Gaza Agreement ; Hamas prepares for unity government.

British census of 1922 proves this is false.

 

Listen pal, I don't mean to be disrespectful here, but statements on banners, missiles and other rhetorical flourishes allegedly purporting to indicate official state policy - viz a viz annihilation of the landmass of Israel - are not, contrary to your assertion, evidence to this effect. State leaders' and politicians often use inflammatory rhetorical-based public statements as rallying-calls with the aim of drumming up or consolidating domestic public support, often against a backdrop of imperialist provocation. Sometimes, it's not nice and there are varying degrees to which it is undertaken. However, it's what politicians and those in public office frequently do, particularly in circumstances when they are faced with an Empire who historically has attempted to undermine their very sovereign integrity. With all that said, I'm not convinced that the translations are accurate anyway. But even if they are proven beyond reasonable doubt to be an accurate representation of the Iranian position, they are contradicted by other translations which explicitly challenge this version of events.

 

15 years ago I thought aliens had velvet vaginas...now I know they do not...(sweaty oily succulence). Fifteen years ago Israel and Palestine were somewhat different...as was I an probably Hillary Clinton.

don't like her....but your commentary is inaccurate.

 

With the translation, you might want to trust me just on this one point, I translated it. The banner on the right says "Israel must be destroyed". I know some farsi, and that sentence is easy farsi. This isn't from memri, its my own translation. As for the english "Israel must be wiped off the map", well, that was their own statement.

The video of Ahmadienjad is from memri, i can't tell if all of the video is accurate but 'marg bar israel' means death to israel in farsi definitely.

 

As I intimated, it's the context that has to be taken into account. Secondly, in relation to the first point, statements of various descriptions are not necessarily evidence of policy intent. Third, if your assertions relating to policy are indeed correct, how can this be squared with the revelation of alternative translations which contradict yours?

 

Now here's where the illegal apartheid wall bites Israel on its fascist arse.

During its condemnation of the barrier the International Court of Justice ruled that Palestinians are indeed a sovereign people . Your post's a waste of words. A phony. Pardon me for leaving out the seven hundred irrelevant ones. It was ridiculous after the first twenty-one.

and;

 

You know it isn't. Billary's comments are part of the historic record. My point is made- don't stretch yours to the point of ridicule.

 

Lets focus more on the topic, please.

Shangrila
PF Moderator

 

Okay...certainly don't want to be ridiculed.

 

Post #281 debunks this nonsense in its entirety. Do you have any comments relevant to that- and only that ?

The sovereignty of the Palestinian people has only been in dispute by those who wish to ethnically cleanse Palestine. That's common knowledge. Now that Palestine is recognised by the United Nations as a State on the pre-1967 borders the duty of its leadership is to represent ALL Palestinians . That is a primary task for the unity government and it must resist all efforts by the fascists in the Knesset to undermine that determination.
Palestine has international law on its side and it should now stay within it. Armed resistance can always be resumed if the US continues to veto democratically-produced United Nations decisions. That scenario will be further justification for armed resistance.

 

It most definitely is not a spurious comparison in the slightest.

The circumstances are naturally different, but the underlying sentiment is not. If you can justify Russia being forced into illegality and intervention in another country, then what you are saying is that there are times when illegal intervention is justified.

Its not rocket surgery.

 

moon, et al,

Just a few points.

(COMMENT)

First point: I've read and re-read all three major source documents concerning the The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ADVISORY OPINION on the "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" -
9 July 2004, General List No. 131,

• SOURCE #1: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS, ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
• SOURCE #2: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004
• SOURCE #3: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&case=131 The Court finds that the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian

Not once is the Wall described in "Apartheid" fashion. In fact the word is not even used once. So, I went back to check the written record of Brief (Friends of the Court) Statements submitted:

• 27 January 2004 Written Statement of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
• 28 January 2004 Written Statement of the League of Arab States
• 29 January 2004 Written Statement submitted by Palestine

And again, the word "Apartheid" is not used once in any of the major complainant statements. Your implied accusation that the ICJ somehow vindicates the association of the "WALL" with "Apartheid" simply doesn't stand-up to examination of any sort.

(COMMENT)

Yes, everyone knows that the Arab State of Palestine is sovereign. No one disagrees with that; not even the Israelis. For heavens sakes, the Palestinians declared "Independence" while under Israeli Occupation; uncontested.

Please note, that the Palestinians cite in their Declaration of Independence that they exercised their right of self-determination, and achieved political independence and sovereignty over its territory.

I am still at a loss as to the specific point you are attempting to debate. Do you have a specific complaint? OR, are you just following some wandering line from which to rant? If you have a specific issue, what is it?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

They use "Apartheid" like others use "Bastard", not meaning the actual parents are not married - just to insult the guy.

So you have a bunch of radical self loathing liberal extremists screaming all kind of empty slogans to the air to compete who screams the most nonsense, I balme the parents


And the lack of meat in their diet, 'cause meat is murder y'know.

 

1-Your comments in post 281 did not debunk anything. What you did was response with your usual method of response engaging in words that express a subjective partisan opinion and contain insults.

2-This tactic of trying to dictate to me what I can respond to and what I can not is not working. This attempt to control what I choose to respond to then try avoid responding to the issues I raised and you do not want to respond to has been challenged by me and I will not allow you to try control what I am allowed to respond to.

You raised the legal issue as to whether the wall put up by Israel is legal and not a legitimate act of self defence to avoid responding to me and Borat over the fact that you falsely stated the ICJ has stated Israel has no right to self defence.

Your attempt to continue to refuse to apologize and retract your false statement is duly noted and trying to once again bait me to switch from your false representation to another issue is not working now, has not worked in the past, and won't work in the future,


The

 

Who is supposed to have said that the ICJ directly termed the illegal barrier an apartheid barrier ? The court expounded upon the effects that the illegal barrier had on Palestinians. Readers can judge for themselves if ' apartheid ' is the term suited to its effects. I certainly have.

Good. We are all in agreement on that point- except perhaps the author of post #274, but then that nonsense was debunked by post #281.

 

A sensible and commendable policy. I sense Obama's hand in this. He wasn't always a drone-driven loon.

....last but not least;

Israeli fascism at work.

 

moon, et al,

Well ... Maybe I understand.

(COMMENT)

The ICJ talked about the security barrier as being over the Armistice Line; the pathway.

What the ICJ said was:

The Wall has nothing to do with a separation based on Article 7(2h) of the Rome Statutes (Apartheid); committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime. The principle point of contention of the Barrier was that portions of it were on the wrong side of the Green Line.

(COMMENT)

I've reread Post #274 (Yetzerhara) and Post #281 (moon). I'm not sure that Post #281 actually addresses the deeper concepts expressed in Post #271. While there are arguments to be made, the thoughts expressed in Post #271 are much more than that expressed by citing unsynthesized excerpts on the "right of self-determination." So, no --- on both counts: I don't think it is "non-sense" and I don't think Post 281 "debunked" anything.

Just my thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Well, you're welcome to it. The contention was the Palestinians' status as a sovereign people- which you seem to have contrived to miss. That is now settled.

No, the effects of the illegal barrier upon the sovereign people of Palestine was an equal issue in the judgment- as were other points raised in striking down Israel's list of objections to there being an ICJ ruling at all.
The requested judgment was for the court's advisory opinion on the wall. That judgment included far more than the wall's illegal location. Your attempt to shift the emphasis is a tad tawdry- but expected. We are still bemused by your earlier effort to deny that Palestine was in a state of occupation.

 

Israel is under no obligation to allow Hamas terrorists travel through Israeli territory.

 

It's Palestinian territory- occupied by neoZionists- and the charge of ' terrorists ' is moronic.

 

Gaza is part of Palestine. The West Bank is part of Palestine.

The land between Gaza and the West Bank is part of Israel.

Israel doesn't have to let Hamas terrorists travel through Israel to get to the West Bank.

don't you know about national soverignity?

 

No, it isn't. Gaza and the West Bank are contiguous territory as determined by the United Nations in 1947. Palestinian territory has been occupied illegally by Zionists.

 

As per the PLO Charter and the Palestine Decleration of Independence, UNGA 181 is null & void.

Nevermind the fact that Palestine was declared on all lands that were conquered by Israel during the 1967 War.

 

' Null and void ' nonsense. Israel's borders are legitimised nowhere except by the United Nations in 1947.


The topic then- the US has stated that it will work with the Palestinian unity government, Israel has stated that it will not. Which stance is most likely to achieve success ?

 

Please remind us of today's terrorist atrocity by Hamas.....Thanks.