• 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!

OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for peace ?

Is Israel still seeking for peace ? Read the post below :

  • No

    Votes: 26 37.7%

  • Yes

    Votes: 43 62.3%
  • Total voters
    69
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

Wessexman said:
Most of the land was the private property of the Arabs before 1918.

Don't start the Bolshevism again. The fact the statehood of the land changes doesn't mean that all ancient, traditional rights to private property on it are removed and to say so is pure socialism and against Catholic social teaching.

Please explain how you reconcile your support for socialism here with your Catholicism?
Click to expand...

Actually, when the statehood of the land changes, the new state does get to decide what happens to the land. That's what happens when a new regime comes into power. We've seen it many times in history. It's not about socialism. It's about "to the victors go the spoils". The Allies won WWI. They got to choose who the land belonged to. That's the reality of the situation.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, the issue is jurisdiction. The British Mandate allowed Great Britain to be the administrators over Palestine. From the beginning the Palestinian Mandate was to be divided into three areas; Jordan, Israel, and an Arab-Palestine. Individual rights were less relevant than the plan to divide the area. One the UN was created, the Mandate, still governed by Great Britain, was now overseen by the UN, until the British handed over administration to them in 1947.

I understand that some do not like this, but that is irrelevant. It is what occurred. It was not aggression. It was authorized and mandated by the UN. Again, whether you like it or not is irrelevant. The only aggression that occurred was Arab aggression, going against the authorized decision of the UN. And, once again, it is irrelevant whether they liked it or not.

The problem with this entire line of debate is that the side that blames the Partition is just playing the victim. The Partition happened. It's not changing. Get over it. What is the current solution? Complaining about the partition is far from it.
Click to expand...
Actually that does not deal with the important issue of the land-theft and mass immigration which was the aggression. The UN doesn't decide right and wrong and that this wasn't aggression particularly as the partition and the giving of refugee property to the UN is a break from the international laws it is founded on such as the Geneva conventions and therefore it contradicts itself even if it wasn't absurd to suggest such a self-interested and hypocritical organisation of world powers could decide right and wrong.

But I was not blaming the partition, just debunking people who kept going back and trying to blame the Arabs alone for starting the conflict.

I agree a two-state solution is needed and the future is where we should focus and that means focusing on the aggression of Hamas and the Israeli occupation and settlement.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, when the statehood of the land changes, the new state does get to decide what happens to the land. That's what happens when a new regime comes into power. We've seen it many times in history. It's not about socialism. It's about "to the victors go the spoils". The Allies won WWI. They got to choose who the land belonged to. That's the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

Yes but that doesn't change the fact it is theft, property does not come from the state alone and the taking of property like this is aggression. No one certainly that calls themselves very conservative can subsrcibe to such socialism. They change ownership because they have power not right.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

Wessexman said:
Actually that does not deal with the important issue of the land-theft and mass immigration which was the aggression. The UN doesn't decide right and wrong and that this wasn't aggression particularly as the partition and the giving of refugee property to the UN is a break from the international laws it is founded on such as the Geneva conventions and therefore it contradicts itself even if it wasn't absurd to suggest such a self-interested and hypocritical organisation of world powers could decide right and wrong.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the UN does and did get to decide. And since it did, the land transfers and immigration were not the aggression. The Arab war of 1948 was.

But I was not blaming the partition, just debunking people who kept going back and trying to blame the Arabs alone for starting the conflict.
Click to expand...

The aggressive conflict was started by the Arabs. Your debunking has failed.

I agree a two-state solution is needed and the future is where we should focus and that means focusing on the aggression of Hamas and the Israeli occupation and settlement.
Click to expand...

I agree. And in precisely the order that you just posted the solutions in.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

Wessexman said:
Yes but that doesn't change the fact it is theft, property does not come from the state alone and the taking of property like this is aggression. No one certainly that calls themselves very conservative can subsrcibe to such socialism. They change ownership because they have power not right.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I do not call myself very conservative. I'm pretty much the opposite. Secondly, in this case, property did come from the state, since the state occupied the area. The originating power did not exist. And in this case, the aggression did not come from those who emigrated. It came from those who refused to abide by the UN Resolution.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

CaptainCourtesy said:
Sorry, but the UN does and did get to decide. And since it did, the land transfers and immigration were not the aggression. The Arab war of 1948 was.
Click to expand...
The UN does not decide what is right and wrong and what is aggression just what it recognises and what is law. This is does not change what aggression is. You are mistaking law for morality I'm afraid. It also contradicts itself by recognising the theft of refugee property.



The aggressive conflict was started by the Arabs. Your debunking has failed
Click to expand...
.
Nope it was started by Jews, your arguments are weak and rely on the UN deciding right and wrong and your conflation of law for morality. The UN is self-interested and hypocritical and law does not constitute morality. The fact UN recognises something does not mean it wasn't aggression unless you can fill in the gaping holes in your ideas.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

CaptainCourtesy said:
Firstly, I do not call myself very conservative. I'm pretty much the opposite.
Click to expand...
You don't say, I was talking about the other poster.

Secondly, in this case, property did come from the state, since the state occupied the area. The originating power did not exist. And in this case, the aggression did not come from those who emigrated. It came from those who refused to abide by the UN Resolution.
Click to expand...
Nope it didn't, the UN recognition not only does not decide right and wrong but it doesn't decide issues like this, it just sets up law. You are trying to conflate different things. It just deals with what happens after the event according to international agreement not according to what was wrong or right about the event. The UN recognised much like Tibet being part of China or the USSR controlling the Eastern bloc but these were not morally right and were aggression by most people's standards.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

Wessexman said:
The UN does not decide what is right and wrong and what is aggression just what it recognises and what is law. This is does not change what aggression is. You are mistaking law for morality I'm afraid. It also contradicts itself by recognising the theft of refugee property.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but it does. One can be angry all they like. They still need to follow the law even if they think it is unfair. And the law defined it as not being aggression. Morality takes a back seat simply because morality is subjective.
.
Nope it was started by Jews, your arguments are weak and rely on the UN deciding right and wrong and your conflation of law for morality. The UN is self-interested and hypocritical and law does not constitute morality. The fact UN recognises something does not mean it wasn't aggression unless you can fill in the gaping holes in your ideas.
Click to expand...
Nope, it was started by the Arabs. Your arguments are weak and go against what was legally enacted. Morality takes a back seat, since morality in this case (as in most) is subjective. Your opinion of the UN is just that...opinion. It had/has jurisdiction, and that trumps your position.

Until you can show the objectivity of the moralism in this situation, your position does not hold up.
 
Last edited:
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

Wessexman said:
You don't say, I was talking about the other poster.
Click to expand...

Gotcha.

Nope it didn't, the UN recognition not only does not decide right and wrong but it doesn't decide issues like this, it just sets up law. You are trying to conflate different things. It just deals with what happens after the event according to international agreement not according to what was wrong or right about the event. The UN recognised much like Tibet being part of China or the USSR controlling the Eastern bloc but these were not morally right and were aggression by most people's standards.
Click to expand...

Nope. The UN decides the legal aspect of these situations. Morality in this case, as in many, is subjective. Until you can prove the objectivity of morality, here, your position is negated.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm sorry, but it does. One can be angry all they like. They still need to follow the law even if they think it is unfair. And the law defined it as not be aggression. Morality takes a back seat simply because morality is subjective.
Click to expand...
No the law did no such thing, it just defined what was to recognised as the borders not who aggressed nor what is morally correct. You are making that leap and it is unjustified.

Nope, it was started by the Arabs. Your arguments are weak and go against what was legally enacted. Morality takes a back seat, since morality in this case (as in most) is subjective. Your opinion of the UN is just that...opinion. It had/has jurisdiction, and that trumps your position.

Until you can show the objectivity of the moralism in this situation, your position does not hold up.
Click to expand...
Sure it does because it is obvious to most people what aggression was in the situation. If I stole your house would that not be aggressing against you? If the state then recognised it would that then make it not aggression and morally right?

You are conflating morality and aggression with law, you position is extremely weak.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

CaptainCourtesy said:
Nope. The UN decides the legal aspect of these situations. Morality in this case, as in many, is subjective. Until you can prove the objectivity of morality, here, your position is negated.
Click to expand...
No it isn't, you have admitted my position ie that the UN doesn't decide morality but just what is law. The rest of my argument is just about the right to private property.
 
Last edited:
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

Wessexman said:
No the law did no such thing, it just defined what was to recognised as the borders not who aggressed nor what is morally correct. You are making that leap and it is unjustified.
Click to expand...

If the law identified the borders and who could live there, than those that abided by that were not the aggressors. No leap. Simple logic.


Sure it does because it is obvious to most people what aggression was in the situation. If I stole your house would that not be aggressing against you? If the state then recognised it would that then make it not aggression and morally right?
Click to expand...
If I was told that my house was repartitioned, and I could no longer live there, I would be angry at those that repartitioned. It has nothing to do with who was going to live there, since it was not they that stole my house. No theft occurred, Repartitioning did.

And no, it would make it neither aggressive nor morally anything. Morals are subjective.

You are conflating morality and aggression with law, you position is extremely weak.
Click to expand...
You are trying to make morality objective. Your position is weak and untenable.
 
Last edited:
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

Wessexman said:
No it isn't, you have admitted my position ie that the UN doesn't decide morality but just what is law. The rest of my argument is just about the right to private property.
Click to expand...

And since the UN decided, based on law, who could live there. private property was secondary to that law.

And I think you just threw your entire morality argument/position out the window, too.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

CaptainCourtesy said:
If the law identified the borders and who could live there, than those that abided by that were not the aggressors. No leap. Simple logic.
Click to expand...
Nope because the laws says nothing about the events, it just says what will happen in the future. It doesn't say that what happens was right.



If I was told that my house was repartitioned, and I could no longer live there, I would be angry at those that repartitioned. It has nothing to do with who was going to live there, since it was not they that stole my house. No theft occurred, Repartitioning did.

And no, it would make it neither aggressive nor morally anything. Morals are subjective.
Click to expand...
Aren't you Jewish?

Repartitioning is just legal recognition of the theft.
You are trying to make morality objective. Your position is weak an untenable.
Click to expand...
Only if you don't agree with private property or you're a hypocrite. Most people would consider it aggression if someone stole their house and so my position triumphs but anyway yours has already fallen because you have admitted that morality does not enter into it and therefore neither does aggression.
 
Last edited:
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

CaptainCourtesy said:
And since the UN decided, based on law, who could live there. private property was secondary to that law.

And I think you just threw your entire morality argument/position out the window, too.
Click to expand...
Nope, I always knew it wouldn't hold for socialists who don't care about private property but they are what I'm worried about. I think I have just about effectively got all I could have wanted from you.

Btw if there is no aggression if it is covered by the power of the state then the arabs can't have aggressed either. After all who are you to say they are in the wrong?
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

CaptainCourtesy said:
If they want peace, then explain why they would throw rockets at Israel over the past several weeks when there was no initial retaliation, when Israel and many others asked them to stop, and when Israel told them that if they did not there would be a reaction. When you can show how this makes sense, get back to us.
Click to expand...

Wait, wait... 36(ish) years of Occupation and genocide aren't cause (I'm guessing that's what you mean by initial retaliation...) enough to retaliate? Before you make these kinds of statements, it might do you well to actually know about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

Torin said:
Wait, wait... 36(ish) years of Occupation and genocide aren't cause (I'm guessing that's what you mean by initial retaliation...) enough to retaliate? Before you make these kinds of statements, it might do you well to actually know about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Click to expand...

Firstly, genocide doesn't exist. If you are claiming this, you, obviously, do not understand the term. And the occupation is a response to Palestinians aggression. It might be good for you to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to understand terminology before you make such erroneous statements.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

CaptainCourtesy said:
Firstly, genocide doesn't exist. If you are claiming this, you, obviously, do not understand the term. And the occupation is a response to Palestinians aggression. It might be good for you to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to understand terminology before you make such erroneous statements.
Click to expand...

Let me define my terms, then -- I call the systematic destruction of a peoples and their way of life genocide. And since when does, "Israeli feelings of religious entitlement in regards to a patch of land," translate to Palestinian aggression? It really sounds to me like you don't have the foggiest as to why this conflict exists in the first place. Or can you enlighten me?

Also, just as an aside... If genocide doesn't exist, what do you call the Holocaust? A different word with the exact same connotations? Or maybe you're saying that mass killings don't occur, in which case I simply don't wish to converse with you, and anyone else of your ilk around here.

A final point... Even if the Palestinians were the initial antagonists (which they weren't), you have to consider that for the most part, they throw rocks and sticks. The Israelis have the best pilots in the world and, outside of America, the best air-fleet. They. Are. Well. Armed. Period. And they're not attacking the Palestinians with rubber bullets and tear-gas: they're using lead.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

Torin said:
Let me define my terms, then -- I call the systematic destruction of a peoples and their way of life genocide.
Click to expand...

Okay, so we're on the same page as to the definition of genocide. There is no genocide happening to the Palestinians.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

jallman said:
Okay, so we're on the same page as to the definition of genocide. There is no genocide happening to the Palestinians.
Click to expand...

By my definition of the word, Wikipedia's, and Dictionary.com's, there IS a genocide. By hey, we're obviously unreliable sources, right? ;)
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

Torin said:
L
A final point... Even if the Palestinians were the initial antagonists (which they weren't), you have to consider that for the most part, they throw rocks and sticks. The Israelis have the best pilots in the world and, outside of America, the best air-fleet. They. Are. Well. Armed. Period. And they're not attacking the Palestinians with rubber bullets and tear-gas: they're using lead.
Click to expand...

I would hardly call lob rockets rocks and sticks.

Like I've said before, if any country, for any reason what so ever directly attacked american soil like the "Palestinians"/Hamas had... you would see VERY dire consequences for that country.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

Shewter said:
I would hardly call lob rockets rocks and sticks.

Like I've said before, if any country, for any reason what so ever directly attacked american soil like the "Palestinians"/Hamas had... you would see VERY dire consequences for that country.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm grouping HAMAS as a different entity than the Palestinian people. Let's include them, then. Rockets v. Air-strikes. It's not nearly an equal exchange, especially considering that the number of Palestinian civies killed far, far out-numbers the Israelis. "You killed my brother... So I'm going to kill your entire family and everyone you know." No matter how you slice it, we're looking at a weak insurgence v. extremely powerful military.

So let's lay this down. Almost four decades of extreme oppression doesn't justify some kind of response? It's okay for Israel to steal and colonize an inhabited land, killing and removing those inhabitants along the way, but it's not okay for those people to fight back by whatever means they can?

I just want you guys to answer me a simple question: what do you think is each side's root cause for participating in this conflict?
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

Torin said:
Oh, I'm grouping HAMAS as a different entity than the Palestinian people. Let's include them, then. Rockets v. Air-strikes. It's not nearly an equal exchange, especially considering that the number of Palestinian civies killed far, far out-numbers the Israelis. "You killed my brother... So I'm going to kill your entire family and everyone you know." No matter how you slice it, we're looking at a weak insurgence v. extremely powerful military.
Click to expand...

I don't care about an equal exchange.

My point was, launch a rocket into the U.S. and see how we deal with that. I would not expect any other country to react any differently.

Or you could look at it from this point of view.

Would you fight a den of bears with sticks and rocks?
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

Shewter said:
I don't care about an equal exchange.

My point was, launch a rocket into the U.S. and see how we deal with that. I would not expect any other country to react any differently.

Or you could look at it from this point of view.

Would you fight a den of bears with sticks and rocks?
Click to expand...
That analogy would work if the bears moved into your camp and started killing your friends and destroying your property. In which case, yes. I would try and fight to protect my people and property by whatever means I have. Or I would flee, of course. That sadly isn't an option for the Palestinians, because of the checkpoint system that the Israelis have set up all throughout the native's lands. So... What do you suggest they do? Roll over and die? Because that's kind of their only other option, as long as the U.S. supports Israel.
 
Re: OMG.. About 300 killed and 700 injured. Do you think Israel still seeking for pea

Torin said:
That analogy would work if the bears moved into your camp and started killing your friends and destroying your property. In which case, yes. I would try and fight to protect my people and property by whatever means I have. Or I would flee, of course. That sadly isn't an option for the Palestinians, because of the checkpoint system that the Israelis have set up all throughout the native's lands. So... What do you suggest they do? Roll over and die? Because that's kind of their only other option, as long as the U.S. supports Israel.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I have seen the Israeli Defensive Forces needlessly killing people just to do it.

Actually, come to think of it. I can only recall them KILLING people when they had been provoked.


What do you think they should do? Honestly, do you think they should lob rockets into a country that could annihilate them? What purpose does it serve?

I honestly don't understand what people expect from the Palestinians.

I hear the anti-Israeli side of things "Israel needs to back off" "Israel shouldnt use that kind of force" but I don't exactly hear anything to the tune of "The Palestinian people need to unite and throw out the organization that is provoking israel to attack in order to paint them in a bad light to the rest of the world via media coverage and propoganda" or "Palestinians need to send a clear message to Israel that they would like nothing more than to sleep easy at night knowing that their own "government" was not trying hide weapons in their mosque and schools."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom