• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hamas being Hamas... Keeping the fight going... Even in a Pandemic

Status
Not open for further replies.
NO1 said:
The point I was made is that it cannot be "occupied Palestinian land" because the palestinians never owned that land in the first place.
Also, as already been said palestine is area not a country/state.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know that's your point. Your point is wrong. Israel is occupying Palestine with their army. The army that seized the territory from Egypt and Jordan in a series of wars 50 or so years ago. Israel does not annex the occupied territory, and thus the residents of it are not citizens of Israel and do not get to vote to gain representation in the government that controls the army that controls Palestine's borders. Israel continues to build settlements within the occupied territories, which are walled off sections of Palestinian territory, and over 600,000 Israeli citizens are living outside of the borders that Israel claims. By transferring their civilian population onto occupied soil, Israel violates the Geneva Convention and has been declared illegal by the World Court and the International Criminal Court.

Do you claim to refute any of these facts?

Can you tell me, what national interest does Israel serve by building settlements on occupied land?

What I'm pointing at here is that Israel and Palestine have been in a state of continual war for 50 years, a war in which Israel continually takes aggressive actions that put peace further away, by continually moving more and more of their population onto occupied territory. So your narrative that Palestine could choose peace any time if they would just stop fighting is false. Israel will not stop committing war crimes.
 
Last edited:
Digger said:
Yeah, I know that's your point. Your point is wrong. Israel is occupying Palestine with their army. The army that seized the territory from Egypt and Jordan in a series of wars 50 or so years ago. Israel does not annex the occupied territory, and thus the residents of it are not citizens of Israel and do not get to vote to gain representation in the government that controls the army that controls Palestine's borders. Israel continues to build settlements within the occupied territories, which are walled off sections of Palestinian territory, and over 600,000 Israeli citizens are living outside of the borders that Israel claims. By transferring their civilian population onto occupied soil, this violates the Geneva Convention and has been declared illegal by the World Court and the International Criminal Court.

Do you claim to refute any of these facts?
Click to expand...
Jordan nor Egypt were the legal owner of in Judea and Samaria and Gaza (the last one didn't claim ownership), Jordan illegaly annexed the land till 67'. Just as I said in no point in time it was palestinian land, so it can't be occupied palestinian land.

And no, it don't violates the Geneva Convention.
 
NO1 said:
Jordan nor Egypt were the legal owner of in Judea and Samaria and Gaza (the last one didn't claim ownership), Jordan illegaly annexed the land till 67'. Just as I said in no point in time it was palestinian land, so it can't be occupied palestinian land.

And no, it don't violates the Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...

So whose land is it?
 
For those watching, link from page 2.

Palestinian territories - Wikipedia

The UN, the EU, and the World Court calls it "Occupied Palestinian Territories." But N01 knows better for... reasons. This is all an attempt to justify Israel's aggressive warmongering act of building settlements on occupied territory in violation of the Geneva Convention. It is a war crime that N01 is attempting to justify through baldly ignoring the obvious fact that the area that Israel controls through military force is not occupied.
 
Digger said:
So whose land is it?
Click to expand...

Wait, for the sake of this discussion, before I move on we agree about that the term "occupied palestinian land" is false?
 
NO1 said:
Wait, for the sake of this discussion, before I move on we agree about that the term "occupied palestinian land" is false?
Click to expand...

No. That is what everyone calls it and I'm going to continue going with the nomenclature that the UN and the EU and the World Court uses.

But I'd like you to fully explain your position. If it isn't occupied territory, what is it exactly? I'd like to see you square the circle where Israel gets to occupy a territory for 50 years without giving the population a vote, and gets to build settlements on the land and move their population onto it. How do you add it all up so that it isn't a war crime?
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
Oh, damn. Some terrorists got killed.

Start a thread on it.
Click to expand...

they arent terrorists, maus, they were defending from terrorists


terrorism has lost all of its meaning
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Here is the question: why were the Arabs living the Palestinian Territories not consulted back in 1947-48?
Click to expand...

Funny how your questions always have nothing to do with either the answer or the previous question.

The Arabs living in the Mandatory (which was explicitly and by international law legally set aside as a Jewish National Home where the administrator had an obligation to facilitate close settlement of the land by Jews) had clearly expressed their views through their genocidal leadership - no Jews would be tolerated anywhere and no Jewish sovereignty would be tolerated anywhere. They were consulted and their racist and violent desires were set aside. They were given sovereignty in areas where most of them lived but they rejected that and lined up with various other Arab countries interested in perpetrating genocide (i.e., in implementing the desires of the population).

They lost there too.
 
Digger said:
Yeah, I know that's your point. Your point is wrong. Israel is occupying Palestine with their army. The army that seized the territory from Egypt and Jordan in a series of wars 50 or so years ago. Israel does not annex the occupied territory, and thus the residents of it are not citizens of Israel and do not get to vote to gain representation in the government that controls the army that controls Palestine's borders. Israel continues to build settlements within the occupied territories, which are walled off sections of Palestinian territory, and over 600,000 Israeli citizens are living outside of the borders that Israel claims. By transferring their civilian population onto occupied soil, Israel violates the Geneva Convention and has been declared illegal by the World Court and the International Criminal Court.

Do you claim to refute any of these facts?

Can you tell me, what national interest does Israel serve by building settlements on occupied land?

What I'm pointing at here is that Israel and Palestine have been in a state of continual war for 50 years, a war in which Israel continually takes aggressive actions that put peace further away, by continually moving more and more of their population onto occupied territory. So your narrative that Palestine could choose peace any time if they would just stop fighting is false. Israel will not stop committing war crimes.
Click to expand...

There is no Palestine in the way you say it. You are just inventing reality and then telling people off who disagree with your invention.

So yeah, your "facts" are easy to refute because your entire premise is wrong.

There are various portions of the Mandate. Some were held by Israel following the failed Arab attempt to annihilate the country in 1948. Some were secured in a war where the Arabs had intended to annihilate Israel in 1967. Of that portion, some has been annexed (Jerusalem), some will be annexed shortly (the Jewish communities in the WB and the Jordan Valley), and some is in the process of being ceded to the Palestinians once they demonstrate that they have truly abandoned their goal of annihilating Israel (Areas A and B and part of Area C). Those are actually gains for the Palestinians cause it has never, ever actually been theirs.

But you guys are a glass half empty type of folks on the pro-Palestinian side, so of course you don't care how full your glass is, you only care that it isn't overflowing and the other side isn't begging for scraps.

The Palestinians' nationalism is poison. Its core objective, since its very foundation, has been denial of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Israel. That is what motivated the creation of Palestinian nationalism and it is what motivates its actions and intentions today. Settlements do nothing to undermine peace because a Palestinian state is viable in spite of not getting those territories and, in any event, the Palestinians have never been prepared to accept any end of conflict that forces them to recognizer and accept Jewish sovereignty in any part of the territory they want.

But,, like I said, you live in a world of make believe, where concepts can be invented, facts can be assumed, intentions can be made up, and consequences can be pulled out of thin air.
 
Digger said:
So whose land is it?
Click to expand...

See the Mandate for Palestine as adopted by the League of Nations and continued by the United Nations. Private lands are owned by individuals. State lands are owned by the state. The only state with a legitimate claim to those lands is Israel.

The Palestinians do have a valid claim to self determination, once they sort out the whole thing about how their entire national identity is wholly focused on destroying Israel and undoing Jewish sovereignty anywhere. Once they sort that mess out and demonstrate that they are actually ready for peace (including establishing the necessary civil, cultural and governance institutions), they are entitled to self determination on territory sufficient to be successful in that endeavor. Not all the territory they want or might have had if they hadn't waited so long to shift goals away from Israel's destruction, but enough to make a go at it.
 
Digger said:
No. That is what everyone calls it and I'm going to continue going with the nomenclature that the UN and the EU and the World Court uses.

But I'd like you to fully explain your position. If it isn't occupied territory, what is it exactly? I'd like to see you square the circle where Israel gets to occupy a territory for 50 years without giving the population a vote, and gets to build settlements on the land and move their population onto it. How do you add it all up so that it isn't a war crime?
Click to expand...

If everyone called an elephant a crocodile, would an elephant actually BE a crocodile?

I mean, everyone says it.
 
Digger said:
How about you make your point instead of asking me to?
Click to expand...

I made my point. You pretended to be stupid and asked a question. You’re right. I should not have bothered answering your obviously stupid question.
 
Is Mexico coming to the US and building settlements in occupied land? Or is it Mexicans immigrating?

The idea that Jews come and steal land and kick people off is absurd. That was the same bull**** rhetoric passed around during the Ottoman Empire. Before there was a nation of Israel. At least then they were honest about their antisemitism.
 
Digger said:
For those watching, link from page 2.

Palestinian territories - Wikipedia

The UN, the EU, and the World Court calls it "Occupied Palestinian Territories." But N01 knows better for... reasons. This is all an attempt to justify Israel's aggressive warmongering act of building settlements on occupied territory in violation of the Geneva Convention. It is a war crime that N01 is attempting to justify through baldly ignoring the obvious fact that the area that Israel controls through military force is not occupied.
Click to expand...
For those watching:

Digger: It’s occupied Palestinian land

NO1 : never in history there was palestinian country/state which own these territories so it can't be occupied Palestinian land.

Digger: The previous owners who control the area were Jordan and Egypt

NO1: none of them were the legal owner nor Palestinian

Digger: well the whole world and the UN say so, so it’s “occupied Palestinian land”


After you failed to show it was palestinian land, you saying the UN say so hence it’s “occupied Palestinian land” (thanks for proving my point :)). If we continue with your flawed logic, according your link the UN change the term to “occupied Palestinian territory” in 1999, why is that? After 3 decades since the 67’ war, What happened in 1999?
 
NO1 said:
For those watching:

Digger: It’s occupied Palestinian land

NO1 : never in history there was palestinian country/state which own these territories so it can't be occupied Palestinian land.

Digger: The previous owners who control the area were Jordan and Egypt

NO1: none of them were the legal owner nor Palestinian

Digger: well the whole world and the UN say so, so it’s “occupied Palestinian land”


After you failed to show it was palestinian land, you saying the UN say so hence it’s “occupied Palestinian land” (thanks for proving my point :)). If we continue with your flawed logic, according your link the UN change the term to “occupied Palestinian territory” in 1999, why is that? After 3 decades since the 67’ war, What happened in 1999?
Click to expand...

I see. So you agree that it's occupied territory. Your objection is to calling it Palestinian territory. Why is that so important to you? What difference do you think it makes?

To answer your question, between 1967 and 1999 the two state solution gradually solidified. For instance in 1988 Jordan renounced territorial claim over the territory. The 1993 Oslo accords, before they fell apart, established that all parties agreed that the end goal would be a sovereign state of palestine on the land currently occupied by israel. So everyone started calling it occupied Palestinian territory.

What do you want to call it? You've been dodging that question for a while now.
 
Digger said:
I see. So you agree that it's occupied territory. Your objection is to calling it Palestinian territory. Why is that so important to you? What difference do you think it makes?
Click to expand...
Nope, it can be occupied because you need someone to own it first, and if you claim it’s occupied Palestinian land you need to show that the Palestinian actually own that land, simple as that, but you didn’t. I just wanted to show the flaw in your logic.

To answer your question, between 1967 and 1999 the two state solution gradually solidified. For instance in 1988 Jordan renounced territorial claim over the territory. The 1993 Oslo accords, before they fell apart, established that all parties agreed that the end goal would be a sovereign state of palestine on the land currently occupied by israel. So everyone started calling it occupied Palestinian territory.
Click to expand...
Jordan renounced territorial claim over the territory in 1988, why the waited 11 years?
Oslo was in 1993, why the waited 6 years?
Clinton peace talks were in 2000, why they didn’t wait for it too after Oslo failed? One more year
You are trying to reason it but the truth is they decided because they choose to do so, and it could be at 1988 or 1995 or 2000 or any time they choose to. The important part is it have no legal foundation whatsoever behind it, just like if the UNGA decide the world is flat is and Israel flatten it.

What do you want to call it? You've been dodging that question for a while now.
Click to expand...
Because we disagree about the fundamentals, so there is no point to move on and skip it.
 
NO1 said:
Nope, it can be occupied because you need someone to own it first, and if you claim it’s occupied Palestinian land you need to show that the Palestinian actually own that land, simple as that, but you didn’t. I just wanted to show the flaw in your logic.


Jordan renounced territorial claim over the territory in 1988, why the waited 11 years?
Oslo was in 1993, why the waited 6 years?
Clinton peace talks were in 2000, why they didn’t wait for it too after Oslo failed? One more year
You are trying to reason it but the truth is they decided because they choose to do so, and it could be at 1988 or 1995 or 2000 or any time they choose to. The important part is it have no legal foundation whatsoever behind it, just like if the UNGA decide the world is flat is and Israel flatten it.


Because we disagree about the fundamentals, so there is no point to move on and skip it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is all where I thought you were trying to go with it. I think if a military is controlling a piece of land that its government doesn't annex, that land is under military occupation. You don't. I think that your contention on this point is meant to justify the israeli practice of settling their civilian population on occupied land, which is a war crime under the Geneva conventions. By claiming that it is not occupied territory you can claim that israel is not responsible for their war crimes.

But you still haven't answered my question. It isn't occupied territory. It isn't annexed territory. So what is it? You're much more comfortable saying what you think palestine is not. You don't want to be pinned down on what you think it is, because you cannot square the circle so that israel gets to build settlements anywhere it wants inside Palestinian territory, but doesn't have to give Palestinians citizenship rights in israel.

For the third time. I think it is occupied Palestinian territory. You don't. Ok. So what do you think it is?

If it is sovereign israeli territory, why don't the Palestinians living there get israeli citizenship rights? If it isn't israeli sovereign territory, why does israel get to partition it and move its civilian population onto chunks of it?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom