Deliberate Errors in Judicial Discourse

“For Israel to give priority to the lives of its citizenry constitutes racial discrimination.”
“Int’l law permits targeting of any Jewish civilians in areas under Israeli control.”
“Israel has continued since 2005 to control all exits and entries to the Gaza region.”
“Israel must not prioritize its own citizenry.”
“Israel must not prioritize the safeguarding of the lives of its own citizenry.”
“Israel must not treat its own citizenry differently from other nationals.”
“It is absurd that independent Israeli military courts investigate Israeli military conduct.”
“It is illegal that war crimes allegations are dealt by independent Israeli military courts.”
“Jewish pre-1948 non-sovereignty means that post-1948 Jewish sovereignty is void.”
Acceptance of propaganda founded on stereotyping of Jews as lusting for blood.
Acceptance without questioning of racist allegations against Jews.
Accusations against the Israeli legal system without providing required evidence.
Accusing IDF commanders of issues beyond their legal competence.
Accusing IDF commanders of war crimes based on information not available to commanders.
Accusing present Israel of former legal procedures and former legislation.
Ascribing legal force to advisory documents.
Ascribing legal force to expressions of intra-HG taxonomic physionomistic prejudice.
Ascribing legal force to hearsay.
Ascribing legal force to national prejudice.
Ascribing legal force to religious prejudice.
Ascribing legal force to translations.
Ascribing legal force to widely shared political opinions.
Ascribing malign intention to Israeli decision makers without proving intent.
Ascribing repealed historical laws to present Israel.
Assuming a priori that any Israeli wartime action is disproportional.
Assuming de facto that Israeli sovereignty is subordinate to UNGA legislative powers.
Assuming that “consensual” Anti-Israel views have precedence over codified law.
Assuming that a gentile only “right of return” justifies expelling Jews from their homes.
Assuming that a right to return justifies the abolition of a member of the United Nations.
Assuming that all lethal use of force by Israel is illegal.
Assuming that all non-lethal use of force by Israel is illegal.
Assuming that an historical EMPT per se justifies future EMPT.
Assuming that an ostensible “right of return” applies ex post facto.
Assuming that any collateral damage caused by Israel is illegal.
Assuming that any collateral damage that Israel causes is intrinsically illegal.
Assuming that any Israeli military action à priori constitutes collective punishment.
Assuming that any Israeli military reaction should be considered à priori illegal.
Assuming that any Israeli wartime action à priori constitutes collective punishment.
Assuming that any Israeli wartime disturbance constitutes collective punishment.
Assuming that any Israeli wartime restriction à priori constitutes collective punishment.
Assuming that Arabophone countries practice a “RoR”.
Assuming that chapter IV of the UN Charter gives power to issue binding resolutions.
Assuming that chapter IV resolutions supersede Israel’s sovereign democracy.
Assuming that chapter VI of the UN Charter gives power to issue binding resolutions.
Assuming that chapter VI resolutions supersede Israel’s sovereign democracy.
Assuming that counter-terrorism must be proportional by law to the prior crimes of war.
Assuming that defense of Jewish civilians has little to none military value.
Assuming that E. J’lem Jews were coerced to move there by the Israeli government.
Assuming that E. J’lem Jews were ordered to move there by the Israeli government.
Assuming that E. J’lem Jews were pressured to move there by the Israeli government.
Assuming that each and every military error committed by Israeli forces is deliberate.
Assuming that ending attacks against Israel has little military value.
Assuming that ending attacks against Israel has no military value.
Assuming that every Israeli military action requires international “investigation.”
Assuming that Golan Jews were coerced to move there by the Israeli government.
Assuming that Golan Jews were ordered to move there by the Israeli government.
Assuming that Golan Jews were pressured to move there by the Israeli government.
Assuming that individual migration into terra nullius justifies EMPT.
Assuming that international law applies universally ex-post facto with respect to Israel.
Assuming that international law changes ex post facto so that Israel is always wrong.
Assuming that Israel controls the Rafah crossing point at the Egypt-Gaza border.
Assuming that Israel controls the southern border of the Gaza region.
Assuming that Israel is incapable of conducting independent judicial investigation.
Assuming that Israel is legally disallowed from making claims on terra nullius.
Assuming that Israel is legally prohibited from besieging enemies while in armed conflict.
Assuming that Israel is never entitled to cause collateral damage.
Assuming that Israel military personnel are guilty until proven innocent.
Assuming that Israel’s adversaries may impose embargos on Israel but not vice versa.
Assuming that Israel’s freely elected leaders are guilty until proven otherwise.
Assuming that Israeli military decision makers are guilty until proven innocent.
Assuming that Israeli military officers are guilty until proven otherwise
Assuming that Israeli national embargo against enemies is illegal but not vice versa.
Assuming that Israeli political leaders are guilty until proven otherwise.
Assuming that Israelis in the West Bank live under military rule?
Assuming that it is disproportional to defeat an attacker.
Assuming that it is illegal for Israel to win a defensive war.
Assuming that Jewish soldiers are guilty until proven otherwise.
Assuming that most Hebrew WB areas are occupied as defined by the Hague Convention.
Assuming that most states consider their sovereignty dependent on UNGA approval.
Assuming that one perceived EMPT transfer justifies an actual EMPT.
Assuming that other UN members recognize their sovereignty as subordinate to UNGA.
Assuming that Palestinian military weakness justifies Palestinian crimes of war.
Assuming that Palestinian minorities enjoy less civil rights in Israel than in the region.
Assuming that Palestinian minorities enjoy less civil rights in Israel than in the US.
Assuming that Palestinian parents cannot exercise responsibility over legal minors.
Assuming that Palestinians cannot be expected to control their actions.
Assuming that Palestinians cannot be expected to control their anger.
Assuming that Palestinians cannot be expected to control their frustration.
Assuming that Palestinians should be considered legal minors under international law.
Assuming that perpetrators of ethnic murder of Jews are legitimate “activists”.
Assuming that popular Anti-Israeli views supersede codified law.
Assuming that popular political opinions have presence over codified law.
Assuming that prevalent political opinions have precedence over codified law.
Assuming that right to return entails a right to relocate to a former home of a forebear.
Assuming that right to return entails a right to settle in one’s former region of residence.
Assuming that right to return entails a right to settle in one’s former locality of residence.
Assuming that right to return includes those displaced within their country.
Assuming that right to return justifies dispossessing an entire people.
Assuming that right to return justifies ethnic murder.
Assuming that right to return justifies genocide.
Assuming that right to return justifies involuntary population transfer.
Assuming that right to return to their country entails a right to return to a former home.
Assuming that sieges are illegal whenever imposed by Israel.
Assuming that such right to return justifies expulsion of people from their homes.
Assuming that terra nullius conquered by Israel in 1967 have to be made Judenrein.
Assuming that that those evicted by a landlord have a right to return to a former home.
Assuming that the 1949-67 armistice lines were internationally recognized borders.
Assuming that the allies in the 1945-49 period formally opposed all EMPT.
Assuming that the building of frontier walls is a “human right violation”.
Assuming that the Christian world recognizes UNGA supremacy over Democracy.
Assuming that the Israeli military is guilty until proven otherwise.
Assuming that the jurisdiction of the Nuremberg trials extended to Israel.
Assuming that the meaning of codified international law is the opposite of the stated.
Assuming that the Muslim world recognizes the supremacy of UNGA over Sharia.
Assuming that the powers that issued UNGA 194 recognized it as mandatory.
Assuming that the principle of proportionality applies to non-violent demonstrations.
Assuming that the prohibition on EMPT justifies EMPT of most Israeli Jews.
Assuming that the right to return to one’s country applies to sites of former homes.
Assuming that the UNGA is a global parliament with binding Anti-Israel legislative powers.
Assuming that the WB 1949-67 armistice lines constituted recognized borders in 1967.
Assuming that those rejected by a new landlord have a right to return to a former home.
Assuming that those who attack Israel militarily have legal immunity against defeat.
Assuming that UN facilities must be fully exempt from any collateral damage.
Assuming that UNGA is empowered to deprive Israel of its UN charter legal entitlements.
Assuming that UNGA resolutions supersede codified international conventions.
Assuming that UNGA resolutions supersede Israeli sovereignty only.
Assuming that UNGA resolutions supersede the UN charter.
Assuming that UNGA self-arrogated authority justifies abrogating Israeli sovereignty only.
Assuming that UNGA supersedes codified international law with regard to Israel.
Assuming that war crime is justified if preceded by another war crime of similar severity.
Assuming that WB Jews were pressured to move there by the Israeli government.
Assuming that West Bank Jews were coerced to move there by the Israeli government.
Assuming that West Bank Jews were ordered to move there by the Israeli government.
Assuming that widely shared disagreement with Israel supersedes codified law.
Assuming that widely shared opposition to Israel supersedes codified law.
Assuming that widespread Anti-Jewish prejudice supersedes Israeli sovereignty.
Assuming that widespread Anti-Jewish prejudice supersedes Jewish self-determination.
Assuming there is no difference between minimizing and maximizing civilian casualties.
Civilian military analysis by jurists with no higher military schooling.
Claiming that “RoR” is a universally applied principle.”
Claiming that a state (e.g. the US) can become a UN protectorate if the UNGA says so.
Claiming that a statistically low level of human collateral damage constitutes genocide.
Claiming that a universal non-citizen “RoR to homes” is applied everywhere else.
Claiming that a universal non-citizen “RoR to homes” is universally applied.
Claiming that agreed temporary Israeli-Palestinian borders are illegal.
Claiming that all Israeli border obstacles are illegal.
Claiming that anti-Israeli terrorists are entitled to impunity from Israeli retaliation.
Claiming that Anti-Jewish views are legitimate if sponsored by the Automatic Majority.
Claiming that any Israeli siege constitutes an intrinsic violation of HSS privileges.
Claiming that Arabists opposed to Jewish property restitution are committed to RoR.
Claiming that Arabophone countries opposed to Jewish property restitution apply RoR.
Claiming that arbiters not approved by Israel are formal legal arbiters of the conflict.
Claiming that arbiters not approved under UN Ch. 7 are legal arbiters of the conflict.
Claiming that areas non-sovereign areas claimed by Israel are undisputed.
Claiming that article 80 of the UN charter does not apply on Mandate for Palestine.
Claiming that attacking Israeli militarily enjoys legal impunity from retaliation.
Claiming that closure of Israeli borders constitutes crimes against “humanity”.
Claiming that closure of Israeli borders constitutes enforced starvation.
Claiming that closure of Israeli borders constitutes genocide.
Claiming that closure of Israeli borders constitutes imprisonment.
Claiming that closure of Israeli borders constitutes occupation.
Claiming that closure of Israeli sovereign frontiers constitutes collective punishment.
Claiming that consistent military attacks against Israel do not constitute armed conflict.
Claiming that consistent rocket attacks against Israel do not constitute armed conflict.
Claiming that East Jerusalem Jewish communities are illegal under international law.
Claiming that embargo by Israel but not against Israel constitutes occupation.
Claiming that embargo constitutes occupation of areas under enemy military control.
Claiming that every Israeli use of force act must be investigated by non-Israelis.
Claiming that expropriation of territory within recognized Israel is illegal and void.
Claiming that individual voluntary migration of Jews constitutes EMPT.
Claiming that individually decided Jewish migration to the West Bank is EMPT.
Claiming that international law gives jurisdiction over Israel to those who negate Israel.
Claiming that international law obliges Israel not to prioritize the security of its citizens.
Claiming that international law permits targeting civilians in resisting occupation.
Claiming that international law privileges Palestinian security over Israeli security.
Claiming that Israel controls all the entry and exit points from the Gaza region.
Claiming that Israel has many laws which discriminate against Palestinians.
Claiming that Israel has no codified int’l legal right to defend against armed attacks.
Claiming that Israel has no codified int’l legal right to retaliate against armed attacks.
Claiming that Israel has no rights, only obligations.
Claiming that Israel has over 30 laws which discriminate against Palestinians.
Claiming that Israel is an international legal subject without jurisdiction.
Claiming that Israel is bound by the revised view that siege constitutes occupation.
Claiming that Israel is bound by the view that all UN resolutions are equally binding.
Claiming that Israel is bound by the view that UN Chapter VI trumps Israeli sovereignty.
Claiming that Israel is bound by the view that UNGA resolutions trump sovereignty.
Claiming that Israel is bound by the view that UNGA resolutions trumps sovereignty.
Claiming that Israel is forbidden from staking claims on terra nullius.
Claiming that Israel is legally bound to adhere to complete pacifism.
Claiming that Israel is legally obliged to expose its wartime military intelligence sources.
Claiming that Israel is legally required to investigate charges of blood libel.
Claiming that Israel is legally subordinate to the dictatorships of the Automatic Majority.
Claiming that Israel is not allowed to deny entry to Anti-Israeli foreigners.
Claiming that Israel is not allowed to deny entry to hostile foreigners.
Claiming that Israel is not allowed to deny entry to its adversaries.
Claiming that Israel is not legally permitted to board enemy ships in international waters.
Claiming that Israel is not legally permitted to take defensive measures to reach victory.
Claiming that Israel is not legally permitted win war initiated by its adversaries.
Claiming that Israel is not permitted to hold territorial claims on disputed areas.
Claiming that Israel is not permitted to stake territorial claims on terra nullius.
Claiming that Israel is obliged to provide non-reciprocal peace to the Gaza region.
Claiming that Israel is obliged to provide peace without receiving peace in return.
Claiming that Israel is obliged to provide wartime luxury products to its adversaries.
Claiming that Israel is obliged to respond to shelling by providing luxury products.
Claiming that Israel is obliged to revere UNGA Chapter IV resolutions as law.
Claiming that Israel is obliged to revere UNSC Chapter VI resolutions as law.
Claiming that Israel is prohibited from beleaguering enemy territory.
Claiming that Israel is prohibited from blockading enemy territory.
Claiming that Israel is prohibited from defeating adversaries that attack Israel.
Claiming that Israel is prohibited from performing acts of war in international waters.
Claiming that Israel is prohibited from turning retaliation into victory.
Claiming that Israel is prohibited from winning wars initiated against it.
Claiming that Israel is responsible for acts of violence by its adversaries.
Claiming that Israel must investigate charges that are discriminatory towards Jews.
Claiming that Israel must not cede minority areas by bilateral agreement.
Claiming that Israel must not change its borders by bilateral agreement.
Claiming that Israel must not define its borders by bilateral agreement.
Claiming that Israel must not disrupt peace in the Gaza region while it attacks Israel.
Claiming that Israel must not treat its citizens differently from non-citizens.
Claiming that Israel occupies areas under exclusive Hamas territorial military control.
Claiming that Israel occupies areas under exclusive PLO territorial military control.
Claiming that Israel occupies itself.
Claiming that Israel occupies the Gaza region after its withdrawal.
Claiming that Israel only is disallowed to discriminate on the basis of citizenship.
Claiming that Israel’s adversaries may close their borders to Israelis but not vice versa.
Claiming that Israel’s foes may legally embargo Israel but not vice versa.
Claiming that Israel’s int’l right to exist is legally dependent on its form of government.
Claiming that Israel’s right to self-defense is voided by failed negotiations.
Claiming that Israel’s right to self-defense is voided by future negotiations.
Claiming that Israel’s West Bank barrier constitutes taxonomic separation.
Claiming that Israeli defense must be proportional to Al Aqsa Brigades’ war crimes.
Claiming that Israeli defense must be proportional to Hamas war crimes.
Claiming that Israeli defense must be proportional to Hezbollah war crimes.
Claiming that Israeli immigration policies that distinguish between countries are illegal.
Claiming that Israeli law bars marriage between Israelis and Palestinians generally.
Claiming that Israeli law is physionomistic and therefore illegal and void.
Claiming that Israeli military action must be proportional to acts of terrorism.
Claiming that Israeli military action must be proportional to Anti-Israel war crimes.
Claiming that Israeli rapid dominance constitutes collective punishment.
Claiming that Israeli sanctions only constitute collective punishment.
Claiming that Israeli sanctions only constitute intrinsic violation of HSS privileges.
Claiming that Israeli sanctions only constitute occupation.
Claiming that Israeli siege of enemy territory is illegal due to ostensible occupation.
Claiming that Israelis are forbidden by int’l law to cause any collateral damage.
Claiming that it is illegal for Jews to live in terra nullius conquered by Israel in 1967.
Claiming that it is illegal for the Israeli military to indirectly endanger enemy civilians.
Claiming that Jewish immigration to Israel is illegal and void.
Claiming that Jewish residence in Israel is illegal and void per se.
Claiming that Jewish residence in the West Bank is illegal and void per se.
Claiming that Jews are forbidden by int’l law to live in E. J’lem terra nullius.
Claiming that Jews are forbidden by int’l law to live in E. J’lem corpus separatum.
Claiming that Jews are forbidden by int’l law to live in WB terra nullius.
Claiming that law-abiding Israeli citizens are collaborators.
Claiming that laying limited military siege is now entirely “prohibited” to Israel.
Claiming that Lebanese are entitled to peace while they attack Israel militarily.
Claiming that limited Israel siege only constitutes occupation.
Claiming that limited Israeli siege only constitutes collective punishment.
Claiming that low numbers of Israeli casualties makes Israeli military retaliation illegal.
Claiming that most states accept their sovereignty to be legally subject to UNGA dictates.
Claiming that most UN members recognize their sovereignty as subordinate to UNGA.
Claiming that non-Israeli Palestinians who left country have “right of return” to homes.
Claiming that only Jewish religious views are subservient to UNGA dictatorship.
Claiming that opponents of Israel’s existence accept peaceful coexistence.
Claiming that Palestinian casualties must be proportional to the number of Israeli ones.
Claiming that Palestinian citizens of Israel are denied codified legal minority rights.
Claiming that Palestinian citizens of Israel lived under military rule even after 1966.
Claiming that Palestinian parents carry no liability for acts by legal minors.
Claiming that Palestinian policemen equipped with Kalashnikovs are civilians.
Claiming that Palestinians are entitled to peace while they attack Israeli militarily.
Claiming that Palestinians who never left country have “right of return” to homes.
Claiming that patriotic Israeli citizens are collaborators.
Claiming that policies that disproportionately affect Amian Israelis are discriminatory.
Claiming that present customary law constitutes codified law.
Claiming that redundant Israeli armistice lines constitute international borders.
Claiming that resistance to occupation justifies targeting non-combatants of occupier.
Claiming that retaliation to armed attacks is now entirely “prohibited” to Israel.
Claiming that sanctions by Israel only are illegal.
Claiming that seeking victory as retaliation is now entirely “prohibited” to Israel.
Claiming that siege constitutes occupation of areas under enemy military control.
Claiming that sovereign areas claimed by Israel and another state are undisputed.
Claiming that suicide bombings are acts of individual frustration.
Claiming that territories under Hamas military control are controlled by Israel.
Claiming that territories under Hamas military control are occupied by Israel.
Claiming that territories under Palestinian military control are occupied by Israel.
Claiming that territories under Palestinian military control are controlled by Israel.
Claiming that territories under PLO/PA military control are controlled by Israel.
Claiming that territories under PLO/PA military control are occupied by Israel.
Claiming that territory controlled by Israel’s enemies are occupied by Israel.
Claiming that the 4th Geneva Convention applies to occupation of non-sovereign territory.
Claiming that the causing of collateral damage is now entirely “prohibited” to Israel.
Claiming that the Gaza region is entitled to all benefits of peace while attacking Israel.
Claiming that the Gaza region territory is both occupied and besieged by Israel.
Claiming that the Hamas-controlled Gaza territory is occupied by Israel.
Claiming that the Israeli maritime blockade of Gaza is both occupation and piracy.
Claiming that the Israeli naval blockade against the Gaza region constitutes occupation.
Claiming that the Law of Return is illegitimate without a corresponding Palestinian law.
Claiming that the Law of Return is illegitimate without a similar Palestinian law.
Claiming that the legal prohibition on wartime EMPT justifies EMPT of Jews.
Claiming that the Oslo accords agreed on establishment of Palestinian statehood.
Claiming that the Oslo accords agreed to ending Jewish construction in the West Bank.
Claiming that the Oslo accords agreed to Israel’s pre-1967 territorial size.
Claiming that the Oslo accords promised to hand over East Jerusalem to PLO rule.
Claiming that the PLO practices a “RoR.”
Claiming that the PLO recognizes a universal “RoR.”
Claiming that the prohibition on EMPT justifies EMPT against Jews.
Claiming that the prohibition on EMPT mandates EMPT of Jews.
Claiming that the prohibition on EMPT permits deporting most Israeli Jews.
Claiming that the prohibition on population transfer justifies ethnic cleansing of Jews.
Claiming that the ratio of human collateral damage caused by Israel is very high.
Claiming that the United Nations General Assembly holds sovereignty over Israel.
Claiming that there is a statute of limitation on legal occupation.
Claiming that those who attack Israel are entitled to impunity from Israeli retaliation.
Claiming that those who can unify elsewhere are denied family unification by Israel.
Claiming that UNGA 194 was issued as binding legislation.
Claiming that UNGA resolution 194 applies only to gentile refugees.
Claiming that UNGA resolution 194 is only directed at the Israeli government.
Claiming that UNGA resolution 194 proposes immigration of Anti-Zionists.
Claiming that urban warfare is now entirely “prohibited” to Israel.
Claiming that voluntary migration of Jews constitutes forcible population transfer.
Claiming that West Bank Jewish communities are illegal under international law.
Claiming that widespread Anti-Jewish views supersede codified international law.
Claiming to know unstated alleged illegal intentions of Israeli military decision makers.
Claiming to recognize Israel while bypassing Israel’s independent judiciary.
Claiming to recognize Israel while effectively opposing Israeli equality before the law.
Claiming to recognize Israel while not recognizing Israeli liberal-democratic legitimacy.
Claiming to recognize Israel while not recognizing Jewish self-determination.
Claiming to recognize Israel while not recognizing sovereign Israeli rule of law.
Claiming to recognize Israel while not recognizing sovereign Israeli legislation.
Claiming universal jurisdiction in Israel despite availability of independent Israeli courts.
Default disregard for evidence provided by Israeli judicial authorities.
Deliberate misunderstanding.
Demanding exposure of Israeli military intelligence sources.
Demanding that international law is universally applied ex post facto in Israel only.
Demanding that Israel’s independent judiciary be bypassed.
Demands that Jews be investigated by bodies that practice Anti-Jewish prejudice.
Demands that Jews be investigated on the basis of Anti-Jewish prejudice.
Demands that Jews be tried on the basis of accusations based on Anti-Jewish prejudice.
Denying that Israel’s first obligation is to protect its own civilians.
Describing attacks against Israel as countermeasures.
Describing Israeli countermeasures as attacks.
Disregarding the right to be presumed innocent until otherwise proven.
Effectively assuming that Jews alone are prohibited from living on terra nullius.
Effectively assuming that Palestinians are the titular nationality of Israel.
Effectively assuming that Palestinians legally hold Israeli titular immigration rights.
Effectively claiming that Israeli democracy is subordinate to tyranny.
Effectively denying Jews the right to participate in politics on equal terms with gentiles.
Effectively denying that Jews are holders of legal titular immigration rights in Israel.
Epistemological discrimination.
Equating voluntary individual migration of Israeli citizens with population transfer.
Evidentiary double standards.
Extra-judicial arguments.
Extra-judicial conclusions.
Ignoring fact of legal right to return to one’s country, not right of return to one’s home.
Ignoring that Article 80 of the UN Charter affirms the legality of Jewish settlement.
Ignoring that Israel claims parts of the West Bank through the exercise of Israeli law.
Ignoring that Israel gained control of the Golan Heights through exercise of self-defence.
Ignoring that Israel gained control of the West Bank through the exercise of self-defence.
Ignoring that Israel’s system of justice is the most independent in the world.
Ignoring that Israeli and Palestinian rights are often conflicting.
Ignoring that Israeli courts frequently rule in favor of Palestinian claimants.
Ignoring that Israeli security measures are intended to protect rights of Israelis.
Ignoring that Mandate for Palestine was never amended or abrogated.
Ignoring that neither Syria nor Israel recognizes the international border between them.
Ignoring that no country legally practices a “RoR” as articulated by the PLO and UNGA.
Ignoring that no one is exempt from scrutiny under Israel’s justice system.
Ignoring that parts of Israel’s current eastern borders remain to be determined.
Ignoring that return right is to one’s country, not to property subject to sovereignty.
Ignoring that terra nullius is usually acquired through occupation.
Ignoring that the final status of territories of the West Bank remains to be determined.
Ignoring that the Golan Heights are disputed in the absence of an agreed upon border.
Ignoring that the independence of Israel’s system of justice is internationally recognized.
Ignoring that the Israel’s High Court of Justice often rules against the Israeli government.
Ignoring that the Oslo accords recognize the West Bank and Gaza region as terra nullius.
Ignoring the independent and impartial nature of Israel’s system of justice.
Objectification of Palestinians.
Politicization of ostensibly legal process.
Requiring special judicial standards from Israel only.
Reversing the burden of proof for alleged Israeli crimes of war.
Systemic description of allegations as tantamount to convictions.
Systemic disregard for fundamental principles of legal procedure.
Systemic misrepresentation of facts.
Systemic reliance on hearsay.
Tacit systemic denial of Palestinian agency.
Treating Jerusalem as if legally divided while opposing state sovereignty in the city.
Unrequested recognition of armistice lines as international borders.
Claiming that Israeli-imposed naval blockade constitutes occupation.
Claiming that Israeli-imposed no-fly-zone constitutes occupation.
Claiming that Israeli closure of its own sovereign frontiers constitutes occupation
“Israeli control over terra nullius constitutes Fourth Geneva Convention occupation.”
Claiming that Israeli control over its own internationally recognized territory constitutes occupation.”
Claiming that civilian Israeli control over disputed areas constitutes occupation.
Claiming that Israel occupies itself.
Claiming that Israel is its own occupying power.
Claiming that Israel is an occupying power that occupies itself.
Claiming that Israeli defense must be proportionate to war crimes committed against Israelis.
Claiming that Israeli defense must be proportionate to terrorist attacks against Israelis.
Claiming that Israeli defense must not be more extensive than illegal attacks against Israel.
Claiming that Israeli defense must not be more extensive than military attacks against Israel.
Assuming that the principle of proportionality prohibits Israeli military deterrence.
Assuming that the principle of proportionality prohibits Israeli defensive overwhelming force.
Assuming that the principle of proportionality prohibits Israeli defensive Rapid Dominance.
Assuming that the principle of proportionality prohibits Israeli defensive victory.
Assuming that it is illegal for Israel to occupy territory.
Assuming that it is illegal for Israel to maintain naval siege.
Assuming that it is illegal for Israel to close its own borders.
Assuming that it is illegal for Israel to enforce an external no-fly zone.
Assuming that it is illegal for Israel to enforce naval siege.
Assuming that it is illegal for Israel to claim terra nullius.
Assuming that it is illegal for Israel to claim the Jerusalem terra nullius.
Assuming that it is illegal for Israel to claim parts of the West Bank terra nullius.
Assuming that it is illegal for Israel to claim territory.
Assuming that there are ten laws of racial segregation in Israel.
Assuming that there are twenty laws of racial segregation in Israel.
Assuming that there are thirty laws of racial segregation in Israel.
Assuming that there are ten laws of racial supremacism in Israel.
Assuming that there are twenty laws of racial supremacism in Israel.
Assuming that there are thirty laws of racial supremacism in Israel.
Claiming that Israeli laws based on majority Jewish societal norms are discriminatory.
Claiming that widespread international opinions trumps codified int’l law.
Claiming that anti-Israel “consensus” trumps codified int’l law.
Changing interpretation of codified int’l law so that Israel is always deemed wrong.
Claiming that widespread Anti-Israel view trumps codified int’l law.
Claiming that Israel is criminal if this is repeated ad nauseam.
Claiming that Israel is criminal if this is constantly repeated.
Claiming that Israel is criminal simply because UNGA says so.
Claiming that Israel is criminal because of advisory opinions.
Claiming that decidedly low levels of collateral caused by the IDF are high
Claiming that decidedly low levels of urban collateral damage caused by the IDF are high
Claiming that it is illegal for Israel to close its own sovereign frontiers
Claiming that it is illegal for Israel to close its own sovereign borders
Claiming that it is illegal for Israel to restrict enemy ‘human rights’ due to security concerns
Claiming that it is illegal for Israel to restrict enemy ‘human rights’ in wartime
Claiming that it is illegal for Israel boycott enemy polities for being hostile to Israel
Claiming that internationally financed targets have immunity from wartime Israeli attacks
Claiming that European-financed targets have immunity from wartime Israeli attacks
Claiming that international financing legalizes unlicensed structures in WB
Claiming that European financing legalized unlicensed structures in WB

Return to Typology of Antrivrism