• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

How should Israel respond to rocketfire?

Jack Hays said:
As soon as Hamas renounces violence and recognizes Israel's right to exist.
Click to expand...

Do you think Israel might renounce its own violence and come up to " the standard " required ?

You are aware they are an nation that illegally occupies and settles the land of another people ? Just curious
 
oneworld2 said:
Do you think Israel might renounce its own violence and come up to " the standard " required ?

You are aware they are an nation that illegally occupies and settles the land of another people ? Just curious
Click to expand...

Every country on Earth today was built by conquering another people's land. That means nothing.
 
oneworld2 said:
Do you think Israel might renounce its own violence and come up to " the standard " required ?

You are aware they are an nation that illegally occupies and settles the land of another people ? Just curious
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any such thing, because it is false. Israel is not illegally occupying any other nation's territory. It acquired that land as a result of war, and it's theirs. The Jew-haters who live there are the ones who would do well to renounce violence, unless they want to be on the receiving end of a lot more of it. No nation has to tolerate weapons being fired into its territory. If Israel were the barbaric nation the jihadists' propaganda claims, it could easily have exterminated them years ago.
 
Jack Hays said:
You mean the IDF that has regularly fought outnumbered and won more victories than any other army since WW2? That IDF?
Click to expand...

The IDF who shoots at unarmed boys, bombs UN hospitals and schools from above, is that brave?. Not sure where you get those facts from?
 
Common_good said:
The IDF who shoots at unarmed boys, bombs UN hospitals and schools from above, is that brave?. Not sure where you get those facts from?
Click to expand...

It's what happens when your enemy puts his soldiers and fighting positions among children, hospitals and schools. Hamas is responsible for those deaths. If the IDF were not so careful and precise, many times more civilians would have died. As for IDF history, please acquaint yourself with the events of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973.
 
matchlight said:
I'm not aware of any such thing, because it is false. Israel is not illegally occupying any other nation's territory. It acquired that land as a result of war, and it's theirs. The Jew-haters who live there are the ones who would do well to renounce violence, unless they want to be on the receiving end of a lot more of it. No nation has to tolerate weapons being fired into its territory. If Israel were the barbaric nation the jihadists' propaganda claims, it could easily have exterminated them years ago.
Click to expand...


Requiring land as a result of war is legal? Are you having a laugh?
 
Jack Hays said:
It's what happens when your enemy puts his soldiers and fighting positions among children, hospitals and schools. Hamas is responsible for those deaths. If the IDF were not so careful and precise, many times more civilians would have died. As for IDF history, please acquaint yourself with the events of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973.
Click to expand...

Clearly scared of a ground assault. Also useless at precision, going by the figures. Only as good as your last performance and were defeated by Hezbollah in 2006.
 
Jack Hays said:
right of conquest
The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms.
Click to expand...

That's the definition of the term! Does not mean it is legal haha. You would make a great lawyer.
 
Common_good said:
Clearly scared of a ground assault. Also useless at precision, going by the figures. Only as good as your last performance and were defeated by Hezbollah in 2006.
Click to expand...

If the IDF had been defeated in 2006 then Israel would no longer exist. QED The rest of your post is just uninformed blather.
 
Jack Hays said:
You mean the IDF that has regularly fought outnumbered and won more victories than any other army since WW2? That IDF?
Click to expand...

The David v Goliath story of 1948 is a myth. Unless you count the Arabs as David.

As is so often the case the army with the most soldiers and the better weaponry tends to win the war.........such was the case again in 1948

I would have thought you would have known that
 
oneworld2 said:
The David v Goliath story of 1948 is a myth. Unless you count the Arabs as David.

As is so often the case the army with the most soldiers and the better weaponry tends to win the war.........such was the case again in 1948

I would have thought you would have known that
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that. It's probably easier to live with than the legacy of Palestinian cowardice and Arab betrayal.
 
oneworld2 said:
The stifling of a Palestinian government/body capable of filling that role is in no small part down to Israeli manipulations imo.

The Israeli aversion to the recent unity government is just the latest example

If you manufacture a situation where you cannot find a partner to engage with to strike a fair deal , and it does have to be fair , you can keep the status quo going which suits Israeli planners
Click to expand...

Greetings, oneworld2. :2wave:

Palestine is currently divided into two separate operational governments - the Palestine Authority and Hamas. Hamas is the armed resistance group which is responsible for the rocket attacks into Israel. Since Hamas has a very poor record in keeping agreements they have made with Israel in the past, why should anyone expect anything different in the their latest attempt at a truce? I believe Israel has shown great restraint in dealing with them, and they aren't likely to be lulled into believing any promises made by Hamas, who may or may not keep any agreement they make. I don't understand why they don't take their grievances to the UN, instead of attempting to kill Israelis on their own land, then using women and children as shields, which is cowardly in anyone's book! :thumbdown:!
 
Jack Hays said:
It is the foundation of every state on Earth.
Click to expand...

Completely false. Many nations States are founded by geographical borders. Many founded by democratic means. Countries becoming independent post colonialism, post Soviet-Union etc etc. you sound like you actually only know two countries.
 
matchlight said:
I'm not aware of any such thing, because it is false. Israel is not illegally occupying any other nation's territory. It acquired that land as a result of war, and it's theirs. .
Click to expand...

Sorry but you are mistaken. The land occupied since 1967 is illegally occupied according to international law. Most people understand that
 
Common_good said:
Completely false. Many nations States are founded by geographical borders. Many founded by democratic means. Countries becoming independent post colonialism, post Soviet-Union etc etc. you sound like you actually only know two countries.
Click to expand...

Post-colonialism? What a laugh. The borders of every African state but two were created by European conquest. The two exceptions? Liberia, created by the conquest of freed American slaves, and Ethiopia, created by Amhara conquest.
 
Jack Hays said:
If the IDF had been defeated in 2006 then Israel would no longer exist. QED The rest of your post is just uninformed blather.
Click to expand...

They lost after invading Lebanon look it up. You mind find the concept hard to understand but a war does not always have to end in the other country not existing.
 
Common_good said:
Requiring land as a result of war is legal? Are you having a laugh?
Click to expand...

Your comment is good for a laugh. Of course it's legal to acquire land as the result of war. That is basic to the laws of war, property law, and international law. How do you imagine, for example, the U.S. acquired California and large parts of the Southwest, except by defeating Mexico in the Mexican War? In the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, Mexico ceded California, part of Texas, and its other lands in North to the United States.
 
Jack Hays said:
Post-colonialism? What a laugh. The borders of every African state but two were created by European conquest. The two exceptions? Liberia, created by the conquest of freed American slaves, and Ethiopia, created by Amhara conquest.
Click to expand...

You said "the foundation of every state on earth" not borders. You are diverting attention from your ridiculous statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom