• 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.
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?

Sigh. Not a war crime. Geneva conventions do not actually apply in the WB and in any event the gerrymandered interpretation of it used to justify condemnation of Israel (but strangely enough no one else) is not actually correct.

It is currently territory controlled by Israel that it has not formally annexed but legally has the only legitimate title to.

Sort of like Guam.
 
Sigh. Not a war crime. Geneva conventions do not actually apply in the WB and in any event the gerrymandered interpretation of it used to justify condemnation of Israel (but strangely enough no one else) is not actually correct.

It is currently territory controlled by Israel that it has not formally annexed but legally has the only legitimate title to.

Sort of like Guam.

Territory that it has not formally annexed but that it controls with its military is what I call occupied territory. We don't need to go around on this point any longer. Both of our positions are clear.

When Israel turns the territory into swiss cheese by moving hundreds of thousands of civilians onto territory that it doesn't annex, I call that a war crime.

Now on to the next area of disagreement. I call a nation divided up by partitions that decide who gets to go where and who gets to vote based on race an apartheid state. Tell me I'm wrong.
 
Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by military force in 1967. The land at the time of occupation did not belong to the modern State of Israel and was internationally recognised to be controlled by Jordan and Egypt. There is no need to demonstrate that a Palestinian Nation or a Palestinian State owned or controlled the land. It was the military seizure of the land which was not part of the State of Israel before the Six Day War, a war which Isreal initiated, which makes the land occupied. According to treaties and conventions which the State of Israel signed in good faith prior to the Six Day War, land seized in a war of aggression cannot be legally incorporated into the seizing state. The State of Israel initiated combat with Egypt and Egypt was in a defensive treaty with both Jordan and Syria at the time of the attack. Thus an attack against one treaty member was an attack against all three treaty members. Because the State of Israel initiated the war against Egypt and its defensive allies, it was the aggressor. As the aggressor it is forbidden by international laws and conventions, which the State of Israel agreed to, to either settle or annex this occupied territory.

The only way the State of Israel could legally get this land is by having it voluntarily ceded to the State of Israel. That can only happen if the last legally controlling and sovereign power to "own" the land does so willingly. The last legally controlling power recognised by international law was the British Empire when the land was in the British Mandate. So the ball is back in the UK's court and it could just as easily cede the land to the Palestinian Nation, making it a state.

The State of Israel is in breach of international law and should be severely punished until it stops breaking the international laws it has agreed to follow. Boycotts, divestment and sanctions which still recognise the right of the State of Israel to exist within its pre-1967 borders are needed and states, organisations, companies and individuals should strongly consider putting the State of Israel into economic Coventry until it ends its claims and attempts to annex the Occupied Territories, Gaza and the Golan Heights. These territories may be held militarily by the State of Israel in order to deny the land to hostile states or non-state actors, but they cannot be settled nor annexed and the State of Israel, as the occupying power, must protect civilian lives, welfare and property while the land remains occupied.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by military force in 1967. The land at the time of occupation did not belong to the modern State of Israel and was internationally recognised to be controlled by Jordan and Egypt. There is no need to demonstrate that a Palestinian Nation or a Palestinian State owned or controlled the land. It was the military seizure of the land which was not part of the State of Israel before the Six Day War, a war which Isreal initiated, which makes the land occupied. According to treaties and conventions which the State of Israel signed in good faith prior to the Six Day War, land seized in a war of aggression cannot be legally incorporated into the seizing state. The State of Israel initiated combat with Egypt and Egypt was in a defensive treaty with both Jordan and Syria at the time of the attack. Thus an attack against one treaty member was an attack against all three treaty members. Because the State of Israel initiated the war against Egypt and its defensive allies, it was the aggressor. As the aggressor it is forbidden by international laws and conventions, which the State of Israel agreed to, to either settle or annex this occupied territory.

