Israel or Palestine?

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

@SuzyCreamcheese ;

Do you think Hitler was justified in killing the Jews? By your logic, they weren't accomplishing anything once they were in the concentration camps so it was perfectly justified to commit genocide against them (genocide being a form of ethnic cleansing).

I presume the answer is no, although we do have some Hitler supporters on this forum including a moderator so I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was a yes. However if the answer is no - why is it no? By the same logic you apply to supporting ethnic cleansing against Palestinians, you should apply to Jews who were in the concentration camp; unless this is actually just an arbitrary excuse you are using to support ethnic cleansing against a race/religion./ethnic group you don't like.

I do not know of any Hitler supporters her in moderation or otherwise.

Ampersand

Sonofason said:

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.

So we've returned to the starting position of you supporting war crimes for no particular reason other than you say so.

Putting your blatant disregard for international law aside for a moment, your argument is even then still nonsense. What metric are you using the "aggressive rhetoric and actions" committed against Israel? Number of actions? Number of deaths? Variety of war crimes? People effected. Come on, tell me how you've come to this conclusion because basically every metric is one where I can very easily show Israel is far worse than Palestine. Now personally with my commitment to human rights I don't think that makes a massive difference because there is no excuse for committing war crimes and human rights abuses, but by your logic it would surely mean you should be supporting Palestine.

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

@SuzyCreamcheese ;

Do you think Hitler was justified in killing the Jews? By your logic, they weren't accomplishing anything once they were in the concentration camps so it was perfectly justified to commit genocide against them (genocide being a form of ethnic cleansing).

I presume the answer is no, although we do have some Hitler supporters on this forum including a moderator so I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was a yes. However if the answer is no - why is it no? By the same logic you apply to supporting ethnic cleansing against Palestinians, you should apply to Jews who were in the concentration camp; unless this is actually just an arbitrary excuse you are using to support ethnic cleansing against a race/religion./ethnic group you don't like.

I do not know of any Hitler supporters her in moderation or otherwise.

You have stated the Holocaust is fake and called it the "holohoax" and made the claim that Hitler was trying to help the Jews by keeping them fed and safe in concentration camps. you are a sickening racist.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Sonofason said:

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.

So we've returned to the starting position of you supporting war crimes for no particular reason other than you say so.

Putting your blatant disregard for international law aside for a moment, your argument is even then still nonsense. What metric are you using the "aggressive rhetoric and actions" committed against Israel? Number of actions? Number of deaths? Variety of war crimes? People effected. Come on, tell me how you've come to this conclusion because basically every metric is one where I can very easily show Israel is far worse than Palestine. Now personally with my commitment to human rights I don't think that makes a massive difference because there is no excuse for committing war crimes and human rights abuses, but by your logic it would surely mean you should be supporting Palestine.

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

@SuzyCreamcheese ;

Do you think Hitler was justified in killing the Jews? By your logic, they weren't accomplishing anything once they were in the concentration camps so it was perfectly justified to commit genocide against them (genocide being a form of ethnic cleansing).

I presume the answer is no, although we do have some Hitler supporters on this forum including a moderator so I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was a yes. However if the answer is no - why is it no? By the same logic you apply to supporting ethnic cleansing against Palestinians, you should apply to Jews who were in the concentration camp; unless this is actually just an arbitrary excuse you are using to support ethnic cleansing against a race/religion./ethnic group you don't like.

I do not know of any Hitler supporters her in moderation or otherwise.

You have stated the Holocaust is fake and called it the "holohoax" and made the claim that Hitler was trying to help the Jews by keeping them fed and safe in concentration camps. you are a sickening racist.

This is in partly a lie. I made no such claim. Hitler no doubt imprisoned thousands of prisoners of war. This is not "helping them" by any means, but it is a consequence of war. I'm merely questioning the official story, for which there is no evidence that 6 million Jews were gassed to death. I have nothing against the Jews as a people, and DO NOT support racism or Hitler (or at least the public's perceived opinion of him). 

Sonofason

@Ampersand

January 1

Around 9pm, two rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel. One fell short in Gaza, The other in an open area in the Eshkol Regional Council.

January 3

Between 2pm and 9pm, four rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel. They all both landed in open areas in the Eshkol Regional Council.

February 2

At exactly 12am, one rocket was fired from Gaza at Israel. The IDF did not confirm if it landed within Israeli territory.

Around 9pm, one rocket was fired from Gaza at Israel. It landed in an open area in the Eshkol Regional Council.

February 17

Around 9pm, Multiple rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel. One landed on a house in Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council.

February 18

Around 10pm, one rocket was fired from Gaza at Israel. It landed in an open area in the Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council.

May 29

On May 29, there were 70 rockets and mortars fired at Israel.

June 3

On June 3, 3 rockets were fired into southern Israel from Gaza the rockets were intercepted by Iron Dome.

June 18

On June 18, 3 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza.

June 20

On June 20, 45 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza.

June 27

On June 27, 13 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza. 3 were intercepted by Iron Dome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2018

If Israel turned Gaza into glass, it would be well deserved, and I'll be the first to admit I'm much in favor of that.  And looking forward to it.

Ampersand

Sonofason said:

@Ampersand

January 1

Around 9pm, two rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel. One fell short in Gaza, The other in an open area in the Eshkol Regional Council.

January 3

Between 2pm and 9pm, four rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel. They all both landed in open areas in the Eshkol Regional Council.

February 2

At exactly 12am, one rocket was fired from Gaza at Israel. The IDF did not confirm if it landed within Israeli territory.

Around 9pm, one rocket was fired from Gaza at Israel. It landed in an open area in the Eshkol Regional Council.

February 17

Around 9pm, Multiple rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel. One landed on a house in Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council.

February 18

Around 10pm, one rocket was fired from Gaza at Israel. It landed in an open area in the Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council.

May 29

On May 29, there were 70 rockets and mortars fired at Israel.

June 3

On June 3, 3 rockets were fired into southern Israel from Gaza the rockets were intercepted by Iron Dome.

June 18

On June 18, 3 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza.

June 20

On June 20, 45 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza.

June 27

On June 27, 13 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza. 3 were intercepted by Iron Dome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2018

If Israel turned Gaza into glass, it would be well deserved, and I'll be the first to admit I'm much in favor of that.  And looking forward to it.

Taken from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2018

Lets have a look at what the articles say about these: 

"No one has been reported wounded."

"causing no damage or injuries."

"no rocket impact site was found, and the IDF said it was possible the sirens had been a false alarm."

"struck an open area in the region, without causing injury or damage."

My favourite ones are the January 3rd one and the 29th of may one, both of which seem to be perfectly legitimate and legal attacks against an occupying force. The former was actually a mortar attack according to the article and was aimed at the border fence, the second did cause some injuries (the worst described as moderate) but only to IDF which are legitimate military targets.

In this same time Israel has been condemned across the world for causing over 10,000 casualties in its attacks on Palestinian civilians protesting against the occupation, carried on its intitutionalised torture of prisoners (who it can arrest without trial including children and continued their policy of ethnic cleansing of natives who aren't suitably Jewish. 

If you want to enter into a competition about which side does the worse stuff, you're going to lose if you think it's the Palestinians and you're so uneducated and intelligent that you can't even make solid arguments. I could make better arguments about the Palestinians being bad guys than you're doing. Hamas is an organisation that carries out legitimate and really awful acts; albeit not even half so much as Israel. Pointing out rocket attacks which harmed nobody and legitimate mortar attacks which are perfectly valid and show Hamas fighting according to international military law is laughable.Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Sonofason said:

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.

So we've returned to the starting position of you supporting war crimes for no particular reason other than you say so.

Putting your blatant disregard for international law aside for a moment, your argument is even then still nonsense. What metric are you using the "aggressive rhetoric and actions" committed against Israel? Number of actions? Number of deaths? Variety of war crimes? People effected. Come on, tell me how you've come to this conclusion because basically every metric is one where I can very easily show Israel is far worse than Palestine. Now personally with my commitment to human rights I don't think that makes a massive difference because there is no excuse for committing war crimes and human rights abuses, but by your logic it would surely mean you should be supporting Palestine.

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

@SuzyCreamcheese ;

Do you think Hitler was justified in killing the Jews? By your logic, they weren't accomplishing anything once they were in the concentration camps so it was perfectly justified to commit genocide against them (genocide being a form of ethnic cleansing).

I presume the answer is no, although we do have some Hitler supporters on this forum including a moderator so I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was a yes. However if the answer is no - why is it no? By the same logic you apply to supporting ethnic cleansing against Palestinians, you should apply to Jews who were in the concentration camp; unless this is actually just an arbitrary excuse you are using to support ethnic cleansing against a race/religion./ethnic group you don't like.

I do not know of any Hitler supporters her in moderation or otherwise.

You have stated the Holocaust is fake and called it the "holohoax" and made the claim that Hitler was trying to help the Jews by keeping them fed and safe in concentration camps. you are a sickening racist.

This is in partly a lie. I made no such claim. Hitler no doubt imprisoned thousands of prisoners of war. This is not "helping them" by any means, but it is a consequence of war. I'm merely questioning the official story, for which there is no evidence that 6 million Jews were gassed to death. I have nothing against the Jews as a people, and DO NOT support racism or Hitler (or at least the public's perceived opinion of him). 

I rest my case.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Sonofason said:

@Ampersand

January 1

Around 9pm, two rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel. One fell short in Gaza, The other in an open area in the Eshkol Regional Council.

January 3

Between 2pm and 9pm, four rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel. They all both landed in open areas in the Eshkol Regional Council.

February 2

At exactly 12am, one rocket was fired from Gaza at Israel. The IDF did not confirm if it landed within Israeli territory.

Around 9pm, one rocket was fired from Gaza at Israel. It landed in an open area in the Eshkol Regional Council.

February 17

Around 9pm, Multiple rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel. One landed on a house in Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council.

February 18

Around 10pm, one rocket was fired from Gaza at Israel. It landed in an open area in the Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council.

May 29

On May 29, there were 70 rockets and mortars fired at Israel.

June 3

On June 3, 3 rockets were fired into southern Israel from Gaza the rockets were intercepted by Iron Dome.

June 18

On June 18, 3 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza.

June 20

On June 20, 45 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza.

June 27

On June 27, 13 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza. 3 were intercepted by Iron Dome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2018

If Israel turned Gaza into glass, it would be well deserved, and I'll be the first to admit I'm much in favor of that.  And looking forward to it.

Taken from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2018

Lets have a look at what the articles say about these: 

"No one has been reported wounded."

"causing no damage or injuries."

"no rocket impact site was found, and the IDF said it was possible the sirens had been a false alarm."

"struck an open area in the region, without causing injury or damage."

My favourite ones are the January 3rd one and the 29th of may one, both of which seem to be perfectly legitimate and legal attacks against an occupying force. The former was actually a mortar attack according to the article and was aimed at the border fence, the second did cause some injuries (the worst described as moderate) but only to IDF which are legitimate military targets.

In this same time Israel has been condemned across the world for causing over 10,000 casualties in its attacks on Palestinian civilians protesting against the occupation, carried on its intitutionalised torture of prisoners (who it can arrest without trial including children and continued their policy of ethnic cleansing of natives who aren't suitably Jewish. 

If you want to enter into a competition about which side does the worse stuff, you're going to lose if you think it's the Palestinians and you're so uneducated and intelligent that you can't even make solid arguments. I could make better arguments about the Palestinians being bad guys than you're doing. Hamas is an organisation that carries out legitimate and really awful acts; albeit not even half so much as Israel. Pointing out rocket attacks which harmed nobody and legitimate mortar attacks which are perfectly valid and show Hamas fighting according to international military law is laughable.Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Sonofason said:

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.

So we've returned to the starting position of you supporting war crimes for no particular reason other than you say so.

Putting your blatant disregard for international law aside for a moment, your argument is even then still nonsense. What metric are you using the "aggressive rhetoric and actions" committed against Israel? Number of actions? Number of deaths? Variety of war crimes? People effected. Come on, tell me how you've come to this conclusion because basically every metric is one where I can very easily show Israel is far worse than Palestine. Now personally with my commitment to human rights I don't think that makes a massive difference because there is no excuse for committing war crimes and human rights abuses, but by your logic it would surely mean you should be supporting Palestine.

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

@SuzyCreamcheese ;

Do you think Hitler was justified in killing the Jews? By your logic, they weren't accomplishing anything once they were in the concentration camps so it was perfectly justified to commit genocide against them (genocide being a form of ethnic cleansing).

I presume the answer is no, although we do have some Hitler supporters on this forum including a moderator so I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was a yes. However if the answer is no - why is it no? By the same logic you apply to supporting ethnic cleansing against Palestinians, you should apply to Jews who were in the concentration camp; unless this is actually just an arbitrary excuse you are using to support ethnic cleansing against a race/religion./ethnic group you don't like.

I do not know of any Hitler supporters her in moderation or otherwise.

You have stated the Holocaust is fake and called it the "holohoax" and made the claim that Hitler was trying to help the Jews by keeping them fed and safe in concentration camps. you are a sickening racist.

This is in partly a lie. I made no such claim. Hitler no doubt imprisoned thousands of prisoners of war. This is not "helping them" by any means, but it is a consequence of war. I'm merely questioning the official story, for which there is no evidence that 6 million Jews were gassed to death. I have nothing against the Jews as a people, and DO NOT support racism or Hitler (or at least the public's perceived opinion of him). 

I rest my case.

I don't see it.

Sonofason

@Ampersand
Like dinosaurs and unicorns, Adolf Hitler does not exist.

Erfisflat

Sonofason said:

@Ampersand
Like dinosaurs and unicorns, Adolf Hitler does not exist.

Don't forget this!

someone234

I would just like to officially state that my view has extremely altered on the matter and I believe Israel is the good guy overall.

This is based on a lot of studying up on the topic and into the history of negotiations as well as analysis of Hamas, PLO and the Israeli government.

someone234

someone234 said:

I hate Sharia law but I hate fascism more. Israel is being fascist to Palestinian ethnic people.

I was wrong about this and wish to say this publicly.

George_Horse

Very difficult decision,  Israel is more friendly to us than Palestine, we fought wars with them since the 1960s, so they are kind of our friends. They may not be the best, but I would say Israel for my pick.

Ampersand

George_Horse said:

Very difficult decision,  Israel is more friendly to us than Palestine, we fought wars with them since the 1960s, so they are kind of our friends. They may not be the best, but I would say Israel for my pick.

What country are you from where you have fought wars with Israel since the 1960's in a positive manner?

Also that you are going to choose sides in an international conflict involving war crimes, crimes against humanity and the fundamental rights of human being based on which side is nicest to you rather than human rights and international military law is kind of weird.

MayCaesar

In my experience, supporters of Palestine in this matter are generally the people with very unsophisticated mentality: "The successful are always to blame for the problems of the unsuccessful". It is a very straightforward and simplistic mentality which people with little real world knowledge and experience, as well as with poor logical skills, follow out of a twisted interpretation of the concept of compassion.

Most people refuse to employ the world view based on the concept of responsibility instead, because that world view is harsh and unforgiving. If you fail, it is easier to find someone to blame for your failure, rather than admit, "What I did was a failure and I only have myself to blame", learn a hard lesson from what happened and move on, with improved world view.

PNA has one of the worst human rights records in the world, it harbors countless terrorist organizations and is funded by countless terrorist organizations. It provides people with quality of life many poor African countries would not envy. It shows Palestinian children cartoons about committing suicide attacks on Israeli citizens. It offers one of the least business-friendly environments in the world. The population exhibits extreme nationalism and religious intolerance, and the Palestinian leader repeatedly threatens to start a holy war against the "occupants". By all reasonable standards, these people do everything they can to never have to lift a finger and to, instead, life off the donations gullible people and nations give them, buying their victim's narrative. There are countless nations like this on this planet, and Palestine is not unique in this regard.

Do you ever hear of these things from those who advocate for a two-state solution (or, even worse, for "reclamation of lands" by the Palestine)? Of course not. They are not interested in the actions of either side; what they are really interested in is in the status-quo. Israel is free and wealthy, Palestine is not free and poor, so of course the Israel is the bad guy. From that, their judgment of the actions is defined: Palestinians are justified in anything they do, because they are fighting for freedom, and Israel must be criticized for every sneeze, because it is privileged in its status.

This really all there is to the analysis of this situation from these people's perspective. It is a very unsophisticated world view in which the better you are doing, the more you are guilty of others' misfortune. Everything else is derived from this simple assumption.

---

When one is not focused on blaming others, and instead asks themselves, "Okay, I am in this situation. What can I do to improve it?" - then miracles become possible. Tiny Taiwan can survive against a totalitarian monster 267 times its size. South Korea can reach 50 times the quality of life of China-supported North Korea. Israel can survive against repeated coordinated attacks of a dozen large Arab states and put them to shame. Japan can rise from the ashes of total military destruction in less than a decade and become the 2nd strongest economy. West Germany can incorporate a yesterday-totalitarian neighbor with collapsed economy and still remain one of the economical leaders in the world.

If only Palestine was governed by people who sought to improve their civilians' lives, it could easily be an investment heaven nowadays, given its incredibly beneficial geographic location, its connections to over a dozen wealthy Arab states, its wide international financial assistance, etc. Could be the second Singapore or Luxembourg.

But no, people bought the national-populist rhetoric of religious fanatics, and decided to blame Israel and the US for every failure - with the international community mostly pandering to them and only encouraging this behavior. Another one in the row of countries that squandered all opportunities and exchanged sophisticated pragmatism for cheap populism. And of course everyone is to blame for that, but them.

---

I wonder how many more centuries it will take for the majority of people to realize that appealing to morality does not make a state. Appealing to political and economical sciences does. Just because socialisms and nationalisms sound beautiful, does not mean they are anything more than a good setting for a dystopian novel.

Ampersand

@MayCaesar

I've noticed that your arguments tend to be childish and poorly made. I mean 'childish' descriptively in the same way a child might just claim things as true like "my dad could beat up your dad", you have made claims about the Israeli Palestine conflict and seem to think they are true merely because you say so.

Generally this doesn't bother me and the only other time I've spoken out about it is when you were disparaging another user; otherwise it rarely makes much difference to me how lacking your arguments are. When it comes to a serious topic though; one involving crimes against humanity, war crimes, death, decades of conflict and misery for millions, such stupidity is incredibly galling and disrespectful to those who've suffered in the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

You haven't provided an iota of evidence and yet hypocritically claim (of course, with no evidence or reasoning to support your accusation) that it is "supporters of Palestine" that  have a "very unsophisticated mentality". If that's true, why is your entire argument mere unsubstantiated claims? Why have I, by contrast, posted reports from the UN, news articles, NGOs both outside and inside Israel, quoted legal experts?

The answer is because I make solid evidence based arguments unlike you and the hypothetical Palestinian supports you were criticising who as far as I can tell only exist in your head (because of course you didn't back up your claims against, them, you just made unevidence accusations).

Even on basic facts that you happen to mention you are completely wrong. You make claims about:

"PNA has one of the worst human rights records in the world, it harbors countless terrorist organizations and is funded by countless terrorist organizations. It provides people with quality of life many poor African countries would not envy. It shows Palestinian children cartoons about committing suicide attacks on Israeli citizens."

Not even bothering to get into the validity of your baseless accusations, but you're not even talking about the right organisation. The PNA is the Palestinian Authority which is run by Fatah which is collaborationist and works alongside and assist Israel in security operations in the West Bank. The organisation you mean to hurl these accusations against is Hamas. This is basic information you can confirm on the relevant wiki pages. What's even more astounding then you wading into this discussion ignorant of basic facts is that you made the same incorrect claim last time you posted in this thread, I corrected you and yet you come back and make exactly the same basic and objectively wrong factual error of confusing two major and very different organisations.

The only thing in your entire argument that I would say comes close to a rational argument is your statement that:

"When one is not focused on blaming others, and instead asks themselves, "Okay, I am in this situation. What can I do to improve it?" - then miracles become possible. Tiny Taiwan can survive against a totalitarian monster 267 times its size. South Korea can reach 50 times the quality of life of China-supported North Korea. Israel can survive against repeated coordinated attacks of a dozen large Arab states and put them to shame. Japan can rise from the ashes of total military destruction in less than a decade and become the 2nd strongest economy. West Germany can incorporate a yesterday-totalitarian neighbor with collapsed economy and still remain one of the economical leaders in the world."

You can at least see a glimmer of logic here: "A, B and C succeeded, therefore X can succeed". Of course that logic isn't true in and of itself; it relies on the assumption that A B and C are in any way comparable to X and naturally you never back up this assumption in any way, like your entire argument it relies solely on your unevidenced assumptions and beliefs. On that basis we can just throw the whole thing out, but it's striking how inapplicable your claims are if you even stop and think about them for a minute.

Palestine is a country where they are under military occupation and the occupier is specifically stopping them from developing. Good wishes and trying hard don't make building materials appear through an economic blockade. The infrastructure they have in place or try to build Israel destroys. Israel has literally built a giant wall that the International Court of Justice has judged a war crime that stops Palestinians being able to reach their fields or places of work and leaves them unemployed and impoverished through no fault of their own. That's aside from the murders, bombings, torture, arrest without trial, criminal neglect and other war crimes Palestinians suffer.

Compared to this you point out examples of countries who - rather than being massively hindered - were actively helped. West Germany, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all benefited from massive US investment from the Marshall plan or post-war reparations and were all encouraged to build. The USA's protection of Taiwan stopped China from having any existential effect on Taiwan and allowed them to develop freely. Hell, West Germany is the perfect example of your entire claim being wrong - they did much better than East Germany despite being exactly the same nation of people split in two. The difference is that the USA actively supported and funded West Germany while the USSR forbid German satellite states from accepting Marshall plan aid and actually took money and industrial equipment away from Eastern Germany as reparations for the death and damage the Nazis inflicted. If your argument were true, Eastern and Western Germany should have done equally as well because it doesn't matter what the conditions or situation or objective reality were - they can succeed if they just try hard enough according to you.

That is after all what you've stated previously:

"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."

It should be painfully obvious, but the point you seem to fail to grasp is that objective reality effects reality. I can;t believe I have to point this out - it shows how truly incredibly wrong headed your argument is - but you don't seem to grasp it. it's a just world fallacy writ large; you think if people try hard then they will automatically succeed and that if they fail it's automatically their fault - regardless of anything that actually happens in reality and how much their success or failure was influenced by outside forces.

Zombieguy1987

Can't these two just get along?

YeshuaBought

Why can't we be humane to ALL of God's created humans?

ethang5

@MayCaesar

That was one of the best posts I've ever seen on this issue. Honest, clear thinking, and realistic. No hint of silly politically correct rationalization.

Refreshing

afrahsebai

why do we still ask such a question when the answer is pretty clear..a part from the fact that you hear israel's name in every crisis in our present world which indicates nothing but representing the pure evil in this world,you can check out historical facts and the number of dead people among  the palestinians..and for those who relates judaism with israel is definitly wrong..not all jews are this cruel israel's policy is clear,it's trying to invade the world by eliminating the largest number of people possible.