• 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!

What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?***[W:151]

Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

Moderator's Warning:
There is some back and forth sniping going on. Some posters are flirting with violating:

E) Any personal attacks, no matter how light
I) Anything considered not conducive and anathema to civil discussion/ambiance

Stick to commenting on the topic and be mindful of Martial Law:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/99774-me-forum-martial-law-concordance.html

*Moderation is still possible on posts made before this warning.
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

Why is there an exclusion zone?

by 'exclusion zone' are you referring the the land in gaza on which gazans are not allowed to set foot without risk of death?
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

No, they are attacking civilians. Israel's initiatives are defensive in that they only exist to tackle threats on the country's citizens. It doesn't become more simple than that.
The bullies are the ones carrying out attacks on civilians, the bullies are also the ones who couldn't live with an Israeli state and tried to annihilate it on different occasions always losing.
You're on the side of the bullies, evidently, as your positions themselves clearly show; from not accepting Israel's right to exist to not accepting Israel's right to defend itself.

your implication is that israel has never harmed an innocent civilian by its "defensive" actions

your implication is that the "bully" is the person whose lands are occupied by the "victims" of said "bully"
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

That region is rightfully owned by Israel (won in a defensive war), hence having one's military on one's own land cannot be termed "occupation."

ok. you have just honestly provided the answer to the thread's question
good on you for be so honest about israel's underlying motivation to withhold Palestinian land from the Palestinian people
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

your implication is that israel has never harmed an innocent civilian by its "defensive" actions

your implication is that the "bully" is the person whose lands are occupied by the "victims" of said "bully"

That civilians have been harmed isn't changing anything in regards to what was discussed and it's strange that you think it does. The bully has always been the same bully in this conflict and that is clearly the side that attacks time after time since before the occupation which is a result of these attacks and through it still.
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

“March of Return”. Still at it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And when you see how they are forced to exist , who can blame them ?
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

That region is rightfully owned by Israel (won in a defensive war), hence having one's military on one's own land cannot be termed "occupation."

Except it's not their land and it was a war of conquest wrapped up as a defensive war. Subsequent events confirm this
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

Are you telling me every boat departing Gaza is turned back?

Gaza airport could be operational in days.

Gaza seaport has had 18 years to recover.

Did you not read the post you quoted? Israel doesn't allow the airport or ports to be repaired. When they've tried to repair them, Israel has bombed/bulldozed them.

And yes, boats will be turned back/attacked by Israel if they go beyond the limited fishing zones Israel has allowed Gaza to have. What part of 'Israel controls the territorial waters and has a blockade' do you not understand?

Gaza citizens can't leave Gaza by sea, air, or land. Why do you think people call it an open air prison?
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

Did you not read the post you quoted? Israel doesn't allow the airport or ports to be repaired. When they've tried to repair them, Israel has bombed/bulldozed them.

And yes, boats will be turned back/attacked by Israel if they go beyond the limited fishing zones Israel has allowed Gaza to have. What part of 'Israel controls the territorial waters and has a blockade' do you not understand?

Gaza citizens can't leave Gaza by sea, air, or land. Why do you think people call it an open air prison?

Does not allow?

Is that a fact or an opinion?

The blockade is to stop INCOMMING materials.
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

And when you see how they are forced to exist , who can blame them ?

We alp can. And should. That Hamas forces them to love like that is no reason to absolve them of doing Hamas’ bidding instead of rising up against them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

Does not allow?

Is that a fact or an opinion?

The blockade is to stop INCOMMING materials.

I think they do manage exits. There is a real and legitimate concern that the terrorists in Gaza will infiltrate into the WB to spread rocket technology and go to and from other training areas to acquire expertise. This was a huge deal when there was no answer to the rockets but is still very important. Were Gaza not run by a terrorist organization, things might have been different....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

Wrong. They renounced their own claims of sovereignty and recognized Palestinian rights to it , if only nominally




Wrong. The peace deal with Egypt never even mentioned the Palestinians or Gaza AFAIK



Except for periodic Israeli occupations




Israel acquired via warfare in breach of international law and thus the Golan remains Israeli occupied Syrian territory with nobody recognizing the Israeli attempt at annexing it




Gaza and the West Bank are both Occupied Palestinian Territories and are thought of , even in the agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians , none separable. That Israeli actions in trying to split them up in order to undermine/scupper any future viable Palestinian state doesn't change their actual status.

So no they don't have to be two different countries

Actually Egypt and Israel peace treaty of 1979 out lines the borders of the two countries, which places the Gaza strip inside of Israels control. Recognizing the Gaza strip as a part of the country of Israel.
Jordan relinquishing its claims to the lands at West Banks means only the Israel and the Palestinian people claim the lands. Palestine isn't recognized as a country by North American and European countries.

So moving forward it seems sensible that the Gaza strip could be recognized as Israel's lands in exchange for Palestine to be recognized as a sovereign nation and given the lands in West Bank. Jerusalem to be an international city where both the capital of Israel and Palestine resides. As well as Golem Heights being returned to Syria. Seems to make sense in my eyes.
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

Does not allow?

Is that a fact or an opinion?

The blockade is to stop INCOMMING materials.

Yes, does not allow. Fact.
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

We alp can. And should. That Hamas forces them to love like that is no reason to absolve them of doing Hamas’ bidding instead of rising up against them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To blame all of this on Hamas is both inaccurate and a sign of deep prejudice. Both sides , and others from the outside , have all played their part , over years , in creating the humanitarian disaster that is the Gaza strip

That you cheer/wish for more Palestinian on Palestinian violence , as if there hasn't been enough of that already , shows a mindset akin to the older colonial views that inspired this situation in the first place, early in the 20th century
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

Actually Egypt and Israel peace treaty of 1979 out lines the borders of the two countries, which places the Gaza strip inside of Israels control. Recognizing the Gaza strip as a part of the country of Israel.


Wrong again.

The borders between Egypt and Israel were already known before the peace agreement , that's why everyone knew that Israel , in occupying and trying to settle the Sinai , had no title to them.

They never " recognized the Gaza Strip as a part of the country of Israel. " AFAIK , they never mentioned Gaza and the deal was to see Israeli occupation of Egypt cease in exchange for Egyptian recognition of the state of Israel

Jordan relinquishing its claims to the lands at West Banks means only the Israel and the Palestinian people claim the lands. Palestine isn't recognized as a country by North American and European countries.

Which is different to your earlier claim that Jordan gave the West Bank to Israel, along with your persistence that Egypt has given Gaza to Israel. Both are wrong. The Jordanian leadership in renouncing their claim nominally ceded the territory to the Palestinians.

Seeing as the WB was given to the Arab Palestinian state in the partition and that's why it is referred to , by most of the world including the European countries , as Occupied Palestinian Territory. As a signatory to the 4th Geneva convention , which prohibits territorial expansion through warfare , Israel was no title to any of the Occupied Territories

So moving forward it seems sensible that the Gaza strip could be recognized as Israel's lands in exchange for Palestine to be recognized as a sovereign nation and given the lands in West Bank. Jerusalem to be an international city where both the capital of Israel and Palestine resides. As well as Golem Heights being returned to Syria. Seems to make sense in my eyes.

That's not " moving forward " imo , it is consigning any future Palestinian state, should that ever happen , to a still born status. The reasoning behind why the Israeli leaderships have divided the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is to deny any future Palestinian state any sea access to the outside world .
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

Seeing as the WB was given to the Arab Palestinian state in the partition and that's why it is referred to , by most of the world including the European countries , as Occupied Palestinian Territory. As a signatory to the 4th Geneva convention , which prohibits territorial expansion through warfare , Israel was no title to any of the Occupied Territories

The Gallile was also destined to be as part of the Arab state, if we follow your logic, why isn't it treated as "occupied" ?
And if we continue with this logic, Gush Etzyon was destined to be a part of the Jewish state in the paratition plan, why is it treated as occupied?
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

The Gallile was also destined to be as part of the Arab state, if we follow your logic, why isn't it treated as "occupied" ?
And if we continue with this logic, Gush Etzyon was destined to be a part of the Jewish state in the paratition plan, why is it treated as occupied?

It's easy enough to understand if you follow the timeline of when incidents/actions took place and how the countries involved signed up to subsequent international conventions.

What happened prior to the signing of the Geneva convention obviously doesn't count, what happened after it does
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

It's easy enough to understand if you follow the timeline of when incidents/actions took place and how the countries involved signed up to subsequent international conventions.

What happened prior to the signing of the Geneva convention obviously doesn't count, what happened after it does

No, sorry, its not.
If the west bank is occupied Palestinian territory because of the Partition Plan, why isn't Gush Etzyon a "Liberated" Israeli territory?
If the Partition Plan is irrelevant because of the timeline then what makes the WB Palestinian?
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

And when you see how they are forced to exist , who can blame them ?

People who believe that Palestinians are just as responsible for their own actions as anyone else can and actually will blame Palestinians for the things Palestinians do. Foreign concept to you, I know.
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

No, sorry, its not.

It is

If the west bank is occupied Palestinian territory because of the Partition Plan, why isn't Gush Etzyon a "Liberated" Israeli territory?

The 4th Geneva Convention of late 1948 explicitly prohibits the acquiring of territory via warfare

The West Bank is Occupied Territory because it was conquered and occupied in 1967 which is AFTER the signing of the 4th Geneva Convention of 1948

Gush Etzyon isn't " liberated " because it was conquered in 1948 which , again , is BEFORE the signing of the 4th Geneva Convention in late 1948 and only reconquered in 1967 which is AFTER the signing of the 4th Geneva Convention

If the Partition Plan is irrelevant because of the timeline then what makes the WB Palestinian?

I don't recall me saying the partition was irrelevant especially WRT what constitutes territory as thought of today

For your question , see the above explanation and try to understand why the timeline matters
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

It is



The 4th Geneva Convention of late 1948 explicitly prohibits the acquiring of territory via warfare

The West Bank is Occupied Territory because it was conquered and occupied in 1967 which is AFTER the signing of the 4th Geneva Convention of 1948

Gush Etzyon isn't " liberated " because it was conquered in 1948 which , again , is BEFORE the signing of the 4th Geneva Convention in late 1948 and only reconquered in 1967 which is AFTER the signing of the 4th Geneva Convention



I don't recall me saying the partition was irrelevant especially WRT what constitutes territory as thought of today

For your question , see the above explanation and try to understand why the timeline matters

Listen, you are inconsistent. but its fine, its usually how you Pro-Palestinians roll.

The WB was occupied from Jordan, not Palestine, you say that it is Palestinian because of the partition Plan, the Partition plan didn't designate Gush Etzyon as Palestinian, Jordan withdrew all claims on the West Bank as part of its peace agreement with Israel, why is the West Bank Palestinian and to be more precise, please explain what makes Gush Etzyon occupied Palestinian territory?
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

Listen, you are inconsistent. but its fine, its usually how you Pro-Palestinians roll.

The WB was occupied from Jordan, not Palestine, you say that it is Palestinian because of the partition Plan, the Partition plan didn't designate Gush Etzyon as Palestinian, Jordan withdrew all claims on the West Bank as part of its peace agreement with Israel, why is the West Bank Palestinian and to be more precise, please explain what makes Gush Etzyon occupied Palestinian territory?

Nothing inconsistent in what I have stated imo.

The partition plan gave Israel around 55% of the land and 45% to the Palestinians. Jerusalem was to be under international control and belonged to neither state. Okay so far

Then the war started and Israel ended up with around 78 % of the land that was partitioned. This became Israeli territory and included West Jerusalem thus whatever was not conquered became land of the Palestinian state which included East Jerusalem even if it had been occupied by Jordan and Egypt.

Then the Geneva convention tied everyone into that territorial situation with the acquisition of territory through warfare being made illegal

In short what makes Gush Etzyon occupied Palestinian territory is the applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention.
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

Nothing inconsistent in what I have stated imo.

The partition plan gave Israel around 55% of the land and 45% to the Palestinians. Jerusalem was to be under international control and belonged to neither state. Okay so far

Then the war started and Israel ended up with around 78 % of the land that was partitioned. This became Israeli territory and included West Jerusalem thus whatever was not conquered became land of the Palestinian state which included East Jerusalem even if it had been occupied by Jordan and Egypt.

Wow, such made up nonsense. According to who? To what? Where was it decided? When? Why really? I'm surprised you even responded to Ido's comment knowing that you had nothing to say to change the conclusion that you were making things up but this just made it a lot more embarrassing imo.

Might as well just ended your post with "...And that is why Israel can't exist" it would make it so much funnier.
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

According to who?

The UN , you know , that organisation that probably now regrets giving part of Palestine up for a Jewish state that completely and continually violates the laws and conventions it signed up to with it



Laws and conventions that Israel signed up to then completely disregarded. That contempt for the law doesn't negate the validity of those laws either. It just makes your nation something of a rogue state imo

Where was it decided?

At the UN over the course of years of meetings/voting and the countless resolutions that transpired as a result those events.


Over the period from 1947 to the present day

Why really?

Yes really , I wonder where you have been in all of those years to have missed it all

I'm surprised you even responded to Ido's comment knowing that you had nothing to say to change the conclusion that you were making things up but this just made it a lot more embarrassing imo.

I'm not surprised that you are surprised. And I didn't make this up either. It is a very short commentary on what has changed as events have unfolded and how those responsible have had to make decisions based on those changes.

Might as well just ended your post with "...And that is why Israel can't exist" it would make it so much funnier.

I don't see how that would be funny tbh but I can't vouch for other peoples senses of humour.

Neither can the post I put together remotely be interpreted as outlining such a claim. Feel free to point of where it does and good luck with that

But that's what you do here isn't it ? Misrepresent what people post in order to try to discredit them.
 
Re: What is it about Israeli-Palestine Discussions?

The UN , you know , that organisation that probably now regrets giving part of Palestine up for a Jewish state that completely and continually violates the laws and conventions it signed up to with it




Laws and conventions that Israel signed up to then completely disregarded. That contempt for the law doesn't negate the validity of those laws either. It just makes your nation something of a rogue state imo



At the UN over the course of years of meetings/voting and the countless resolutions that transpired as a result those events.



Over the period from 1947 to the present day



Yes really , I wonder where you have been in all of those years to have missed it all



I'm not surprised that you are surprised. And I didn't make this up either. It is a very short commentary on what has changed as events have unfolded and how those responsible have had to make decisions based on those changes.



I don't see how that would be funny tbh but I can't vouch for other peoples senses of humour.

Neither can the post I put together remotely be interpreted as outlining such a claim. Feel free to point of where it does and good luck with that

But that's what you do here isn't it ? Misrepresent what people post in order to try to discredit them.

Where is your answer to the question asking you to show where is it said that the lands that didn't form Israel in the aftermath of the war it triumphed at against the many Arab aggressors belong to the people known as the Palestinians and to their future state? Nowhere to be found.

The UN partition plan is irrelevant, it was rejected by the aggressors, and it too declared Jerusalem internationally owned and not belonging to the Palestinians which means your hysterical and pathetic declaration being based on it makes it more hysterical and much more pathetic. No other law makes it Palestinian land, since it isn't, there's no claim. You failed miserably throughout this thread to give any hint to a logical reason as to why there's any sense to what you're falsely suggesting here - because there ain't.
 
Back
Top Bottom