IS this ok?

[SolomonVII]

That's what occupiers always say.

Your attempted truism is untrue.
China never said that Tibet was occupied. They said it was China.
China is the typical example.
Hardliners do not call the West Bank either occupied or disputed. They call it Israel, given by God from the Nile to Euphrates even. Hard line Palestinians likewise do not dispute that Israel is all part of Greater Palestine, and vice-versa for the West Bank.
The anti-Israel position is that these territories are occupied. The anti-Palestine position is that these territories are eternally Israel.
'Disputed territory' is the neutral term, used only by those who believe that negotiations are necessary before a decision is made.

 

[S.ilvio]

So you agree with me? The Fatah example in the West Bank should be followed, rather than the Hamas example in Gaza...

 

[brewmama]

So you agree with me? The Fatah example in the West Bank should be followed, rather than the Hamas example in Gaza...

There must be something we can agree on, but so far I haven't found it!

 

[ebia]

By wiping out the Jews, the devil has sought to stop God's plan of salvation for mankind. How can Messiah be born a Son of David if there are no Jews and no offspring from David? And NOW, the Lord is prophesied to return to Jerusalem. And in Matt 23, HE said He would not be seen in Jerusalem until they (the inhabitants of Jerusalem - the Jews) welcomed Him back saying the words every bride says when she sees her groom coming to take her home: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! Jews that welcome the 2nd coming as a bride welcomes her groom.

And if there are no Jews? No Jews in Jerusalem? The prophecy fails.

That's not a catholic reading of the texts.

 

[ebia]

Your attempted truism is untrue.
China never said that Tibet was occupied. They said it was China.
China is the typical example.

Exactly my point.
China is the occupier of Tibet. But China says "oh no - it's part of China" ie they dispute it.

"Disputed" isn't neutral; the international community has ruled on who gets what. "Disputed" is an attempt to simultaneously allow the claim while pretending neutrality.

China claims Tibet, but their occupation doesn't cease to be an occupation or any less evil because of that, however many people use or do not use the euphemism "disputed".

 

[SolomonVII]

Your point was that all occupiers use the word 'disputed'.
That is untrue. It is only true of a country where territory is under discussion.


There is no such thing as 'The International Community'. Such an entity does not exist, and never has. People calling on the International Community to back their anti-Israel claims are making a claim to a false and non-existent god.

 

[ebia]

Your point was that all occupiers use the word 'disputed'.

Methinks you took the phrasing a little too concretely.

Occupiers always claim the territory is theirs - ie they dispute that it isn't.

There is no such thing as 'The International Community'. Such an entity does not exist, and never has.

Clearly there is such a thing. It doesn't take a formal organisation to make a community.

There's no fundamental difference between Israel's occupation of the occupied territories, and China's occupation of Tibet.

 

[SolomonVII]

Methinks you took the phrasing a little too concretely.

Occupiers always claim the territory is theirs - ie they dispute that it isn't.

Methinks that you you are making words mean whatever you want them to mean, thereby never having to prove a case.

Clearly there is such a thing. It doesn't take a formal organisation to make a community.

Clearly to the extent that there is such a thing, it includes Israel and it includes me. Therefore the so-called International Community does NOT have any kind of consensus whatsoever on the political status of the West Bank.

There's no fundamental difference between Israel's occupation of the occupied territories, and China's occupation of Tibet.

When words like 'disputed' and 'evil' are defined to have no objective meaning,where white is black, and black, white; where 'disputed' is inflammatory and partisan, and 'occupied' is neutral and objective, then there is not difference at all between any two countries whatsoever.

As it it, China claims its right to Tibet is indisputable, and is not open to negotiations.
The status of the West Bank is open to negotiations.

Big, big difference, (except for those who have come down with an incurable case of Moral Equivalence affecting their thinking, or course).

 

[ebia]

Methinks that you you are making words mean whatever you want them to mean, thereby never having to prove a case.

China says "Tibet is ours". Tibetans say "no it's not". That's a dispute. That's exactly what disputed means.

Clearly to the extent that there is such a thing, it includes Israel and it includes me. Therefore the so-called International Community does NOT have any kind of consensus whatsoever on the political status of the West Bank.

Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement. Who is making words mean what they want them to mean here?

When words like 'disputed'

See above.

and 'evil' are defined to have no objective meaning,where white is black, and black, white; where 'disputed' is inflammatory and partisan, and 'occupied' is neutral and objective, then there is not difference at all between any two countries whatsoever.

Waffle

As it it, China claims its right to Tibet is indisputable, and is not open to negotiations.
The status of the West Bank is open to negotiations.

If I walk into your living room and claim it as mine, I don't get better status by claiming to open to negotiation.

Big, big difference, (

Nah. Same, same.

 

[Dave-W]

That's not a catholic reading of the texts.

Perhaps not. Neither is it a protestant reading.

But it IS an Eastern Orthodox and Messianic reading of the text.

Perhaps that is one reading that may be addressed in the official meetings of the Vatican and the Toward Jerusalem Council II group. If it comes up during the current pontiff's tenure, it very well could become the Catholic reading.

 

[Dave-W]

There's no fundamental difference between Israel's occupation of the occupied territories, and China's occupation of Tibet.

There is one HUGE difference: China was never given Tibet by God in the pages of scripture. The "west bank" and the east bank as well are both given to Israel.

Oh yes - so is the "West Bank" of the Euphrates.

 

[ebia]

There is one HUGE difference: China was never given Tibet by God in the pages of scripture. The "west bank" and the east bank as well are both given to Israel.

Oh yes - so is the "West Bank" of the Euphrates.

Back to the N American/Israeli myth that the modern state of Israel has anything to do with biblical Israel, and can therefore do no wrong.

Since I (and most of the world) share neither of those premises there's nothing more to say, except that saying "it's right because God says so" is a claim many can make.

It just makes Israel and the U.S. not much different from Saudi or Iran.