• 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!

Israeli air strikes target Gaza

Laila said:
No the EU is more in place to be a fair broker.
It condemns when it is needed whereas US will always support Israel, no matter the circumstances.

US have and always will be anti-muslim/Arab/Palestinian [whatever phrase you want to use], pro Israel.
Its the way it is therefore any attempts by US to show it wants peace or justice is insulting and will never be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Right, the US is so anti-Muslim that it recognized Kosovo's independence against Christian Serbia. It advocates Turkey's entrance into the EU when Christian Austria opposed it.
 
bub said:
Précis de jurisprudence de la Cour ... - Google Recherche de Livres
Click to expand...

You forget something. Gaza is not a state. You also forget that Hamas started this. Israel has the right to do what is necessary to protect itself.

Much of this proportionality is the mental masturbation of a limited number of commentators. It is NOT been confirmed by customary state practice or treaty law.

It also refers to the aggressor. However, remember that Hamas is the aggressor in that they launched the first attacks in this conflict.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Just an observation. I am on the pro-Israeli side of the coin. No question about it. Unfortunately, what I am seeing from some of those that are on my side of this debate, disgusts me. Accusing those that disagree with you of being anti-semites, believing in Jewish consipiracies, being terrorist sympathizers, and generally accusing those who do not attack the Palestinians, whole-heartedly, as believing that Israel should not exist or something similar, is what I am seeing. Not only is it inaccurate, but it is POOR DEBATING. You are arguing against positions that are not being presented just to attack your opponent. IT'S WEAK, and quite obviously so. And I, for one, am getting tired of seeing it. I support Israel's position on this; they are right and the Palestinians need to take responsibility so this situation can get better. But I will not sit by and watch people like bub and Laila get attacked for disagreeing when all of the accusations that some of you are throwing at them ARE COMPLETELY INACCURATE. Now, I have been around for 3 years and have dispatched plenty of anti-semites that have infested DP at one time or another. If I saw one here, you can be sure I would eliminate them. Doesn't exist. So, before I start humiliating those of you who are debating weakly by making misrepresentative accusations and calling out your names...STOP BEHAVING FOOLISHLY. There is enough of a topic here to win the debate. Making inaccurate accusations hurts your position...which in turn, hurts mine. And that is not something I take lightly.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. It is one thing to disagree with people. It is another to demonize them. I have debated with most of the people on the other side of this, and I have no reason to demonize them. I am saddened that some of my friends on my side of the debate are trying to demonize my friends on the other. We don't have to agree, but let us please disagree agreeably.
 
bub said:
The ICJ also says that they need proportionnality

Précis de jurisprudence de la Cour ... - Google Recherche de Livres
Click to expand...

I don't see that in your source - though to be honest, I am only skimming it.

However, we could then get into an argument over proportionality. I would argue that Israel's restraint IS proportional. If they were on a fule scale offensive where they were trying to kill, don't you think they could kill far more than the 300 some odd they have killed so far?
 
SgtRock said:
Were is are lovely pacifist friend Laila? Could she be out protesting, Maybe throwing rocks at the police? Or a molotov cocktail at the Israeli embasy. I can just picture her out there now burning an Israeli flag.
Look there she is View attachment 67109154

Just kidding with you Laila. I know you would never wish harm on anyone. I respect you for sticking to your peaceful pacifist ways. As-Salamu Alaykum my friend.
Click to expand...

Lmao, protesting =]
I don't think i'll be doing that for a few days
My body is killing me, you'd think the stupid little teens who are screaming abuse would realise that attempting to knock down the barriers doesn't equate the embassy suddenley blowing up :roll:

What a f*cked up photo, you should know i never cover my face! :p

But yeah, it was fun xD
The lone person with a peace flag lol
wa Alaykum As-Salaam love
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
THey condemn, but do they offer to actually DO anything about it?
Click to expand...

Yeah.
UK Milliband has hinted that EU troops may play a part within the border line ...
 
ludahai said:
Right, the US is so anti-Muslim that it recognized Kosovo's independence against Christian Serbia. It advocates Turkey's entrance into the EU when Christian Austria opposed it.
Click to expand...

I said 'whatever term you wish to use'
My term for US is 'Pro Israel'
Im not wrong am i?
 
Vader said:
Label?

You do tend to support the Palestinian side of the story without exception.

This does make it seem that you have some inherant dislike for jews

:shock:
Click to expand...

I have a tendency to side with Palestinians if a attack occurs.

Do i hate all jews?
 
Vader said:
You dislike the US becuase they support Israel. This is just down right nasty not-niceness.
Click to expand...

No, not really.

I loved US pre Bush.
Israel has and always will be a strong ally of US. If i hated US purely on Israel, then i should have always hated US no?
 
Orius said:
Welcome to debatepolitics.com, at least as I've seen it since I joined.
Click to expand...

True to some extent. Criticising Israeli actions can make you a baby murderer sometimes but it is up to those criticised to keep trying to be honest. There I have faith in bub and laila. :2wave:

For the record - on this one I had to agree the Israeli retaliation, Hamas had been sending rockets in for days and nobody around the world asked them to stop except Israel. When the natural reaction happened then world leaders started asking Israel to stop their retaliation. That would seem like double standards to the Israelis which is why they have ignored the calls - and now the action has gone on too long those calls are meaningless, which is the real problem.
 
SgtRock said:
Would you remove its support base using blockades?
Click to expand...

Hell no.
That is collective punishment.
I have no idea what fool thought blocking all food, medicine and electricity was somehow going to work against Hamas.

Here is a question for you, ignore everything that both sides have done for a moment.
If a outside Government has prevented aid from getting in to feed your people, would you have a right to respond?
 
ludahai said:
You forget something. Gaza is not a state. You also forget that Hamas started this. Israel has the right to do what is necessary to protect itself.

Much of this proportionality is the mental masturbation of a limited number of commentators. It is NOT been confirmed by customary state practice or treaty law.

It also refers to the aggressor. However, remember that Hamas is the aggressor in that they launched the first attacks in this conflict.
Click to expand...

I don't know if the UN consider Gaza as a state or not, or if the Gaza raids are considered as an attack against the Palestinian Authority or what...

but anyway, if you apply the article 51 of the UN chart, then you have to apply the things that go with this article => proportionality

The book I showed you says that legitime defense is an unwritten (customary????) right and that the UN chart does not limit it. However, "the legality of legitime defense depends on the proportionality of the acts taken in its name".
 
ludahai said:
I don't see that in your source - though to be honest, I am only skimming it.

However, we could then get into an argument over proportionality. I would argue that Israel's restraint IS proportional. If they were on a fule scale offensive where they were trying to kill, don't you think they could kill far more than the 300 some odd they have killed so far?
Click to expand...

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).


In my opinion, a (the +70 civilians killed) is excessive in relation to b (the hypothetical and at most temporary stop of rocket launches that have killed 2 or 3 Israeli civilians)

I repeat: it is excessive because of 3 reasons:
- it doesn't prevent Hamas from launching rockets => it's inefficient
- even if it did succeed, Hamas would start again next week => it's not adequate
- the rockets cause many damages, and unfortunately they killed several Israeli, but they cause MUCH LESS damages (even if it is too much) than the Israeli retaliation raids => it's not proportional

To be proportional, the raids shoud guarantee that Hamas do not launch rockets anymore (which is not and won't be the case) OR it should not kill more than a few civilians (which is not the case neither)
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
Sure the U.S. is pro-Israel. It should be. However, it is too much to say that the U.S. is anti-Muslim.
Click to expand...

I used more than one term which someone could use, no need to be so sensitive
 
bub said:
I don't know if the UN consider Gaza as a state or not, or if the Gaza raids are considered as an attack against the Palestinian Authority or what...
Click to expand...

Palestine is NOT recognized as a state by the UN.

but anyway, if you apply the article 51 of the UN chart, then you have to apply the things that go with this article => proportionality
Click to expand...

There is no mention of proportionality in Article 51

The book I showed you says that legitime defense is an unwritten (customary????) right and that the UN chart does not limit it. However, "the legality of legitime defense depends on the proportionality of the acts taken in its name".
Click to expand...

Legitimate defense was originally customary, but is now codified by the UN charter. The UN Charter does not limit it.

As for proportionality, that is 1. open to interpretation, and 2. the opinion of a limited number of scholars. There is nothing either written or in general state practice that confirms this.
 
ludahai said:
Palestine is NOT recognized as a state by the UN.



There is no mention of proportionality in Article 51



Legitimate defense was originally customary, but is now codified by the UN charter. The UN Charter does not limit it.

As for proportionality, that is 1. open to interpretation, and 2. the opinion of a limited number of scholars. There is nothing either written or in general state practice that confirms this.
Click to expand...

I'm deeply sorry but if you ignore the opinion of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and if you think that a book called "Manual of Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice" (which is by the way the only legal body in this case according to you) is irrelevant, it will be very difficult to debate!
 
bub said:
I'm deeply sorry but if you ignore the opinion of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and if you think that a book called "Manual of Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice" (which is by the way the only legal body in this case according to you) is irrelevant, it will be very difficult to debate!
Click to expand...

The Prosecutor does not make decisions. He is merely a lawyer. Is there a case from the ICJ that relates to the Israel-Gaza case? If you think other cases can be implied onto it, you should read Article 59 of the Statute of the ICJ before you try that kind of argument.
 
ludahai said:
How do you geographically unite Palestine without dividing Israel?
Click to expand...

I never said it would be easy, but I know it would never happen. Palestinians would never relocate and Israel would never concede any more land.
 
Laila said:
Hell no.
That is collective punishment.
I have no idea what fool thought blocking all food, medicine and electricity was somehow going to work against Hamas.

Here is a question for you, ignore everything that both sides have done for a moment.
If a outside Government has prevented aid from getting in to feed your people, would you have a right to respond?
Click to expand...

Yes os course you have a right. Here is the problem. Israel lifts the blockade and Hamas instead of being concerned with the Palestinian people will use the oppurtunity to re-arm. And If they do they are likely to obtain more dangerous weapons. Weapons which they will use regardless of a ceasefire.

Here is something else, this morning I was watching CNN International. A story comes on that Israel turns down a ceasefire. They never once mentioned if Hamas turned it down. Does anyone think that Hamas would honor a ceasefire? You have to have honor to honor something. Hamas will continue with its goal and the Palestinian people will suffer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom