• 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!

[W:58] US says Israeli settlements no longer considered illegal in dramatic shift

oneworld2 said:
He is actually correct but the period he is talking about is after the 6 Day War , like the last 52 years !!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, what?

So you are saying that "During the conquest of Palestinian territories" means AFTER the 6 day war when all of the territories were reacquired by the successor state to the Mandate?

I don't think you're going to win that one, chief, but however much you want to be seen as a supporter of that guy, be my guest.
 
uptower said:
Nobody's wars of conquest are legit, but countries got away with it, including Israel prior to the UN outlawing it. Since then nobody's military claim of territory has been valid. The Palestinians have always lived on the land - they're likely former Pagans, Jews and Christians who converted to Islam after the Arab conquest - so they have every right to stay in their homeland and not be forced out by Israeli expansionism.
Click to expand...

But there was never another country with valid claim to the land. Only Israel.

And no one is forcing them out of the WB or Gaza. Except of course Christians being forced out of there by Muslims, but I know we are not supposed to talk about that...
 
truthatallcost said:
Ukraine as an independent state predated Israel by 30 years. It was annexed by Soviet Russia in 1918, and effectively was an occupied state until the fall of the USSR.
Click to expand...

And the WB and Gaza were part of the territory set aside by the League of Nations as a Jewish National Home. They were illegally annexed or occupied by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, until 19 years later when Jordan and Egypt started another war to try to conquer the remainder of the mandate and lost.
 
Last edited:
CJ 2.0 said:
But there was never another country with valid claim to the land. Only Israel.

And no one is forcing them out of the WB or Gaza. Except of course Christians being forced out of there by Muslims, but I know we are not supposed to talk about that...
Click to expand...

A valid claim when Jews were almost entirely absent for 2000 years? Should Britain cede the country back to France because we were invaded and occupied by the Normans in 1066?
 
snakestretcher said:
A valid claim when Jews were almost entirely absent for 2000 years? Should Britain cede the country back to France because we were invaded and occupied by the Normans in 1066?
Click to expand...

More valid than most. No territory anywhere is today ruled by its original inhabitants.
 
snakestretcher said:
Strawman; what's the price of fish in Lithuania?
Click to expand...

No strawman.

snakestretcher said:
As is Palestine's right to resist a 'belligerent occupier' (a legal term). Israel, as usual, is in violation of both the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention (to which it is, ironically, a signatory).
Click to expand...

Which of the Israeli citizens attacked by the tens of thousands of rocket and/or mortars were 'belligerent occupiers'?

That is what the vast majority of Palestinian "resistance" is. When was the last time Hamas or PIL actually struck at in earnest at the IDF?
 
snakestretcher said:
A valid claim when Jews were almost entirely absent for 2000 years? Should Britain cede the country back to France because we were invaded and occupied by the Normans in 1066?
Click to expand...

League of Nations Mandate.

Seems like someone is more focused on Israel existing at all than he is about the Palestinians in the WB and Gaza. Will add you to the pile.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fledermaus said:
No strawman.



Which of the Israeli citizens attacked by the tens of thousands of rocket and/or mortars were 'belligerent occupiers'?

That is what the vast majority of Palestinian "resistance" is. When was the last time Hamas or PIL actually struck at in earnest at the IDF?
Click to expand...

Well, seeing as the Palestinians don't have tanks, artillery, armoured cars, drones, satellite imaging, helicopters or an air force, and are stuck behind thirty-foot walls topped with watch towers, I suggest it might be a little tricky for them to strike at the IDF "in earnest".
 
Jack Hays said:
I know the issue. Had the Palestinians not walked away from Oslo they would not be in their present hopeless position today. Period. They made a mistake of historic proportions, and they alone are responsible for the consequences.
Click to expand...

No, you have an opinion than runs regardless of the facts and that's why you don't want to even attempt to answer the questions put to you. Answering them would force you into something of a climb down so you avoid them.

I would put up the links but it would be a waste of time , what was never reasoned in will never be reasoned out.

Your opinion was made before you knew anything about the conflict and the history related to it imo
 
Re: [W:54] US says Israeli settlements no longer considered illegal in dramatic shift

CJ 2.0 said:
Funny. Who named them that? Cause for the longest time they were called Judea and Samaria by almost everybody. And I myself call them Chicken Sandwich so...
Click to expand...

I don't know who coined the phrase but the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 also included parts of Egypt, Jordan etc etc. It seems a consensus on Occupied Palestinian Territories has been used for the last few decades.

Your dismissive " Chicken Sandwich" jibe actually is enlightening in and of itself. I think it was David bar Illan who was quoted as saying............

" Semantics don't matter. If Palestinian sovereignty is limited enough so that we feel safe, call it fried chicken."

The contempt for the rights of others is just as palpable in the above. So thx for that.
Incidentally, Israel is not a foreign occupying power, being neither foreign nor occupying the territory of a High Contracting Party.
Click to expand...

Extremists aside the consensus is they are
As for voting, you can take that up with the Uighurs first and let me know how that goes. Or maybe do the Syrians. Or Egyptians. Etc.
Click to expand...

The wish to deflect the discussion onto others is acknowledged and ignored. The Palestinians living in the WB have never voted for the Israel governments that hold so much sway over their lives and abuse so many of their rights, that's just the facts of the matter.
 
snakestretcher said:
Well, seeing as the Palestinians don't have tanks, artillery, armoured cars, drones, satellite imaging, helicopters or an air force, and are stuck behind thirty-foot walls topped with watch towers, I suggest it might be a little tricky for them to strike at the IDF "in earnest".
Click to expand...

What these people like is the very very onesided military fight precisely so they can demonize the people who , through desperation and lack of an ability to engage the soldiers of their tormentors , sadly resort to criminal actions. It helps them to justify to themselves and others their own preference which are actually informed by something else altogether.
 
Re: [W:54] US says Israeli settlements no longer considered illegal in dramatic shift

oneworld2 said:
I don't know who coined the phrase but the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 also included parts of Egypt, Jordan etc etc. It seems a consensus on Occupied Palestinian Territories has been used for the last few decades.

Your dismissive " Chicken Sandwich" jibe actually is enlightening in and of itself. I think it was David bar Illan who was quoted as saying............

" Semantics don't matter. If Palestinian sovereignty is limited enough so that we feel safe, call it fried chicken."

The contempt for the rights of others is just as palpable in the above. So thx for that.


Extremists aside the consensus is they are


The wish to deflect the discussion onto others is acknowledged and ignored. The Palestinians living in the WB have never voted for the Israel governments that hold so much sway over their lives and abuse so many of their rights, that's just the facts of the matter.
Click to expand...

"If I was an Arab leader I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal, we have taken their country. They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?". David Ben Gurion, founder of modern Israel. Says it all really, and with stark honesty.
 
Last edited:
CJ 2.0 said:
Your first point (re wars and crimes) is not relevant.
Click to expand...

In a discussion about which side has started wars and which side has engaged in war crimes it absolutely IS relevant. The fact is that both sides have started wars and both sides have engaged in war crimes.If you want to challenge that feel free.

The Mandate did absolutely apply to the entire territory specified in the mandate and allowed for close settlement of the land by Jews in all of it.
Click to expand...

The wording is to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Where does it say all of Palestine ? I'm happy to accept it if you can provide evidence that they old colonial carve up masters actually stated all of Palestine. Recall the UN was the successor to the League of Nations and they obviously didn't conbsider it to be set in stone to include all of Palestine seeing as they decided on partition.

Now again, I am not opposed to Palestinian self determination in some territories, particularly those physical lands they actually live on and those extra physical pieces of land necessary to create a viable state, but I'm also realistic enough to also recognize that they should not be able to use that territory to continue their war against the Jews or to be granted that self determination until such timke as they stop trying to continue their war against the Jews. Recall the occupation only started in the first place because of this war to destroy Israel, and there is absolutely no reason Israel should relinquish control until those people defeated in their attempt to destroy Israel give up on that objective (which they have not) and are truly willing to make piece (which they are not)
Click to expand...

You just don't care about it enough to be taken seriously when commenting on it imo. The reference to " chicken " is a bit of a giveaway. You want safety and genuine autonomy for Israelis and simply don't care what impositions , rights denials , state lite , sham autonomy is foisted upon the Palestinians to acheive that goal. Others want to see genuine autonomy and viable states for both peoples. That's the more reasonable view imho
 
oneworld2 said:
No, you have an opinion than runs regardless of the facts and that's why you don't want to even attempt to answer the questions put to you. Answering them would force you into something of a climb down so you avoid them.

I would put up the links but it would be a waste of time , what was never reasoned in will never be reasoned out.

Your opinion was made before you knew anything about the conflict and the history related to it imo
Click to expand...

Your problem is that I do know the history of the conflict and that enables me to see through your propaganda fog. Nations and peoples lose their rights to their own states via repeated stupidity and incompetence. Once upon a time there were three great empires in central and eastern Europe; they forfeited their rights to exist, and disappeared. The Palestinians had their chance; they threw it away all by themselves.
 
Re: [W:54] US says Israeli settlements no longer considered illegal in dramatic shift

snakestretcher said:
"If I was an Arab leader I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal, we have taken their country. They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?". David Ben Gurion, founder of modern Israel. Says it all really, and with stark honesty.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's a truism that the , for want of a better term , founding fathers of Israel are often more honest and understanding about the situation than those commentators today that have unquestioningly swallowed the hasbara for years.

Moshe Dayan admitted to around " 80% " of the border clashes with Syria during the lead up to the Six Day War were initiated by the Israeli side. He also said of the occupation, to paraphrase , " we will treat them( the Palestinians ) like dogs and those that leave will leave and we will see how that goes "

Other examples regarding the attack on Nassers forces ( 1967 ) can be found.

But here , today ? Nothing much remotely resembling such honesty from the so caled " pro Israel " brigade
 
Re: [W:54] US says Israeli settlements no longer considered illegal in dramatic shift

snakestretcher said:
"If I was an Arab leader I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal, we have taken their country. They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?". David Ben Gurion, founder of modern Israel. Says it all really, and with stark honesty.
Click to expand...

Please provide a link and citation for that quote.
 
snakestretcher said:
Well, seeing as the Palestinians don't have tanks, artillery, armoured cars, drones, satellite imaging, helicopters or an air force, and are stuck behind thirty-foot walls topped with watch towers, I suggest it might be a little tricky for them to strike at the IDF "in earnest".
Click to expand...

Right. So even though they have tried to kill Israeli civilians for decades, rejected peace and launched their suicide bomb war against Israel’s civilian population, and declared their intention of taking Israel from the Jews, it isn’t their fault they target Jewish civilians.

It is the Jews’ fault for defending themselves so effectively.

That is one ... hot take ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Right. So even though they have tried to kill Israeli civilians for decades, rejected peace and launched their suicide bomb war against Israel’s civilian population, and declared their intention of taking Israel from the Jews, it isn’t their fault they target Jewish civilians.

It is the Jews’ fault for defending themselves so effectively.

That is one ... hot take ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Remind me, who was it reneged on the Oslo Accords? Netanyahu or the Palestinians?
 
Re: [W:54] US says Israeli settlements no longer considered illegal in dramatic shift

snakestretcher said:
My pleasure: Ben-Gurion’s Notorious Quotes: Their Polemical Uses & Abuses – Partners For Progressive Israel

It's the sort of thing right-wing Israelis and their supporters would prefer wasn't mentioned.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's useful. And btw, the quote notwithstanding, the Palestinians would not be in their present hopeless situation had they not abandoned Oslo.
Israel was built the way every other country in the world was made. No state's territory is today ruled by its original inhabitants.
 
Re: [W:54] US says Israeli settlements no longer considered illegal in dramatic shift

Jack Hays said:
Thanks. That's useful. And btw, the quote notwithstanding, the Palestinians would not be in their present hopeless situation had they not abandoned Oslo.
Israel was built the way every other country in the world was made. No state's territory is today ruled by its original inhabitants.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it was Netanyahu who walked out on Oslo. Here, in his own words, on video:

YouTube

At 3:07, the truth. Why are so many people wilfully ignorant of this?

"At that very moment I halted the fulfillment of the Oslo Agreements". Can't argue with that admission.
 
Last edited:
Re: [W:54] US says Israeli settlements no longer considered illegal in dramatic shift

snakestretcher said:
Sorry, but it was Netanyahu who walked out on Oslo. Here, in his own words, on video:

YouTube

At 3:07, the truth. Why are so many people wilfully ignorant of this?

"At that very moment I halted the fulfillment of the Oslo Agreements". Can't argue with that admission.
Click to expand...

Arafat walked out.

[h=3]Arafat didn't negotiate - he just kept saying no | World news ...[/h]
[url]https://www.theguardian.com › world › may › israel3
[/URL]



May 22, 2002 - A formal Palestinian rejection of the proposals reached the Americans ... what Rabin had begun with the Oslo agreement, which inaugurated ...
 
Re: [W:54] US says Israeli settlements no longer considered illegal in dramatic shift

Jack Hays said:
Arafat walked out.

[h=3]Arafat didn't negotiate - he just kept saying no | World news ...[/h]
[url]https://www.theguardian.com › world › may › israel3
[/URL]



May 22, 2002 - A formal Palestinian rejection of the proposals reached the Americans ... what Rabin had begun with the Oslo agreement, which inaugurated ...
Click to expand...

If you were confronted with non-negotiable pre-conditions to talks, as demanded by Israel, how would you react? These included an absolute refusal to remove settlements from the disputed territories, refusal of the Arabs' right of return, and refusal to allow Palestine a standing army for self-defence. That was Netanyahu's position before he walked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom