The Proof About Jews

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@25 October 2003 - 16:52

I never occupied anywhere, at that time all of my family were Irish, living in Ireland. We moved to Scotland 2 generations ago.

Excuse me? Wasn't Ireland part of Britain 200 years ago?

As for the legality or otherwise of your lot's occupation of Australia, the land was first declared terra nullis, Palestine never was.

Do you declare a certain slant towards Israel on the question of the continuing illegal settlement of Palestinian land?

I have no slant either way. As I have said elsewhere untill people agree that compromise is the only way forward there can be no progress towards peace. I use Ireland as an example of this, because there has been progress. Like I said 2 steps forward and 1 step back, but that still works out as forward motion.

Things like you said earlier :

NO! It is not a black hole. it's black and white! Israelis are thieving murderers, stealing and killing land and landowners, how can you sit there and justify that? Get the fuck out of Palestine, all of you, and fucking stay out!!

are exactly the type of words which are so unhelpfull. This is the ideal way to ensure that people become even more entrenched.

You persist with using the phrase, "your lot's" I take it from this that you were not born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I had thought you previously stated this.

Where are you actually from then.

Edit - sorry meant to mention the terra nullis nonsense. The land was "declared unoccupied" in spite of the fact that their was a whole culture already living there.

"This manifestly false proposition was identified as such by the High Court of Australia in the landmark judgment in Mabo case in 1992 and the concept of terra nullis was held to be of no application given the truth that the land was occupied by at least 750.000 people [and possibly many more] organized into tribal and family communities scattered throughout the continent and maintaining a strong spiritual relationship with the land."

Do you have a particular slant with regard to the natives in your adopted land.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by Biggles
That is not to say the far right in Israel do not have an agenda - just that it is not shared by the majority of Israelis.

I fail to see how you can say that, the people of Israel consistently elect right wing governments with the same "no deal" attitude towards Palestine. If you want peace, vote for it!

@ JP: I am Australian, hence you lot and us lot.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean+25 October 2003 - 17:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 25 October 2003 - 17:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles
That is not to say the far right in Israel do not have an agenda - just that it is not shared by the majority of Israelis.

I fail to see how you can say that, the people of Israel consistently elect right wing governments with the same "no deal" attitude towards Palestine. If you want peace, vote for it&#33;

@ JP: I am Australian, hence you lot and us lot.


[/b][/quote]
Where were you born Billy, I had thought you said you were born in England and moved to Australia. Sorry if I picked that up wrong.

Either way, when are you leaving. Or do you intend keeping these people&#39;s land from them.

Or do they not have any rights. The Australians Courts have accepted that terra nullis is nonsense. So any claim on the land is untenable.

[Billy_Dean]

I ask you again JP: Are you claiming events of hundreds of years ago justify the Israeli actions, vis-a-vis the continued illegal occupation of Palestinian land?

Legal Status: The Israeli settlement system is illegal under international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, of which Israel is a signatory party, prohibits in all cases the transfer of parts of the civilian population of the occupying Power into the territory it occupies. The Convention, as well as the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annexed Regulations of 1907, which together constitute customary international law, prohibit the destruction, seizure and confiscation of private or public properties in occupied territories (except when absolutely necessary for military reasons).

The applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 has been asserted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, by United Nations organs and agencies, as well as by every country in the world. The United Nations Security Council reaffirmed the applicability of the Convention to the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, in twenty-four resolutions. The Council has specifically dealt with the issue of settlements, established a Commission in this regard and considers settlements to be illegal and an obstacle to peace. In addition, the Council has called for the cessation of all settlement activities and the dismantling of the existing ones. The Council has also repeatedly declared that all measures taken by Israel to change the demographic composition, physical character, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, are null and void and have no legal validity (e.g. resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980)).

I eagerly await your reply.

PS. Fu*king Fulham beat Man U 3- 1&#33; What right do they think they have to inflict that on the greatest team on Earth?

[hobbes]

Whole lotta tap dancin&#39; going on.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@25 October 2003 - 18:47
I ask you again JP: Are you claiming events of hundreds of years ago justify the Israeli actions, vis-a-vis the continued illegal occupation of Palestinian land?

Legal Status: The Israeli settlement system is illegal under international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, of which Israel is a signatory party, prohibits in all cases the transfer of parts of the civilian population of the occupying Power into the territory it occupies. The Convention, as well as the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annexed Regulations of 1907, which together constitute customary international law, prohibit the destruction, seizure and confiscation of private or public properties in occupied territories (except when absolutely necessary for military reasons).

The applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 has been asserted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, by United Nations organs and agencies, as well as by every country in the world. The United Nations Security Council reaffirmed the applicability of the Convention to the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, in twenty-four resolutions. The Council has specifically dealt with the issue of settlements, established a Commission in this regard and considers settlements to be illegal and an obstacle to peace. In addition, the Council has called for the cessation of all settlement activities and the dismantling of the existing ones. The Council has also repeatedly declared that all measures taken by Israel to change the demographic composition, physical character, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, are null and void and have no legal validity (e.g. resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980)).

I eagerly await your reply.

PS. Fu*king Fulham beat Man U 3- 1&#33; What right do they think they have to inflict that on the greatest team on Earth?

Like I said before Billy - What happened hundreds of years ago, on a different continent has nothing to do with the situation there. I don&#39;t think I said anywhere that it did.

I though I made my position clear, sorry if it wasn&#39;t.

Now if you could afford me the same courtesy. Where were you born and when are you leaving Australia.

I await your reply with equal eagerness.

[Billy_Dean]

Like I said before Billy - What happened hundreds of years ago, on a different continent has nothing to do with the situation there. I don&#39;t think I said anywhere that it did.

So why do you ask when I&#39;m leaving?

[J'Pol]

Will you answer the question, where were you born, or at the very least have the courtesy to decline to do so. I remain eager to hear your answer.

I ask when you are leaving because the land was stolen. The Australian court has diemissed your specious terra nullis argument, though I am sure you knew that already.

[Billy_Dean]

How can it have been "stolen"? That&#39;s a legal term it was not illegal 200 years ago. There was no international law, as there is now, no UN, and no real concept of universal human rights. There is also no suggestion of illegality on Britain&#39;s behalf. Terra nullis was found to be incorrect, not an illegal act. The indiginous population is not asking anyone to leave, nor claiming the whole of Australia.

As for answering your irrelevent questions, I have you to thank for that, you taught me well, I salute you.

[hobbes]

Ole&#33;