hpslugga

Oh and it doesn't stop there. There are certainly repressive regimes in the Arab world, but the worst among them are US and Israeli allies. Conversely, the biggest "enemy states" of the US and Israel are fucking democratic paradises when compared to said allies.

This is like using...well a PragerU video to outline the Ten Commandments. In the words of the comic guy on the Simpsons, "worst.source.everrrrr"

The ICJ’s decision included within it a separate declaration by the US justice Buergenthal. In it, he literally says: ”Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also does not admit for exceptions on grounds of military or security exigencies. It provides that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. I agree that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6. It follows that the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law. Moreover, given the demonstrable great hardship to which the affected Palestinian population is being subjected in and around the enclaves created by those segments of the wall, I seriously doubt that the wall would here satisfy the proportionality requirement to qualify as a legitimate measure of self-defence.” It is a logical impossibility to separate what Israel is allowed to do regarding the settlements and with the occupied territories. Again, this all traces back to the Partition Resolution/Green lines and all that wonderful stuff. There is no provision in international law that legitimizes permanent military occupation in those territories. That’s the thing about occupations: they’re temporary. They are supposed to end. When they do not end, they are not occupations. When they do not end, they are annexations. Occupations, as I said before, do become illegal when it’s been determined that the occupier isn’t making good faith efforts to resolve the issue. Israel has made no such effort to the Palestinians since June 4 1967. They were forced to with Egypt, and Egypt has since ceased all hostilities. Gee, I wonder why. Regarding what you said about signing a treaty not affecting international law, that’s true but it has nothing to do with the real world. Such a treaty would be a mutual proposition and mutual alterations to territorial integrity is certainly valid. But that’s not what’s happening here. The competing claims that the two parties have are that 1) there’s what the Palestinians are entitled to under current existing law (which is the partition resolution) and 2) there’s also what Israel wants. In a legal arena, even one as screwy as international law, what one party is entitled to trumps what another party wants if they’re talking about the same things (pieces of land in this case).

That’s another lie. You really need to stop showing your ass at this point because you’re just digging a deeper hole for yourself. Every major assertion you’ve made here has been absolutely wrong on absolutely all counts. And again, it’s all third person hearsay anyways. You’re just repeating some shit you heard from someone else and pretending that it’s actual fact. That’s. Fucking. Lying.

That’s one reason that I wouldn’t mind seeing Mexico steal back Texas: just to watch those morons twist in the wind and pretend as if they actually could whip cream with a boat’s motor.

Right I mean the Native American example is probably the best analogy to pursue, but it’s morally bankrupt to use it in defense of the occupation. Like someone else said earlier, they got the right analogy, just not the way he had intended. That’s seriously a level of depravity that’s hard to fathom.

It’s not and it doesn’t. He’s talking out of his ass. Such is the aggy way. Whoop!

He’s not the least bit interested in that. I’ve seen that juvenile rhetoric so many times that I read it as a confession that “I have no idea what’s happening over there, but someone else told me to say this.” Like this. This is some straight up crybaby bullshit.

They did and they admit to that. That whole fantasy about the Arabs starting it is pretty much limited to Americans, Australians and a few far right Israeli nutcases who live in the settlement blocs.

They’re guidelines based on existing law, which is the Partition Resolution. 242 basically says that regardless of how emotionally invested certain parties are in believing otherwise, it’s still illegal to acquire territory by conquest and the partition resolution therefore stands. The language in 242 includes “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;” and that pronouncement was affirmed in the 2004 ICJ advisory opinion. East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank are among those territories.

“Casualty reports are hard to verify because Hamas controls the media (even the international press)” I’m glad we have brave people like Bari Weiss to enlighten us as to the reality of Hamas controlling the international media.

It's a kind of self-reinforcing form of psychosis, especially with people like Dershowitz that went so far as to state, on Harvard's website, that Norman Finkelstein's late mother was a Nazi collaborator. His evidence? She survived the Holocaust!!! How could she do that unless she was a collaborator?!?! JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!!! At the end of the day, their whole schtick is exactly that: schtick. Every logical fallacy known to man has been used by characters like that to justify the occupation, and every argument they've used to justify the occupation is a logical fallacy. The political right likes to bitch about so-called "identity politics," and yet they cannot for the life of them actually identify it when it's staring them dead in the face...off the reflection of the fucking mirror.

Since this is the second time that rocket surgeon's name has been dropped here, I would be remiss if I didn't refer everyone to the absolute best takedown anyone has ever done on him (and think of the territory that covers): https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Chutzpah-Misuse-Anti-Semitism-History-ebook/dp/B072X6XGBM

Not so much genocide as it is "force them to live lives so unbearable that they'll eventually all pack their shit and leave." Either way, no, there's no way of stopping it outside of the US excusing itself from the issue.

It looks like YAC's are illegal

It's based on a similar saying, which is that if you took McCarthy's testicles and threw them into a drinking straw, it'd look like two kernels of corn rolling around in a storm drain.

If that's her fate, I would then recommend that AOC swing by MTG's office, pop open the mail slot and say "hola! Dame un orden de panochitas...uh 1,2,3,4,5?"

Oh I don't dispute any of this. My only point was to answer your question "why is nothing done?" Nothing is done because we more than abuse our power to veto anything, and in fact everything, that even vaguely criticizes Israel. We've even vetoed resolutions that merely call on all members to observe international law. That's extreme. That's like a lawyer saying "ok. I'm sitting here in a court room, with my bar card. I went to college, studied for the LSAT, passed the LSAT, went to law school, got my JD, passed the bar exam, I pay my bar fees on time every time, etc. I'm sitting here today as an officer of the court...AND FUCK THE LAW! But I would still like to make money off of it!"

Weapon? That blonde bitch is so stupid that she'd leave herself to AOC to slap a ham sandwich on her back and starve her to death.

And I would suggest to @DonkeyCigars that's the one defect of the UN: permanent members and what power they possess. Essentially, the UNSC is like a DA's office, except that it just takes one of the five assistant DA's to thwart any attempt at potential prosecution, even if the other 4 actively want it. Realistically, you're never going to get those 5 to relinquish the veto powers they possess in the UN, but if by some snowball's chance in hell they did, there's no way that Israel would still be occupying those three places at this point in history.

And I should have added that the missing pieces, when put into practice, effectively broke up the West Bank into 3 cantons. So 3 West Bank cantons, East Jerusalem, Gaza, no border security, no air space security, no aquifer security, etc. That's even more offensive than when South Africa had the fucking bantustans.

It wouldn't be a two-party state. It'd simply be two states with, optimally, what international legal scholars call "functional contiguity" between Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. And in case you're wondering what that means, it refers to infrastructure. It'd be like if the US had a super highway between, let's say, Washington state and Alaska.

Right, and the chasm between that and the next is most likely not within our lifetimes.

If you’re referring to Camp David during the Clinton years, the figure was actually even higher. The figures I’ve seen suggest that Israel was willing to give back 94-96% of the land. The reason Camp David failed, and Israeli negotiator Schlomo Ben Ami has since conceded this, is that the missing 4-6% were pieces of fairly high value to the Palestinians. More importantly, however: -There was no mention of restoration of water rights -There was no mention of restoration of air space rights -There was no mention of withdrawing checkpoints -There was no mention of cessation of tree uprootings, farmland destruction, house demolitions, etc -Speaking of house demolitions, there was no mention of easing of difficulties obtaining house construction permits That, above all, is why Ben Ami himself conceded that the Camp David deal was impossible and that no Palestinian leader, not even that incompetent buffoon Saeb Erekat, would have accepted it. That’s also why Clinton came forth with his parameters at Taba near the end of his term...but Taba failed because Barak prematurely withdrew his negotiators. In fact if one takes Israeli political commentary even half serious, one comes away with the impression that Taba was just a last ditch election ploy and not a serious negotiation effort. More on that later. If anyone is curious about this, I’d suggest reading scholarship by Clayton Swisher and Ron Pundak. Since 1967, Israel has not made a good faith effort to resolve the occupation. That is what makes the occupation illegal, and there’s international precedent for such a label. Namibia took its case against South African occupation to the ICJ back in 1971. The ICJ subsequently ruled that the occupation was illegal because the occupier ceased attempting good faith efforts at a resolution. Israel has repeatedly sabotaged opportunities at good faith efforts, with the lone exception (and even that was forced upon them with no real alternative) being Camp David in 1978. And that was Egypt, not Palestine. They’ve repeatedly engaged in what the Likud government in particular calls “mowing the lawn,” which is when they go into Gaza and smash the place up with about 1-2k civilian casualties and untold property damage, they murdered 20k people in Lebanon to quash what Avner Yaniv called “Arafat’s peace offensive,” they’ve illegally blockaded Gaza for going on 16 years, they continue to expand settlement construction in the West Bank, and most importantly, they continue to beg the US to do their bidding on the international arena (Biden just vetoed an SC resolution this past week). Those are all the exact opposite of what any ICJ would call “good faith efforts.”