The only way the State of Israel could legally get this land is by having it voluntarily ceded to the State of Israel. That can only happen if the last legally controlling and sovereign power to "own" the land does so willingly. The last legally controlling power recognised by international law was the British Empire when the land was in the British Mandate. So the ball is back in the UK's court and it could just as easily cede the land to the Palestinian Nation, making it a state.

The State of Israel is in breach of international law and should be severely punished until it stops breaking the international laws it has agreed to follow. Boycotts, divestment and sanctions which still recognise the right of the State of Israel to exist within its pre-1967 borders are needed and states, organisations, companies and individuals should strongly consider putting the State of Israel into economic Coventry until it ends its claims and attempts to annex the Occupied Territories, Gaza and the Golan Heights. These territories may be held militarily by the State of Israel in order to deny the land to hostile states or non-state actors, but they cannot be settled nor annexed and the State of Israel, as the occupying power, must protect civilian lives, welfare and property while the land remains occupied.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

You're going a bit far there. The escalation prior to the 6 day war was mutual. Egypt established a naval blockade, which was an act of war, before israel attacked. There's no need to pretend that israel was or is the only bad actor.
 
You're going a bit far there. The escalation prior to the 6 day war was mutual. Egypt established a naval blockade, which was an act of war, before israel attacked. There's no need to pretend that israel was or is the only bad actor.

Digger:

Did the UAR/Egypt attack or stop any Israeli ships during the blockade of the Straits of Tiran? No. Did the the UAR/Egypt prevent any non-Israeli ships from reaching Israeli ports through the Straits of Tiran? No. Did the UAR/Egypt briefly stop some ships and inspect their papers and cargo? Yes, which is fully in line with the rights of an owning nation when ships pass through its territorial waters which have been declared to be international waterways. Innocent passage has rules and the UAR/Egypt complied with them. So what was the justification for the State of Israel to attack the UAR/Egypt? Bellicose puffery by Nasser?

The Government of Israel was issuing all sorts of threats too and invaded Jordan with a regimental sized unit reinforced by armour and halftracks with artillery and air support in 1966 for a land mine attack which killed three IDF soldiers but could not be linked to the Jordanian Government. The State of Israel was the aggressor there too.

Did the State of Israel launch air raids on the UAR/Egypt and claim that these were in response to UAR/Egyptian air raids into Israel? Yes. Did the world catch the State of Israel in a bold-faced lie about these UAR/Egyptian bogus air raids? Yes. Did the State of Israel then claim falsely in light of it previous exposed lie to the world that this was preemptive war? Yes. Is preventive war initiated by the attacker? Yes. Is the attacker the aggressor in a war? Yes.

The State of Israel was not attacked by the UAR/Egypt but initiated a war nonetheless. The initiator of a war is the aggressor. Therefore the State of Israel attacked and occupied the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights as well of parts of Lebanon in a war of aggression. Thus the State of Israel cannot legally settle nor annex these pieces of land by international law and convention, laws and conventions which the State of Israel signed onto prior to the Six Day War. Furthermore the State of Israel has a duty to protect the civilians in these occupied territories which it is not doing properly.

The State of Israel was a bad actor in both the 1956 Sinai War and the 1967 Six Day War.

BDS with recognition of the right of the State of Israel to exist within it pre-1967 borders is the only peaceful way in which to get the State of Israel to comply with laws and conventions it agreed to follow.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
You're going a bit far there. The escalation prior to the 6 day war was mutual. Egypt established a naval blockade, which was an act of war, before israel attacked. There's no need to pretend that israel was or is the only bad actor.

Israel blockaded Gaza though, thats a war tension
 
right, Iran is allinged with Hamas, Israeli aggression needs a counter balance

No, Next time they shoot rockets into civilian areas, Israel should turn Gaza into a glass parking lot.
 
No, Next time they shoot rockets into civilian areas, Israel should turn Gaza into a glass parking lot.

Yasureoktoo:

So, since you don't follow the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, what accounts for your bloodthirsty disposition and a desire to to see genocide by immolation committed against the more than 2 million human beings living in the Gaza Strip? It seems you're as prone to supporting excessive violence and wanton, indiscriminate killing as the Muslim fanatics of ISIL which you love to hate.

You have unmasked yourself as a deceiver and a hypocrite. Well done!

No cheers for you but be well nonetheless.
Evilroddy.
 
Yasureoktoo:

So, since you don't follow the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, what accounts for your bloodthirsty disposition and a desire to to see genocide by immolation committed against the more than 2 million human beings living in the Gaza Strip? It seems you're as prone to supporting excessive violence and wanton, indiscriminate killing as the Muslim fanatics of ISIL which you love to hate.

You have unmasked yourself as a deceiver and a hypocrite. Well done!

No cheers for you but be well nonetheless.
Evilroddy.

Shooting rockets into civilian areas, is an act of war, the people of Gaza should be happy Israel has great patience.
 
No, Next time they shoot rockets into civilian areas, Israel should turn Gaza into a glass parking lot.

a few rockets because Isreal wont stop pumping porn into their children and they should be wiped off the planet?
 
Territory that it has not formally annexed but that it controls with its military is what I call occupied territory. We don't need to go around on this point any longer. Both of our positions are clear.

When Israel turns the territory into swiss cheese by moving hundreds of thousands of civilians onto territory that it doesn't annex, I call that a war crime.

Now on to the next area of disagreement. I call a nation divided up by partitions that decide who gets to go where and who gets to vote based on race an apartheid state. Tell me I'm wrong.

So Guam is occupied territory?

Occupied territory needs to be occupied from somebody who had legal control of it previously.

And whether you call it occupied territory as you assert above is irrelevant. I call it a sandwich. Does that make it edible?

You just invent definitions, impose them on situations and then say that the situations are therefore the same as the original meaning before you changed it. Which is how you end up with an edible piece of land.
 
Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by military force in 1967. The land at the time of occupation did not belong to the modern State of Israel and was internationally recognised to be controlled by Jordan and Egypt. There is no need to demonstrate that a Palestinian Nation or a Palestinian State owned or controlled the land. It was the military seizure of the land which was not part of the State of Israel before the Six Day War, a war which Isreal initiated, which makes the land occupied. According to treaties and conventions which the State of Israel signed in good faith prior to the Six Day War, land seized in a war of aggression cannot be legally incorporated into the seizing state. The State of Israel initiated combat with Egypt and Egypt was in a defensive treaty with both Jordan and Syria at the time of the attack. Thus an attack against one treaty member was an attack against all three treaty members. Because the State of Israel initiated the war against Egypt and its defensive allies, it was the aggressor. As the aggressor it is forbidden by international laws and conventions, which the State of Israel agreed to, to either settle or annex this occupied territory.

The only way the State of Israel could legally get this land is by having it voluntarily ceded to the State of Israel. That can only happen if the last legally controlling and sovereign power to "own" the land does so willingly. The last legally controlling power recognised by international law was the British Empire when the land was in the British Mandate. So the ball is back in the UK's court and it could just as easily cede the land to the Palestinian Nation, making it a state.

The State of Israel is in breach of international law and should be severely punished until it stops breaking the international laws it has agreed to follow. Boycotts, divestment and sanctions which still recognise the right of the State of Israel to exist within its pre-1967 borders are needed and states, organisations, companies and individuals should strongly consider putting the State of Israel into economic Coventry until it ends its claims and attempts to annex the Occupied Territories, Gaza and the Golan Heights. These territories may be held militarily by the State of Israel in order to deny the land to hostile states or non-state actors, but they cannot be settled nor annexed and the State of Israel, as the occupying power, must protect civilian lives, welfare and property while the land remains occupied.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

This is fundamentally wrong. Jordan and egypt never owned the land, they illegally occupied it. It was not “internationally recognized” that they owned it even remotely.

And the British were not the last controlling power. They were Mandatory administrators. Which is a trustee. As I’m sure you don’t know from trusts, the trustee is different from the beneficial owner of the underlying property.

And the beneficial owner according to the mandate was ... wait for it ... the Jews (ie Israel).

And Egypt started the war with Jordan even attacking Israel first, so you’re wrong on that too.

But other than that, great screed.
 
Shooting rockets into civilian areas, is an act of war, the people of Gaza should be happy Israel has great patience.

Yasureoktoo:

Advocating for turning an entire heavily populated area under siege into volcanic glass and killing all the people in it (people don't do well as glass) is a genocidal aspiration. That expressed wish on this thread is now a matter of record. There is no wriggling out of what you said in post #90.

No cheers for you but be safe nonetheless.
Evilroddy.
 
Yasureoktoo:

Advocating for turning an entire heavily populated area under siege into volcanic glass and killing all the people in it (people don't do well as glass) is a genocidal aspiration. That expressed wish on this thread is now a matter of record. There is no wriggling out of what you said in post #90.

No cheers for you but be safe nonetheless.
Evilroddy.

Not volcanic glass,, Nuclear glass.

Who do you think was killed when they nuked Hiroshima.... Civilians...But they stopped the war.
Who do you think was killed when they carpet bombed Berlin...….Civilians....But they stopped the war.

The Islamic religion declared war on the Jews, and they will not stop until they are stopped.
These people are not interested in bettering their lives, they are interested in killing Jews.
 
Last edited:
This is fundamentally wrong. Jordan and egypt never owned the land, they illegally occupied it. It was not “internationally recognized” that they owned it even remotely.

And the British were not the last controlling power. They were Mandatory administrators. Which is a trustee. As I’m sure you don’t know from trusts, the trustee is different from the beneficial owner of the underlying property.

And the beneficial owner according to the mandate was ... wait for it ... the Jews (ie Israel).

And Egypt started the war with Jordan even attacking Israel first, so you’re wrong on that too.

But other than that, great screed.

1) Your first point is wrong.

http://www.israel.org/mfa/aboutisrael/maps/pages/1949-1967 armistice lines.aspx

While the map is stated by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to not be authoritative, the text accompanying it says clearly that the 1949-1967 Armistice agreement was internationally recognised, except for Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

2) Your second point is wrong. Britain and France conquered the area during WWI and divided up the spoils in accordance with the Sykes-Picot Aggreement of 1915-16. Thus, there was conquest and ownership. The two victorious powers then agreed to the public relations face-lifts of the mandates in order to quell public distaste in the Levant and further abroad for their two-sided promises and double-dealing made to both the Arabs and the Jews during the war. The League of Nations characterised the British Mandate as holding the territory conquered in trust for the people of Palestine, not for the Jews or a future Jewish state exclusively. The Jews at the time of the creations of the mandates were a small minority of the population of Palestine. The mandate was for the Arab, non-Jews of the region too.

3) Egypt started a war with Jordan? No. Egypt attacked Israel first? No. With all due respect that is prairie-oyster pie you're dishing out there.

Your rebuttal was a hat-trick of historical failure.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Not volcanic glass,, Nuclear glass.

Who do you think was killed when they nuked Hiroshima.... Civilians...But they stopped the war.
Who do you think was killed when they carpet bombed Berlin...….Civilians....But they stopped the war.

The Islamic religion declared war on the Jews, and they will not stop until they are stopped.
These people are not interested in bettering their lives, they are interested in killing Jews.

Yasureoktoo:

You hate Muslims and advocate nuclear genocide for the civilian population of Gaza. That too is now a matter of public record on this thread. Perhaps there will be some glass in your future too, if you don't read the rules of this forum.

No cheers for you but be well nonetheless.
Evilroddy.
 
Yasureoktoo:

You hate Muslims and advocate nuclear genocide for the civilian population of Gaza. That too is now a matter of public record on this thread. Perhaps there will be some glass in your future too, if you don't read the rules of this forum.

No cheers for you but be well nonetheless.
Evilroddy.

Seems to me you are advocating state sponsored terrorism.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom