Meet Trump&#x27;s U.S. Ambassador to Israel

Original post by xbiostudentx

Non sequitur.

How does that follow from my question? Nice try.

You try to claim that it's not morally right to evict palestinians, and I'm saying that it's not morally right for palestinians to be existing, and as such the alternative is not morally right either (letting them stay), and as such evicting them may be the better thing to do even if both actions are not morally right.

I don't like to write full paragraphs or use condescending "logical arguement" lexis so I say my points simply, assuming that you have enough intelligence to see my line of argument. I assumed wrong.

Reply 62

xbiostudentx

5

Original post by BobBobson

and I'm saying that it's not morally right for palestinians to be existing

Complete non argument :lol:

Reply 63

username2950448

OP

20

Original post by BobBobson

I'm saying that it's not morally right for palestinians to be existing
This is a new one... :rofl:

Reply 64

Original post by admonit

GA resolution 3379 (equation of Zionism and racism) was explicitly revoked.

Yes, but it doesn't follow that explicit revocation is the norm, and that all GA resolutions lacking an explicit revocation should be

It's "the bits" which UN "likes" and I proved it in my post.

For the sake of argument, I'll accept your heavily stretched and prescriptive readings of 181 and 43/177's reference to it. The "UN official position", as far as there is one, is still Res. 1397. Even in terms of GA resolutions, 43/177 was effectively superseded by 67/19 in 2012.

Reply 65

Original post by BobBobson

I'm saying that it's not morally right for palestinians to be existing

Err....do you want to try rewording that to at least sound a bit less genocidal?

Reply 66

Original post by Cato the Elder

Your point?

That there is both an international entity and a legal territory called Palestine. It exists, it simply doesn't have full sovereign statehood.

Reply 67

Original post by anarchism101

That there is both an international entity and a legal territory called Palestine. It exists, it simply doesn't have full sovereign statehood.

Legal according to who?

Reply 68

Original post by Cato the Elder

Legal according to who?

The UN, ICRC and ICJ would be the most relevant.

Reply 69

PieFace:)

Trump is very deep into Jewry

Reply 70

admonit

10

Original post by anarchism101

The "UN official position", as far as there is one, is still Res. 1397.

The resolution 1397 just "affirms vision of two states, Israel and Palestine". Nothing new and nothing that contradicts other UN resolutions.

Even in terms of GA resolutions, 43/177 was effectively superseded by 67/19 in 2012.

What are you talking about?
43/177 recognizes the Palestinian state.
67/19 grants the Palestinian state the non-member observer status.

Reply 71

Original post by Len Goodman

Well yes, it is sad that childen have to suffer but that's on the Islamist adults who use them as weapons against the Israelis.

Please do explain how the four children playing football on the beach who were bombed to death, were being used as weapons.

Reply 72

So Jewish people who support a so state solution are worse than the Kapos?

Seems that Trump has hired a hardened anti-Semite. There is most certainly an anti Semitic Zionist wing full of the likes of Le Pen, Nick Griffin and now this guy.

Reply 73

Original post by xbiostudentx

Muh 6 gorillion

never forget goy

Holocaust denial, check.

Reply 74

Original post by Bornblue

So Jewish people who support a so state solution are worse than the Kapos?

Seems that Trump has hired a hardened anti-Semite. There is most certainly an anti Semitic Zionist wing full of the likes of Le Pen, Nick Griffin and now this guy.

Anti-Semitic Zionist? That makes no sense.

Reply 75

Original post by Cato the Elder

Anti-Semitic Zionist? That makes no sense.

Nick Griffin supports Israels right to exist as a Jewish state. He also denies the Holcoaust.

That's an anti-Semitic Zionist.

I'd also argue that slating the kapos as Trumps advisor has done is anti Semitic.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 76

Original post by Bornblue

Nick Griffin supports Israels right to exist as a Jewish state. He also denies the Holcoaust.

That's an anti-Semitic Zionist.

When did he say this?

And it is not inconsistent for far-right anti-Semites to support the existence of a Jewish state. Their hatred for Jews means that they would be happy with them being deported from non-Jewish countries and given a homeland of their own, since they want to ensure a pure, white Europe with no Jews.

Reply 77

Original post by Cato the Elder

And it is not inconsistent for far-right anti-Semites to support the existence of a Jewish state. Their hatred for Jews means that they would be happy with them being deported from non-Jewish countries and given a homeland of their own, since they want to ensure a pure, white Europe with no Jews.

Yep, hence Bornblue's comment about anti-semitic Zionists. There's always been a strand of this all the way through the history of Zionism. Herzl himself said that "the anti-Semites will be our most dependable friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies". It goes all the way up to today, to the point where a major Israeli journalist says that more anti-semitism in the US and Western countries would be a good thing. Its nadir was Avraham Stern and Lehi's (a small minority of extremists, it should be noted) efforts to become Nazi collaborators in WW2 in return for all European Jews being forcibly deported to Palestine.

Reply 78

Original post by anarchism101

Yep, hence Bornblue's comment about anti-semitic Zionists. There's always been a strand of this all the way through the history of Zionism. Herzl himself said that "the anti-Semites will be our most dependable friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies". It goes all the way up to today, to the point where a major Israeli journalist says that more anti-semitism in the US and Western countries would be a good thing. Its nadir was Avraham Stern and Lehi's (a small minority of extremists, it should be noted) efforts to become Nazi collaborators in WW2 in return for all European Jews being forcibly deported to Palestine.

That does not necessarily mean that anti-Semites that support the existence of a Jewish state are Zionists. They don't support the Jews having a homeland on principle, they only support it to achieve an end, that end being the expulsion of all Jews from Europe to a Jewish homeland so that they all gathered in one place far, far away from a fully white continent. Such a situation also makes it easier for all the Jews to be killed at once, as Jew-hating Palestinians have pointed out.

And last time I checked, the collaboration between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Nazi Germany was more extensive than any contacts which some fringe clique of Zionists might have had with said regime.

Reply 79