• 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

donsutherland1 said:
The attack was a tragic accident. Hence, the relationship remained strong afterward.
Click to expand...
You guys almost got your ass whupped!

We scrambled jets from the 6th fleet, but called them back because LBJ thought it [the attack] might have come from the Soviets.
 
lynnb said:
Oh yes! we intend to do that as soon as Barak steps in office. thatn we shall rule the world!!!

meh im just mesing. do not worry, If Israel intends on bombing anyone up, I doubt the USA will be at the top of that list.
Click to expand...

Oh... im not scared of Israel bombing the US. Good luck to that.

Just make it sercret or else.
 
Billo_Really said:
Are you referring to these?
Click to expand...

Under the Clinton bridging proposal, the solution would have been far more contiguous, as only three or four settlement blocs would have been retained by Israel.

Do you realize the havoc that Berlin wall is having on the daily lives of Palestinian's?
Click to expand...

There is no "Berlin Wall." The Berlin Wall was designed by the East German government to keep East Germans from defecting to the West. Construction of the security fence was initiated to keep Palestinian suicide bombers out of Israel. While the security fence has created inconvenience for Palestinians, saving lives takes precedence over inconvenience. Perhaps when a final settlement is reached, the security fence can and will be dismantled.
 
jallman said:
And just what do you think that is going to prove?
Click to expand...
That you're wrong.

Will alway's be wrong.

Are so far wrong, you're right.

Wait........what..........awe **** it!
 
donsutherland1 said:
Under the Clinton bridging proposal, the solution would have been far more contiguous, as only three or four settlement blocs would have been retained by Israel.



There is no "Berlin Wall." The Berlin Wall was designed by the East German government to keep East Germans from defecting to the West. Construction of the security fence was initiated to keep Palestinian suicide bombers out of Israel. While the security fence has created inconvenience for Palestinians, saving lives takes precedence over inconvenience. Perhaps when a final settlement is reached, the security fence can and will be dismantled.
Click to expand...
Call it whatever you want, it is a symbol of apartheid.

How fair is it, to prevent a Palestinian farmer, access to his own property?
 
Billo_Really said:
Call it whatever you want, it is a symbol of apartheid.

How fair is it, to prevent a Palestinian farmer, access to his own property?
Click to expand...

About as fair as an Israeli being inconvenienced by a bomb going off on his morning commute to work.
 
SquareMelon said:
Israel has not effectively given any Palestinian Land back. They only withdraw from inside Gaza because the cost of staying inside was too high, it was purely for self interest and it was done from one side, Sharon even refused to negotiate with the PA on how to hand it back, the only thing he negotiated was the amount of money that he got from the US in order to vacate the settlements. Israel maintained its authority over the air and the sea. There are over 450 road blocks in the west bank, i think you know palestinians in the west bank do not fire rockets into civilian areas, yet Israel maintains the road blocks.
Click to expand...

1, There is one group of Muslims who may accept Israel if it is confined to a specific border area established via treaty. But there is also a group of Muslims who will not accept the existence of Israel in any way shape or form period.

Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and others of their ilk so happen to belong to that second group and are engaged in a continuous plan of regional destabilization.

2. Although you are correct to a certain point concerning the expense of maintaining an occupied territory, Israel gave back much of that land due to outside political pressure.
They did not have to give back as much land as they did because they could not afford to maintain their presence there. And technically that WAS legitimately their land because they seized it by right of conquest. They were attacked and that land was seized via counter offensive operations in response to those attacks. And as such they were and are under no obligation to give back a damned thing period regardless of previous treaties. The Arab attacks nullified the binding properties of those treaties. Rather difficult to demand an adversary adhere to past treaties when you have declared war on them violating those treaties yourself and you lost the war.

And regardless of all that, Do you think that Israel could not have militarily and economically afforded to at least keep the Temple mount under their control when they took it in the 1967 war? But instead they willingly returned to the Muslims control something that is so near and dear to the Jewish heart?

3. For the sake of argument lets say that Israel gives up it's statehood and even packs up and leaves the region. All the Jews are gone. Not one left in the middle east. Do think that will bring peace to the region? No it will not. Why? Because Iran's primary goal is to create an all Shiite region from sea to shining sea. After Israel they will turn their attentions to the elimination of the Sunni Muslims.

Moe
 
Billo_Really said:
Call it whatever you want, it is a symbol of apartheid.

How fair is it, to prevent a Palestinian farmer, access to his own property?
Click to expand...

It's a measure to keep Palestinian terrorists out of Israel.

When Palestinians give up terror attacks the wall will not be needed. Until then, the Palestinians can live with the consequences of electing terrorists.
 
moe said:
1, There is one group of Muslims who may accept Israel if it is confined to a specific border area established via treaty. But there is also a group of Muslims who will not accept the existence of Israel in any way shape or form period.

Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and others of their ilk so happen to belong to that second group and are engaged in a continuous plan of regional destabilization.

2. Although you are correct to a certain point concerning the expense of maintaining an occupied territory, Israel gave back much of that land due to outside political pressure.
They did not have to give back as much land as they did because they could not afford to maintain their presence there. And technically that WAS legitimately their land because they seized it by right of conquest. They were attacked and that land was seized via counter offensive operations in response to those attacks. And as such they were and are under no obligation to give back a damned thing period regardless of previous treaties. The Arab attacks nullified the binding properties of those treaties. Rather difficult to demand an adversary adhere to past treaties when you have declared war on them violating those treaties yourself and you lost the war.

And regardless of all that, Do you think that Israel could not have militarily and economically afforded to at least keep the Temple mount under their control when they took it in the 1967 war? But instead they willingly returned to the Muslims control something that is so near and dear to the Jewish heart?

3. For the sake of argument lets say that Israel gives up it's statehood and even packs up and leaves the region. All the Jews are gone. Not one left in the middle east. Do think that will bring peace to the region? No it will not. Why? Because Iran's primary goal is to create an all Shiite region from sea to shining sea. After Israel they will turn their attentions to the elimination of the Sunni Muslims.

Moe
Click to expand...

Again, the dispute is about ownership of the LAND. It is not about religion. The Palestinians are not only Muslims but also Christians. The final decision about A settlement will be decided via a referendum by all the Palestinians.

Once the Palestinians sign a treaty, it will be hard for others Muslims or otherwise to interfere. If a settlement is reached, I believe a lot of the tension in the ME will end as the Isr/Pali conflict the the major source of tensions.

The 1967 war was started by Israel as a preemptive war in retaliation for a blockage imposed by Egypt similar to the blockade that Israel imposed on Gaza and caused the unfortunate firing of rockets into Israel and then this barbaric attack on Gaza.

International law does not allow land occupied through war to be annexed. Law of the jungle may allow that. Not sure which law you prefer but certainly my preference is international law.

A negotiated settlement where Israel end the occupation of the Palestinian territories in exchange for security guarantees for Israel is the only viable peaceful option. Otherwise, this conflict will continue which in my view is not a favorable thing for Israel. As you know, Israel depends on other countries for its survival financially and militarily (hardware etc..). AS PM Olmert said a couple of months ago, the sooner a treaty is reached the better it is.


Israel did not give back the Temple mount, it is still under its control. Jordan is involved in a minor way in its management.
 
Last edited:
bub said:
That's not true

Hamas says open to new truce in Gaza | International | Reuters
Hamas holds fire in Gaza, open to new truce | Reuters
Israel reopens Gaza border, Hamas looks to truce | International | Reuters
Gaza militants back Israel-Hamas truce-Hamas leader | Reuters
Hamas to tell Egypt will accept Gaza truce-official | Reuters
Click to expand...

Gaza only wants a cease fire now because they are getting their butts kicked. They will simply start firing rockets again when they can get back on their feet. This time, Israel shouldn't let them get back on those feet.

Yeah right, she's a worthless ***** and her opinion doesn't matter because she doesn't agree with Israel :roll:
Click to expand...

From a legal standpoint, her opinion has absolutely no relevance at all.

You fail:

Proportionality (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's OK if several civilians are killed incidentally, but it's not OK when the concrete military advantage is too small. Since Israel won't succeed in destroying Hamas, the attack is not proportionate.
Click to expand...

Using Wikipedia as a source on international law? I would prefer to rely on my International Law textbooks and the classes I took on the subject in graduate school.
 
bub said:
The source is totally irrelevant, as it just repeats what the UN says
Click to expand...

You mean it repeats what one or two people within the UN says. The only bodies in the UN with legal standing in such situations are the UNSC and the ICJ.


Good for you, but no ones care.
How is that related with the Israeli raid?
Click to expand...

You cited the EU. It shows to the credibility of that organization

They propose solutions (ceasefires, the 1947 borders, the destruction of the security fence...) but Israel does not give it a ****
Click to expand...

All of which would place Israel in a more vulnerable position while doing nothing to enhance its security.
 
SquareMelon said:
Again, the dispute is about ownership of the LAND. It is not about religion. The Palestinians are not only Muslims but also Christians. The final decision about A settlement will be decided via a referendum by all the Palestinians.

Once the Palestinians sign a treaty, it will be hard for others Muslims or otherwise to interfere. If a settlement is reached, I believe a lot of the tension in the ME will end as the Isr/Pali conflict the the major source of tensions.

The 1967 war was started by Israel as a preemptive war in retaliation for a blockage imposed by Egypt similar to the blockade that Israel imposed on Gaza and caused the unfortunate firing of rockets into Israel and then this barbaric attack on Gaza.

International law does not allow land occupied through war to be annexed. Law of the jungle may allow that. Not sure which law you prefer but certainly my preference is international law.

A negotiated settlement where Israel end the occupation of the Palestinian territories in exchange for security guarantees for Israel is the only viable peaceful option. Otherwise, this conflict will continue which in my view is not a favorable thing for Israel. As you know, Israel depends on other countries for its survival financially and militarily (hardware etc..). AS PM Olmert said a couple of months ago, the sooner a treaty is reached the better it is.


Israel did not give back the Temple mount, it is still under its control. Jordan is involved in a minor way in its management.
Click to expand...

You can make all the excuses you like. Israel has as much right to that land as the Palestinians. Israel is willing to share, Palestine is not.

If the Arab nations hadn't instigated a war in 1967, we would not be having this conversation. Jordan and Egypt (which controlled Gaza until this war) got the **** kicked out of them.

They (Egypt) abandoned the land and the people on it. This is the truth.... regardless of what the blind liberal pro-Palestine propagandists say.

The Egyptians and Jordanians have never asked for the land back. Therefore, your entire argument about this law and that law... IS MOOT.
 
Billo_Really said:
At this point, I think it is safe to say, the land Israel is to "give up" according to the arab states, is that for which Israel has illegally occupied for the last 41 years. I have to believe muslims will be okay with Israel's existance west of the Green Line.
Click to expand...

You obviously have never read Hamas's Charter now have you heard the words of Iran's president.
 
SquareMelon said:
Again, the dispute is about ownership of the LAND. It is not about religion. The Palestinians are not only Muslims but also Christians. The final decision about A settlement will be decided via a referendum by all the Palestinians.

Once the Palestinians sign a treaty, it will be hard for others Muslims or otherwise to interfere. If a settlement is reached, I believe a lot of the tension in the ME will end as the Isr/Pali conflict the the major source of tensions.
Click to expand...
Yes there are Arab Christians caught up in this mess. But you seem to avoid acknowledging that EVERY time that there is a peace process in the works it is the militant Muslims that step up their attacks to insure that the peace processes is derailed and no such treaty can be signed.
SquareMelon said:
The 1967 war was started by Israel as a preemptive war in retaliation for a blockage imposed by Egypt similar to the blockade that Israel imposed on Gaza and caused the unfortunate firing of rockets into Israel and then this barbaric attack on Gaza.
Click to expand...

No it was not started by Israel and there was much more involved than just the Egyptian blockade. You seem to think that because Israeli forces launched the first major attack that it was a war of Israeli aggression. That was not the case at all. The Arab nations were already staging troops for an attack on Israel. The stated purpose of these troops recorded by history is.......
Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and so, on May 30, Jordan signed a mutual defense treaty with Egypt, thereby joining the military alliance already in place between Egypt and Syria. The move surprised both Egyptians and foreign observers, because President Nasser had generally been at odds with Hussein, calling him an "imperialist lackey" just days earlier.Nasser said that any differences between him and Hussein were erased "in one moment" and declared: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

At the end of May 1967, Jordanian forces were given to the command of an Egyptian general, Abdul Munim Riad.[66] On the same day, Nasser proclaimed: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived
Click to expand...


The Arabs wanted a fight and they got one. Thus although Israel may have launched the first military attack it was still defensive in nature. Or do you think they should have just sat there and waited to be over run by the combined Arab forces?
SquareMelon said:
International law does not allow land occupied through war to be annexed. Law of the jungle may allow that. Not sure which law you prefer but certainly my preference is international law.
Click to expand...

As is mine and obviously Israel's also seeing that they have returned most of that land. So who has acted in a civilized manner in this issue? Israel or the Militant Arab forces that constantly attack Israel? Plus your original statement was that they gave back the land due to an inability to maintain the occupation. My reply was that even though your argument does have limited merit it does not explain the reason that Israel has given back so much of that land. And until there is a bona fide reliable treaty in place that truly insures peace then from a strategic point of view it would be sheer suicide for Israel to give up any more land. It is already such a small country that any war turns the entire country into a front line combat area. There is no true rear area because they are to small to have a rear area.
SquareMelon said:
A negotiated settlement where Israel end the occupation of the Palestinian territories in exchange for security guarantees for Israel is the only viable peaceful option. Otherwise, this conflict will continue which in my view is not a favorable thing for Israel. As you know, Israel depends on other countries for its survival financially and militarily (hardware etc..). AS PM Olmert said a couple of months ago, the sooner a treaty is reached the better it is.
Click to expand...

People in the west want to play checkers against an opponent that is skilled in chess. While the west is trying to figure out if they should jump to the next square the opponent is studying the entire board looking for a queen rook bishop attack. The Militant Muslims do not care if they chip away at Israel through aggressive or peaceful means. Regardless as to how they cause the Israeli's to give up more land it is counted as a strategic victory for them.

SquareMelon said:
Israel did not give back the Temple mount, it is still under its control. Jordan is involved in a minor way in its management.
Click to expand...

The temple mount is effectively under Muslim control today. Unless you think it is Jews that are standing on top of the mount throwing rocks down on the heads of their fellow Jews?
Jews and Christians are forbidden to worship on the Temple Mount.
Christians, Jews praying on Temple Mount 'seek religious war'

Moe
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
You obviously have never read Hamas's Charter now have you heard the words of Iran's president.
Click to expand...
I know about their charter. And I've said several times, they got to drop that ****, because Israel is there to stay. They also have to start acting like an elected government instead of a terrorist group. Maybe if they did, more arab states would support them. As it stands now, not too many people are behind Hamas.
 
Billo_Really said:
I know about their charter. And I've said several times, they got to drop that ****, because Israel is there to stay. They also have to start acting like an elected government instead of a terrorist group. Maybe if they did, more arab states would support them. As it stands now, not too many people are behind Hamas.
Click to expand...

Except those in Gaza who voted for them.

Until HAmas actually can accept living side by side with Israel and continued to launch rockets at Israel, Israel is completely justified in whatever actions are necessary to secure the safety of their citizens to the extent possible. Israel's armed forces have shown considerable restraint so far in the target that have been selected and hit.
 
For those who are interested in knowing some of the measures Israel is taking to minimize harm to Gaza's civilian population, today's edition of the Jerusalem Post reported:

...Israel let some 100 trucks carrying human supplies from Jordan, Turkey and international aid groups into the Gaza Strip via the Kerem Shalom border crossing.

In addition, five new ambulances given by Turkey were allowed into the Strip...

During the meeting, security officials said that the IDF had given telephone warnings to some 90,000 Gazans living near Hamas facilities targeted by the IAF. They stressed that the sites were only bombed after civilians had left their homes.
Click to expand...

Barak: Gaza operation will intensify | Israel | Jerusalem Post

Notification of Gaza's residents, even with the risk that some might leak the information to Hamas' operatives, contrasts sharply with the human shielding in which Hamas has been engaging. Hamas maintains facilities and locates operatives and weapons in the midst of civilians. Hamas also deliberately fires rockets without respect for following international conventions that bar indiscriminate bombardment or deliberate targeting of civilian objectives.
 
ludahai said:
Gaza only wants a cease fire now because they are getting their butts kicked. They will simply start firing rockets again when they can get back on their feet. This time, Israel shouldn't let them get back on those feet.
Click to expand...

First you say that Hamas doesn't wants truces, then when I show you that you are wrong, "uhUHuh it's because they are kicked uuhuHUHhu"

If you had read the articles you'd have seen that they wanted the truce before the Israeli raids



From a legal standpoint, her opinion has absolutely no relevance at all.
Click to expand...

especially because she doesn't support Israel



Using Wikipedia as a source on international law? I would prefer to rely on my International Law textbooks and the classes I took on the subject in graduate school
Click to expand...

If you had read the article you'd have seen that it has sources, references. Anyway you have already failed: you said that there was no proportionality in international law, I've showed you that you were wrong.
 
ludahai said:
You mean it repeats what one or two people within the UN says. The only bodies in the UN with legal standing in such situations are the UNSC and the ICJ.
Click to expand...

If you had read the article you would have seen that it was UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

If you think that the UN Secretary-General or that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights are irrelevant when talking about the UN...then I don't think it's necessary to answer again



You cited the EU. It shows to the credibility of that organization
Click to expand...

It's sure that the country that has been unable to bring peace with its neighbors for 60 years has much more credibility than the EU...


All of which would place Israel in a more vulnerable position while doing nothing to enhance its security.
Click to expand...

You fail again: you said that the UN or the EU do not bring solutions. I showed you they tried to do so, but that Israel doesn't listen to them and doesn't apply them. On the contrary, Israel is taking revenge again and again, that's why they are failing in bringing peace for so many years.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom