Bigotry: argument by numbers
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
I suppose that cryptic comment is directed at me. Of course, I am not the one balancing Jewish exceptionalism against the human rights of Palestinians.
You do know its against the Geneva convention for the occupying force to move its civilian population into occupied territory?
Thats yet another mark against Israel
You do know its against the Geneva convention for the occupying force to move its civilian population into occupied territory?
Thats yet another mark against Israel
Last edited:
dividing the percentage of land given by percentage of population. than by dividing the jewish number by the arab number.
8um before zionism their wasn't poor treatment.
You do know it is against the geneva convention to not have a uniform, to fire intentionally at civilian targets without provocation, to end an engagement as expediantelly as possible, to use civilian areas to fire mortars from.
Im just getting started.
um there are provisions in the third geneva conventions for fighting without a uniform. article 6 letter a paragragh 6 to be exact.
As far as I know most Jews support Israel and the Jews like them regardless to who is right and who is wrong . When it comes to bondage the Jews are very bonded . You have Muslims killing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan.....etc. Show me where the Jews are killing the Jews SAM .
Ten bucks shes gonna refrance the concentration camps and Jews being forced to betray each other for food.
"Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
"Spontaneously" is the key word. There was nothing spontaneous about it, the armed force in Palestine had already been conducting rocket attacks and organized attacks without their own uniform prior to an "approach of the enemy"
And "without having time to form themselves into regular armed units"- they had more than enough time, and didnt use it.
"openly and respect the laws and customs of war"- once more, when they arent in combat they hide their arms so theyre not shot, they abuse prisoners and go against the third geneva convention.
Article six does not apply to the Palestinians in any way whatsoever.
never claimed it did.
I never said you did.
I was just answering your interest in that particular area of the convention
Keep going. I would love to hear the Geneva conventions for the occupied.
It is perfectly OK under Geneva to not have a uniform if the enemy prevents you from equipping yourself, nothing any Palestinian does can possibly be said to be unprovoked, Israel has broken the long truces and refused disengagement, and Geneva allows people to fight back from wherever they have been trapped by the enemy - "civilian area" or no.
And Palestine has not signed the Geneva Conventions AFAIK, nor is it allowed to make international agreements as a separate country.
Meanwhile, Israel is in continual and flagrant violation of the Conventions it has signed, and the UN does nothing about it. Palestine is embargoed, Israel buys weapons and military gear from the world.
i think there are more parts of the geneva conventions that Israel has broken than kept.
Let's see your numbers. Show your math if you want the award.
Categorically wrong.
Then prove it.
If one of the two countries has signed it, than either both are bound to it, or neither are.
You cant have 1 follow it and 1 not.
And also, that only applies if the country has not had time to prepare and army and ONLY if the country respects other laws of warfare.
So long as Palestine fires rockets into cities they forfeit their rights to protection under article six of the 3rd Geneva convention.
if you search for worth 2.5 times as much as an arab you'll find the post where i laid it out.
though if you want the rough numbers the pouulation was something like 33 jewish and 67 arabs and the land given was 55 jewish and 45 arab
prove it.
it was a statement of belief not a statement of fact.
Last edited:
Then find it again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_antisemitism#Medieval_times
Roumani, Maurice. The Case of the Jews from Arab Countries: A Neglected Issue, 1977, pp. 26-27.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Jews_in_Arab_lands_(gen).html
Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi, 1985, p.61
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_antisemitism#Nineteenth_century
Yossef Bodansky. "Islamic Anti-Semitism as a Political Instrument" Co-Produced by The Ariel Center for Policy Research and The Freeman Center for Strategic Studies, 1999. ISBN 0967139104, ISBN 978-0967139104, see also The Encyclopedia of world history By Peter N. Stearns, William Leonard Langer page 527 published 2001
Lewis (1986), pg. 133
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_antisemitism#Growth_in_the_twentieth_century
It would be difficult to believe that you are unaware of this material. But now you are, so I expect no further avoidance.
The same challenge applies.
rough numbers not good enough?
their is nothing to avoid your taking the historical treatment out of context plus really the jewish virtual library could you find a site more rabidly unfactual.
not really you can ask my why i believe that but its really my choice weather or not I divulge that info.