Is Israel Destroying Itself With Its Settlement Policy

[Apocalypse]

Your posts here obviously have no intention of backing the opinions expressed with anything like supporting evidence , so the opinions themselves hold less water than those you object to

My post shows that you're not relying on a logical basis, but on a logical fallacy.

 

[oneworld2]

UN preserved all the rights that have been granted to the Jews under the Mandate.

If that were true then the UN Charter, Fourth Geneva Convention and UNGA wouldn't count Israeli actions like the settlements as being illegal would they ?

It's noticeable how inconsistent the relationship with the UN is for so many so called supporters of the state of Israel.

Regardless, the Mandate , as bent as it was ,ended long ago and is not applicable to the legality of the settlements in the OPTs today.

 

[oneworld2]

My post shows that you're not relying on a logical basis, but on a logical fallacy.

Your posts here cry foul without even attempting to show any evidence as for why that would be the case nor how the evidence to the contrary would be undermined.

My opinion is based on facts and stats yours appears to based on nothing thus far. So much for logic.

 

[oneworld2]

Given the logical fallacies of yours through out this discussion it pretty obvious who's opinion don't hold water.

Evidence has been in very short supply or nonexistent from the other side thus far and that doesn't look like changing anytime soon.

 

[SmartCat]

Indeed!!

The sentiments expressed in that post are a pretty clear example of the moral decline such illegal and obviously unjust adventures as illegal settlement building propagate imo

The West Bank is legitimate spoils of a war the Arabs started with the intention of destroying Israel and killing all the Jews there. I do not care what the UN has to say about it. When Nasser demanded that the UN peacekeeping force left, the UN peacekeeping force left.

 

[Apocalypse]

Your posts here cry foul without even attempting to show any evidence as for why that would be the case nor how the evidence to the contrary would be undermined.

My opinion is based on facts and stats yours appears to based on nothing thus far. So much for logic.

I have merely provided you with the knowledge of what a logical fallacy is and specifically what is the logical fallacy that you've chosen to apply.
From that point forward you chose to just argue with the dictionary, which is not a smart decision but still a decision nonetheless.

 

[oneworld2]

The West Bank is legitimate spoils of a war the Arabs started with the intention of destroying Israel and killing all the Jews there. I do not care what the UN has to say about it. When Nasser demanded that the UN peacekeeping force left, the UN peacekeeping force left.

There are no " legitimate spoils of war " and especially for countries that have signed international treaties pledging to desist from such. The words in your post sound like something written in the late 1700's early1800's.

Your words hold a contempt for laws and positions you will no doubt later on use to justify legitimate actions allowed in such conventions. Cherrypicking for a confirmation bias is the worst thing to see in peoples posts imo

 

[oneworld2]

I have merely provided you with the knowledge of what a logical fallacy is and specifically what is the logical fallacy that you've chosen to apply.
From that point forward you chose to just argue with the dictionary, which is not a smart decision but still a decision nonetheless.

Yes you have because it is easier to do than the task of supplying evidence to back the opinions you express in your posts

 

[Apocalypse]

Yes you have because it is easier to do than the task of supplying evidence to back the opinions you express in your posts

The whole point in pointing out the logical fallacy is to show it's not a logical argument.
If it's not acceptable logically, why do you expect it to be treated as if it is?

 

[oneworld2]

The whole point in pointing out the logical fallacy is to show it's not a logical argument.
If it's not acceptable logically, why do you expect it to be treated as if it is?

Obviously you have set your stall out not to supply any evidence to back your opinion and I can't say as I can really blame you for that.

What has been shown is that those who back their arguments with factual evidence are the ones using logic and reason. Those that don't must be using something else.

 

[NO1]

Yes you have because it is easier to do than the task of supplying evidence to back the opinions you express in your posts

Wow it seems you really don't understand, listen, is very simple when you arguement has a fallacy ( fallacies to be accurate) it no longer valid argument, so there is no point to build an argument against it, all there is left to do is pointing out the fallacies. Logic 101.

 

[oneworld2]

Wow it seems you really don't understand, listen, is very simple when you arguement has a fallacy ( fallacies to be accurate) it no longer valid argument, so there is no point to build an argument against it, all there is left to do is pointing out the fallacies. Logic 101.

The arguments are valid and this ongoing trivia is just a ploy being used to help people evade having to provide counter arguments with supporting evidence. The settlements are illegal, the settlers living in them are illegals who should return to Israel where they can live legally. Nothing false about that so some people post many replies none of which counter it.

 

[NO1]

If that were true then the UN Charter, Fourth Geneva Convention and UNGA wouldn't count Israeli actions like the settlements as being illegal would they ?

It's noticeable how inconsistent the relationship with the UN is for so many so called supporters of the state of Israel.

Regardless, the Mandate , as bent as it was ,ended long ago and is not applicable to the legality of the settlements in the OPTs today.

It already been addressed and crashed in the thread - https://debatepolitics.com/threads/w-57-the-israeli-wishlist-v-international-law.371029.
You are pretty consitant with your fallacies, you used the same fallacies in that thread also. The thread above shows perfectly that the Jews are the only people with legal righta in this area and how your stance regrading Judea and Samaria is wrong. Also it shows how the wrong term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" came to life even though the simple fact the palestinians never were the owners of Judea and Samaria (seems magical).

 

[NO1]

The arguments are valid and this ongoing trivia is just a ploy being used to help people evade having to provide counter arguments with supporting evidence. The settlements are illegal, the settlers living in them are illegals who should return to Israel where they can live legally. Nothing false about that so some people post many replies none of which counter it.

 

[Cardinal]

I can personally vouch for Israeli settlement policy being absolutely catastrophic to the morale of non-Orthodox Jews.

 

[Nickyjo]

When two nations want the same land and are willing to fight for it, there is no point in negotiating the outcome. It will be settled by force of arms.

The Bible and the Koran give the land of Israel to the Children of Israel.

The following passages come from a translation of the Koran made by Marmaduke Pickthall, an English convert to Islam.

Surah V:20 And (remember) when Moses said unto his people: O my people! Remember Allah’s favoour unto you, how he placed among you Prophets, and He made you kings, and gave you that (which) He gave not to any (other) creatures. O my people! Go into the holy land which Allah hath ordained for you. Turn not in flight, for surely ye turn back as losers.

Surah XVII:104 And we said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land, but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass, we shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.

This is what the Bible has to say about the right of the Jews to the land of Israel:

Genesis 12:6-7 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

Genesis 13:14-15 And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

---------

All of Israel, including the legitimate spoils of the Six Day War, is less than one percent of Arab lands. Let the Jews have it, and tell the Palestinians to move elsewhere in the Arab world.

View attachment 67303210

I am not Jewish, buy the way. If I was I would not praise God's Chosen People like I do. Jews are humble about their superiority. I am an Anglican. That is a traditional Episcopalian using the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.

Well that settles it. God as real estate agent. Sadly, from what I know, I fear for Israel's future, given demographics. I worry that some of its discriminatory features resemble old South Africa's, and that it will of necessity move more in that direction to maintain control. In some ways its expansion east resembles US expansion west, with Palestinians as Indians.

And Jewish superiority? Tell the Palestinians to move elsewhere? Somehow I think that such echoes of their history in Germany would make such thoughts anathema to Jews.

 

[oneworld2]

It already been addressed and crashed in the thread - https://debatepolitics.com/threads/w-57-the-israeli-wishlist-v-international-law.371029.
You are pretty consitant with your fallacies, you used the same fallacies in that thread also. The thread above shows perfectly that the Jews are the only people with legal righta in this area and how your stance regrading Judea and Samaria is wrong. Also it shows how the wrong term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" came to life even though the simple fact the palestinians never were the owners of Judea and Samaria (seems magical).

I disagree. As do most of the world and most legal scholars btw

 

[Apocalypse]

Obviously you have set your stall out not to supply any evidence to back your opinion and I can't say as I can really blame you for that.

What has been shown is that those who back their arguments with factual evidence are the ones using logic and reason. Those that don't must be using something else.

You haven't made a logical argument. What do you expect people to do? To pretend it's logical and continue discussing the inherently invalid argument as if it isn't?

 

[SmartCat]

Well that settles it. God as real estate agent. Sadly, from what I know, I fear for Israel's future, given demographics. I worry that some of its discriminatory features resemble old South Africa's, and that it will of necessity move more in that direction to maintain control. In some ways its expansion east resembles US expansion west, with Palestinians as Indians.

And Jewish superiority? Tell the Palestinians to move elsewhere? Somehow I think that such echoes of their history in Germany would make such thoughts anathema to Jews.

Apartheid came to an end because of international pressure. Without that South African whites could have maintained it. The official story is that after apartheid came to an end the people of South Africa lived happily ever after under the benevolent rule of Nelson Mandela. Every now and then the truth leaks out, like blood seeping under the door of a torture chamber.

The average Arab IQ is about 89. The average for an Ashkenazi Jew is 115. The Israelis, with U.S. help, will always be able to out fight the Arabs because they will always be able to out think them.

 

[oneworld2]

Apartheid came to an end because of international pressure. Without that South African whites could have maintained it. The official story is that after apartheid came to an end the people of South Africa lived happily ever after under the benevolent rule of Nelson Mandela. Every now and then the truth leaks out, like blood seeping under the door of a torture chamber.

The average Arab IQ is about 89. The average for an Ashkenazi Jew is 115. The Israelis, with U.S. help, will always be able to out fight the Arabs because they will always be able to out think them.

Without the US veto international pressure would have been able to have forced Israel to comply with international law and a just resolution of the conflict, in line with an overwhelming international consensus and said law would probably have already occured long before now. You do know the overwhelming international consensus supports a two state solution based on the 1967 lines?

The last line of your post is probably the most enlightening as to how your opinions on this subject have been shaped. They also fall in line with other notions of racial superiority that are expressed in your posts. I don't think that should be what is used assess what would/should be a just resolution of the conflict but each to their own.

 

[oneworld2]

You haven't made a logical argument. What do you expect people to do? To pretend it's logical and continue discussing the inherently invalid argument as if it isn't?

What's invalid ?

 

[Apocalypse]

What's invalid ?

A logical fallacy as an argument of course.

 

[Nickyjo]

Apartheid came to an end because of international pressure. Without that South African whites could have maintained it. The official story is that after apartheid came to an end the people of South Africa lived happily ever after under the benevolent rule of Nelson Mandela. Every now and then the truth leaks out, like blood seeping under the door of a torture chamber.

The average Arab IQ is about 89. The average for an Ashkenazi Jew is 115. The Israelis, with U.S. help, will always be able to out fight the Arabs because they will always be able to out think them.

Didn't the Germans do head measurements and some other stuff to compare intelligence among ethnicities? What you said about Arab vs Jewish IQ old Adolf could have said about Germans vs Slavs. And of course the Arabs, who produced fabulous architecture and irrigation methods we copied a bit here in California, are obviously inferior. And didn't they come up with algebra? Eau de fascisme in your last paragraph.

And ending apartheid didn't guarantee a liberal democracy would follow, any more than US independence ending British colonial rule guaranteed that we would abandon theft of land/genocide against Native Americans. Some of one race rushed to disposess another of their land and rights. And give South Africa the same 70 years it took us to abandon slavery after 1783, and even a few generations more to get over lynching.

 

[oneworld2]

A logical fallacy as an argument of course.

I don't think your posts indicate that you want to engage in a meaningful discussion about the subject so will leave it until it looks like you do, if that even happens.

 

[SmartCat]

Without the US veto international pressure would have been able to have forced Israel to comply with international law and a just resolution of the conflict, in line with an overwhelming international consensus and said law would probably have already occured long before now. You do know the overwhelming international consensus supports a two state solution based on the 1967 lines?

The occupied territories are the legitimate spoils of a just war. Jewish settlement in those territories is consistent with the Law of Moses. Where was so called "international law" when the Arabs tried to destroy Israel?

Germany lost land after World War I. Germany lost more land after World War II. Losing land is just punishment for a war of aggression.