rbell:
“He and Mathew make a nice pair. But I think it is a toss up as to who is the most hateful bomb throwing degenerate”
Care to explain how I qualify as a hateful, bomb-throwing degenerate? Is that really the best you’ve got?
Bohemond:
“This is a factually-challenged assertion. Israel has not founded new settlements nor expanded existing ones in years”
*blink*
I’m sorry? Isn’t the current argument with obama about israel wanting to keep expanding existing settlements? Also …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7136984.stm
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL3140883420080331
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal+Issues+and+Rulings/Summary+of+Opinion+Concerning+Unauthorized+Outposts+-+Talya+Sason+Adv.htm
“And I would suggest that the construction of the existing settlements was ‘ok’ not because of racism, but because the previous owner, Jordan, launched a war of annihilation against Israel and lost”
So let’s get this straight: Your position is that if country A invades country B (even if it’s in self defense), then the individuals living in the area that A occupies automatically forfeit all legal rights to property. Those people have the choice of leaving the area (uncompensated), or living as displaced non-citizens. The state is free to allocate their land to citizens of country A without legal recourse. Have I got that basically right? Is so, are you suggesting that’s the basis for the east jerusalem and west bank settlements?
Have a read:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954967.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/964843.html
““Taken by force” is a real weasel-wording of the events of 1967: are you suggesting that East Prussia should be cleansed of Polish “settlers” and returned to its German “legal owners?””
If the dispute was ongoing, then yes. Or the property lost by individuals should be compensated.
