You claimed here that Israel said Area C is under the control of the PA. That was a falsehood.
I re-read the link and didn't see where I said that "Israel said Area C is under the control of the PA".
In fact I did a word search-
three of the times I said 'control' I was describing ISRAELI control, and the fourth time I was speaking about 'political control' in defining colony.
So please quote where I said what you're claiming, in context. Either that, or… what was that phrase of yours? -- admit you're a liar.
Citation needed.
Wikipedia covers it, and Israel's former Ambassador to the UN also discusses explains the difference between the two, arguing that occupied is inappropriate, since it fails to recognize Israel's historical claims over the land.
His view was adopted by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Israel has resisted your description of the West Bank as 'occupied Palestinian territory' b/c it prevents Israel from legally asserting sovereignty over the land.
I agree with B'Tselem on the point I quoted.
Funny how you accept the Levy Report sometimes, but not other times
Get some consistency, ros. Or is your position also 'funny'?
Was America's occupation of Germany "illegal"? Or was Germany America's land?
You didn't define your terms, but I'd say it was legal under the post-War international law regime on military occupation, because no one claimed Germany was America's state land. The temporary nature of American presence there is also critical to, e.g., the difference between occupation and annexation.
By contrast, Israel's having built entire cities and roads for Israeli citizens on that land and encouragement of massive non-military immigration onto that land, coupled with its ongoing (though cagey) assertion of its rights over sections of that land, and its pronouncement of those sections as state land (regardless of your and B'Tselem's legal conclusions as to the merits of that claim), point far more strongly to the so-called occupation as being permanent rather than temporary, certainly much moreso than during the U.S. post-war occupation of Germany.
That is to say, if America had done to Germany what Israel has done in the West Bank, it would've been illegal. But it didn't, so it was legal.
Now that I've answered your question, please answer this: Do you consider East Jerusalem to be occupied Palestine?
I misspoke on my statement about changing goalposts.
You lied. 'Just admit it'. But I accept your apology for implying I'm a liar in your histrionic accusations:
Change the goalposts! Change the goalposts! They also weren't Jewish, do they have to be in order for you to have a problem with it?
As far as the implication that I'm biased against Jews - your admission that you were wrong ('misstatement') entirely undermines that disgusting accusation so I'll consider it retracted, but I still think it'd be a good idea for you to go fuck yourself.
And instead of perpetually pointing the finger, maybe look in the mirror when it comes to falsehoods and bias. I don't hate any Jews by the way, much less those in my family.
no analogy is perfect.
Yes, I said that many posts and three days ago in response to your first question:
False? No. Imperfect, like most analogies.
Thanks for agreeing with me - no hard feelings about wasting my time getting there - at least you've learned something.