.
The Arabs of Palestine do not have sovereign rights under the Mandate. That scarcely means "doing anything to them is justified" and your assumption of that strongly suggests how Pakistanis view their own sovereignty.

Conveniently forgets that the Palestinians are often transferred forcefully to make way for Israeli settlements.
That's hardly how it happened, mister! Either today or in the past! Note especially that civilians lose their protected status when they take part in hostilities. There were cases of entire villages turning out to attack their Jewish neighbors and city leaders vowing that they would remain politically hostile to the Jewish State.

Ben-Gurion was an Ottoman lawyer as well as a Jew. He knew what was legal and had a very good grasp of what was moral. The Jews of Palestine surrendered none of their property or civil rights under Mandate Law - they had the same right to live in peace as they did under the Ottomans. Arabs in revolt, on the other hand, had surrendered the protections of the State.

All the insistence to "do justice to the Palestinians" - why didn't it ever occur to you that that might mean punishment, rather than reward?

No one here wants to exterminate Israel's Jews. All that's wanted is an end to the brutal occupation of Palestine.
Then Pakistanis must stand with the Zionists against the Palestinian Arabs' leaderships as they currently demand that the "brutal occupation" end by totally eliminating the Jews from Palestine.
 
Last edited:
.
The Arabs of Palestine do not have sovereign rights under the Mandate. That scarcely means "doing anything to them is justified" and your assumption of that strongly suggests how Pakistanis view their own sovereignty.
That's not my stance - it's what your article was implying. I have always maintained that their "lack of sovereignty" doesn't justify Israel's crimes against them.

Your attempts to infer Pakistani views are laughable.
the emphasis is that the legal process is what became corrupted, I didn't see laws that overtly promoted murder of Jews.
The laws overtly treated Jews as having less rights than others, which facilitated their murder.
All the insistence to "do justice to the Palestinians" - why didn't it ever occur to you that that might mean punishment, rather than reward?
Because they're the ones who were invaded and occupied. But you've shed light upon something very interesting: the Zionist belief in 'punishing' Palestinians. That's what all the operations, JDAMs, bulldozers and checkpoints are really about. It's blatantly obvious, no matter how many times they say it's about 'self defense'.
Ben-Gurion was an Ottoman lawyer as well as a Jew. He knew what was legal and had a very good grasp of what was moral. The Jews of Palestine surrendered none of their property or civil rights under Mandate Law - they had the same right to live in peace as they did under the Ottomans. Arabs in revolt, on the other hand, had surrendered the protections of the State.
So the legality of the Zionist Occupation is based on the Laws set by the British Occupation.

Arabs being in revolt doesn't do you any good, considering that Zionists had also opposed the British mandate and murdered a few hundred of their officers while openly proclaiming a Jewish revolt against the Mandate.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/revolt-is-proclaimed-by-the-irgun

As for Ben Gurion's morality, his 'grasp' is irrelevant. His actions are what matter, and they were far from moral.
Then you must stand with the Zionists against the Palestinian Arabs' leaderships, as they currently demand that the "brutal occupation" end by totally eliminating the Jews from Palestine.
Zionists have been murdering Palestinians since long before the current Palestinian Arab leadership even existed.

Regardless, you are wrong about Palestinian demands; they are in favour of pre-1967 borders and have repeatedly said that they would recognize Israel if these conditions are met.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...ze-israel-in-return-for-1967-borders-1.318835

It's the Zionists who are unwilling to compromise. It's the Zionists who invaded. No one with a conscience is going to stand with them and their brutal occupation.
 
.
The laws overtly treated Jews as having less rights than others, which facilitated their murder.
Nazi-era laws certainly treated Jews as having less civil rights than others. By contrast, Arabs in Israel maintain the civil rights they had under the Mandate.

Because they're the ones who were invaded and occupied.
Batting zero. The Jews bought land from Arabs, had it ceded to them by sovereign right, or settled upon land that was abandoned by Arabs who fled to the enemy camp. The Arabs were not expelled as a group and Israel remains 20%+ Arab. On the other hand, Jews and many other non-Muslim minorities have been expelled from countries where Muslims wield political power.

But you've shed light upon something very interesting: the Zionist belief in 'punishing' Palestinians. That's what all the operations, JDAMs, bulldozers and checkpoints are really about. It's blatantly obvious, no matter how many times they say it's about 'self defense'.
As pointed out many times, the truths in Pakistan about Israel are suppressed to serve political purposes. It's really messing up your minds and is the best reason for Pakistan to openly establish friendly relations with the Jewish State.

So the legality of the Zionist Occupation is based on the Laws set by the British Occupation.
Now you're just rewinding back to the beginning. Two thumbs down.

Arabs being in revolt doesn't do you any good, considering that Zionists had also opposed the British mandate and murdered a few hundred of their officers while openly proclaiming a Jewish revolt against the Mandate.
The Brits corrupted the Mandate by working against its purpose. Thus the Jews had both a moral and a legal basis to such opposition. Note that the Irgun, a group that was fanatically anti-British, was the only Zionist armed organization to accept Arabs into its fold.

As for Ben Gurion's morality, his 'grasp' is irrelevant. His actions are what matter, and they were far from moral.
Since you don't accept the context, your pronouncement is baseless.

Zionists have been murdering Palestinians since long before the current Palestinian Arab leadership even existed.
Turning the record back AGAIN. Really, it must be shameful for Pakistanis to read this and realize they are unable to dispute you without fear of retaliation, either political, professional, or social.

Regardless, you are wrong about Palestinian demands; they are in favour of pre-1967 borders and have repeatedly said that they would recognize Israel if these conditions are met.
What they say one moment isn't what they say the next; the goalposts keep moving. For years now the insistence is on a Palestine without Jews.

It's the Zionists who are unwilling to compromise. It's the Zionists who invaded. No one with a conscience is going to stand with them and their brutal occupation.
Zero, zero, and zero; while proclaiming you're not out to exterminate the Jews you nonetheless grant everyone on the planet license to do so.

Of course another way to "end the occupation" is to do what the Arabs did with the Jews in the countries that came under their political control: expel them. Ethnic cleansing. If you are revolted at the thought of "the Palestinians" being expelled from Israel, what, then, do you have to say against the robbery and expulsion of Jews from "Arab" lands?
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom