• 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!

Palestine: Fatah And Hamas Movements To Form A New Unity Government

why? whats the connection? a democratic nation should do what is in the best interest for the nation, and not what is best for another democratic nation. Where in the definition of democracy does it say you have to accept the vote of a foreign nation?

The connection is that you cannot claim to be the global champions of democracy ( or regional champions in Israels case ) , and seek to bask in the plaudits such noble endeavours elicit, whilst at the same time taking direct actions to subvert and/or destroy the democratic decisions made by the people of other countries because you don't like the people they voted in

I can't believe you are even struggling to understand this concept tbh

Not only is it a disregard for the wishes of other people to decide their own affairs it is a violation of their sovereignty which is illegal under international law

The Joint list and Meretz with total of 18 Knesset members.

Well, the Joint List is made up , predominantly , of Arab Israelis/Palestinians , so I would fully expect them to have a fair outlook towards the two state solution. Maybe I should have been clearer and stated a Israeli Jewish party

Meretz is , IIRC , made up from the people I referred to earlier that I have a deep respect towards for holding on to their humanity in extremely difficult times. I did , however , state " ALL Occupied Palestinian Territories ". Their position is AFAIK that Israel should still retain the larger settlements it has built , illegally , in the WB and East Jerusalem and that's not the same thing
 
Trying to apply the same standards to all parties in the conflict. Especially when talking about the rights and wrongs of it all WRT policies , actions , declarations etc etc

All's I have seen you do is apply different standards so you can justify a bias you prefer to stick to

Call me biased, but if someone says they want to kill me because their god tells them to, and then shoots at me, I will shoot back with all the guns I own. Time enough to discuss the philosophy of it after they are all safely dead.
 
Call me biased, but if someone says they want to kill me because their god tells them to, and then shoots at me, I will shoot back with all the guns I own. Time enough to discuss the philosophy of it after they are all safely dead.

Well you can say it's down to their God but the Israelis couldn't cut a deal when the Palestinian opposition was secular.

And if you were in their house, armed to the teeth , threatening to take over it and put them and their family out onto the street I would say they would have some justification for " shooting " at you in the first place wouldn't you ?

Regardless I still think it is always better to apply the same standards to both sides in any conflict , if you don't that's okay
 
Yay. A unity government between an openly annihilationalist terrorist organization and another terrorist organization that is pretending for now that they aren't.

Happy days are here again...

It's like when the Five Families all started working together.
 
Well you can say it's down to their God but the Israelis couldn't cut a deal when the Palestinian opposition was secular.

And if you were in their house, armed to the teeth , threatening to take over it and put them and their family out onto the street I would say they would have some justification for " shooting " at you in the first place wouldn't you ?

Regardless I still think it is always better to apply the same standards to both sides in any conflict , if you don't that's okay

In their house? Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empiire which chose to join with Austria and Germany in World War I. You may recall that Austria and Germany and their allies lost that war. As one of the victors, England took over the Ottoman territories in the Middle East and gave Palestine to the Jews, which they were legally entitled to do. There are legal consequences for choosing the wrong side in a war.

If a family fails to make mortgage payments and the bank forecloses on their house and sells it to me, am I then obligated to give it back to the previous owners because you think the foreclosure was unfair? OK if you say so, but I have a title and four guns that say you are wrong.
 
In their house? Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empiire which chose to join with Austria and Germany in World War I. You may recall that Austria and Germany and their allies lost that war. As one of the victors, England took over the Ottoman territories in the Middle East and gave Palestine to the Jews, which they were legally entitled to do. There are legal consequences for choosing the wrong side in a war.

If a family fails to make mortgage payments and the bank forecloses on their house and sells it to me, am I then obligated to give it back to the previous owners because you think the foreclosure was unfair? OK if you say so, but I have a title and four guns that say you are wrong.

I'll take it you just want to conveniently forget the fact that even when the Palestinian resistance was secular the Israelis still couldn't come to an agreement to resolve the conflict

It's good to know also where you are coming from on this conflict and the above clearly tells its own tale of how and why you have arrived at your destination. If you think that might is right , as you evidently do in the above , then just leave it at that. Trying to justify it in a cloak of legality just isn't necessary in such circumstances.

A.The Arabs/Palestinians never had any say in the taking of sides during WW1 with many of them actually assisting the powers fighting against the Ottomans. So your point about " choosing the wrong side " doesn't stand up to any scrutiny imo

B.Due to the above the British , before they promised the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine , promised the Arabs self rule.

C The Mandate from the League of Nations gave them authority over the area only until such time as the people living there could stand on their own.


I would say all three points completely undermine your justifications
 
The connection is that you cannot claim to be the global champions of democracy ( or regional champions in Israels case ) , and seek to bask in the plaudits such noble endeavours elicit, whilst at the same time taking direct actions to subvert and/or destroy the democratic decisions made by the people of other countries because you don't like the people they voted in

I can't believe you are even struggling to understand this concept tbh

Not only is it a disregard for the wishes of other people to decide their own affairs it is a violation of their sovereignty which is illegal under international law

Of course you can. Just like in a democracy you can disregard the "freedom" a person have to murder his neighbor.
If the Palestinians elected a party which targets Israeli civilians with rockets and suicide bombers, Israel have any right to put diplomatic sanctions on the PA

Well, the Joint List is made up , predominantly , of Arab Israelis/Palestinians , so I would fully expect them to have a fair outlook towards the two state solution. Maybe I should have been clearer and stated a Israeli Jewish party

What is a "Jewish party" ? its pretty pretentious of you to divide Israeli Political identities into Jewish and Non-Jewish
The joint list is a union of several parties, with the leader Hadash which is a non-ethnic communist party with many Jewish members and voters (including a Jewish KM)

Meretz is , IIRC , made up from the people I referred to earlier that I have a deep respect towards for holding on to their humanity in extremely difficult times. I did , however , state " ALL Occupied Palestinian Territories ". Their position is AFAIK that Israel should still retain the larger settlements it has built , illegally , in the WB and East Jerusalem and that's not the same thing

Meretz platform says there should be a two state solution based on 67 lines with agreed territorial exchange where both capitals are Jerusalem. Regarding settlements, it says they should start be evacuated now and all expansion should be ceased.
 
I'll take it you just want to conveniently forget the fact that even when the Palestinian resistance was secular the Israelis still couldn't come to an agreement to resolve the conflict

It's good to know also where you are coming from on this conflict and the above clearly tells its own tale of how and why you have arrived at your destination. If you think that might is right , as you evidently do in the above , then just leave it at that. Trying to justify it in a cloak of legality just isn't necessary in such circumstances.

A.The Arabs/Palestinians never had any say in the taking of sides during WW1 with many of them actually assisting the powers fighting against the Ottomans. So your point about " choosing the wrong side " doesn't stand up to any scrutiny imo

B.Due to the above the British , before they promised the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine , promised the Arabs self rule.

C The Mandate from the League of Nations gave them authority over the area only until such time as the people living there could stand on their own.


I would say all three points completely undermine your justifications

When it was secular it wasn't less bloodthirsty or less demanding. Agreements only became plausible towards the tail-end of the 1980's when the PLO was willing to temper its demands, recognize Israel, and at least officially drop its claims to the entirety of the land from "the river to the sea".
 
Of course you can. Just like in a democracy you can disregard the "freedom" a person have to murder his neighbor.
If the Palestinians elected a party which targets Israeli civilians with rockets and suicide bombers, Israel have any right to put diplomatic sanctions on the PA

Talking about the act of murder and then trying to transpose it into this debate concerning the relations of states/peoples is completely ridiculous imo.

If the Israelis , likewise , vote into government parties that target Palestinians for death and destruction , as they do , then you can't try to claim any moral high ground like you are trying to do in the above.

The suicide bombings and rockets tend to follow a pattern too. The Israelis start to harass and/or kill a whole load of Palestinians and then the rockets and suicide attacks start to take place

What is a "Jewish party" ? its pretty pretentious of you to divide Israeli Political identities into Jewish and Non-Jewish
The joint list is a union of several parties, with the leader Hadash which is a non-ethnic communist party with many Jewish members and voters (including a Jewish KM)

It's funny reading an Israeli complaining about someone dividing people into Jewish and non-Jewish. My meaning was a party supported predominantly by Jewish people with no Arab support as opposed to a coalition made up predominantly of the Israeli Arabs ( Palestinians ) population/voters with some Jewish supporters.

Meretz platform says there should be a two state solution based on 67 lines with agreed territorial exchange where both capitals are Jerusalem. Regarding settlements, it says they should start be evacuated now and all expansion should be ceased.

Good on them. But we all know that the Israeli leaderships mean to keep all the biggest illegal settlement blocks.

What I find contentious amongst the views expressed here and elsewhere is the following

That the extremist elements in Palestinian groups/parties are worthy of delegitimizing everyone else in the group/party but the same isn't the case for extremist Israeli Jewish elements. No delegitimation of the party for the outlandish and extremist elements in the Likud headed coalition

The Palestinians are only seen as legitimate partners for peace negotiations if they renounce armed actions against Israel and its citizens . Yet there are no reciprocal demands put on the Israeli governments with regards to the violence they dish out to the Palestinians that would render them as illegitimate partners for peace negotiations if held to the same standard.

The Palestinians are also the only Arabs that have been forced by the Israeli side into recognition of the state as the " Jewish state " of Israel. Israel has concluded two peace treaties with neighbouring Arab states , Egypt and Jordan , and neither were forced into conceding , or conceded , that Israel was the sovereign state of the Jewish people

The Palestinians are supposed to stick to the alleged peace process whilst people defend the expansion of existing illegal settlements or ignore new illegal outposts.

That Israel has a right to self defence and can kill and maim in the name of it but Palestinians that exercise their right to defend themselves are referred to as terrorists

That people often state that Israelis themselves determine their right to exist ( as a nation state ) but see no contradiction/problem in their continuing denial of that right to the Palestinians

And as long as I see these traits I will continue to challenge the bias that obviously underpins them
 
When it was secular it wasn't less bloodthirsty or less demanding.Agreements only became plausible towards the tail-end of the 1980's when the PLO was willing to temper its demands, recognize Israel, and at least officially drop its claims to the entirety of the land from "the river to the sea".

That's immaterial to a debate on blaming Hamas for the lack of a resolution of the conflict. You know , all the , you can't deal with a " death cult " etc etc

I was just pointing out that the failure to resolve the conflict cannot be put at the door of Hamas alone, as is so often done to death here.

The first nation Americans resistance to European encroachment and imperialism was bloodthirsty and ultraviolent. That didn't mean it was illegitimate or irrational. On the contrary , I think most people fully understand their position and , if they are honest , would have a great deal of sympathy for it.

There are a great many religious head cases in the Likud coalition that express equally obscene positions , does that exclude Likud from being seen as a legitimate partner for peace talks with the Palestinians ?
 
Back
Top Bottom