>I am very consistent. What's inconsistent about my argument?
You really are not. I've already explained. Namely the statehood criteria. Palestine fulfills all the requirements but it is apparent your actual criteria has a "except if it's called Palestine" suffix.
Your argument is self-defeating and, if anything, is simply a concession to my argument.
>Can you give me three other examples of states where their existence is similar to the existence of "Palestine"? How is Palestine not a snowflake here? And if it is, why? What in your mind does the "existence of a state" mean exactly? What is your reference?
What does "snowflake" mean in this context exactly?
Palestine fulfills all requirements for statehood.
>Please answer my question about the State of Palestine pre 1967. Did that state exist before 1967? Did it exist e.g. in the 1970's or the 80's? Did it meet the same criteria? What has changed?
>Please expand on why you think a State of Palestine existed before 1948 and Israel.
>What was the timeline for recognition of the State of Palestine by those 80% countries you're so happy to enlist in your support. What's different about the conditions before and after that timeline? What is the international law basis for the existence of the Palestinian Authority?
Use google. The answer to these questions are still irrelevant given Palestine fulfills the criteria previously stated, as far as I can tell you conceded given your refusal to address the fact Palestine fulfills the requirements and you choose to instead deflect to numerous other questions whose answers don't disqualify from statehood.
"timeline for recognition of the State of Palestine by those 80% countries you're so happy to enlist in your support."
I guess you also have total snarling contempt for 80% of the world too. It is a shame your biases cloud your reasoning so much.
The simple fact is Palestine fulfills all requirements.
Repeating "Countries are only saying this due to money and pressure" is a nonsensical rebuttal based on no evidence and just reads as a cope to justify pretending something doesn't exist when it clearly does.
You really are not. I've already explained. Namely the statehood criteria. Palestine fulfills all the requirements but it is apparent your actual criteria has a "except if it's called Palestine" suffix.
Your argument is self-defeating and, if anything, is simply a concession to my argument.
>Can you give me three other examples of states where their existence is similar to the existence of "Palestine"? How is Palestine not a snowflake here? And if it is, why? What in your mind does the "existence of a state" mean exactly? What is your reference?
What does "snowflake" mean in this context exactly?
Palestine fulfills all requirements for statehood.
>Please answer my question about the State of Palestine pre 1967. Did that state exist before 1967? Did it exist e.g. in the 1970's or the 80's? Did it meet the same criteria? What has changed?
>Please expand on why you think a State of Palestine existed before 1948 and Israel.
>What was the timeline for recognition of the State of Palestine by those 80% countries you're so happy to enlist in your support. What's different about the conditions before and after that timeline? What is the international law basis for the existence of the Palestinian Authority?
Use google. The answer to these questions are still irrelevant given Palestine fulfills the criteria previously stated, as far as I can tell you conceded given your refusal to address the fact Palestine fulfills the requirements and you choose to instead deflect to numerous other questions whose answers don't disqualify from statehood.
"timeline for recognition of the State of Palestine by those 80% countries you're so happy to enlist in your support."
I guess you also have total snarling contempt for 80% of the world too. It is a shame your biases cloud your reasoning so much.
The simple fact is Palestine fulfills all requirements.
Repeating "Countries are only saying this due to money and pressure" is a nonsensical rebuttal based on no evidence and just reads as a cope to justify pretending something doesn't exist when it clearly does.