• 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!

Major Israeli settlement 'unlawful'

Yes and where did that sovereignty come from? It was an arbitrary carving out of the land by imperial power. The Palestinians have a legitimate historical grievance that has been ongoing for generations, and to this day their land becomes smaller and smaller in accordance with the expansion of another culture.

Actually, the division was sanctioned by the United Nations General Assembly. The Jews accepted it, the Arabs invaded.

Until that grievance is acknowledged and attempts at reconciliation are made, there are going to be continued attacks, even after Palestine is fully absorbed. Hamas is seen as a terrorist organization by the West because it is contrary to our support of Israel. Within the Middle East views differ.

Hamas is a terrorist organization because they engage in random attacks on civilian targets with the purpose of causing TERROR in the civilian populace.
 
Israel is a continual violator of international law, i.e. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the violation of ceasefire agreements based on whimsical evidence of aggression, etc. However those discrepancies cannot be challenged due to U.S. veto power at the Security Council.

States that have no special interests in the Middle East, such as China, have continually called for investigation into Israel's behaviour at the UN, and such attempts are blocked at every turn by Western special interests.

Israel has the absolute right to defend itself from agression from both state and non-state actors in accordance with the United Nations charter.
 
Yes and where did that sovereignty come from? It was an arbitrary carving out of the land by imperial power.
The United Nations voted to partition the land in accordance with the recomendations of UNSCOP.

Hamas is seen as a terrorist organization by the West because it is contrary to our support of Israel. Within the Middle East views differ.
Hamas is a terrorist organization because of its Charter and its terrorist actions to realize the aims of that Charter which plainly states... no negotiations and no peace with Israel. Ever.

Israel is a continual violator of international law, i.e. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
Israel was never a party to the NPT and thus is not in violation.

the violation of ceasefire agreements based on whimsical evidence of aggression, etc.
70 Hamas rockets landed in Israel a few days ago. Hamas validated the Israeli reports. Yet somehow you consider this whimsical evidence. wtf?

I don't think it's that cut and dry. Even within Hamas there are moderates who would be willing to see a joint settlement of Jerusalem.
Plz show citations where Khaled Mashal and/or Ismail Haniya (the leadership of Hamas) has offered to bifurcate Jerusalem.

It isn't just the ideology of Hamas that is driving it, but real historical events.
There is no doubt. The Hamas Charter is the primordial and overarching driving force of the organization.

My Palestinian friend in Toronto grew up getting shelled on near his home, and chased by Israeli soldiers through the streets with death threats for absolutely nothing.
I've lost dear friends from Palestinian rocket attacks and suicide bombings. Civilians all.

I am tired of the one-sidedness coming from Western observers just because they have been spoon fed propaganda about how righteous Israel is.
Are Jordan and Egypt "western observers"? Much like Israel, both are sick and tired of Hamas. Israel FM Tzipi Livni is in Egypt at this moment consulting with President Hosni Mubarak on additional mutual efforts to further isolate Hamas.
 
Israel warns Hamas over rockets
Thursday, 25 December 2008

Israeli leaders have issued stern warnings to Palestinian militant group Hamas to stop rocket attacks on Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he would not hesitate to strike Hamas and another militant group, Islamic Jihad, in the Gaza Strip. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni warned Israel "cannot tolerate" Palestinian militants targeting Israeli citizens. A six-month ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas ended last week.

Speaking after talks with the Egyptian leadership in Cairo on the failed ceasefire in Gaza, Ms Livni described the latest escalation as "unbearable". "Hamas needs to understand that our aspiration to live in peace doesn't mean that Israel is going to take this kind of situation any longer. Enough is enough," she said.

Ms Livni had earlier been holding talks with Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak and Prime Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, who brokered the ceasefire. Mr Aboul Gheit urged restraint from both sides, and said Egypt would continue to act as a mediator but admitted that a new truce currently seemed unlikely. Relations between Egypt and Gaza are strained, our correspondent says.

President Mubarak has told the militants he believes they are making a mistake in abandoning the ceasefire. It is widely understood the Egyptians are furious with Hamas for boycotting peace talks with Fatah last month, which were due to be held in Cairo. The question now, our correspondent says, is whether the Egyptians would back an Israeli military offensive against Hamas. The London-based newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi has reported that Egypt would not object to a limited Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip, aimed at toppling Hamas.
Source: BBC News

Everyone in the area is fairly well fed up with the antics of Hamas.
 
Yes and where did that sovereignty come from?

There had never been a sovereign Palestine. The land in question was held by various empires, Roman, Ottoman, and British. Following the end of World War II, the issue of how to bring the region to sovereignty arose as the British Mandate approached its end.

It was an arbitrary carving out of the land by imperial power. The Palestinians have a legitimate historical grievance that has been ongoing for generations, and to this day their land becomes smaller and smaller in accordance with the expansion of another culture.

The UN was charged with finding a formula to bring about sovereignty. The core needs of the area's two peoples--Jews and Arabs, each of whom had historic legitimacy in the region--had to be accommodated. As no single state formula could achieve that requirement given the animosities between the area's two peoples and as perpetuation of the British Mandate was not feasible, a partition plan offered the most effective approach. Although the partition plan fell short of meeting the two peoples' aspirations, it did satisfy their needs in which each could have a sovereign state of its own.

Without doubt, there were no perfect solutions. The partition plan was the best that could have been achieved.

Until that grievance is acknowledged and attempts at reconciliation are made, there are going to be continued attacks, even after Palestine is fully absorbed. Hamas is seen as a terrorist organization by the West because it is contrary to our support of Israel. Within the Middle East views differ.

All reasonable people understand that the partition plan was not perfect. It was the best that could have been done to accommodate the core needs of the two peoples in the face of irreconcilable differences between the two.

Reconciliation will occur when the parties are willing to compromise so as to coexist. Israel has met that standard e.g., with Prime Minister Barak's acceptance of President Clinton's bridging proposal. Prime Minister Sharon met that standard in setting forth a bold but ultimately unsuccessful unilateral disenagement from the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians have shown little flexibility on matters such as refugees (and their descendants) and Jerusalem.

Hamas is a terrorist entity, not because it takes positions contrary to the West's support of Israel but because it deliberately attacks civilians in pursuit of gain.

I essentially call into question who we choose to label as "terrorists". I think Israel and Palestine have both committed acts of terrorism in order to support their individual agendas, and it all stems from historical grievances.

The conflict stems from historic grievances. However, self-defense, even when unintended harm to civilians is caused, is not the same thing as terrorism. Israel has not engaged in terrorism, as it has not deliberately attacked civilians in pursuit of its policy objectives. Hamas, on the other hand, has deliberately attacked civilians in pursuit of its goals.

The fact that the West has decided to prop up one of those parties makes little difference in my mind. Who we call "terrorists" changes year to year based our own political whims.

Terrorists are those who deliberately attack civilians in a bid to further their policy objectives. Thus, the determination of whom is a terrorist is not a "political whim."
 
Israel has the absolute right to defend itself from agression from both state and non-state actors in accordance with the United Nations charter.

Doesn't Arab states have the right to defend themselves and arm themselves from a threat as well?
Israel isn't exactly all peaceful, it also threatens Arab countries and especially Iran. It holds occupied territory belonging to other soverign countries.

Don't the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves when being attacked? Or does that charter only apply when its Israel?

Disclaimer: I also know that Arab countries are agressive but i am focusing on Israel in this discussion.
 
It is a violation of International Law to hold on to land taken in a war. Even the Israeli Supreme Court refer's to this land as "occupied territory".

If it were safe to give it back, maybe Israel would do so.

Until the attacks cease it will not happen.

Basically, returning the land gives the terrorists to many opportunities to kill innocent Israeli citizens.
 
Doesn't Arab states have the right to defend themselves and arm themselves from a threat as well?
Israel isn't exactly all peaceful, it also threatens Arab countries and especially Iran. It holds occupied territory belonging to other soverign countries.

Don't the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves when being attacked? Or does that charter only apply when its Israel?

Disclaimer: I also know that Arab countries are agressive but i am focusing on Israel in this discussion.

What the Palestinians call "Defense" the rest of the world calls terrorism. If the Palestinians did not condone hate, violence, and the glorification of terrorist groups this whole situtation would probably never have occurred.

Until Palestine renounces terrorism and ejects all terrorist groups (No, trolls, Israel is not a terrorist group so don't even try to imply it) from their country they will not be thought of as defenders.

Terrorism is NOT a defensive tool.

A good first step is to find and eliminate ALL members of the Iranian backed Islamic Jihad operating within Palestine.

Next all members of Hamas, and Fatah need to be rounded up and eliminated.

Finally, any remaining terrorist scum need to be rounded up and eliminated.

Then Palestine can elect a non-terrorist leadership and peace will come about naturally from this action.
 
Until Palestine renounces terrorism and ejects all terrorist groups (No, trolls, Israel is not a terrorist group so don't even try to imply it) from their country they will not be thought of as defenders.

The refusal of terrorism will work only when both sides are ready. Like it or not, Israelis nor Palestinians are ready yet to trust one another

Then Palestine can elect a non-terrorist leadership and peace will come about naturally from this action.

Who are you to tell them how to elect? Nobody has the right to tell someone who to elect.That is not Democracy
I support Democracy and it is unfortunate that they elected Hamas but as a elected member of Government, they should have been acknowledged as that by the world - You do not prove to Palestinians and Arabs democracy is good by refusing to co operate with those who are their representatives.
 
Last edited:
Israel is a continual violator of international law, i.e. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the violation of ceasefire agreements based on whimsical evidence of aggression, etc. However those discrepancies cannot be challenged due to U.S. veto power at the Security Council.

States that have no special interests in the Middle East, such as China, have continually called for investigation into Israel's behaviour at the UN, and such attempts are blocked at every turn by Western special interests.

There is no offical proof that Israel is in violation of the non-proliferation treaty.

China wants Israel disarmed because China is allied with Iran and Iran hates Israel. Therefore, China's request is suspect.

Also, if Israel does have nukes, which is a possibility, she has need of them. Their existence or rumors there of are what keep the terrorist hordes from an outright invasion.

Also .... China is bigger violator on internation law than just about anybody. China's human rights abuses are rivaled only by those of Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler.

As such, China has no room to talk. Calling for an investigation is little more than a 3rd party attempt by Iran to get the international community to take from Israel what she may not even have.

Of course, the same Chinese officials have no problem vetoing actions to disarm Iran. This, if nothing else, is proof of China's hypocracy. This is why China gets ignored at the UN and it's why people in the world mostly see China as a sewer (aside from the fact that it is a pollution filled sewer).

Russia is the same story ... only Russua is selling missile delivery systems to a terrorist country. This automatically dismisses and credibility Russia may have had and it provides Russia the same image as they had when they were still the Soviet Union.
 
Last edited:
China wants Israel disarmed because China is allied with Iran and Iran hates Israel. Therefore, China's request is suspect.

United States wants Iran to not get Nukes because US is allied with Israel and US hates Iran, making US's determination to stop Iran suspicious.

*shrugs* Works both ways
 
United States wants Iran to not get Nukes because US is allied with Israel and US hates Iran, making US's determination to stop Iran suspicious.

*shrugs* Works both ways

Laila,

Much more than Israel's security is involved. Iran's acquisition or development of nuclear weapons would also have broad balance of power implications in the Middle East. Sunni states would almost certainly seek to develop/acquire their own nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia believes that Iran poses the greatest strategic threat to its national security and it would not stand idle should Iran succeeding in gaining a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran's success in obtaining or developing such weapons would potentially deal a fatal blow to the NPT and such a development would have far-reaching consequences well outside of the Middle East. Overall, such a development could undermine overall international peace and security and also elevate the risk of an accident or such weapons even finding their way into the hands of non-state actors.
 
Iran's success in obtaining or developing such weapons would potentially deal a fatal blow to the NPT and such a development would have far-reaching consequences well outside of the Middle East. Overall, such a development could undermine overall international peace and security and also elevate the risk of an accident or such weapons even finding their way into the hands of non-state actors.

True. Sunni States may not see it as acceptable a Shia country having Nukes but maybe a balance of power is needed within the ME.
Saudi Arabia, roflmao. Saudi Arabia hates Iran, can't say im surprised.

Israel having Nukes is damaging to the development of the ME.
I say strip Israel of its Nukes and ban any country in that region from getting it after ensuring Israel's is gone otherwise, i can't see what ground the west has to preach to Iran [Who has had less wars in its History compared to west] that it cannot have weapons Israel has.

Iran is neither stupid nor is the President. They would not hand weapons to someone who may actually use it. You underestimate them.
 
United States wants Iran to not get Nukes because US is allied with Israel and US hates Iran, making US's determination to stop Iran suspicious.

*shrugs* Works both ways

There is truth in that. However, the US would not give the technology to terrorist groups like Hezballah. Iran would ... so there is still a valid point against Iran having nuclear technology.
 
True. Sunni States may not see it as acceptable a Shia country having Nukes but maybe a balance of power is needed within the ME.
Saudi Arabia, roflmao. Saudi Arabia hates Iran, can't say im surprised.

Israel having Nukes is damaging to the development of the ME.
I say strip Israel of its Nukes and ban any country in that region from getting it after ensuring Israel's is gone otherwise, i can't see what ground the west has to preach to Iran [Who has had less wars in its History compared to west] that it cannot have weapons Israel has.

Iran is neither stupid nor is the President. They would not hand weapons to someone who may actually use it. You underestimate them.

My dear confused Laila. Iran's current president has been identified as a participant in 1979/80 Iran Hostage Crisis by no less than SIX of those held hostage.

Iran's president is a terrorist, Iran's Ayeitolieybowl is a terrorist, Iran's Mullahs are terrorists. Iran funds, trains, and arms, a terrorist group called Hezballah.

As such, I would say that Iran's involvment in nuclear technology (except for energy where enrichment takes place outside of Iran) is unacceptable.

Iran is the world foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

If Iran got nukes there would be no peace in the world.
 
My dear confused Laila. Iran's current president has been identified as a participant in 1979/80 Iran Hostage Crisis by no less than SIX of those held hostage.

Iran's president is a terrorist, Iran's Ayeitolieybowl is a terrorist, Iran's Mullahs are terrorists. Iran funds, trains, and arms, a terrorist group called Hezballah.

As such, I would say that Iran's involvment in nuclear technology (except for energy where enrichment takes place outside of Iran) is unacceptable.

Iran is the world foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

If Iran got nukes there would be no peace in the world.

Then it's settled: Let's just nuke them all since they're all evil terrorists. :roll:
 
If Iran got nukes there would be no peace in the world.

I don't see how that works.
So if Iran gets Nukes, there will be no peace inside ME.
Yet Iran hasn't had Nukes before and in the last decade or so, there has been no peace inside ME or the world.

What is the difference?
Pakistan has Nukes << Be more worried about that.
Iran is at the bottom of my "to fear" pile
 
Iran is neither stupid nor is the President. They would not hand weapons to someone who may actually use it. You underestimate them.

Laila,

A more likely scenario in which nuclear weapons, technologies, materials, etc., could find its way into the hands of non-state entities would entail the collapse or overthrow of a country's government by radical elements. There are failed and failing states. Pakistan is perhaps the single current example of a nuclear power could be sliding toward state failure. In any case, the more nations possess nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons capabilities, the better the chance that one such state would undergo state failure. In that situation, nuclear weapons could find their way into the hands of non-state actors.

Another scenario would involve a rogue scientist along the lines of an Abdul Qadeer Khan assisting non-state actors in acquiring such weapons/knowledge. The more countries possess such weapons/knowledge, the more individuals also possess access/knowledge with regard to nuclear technologies. The more individuals there are who have such access/knowledge, the greater the chance that a rogue element might also have such access/knowledge.

In the event Iran gained nuclear weapons, Iran could possibly--but not assuredly--be deterred from providing nuclear weapons to proxies such as Hezbollah. Such deterrence would operate on the principle that Iran would be subject to total and certain destruction if Iran were to use nuclear weapons or if one of its proxies e.g., Hezbollah were to do so.

Deterrence aside, I still believe that the overall balance of power implications and additional risks associated with a nuclear-armed Iran justify the world's seeking to prevent Iran from gaining/developing such weapons. Of course, the same holds with respect to the other states that don't possess nuclear weapons, as well.

Finally, the risk assumed by smaller countries that could be wiped out by one or two nuclear bombs would still be intolerable. They would face a perpetual situation amounting to brinkmanship. Such a high-stress environment increases the risks of a miscalculation. That's another powerful argument for seeking to deprive Iran of nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:
There is truth in that. However, the US would not give the technology to terrorist groups like Hezballah. Iran would ... so there is still a valid point against Iran having nuclear technology.

Righttt, i wouldn't put anything pass any country.
I think any country would fund anything if it served in their best interest. Never say never.
 
Doesn't Arab states have the right to defend themselves and arm themselves from a threat as well?
Israel isn't exactly all peaceful, it also threatens Arab countries and especially Iran. It holds occupied territory belonging to other soverign countries.

What threat is Israel to the existance of Aran countries or Iran (which, BTW is NOT Arab.) It is Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map, not the other way around. Israel has only threatened to do something should Iran's nuclear program be ready to develop weapons, which would be a GRAVE threat to Israel. Israel is willing to co-exist with its neighbors, as it has proven in its relations with Egypt and Jordan over the past two decades. The same can NOT be said for Arabs in the Gaza Strip, Syria, Lebanon in addition to Iran.

Don't the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves when being attacked? Or does that charter only apply when its Israel?


There is no state known as Palestine.


Disclaimer: I also know that Arab countries are agressive but i am focusing on Israel in this discussion.

The Arabs have been the aggressors since 1948. Israel's existance is in jeopardy. The existance of Arab states (with the possible exception of Lebanon, but that has more to do with Syria and Iran than with Israel) is NOT in jeopardy.
 
United States wants Iran to not get Nukes because US is allied with Israel and US hates Iran, making US's determination to stop Iran suspicious.

*shrugs* Works both ways

Except that Iran's leadership repeatedly threatens Israel and states that it needs to be wiped off the map.
 
There is no state known as Palestine.

Not anymore, thanks to whom?

The Arabs have been the aggressors since 1948. Israel's existance is in jeopardy. The existance of Arab states (with the possible exception of Lebanon, but that has more to do with Syria and Iran than with Israel) is NOT in jeopardy.

Arguable. Israel has been the instigator many times, which is why I believe we should support neither country.
 
Not anymore, thanks to whom?

There has NEVER been a state known as Palestine.

Arguable. Israel has been the instigator many times, which is why I believe we should support neither country.

The Arabs started the problem in 1948. Israel's responses have been to secure its sovereignty, something it has the right to do.

Also, as for Israel's alleged nuclear problem, it is perfectly legal, because as Tashash has already pointed out, Israel is a non-signatory to the NPT.
 
What threat is Israel to the existance of Aran countries or Iran (which, BTW is NOT Arab.) It is Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map, not the other way around. Israel has only threatened to do something should Iran's nuclear program be ready to develop weapons, which would be a GRAVE threat to Israel. Israel is willing to co-exist with its neighbors, as it has proven in its relations with Egypt and Jordan over the past two decades. The same can NOT be said for Arabs in the Gaza Strip, Syria, Lebanon in addition to Iran.

To Middle Eastern countries including Iran. It has used military actions more times than any other country within that region. It has killed more civilians and done more damage to other countries more than ever has been done to them.

There is no state known as Palestine.

Not anymore
The Arabs have been the aggressors since 1948.

Israel has done its fair share so neither side is exactly innocent.
 
Back
Top Bottom