Israel or Palestine?

SuzyCreamcheese

@Ampersand

A. Palestinians have never been in concentration camps, yet have accomplished nothing, by your own admission. Jews have been slaughtered in their millions in concentrations camps yet have built their country into a world power in half a century. You are regressive in nature, I am progressive.

Ampersand

SuzyCreamcheese said:

@Ampersand

A. Palestinians have never been in concentration camps, yet have accomplished nothing, by your own admission. Jews have been slaughtered in their millions in concentrations camps yet have built their country into a world power in half a century. You are regressive in nature, I am progressive.

You know it would have been very very simple for you to say "No, I don't support killing Jews in concentration camps" but you didn't. So just for the record, do you support killing the Jews in concentration camp and if not then why not when your warped pro-ethnic cleansing logic that you have presented says you should?

Also the lesson I was trying to impart is that you shouldn't kill people because you consider them disposable. The Jews didn't accomplish anything in the concentration camps but did when they were let out. Similarly Palestinians aren't accomplishing much while they're under military occupation - the Gaza Strip for instance often being referred to as the world's largest concentration camp - so the solution is to stop the war crimes being committed against them so they have a chance to prosper, just like the Jews did; not to ethnically cleanse a population because you're a sociopath.

SuzyCreamcheese

@Ampersand You have been obsessed with racial genocide since the beginning of the conversation. You compare things that never happened (Palestinian concentration camps) as reason for their non-achievement, while Jews actually were slaughtered in their millions yet managed to build their country into a world power in half a century.

There really is no comparison between the two.

Ampersand

SuzyCreamcheese said:

@Ampersand You have been obsessed with racial genocide since the beginning of the conversation. You compare things that never happened (Palestinian concentration camps) as reason for their non-achievement, while Jews actually were slaughtered in their millions yet managed to build their country into a world power in half a century.

There really is no comparison between the two.

You are the one that advocates ethnic cleansing. People will tend to get hung up if you advocate for war crimes.

The description of Gaza as an open air concentration camp is based on the literal reality of Gaza right now, last year, the year before that, etc stretching back decades - far longer than the existence of the concentration camps in WW2.

You say that people who don't accomplish anything should be ethnically cleansed - but not if they're Jewish (although you still haven't actually said it, so you could be happy for Jewish people to be ethnically cleansed).

You think that people who are oppressed should have their oppression ended so they can go on to actually accomplish things - but not if they're Palestinian.

The inescapable conclusion at this point is that you're a virulent racist.

SuzyCreamcheese

@Ampersand I advocate the progression of mankind. I support the creators, not the destroyers.

Ampersand

@SuzyCreamcheese

False, you yourself have advocated ethnic cleansing.

SuzyCreamcheese

@Ampersand The Omo Valley tribes were relocated from their centuries-long homeland to flood the valley and build a hydroelectric dam. In the name of progress...that you would feign outrage over their ethnic cleansing. 

In the same way, the Palleys should be relocated to some chunk of sand in KSA where they could continue to accomplish nothing.

Ampersand

SuzyCreamcheese said:

@Ampersand The Omo Valley tribes were relocated from their centuries-long homeland to flood the valley and build a hydroelectric dam. In the name of progress...that you would feign outrage over their ethnic cleansing. 

In the same way, the Palleys should be relocated to some chunk of sand in KSA where they could continue to accomplish nothing.

You try to make a defence of your pro-ethnic cleansing position by bringing up a different example of forced relocation and then critiquing an imaginary action that I have never actually made.

Your point of view is still revolting and that you are stopping to arguing against imaginary statements I have never made just shows how poor your arguments are and how little defence you actually have.

SuzyCreamcheese

@Ampersand My argument has always been that Israel is overachieving while Palestine can't wipe it's own butt. You have said nothing to counter that simple truth.

Ampersand

@SuzyCreamcheese My argument is that anyone who tries to support ethnic cleansing on such childish grounds is a racist - especially when I've shown the holes in your argument and how you are unwilling to even apply your abhorrent ethnic cleansing policies consistently and only focus them on a single race.

IanBlack

Generally speaking, Palestine is regarded as a singular entity; however, the two Palestinian regions are administered separately by separate organizations. The Gaza Strip, which is ruled by Hamas, is usually the provoker of Israeli wrath and constantly supports attacks on Israeli soil. In contrast, the West Bank is governed by the Palestinian Authority, which rarely, if ever, supports terrorist attacks against Israel. All to often, these ideologically different regions are grouped together. The West Bank is not a threat to Israeli; it deserves self-determination (ie. the decision to either create a separate state or join Israel). The Gaza Strip, however, remains a threat to Israel and its independence could threaten Israel. The Gaza Strip should not be given independence in the current situation.

scharles18

I would argue in favor of Palestine because Israel is the product of Great Britains poorly planned way of dealing with Jewish immigrants. Around the time of 1910 the British had an influx of Jewish immigrants and with the Great War, the depression, and WWII they decided to send most of the immigrants to British controlled Palestine. Haphazardly drawing lines in the country and calling the west Israel and the east Palestine. The Jewish Immigrants increased tenfold by the time of WWII so by this point what they had done couldn't be changed. Obviously this made the Palestinians upset as well as jewish nationalists that felt threatened by their neighbors to the east. So in reality I blame the British for creating the mess but in that they created Israel, making innocent Palestine the victim of the situation.  

Ampersand

IanBlack said:

Generally speaking, Palestine is regarded as a singular entity; however, the two Palestinian regions are administered separately by separate organizations. The Gaza Strip, which is ruled by Hamas, is usually the provoker of Israeli wrath and constantly supports attacks on Israeli soil. In contrast, the West Bank is governed by the Palestinian Authority, which rarely, if ever, supports terrorist attacks against Israel. All to often, these ideologically different regions are grouped together. The West Bank is not a threat to Israeli; it deserves self-determination (ie. the decision to either create a separate state or join Israel). The Gaza Strip, however, remains a threat to Israel and its independence could threaten Israel. The Gaza Strip should not be given independence in the current situation.

A few questions:

1) On what basis should the universal human right of self-determination be removed as you advocate here?

2) Do you think Israel's independence should be removed as they usually provoke Palestinian wrath and constantly support attacks on Palestinian soil? If not - why the discrepancy?

3) Would you use the same logic in similar situations? For instance should the South African government have refused to repeal apartheid until the ANC stopped violent attacks? Should Great Britain have not forged the Good Friday agreement that ended the Troubles? These are examples of people using negotiations which deliver the requested freedoms and changes to end the ongoing hostilities and they've worked - why shouldn't the same solution be applied to the Israeli Palestinian conflict? There is violence because they are oppressed. even in Gandhi's movement people used violence against his instructions. You can't take independence from millions of people and not expect some level of violence - to then use that as an excuse to continue the oppression indefinitely seems absurd.

MayCaesar

@Fascism

I like to approach situations like this based on the response to one question: “Which state represents a better model for state-making?” And what I see is that Israel is the only democracy (however flawed) in the region, offering its people pretty high quality of life - while PNA is an Orwellian state built around the idea of opposing Israel (instead of building up Palestine) and not offering its citizens even basic freedoms and rights, quality of life being very low by modern standards.

How the situation came to be this way, who is to blame and so on - these questions are somewhat irrelevant, given that most people whose actions led to the current situation are long gone. What is important in practical terms is this: Israel did much better with its predicament than PNA did. Israel is definitely a superior state in most criteria normally used to evaluate the quality of state, so it stands on a higher ground in this confrontation and, hence, is overall more deserving of support.

Another thing to mention is how different the stakes are for the two sides. If PNA ceases to exist and its territory is claimed by Israel, then, at worst, people of Palestine will be effectively in the same situation as they are now, and at best, eventually will enjoy the same quality of life as Israeli citizens do. If, however, Israel ceases to exist and its terriory is claimed by PNA, then, at best, Israeli citizens will experience a drastic drop in quality of life and will no longer live in a democratic state, and at worst, they will be slaughtered by the agitated nationalistic crowd, and the survivors will have to evacuate and become refugees. The middle ground, which is a two-state solution, would still harm Israeli people more than it will PNA inhabitants, as the PNA government, having claimed something, will start pushing for more secessions (as all authoritarian states do); the conflict won’t be by any means resolved, simply the object of the argument will be shifted.

To summarize, I support Israel both based on the current status-quo, and on the potential consequences of its possible change. That is not to say that Israel couldn’t improve its approach to the problem (as the current approach doesn’t seem to achieve any progress) - but I can think of a hundred times more objections to make against the actions of the opposite side, than those of the Israeli state and people.

Sonofason

@Fascism
While it may seem evidently untrue, because a concept of land ownership exists, I personally do not believe that such a thing as land ownership actually exists.  It is a mere construct of human minds and has no real and absolute value in our thinking.  At the present time Israel currently holds the deed if you will to the land we currently call Israel.  Yet, at the present time there are people dwelling in the land that we call Israel who call themselves Israelis; and among others, there are also people dwelling in the land we call Israel that call themselves Palestinians.  These two groups both currently dwell in the land.  As long as Israelis and Palestinians are capable of dwelling in the land we call Israel, then both Israelis and Palestinians dwell in the land.  

Last summer a couple of squirrels decided that they would make the eaves of the roof of the building that I call "my house" their home.  For some reason, which may or may not be important to this discussion, at that time, I didn't immediately do anything about it; and as a result I had a family of squirrels residing in the eaves of the building that I call "my house".  Whether it is justifiable or not, I had decided that I did not want this family of squirrels living in my house, so I took action and removed them.  Until I removed those squirrels, it was their home.  Once they were removed, it was no longer their home.  Because I had the ability, the desire, and the will to remove the squirrels from "my home", I removed them.  Now "my house" is no longer their home. If they had the ability to continue dwelling in my house despite my own personal desires and of course despite my actions to remove them, it would still be their home as well.  

My children were not happy about my decision of course.  They tried to persuade me to allow the family of squirrels to continue dwelling in my house.  They thought it cruel for me to remove them, especially given the fact that 4 baby squirrels had entered into the equation.  While their plea to allow the squirrels to continue dwelling in the house did cause me to consider the matter more carefully, in the end I removed them from the house.

I have my reasons for removing the squirrels.  Those reasons might be considered legitimate by others, or not.  It doesn't really matter, since the legitimacy of my reasoning and therefore the actions I took to remove them was not opposed by any reasonable opposing force that could stop me from removing them.  There are actions that I have taken, and there are forces at work in the society in which I live which have enabled my family and I to dwell in this house and to call it our home.  If by some other force or forces I were to become incapable of dwelling in this house, I could no longer call this house my home.  

Land ownership is a human construct that doesn't actually exist.  Given the fact that people do actually exist, if we presume or agree that they have a right to exist, we must agree that they require a place to exist.  The fact that they exist does not give them the right to exist.  Other people and other external forces determine such rights.  Similar forces can either help or hinder a person or group of persons from dwelling in or possessing land.  These forces add up such that they become a strength or power to assist or prevent one's ability to dwell in or possess land.  

The bottom line is, if you have the strength or power to dwell or inhabit, to possess or own land, then you can.  If the forces that oppose particular individuals from possessing land is greater than the forces that assist them in possessing land, then those individuals will not possess the land.  It's the way it is.  It is the way it will be...it's the way it's always been.

Ampersand

@MayCaesar You seem to have a vast misunderstanding of the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

You try to compare the state of development of Israel with that of Palestine and seem unaware that Palestine is known as the Occupied Palestinian Territories for a reason - it is occupied by Israel. The state of the Palestinian territories is not an indictment of the PNA but of Israel. Do you think that people in the Gaza Strip should maybe focus on development and build some infrastructure - oh wait, they can't, Israel is blockading them and stopping their access to even basic building materials. Should people in the West Bank perhaps try and modernise their agriculture to increase profit - Oh snap, once again Israel is stopping them because they've built a massive wall across the Palestinian territories and stop the farmers from even being able to reach their fields - throwing them into poverty.

I mean do I have to to make obvious comparisons that when a militaristic nation attacks and occupies another country - the occupied country does poorly? I've got a lot of obvious examples I could wave in your face.

The idea that "How the situation came to be this way, who is to blame and so on - these questions are somewhat irrelevant, given that most people whose actions led to the current situation are long gone" is just pure wrongness. These actions are happening right now and have been continually happening for decades because Israel has been occupying and oppressing Palestine. That's the entire crux of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. If you don't know that then I really think you should not have formed an opinion on the I/P conflict and should instead do some research.

Also the PNA is effectively Fatah, which works with Israel and is viewed by many as collaborationist. The idea that they are hostile and only care about hurting Israel when they have been working Israel and making concession after concession is absurd and I'm assuming you've got it mixed up with Hamas or assuming that because Hamas came out ahead in the 2006 elections that they therefore control the PNA (they don't, they've effectively withdrawn from it). Even when it comes to Hamas the idea that they are single-minded haters of Israel who only care about that is a simplistic absurdity that indicates you don't know much about the actual situation. They've been willing make peace-treaties with Israel in the past (Which Israel unfortunately broke) and even Israeli intelligence analysts have admitted they spend the majority of their time and effort into helping the Palestinian people. Meanwhile Israel has been occupying Palestine for Decades and it's most recent Prime Minister, Netanyahu, has been recorded on Israeli news bragging about ruining any possibility of success for the Oslo peace process and was most recently elected on the basis of denying a two-state solution to the peace process, which has been declared by essentially everyone in the world as the only fair and just solution to the conflict and the one that Israel is supposedly committed to attaining.

In terms of your reference to stakes - I find it absurd on two levels. First of all you think that Israel is in danger from Palestine, not vice versa. Israel has been grinding Palestine into the mud for decades. They're dirt poor and have nothing that can offer an existential threat to a modern military. On the other hand Israel have been ethnically cleansing the Palestinians for decades. The other issue is the Zionist program is inherently racist - it's to create a Jewish country. Although they want all the land of Eretz Israel and can live with a second class Muslim minority, taking the people that live on the land would give a slight Muslim majority which would probably increase over time based on birthrates of the two groups (which is itself a worry for Israeli zionists even without taking in more Muslims, they refer to it as the demographic time bomb). They don't want to do that which is why for decades Israel has been ethnically cleansing Palestine. Your argument is that you essentially care more about an imaginary war crime that would never occur happening to Jews rather than the real war crimes happening right now to Muslims. Do you see why that is bonkers? That's not even getting into the fact that allowing either side to annex the other would be to approve of them committing war crimes

Lastly a negotiated settlement like a two-state solution is actually how these things would be expected to end. See the IRA or the ANC for examples.

Your argument is essentially word-for-word the kind of argument used by supports of Apartheid South Africa before it was disbanded. Take a look. Talking about how well Apartheid South Africa has done compared to black run countries like you talk about how well israel has done. How you can't let blacks take charge because they'll just start committing atrocities and kill the whites, just like you think the Arabs will do to the Israelis despite all logic and evidence pointing to the contrary. If the internet were around 30 years ago, you or people like you would be making exactly the same kind of comments you've just made here about Apartheid South Africa as well as Israel.

@Sonofason Lots of things are human constructs. that does not mean they are meaningless or unimportant. The idea that it is 'wrong' for me to beat you about the back of the head, rape and mutilate you and then make you watch as I murder your family and everyone you love is a human construct - as is every idea of what is right or wrong. That doesn't mean that pretty much everyone on earth - myself included - wouldn't think that that was immoral and want people to take action to prevent such occurrences from happening.

We don't ignore things because they're human constructs. If the occupation of Palestine is wrong - which I've argued it is - then we should want to stop it. Especially as political support  from the USA is pretty much the only thing allowing Israel to continue the occupation.

Sonofason

Ampersand said:

@Sonofason Lots of things are human constructs. that does not mean they are meaningless or unimportant. The idea that it is 'wrong' for me to beat you about the back of the head, rape and mutilate you and then make you watch as I murder your family and everyone you love is a human construct - as is every idea of what is right or wrong. That doesn't mean that pretty much everyone on earth - myself included - wouldn't think that that was immoral and want people to take action to prevent such occurrences from happening.

We don't ignore things because they're human constructs. If the occupation of Palestine is wrong - which I've argued it is - then we should want to stop it. Especially as political support  from the USA is pretty much the only thing allowing Israel to continue the occupation.

I agree...we can consider anything important, even if that thing doesn't really actually exist.  You use the words Israeli occupation because of your bias for the Palestinians.  That is fine.  That is what you believe.  I don't agree with you.  I believe that neither Palestinians nor the Israelis have any inalienable rights to the land on which they live.  By mutual consent, they could dwell together.  By strength, one could depose the other.  Whom ever ends up dwelling in the land are the ones who are entitled to the land.  That's all I'm saying.  If you'd like to help the Palestinians...go ahead.  If I want to help the Israelis, I will.  And in the end, someone will dwell in the land, and they can call that land their land...until someone else takes it away from them.

Ampersand

Sonofason said:

Ampersand said:

@Sonofason Lots of things are human constructs. that does not mean they are meaningless or unimportant. The idea that it is 'wrong' for me to beat you about the back of the head, rape and mutilate you and then make you watch as I murder your family and everyone you love is a human construct - as is every idea of what is right or wrong. That doesn't mean that pretty much everyone on earth - myself included - wouldn't think that that was immoral and want people to take action to prevent such occurrences from happening.

We don't ignore things because they're human constructs. If the occupation of Palestine is wrong - which I've argued it is - then we should want to stop it. Especially as political support  from the USA is pretty much the only thing allowing Israel to continue the occupation.

I agree...we can consider anything important, even if that thing doesn't really actually exist.  You use the words Israeli occupation because of your bias for the Palestinians.  That is fine.  That is what you believe.  I don't agree with you.  I believe that neither Palestinians nor the Israelis have any inalienable rights to the land on which they live.  By mutual consent, they could dwell together.  By strength, one could depose the other.  Whom ever ends up dwelling in the land are the ones who are entitled to the land.  That's all I'm saying.  If you'd like to help the Palestinians...go ahead.  If I want to help the Israelis, I will.  And in the end, someone will dwell in the land, and they can call that land their land...until someone else takes it away from them.

Unless you're making a meaningless semantic argument along the lines of "But words are human constructs so what if the word 'murder' to me means 'nice guy who likes hugs'", yeah Israel is occupying Palestine. It's not really a part of the discussion which is up for debate - if you believe otherwise you;re simply showing ignorance. Israel occupying the OPT is a long-standing fact that has been occurring for over 50 years now since the Six Day War. It is recognised by essentially every single country on Earth and is based upon the agreed upon definitions for when a country should be considered occupied found in international military law (see for instance article 2 of the 4th Geneva Convention) and even the USA which doesn't like criticism of Israel has admitted Israel is the occupying force.

You're also then drift into outright war-crimes advocatism, stating that might makes right and it's fine to take land from others as long as you have the power to back it up - contrary to all normal ideas of what is right and moral as well as international military law. Hell, even Israel itself has signed charters and documents (like the UN charter) confirming that the acquisition of land by force is immoral and never to be condoned. Tell me, do you want me to start listing other examples of countries who have acquired land by force to see if you still stick to your guns when you're forced to side with Iraq or Nazi Germany and explain how they were totally right to do so or do you just want to concede the argument now.

Also why would you only want to help one nationality? Are you Anti-Palestinian? Anti-Arab? Anti-Muslim? I want to help both nations - stop the occupation, oppression and war crimes committed against the Palestinians by Israel and also stop the war crimes committed against the Israelis by the Palestinian militant groups. My disapproval of Israel's actions is due to my respect for the fundamental human rights of all people.

MayCaesar

@Ampersand

My personal school of thought rejects the idea of shared responsibility when considering a situation in practical terms. What I mean by that is that Israel is responsible for using its predicament for best achieving its goals, and PNA is responsible for using its predicament for best achieving its goals. If PNA fails to provide its people with a decent quality of life, then it hasn't taken the steps required for that, and regardless of who put them in that predicament in the first place, they didn't find a way out of it.

The current situation hasn't always been the case. Initially, Israel and Palestine were formed out of the former British territory as two separate independent states. Where Israeli government focused on building a proper infrastructure, on attracting foreign investments and on generating a military force able to withstand the pressure from the surrounding nations, Palestinian government instead focused on the anti-Israeli rhetoric and on agitating other nearby states to destroy Israel and return their lands back to Arabs. It is not hard to trace the current situation all the way back to this initial difference of approaches. Israel simply played the game better than Palestine.

As an example of playing the game in a similar situation better, look at Taiwan. Exiled people on a small island against the largest totalitarian empire in the world managed to ultimately create one of the most prosperous states in Asia, despite being constantly threatened by the mainland China. How? They simply focused on the development and on attracting interested foreign parties to offset the Chinese pressure. And it worked. Practical approaches ("what would work best for us?") tend to be more effective than emotional approaches ("we need our land back at any cost!").

---

Regarding your Apartheid example, I see it as a false comparison. Claiming that blacks are simply unable to govern themselves is a racist rhetoric with little evidence behind it. However, the claim that people that have been oppressed up until a couple decades ago won't quickly learn proper governing is very reasonable. It is reasonable to expect a state managed by people with little education with regards to state management to fail, and even to turn backwards: where whites oppressed blacks before, now blacks will oppress whites. Similarly to how Spartacus, having been a slave, tried to take Rome over and to make his yesterday's masters into his slaves: this is the only model he knew, as his experience had been that of a slave.

What is currently happening in South Africa has already happened in some other states; for example, in Zimbabwe, or on Cuba. Deposing your masters does not necessarily mean that you will do the best with your freedom, and often it may mean the opposite. Not that I'm advocating for preservation of oppressive regimes; rather, I'm advocating to a less emotional and more rational approach to solving their problems.

It is pretty clear that Palestinians haven't found a proper way to use their freedom to benefit their nation. Until they find that way, or at least start looking for that way, I don't see how supporting their side is beneficial for anyone - them included - long-term.

Sonofason

Ampersand said:

Sonofason said:

Ampersand said:

@Sonofason Lots of things are human constructs. that does not mean they are meaningless or unimportant. The idea that it is 'wrong' for me to beat you about the back of the head, rape and mutilate you and then make you watch as I murder your family and everyone you love is a human construct - as is every idea of what is right or wrong. That doesn't mean that pretty much everyone on earth - myself included - wouldn't think that that was immoral and want people to take action to prevent such occurrences from happening.

We don't ignore things because they're human constructs. If the occupation of Palestine is wrong - which I've argued it is - then we should want to stop it. Especially as political support  from the USA is pretty much the only thing allowing Israel to continue the occupation.

I agree...we can consider anything important, even if that thing doesn't really actually exist.  You use the words Israeli occupation because of your bias for the Palestinians.  That is fine.  That is what you believe.  I don't agree with you.  I believe that neither Palestinians nor the Israelis have any inalienable rights to the land on which they live.  By mutual consent, they could dwell together.  By strength, one could depose the other.  Whom ever ends up dwelling in the land are the ones who are entitled to the land.  That's all I'm saying.  If you'd like to help the Palestinians...go ahead.  If I want to help the Israelis, I will.  And in the end, someone will dwell in the land, and they can call that land their land...until someone else takes it away from them.

Unless you're making a meaningless semantic argument along the lines of "But words are human constructs so what if the word 'murder' to me means 'nice guy who likes hugs'", yeah Israel is occupying Palestine. It's not really a part of the discussion which is up for debate - if you believe otherwise you;re simply showing ignorance. Israel occupying the OPT is a long-standing fact that has been occurring for over 50 years now since the Six Day War. It is recognised by essentially every single country on Earth and is based upon the agreed upon definitions for when a country should be considered occupied found in international military law (see for instance article 2 of the 4th Geneva Convention) and even the USA which doesn't like criticism of Israel has admitted Israel is the occupying force.

You're also then drift into outright war-crimes advocatism, stating that might makes right and it's fine to take land from others as long as you have the power to back it up - contrary to all normal ideas of what is right and moral as well as international military law. Hell, even Israel itself has signed charters and documents (like the UN charter) confirming that the acquisition of land by force is immoral and never to be condoned. Tell me, do you want me to start listing other examples of countries who have acquired land by force to see if you still stick to your guns when you're forced to side with Iraq or Nazi Germany and explain how they were totally right to do so or do you just want to concede the argument now.

Also why would you only want to help one nationality? Are you Anti-Palestinian? Anti-Arab? Anti-Muslim? I want to help both nations - stop the occupation, oppression and war crimes committed against the Palestinians by Israel and also stop the war crimes committed against the Israelis by the Palestinian militant groups. My disapproval of Israel's actions is due to my respect for the fundamental human rights of all people.

I'm sorry, Palestinians are also occupying the land.  You're trying to suggest that one of them has a greater right to the land.  I will not go there, because I don't believe anyone has any right to any land.  If it should come down to only Palestinians occupying the land, or only Israelis occupying the land, then only the Palestinians or the Israelis will occupy the land.  Maybe someone will come in and annihilate everyone in the land and take it for themselves.  Then that entity, who ever it may be will occupy the land.  

I see no significance whatsoever with your particular use of the word occupy.
I never once said that I wanted to help either side.  I said, "If I want to help the Israelis, I will."  That is a far cry from saying that I do want to help the Israelis.  You're projecting, and it ain't pretty.

You may disapprove of anything you like.  You may respect anything you like.  But I have no respect for the human concept of human rights until I see that such human rights are distributed fairly, according to my own personal perceptions and are never violated.  Then I will acknowledge the existence of human rights.  Until then, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Ampersand

MayCaesar said:

@Ampersand

My personal school of thought rejects the idea of shared responsibility when considering a situation in practical terms. What I mean by that is that Israel is responsible for using its predicament for best achieving its goals, and PNA is responsible for using its predicament for best achieving its goals. If PNA fails to provide its people with a decent quality of life, then it hasn't taken the steps required for that, and regardless of who put them in that predicament in the first place, they didn't find a way out of it.

I've already explained why your reasoning is wrong. Merely re-iterating your view is not a rebuttal. You might as well say "Well as the robber is clearly in a superior position to the person he just stabbed and stole the wallet from, I support the robber as everyone has a duty to look after themselves and it is his fault for not looking after his wellbeing".

i also take it you criticise Polish people, and especialyl Polish jews, for doing so poorly during World War 2? After all, according to you being occupied and having war crimes committed against you is no excuse for not doing as well as the force that is occupying you.

The current situation hasn't always been the case. Initially, Israel and Palestine were formed out of the former British territory as two separate independent states. Where Israeli government focused on building a proper infrastructure, on attracting foreign investments and on generating a military force able to withstand the pressure from the surrounding nations, Palestinian government instead focused on the anti-Israeli rhetoric and on agitating other nearby states to destroy Israel and return their lands back to Arabs. It is not hard to trace the current situation all the way back to this initial difference of approaches. Israel simply played the game better than Palestine.

Okay, at this point it becomes clear you are completely ignorant of the I/P conflict and are just spouting rubbish to try and justify a position you've already picked rather than looking at reality and the evidence and then forming an opinion. 

The Palestinian Mandate was a British overseen country up until 1948. A recommendation to form two states was made by the UN in 1947 by the General Assembly (Not the security council, thus an idea rather than a requirement) but was not supported by the majority of Palestinians. Before two states could be created, the Jewish enclaves launched a civil war and attacked the Arabs, attacking civilians and ethnically cleansing them to grab as much land as possible. Cuting a deal with Jordan (at the time the most powerful Arab neighbour) to split Palestine, Israel was at first pushed back and losing but used a ceasefire to procure Czeckoslovakian arms which allowed them to seize part of Palestine. Israel then continued to build up it's military to try and attack and take the lands of it's neighbours, first of all in the 1956 Sinai war when it attacked Egypt and then in the Six Day War when it attacked all it's neighbours and seized the Palestinian land which had been occupied by Jordan.

The Palestinian Government has been trying to work with Israel for two decades nowhere and has gotten nowhere and Israel was founded and then expanded in ethnic cleansing and wars of aggression - the latter being what the Nuremberg tribunal called "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"

As an example of playing the game in a similar situation better, look at Taiwan. Exiled people on a small island against the largest totalitarian empire in the world managed to ultimately create one of the most prosperous states in Asia, despite being constantly threatened by the mainland China. How? They simply focused on the development and on attracting interested foreign parties to offset the Chinese pressure. And it worked. Practical approaches ("what would work best for us?") tend to be more effective than emotional approaches ("we need our land back at any cost!")..

Taiwan prospered because it got massive payments to support itself and prosper from the USA. It got these not by any great policy of its own but by happening to be in the right place at the right time - being the opposing side to Communist China at a time when Communism was the next big threat rising up against the USA. Nationalist China could have done literally almost anything and they would have done well thanks to the historical situation they found themselves in.

Also Palestine has been willing to make massive concessions for peace for decades now - offering far more than pretty much every country on earth says it is fair for Israel to respect. israel still occupies them, still abuses them and is lead by a PM who gloats about how he is never going to make peace with the Palestinians and how he personally ruined the peace process.

Fundamentally you just seemed bigoted against Palestinians. You can offer no rationale why they should suffer beyond dipping into fantasy.

Ampersand

Sonofason said:

Ampersand said:

Sonofason said:

Ampersand said:

@Sonofason Lots of things are human constructs. that does not mean they are meaningless or unimportant. The idea that it is 'wrong' for me to beat you about the back of the head, rape and mutilate you and then make you watch as I murder your family and everyone you love is a human construct - as is every idea of what is right or wrong. That doesn't mean that pretty much everyone on earth - myself included - wouldn't think that that was immoral and want people to take action to prevent such occurrences from happening.

We don't ignore things because they're human constructs. If the occupation of Palestine is wrong - which I've argued it is - then we should want to stop it. Especially as political support  from the USA is pretty much the only thing allowing Israel to continue the occupation.

I agree...we can consider anything important, even if that thing doesn't really actually exist.  You use the words Israeli occupation because of your bias for the Palestinians.  That is fine.  That is what you believe.  I don't agree with you.  I believe that neither Palestinians nor the Israelis have any inalienable rights to the land on which they live.  By mutual consent, they could dwell together.  By strength, one could depose the other.  Whom ever ends up dwelling in the land are the ones who are entitled to the land.  That's all I'm saying.  If you'd like to help the Palestinians...go ahead.  If I want to help the Israelis, I will.  And in the end, someone will dwell in the land, and they can call that land their land...until someone else takes it away from them.

Unless you're making a meaningless semantic argument along the lines of "But words are human constructs so what if the word 'murder' to me means 'nice guy who likes hugs'", yeah Israel is occupying Palestine. It's not really a part of the discussion which is up for debate - if you believe otherwise you;re simply showing ignorance. Israel occupying the OPT is a long-standing fact that has been occurring for over 50 years now since the Six Day War. It is recognised by essentially every single country on Earth and is based upon the agreed upon definitions for when a country should be considered occupied found in international military law (see for instance article 2 of the 4th Geneva Convention) and even the USA which doesn't like criticism of Israel has admitted Israel is the occupying force.

You're also then drift into outright war-crimes advocatism, stating that might makes right and it's fine to take land from others as long as you have the power to back it up - contrary to all normal ideas of what is right and moral as well as international military law. Hell, even Israel itself has signed charters and documents (like the UN charter) confirming that the acquisition of land by force is immoral and never to be condoned. Tell me, do you want me to start listing other examples of countries who have acquired land by force to see if you still stick to your guns when you're forced to side with Iraq or Nazi Germany and explain how they were totally right to do so or do you just want to concede the argument now.

Also why would you only want to help one nationality? Are you Anti-Palestinian? Anti-Arab? Anti-Muslim? I want to help both nations - stop the occupation, oppression and war crimes committed against the Palestinians by Israel and also stop the war crimes committed against the Israelis by the Palestinian militant groups. My disapproval of Israel's actions is due to my respect for the fundamental human rights of all people.

I'm sorry, Palestinians are also occupying the land.  You're trying to suggest that one of them has a greater right to the land.  I will not go there, because I don't believe anyone has any right to any land.  If it should come down to only Palestinians occupying the land, or only Israelis occupying the land, then only the Palestinians or the Israelis will occupy the land.  Maybe someone will come in and annihilate everyone in the land and take it for themselves.  Then that entity, who ever it may be will occupy the land.  

I see no significance whatsoever with your particular use of the word occupy.
I never once said that I wanted to help either side.  I said, "If I want to help the Israelis, I will."  That is a far cry from saying that I do want to help the Israelis.  You're projecting, and it ain't pretty.

You may disapprove of anything you like.  You may respect anything you like.  But I have no respect for the human concept of human rights until I see that such human rights are distributed fairly, according to my own personal perceptions and are never violated.  Then I will acknowledge the existence of human rights.  Until then, you're barking up the wrong tree.

No, the Palestinians are not occupying this land because in the context that we are talking about one of the most basic and fundamental details that someone would need to know before discussing the conflict is what a military occupation is, to whit: "effective provisional control by a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the violation of the actual sovereign."

The military occupation of Palestine is the entire basis of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? How can you come into a thread about the I/P conflict and act like you have a meaningful opinion when you on't kinow even the most basic and simple terminology required to even begin understanding it?

Sonofason, you are honestly a very person.

Sonofason

Ampersand said:

Sonofason said:

Ampersand said:

Sonofason said:

Ampersand said:

@Sonofason Lots of things are human constructs. that does not mean they are meaningless or unimportant. The idea that it is 'wrong' for me to beat you about the back of the head, rape and mutilate you and then make you watch as I murder your family and everyone you love is a human construct - as is every idea of what is right or wrong. That doesn't mean that pretty much everyone on earth - myself included - wouldn't think that that was immoral and want people to take action to prevent such occurrences from happening.

We don't ignore things because they're human constructs. If the occupation of Palestine is wrong - which I've argued it is - then we should want to stop it. Especially as political support  from the USA is pretty much the only thing allowing Israel to continue the occupation.

I agree...we can consider anything important, even if that thing doesn't really actually exist.  You use the words Israeli occupation because of your bias for the Palestinians.  That is fine.  That is what you believe.  I don't agree with you.  I believe that neither Palestinians nor the Israelis have any inalienable rights to the land on which they live.  By mutual consent, they could dwell together.  By strength, one could depose the other.  Whom ever ends up dwelling in the land are the ones who are entitled to the land.  That's all I'm saying.  If you'd like to help the Palestinians...go ahead.  If I want to help the Israelis, I will.  And in the end, someone will dwell in the land, and they can call that land their land...until someone else takes it away from them.

Unless you're making a meaningless semantic argument along the lines of "But words are human constructs so what if the word 'murder' to me means 'nice guy who likes hugs'", yeah Israel is occupying Palestine. It's not really a part of the discussion which is up for debate - if you believe otherwise you;re simply showing ignorance. Israel occupying the OPT is a long-standing fact that has been occurring for over 50 years now since the Six Day War. It is recognised by essentially every single country on Earth and is based upon the agreed upon definitions for when a country should be considered occupied found in international military law (see for instance article 2 of the 4th Geneva Convention) and even the USA which doesn't like criticism of Israel has admitted Israel is the occupying force.

You're also then drift into outright war-crimes advocatism, stating that might makes right and it's fine to take land from others as long as you have the power to back it up - contrary to all normal ideas of what is right and moral as well as international military law. Hell, even Israel itself has signed charters and documents (like the UN charter) confirming that the acquisition of land by force is immoral and never to be condoned. Tell me, do you want me to start listing other examples of countries who have acquired land by force to see if you still stick to your guns when you're forced to side with Iraq or Nazi Germany and explain how they were totally right to do so or do you just want to concede the argument now.

Also why would you only want to help one nationality? Are you Anti-Palestinian? Anti-Arab? Anti-Muslim? I want to help both nations - stop the occupation, oppression and war crimes committed against the Palestinians by Israel and also stop the war crimes committed against the Israelis by the Palestinian militant groups. My disapproval of Israel's actions is due to my respect for the fundamental human rights of all people.

I'm sorry, Palestinians are also occupying the land.  You're trying to suggest that one of them has a greater right to the land.  I will not go there, because I don't believe anyone has any right to any land.  If it should come down to only Palestinians occupying the land, or only Israelis occupying the land, then only the Palestinians or the Israelis will occupy the land.  Maybe someone will come in and annihilate everyone in the land and take it for themselves.  Then that entity, who ever it may be will occupy the land.  

I see no significance whatsoever with your particular use of the word occupy.
I never once said that I wanted to help either side.  I said, "If I want to help the Israelis, I will."  That is a far cry from saying that I do want to help the Israelis.  You're projecting, and it ain't pretty.

You may disapprove of anything you like.  You may respect anything you like.  But I have no respect for the human concept of human rights until I see that such human rights are distributed fairly, according to my own personal perceptions and are never violated.  Then I will acknowledge the existence of human rights.  Until then, you're barking up the wrong tree.

No, the Palestinians are not occupying this land because in the context that we are talking about one of the most basic and fundamental details that someone would need to know before discussing the conflict is what a military occupation is, to whit: "effective provisional control by a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the violation of the actual sovereign."

The military occupation of Palestine is the entire basis of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? How can you come into a thread about the I/P conflict and act like you have a meaningful opinion when you on't kinow even the most basic and simple terminology required to even begin understanding it?

Sonofason, you are honestly a very person.

I'm sorry, I do not acknowledge your definition of occupation as a real and sovereign entity.  As far as I can tell, and as far as I can see, both Israelis and Palestinians are occupying the land that I call Israel.  I have no problem with entities forming governmental bodies, militias and armies for the sake of preserving land for the people that those governmental bodies, militias and armies are commissioned to protect.

I may be , but at least I am smart enough and able and have sufficient self respect to proofread what I write.  
If it pleases the court, I must admit that I have a perfect understanding of the conflict.  Nevertheless, I do reject your terminology and your assessment of the situation and conflict that is taking place in Israel.

What's the name of the country?

Oh that's right...It's called Israel.

Ampersand

Sonofason said:

Ampersand said:

Sonofason said:

Ampersand said:

Sonofason said:

Ampersand said:

@Sonofason Lots of things are human constructs. that does not mean they are meaningless or unimportant. The idea that it is 'wrong' for me to beat you about the back of the head, rape and mutilate you and then make you watch as I murder your family and everyone you love is a human construct - as is every idea of what is right or wrong. That doesn't mean that pretty much everyone on earth - myself included - wouldn't think that that was immoral and want people to take action to prevent such occurrences from happening.

We don't ignore things because they're human constructs. If the occupation of Palestine is wrong - which I've argued it is - then we should want to stop it. Especially as political support  from the USA is pretty much the only thing allowing Israel to continue the occupation.

I agree...we can consider anything important, even if that thing doesn't really actually exist.  You use the words Israeli occupation because of your bias for the Palestinians.  That is fine.  That is what you believe.  I don't agree with you.  I believe that neither Palestinians nor the Israelis have any inalienable rights to the land on which they live.  By mutual consent, they could dwell together.  By strength, one could depose the other.  Whom ever ends up dwelling in the land are the ones who are entitled to the land.  That's all I'm saying.  If you'd like to help the Palestinians...go ahead.  If I want to help the Israelis, I will.  And in the end, someone will dwell in the land, and they can call that land their land...until someone else takes it away from them.

Unless you're making a meaningless semantic argument along the lines of "But words are human constructs so what if the word 'murder' to me means 'nice guy who likes hugs'", yeah Israel is occupying Palestine. It's not really a part of the discussion which is up for debate - if you believe otherwise you;re simply showing ignorance. Israel occupying the OPT is a long-standing fact that has been occurring for over 50 years now since the Six Day War. It is recognised by essentially every single country on Earth and is based upon the agreed upon definitions for when a country should be considered occupied found in international military law (see for instance article 2 of the 4th Geneva Convention) and even the USA which doesn't like criticism of Israel has admitted Israel is the occupying force.

You're also then drift into outright war-crimes advocatism, stating that might makes right and it's fine to take land from others as long as you have the power to back it up - contrary to all normal ideas of what is right and moral as well as international military law. Hell, even Israel itself has signed charters and documents (like the UN charter) confirming that the acquisition of land by force is immoral and never to be condoned. Tell me, do you want me to start listing other examples of countries who have acquired land by force to see if you still stick to your guns when you're forced to side with Iraq or Nazi Germany and explain how they were totally right to do so or do you just want to concede the argument now.

Also why would you only want to help one nationality? Are you Anti-Palestinian? Anti-Arab? Anti-Muslim? I want to help both nations - stop the occupation, oppression and war crimes committed against the Palestinians by Israel and also stop the war crimes committed against the Israelis by the Palestinian militant groups. My disapproval of Israel's actions is due to my respect for the fundamental human rights of all people.

I'm sorry, Palestinians are also occupying the land.  You're trying to suggest that one of them has a greater right to the land.  I will not go there, because I don't believe anyone has any right to any land.  If it should come down to only Palestinians occupying the land, or only Israelis occupying the land, then only the Palestinians or the Israelis will occupy the land.  Maybe someone will come in and annihilate everyone in the land and take it for themselves.  Then that entity, who ever it may be will occupy the land.  

I see no significance whatsoever with your particular use of the word occupy.
I never once said that I wanted to help either side.  I said, "If I want to help the Israelis, I will."  That is a far cry from saying that I do want to help the Israelis.  You're projecting, and it ain't pretty.

You may disapprove of anything you like.  You may respect anything you like.  But I have no respect for the human concept of human rights until I see that such human rights are distributed fairly, according to my own personal perceptions and are never violated.  Then I will acknowledge the existence of human rights.  Until then, you're barking up the wrong tree.

No, the Palestinians are not occupying this land because in the context that we are talking about one of the most basic and fundamental details that someone would need to know before discussing the conflict is what a military occupation is, to whit: "effective provisional control by a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the violation of the actual sovereign."

The military occupation of Palestine is the entire basis of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? How can you come into a thread about the I/P conflict and act like you have a meaningful opinion when you on't kinow even the most basic and simple terminology required to even begin understanding it?

Sonofason, you are honestly a very person.

I'm sorry, I do not acknowledge your definition of occupation as a real and sovereign entity.  As far as I can tell, and as far as I can see, both Israelis and Palestinians are occupying the land that I call Israel.  I have no problem with entities forming governmental bodies, militias and armies for the sake of preserving land for the people that those governmental bodies, militias and armies are commissioned to protect.

I may be , but at least I am smart enough and able and have sufficient self respect to proofread what I write.  
If it pleases the court, I must admit that I have a perfect understanding of the conflict.  Nevertheless, I do reject your terminology and your assessment of the situation and conflict that is taking place in Israel.

What's the name of that country?

Oh that's right It's Israel.

The definition Isn't my definition, it's the definition of the word when used in this context. it is not a case of their being two different opinions, there's a case of me knowing what I'm talking about and you having no clue. I mean when someone uses the word "crane" in relation to birds, do you refuse to accept that cranes are a type of bird and instead insist cranes are a large construction device?

In reference to an ongoing military conflict revolving around 50 years of military occupation, occupation refers to the military type of occupation. I mean, I'm shocked that I have to point this out because it is so basic. FYI in case you don't know, if someone talks about their financial liquidity it doesn't mean they are melting down coins into a liquid. If you ever have any other trouble where you try and comment on a topic you know nothing about and don't even understand the basic terminology, feel free to go learn something about the topic first before shooting off your mouth.

Also lol, not even Israel claims the West Bank and Gaza strip are Israel you .

Extra irony points for making spelling and grammatical errors in the paragraph where you have a go at me for my spelling.

Sonofason

@Ampersand
My dear friend, I never once said that the West Bank and the Gaza strip are a part of the nation of Israel.  But I assure you, at the rate things are going, they soon will be.  The fact is Israelis and Palestinians both dwell in and therefore occupy parts of the West Bank and the Gaza strip.  

There are no spelling errors, nor grammatical errors whatsoever in the paragraph where I criticized your apparent lack of self respect.

Ampersand

Sonofason said:

@Ampersand
My dear friend, I never once said that the West Bank and the Gaza strip are a part of the nation of Israel.  But I assure you, at the rate things are going, they soon will be.  The fact is Israelis and Palestinians both dwell in and therefore occupy parts of the West Bank and the Gaza strip.  

There are no spelling errors, nor grammatical errors whatsoever in the paragraph where I criticized your apparent lack of self respect.

You were very VERY clear and said multiple times in bold and even in an extra large font that the conflict was taking place in Israel. Either you're not aware that is is also taking place in the oPT which is such basic basic knowledge it's almost unbelievable that you wouldn't know that, even taking into consideration your general lack of knowledge of the conflict, or you are stating that the West Bank and Gaza (including East Jerusalem) belong to Israel. If you didn't say one thing you said the other. Those are the only two options.

Also as you don't seem to be able to spot them I'll explain your spelling/grammatical errors to you:

1) When you're listing a series of items you use commas to separate all but the last one, you don't repeat "and". So if you were actually smart enough, able and had sufficient self-respect to proof read you wouldn't have written "I am smart enough and able and have sufficient self respect to proofread what I write."
2) Self-respect, not self respect.
3) Your paragraph beginning "If it pleases the court..." is missing an entire word as it only makes sense in context if you have the word "don't" in front of "perfect understanding". That's not simply a dig at your lack of knowledge, without it your usage of 'Nevertheless' in the next sentence makes no sense..

Sonofason

@Ampersand
You are entitled to your opinion.

Ampersand

@Sonofason

This is a debate forum, opinions by themselves are worthless - hence why I back mine up with facts and evidence and why yours are worthless due to a lack of facts and evidence.

E.g. you merely had the opinion that "There are no spelling errors, nor grammatical errors whatsoever in the paragraph where I criticized your apparent lack of self respect" while I actually provided evidence to show the opposite is true. Or how you have the opinion that Palestinians are occupying Palestine, but I've already provided evidence showing that there is a specific military definition used in these circumstances that means Israel is the only occupier and therefore your opinion is irrelevant and can be ignored.

Sonofason

Ampersand said:

@Sonofason

This is a debate forum, opinions by themselves are worthless - hence why I back mine up with facts and evidence and why yours are worthless due to a lack of facts and evidence.

E.g. you merely had the opinion that "There are no spelling errors, nor grammatical errors whatsoever in the paragraph where I criticized your apparent lack of self respect" while I actually provided evidence to show the opposite is true. Or how you have the opinion that Palestinians are occupying Palestine, but I've already provided evidence showing that there is a specific military definition used in these circumstances that means Israel is the only occupier and therefore your opinion is irrelevant and can be ignored.

occupy - to reside in as an owner or tenant
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occupy

Surely, Palestinians occupy Israel.  

So then, you are saying that if a definition exists for a word, that the definition for that word must be valid and true.  I can only assume that you also would agree that if a definition for a word is valid and true, then the word defined by the definition is also valid and true.  And furthermore, it must be true that the thing represented by a word must also be valid and true.  Everything that can be represented by a word or definition must actually exist and be true.  Is that right?

I would argue that your thinking here is invalid.  Here is an example where I believe you are right, and the thing represented by the word actually does exist, and the definition that defines it is valid and true.
God is defined as "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=run2WuT8FoGG5wLFi5noAQ&q=God+def&oq=God+def&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67k1j0l9.1811.2922.0.3120.9.8.0.0.0.0.82.517.7.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.8.589.6..35i39k1j0i131k1j0i131i67k1j0i131i20i263k1j0i20i264k1j0i46i67k1j46i67k1j0i10k1.73.6TrtQoP9Ub8

But unicorns do not exist.  Do they?  Yet they are defined.  How can we know for sure that your military definition of "occupation" is valid and true?  I for one do not accept your definition.  I do not intend to, until I am convinced that I should.

Ampersand

Sonofason said:

Ampersand said:

@Sonofason

This is a debate forum, opinions by themselves are worthless - hence why I back mine up with facts and evidence and why yours are worthless due to a lack of facts and evidence.

E.g. you merely had the opinion that "There are no spelling errors, nor grammatical errors whatsoever in the paragraph where I criticized your apparent lack of self respect" while I actually provided evidence to show the opposite is true. Or how you have the opinion that Palestinians are occupying Palestine, but I've already provided evidence showing that there is a specific military definition used in these circumstances that means Israel is the only occupier and therefore your opinion is irrelevant and can be ignored.

occupy - to reside in as an owner or tenant
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occupy

Surely, Palestinians occupy Israel.  

When someone says they're financially liquid, do you think that means that all their money is in the form of a liquid like a pool of molten gold?

No, of course it doesn't and it would be ridiculous to try and claim that must be what they meant. Regardless of what one common usage of the word may be; if that meaning makes no sense in the context, you've been  specifically told you that's not the meaning being used by the person you're trying to contradict and all the available evidence shows that is not the meaning being talked about then you're simply making ridiculous semantic arguments that show you don't even comprehend the argument being made.

Hell, at this stage I'm not even sure if you comprehend how words work. Look at your link. Note how there are multiple definitions because even in common usage - putting aside specific military law jargon - the word can mean different things. For instance you went with the fourth definition - by the third definition Israel occupies the oPT and the Palestinians do not as Israel holds overall control.

I would argue that your thinking here is invalid.  Here is an example where I believe you are right, and the thing represented by the word actually does exist, and the definition that defines it is valid and true.
God is defined as "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=run2WuT8FoGG5wLFi5noAQ&q=God+def&oq=God+def&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67k1j0l9.1811.2922.0.3120.9.8.0.0.0.0.82.517.7.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.8.589.6..35i39k1j0i131k1j0i131i67k1j0i131i20i263k1j0i20i264k1j0i46i67k1j46i67k1j0i10k1.73.6TrtQoP9Ub8

But unicorns do not exist.  Do they?  Yet they are defined.  How can we know for sure that your military definition of "occupation" is valid and true?  I for one do not accept your definition.  I do not intend to, until I am convinced that I should.

You seem to get confused and start contradicting yourself. You try and make the point that definitions can exist but the thing it defines can still be imaginary - e.g. we can accept a definition of unicorn but agree that unicorns don't exist. Ergo it seems the argument should be "Okay, the military definition of occupation is as you laid out, but does Israel meet that definition". However instead you say you reject the definition of occupation in the military sense itself.

Do you mean you reject the definition of occupation (in the military sense) being applied to Israel? If not and you actually are trying to reject the definition, that's just a semantic argument and therefore meaningless anyway.

EmeryPearson

I lean Israel. Their annexation of lands coincide with defensive victories. I don't fault them for gaining from defensive wars. I do not however support the additional annexation of lands, and they should strive to reduce violence.

Ampersand

EmeryPearson said:

I lean Israel. Their annexation of lands coincide with defensive victories. I don't fault them for gaining from defensive wars. I do not however support the additional annexation of lands, and they should strive to reduce violence.

That's incorrect even on a basic historical level before we get into morality or legality of annexing land (spoiler alert: it is never allowable to annex land by force).

Israel took control of Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Sinai Desert and the Golan Heights in the Six Day War. The Six Day War kicked off with Israel attacking Egypt. Although at the time they both initially claimed they attacked the other with an air raid, Israel's claims turned out to be false - in fact the only Egyptian planes in the air at the time was a small unarmed training mission and investigations and admissions eventually revealed israel had attacked first in a massive unprovoked bombing run followed by ground assault that did a great deal of damage to Egypt from the very start.

Afterwards Israel changed its story to admitting it attacked first but calling it a pre-emptive attack which is unmerited and didn't match with the evidence even at the time. The USA, then as now Israel's closest ally, had been given all the Israeli intelligence and even when taking all Israeli assumptions for granted there was still no way that Egypt could be considered in a state where it was going to attack Israel - all it's armies were in a defensive posture expecting an Israeli attack (which shortly appeared).

Israel was the aggressor and took the land by force, they were not the defender. It wasn't even the first time they'd tried it, in the Sinai War several years before Israel had invaded Egypt then with the aim of taking over the Sinai but were forced to back down when the USA and Soviet Union came together to castigate Israel for its unwarranted warmongering.

if you like I can provide sources but most of this can be found with a quick google/wiki.

I'd also note that Israel has only annexed East Jerusalem - with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan heights they're enacting a slow policy of ethnic cleansing instead.

Now going back to annexation, this is universally agreed as incredibly wrong. Everyone has the basic human right to self-determination - they cannot be controlled and subsumed by force of arms and to do so is a war crime - not something where you can say "oh no, i should get to commit this war crime because of X, Y and Z" there is simply no reason for taking another land - another people - and calling it your own. Not only is this something that is laid down in a mass of different IML but is something that pretty much every nation on Earth - including Israel - has agreed to, being a condition of the UN charter. Would you like it if your country lost a war and another country claimed your region as it's own? Of course not. protecting civilians from abuse, oppression and atrocities is one of the key rationales of intentional military law and is founded in a basic moral respect for other people rather than being willing to carry out any atrocity against them simply because they come from another country or look different or speak another language..

EmeryPearson

"That's incorrect even on a basic historical level before we get into morality or legality of annexing land (spoiler alert: it is never allowable to annex land by force)."

I simply do not share your morals. Annexation through defensive conflict is morally just as far as I am concerned, force or otherwise.



"The Six Day War kicked off with Israel attacking Egypt"

Egypt made the first move during the Six-Day-War. With the closure of the of the Straits of Tiran (International Waters) to Israel, and the direction of military forces to Sinai.

"Afterwards Israel changed its story to admitting it attacked first but calling it a pre-emptive attack which is unmerited and didn't match with the evidence even at the time."

Israel warned Egypt prior to the conflict that the closure of international waters would be perceived as an attack. Egypt was already aware they were declaring war.

"all it's armies were in a defensive posture expecting an Israeli attack "

Egypt expelled the UN peacekeeping forces and mobilized it's military into Sinai in support of Syria and Jordan to coincide with the blockade of the Straits of Tiran. This is not defensive.

"Israel was the aggressor and took the land by force, they were not the defender. "

I do not share this perspective, based on the facts above. Egypt was the aggressor.

"I'd also note that Israel has only annexed East Jerusalem - with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan heights they're enacting a slow policy of ethnic cleansing instead."

There is no evidence of 'ethnic' cleansing. No source.

"Now going back to annexation, this is universally agreed as incredibly wrong."

Unsourced, personal opinion. Don't want to have land annexed? Don't blockade international waters, and don't support those who do.


https://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War



I reiterate, as israel was in a defensive war, I do not fault them for the annexation of land.

Ampersand

I simply do not share your morals. Annexation through defensive conflict is morally just as far as I am concerned, force or otherwise.

As explained my morals match contemporary law and morality and are accepted by every nation on Earth - including Israel. Do you have any reason why your opinion should be considered valid?

Egypt made the first move during the Six-Day-War. With the closure of the of the Straits of Tiran (International Waters) to Israel, and the direction of military forces to Sinai.

Those actions didn't take place in the Six Day War, those happened days and weeks beforehand in the build up towards war.

Also the closing of the Straights of Tiran stopped a non-vital shipping route to Israel and the military forces were directed there to prepare for Israeli aggression.

In regards to military forces - it was moving military forces into defensive positions to prepare against an Israeli attack. Israel had of course been attacking neighbouring countries in raids to kill innocent civilians - for instance in November of the year prior an Israeli armoured brigade of nearly 4,000 men attacked the west bank town of Samu, methodically destroying 125 homes, a clinic, a school and a workshop. However beyond its usual raids and attacks on civilians and specially protected infrastructure (the attack certainly constituting a war crime) - Israel was also bellicose and threatening towards Syria to whom Egypt was in a military pact.

The movement of military forces into defensive positions was because Israel was threatening war. You can't threaten war and then act surprised when people think you may start a war and so prepare defences- especially when you've done so previously.

Israel warned Egypt prior to the conflict that the closure of international waters would be perceived as an attack. Egypt was already aware they were declaring war.

Saying that you will declare war over something does not de facto make that a valid reason to declare war, ergo your point doesn't matter. Not only that but Egypt didn't declare war - they put in place economic sanctions. Israel chose to declare war - two weeks later - lying that they had been attacked by Egyptian fighters.

The blocking of the straights of Tiran was an economic and legal matter. Pretty much everyone including legal professionals, the UN Secretary General and even the US admitted there was at the very least case for Egypt being perfectly within their rights to block the straight and Israel therefore having no basis for war. The US and Egypt were willing for this to be worked out normally, peaceful and legally - sending the matter to World Court arbitration. Instead Israel attacked - even though it had committed to the US not to do so and that Egypt was pursuing peaceful options which could have reopened the straight without any need for World Court arbitration. To quote Harvard law Professor Roger Fisher:

The United Arab Republic has a good legal care for restricting traffic through the Straight of Tiran. Firstly, it is debatable whether international law confers any right of innocent passage through such a waterway. Despite an Israeli request, the International Law Commission in 1956 found no rule which would govern the Straight of Tiran. Although the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea does provide for innocent passage through such straights, the United States Representative, Arthur Dean, called this 'a new rule' and the U.A.R has not signed the treaty. There are, of course, good arguments on the Israeli's side too, and an impartial international court might well conclude that a right of innocent passage through the Straight of Tiran does exist.

But a right of innocent passage is not a right of free passage for any cargo at any time. In the words of the Convention on the Territorial Sea: ' Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state.'

In April Israel conducted a major retaliatory raid on Syria and threatened raids of still greater size. in this situation was Egypt required by international law to continue to allow Israel to bring in oil and strategic supplies through Egyptian territory - supplies which Israel could use to conduct further military raids? That was the critical question of law.

He concludes that:

...taking the facts as they were, I, as an international lawyer, would rather defend before the International Court of Justice the legality of the U.A.R's action in closing the Straight of Tiran than to argue the other side of the case, and I would certainly rather do so than to defend the legality of the preventative war which Israel launched.

Egypt expelled the UN peacekeeping forces and mobilized it's military into Sinai in support of Syria and Jordan to coincide with the blockade of the Straits of Tiran. This is not defensive.

Israel was threatening war on another country - a country in a military pact with Egypt that meant Israel was de-facto declaring war on it. It mobilised them in defensive formations - as US intelligence fully states even when they use Israel's own intellgence info. Stopping trade to a country threatening war is allowed - and if it isn't that's a matter for the courts. Readyign your army if you think you could be attacked is common sense.

Also it's worth noting that although Nassar needed to remove the UN peacekeepers to deploy his troops, he didn't want to remove them entirely but only from a small section of the line (U Thant gave him no choice, it was all or nothing). Hell, even prominent Israeeli Generals/Politicians have admitted the move wasn't aggressive. Rabin stated that he didn't believe Nassar wanted war and that 'The two decisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive. He knew it and we knew it.' Menachem Begin admitted 'The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser war really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him'. 

You literally have a Prime Minister of Israel directly stating that they decided to attack Egypt and not vice versa, you can't really get more clear cut than that!

I do not share this perspective, based on the facts above. Egypt was the aggressor.

They aren't really facts though. Also it's telling how you will claim things Egypt exercising its legal rights as an aggressive act, but things like Israel actually launching attacks somehow escapes your notice as an aggressive act.

There is no evidence of 'ethnic' cleansing. No source.

Do you understanding what ethnic cleansing is? Are you aware of Israel's actions, from the initial civil war where there are documented military orders to today where Palestinians are slowly being pushed back from their land while Jewish Israeli settlers take their land?

If yes to the above, I don't see what the issue is. if no I can educate you on the requisite bit. For sources I'd recommend Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman Finkelstein. Ironically the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine is okay but not great if you're not reading it critically and knowing what Ilan Pappe's writing is like. 

Unsourced, personal opinion. Don't want to have land annexed? Don't blockade international waters, and don't support those who do.

Outright lie supported by a misquote. I reference sources - the UN charter for instance as well as IML.

I reiterate, as israel was in a defensive war, I do not fault them for the annexation of land.

And you don't know the details of the war, don't seem to be able to form a cogent argument and cannot give a reason for why you not faulting them matters or on what basis you form that argument.

CYDdharta

The question isn't Israel or Palestine, it's Israel or Iranian terrorists.

theo11

It's understandable that nobody is proud of the violence that we've seen on the border between Gaza and Israel within the last couple of days but we need a reality check on what information the media has been feeding the public and the way that they've been spinning the story to make it appear as if violent demonstrations by Hamas, a terrorist group, are peaceful demonstrations that have been violently disrupted by Israeli forces. This is what the American mainstream media has been claiming, but it simply isn't true and it makes the media look like the propaganda wing of Hamas, which is just embarrassing. 

What the media claims is happening is that Palestinians are rightfully protesting the movement of the US embassy into Jerusalem. What is actually happening is that Hamas is encouraging violent riots on the border between Gaza and Israel and is encouraging its members to try to bust their way into Israel so that they can go slaughter Jews. This is not an exaggeration on my part. In multiple interviews over the last couple of days with some of the rioters, the rioters have outright stated that they want to kill Jews. Leaders of Hamas have said similar things within the last few days as well. The rioters at the border are not moderate protesters who want to peacefully coexist with Israel. Instead, they are extremists who want to wipe Israel off of the map. A senior Hamas official recently stated that fifty of the people killed in Gaza were members of their organization, which is a terrorist organization. 

I support a two state solution, but not one in which Hamas is in power. Palestinians under Hamas and their supporters from the western world ignore the basic truths about Israel. Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign nation and as a Jewish state. Its creation followed the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust and was made with the intention of avoiding such murderous discrimination against the Jews ever again. Palestine, in its radical state, does not adhere the principles that precipitated the founding of Israel. Yes, Israel has grabbed land before, but that was to serve as a buffer for the several Arabic nations that would like to expel the state of Israel from the Middle East. Could you blame them for preemptive attacks against nations that take such harsh rhetoric against them and make it clear in no uncertain terms, that they do not recognize their existence. In many of those cases, Israel even gave up their claims to that land. They've offered up East Jerusalem before, but Palestine wouldn't take it, because Palestine wants all of Israel under Arabic control to expel the Jews. 

The Palestinian Authority and Hamas are not moderates who are trying to protect their nation. They are radicals who want to wipe out Israel, which is a valuable American ally who we must protect. We must accept the truth that Israel has the right to exist without constant threat from Arabs and the truth that Jerusalem is its rightful capital.

Ampersand

@theo11

This is rather bizarre. You seem to be claiming the ability to read the mind of tens of thousands of protesters and rather than them being aggrieved and protesting about the US's de facto support for Israel's continued occupation, war crime and human rights abuses - they are instead all part of a sinister cabal that cares nothing but for killing Israelis. Ironically that's exactly the kind of claim that anti-semites tend to throw around against Jews - that they're all part of a sinister Cabal (ala the Elder Protocols of Zion) and delight in hurting others (Blood Libel). Why do you think these atrocious, specious and completely baseless claims should be acceptable when they wouldn't be if the ball was on the other foot?

The people were protesting at a border. They were not invading Israel and about to put hundreds of people to death. Even if this racist caricature of them all being hateful murderers were true, they were in no position to do anythign about it. Meanwhile the Israelis decided to fire on innocent civilians. Your idea of them trying to invade Israel to kill people is counterfactual - it has never happened.

Independent analysis from heavily respected human rights organisations states that:

"This is another horrific example of the Israeli military using excessive force and live ammunition in a totally deplorable way. This is a violation of international standards, in some instances committing what appear to be wilful killings constituting war crimes." - Amnesty International

B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation, has even written an in depth position paper on the protests and states: "Israel is treating the protest in Gaza as it has handled similar events in the past: Broad, unlawful use of lethal force at a heavy price to lives, baseless legal interpretations issued to justify this policy, and whitewashing the crimes within days."

Israel is literally going through the process of wiping out the Palestinians and has been for years, a slow but steady ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population. 

You haven't really supported anything to back up your claims. You talk about videos but don't provide any, you make claims about Israel's right to protect itself but don't seem concerned about the rights of any non-Israelies and you're incorrect about basic information - the Palestinian Authority represents the moderates (Fatah) who have been working with Israel for decades now, they're not radicals and if anything are collaborationists who should take a more hostile approach towards Israel.

theo11

DON'T ACCUSE ME OF BEING A RACIST! THAT SHOWS YOU CAN'T MAKE A SOLID ARGUMENT AND JUST THROW OUT INSULTS AT THOSE YOU DISAGREE WITH! I DO NOT HATE ALL PALESTINIANS OR ALL ARABS! 

First off, I am not claiming to be able to read the minds of the demonstrators. The fact is that these are not peaceful protests, they are riots, and the fact that you think otherwise show that you are buying the logical fallacies that the mainstream media has been spreading. You've probably seen the images of Palestinians under attack, but you haven't seen the images of Hamas operatives setting fires, burning tires and rolling them toward the border, or throwing grenades and other explosives at the border. I am not making these things up, they are happening. Hamas has made it clear in no uncertain terms that they wish for the destruction of Israel. You've ignored the countless things that Hamas leaders have said, and in doing so, you have claimed that the terrorist group in charge of Palestine is actually a group of innocent people who just want to coexist. Coexistence must be what Hamas was asking for when one of their leaders said of Jews, "We will tear their hearts out of their bodies," after they somehow got through the border. That sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? That's because Hamas intends to destroy Israel. They know that they can't defeat Israel in a military conflict, so what they are doing is putting themselves in circumstances in which they will be fired upon by Israeli security, knowing that the western media in Europe and the United States will attempt to spin the story to inspire sympathy for Palestine and opposition to Israel. If there is no longer popular support in the west for Israel's sovereignty, then they won't last long in a region in which they are surrounded by Arabs who oppose Israel's basic existence as they have since its founding in 1948. 

Do not put my opposition to the Palestinian protests on the same low level as European anti-Semitism in the 1930s or as Middle Eastern anti-Semitism in present day. I don't hate Arabs or have anything against their existence in the Middle East. I simply can't sympathize with Hamas operatives rioting against Israel's sovereignty. Look at Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Lebanon. They aren't overwhelmingly protesting Israel. Opposition to Jerusalem being Israel's capital is not the widespread belief of moderate Muslims, but rather a conceited effort by extremists in Iran and Palestine to undermine Israel's sovereignty. 

You claim this was a peaceful protest, but that is ignorant. Hamas encouraged rioters to get closer and closer to the border. Again, the set tires on fire and roll them at the border. They throw grenades at the border. Hamas wants the protesters to push through. You've ignored the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization, that Hamas organized these riots, that Hamas has a history of media manipulation, and that Hamas had made hateful and inflammatory comments against Jews, calling for violence regularly. These so called moderates were chanting during the riots, "Death to America, death to Zionists". Their leaders have admitted to most of these claims, because again, they make it no secret that they hate Israel. 

I don't think all Palestinians are evil and I don't think that all of them want to kill Jews. I imagine that most of the people living in Palestine are good people who want to get along with the Israeli people. Unfortunately, Hamas had a lot of power and control and runs a radical anti-Israel agenda that contradicts the wishes of the Palestinian people. Those good people is Palestine I spoke of, however, were not the ones rioting at the border. Those were people organized by Hamas or used as human shields by Hamas. It is a widely accepted fact that Hamas does things like keeping its base under hospitals or hiding weapons in the homes of civilians so that when Israel strikes against Hamas, it seems like they are imperialists who are just targeting innocent people. It is depicted as if the innocent people who die in Palestine are victims of Israel while they are really victims of Hamas. 

You seem to care none about Israel's sovereignty. Israel was founded as a place to protect Jews in response to the horrible Holocaust that had happened in Europe. The world soon found out that the Arab world was not willing to coexist with the Jews. From the moment that Israel was established, the Arab world had fought against it. Fortunately, some change has occurred and some Arabic nations are now even aligning themselves with Israel to oppose Iran, but Palestine has not made this change yet and likely will not make this change in the foreseeable future. I recognize the right of Palestine to exist as a nation next to Israel, but they do not have the right to have Hamas operatives encroach upon Israel's borders. A two state solution can only be achieved once Hamas is out of the picture. 

Also, either you don't understand what ethnic cleansing means or you are out of your mind. Ethnic cleansing is basically a nicer way of saying genocide. To suggest that Israel is committing a genocide of the Arabs is completely egregious. They have indicated that they want to negotiate, but only with moderates. They don't negotiate with terrorists and I don't blame them. On the other hand, I do blame the media for buying into the manipulation and propaganda put forward by Hamas. This threatens Israel as well as Jews everywhere. 

CYDdharta

Ampersand said:

@theo11

This is rather bizarre. You seem to be claiming the ability to read the mind of tens of thousands of protesters and rather than them being aggrieved and protesting about the US's de facto support for Israel's continued occupation, war crime and human rights abuses - they are instead all part of a sinister cabal that cares nothing but for killing Israelis. Ironically that's exactly the kind of claim that anti-semites tend to throw around against Jews - that they're all part of a sinister Cabal (ala the Elder Protocols of Zion) and delight in hurting others (Blood Libel). Why do you think these atrocious, specious and completely baseless claims should be acceptable when they wouldn't be if the ball was on the other foot?

The protesters were/are a rent-a-mob.  They're just doing what they are being paid to do.

Thousands of Gaza Hamas Thugs Attack Israel for $100 a Day

theo11

An example of media manipulation by Hamas:


An example of people being encouraged to attack Israel and an example of the UN being one-sided on this issue:


Even Egypt, who Israel attacked in 1967, recognizes that Hamas is inciting violent riots:


An example of how Hamas is doing this all for the cameras:


50 of the Palestinians killed in border clashes were members of terrorist group Hamas and were not innocent civilians:

mosc

@theo11Occupation ...... war crimes.  Bunk.  Name a single Arab that referred to himself as a palestinian during the British mandate and you have found an Arab who supported and agrees upon the Balfour Declarations and Jews equal rights to self determination.  Fool

mosc

I too favor the expulsion of Arab stateless refugees, based upon the model of the German mass expulsions from Poland and the Czech Republic following WW2@Ampersand

mosc

Have you ever stepped foot in the Middle East?  Your writings - emotional propaganda rhetoric based upon what real first hand evidence?  Zip.  So zip it up.  fool.@Ampersand

MayCaesar

These protests really show what people there are like. I am sorry, but if you decide to throw Molotov's at the professional military just because a sovereign state negotiated with another sovereign state over the embassy relocation, then your decision perfectly explains why your land is in the state it is. Constantly looking for someone else to blame and resorting to violence over the most minor events hundreds kilometers away from where you live, instead of stopping and asking yourself, "What can WE do to improve the situation on our end?" - results in Gaza, North Korea, Zimbabwe and so on.

Meanwhile, some of the other Middle Eastern states found ways to improve their situation by attracting foreign investments and creating favorable conditions for businesses to thrive. Instead of constantly demonstrating against Israel, states such as UAE or Qatar feature Western quality of life (if not Western human rights freedoms), and even Saudi Arabia is getting somewhere. Gaza could do just as well, if not better, considering its geographical position. Alas, instead of holding a hammer or a pen, they prefer holding a rock or a Molotov.

Ampersand

@theo11

DON'T ACCUSE ME OF BEING A RACIST! THAT SHOWS YOU CAN'T MAKE A SOLID ARGUMENT AND JUST THROW OUT INSULTS AT THOSE YOU DISAGREE WITH! I DO NOT HATE ALL PALESTINIANS OR ALL ARABS! 

Simply saying you are not racist is not a rational or logical argument that you are not racist.

If you wish to show you were not racist you would have to actually counter my evidenced and reasoned argument. Also you'll note that I stated your caricature of them was racist, now that you yourself were. I accept that people can sometimes say things which are racist, sexist, etc without thinking about it or realising. If you want to defend your argument using evidence and perhaps show me something that I haven't realised about the protests feel free. If you want to walk back your claims as you're unable to support any of them with evidence that's even better. Don't just say you're right though - that's meaningless in a debate.

First off, I am not claiming to be able to read the minds of the demonstrators.

Incorrect. You have labelled all protesters as rioters and stated "The rioters at the border are not moderate protesters who want to peacefully coexist with Israel. Instead, they are extremists who want to wipe Israel off of the map." You are accusing tens of thousand of protestors - the vast majority of whom engaged in no violence whatsoever - of secretly wanting to destroy Israel. You've plucked this imaginary revelation from thin air.

The fact is that these are not peaceful protests, they are riots, and the fact that you think otherwise show that you are buying the logical fallacies that the mainstream media has been spreading. 

Baseless claim with no evidence. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. You need to back your claims up with evidence - that's how debates work.

Now imagine I make the above comment twenty more times about every single statement you make as you fail to offer even a single iota of proof in your entire post. I'll just respond in more depth to a few of the highlights below.

Hamas has made it clear in no uncertain terms that they wish for the destruction of Israel. You've ignored the countless things that Hamas leaders have said, and in doing so, you have claimed that the terrorist group in charge of Palestine is actually a group of innocent people who just want to coexist. 

Actually it is in very uncertain terms. Hamas has stated previously that if Israel offered peace and the palestinian people agreed to it in a referendum they would accept the peace.Of course Israel has never offered peace.

Now Hamas isn't exactly a harmonious organisation and there will be hardliners and moderates just like in any political party, but the possibility is there and Israel have never taken it up. There have actually been truces and ceasefires (although not outright peace) in the past and notably Israel has broken the most major one I can think of which was in 2008 and kicked off started the 2008 Gaza War. Also of note is Hamas offering a ceasefire a week or so back.

Coexistence must be what Hamas was asking for when one of their leaders said of Jews, "We will tear their hearts out of their bodies," after they somehow got through the border

Great random claim with no evidence. I just googled it and the only place that phrase shows up on the entire internet is this thread. 

They know that they can't defeat Israel in a military conflict, so what they are doing is putting themselves in circumstances in which they will be fired upon by Israeli security, knowing that the western media in Europe and the United States will attempt to spin the story to inspire sympathy for Palestine and opposition to Israel.

What sort of excuse is that? The thing Israel needs to do if it wants people to stop getting angry at it for committing war crimes is to stop committing war crimes. Saying "But it was really easy to commit these war crimes, I just couldn't resist" which is what your argument seems to boil down to and is laughable!

Do not put my opposition to the Palestinian protests on the same low level as European anti-Semitism in the 1930s or as Middle Eastern anti-Semitism in present day. I don't hate Arabs or have anything against their existence in the Middle East. I simply can't sympathize with Hamas operatives rioting against Israel's sovereignty. Look at Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Lebanon. They aren't overwhelmingly protesting Israel.

...do you even understand that Palestine has been under military occupation by Israel for decades?

Opposition to Jerusalem being Israel's capital is not the widespread belief of moderate Muslims, but rather a conceited effort by extremists in Iran and Palestine to undermine Israel's sovereignty. 

Don't assume that people are as biased as you. The international consensus of people as a whole - not just Muslims - is that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital. It is honestly one of the single most accepted facts in all of international politics that Israel has no right to claim Jerusalem as its capital because it includes land that doesn't belong to it and its status must be decided as part of a final settlement. Literally every year the Un General Assembly will pass a resolution affirming this decision which passes with a massive majority. Here's the one from last year. Those are general assembly resolutions but of note is UN Security Council resolution 478 which specifically states that Israel's deceleration of Jerusalem as its capital (which it instituted with its "basic law") is invalid due to violating international law and that Israel cannot alter the status of Jerusalem.

I'm guessing you are American because the USA is pretty much the only country aside from Israel itself which has this weird blinded approach to Israel. When it comes to this - you're the extremist who is supporting war crimes. I mean that literally. Your position is extreme compared to the norm and as explained in my links, Israel trying to claim Jerusalem as its capital violates the Geneva Convention which is a list of war crimes. Are you comfortable being a war crime apologist?

Again, the set tires on fire and roll them at the border

This is is one of the only one of your claims that is actually accurate - though of course it misses the point. They light tyres on fire to try and make it smoky so snipers can't shoot them. "Those damn pesky Palestinians trying not to be shot, better massacre them!" seems to be your unwitting reasoning here.

Those good people is Palestine I spoke of, however, were not the ones rioting at the border.

Another pile of absolute rubbish from you - a random claim with no evidence to back it up. How about we try this - rather then treating them as some faceless murderous horde - how about you show me how Rajjan Al-Najjar  for instance was a evil murderous Hamas operative. Or how about unarmed men walking near the fence getting shot for no reason?

Those good people is Palestine I spoke of, however, were not the ones rioting at the border.

Those were people organized by Hamas or used as human shields by Hamas.

Actually Israel is the only side in the conflict which has been shown to use human shields.

 It is a widely accepted fact that Hamas does things like keeping its base under hospitals or hiding weapons in the homes of civilians so that when Israel strikes against Hamas, it seems like they are imperialists who are just targeting innocent people.

First of all , again, lol, thanks for your unevidenced claim that is contrary to reality. But the thing I wanted to pick up on - are you advocating or trying to excuse bombing hospitals if there are weapons being stored beneath them? Which - you know - would be a war crime?

You seem to care none about Israel's sovereignty.

Israel's sovereignty does not allow it to commit war crimes.

 The world soon found out that the Arab world was not willing to coexist with the Jews.

Actually the opposite seeing as some of the neighbouring arab nations only attacked in response to Israel ethnically cleansing Arabs and declaring itself a Jewish state.

Also, either you don't understand what ethnic cleansing means or you are out of your mind. Ethnic cleansing is basically a nicer way of saying genocide. To suggest that Israel is committing a genocide of the Arabs is completely egregious. They have indicated that they want to negotiate, but only with moderates. They don't negotiate with terrorists and I don't blame them. On the other hand, I do blame the media for buying into the manipulation and propaganda put forward by Hamas. This threatens Israel as well as Jews everywhere. 

Wrong. You can literally just wiki an explanation in 5 seconds that would have saved you from making this obviously wrong claim. Genocide is simply the most extreme form of the variety of humans rights abuses that collectively embody ethnic cleansing.

I'd also say that according to the maximalist definitions of genocide you can argue that Israel is committing genocide but i find that muddies the waters because the clear and definite war crimes it is committing are more than enough.

Ampersand

theo11 said:

An example of media manipulation by Hamas:


An example of people being encouraged to attack Israel and an example of the UN being one-sided on this issue:


Even Egypt, who Israel attacked in 1967, recognizes that Hamas is inciting violent riots:


An example of how Hamas is doing this all for the cameras:


50 of the Palestinians killed in border clashes were members of terrorist group Hamas and were not innocent civilians:

Thanks for your links to a weird website which I've never heard of but which "has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified" and repost stuff from far-right anti-muslim websites and despite that it STILL doesn't actually even go as far as all the crazy claims you made on your last post. If this was an attempt to provide support for your post, I can't see any connection between your extreme claims and their wrong but less extreme claims. 

If I take the time to rebutt these because they're all pretty poor stuff, will you actually be engaged with the topic rather than just flinging poor links at me and assuming they prove your point for you?

I'll give you an example of what I would expect in terms of quality posting. Let's say you didn't realise that Israel used Palestinian children as human shields and wanted me to back it up I could reference The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child which states

UNCRC:
The committee expresses deep concern about the continuous use of Palestinian children as human shields and informants (14 such cases having been reported from January 2010 to 31 March 2013 only) and about the failure of the State party to comply with the rulings of the High Court of Justice in Adalah et al. v. Commander of the Central Region et al. (HCJ 3799/01, Judgement of 23 June 2005) as recommended by the Committee in 2010 (CRC/OPAC/ISR/CO/1, para 25) in this respect. The Committee notes with deep concern that:

a) The State party's soldiers have used Palestinian children to enter potentially dangerous buildings ahead of them and stand in front of military vehicles in order to stop the throwing of stones against those vehicles as observed by the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Prootextion of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism (A/HRC/6/17/Add.4, para.48);b) Almost all those using children as human shields and informants have remained unpunished and that the soldiers convicted for having forced at gunpoint a nine-year old child to search bags suspected of containing explosives only received a suspended sentence of three months and were demoted.72. The Committee urges the State party to immediately abide by the High Court 
of Justice in Adalah et al. v. Commander of the Central Region et al., to take active 
measures to prevent the use of children as human shields and informants, effectively
enforce the prohibition to use of children as human shields and informants and ensure 
that perpetrators are brought to justice and punished with sanctions commensurate 
with the gravity of their crimes.

I could then look up some of the NGO human rights organisations that gave evidence, such as Defence for Children Internationalwhich says:

Defence for Children International:
Defence for Children International
2.48 Since April 2004, DCI and other human rights organisations, have documented 19 cases
of Palestinian children used as human shields by the Israeli army. In 18 out of the 19 
cases (95 percent), the event occurred after October 2005, when the Israeli High Court of 
Justice ruled the practice illegal under its domestic law.99 This suggests that the Israeli 
army is not effectively implementing the Court's decision, or is simply disregarding the 
order altogether.

2.49 Evidence in support of the conclusion that the Israeli army is disregarding the Court‟s 
order can also be found in the testimonies collected by the Israeli organisation Breaking 
the Silence, from soldiers who served in Gaza in 2008 during "Operation Cast Lead".
100

And you can even look up and follow their evidence, such as from NGO Breaking The Silence which allows IDF soldiers to give statements about Israeli army conduct without fear of reprisals and where soldiers have directly admitted they took human shields under orders from commanders.

Of course there isn't much to dispute as much of this is a matter of public record backed up by NGOs beyond the ones I just cited and I already provided a UN study showing this is the case.

That is a quality response showing my points are backed up by a wide range of expert organisations specialising in human rights, not a load of random articles from a racist fake news website.

Ampersand

mosc said:

I too favor the expulsion of Arab stateless refugees, based upon the model of the German mass expulsions from Poland and the Czech Republic following WW2@Ampersand

In that analogy the Israelis would be the Germany who needed to be returned to Germany.

The Germans were settlers who had moved onto foreign soil supported by their military's force of arms, displacing the inhabitants who lived there.

The Israelis in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are settlers who have moved onto foreign soil supported by their military's form of arms, displacing the inhabitants who lived there.

Ampersand

MayCaesar said:

These protests really show what people there are like. I am sorry, but if you decide to throw Molotov's at the professional military just because a sovereign state negotiated with another sovereign state over the embassy relocation, then your decision perfectly explains why your land is in the state it is. Constantly looking for someone else to blame and resorting to violence over the most minor events hundreds kilometers away from where you live, instead of stopping and asking yourself, "What can WE do to improve the situation on our end?" - results in Gaza, North Korea, Zimbabwe and so on.

Meanwhile, some of the other Middle Eastern states found ways to improve their situation by attracting foreign investments and creating favorable conditions for businesses to thrive. Instead of constantly demonstrating against Israel, states such as UAE or Qatar feature Western quality of life (if not Western human rights freedoms), and even Saudi Arabia is getting somewhere. Gaza could do just as well, if not better, considering its geographical position. Alas, instead of holding a hammer or a pen, they prefer holding a rock or a Molotov.

You seem to have pretty much every part of this post incorrect and backwards. From basic chronology (Israel has been occupying the Palestinian Territories for 50 years before the protests) to levels of severity (Murdering civilians, torture, military occupation, etc are far worse than molotovs that don't actually hurt or hit anyone) you're wrong on pretty much every count.

You seem to be trying to excuse war crimes based on rationales you are imagining without knowing anything about the. I mean Palestine is literally occupied. Gaza is under blockade. Israel even restricts basing building materials. The idea they could become an international powerhouse like one of the oil rich and notably non-military occupied countries Arab like Saudi Arabia is absurd even on face value.

brontoraptor

@Fascism

I actually don't think most Palestinians want a big hoopla with Israel. Hamas pretending to be Palestinians wants a big hoopla with Israel. 

Do civilians hurl rockets into Israel? No. Iranian backed Hamas hurls rockets into Israel.

No sane country would allow rockets to be hurled at it without retribution and negative reinforcement.

Sonofason

Ampersand said:

Sonofason said:

Ampersand said:

@Sonofason

This is a debate forum, opinions by themselves are worthless - hence why I back mine up with facts and evidence and why yours are worthless due to a lack of facts and evidence.

E.g. you merely had the opinion that "There are no spelling errors, nor grammatical errors whatsoever in the paragraph where I criticized your apparent lack of self respect" while I actually provided evidence to show the opposite is true. Or how you have the opinion that Palestinians are occupying Palestine, but I've already provided evidence showing that there is a specific military definition used in these circumstances that means Israel is the only occupier and therefore your opinion is irrelevant and can be ignored.

occupy - to reside in as an owner or tenant
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occupy

Surely, Palestinians occupy Israel.  

When someone says they're financially liquid, do you think that means that all their money is in the form of a liquid like a pool of molten gold?

No, of course it doesn't and it would be ridiculous to try and claim that must be what they meant. Regardless of what one common usage of the word may be; if that meaning makes no sense in the context, you've been  specifically told you that's not the meaning being used by the person you're trying to contradict and all the available evidence shows that is not the meaning being talked about then you're simply making ridiculous semantic arguments that show you don't even comprehend the argument being made.

Hell, at this stage I'm not even sure if you comprehend how words work. Look at your link. Note how there are multiple definitions because even in common usage - putting aside specific military law jargon - the word can mean different things. For instance you went with the fourth definition - by the third definition Israel occupies the oPT and the Palestinians do not as Israel holds overall control.

I would argue that your thinking here is invalid.  Here is an example where I believe you are right, and the thing represented by the word actually does exist, and the definition that defines it is valid and true.
God is defined as "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=run2WuT8FoGG5wLFi5noAQ&q=God+def&oq=God+def&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67k1j0l9.1811.2922.0.3120.9.8.0.0.0.0.82.517.7.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.8.589.6..35i39k1j0i131k1j0i131i67k1j0i131i20i263k1j0i20i264k1j0i46i67k1j46i67k1j0i10k1.73.6TrtQoP9Ub8

But unicorns do not exist.  Do they?  Yet they are defined.  How can we know for sure that your military definition of "occupation" is valid and true?  I for one do not accept your definition.  I do not intend to, until I am convinced that I should.

You seem to get confused and start contradicting yourself. You try and make the point that definitions can exist but the thing it defines can still be imaginary - e.g. we can accept a definition of unicorn but agree that unicorns don't exist. Ergo it seems the argument should be "Okay, the military definition of occupation is as you laid out, but does Israel meet that definition". However instead you say you reject the definition of occupation in the military sense itself.

Do you mean you reject the definition of occupation (in the military sense) being applied to Israel? If not and you actually are trying to reject the definition, that's just a semantic argument and therefore meaningless anyway.

Yes...in my opinion the land belongs to Israel.  It is my opinion that the Palestinians, due to their aggressive rhetoric and actions against the nation of Israel have forfeited their right to dwell in that land.  The land belongs to Israel now...and it always will.