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

[Evilroddy]

Seems to me you are advocating state sponsored terrorism.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

Yasureoktoo:

No, I'm opposing your position, not supporting either Palestinian militant terrorism nor the state terrorism of the State of Israel. But nice try, however. The Palestinian people are not the terrorists. The militants in their midst who use the tactics of terrorism are. You don't get to vitrify everyone because a minority are behaving as bad actors.

No cheers for you but be well nonetheless.
Evilroddy.

 

[CJ 2.0]

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.

Wrong again.

You conflate armistice lines with lawful control over territory. Give me sources that show international recognition of valid ownership of land. You can find british recognition of Jordanian control over the wb but that’s it.

Your second point is wrong. The british relinquished sovereign control to the league and the league then created the mandate and made the british the administrators. And if you read the mandate the trust was for creating a jewish national home and to facilitate close settlement of the land by Jews. Your statement is nonsense and pretends the mandate didn’t happen.

Egypt started the war with Israel. Jordan attacked Israel even though Israel told them in no uncertain terms that if they did not attack that there would be no war with them.

You really need to do better. Just plain making stuff up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yasureoktoo]

Yasureoktoo:

No, I'm opposing your position, not supporting either Palestinian militant terrorism nor the state terrorism of the State of Israel. But nice try, however. The Palestinian people are not the terrorists. The militants in their midst who use the tactics of terrorism are. You don't get to vitrify everyone because a minority are behaving as bad actors.

No cheers for you but be well nonetheless.
Evilroddy.

The people, using that sicko religion, put those people in power.
They can revolt if they want to, but they do not.

Remember Hamas is getting their marching orders from the Qur'an and sunnah. And the people support that.

 

[Evilroddy]

Wrong again.

You conflate armistice lines with lawful control over territory. Give me sources that show international recognition of valid ownership of land. You can find british recognition of Jordanian control over the wb but that’s it.

Your second point is wrong. The british relinquished sovereign control to the league and the league then created the mandate and made the british the administrators. And if you read the mandate the trust was for creating a jewish national home and to facilitate close settlement of the land by Jews. Your statement is nonsense and pretends the mandate didn’t happen.

Egypt started the war with Israel. Jordan attacked Israel even though Israel told them in no uncertain terms that if they did not attack that there would be no war with them.

You really need to do better. Just plain making stuff up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CJ 2.0:

1) The document I provided from the the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs explicitly states the Green Line was the Internationally accepted frontier of Israel until future negotiations made changes. Those negotiations have not yet happened and thus the Green line stands. Therefore I am not required to give you anything more. You however are free to find an internationally agreed to document which was accepted by all parties which over rides the Armistice.

2) Both the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the charter of Mandate in 1923 called for the possibility of a Jewish homeland within the boundries of the Mandate if that creation did not prejudice the interests and rights of non-Jewish communities within Palestine. The Jewish homeland was an aspiration, not a done deal in both documents. Furthermore the Jewish homeland was to be created within the Mandate of Palestine and not to encompass all of Palestine. The language of the Mandate charter is very clear on the non-prejudicial issue, the aspirational dimension and the notion of partiality of the bounds of a possible Jewish homeland. The Mandate charter was a road map for what might be if certain prerequisites could be met, not a declaration of what must happen. The Bitish were making far more declarations about Palestine/the Levant than just the Balfour Declaration so limiting the discussion to that document and the follow on Mandate charter misses much of the historical context which argues against your position.

Palestine - World War I and after | Britannica

3) Egypt did not start the Six Day War with Israel. The State of Israel attacked first. Jordan and Syria were in a defensive alliance when the State of Israel initiated combat with the UAR/Egypt by launching air raids against the Egyptian Air Force. When one treaty member in a collective defense pact is attacked all signatories to the pact are attacked. The State of Israel started the war by attacking an alliance of three nations, just as it had started the war in 1956 at the urging of French diplomats.

As the initator of the war, the State of Israel was the aggressor in the Six Day War. By international laws and conventions a state launching a war of aggression cannot legally settle of annex territories seized and occupied during that war. The state of Israel signed onto those laws and conventions before the Six Day War. Ergo, the State of Israel cannot settle or annex the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, period. Your denial that the State of Israel did not initiate hostilities and thus start the SDW flies in the face of historical facts to the contrary, as is usual with you.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy

 

[Evilroddy]

The people, using that sicko religion, put those people in power.
They can revolt if they want to, but they do not.

Remember Hamas is getting their marching orders from the Qur'an and sunnah. And the people support that.

Yasureoktoo:

Your position on Islam is well known to me and probably many on this forum. That however does not justify your calls for turning the Gaza Strip into glass using nuclear weapons. That is genocidal madness. Attempting to justify such hate-filled advocacy with religious texts is exactly what the most dangerous of the Islamist movement's worst bad actors do. You have become what you preach against, while commenting in this thread. That is very sad.

No cheers for you but be well nonetheless.
Evilroddy.

 

[Yasureoktoo]

Yasureoktoo:

Your position on Islam is well known to me and probably many on this forum. That however does not justify your calls for turning the Gaza Strip into glass using nuclear weapons. That is genocidal madness. Attempting to justify such hate-filled advocacy with religious texts is exactly what the most dangerous of the Islamist movement's worst bad actors do. You have become what you preach against, while commenting in this thread. That is very sad.

No cheers for you but be well nonetheless.
Evilroddy.

But glass parking lots on a windy, sandy day, make for great drifting.

 

[NO1]

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.

Sigh.
You wrong, it’s not a war crime for many reasons, here is one of them, according to article 2 of 4th Geneva convention, the convention applies to “occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party" - Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 2 - Application of the Convention

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Clearly it don’t apply on Israel (mind you that Jordan illegally took over Judea and Samaria).

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?

I believe Israel have legal rights in Judea and Samaria according to the Mandate which approved by the League of Nations and continued by the UN, unlike tha palestinian which have none.
According the coalition agreement Israel should apply the Israel law in the Jordan valley and in parts of Judea and Samaria somewhere in July.

 

[NO1]

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.

There are about 3 countries which recogized it. I guess there is a new meaning to “internationally recognized” :lol:

 

[Tigerace117]

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

That is an incredibly awful idea.

Even leaving out the obvious moral issue, the fallout would make Israel uninhabitable.

 

[Tigerace117]

But glass parking lots on a windy, sandy day, make for great drifting.

So next time someone shoots up a mosque Pakistan should drop a nuke on Geert Wilders’ head....right?

 

[Yasureoktoo]

That is an incredibly awful idea.

Even leaving out the obvious moral issue, the fallout would make Israel uninhabitable.

What do you think will happen when Iran gets their nuke.
They will spare Jerusalem, because their mosque is there, but Tel Avi is probably toast.

 

[Tigerace117]

What do you think will happen when Iran gets their nuke.
They will spare Jerusalem, because their mosque is there, but Tel Avi is probably toast.

Nothing, because despite what some fantasize, the Iranians do not have a national death wish or any particular interest in starting a nuclear war.

It will prevent Israel from being untouchable though....which is why the Israelis are so freaked out about it.

Pakistan, which is far more unstable than Iran, has had nukes for years without using them.

Not to mention of course that the “we might get nuked at some point, so let’s nuke a bunch of unconnected people next door and wreck our own country” is still a laughably bad idea.

 

[CJ 2.0]

CJ 2.0:

...

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy

Sorry had to cut everything for length but all addressed.

1. Frontier is obviously different from the border. The agreement explicitly said they were not borders. The green lone demarked the location of the armistice, that’s it. It did not extinguish any Jewish rights in the mandate. You have given me nothing other than a phoney interpretation intended to justify your desired conclusion.

2. No they do more than that. Your interpretation is nonsense.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country ; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

...

2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self -governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.


So basically you have nothing at all to go on. The civil and religious rights of all people were to be protected by the mandatory but the entire purpose of the mandatory’s mandate was fo secure the establishment of the Jewish national home in the mandate.

Your statements like “The Mandate charter was a road map for what might be if certain prerequisites could be met, not a declaration of what must happen.” Are pure invented fiction. The territory was given to the British to administer solely to fulfil the terms of the mandate. A trustee does not get to use their instructions as a “road map” for what to do with the trust’s assets. Obviously.

Again, you have an issue distinguishing between reality as it is and reality as you want it to be. You’ve been dancing around that for years.

As for 3, Egypt 100% started the war. They blockaded an Israeli port and there had been dozens of acts of aggression over the previous weeks, including explicit declarations of coming genocide. And defensive pacts or whatever are irrelevant. A defensive pact with Egypt does not absolve Jordan from the fact that it started its war with Israel even if we pretend Israel did not engage in the countless acts which constituted acts of war before Israel eliminated Egypt’s ability to undertake its war of annihilation.

 

[Digger]

Nothing, because despite what some fantasize, the Iranians do not have a national death wish or any particular interest in starting a nuclear war.

It will prevent Israel from being untouchable though....which is why the Israelis are so freaked out about it.

Pakistan, which is far more unstable than Iran, has had nukes for years without using them.

Not to mention of course that the “we might get nuked at some point, so let’s nuke a bunch of unconnected people next door and wreck our own country” is still a laughably bad idea.

Remember when Netanyahu came over to America and showed us that stupid little picture of a bomb that looked like Wile E. Coyote made a fundraising thermometer and said that Iran would have a bomb within a year if Obama's nuclear deal went through?

Yeah, that was 5 years ago.

Netanyahu: Deal will leave Iran 'less than a year' from bomb | The Times of Israel

 

[Evilroddy]

Sorry had to cut everything for length but all addressed.

1. Frontier is obviously different from the border. The agreement explicitly said they were not borders. The green lone demarked the location of the armistice, that’s it....

2. No they do more than that. Your interpretation is nonsense....

As for 3, Egypt 100% started the war. They blockaded an Israeli port and there had been dozens of acts of aggression over the previous weeks, including explicit declarations of coming genocide....

Quote edited by me for word count.

CJ 2.0:

1) The Green line was created by a treaty of Amistice. The Armistice was a binding agreement between the combatant states which the the State of Israel agreed to respect. Within that armistice agreement was the explicit statement that the Green Line would demark the boundries between Israeli-controlled Palesrine and Arab-controlled Palestine. The demarcation was explicitly stated to stand until changes were made by diplomatic negotiation to alter the Green Line making the Green Line the de facto border until 1967. Those negotiations never happened before June 5th, 1967 so they cannot be changed by war or seizure according to the Armistice which the State of Israel signed on to. This is why the State of Israel had to return Gaza from Israeli occupation (as well as the Sinai for different reasons) after the 1956 Sinai War. Gaza's boundries were set by the Armistice.

2) The Balfour Agreement and the League of Nations Mandate Charter were both aspirational documents of what might happen if certain preconditions were met. If you read them you will notice that all the provisions regarding the possible creation of a Jewish homeland are described using the words "should" and "shall". These words create a conditional duty of a mandatary rather than an hard and fast obligation. Had the documents you rely on used the words "must" or "will", then you would have a case. But the shoulds and shalls make the documents intentional rather than a binding obligation. That's how wiggly diplomatic and legal writing works. Therefore there was no obligation to create a Jewish homeland expressed in these documents, only a conditional intention and duty to do so if and only if certain conditions were met. Thus these documents do not endow a possible future Jewish homeland with any rights to any part or all of the Mandate of Palestine, until those preconditions were met and a homeland was created by the Mandatory - the UK. They were not met by the time the Jewish Agency elected to use force of arms and violence to create the modern State of Israel and therefore these documents do not extend any legitimacy for or rights of the modern State of Israel's claims to ownership of any part or all of the land encompassed by the former Mandate of Palestine.

Using 'will', 'shall' and 'must' in commercial contracts - BM Insights - Blake Morgan

3) What act of war did the UAR/Egypt commit in the Straits of Tiran before the State of Israel launched its air strikes against the Egyptian Air Force. None. Egypt did not attack any Israeli ship nor stop any Israeli ship in the Straits of Tiran. Egypt did not attack or even prevent any foreign registered (non-Israeli) ship from reaching an Israeli port through the Straits of Tiran. Egypt did stop, search and check manifests and cargos of ships transiting through the Straits of Tiran, which is in full compliance with a power patrolling its own territorial waters which have been declared to be an international waterway. So where was the ACT of war, or is bellicose rhetoric by a populist leader now to be considered an act of war, in which case Likud-led Israel is in a heap of trouble. There was no ACT of war in the Straits of Tiran dispute and the international community was preparing to dispute Egyptian claims when Israel unilaterally initiated combat against the UAR/Egypt and her defensive treaty allies.

So, in conclusion, all your claims in points 1, 2 and 3 are baseless and thoroughly refuted. Historical facts trump your interpretation of history which is skewed by a national/religious/tribal bias.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Serenity]

Moderator's Warning:

Closed for mod review. Posts still subject to moderation.