• 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!

Reignighting Violence .How do ceasefires end ?

They can control the rockets. It matters not who was firing them.

They qualified that to bringing violence down to near zero in case you hadn't noticed

To deliberately ignore the fact there there are more than one group in Gaza capable of firing rockets at Israel shows a wish to self delude about the reality of the situation imo
 
They qualified that to bringing violence down to near zero in case you hadn't noticed

To deliberately ignore the fact there there are more than one group in Gaza capable of firing rockets at Israel shows a wish to self delude about the reality of the situation imo

Why are rockets still being fired?
 
Why are rockets still being fired?

IMO because the Palestinians continue to be systematically subjugated and violated by Israelis
 
And firing rockets alleviate this how?

Who said anything about it alleviating anything ?

It's obviously a desperate act by desperate people.

Serious question , do you struggle with empathy ?
 
No, I understand the yardstick is SKEWED and you don't.

Already been answered in post 22 which was a reply to your rather strange post that included the idea that maybe an assault by one side or the other should/could be the yardstick to measure how ceasefires between two military protagonists are violated.

Like a major escalation in violence between two peoples should be traced back to ,and justified by , when a member of one side gave a member of the other side a black eye, perhaps ? :roll:

There's nothing quite like serious debate
 
Already been answered in post 22 which was a reply to your rather strange post that included the idea that maybe an assault by one side or the other should/could be the yardstick to measure how ceasefires between two military protagonists are violated.

Like a major escalation in violence between two peoples should be traced back to ,and justified by , when a member of one side gave a member of the other side a black eye, perhaps ? :roll:

There's nothing quite like serious debate

I would like serious debate. I am waiting for you to contribute.

The IDF is merely more lethal when responding to attacks. Hence the over count of FATAL events.

So NON FATAL rocket attacks will not be considered breaking the peace your yardstick....

I wonder how the people targeted by those rocket attacks feel....
 
Where you decided to change the context has given rise to your , imo , false accusations

You began by stating that there are two factions of the Palestinians. One in Gaza that you have no relationship with and one in the WB that you do

When I stated that more Palestinians were being killed/injured by Israelis in the WB than in Gaza you suddenly decided to go on your rant about telling " half truthes " etc etc not giving the full context etc etc

That the " author " wants everyone to think that the " Jews are just bloodthirsty " maniacs when the report discuses Palestinian violence/attacks against Israelis and Palestinians themselves. So your claim is pure fantasy.

Some Israeli attacks are in retaliation to Palestinian actions some Palestinian attacks are in retaliation to Israeli actions. Citing one specific incident doesn't change that imo

Kudos to you for at least acknowledging that Palestinian attacks against occupying soldiers should not be seen in the same light as their attacks against Israeli civilians. You only have to look at the posts here to recognize just how rare that is , so hats off to ya on that

The rest of your post , imo , is just standard Israeli bias for the most part

I think that Atheism is the only thing we might have in common , which is fine by me

And again you disregard the point, talking about your numbers without accepting the background behind the numbers.
Not some of the Israeli actions are retaliations, MOST of them are.
The only "retaliation" I can think of on which a terror organization retaliated to Israeli government actions was Hezbollah's attack on an Israeli army convoy after the Assasination of Jihad Mughniyah. You are welcome to point out how terrorist "react" to Israeli actions. (The whole idea of reaction of terrorists is ridiculous but lets give you a chance)
 
And again you disregard the point, talking about your numbers without accepting the background behind the numbers.

Nope I highlighted whereabouts you decided to move the goalposts so you could try to justify your rant.

Not some of the Israeli actions are retaliations, MOST of them are.

Two points

I mentioned the 3 kidnapped Israelis precisely so you could jump on to it , and you did. The month before that ( May 15 ) 2 Palestinian teenagers were shot dead in the WB , murdered actually , whilst walking home unarmed from attending a protest meeting

Now I don't know exactly what motivated those Palestinians who kidnapped and murdered the three Israeli teens to do what they did so I am not trying to link the two but the truth is that there are so many acts of violence carried out by both sides that to try to claim that one side is only responding to the actions of the other side is just unverifiable hogwash imo

Secondly , let's say for a month there were no violent incidents/deaths on either side , just for arguments sake. Are the actions of both sides the same with regards to violations of the other ?

Absolutely not because the Israeli military/settler occupation of the Palestinians goes on constantly

It's like too many Israelis think that this military occupation is okay or certainly not worthy of any Palestinian reactions to it

It's not and I find the indifference to it extremely disturbing
The only "retaliation" I can think of on which a terror organization retaliated to Israeli government actions was Hezbollah's attack on an Israeli army convoy after the Assasination of Jihad Mughniyah. You are welcome to point out how terrorist "react" to Israeli actions. (The whole idea of reaction of terrorists is ridiculous but lets give you a chance)


See above


You only see it like that because you have become that used to the Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation that it has become the norm for you. You have become desensitized to it and that's why you see any reaction to it as " ridiculous " or a justification for an Israeli response.

Obviously , they aren't allowed to respond to their systematic violations by the Israeli side in Ido world and that's what's truly " ridiculous "
 
Obviously , they aren't allowed to respond to their systematic violations by the Israeli side in Ido world and that's what's truly " ridiculous "

The problem is not "Ido's world" who has from what I've seen from him quite a solid, moral and logical worldview by human standards, the problem is rather the horrible mindset that sees terror and murder as "reaction" to anything, as if it could ever be legitimate or rational to just murder people. It doesn't advance anything and it isn't legitimate, so no, such acts of murder shouldn't be 'allowed', Israel shouldn't just stand idly by as Palestinian people murder Jews or whatever it is you mean when you're protesting the fact that Ido doesn't believe these acts of murder should be accepted.

As for the occupation its very right to exist comes from the constant threat of Palestinian terrorism that predates it, saying that as long as the occupation exists Jewish people should be allowed to be murdered is, yes, quite ridiculous. That's a perfectly legitimate description of such position.
 
The problem is not "Ido's world" who has from what I've seen from him quite a solid, moral and logical worldview

There's nothing " solid " and/or " moral " about supporting the subjugation of an entire people for the crimes of the few.

There's nothing " moral " in supporting a half century of systematic violations of the rights of an entire people


by human standards,the problem is rather the horrible mindset that sees terror and murder as "reaction" to anything,

I'm as human as the next and more humane than most including yourself

There is nothing " horrible " in seeing the reality of a situation

as if it could ever be legitimate or rational to just murder people.

Of course it can be legitimate to murder someone in certain circumstances.

The right of self defence.

The right to kill those who are enforcing a military occupation that strips you of your rights and the rights of your loved ones is also deemed to be legitimate. And if it were you yourself that were forced to live under a brutal and oppressive foreign military occupation you would be agreeing, wholeheartedly , with this concept

It doesn't advance anything and it isn't legitimate, so no, such acts of murder shouldn't be 'allowed', Israel shouldn't just stand idly by as Palestinian people murder Jews or whatever it is you mean when you're protesting the fact that Ido doesn't believe these acts of murder should be accepted.

And vice versa WRT the Palestinians
As for the occupation its very right to exist comes from the constant threat of Palestinian terrorism that predates it, saying that as long as the occupation exists Jewish people should be allowed to be murdered is, yes, quite ridiculous. That's a perfectly legitimate description of such position.

People under foreign military occupation have the right , unsurprisingly , to resist it up to and including armed conflict. The targeting of civilians is , unsurprisingly , not legitimate whereas the targeting of soldiers/security, unsurprisingly is deemed to be legitimate

To , wrongly , class every Palestinian act of violence as " terrorism ", as you are prone to do , is a deliberate ploy to try to fudge the above distinction and to demonize the Palestinians themselves even when they carry out legitimate acts of resistance

There was no Arab/Palestinian terrorism against Jews prior to the advent of Zionism

As Benny Morris pointed out decades ago , the chief motor for Arab antagonism to Zionism was the fear of dispossession and displacement. I fear that has been proven to be well founded.
 
There's nothing " solid " and/or " moral " about supporting the subjugation of an entire people for the crimes of the few.

There's nothing " moral " in supporting a half century of systematic violations of the rights of an entire people

I fully agree. However of course that's not something he has supported anywhere, you have a reputation for engaging in at least one strawman argument in each of your comments.

I'm as human as the next and more humane than most including yourself

There is nothing " horrible " in seeing the reality of a situation

I wasn't making any claims regarding your humanity though and I am under no belief you are some kind of an alien.
Your positions are inhumane however for the reasons I have mentioned.

Of course it can be legitimate to murder someone in certain circumstances.

The right of self defence.

You simply show that your misunderstanding of what murder is and what self-defense is hasn't changed.
Murdering a person who is not threatening you, for being Jewish, is not self-defense and is indeed murder, that should be clear to anyone who is aware of the nature of our world and what such basic terms mean. It could never be legitimate or rational to just go out and murder people.

The right to kill those who are enforcing a military occupation

There is no such right, it's something you've made up so to allow yourself to grant legitimacy to such asinine acts. Contrary to your claims there is nothing that says a person is entitled to murder a soldier for enforcing an occupation. A person is only allowed to kill another in self-defense, if his life is threatened, Palestinians aren't dying because of that soldier enforcing an occupation to defend his people. Also, do take in mind that when talking about Palestinians murdering Jews we're also talking about civilians.

And if it were you yourself that were forced to live under a brutal and oppressive foreign military occupation you would be agreeing, wholeheartedly , with this concept

You forget that I'm not a Guardian reader who's only access to information about this occupation is empty propaganda, I, like Ido by the way, live here. I'm familiar with what the occupation does, as familiar as one can be.

I don't pretend it's easy to live under such occupation but I don't go out of my way to describe it as brutal and oppressive when it cannot be described as such; while no occupation can be 'humane' this one is still as humane as an occupation can be, humanitarian issues are addressed strongly more than in any other known similar case in history, and more importantly as I explained several times and you failed to address - it is a just occupation, meaning it has a good reason for existing.

So long as you fail to address the security issues that the occupation exists due to and so long as you actually refer to those reasons - meaning the constant acts of cold blooded murder of Jews by Palestinians - as things that should be 'allowed' by Israel, then you fail at understanding even the very basics of the conflict or actually of human society, let alone the core issues.

People under foreign military occupation have the right , unsurprisingly , to resist it up to and including armed conflict. The targeting of civilians is , unsurprisingly , not legitimate whereas the targeting of soldiers/security, unsurprisingly is deemed to be legitimate

Well it's the first time you refer to the targeting of civilians which is mostly what is being discussed here. While to Israelis the targeting of both soldiers and civilians is the same, I agree that it isn't, at least legally speaking, but whenever one is discussing the subject of Palestinian acts of murder he is discussing the targeting of civilians as well, it's not something you can just put aside. That being said as I explained before the murder of soldiers who are not threatening anyone isn't something the Palestinians or anyone is entitled to, it's simply put cold blooded murder just like the murder of that British soldier, Lee Rigby I believe his name was, by those ISIS-inspired British immigrants was. People don't get to just walk up to 18 year old kid and murder him because he checks vehicles for bombs, it's nothing that should be 'allowed', that's the asinine position I've been calling out that you actually support, that makes it the moral obligation of anyone to oppose.

There was no Arab/Palestinian terrorism against Jews prior to the advent of Zionism

That's a 'don't wear short skirts - don't get raped' kind of argument, promoting such types of arguments reveals true immorality.
 
...

There was no Arab/Palestinian terrorism against Jews prior to the advent of Zionism

Myths & Facts: Treatment of Jews in the Arab World (Chapter 11) | Jewish Virtual Library

[FONT=&quot]The situation of Jews in Arab lands reached a low point in the 19th century. Jews in most of North Africa (including Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Morocco) were forced to live in ghettos. In Morocco, which contained the largest Jewish community in the Islamic Diaspora, Jews were made to walk barefoot or wear shoes of straw when outside the ghetto. Even Muslim children participated in the degradation of Jews, by throwing stones at them or harassing them in other ways. The frequency of anti-Jewish violence increased, and many Jews were executed on charges of apostasy. Ritual murder accusations against the Jews became commonplace in the Ottoman Empire.[SUP](10)[/SUP][/FONT][FONT=&quot]By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Muslim lands had not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice Consul in Mosul, wrote in 1909:
[/FONT]
The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.[SUP](11)[/SUP]



Sorry about the formatting etc.

And that sort of history suggests to me those people should be entitled to self-determination to allow them to protect themselves from oppression and that a nation-state carved out of the Arab world that persecuted them for centuries would be a just solution.

Incidentally, you know a majority of Israeli Jews are from the middle east and North Africa?
 
I fully agree. However of course that's not something he has supported anywhere, you have a reputation for engaging in at least one strawman argument in each of your comments.
No you can't "fully agree ". Why ? Because you both support the decades old/ongoing foreign military occupation of the Palestinian people

I wasn't making any claims regarding your humanity though and I am under no belief you are some kind of an alien.
Your positions are inhumane however for the reasons I have mentioned.

You ascribe to me ,constantly , immoral positions I don't hold in order to seek to discredit me. So I don't believe you in the above. I'm old enough and ugly enough to take it and I fully expect it but I know exactly what it is and what's behind it



There is no such right, it's something you've made up so to allow yourself to grant legitimacy to such asinine acts. Contrary to your claims there is nothing that says a person is entitled to murder a soldier for enforcing an occupation.

There is a moral right and a universally recognized legitimacy in a peoples right to resist a foreign military occupation up to and including armed conflict. Most people recognize it as a collective self defence. Like the French resistance to Nazi occupation in WW2 would be deemed morally right to most sane people.

And it's not " something I made up " it has been discussed at the UN and enjoys UNGA support

UNGA said:
3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples' struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/C867EE1DBF29A6E5852568C6006B2F0C


You forget that I'm not a Guardian reader who's only access to information about this occupation is empty propaganda, I, like Ido by the way, live here.

I am not a Guardian reader and get my info predominantly from HR groups including Btselem which , as you will know , is a Israeli HR group operating in the Occupied Territories
, humanitarian issues are addressed strongly more than in any other known similar case in history, and more importantly as I explained several times and you failed to address - it is a just occupation, meaning it has a good reason for existing.

Occupying a people in order to annex their territory isn't a " just " position. As I have said before , a position endorsed by the statistics btw , security for Israeli citizens would be better had there been just a military occupation of Palestinian territories. But that situation doesn't allow for annexation like illegally settling it does


Well it's the first time you refer to the targeting of civilians which is mostly what is being discussed here. That being said as I explained before the murder of soldiers who are not threatening anyone isn't something the Palestinians or anyone is entitled to, it's simply put cold blooded murder just like the murder of that British soldier, Lee Rigby I believe his name was, by those ISIS-inspired British immigrants was. People don't get to just walk up to 18 year old kid and murder him because he checks vehicles for bombs, it's nothing that should be 'allowed', that's the asinine position I've been calling out that you actually support, that makes it the moral obligation of anyone to oppose.

It's not the first time I have mentioned the targeting of civilians by any stretch. I have stated my position on the illegality of it ad nauseam but you ignore it and try to ascribe to me another position so you can croon on about my " immorality " etc etc. ............ there's more of this below btw , soon to be debunked

Lee Rigby was unarmed , off duty , and killed by people who were not living under a foreign military occupation of the army he belonged to. Trying to demonize Palestinians by using his death is as immoral as it is a false analogy


That's a 'don't wear short skirts - don't get raped' kind of argument, promoting such types of arguments reveals true immorality.

As I said above , your incessant wish to twist so as to personally abuse knows no bounds

So now to why your example above is a completely false analogy

Subject A = girl with short skirt Subject C= Immigrant Zionist

Subject B= the Rapist Subject D=Palestinian Arab

In wearing a short skirt subject A, poses and intentions ,no tangible threat to subject B

In expounding a desire to realize Zionism subject C both poses and intentions a direct threat of dispossession and displacement to subject D

The only thing that has been " revealed " ( yet again ) is your own desire to attack people , on a personal level , for holding different views.
 
And that sort of history suggests to me those people should be entitled to self-determination to allow them to protect themselves from oppression and that a nation-state carved out of the Arab world that persecuted them for centuries would be a just solution.

Incidentally, you know a majority of Israeli Jews are from the middle east and North Africa?

Not a nice way to treat people but never terrorism , which was what you were responding to.

As I said earlier I am not unfamiliar with the disgusting treatment dished out to the Jewish people throughout history but to claim that the Arabs should pay the price and be forced to endure the " just solution " is astounding to me tbh

Why ?

Because in comparison to European antisemitism the treatment of Jews by the Arabs wasn't even in the same league prior to the advent of Zionism. Spain , Portugal , France and England banished their Jewish populations and had them living in ghettoes from practically the very start. Blaming them for everything from the Black Death to every economic/ social crisis that befell them
Jewish people were not leaving the ME in droves at the end of the 19th beginning of the 20th centuries for the USA ( 1 million or so ) , they were leaving European nations. The Arabs never tried to commit genocide on the Jews like the Germans did.

If your reasoning for the location of the Jewish state is the horrific treatment of Jews throughout history , which is true of the above statement you made , then the place to create the Jewish state was here in the heart of Europe.

One of my pet hates in regards to this subject is Europeans and their ancestral relatives in the USA referring to Arab antisemitism whilst remaining silent on/seeking to ignore their own , infinitely worse , record of it.

The reality is a matter of historical record. Zionism was overwhelmingly born of European antisemitism , not the treatment of Jews living in Arab countries over the centuries
 
No you can't "fully agree ". Why ? Because you both support the decades old/ongoing foreign military occupation of the Palestinian people

Yes but the fact we support a justified occupation that exists to protect innocents' lives from an ongoing daily threat of terrorism doesn't mean we support collective punishment or violating people's rights, so I can fully agree with your previous statement while still not embracing your immoral position that seeks to violate the right to life of Jewish civilians by simply calling for a withdrawal from the occupation without proposing any alternative to grant them security.

You ascribe to me ,constantly , immoral positions I don't hold in order to seek to discredit me.

I never did that. You accused me before of attributing to you positions you haven't taken only to later realize, after I pointed you to the 'evidence' documented here, that I was actually referring to your claimed positions.
I really find no point in simply giving fake positions to people. I honestly have no idea why you insist on doing this at least once in every post regardless of who you're replying to, but if I would do that I'd just feel like I'm wasting my time.

There is a moral right and a universally recognized legitimacy in a peoples right to resist a foreign military occupation up to and including armed conflict.[...]
And it's not " something I made up " it has been discussed at the UN and enjoys UNGA support

So you admit it's something you've made up, you were talking about a human right mind you - a human right is something that is internationally recognized. As to international law, the Gevena Conventions declare no such thing regarding the right of people to simply murder anyone enforcing an occupation even if it's a justified one such as this. The UNGA isn't international law and doesn't grant rights to people. As to morality clearly it is immoral to wish for the murder of a 18 year old kid who is risking his life checking vehicles for bombs or looking for terror suspects.

I am not [...] Occupied Territories

I'm also familiar with their members who are far-left activists who will generally always promote the far-leftist view on everything. It's very naive to believe that you can get non-biased information from such deeply invested organizations. As I explained to you before 'HR' groups are mostly just political groups with political activists making use of the human rights mask so to promote their views on conflicts, I even referred you to an article with the founder of HRW who admits so and I believe I also pointed out the cases of Amnesty members who were found to be terror supporters. Through the many years I've been having such discussions I always found those warriors for human rights to be the first to call for murder and violence as you did here before.

Occupying [...] settling it does

No, but occupying a territory so to allow your troops to provide security for your citizens from the countless of terrorists and potential terrorists within that territory is as justified as it gets, especially when the approach is a very humanitarian one that attempts not to do anything unnecessary so to humiliate and abuse rights for no cause. The right to life is the most important right out there. If you're a government and you have a group of people murdering your citizens you can't just sit by and not do anything about it - which is the position you happen to promote at every chance you get.
 
Last edited:
It's not the first time [...] Lee Rigby was unarmed , off duty , and killed by people who were not living under a foreign military occupation of the army he belonged to. Trying to demonize Palestinians by using his death is as immoral as it is a false analogy

Palestinians have murdered civilians as well as defenseless soldiers as well as non-Israelis, you speak as if discussing the act of murdering a defenseless soldier as something Palestinians are capable of doing is "demonizing" them, which first of all is absurdly laughable, but most importantly it shows how invested you are in promoting your immoral position.

As I said above , your incessant wish to twist so as to personally abuse knows no bounds

So now to why your example above is a completely false analogy

Subject A = girl with short skirt Subject C= Immigrant Zionist

Subject B= the Rapist Subject D=Palestinian Arab

In wearing a short skirt subject A, poses and intentions ,no tangible threat to subject B

In expounding a desire to realize Zionism subject C both poses and intentions a direct threat of dispossession and displacement to subject D

The only thing that has been " revealed " ( yet again ) is your own desire to attack people , on a personal level , for holding different views.

A personal attack is an attack on your character like when you called me a psychopath repeatedly. It is not an attack on your words, your positions. It's funny how you keep getting that wrong and it's even funnier how you keep complaining about personal attacks against you, so far none were made by literally anyone but you in any of the many discussions I've seen you making here, with myself included. It's only natural as those who are right have no need for such shticks.

That being cleared the analogy was entirely accurate, you're saying that terrorism against Jews by Arabs and/or Muslims did not exist unti the Zionist movement started the process to create the state of Israel so to grant legitimacy to the act and attempt to throw the blame at the victims of the terrorists, it's exactly the same broken logic that exists behind the "don't wear short skirts - don't get raped" opinion. Terrorism is never justified, the act of murdering a person for belonging to an ethnic group, nationality, race, gender, whatever is never justified. It is the inability to understand that basic truth that made your position the immoral one from the beginning as I pointed in some of our early discussions, ever since you took that position you lost the moral high ground on literally every possible subject as anyone else would had he promoted such asinine positions. Furthermore the creation of the Jewish state did not displace anyone, it's the war that followed its creation that did, so that's another manipulation of history there.
 
Last edited:
Not a nice way to treat people but never terrorism , which was what you were responding to.

As I said earlier I am not unfamiliar with the disgusting treatment dished out to the Jewish people throughout history but to claim that the Arabs should pay the price and be forced to endure the " just solution " is astounding to me tbh

Why ?

Because in comparison to European antisemitism the treatment of Jews by the Arabs wasn't even in the same league prior to the advent of Zionism. Spain , Portugal , France and England banished their Jewish populations and had them living in ghettoes from practically the very start. Blaming them for everything from the Black Death to every economic/ social crisis that befell them
Jewish people were not leaving the ME in droves at the end of the 19th beginning of the 20th centuries for the USA ( 1 million or so ) , they were leaving European nations. The Arabs never tried to commit genocide on the Jews like the Germans did.

If your reasoning for the location of the Jewish state is the horrific treatment of Jews throughout history , which is true of the above statement you made , then the place to create the Jewish state was here in the heart of Europe.

One of my pet hates in regards to this subject is Europeans and their ancestral relatives in the USA referring to Arab antisemitism whilst remaining silent on/seeking to ignore their own , infinitely worse , record of it.

The reality is a matter of historical record. Zionism was overwhelmingly born of European antisemitism , not the treatment of Jews living in Arab countries over the centuries

A) I don't see where CJ was claiming any Arab person should pay a price for the treatment of Jews by Arab/Muslim nations, it seemed to be a reply to your claim regarding Arab/Muslim violence directed against Jews.
B) The Jews have had no right to a state in Europe, they only had such right in the homeland of the Jewish people. The nature of people, of nations and of their right to self-deterimation was already explained to you before, it's a shame you didn't make an honest attempt at understinding it.
C) While it's true that the Zionist movement was also motivated by the antisemitic nature of European and other societies, the Jewish plight to a state of their own gained its strength from the rise of nationalism in Europe during the late 19th centruy and the early 20th century that had seen the creation of many nation-states for the different nations in Europe. The Balfour Declaration, that was the most important step towards the creation of Israel, came well before the Holocaust. The Holocaust did of course make it clear to the international community why the Jewish people required a state of their own, as the hatred directed against them will always be powerful and will never cease to exist, but that doesn't mean that had there been no antisemitism at all the Jewish people would suddenly not have their right to self-determination in the land - which seems to be what you're falsely suggesting here.
 
Yes but the fact we support a justified occupation that exists to protect innocents' lives from an ongoing daily threat of terrorism doesn't mean we support collective punishment or violating people's rights,

If there were no illegal settlements there your case about " terrorism " might have some solidity. It doesn't precisely because of the settlements and the wish to annex territory using them. So you can try to frame it , wriggle out of it all you want but the occupation is a collective punishment and it is severely violating the rights and the lives of the Palestinian people

That's just the reality of it , I understand fully why you would want to distance yourself from it. Unfortunately you can't



So you admit it's something you've made up, you were talking about a human right mind you - a human right is something that is internationally recognized.

Not at all and I wasn't talking about a human right. I was talking about a " moral right " and a " universally accepted legitimacy " that is internationally recognised as per the UN resolution link I gave . Something you chose to ignore , like you obviously ignored my actual words

heres the quote of mine again

oneworld2 said:
There is a moral right and a universally recognized legitimacy in a peoples right to resist a foreign military occupation up to and including armed conflict.



I'm also familiar with their members who are far-left activists who will generally always promote the far-leftist view on everything. It's very naive to believe that you can get non-biased information from such deeply invested organizations. As I explained to you before 'HR' groups are mostly just political groups with political activists making use of the human rights mask so to promote their views on conflicts, I even referred you to an article with the founder of HRW who admits so and I believe I also pointed out the cases of Amnesty members who were found to be terror supporters. Through the many years I've been having such discussions I always found those warriors for human rights to be the first to call for murder and violence as you did here before.

Nope you accused them of being antisemites and liars. Which, imo , tells us more about you than them. The rest is just , for the most part , your usual twisted babble.


No, but occupying a territory so to allow your troops to provide security for your citizens from the countless of terrorists and potential terrorists within that territory is as justified as it gets, especially when the approach is a very humanitarian one that attempts not to do anything unnecessary so to humiliate and abuse rights for no cause. The right to life is the most important right out there. If you're a government and you have a group of people murdering your citizens you can't just sit by and not do anything about it - which is the position you happen to promote at every chance you get.

Those same troops could occupy the same territory and produce the same results , well better ones actually , without the need to transfer 500,000 illegal settler civilians there.

The money spent on that illegal undertaking could have been spent on building a 300 ft high wall around Israel......... with checkpoints on the border like normal countries have. No problem with my neighbour building a wall so long as its built on the legal boundary and not in the middle of my garden !!

I don't think the occupation is " humane ". Occupying armies have responsibilities to protect/not interfere with the occupied peoples lives. The violations are often grave and are part of everyday life in the OPTs. Trying to dress it up as something other than that is just an exercise in deceit , so knock yourself out
 
If there were no illegal settlements there your case about " terrorism " might have some solidity. It doesn't precisely because of the settlements and the wish to annex territory using them. So you can try to frame it , wriggle out of it all you want but the occupation is a collective punishment and it is severely violating the rights and the lives of the Palestinian people

Your argument isn't using logic, because there are settlements then it means the occupation doesn't allow Israel to combat terrorism? That is not true.

The occupation is a justified one and a righteous one and that is something you constantly fail to address. 'Occupation' by the way refers to the existence of Israeli troops on the disputed lands.

That's just the reality of it , I understand fully why you would want to distance yourself from it. Unfortunately you can't

Unfortunately that is not the reality, and taking something which is not reality and addressing it as such while not allowing any kind of logic to be applied is simply an empty denial of reality.
 
Not at all and I wasn't talking about a human right. I was talking about a " moral right " and a " universally accepted legitimacy " that is internationally recognised as per the UN resolution link I gave . Something you chose to ignore , like you obviously ignored my actual words

heres the quote of mine again

That's a perfect example of how you use manipulation to promote your immoral positions.
This quote you just quoted was in reply to me saying "there is no such right", if you want to quote your words you are required to quote what I said "there is no such right" in reply to, not what you said in reply to me saying that, it's ridiculous that I need to explain that you must agree.

Here is your quote:

The right of self defence.

The right to kill those who are enforcing a military occupation that strips you of your rights and the rights of your loved ones is also deemed to be legitimate. And if it were you yourself that were forced to live under a brutal and oppressive foreign military occupation you would be agreeing, wholeheartedly , with this concept

So you were talking about a right, if I say people have the right to dodge taxes then I mean they actually have such right, not that I think they should have that right or that they have legitimacy at that. Likewise if you claim people have the right to murder Israeli soldiers because of the occupation then you're claiming they actually have such right, not simply that you think they should be allowed to murder Israeli soldiers. You were making that up exactly as I called out.

The UNGA as I was saying has no responsibility in claiming international law. They might as well vote there that the world is flat and Israel had flattened it, as Abba Eban once said, and it would be approved due to the nature of the majority of those nations, but that doesn't really mean anything. The Geneva Conventions deal with the rules of warfare and in it nothing is said that the blood of any soldier of an occupying military is free to drink, that people who murder such soldiers have a right to do so and thus should be allowed to do so as you suggested much earlier.

As to morality and it is the second time I point it out there is nothing moral in murdering a 18 year old who checks vehicles for bombs or a house for suspected terrorists. If the Israeli occupation meant soldiers who hang around put women and children to walls and shoot them, rape people and take all their stuff (as is happening in Aleppo), then that would create an opportunity for an argument for it being moral to kill such soldiers. However these soldiers are heroes who risk their lives being positioned within towns and cities where the terror ideology is strong and their lives are constantly under threat so to protect the civilians back home, it is just as immoral to be calling for their murder as it is to be calling for the murder of any random individual and thus again it is the moral obligation of any human being to oppose such calls strongly.
 
Nope you accused them of being antisemites and liars. Which, imo , tells us more about you than them. The rest is just , for the most part , your usual twisted babble.

This one is the strawman argument you seem to be forced to make at least once in each of your posts.

Those same troops could occupy the same territory and produce the same results , well better ones actually , without the need to transfer 500,000 illegal settler civilians there.

Again you aren't applying any logical thinking, that the settlements exist in area C doesn't mean much regarding whether or not Israeli civilians require to be defended. If you disagree with the need for the occupation you disagree with the fact that Israeli civilians are being threatened and you are denying reality, as simple as that.

The money spent on that illegal undertaking could have been spent on building a 300 ft high wall around Israel......... with checkpoints on the border like normal countries have. No problem with my neighbour building a wall so long as its built on the legal boundary and not in the middle of my garden !!

There already is the necessary amount of checkpoints and a security wall in the WB.

I don't think the occupation is " humane ". Occupying armies have responsibilities to protect/not interfere with the occupied peoples lives. The violations are often grave and are part of everyday life in the OPTs. Trying to dress it up as something other than that is just an exercise in deceit , so knock yourself out

It is as humane as it can get truly, and you keep failing to actually address it just as you constantly keep failing to address the reason it exists.
All you say is "there are violations everyday" but you refuse to compare it with other cases of military occupations.
There is a strong humanitarian approach to the occupation by the IDF, more than by any other military in history.
 
Back
Top Bottom