Mossad Chief: Israel becoming a burden for the USA

[Matt Giwer]

Finally you post something correct.

What do you mean finally? I have always said the occupation was criminal. It has been since the brain dead fundies got into Hebron and were allowed to stay. That was in 1967, October I think. That was end of the legality of the occupation.

Is there something wrong with Israel coming to an agreement with the Palestinians?

The two can come to any agreement they wish but the criminal nature of the occupation is a separate and unrelated issue. Israel treats peace negotiations as a path to legalizing its crimes. The only legitimate thing to negotiate is the end to the lawful aspects of the occupation. In that case the only thing to negotiate is schedule for withdrawal of the occupation troops. Given their distance from Israel proper is barely 20 miles at most, a week should be sufficient time to complete the withdrawal.

 

[bigjelmapro]

What do you mean finally? I have always said the occupation was criminal. It has been since the brain dead fundies got into Hebron and were allowed to stay. That was in 1967, October I think. That was end of the legality of the occupation.

How is an occupation of land previously occupied by another invader illegal following a war, then another, and no agreement between the remaining party, the Palestinians, and the Israelis, as there was with Egypt and Jordan?

Please, explain this stellar logic.

The two can come to any agreement they wish but the criminal nature of the occupation is a separate and unrelated issue. Israel treats peace negotiations as a path to legalizing its crimes. The only legitimate thing to negotiate is the end to the lawful aspects of the occupation. In that case the only thing to negotiate is schedule for withdrawal of the occupation troops. Given their distance from Israel proper is barely 20 miles at most, a week should be sufficient time to complete the withdrawal.

More drivel. At least you mentioned the possibility of negotiations this time though but somehow brushed off that the Arab countries and the involvement of the Palestinians (ie leadership with civilian support) doesn't carry any repercussions.

Please show me this reset button to this conflict and wonderful examples in history of voided armistice lines and previous treaties being honors in the rest of the world by aggressors.

 

[Mycroft]

so, Israel needs to control the Jordan Valley to protect them from who?

Jordan? Iraq?

give me a break. George W. Bush took care of Israel's threat of a land war from east, in 2003.

Again, I didn't say that.

I have criticised the Palestinians for not restarting peace talks. But I don't expect them to accept a state in 73% of the West Bank. No honest person would.

Yet you can't say why not.

The proposal theoretically could accomplish several things important to getting Israeli buy-in for the deal, but apparently you only think Palestinian sensitivities are important.

err...umm....suggesting an alterior motive for Barak to offer such a BS plan, makes me a conspiracy theorist within the realm of a 9-11 Truther?? Wow.

It is a conspiracy theory, and given that you claim the proposal was dropped, it's not even one that makes sense. Hence the "truther" aspect.

 

[Mycroft]

And as I have posted it is the legal opinion in Israel that Gaza is still occupied.

IIRC you posted a partial transcript from late 2005 that referred to events from before the withdrawal.

Typical.

 

[mortimer]

What do you mean finally? I have always said the occupation was criminal.

Why is it so difficult for you to keep your claims straight. I was referring to your claim that the squattertowns are illegal. The occupation itself is certainly not illegal.

The two can come to any agreement they wish but the criminal nature of the occupation is a separate and unrelated issue.

Again, the occupation is not illegal.

The only legitimate thing to negotiate is the end to the lawful aspects of the occupation. In that case the only thing to negotiate is schedule for withdrawal of the occupation troops.

Wait, are you saying that occupation is legal? Can you make up your mind?

Given their distance from Israel proper is barely 20 miles at most, a week should be sufficient time to complete the withdrawal.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Matt Giwer]

How is an occupation of land previously occupied by another invader illegal following a war, then another, and no agreement between the remaining party, the Palestinians, and the Israelis, as there was with Egypt and Jordan?

Please, explain this stellar logic.

Read the fine convention on the situations to which it is applicable. This one is covered as the people are under control of a (very) foreign military. But you know that.

More drivel. At least you mentioned the possibility of negotiations this time though but somehow brushed off that the Arab countries and the involvement of the Palestinians (ie leadership with civilian support) doesn't carry any repercussions.

Were it not for the dumb-ass support of Israel by the US it would disappeared long ago for lack of interest. Direct support of Israel by the US gov is $3B and another $2B in miscellaneous benefits. It would be interesting to see how this jewish paradise would fair if it had to raise that much more in taxes. This is not addressing the irregular US gov charities in the billions each and in loan remissions and such which would mean even higher taxes.

Please show me this reset button to this conflict and wonderful examples in history of voided armistice lines and previous treaties being honors in the rest of the world by aggressors.

I am only addressing the criminal nature of the Israeli occupation and the absolute necessity to end that without regard the end of the occupation.

I am certain you would like to discuss something other than the criminal nature of the occupation as it enforced and imposed by Israel on the Palestinians who have been the planned and intended victims of the Jews since Jabotinsky.

 

[Matt Giwer]

IIRC you posted a partial transcript from late 2005 that referred to events from before the withdrawal.

Typical.

AND as I reminded you, BOTH were from late 2005 AFTER the Jews ran away from Gaza.

No matter what you tell them they always try to start over again as though nothing had been said.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Why is it so difficult for you to keep your claims straight. I was referring to your claim that the squattertowns are illegal. The occupation itself is certainly not illegal.

Again, the occupation is not illegal.

Wait, are you saying that occupation is legal? Can you make up your mind?
Don't hold your breath.

I full well know you understand what I am saying and are simply pretending not to understand.

The occupation is the occupation. Any significant illegal aspect of it makes it all illegal. A country settling its population in occupied territory which is then protected by that country's occupation troops is prima facia a criminal occupation. Israel is thus engaging in an illegal activity which was found to be a hanging offense the last time people were put on trial for it. That a thing is a capital offense does not leave much wiggle room for the perps.

 

[Mycroft]

AND as I reminded you, BOTH were from late 2005 AFTER the Jews ran away from Gaza.

The trial was. Months. Barely. The events that led to the trial were from before.

Nice try, though.

No matter what you tell them they always try to start over again as though nothing had been said.

That's because you're not very convincing.

 

[Mycroft]

I full well know you understand what I am saying and are simply pretending not to understand.

The occupation is the occupation. Any significant illegal aspect of it makes it all illegal. A country settling its population in occupied territory which is then protected by that country's occupation troops is prima facia a criminal occupation. Israel is thus engaging in an illegal activity which was found to be a hanging offense the last time people were put on trial for it. That a thing is a capital offense does not leave much wiggle room for the perps.

Ooooh! You used Latin!

You must be right, then.

 

[mortimer]

The occupation is the occupation. Any significant illegal aspect of it makes it all illegal.

Evidence?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Evidence?

You really should read the 4th Geneva Convention some day. OR you should stop pretending you do not understand it. If you really cannot understand it I am certain you can find a copy in your native language.

 

[mortimer]

You really should read the 4th Geneva Convention some day. OR you should stop pretending you do not understand it. If you really cannot understand it I am certain you can find a copy in your native language.

So you have none. Noted.

 

[Matt Giwer]

So you have none. Noted.

The convention spells it out. Feigning ignorance does not make it go away.

 

[Mycroft]

The convention spells it out. Feigning ignorance does not make it go away.

I think he just wants you to quote the portion that says if any portion is illegal then the entire thing is illegal.

I think the more common understanding is that we only criticize nations for the portion of the standards they actually violate and not take some tiny perceived violation as carte blanche to criticize everything they do.

 

[Thunder]

Again, the occupation is not illegal.

this is a fact. the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is in fact, NOT illegal.

however, it was illegal to confiscate Arab private property and build Israeli civilian housing on it.

why do you think Israel declared much of this confiscated land "military zones"?

cause they KNEW international law. they ain't stupid.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Read the fine convention on the situations to which it is applicable. This one is covered as the people are under control of a (very) foreign military. But you know that.

So you can't reply to what was provided. Noted, as others have mentioned by your reluctance to reference...

Were it not for the dumb-ass support of Israel by the US it would disappeared long ago for lack of interest. Direct support of Israel by the US gov is $3B and another $2B in miscellaneous benefits. It would be interesting to see how this jewish paradise would fair if it had to raise that much more in taxes. This is not addressing the irregular US gov charities in the billions each and in loan remissions and such which would mean even higher taxes.

Oh, nice, another epic whinge. US paternalism never ceases to amaze me. With the special $3bil number to boot.

I am only addressing the criminal nature of the Israeli occupation and the absolute necessity to end that without regard the end of the occupation.

There's no 'only' judging from your other posts.

I am certain you would like to discuss something other than the criminal nature of the occupation as it enforced and imposed by Israel on the Palestinians who have been the planned and intended victims of the Jews since Jabotinsky.

I've discussed plenty, but you have this tendancy of cutting and running, then you come back caking on another number of claims.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Ooooh! You used Latin!

You must be right, then.

The only equivalent term I know of in English is "by inspection" which is a term of art in math which most people will not understand in its technical meaning.

Are you intent upon publicly feigning ignorance at the risk of people really believing you are ignorant?

 

[Matt Giwer]

I think he just wants you to quote the portion that says if any portion is illegal then the entire thing is illegal.

Did that.

I think the more common understanding is that we only criticize nations for the portion of the standards they actually violate and not take some tiny perceived violation as carte blanche to criticize everything they do.

As you should remember from what I did post the entire occupation has no aspect which is legal. It became illegal in late 1967 and after the peace treaty with Jordan there was no possible excuse for any form of occupation.

But you know that.

RTFC!

Read The Fine Convention!

 

[Matt Giwer]

this is a fact. the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is in fact, NOT illegal.

however, it was illegal to confiscate Arab private property and build Israeli civilian housing on it.

why do you think Israel declared much of this confiscated land "military zones"?

cause they KNEW international law. they ain't stupid.

It is illegal to maintain any occupation when there is no military threat. The peace treaty with Jordan ended the military threat.

Therefore any occupation in any form is criminal.