- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,320
- Reaction score
- 2,116
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
uh and the Hamas stopped sending kamikazes! win-win
If Israel stops its illegal occupation of Palestinian land and stops the blockade of Gaza, maybe Hamas will stop launching rockets too!
But it won't be the case, as they still have not understood that "using the strong way" against the Hamas will only bring a new intifada...:roll:
Perhaps Hamas should stop launching rockets and when Israel feels that they are secure, they can withdraw from the West Bank.
You talked about Israel unilaterally making lots of concessions while Hamas doesn't. That's not true: Hamas stopped using kamikazes.
So if Israel kept on making concessions, I don't see why Hamas would not do the same. They are not evil beasts.
Permanent settlements in terrorities classified as belligerant occupation are unlawful.
Annexing territory from another state without a properly executed treaty providing for a territory transfer is unlawful.
However, the terror activities Arabs have used for decades against Israel is unlawful.
Israel's actions to defend itself IS lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
I would generally agree with all the above but resisting an occupation is perfectly legal.
The carpet bombing of Europe during WWII - perfectly legal.
The dropping of cluster bombs over the whole of Lebanon - perfectly legal.
Rocket attacks into Israel - illegal.
The winners generally decide what they want to regard as legal/illegal.
Gaza is no longer under occupation. Haven't you noticed that?
Hamas and all the rest of the arab states have got to drop this "exterminating Israel" mantra.Billo - they have already withdrawn from Gaza, yet the worst problems are coming out of Gaza. Israel is rightfully NOT going to withdraw from the West Bank until they have reasonable assurances that their security will be respected. Remember, Hamas's goal is to exterminate Israel. Do you HONESTLY think that will change if Israel withdraws from the West Bank?
Nah they aren't they just have a wall around them. And when people need slop jobs done people let them threw.
Hamas and all the rest of the arab states have got to drop this "exterminating Israel" mantra.
Israel is there to stay and nothing is going to change that.
Gaza is no longer under occupation. Haven't you noticed that?
The first two acts were during wartime. If Hamas wants a war (lobbing rockets across the border is an act of war) then Israel is perfectly justified in using war itself to end the threat to its security.
In the first instance, the Axis started the war.
In the second, Hizbollah started. If you don't want to get bombed by a superior opponent, DON'T START A WAR WITH IT!
Perhaps we need a new terminology because their current situation cannot possibly be described as free or liberated.
You misunderstood my point. You argue it is perfectly legal for Israel to bomb Gaza yet you think it is illegal for Hamas to lob rockets at Israel. The only real difference between the two seems to be the method of deployment and I cannot seriously regard that as the crux of legality I'm afraid.
So as long as you do not start the aggression everything you do in response is 'legal'?
I doubt you could ever really establish who started the war. The bombing was not my point, the effective laying of thousands of land mines in heavily populated civilian areas is what I would regard as illegal.
Perhaps. However, the problem is Hamas. They are the ones holding power and holding the people hostage there.
Hamas launched the rockets unprovoked.
They are the ones who started this.
It is an act of war and by definition illegal.
Israel was responding by this act of war.
Under article 51 of the UN Charter (which is merely confirmation of what customary international law had held for centuries), Israel has the right to defend itself and to protect its citizens and soveriegnty. Thus, their response is completely legal. THAT is the distinction.
WIthin the law of war, yes. Nothing Israel has done is against the law of war.
This skirmish was started by Hamas and the Gazans with the weeks of rockets being launched into southern Israel. That is pretty clear.
Are you unaware of the Egyptian blockade of Gaza, or are you hoping that everyone else is?Israel is the one holding the people of Gaza hostage by blockading them in.
Gaza isnt occupied.Lots of people may regard decades of occupation as provocation enough.
There was a 6-month cease fire.Hamas was formed after the troubles began so if you are talking about the wider picture then they did not start this.
Gaza isnt occupied.Resistance to occupation is perfectly legal under international law.
Except this.This is the standard response issued from both sides. Everything is always in response to something that the other side has done.
What parts, and under what law?Large chunks of Israel does not belong to it under international law.
.They would have a hard time trying to use UN resolutions to legitimize their actions
Which law?I would argue that the use of cluster bombs in highly populated civilian areas was against the laws of war.
Gaza isnt occupied.If Israel does not want resistance then it must end its occupation.
Mostly bcause the Arabs wont accept a resolution that involves the continued existence of Israel.There has never been a peaceful occupation in history and I do not foresee this one turning into one either.
Are you unaware of the Egyptian blockade of Gaza, or are you hoping that everyone else is?
Gaza isnt occupied.
There was a 6-month cease fire.
Immediately after it ended, hamas started hurling rockets.
How did Hamas snot start this?
Gaza isnt occupied.
Except this.
There was a 6-month cease fire.
Immediately after it ended, hamas started hurling rockets.
What parts, and under what law?
Silly you, thinking that they need to.
Which law?
Gaza isnt occupied.
Mostly bcause the Arabs wont accept a resolution that involves the continued existence of Israel.
I'm no sure how this addresses the question regarding the Egypotian role in the blockade of Gaza.There is more than one side to borders. Ever tried sailing or flying in to Gazza?
You used the term "occupied". Now you;re moving the goalpost.It is far from free and liberated. You can suggest a different terminology if you wish.
Aha. So, what 'started this'?Don't think you read my post properly.
"Hamas was formed after the troubles began so if you are talking about the wider picture then they did not start this. "
See above.See above. It ain't free or liberated either as it has no control over its own borders. You can suggest another description if you wish.
You DO know that a nation's borders arent solely defined by what was 'given to it', right? That borders change for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the taking of land during wartime -- right?Anything and everything which was not given to it under the partition or agreed to by neighboring states.
Again:Ha, well it has ignored every resolution passed against it so it would be quite incredible if it then sought to use UN resolutions to justify any of its actions.
This doesnt address the use of cluster bombs in any way shape or form.Probably something like the below but not restricted to it only.
Have you asked any of them?You have asked them all?
I'm no sure how this addresses the question regarding the Egypotian role in the blockade of Gaza.
You used the term "occupied". Now you;re moving the goalpost.
Aha. So, what 'started this'?
See above.
You used the term "occupied". Now you're moving the goalpost.
As for control over its borders -- Gaza can fully decide for itself who it allows to pass theu its borders. It has full control.
You DO know that a nation's borders arent solely defined by what was 'given to it', right? That borders change for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the taking of land during wartime -- right?
So, I ask again:
Under which law do large chunks of Israel does not belong to it?
Which parts?
Again:
Silly you, thinking it needs to.
This doesnt address the use of cluster bombs in any way shape or form.
Thus, I ask again:
Under which law is the use of cluster bombs in highly populated civilian areas prohibited?
Have you asked any of them?
The people they 'elected' seem to be very clear on the point.
Wow... I didn't know that Israel had the capacity to force Egypt to do anything.If you are suggesting Egypt will suffer no consequence from Israel if it allows an open border with Gazza then you are mistaken. The Egyptian blockade is something that is almost forced upon Egypt and you're attempt to make out as though they have a choice in this matter is slightly dishonest.
Then you are wrong. Israel doesnt occupy Gaza.No, I am happy using the term occupied.
"subjugated, under the control of a foreign military presence"
.A desire from the Jewish people to carve up an area of land for their own exclusive use
Then you are wrong. Israel doesnt occypy Gaza.See above. I am happy using the term 'occupied' as I feel it is a correct definition of the situation
Israel has the right to control its own border, including who crosses it when leaving Israel. That Israel will not allow someone to pass from its border doesnt in any way change the fact that Gaza, right now, has the absolute ability to allow anyone it chooses to enter. Thus, Gaza has complete control of its border.If I want to enter Gaza by sea or air right now I would be best to speak to the Israelis unless I want to be blown up.
.This does not suggest to me that Hamas are in control of anything in the area
Just to be clear:I do not know Israeli law but the Israeli supreme court does not regard the settlements which form part of Israel as Israeli sovereign territory. Maybe Tasha could answer this question better. Under international law no other nations recognize the borders which Israel currently resides within, including the US.
Maybe the rest of the world is just wrong and legally it does belong to Israel?
I see -- any state that does not hold itself to your unspportable idea of how states should do things is a 'rogue state'.Correct. Rogue states generally do as they wish.
This has absolutely nothing to do with using cluster bombs in built-up areas.It was stated, you maybe missed.
"Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited".
.No, but I never tried to generalize an entire people
And the Palestinian people elected Hamas as their government.Hamas seeks the end of Israel.
Wow... I didn't know that Israel had the capacity to force Egypt to do anything.
Tell me: What will Israel do to Egypt, should Egypt refuse to blockade Gaza, and how do you know?
Then you are wrong. Israel doesnt occupy Gaza.
I see. So, the mere existence of Israel, brought Hamas, et al, into being.
I guess that's why Hamas, et al, want nothing other than the destruction of Israel.
Then you are wrong. Israel doesnt occypy Gaza.
Israel has the right to control its own border, including who crosses it when leaving Israel. That Israel will not allow someone to pass from its border doesnt in any way change the fact that Gaza, right now, has the absolute ability to allow anyone it chooses to enter.
Thus, Gaza has complete control of its border.
Only because you do not understand what it means to be in control of one's border.
You have not cited which large chunks of Israel do not belong to it
and you have not cited the law that makes this so.
If you cannot do these things, your position is untenable.
I see -- any state that does not hold itself to your unspportable idea of how states should do things is a 'rogue state'.
:roll:
News flash: the UN is not the sole originator of International Law.
That being the case, not every international issue need be addressed by the UN for the resoluton of same to be entirely legitimate.
The idea that NOT going the thru the UN confers some sort of 'rogue state' status is laughable.
This has absolutely nothing to do with using cluster bombs in built-up areas.
At this point, you have failed to specify which law prohibits the use of cluster bombs in highly populated civilian areas, and as such your claim to that effect remains unsupported and untenable.
So, you -dont- know that the people of Palestine do NOT support the destruction of Israel, and see that as the only acceptable resolution of the issue.
And the Palestinian people elected Hamas as their government.
Seems that this supports my position and speaks stronly against its opposite.
Israel closed the corssing when it had a presence in Gaza.I'm sure you do and are just being dishonest but:
"The Rafah crossing was opened on 25 November 2005 and operated nearly daily until 25 June 2006.[1] Since that time it has been closed by Israel on 86% of days due to security reasons"
Clearly they will close all the crossings , as they have done so already on numerous times, label Egypt as 'terrorist sponsors' and have the US remove all of Egypts international privileges. And worse I suspect.
Israel has no presence in Gaza. You cannot occypuy a country without a prisicak presence. You can do a LOT of other things w/o a physical presence, but you cannot, by the very nature of the term, occupy.Because you say so or are you going to support your position?
If that's the case then, and that Hamas, etc, were formed specifically to combat the existence of Israel, what do you suggest Israel do?Obviously. Without an Israel in the ME there would be no Hamas in Palestine.
.You saying I'm wrong doesn't actually make it so....just to let you know
You are then arguing two seperate issues, neither of which supports the idea that Gaza does not control its own borders. Israel denying permission to cross the Israeli frontier into Gaza does nothing to diminish this.It can allow anyone it wants to enter but whether they get there alive or not depends on Israel.
It has an ability to say 'yes'. It has no ability whatsoever to make sure that who it wants to come in gets in and who wants out gets out. Thus Gaza has no control of its borders.
This is not a citation of territory or of law.See earlier. "Anything and everything which was not given to it under the partition or agreed to by neighboring states."
Please cite the specific law to that effect.That is because there is no law which makes this land legally part of Israel.
International law dictates that the land does not belong to Israel.
This is hardly a convincing argument as toi how the term 'rogue state' applkies to Israel, especilly given the context in which you applied it and the source of the definition."Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction."
You DO know that Internationl law existed for 5000+ years before the UN was formed, yes?Interesting. Who else creates international law in your opinion?
If by "international legitimacy" you mean necessary involvement of the UN...States cannot pass on international legitimacy for their own actions. What Hitler did was legal in Germany, the rest of the world didn't quite see it that way.
The absurd notion here is that Israel has illegal borders given that you have yet to specify what parts of Israel are "illegal" and what law makes them so.Israel CANNOT go via the UN and ask it to protect Israel's illegal borders, that would be absurd.
Ah yes -- the Convention on Cluster Munitions"The general rules of international humanitarian law aimed at protecting civilians also apply to cluster bombs as they do to all weapons."
Cluster bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, you cannot cite a specific law that prohibits their use. Thanks.The one I stated earlier. The general rules of international humanitarian law.
Really.Only because you either do not know the difference between eliminating Israel and eliminating all the Jews or purposely pretend otherwise.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?