Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

hellhunter said:
Can only speak for Germany, where criticising Israel is always stepping on thin ice, but there's a lot of support for Palestinians.
Click to expand...

Its pretty much the same in the US. Its always politically perilous for politicians to criticize Israel, although that is gradually changing with the new wave of progressive politicians recently elected.
 
Raoul said:
International law wouldn't really come into play since nothing would be enforceable if the US wasn't on board.

On the rockets; I found this piece interesting.

Click to expand...


It doesn't mean that international law wasn't violated. There wouldn't be any consequences, I agree.

Maybe if the Palestinians were allowed to buy more precise weaponry that allowed them to target military infrastructure in Israel, they wouldn't have to manufacture crude missiles? (tongue in cheek of course)
 
Fearless said:
Of course it does, and I can fully get why you want history to begin last week.

Palestinians became refugees NOT because they didn't have a state. REVERSE is true: In REFUSING their own state, AND in opening war to prevent Jewish people from having theirs, and in multiple losing wars, they became refugees. 70 years later, they still prefer being refugees over a state.
Click to expand...
Israeli settlements today are illegal. Because of what happened in the past you're fine with removing Palestinians from their current homes? If Israeli national policy was up to you, what would you actually do? Move all Palestinians to Jordan and other countries?
 
adexkola said:
It doesn't mean that international law wasn't violated. There wouldn't be any consequences, I agree.

Maybe if the Palestinians were allowed to buy more precise weaponry that allowed them to target military infrastructure in Israel, they wouldn't have to manufacture crude missiles? (tongue in cheek of course)
Click to expand...

Yes it would be technically violated, although you would have to ask yourself what that actually means since law without any mechanism to enforce it would probably not be worthy of being called a law.
 
JPRouve said:
That's an interesting question that can only be answered with several others but if we assume that Gaza is a sovereign territory and that there isn't an international embargo on Gaza then the answer to your question is yes, it is forbidden. It's effectively an act of war.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, it’s difficult to define this as legally-defined military engagement, it’s far more asymmetrical. The use of terror on both sides speaks to that. There’s an argument that could be made that Hamas is employing more of a terror tactic due to the lack of targeting in their rocket systems, but the terror brought on leveling high rises in a city by Israel could also be seen as more terroristic despite the limited scope of the bombing.

Military targets will always be targets of opportunity, whether it is a campaign between two sovereign states or what we are currently seeing.
 
VivaObertan said:
Unbelievable that he's getting away with this, is he a top donator to the site or what?!
Click to expand...
This glorification of violence against civillians and children ist abhorrent and sickening. I can live with him taking Israels side, of course, but gleefully claiming those kids got what they deserve is repulsive.
 
calodo2003 said:
Well, you kind of made my point.

This isn’t a legally defined military engagement, it’s quite asymmetrical. Terror is being used by both aides as a weapon. There’s rationalization by both sides for such.

I’ve said in previous posts that I understand why the Palestinians / Hamas are employing their rocket tactics & I largely condone it. They’re using their most effective tactic they currently have. I can’t begrudge them for that.

But, when such tactics are used, there will always be unfortunate consequences. I could use ‘inevitable’ again here, but the unfortunate consequences are to be expected. That’s the terrible reality.

None of these tactical decisions exist in a vacuum & the disappointing part is that civilians get harmed.
Click to expand...

And as logical human beings we can decide to not "both sides" this issue by equivocating the occupiers and the occupied.

You are saying that there will be "unfortunate consequences". There do not need to be "unfortunate consequences". Selma and Sharpeville and other atrocities did not have to be inevitable. In every of those instances, and in this instance, the side with the overwhelming power has the option of standing down and not implementing 21st century Apartheid.
 
hellhunter said:
This glorification of violence against civillians and children ist abhorrent and sickening. I can live with him taking Israels side, of course, but gleefully claiming those kids got what they deserve is repulsive.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is pretty much where I'm at. I don't agree with anyone taking Israel's side, but I understand and appreciate people have different viewpoints. But revelling in the human right violations taking place is too much for me.
 
adexkola said:
And as logical human beings we can decide to not "both sides" this issue by equivocating the occupiers and the occupied.

You are saying that there will be "unfortunate consequences". There do not need to be "unfortunate consequences". Selma and Sharpeville and other atrocities did not have to be inevitable. In every of those instances, and in this instance, the side with the overwhelming power has the option of standing down and not implementing 21st century Apartheid.
Click to expand...
Of course there didn’t need to be unfortunate consequences, but we’re well past that. The reality of the situation is that civilians will be harmed in conflict like this regardless on what side they are.

It’s unfortunate that a critical mass needs to be reached or attrition has to occur for this particular conflict to die down.

But you cannot say both sides aren’t employing terror as a weapon even as we type & we tragically keep seeing the results. No toothless international law or sanction will eliminate this reality.
 
calodo2003 said:
In my opinion, it’s difficult to define this as legally-defined military engagement, it’s far more asymmetrical. The use of terror on both sides speaks to that. There’s an argument that could be made that Hamas is employing more of a terror tactic due to the lack of targeting in their rocket systems, but the terror brought on leveling high rises in a city by Israel could also be seen as more terroristic despite the limited scope of the bombing.

Military targets will always be targets of opportunity, whether it is a campaign between two sovereign states or what we are currently seeing.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant Gaza is a sovereign territory and Hamas are the official rulers. Foreign nations have no rights to unilaterally destruct goods or buildings, not even military targets, doing so as a legal implications. The same applies to Palestinians toward Israel. So when you ask whether it is forbidden the answer is yes. But we go back to what Raoul has said multiple times, the key is that only UN security council members have the might to force someone to behave on the international scene.
 
hellhunter said:
This glorification of violence against civillians and children ist abhorrent and sickening. I can live with him taking Israels side, of course, but gleefully claiming those kids got what they deserve is repulsive.
Click to expand...
Absolutely this.

Didn't expect people would be allowed to gloat over their military rockets massacring countless children on here.
 
Moby said:
Absolutely this.

Didn't expect people would be allowed to gloat over their military rockets massacring countless children on here.
Click to expand...

Did he gloat about it? Can you reference me the post?
 
JPRouve said:
That's irrelevant Gaza is a sovereign territory and Hamas are the official rulers. Foreign nations have no rights to unilaterally destruct goods or buildings, not even military targets, doing so as a legal implications. The same applies to Palestinians toward Israel. So when you ask whether it is forbidden the answer is yes. But we go back to what Raoul has said multiple times, the key is that only UN security council members have the might to force someone to behave on the international scene.
Click to expand...
But the protection of the sovereignty of a state is often used as a pretext or a reason for armed intervention into another country all the time & these justifications have been deemed acceptable through no legal recourse occurring or the punishment being slight.
 
I'm not a fan of this trend lately to request banning posters. Debate them. Try to change their views.

But you don't have to be so precious about it, it's just an internet forum. Let the mods decide for themselves.

That's my take on it anyway...
 
VorZakone said:
I'm not a fan of this trend lately to request banning posters. Debate them. Try to change their views.

But you don't have to be so precious about it, it's just an internet forum. Let the mods decide for themselves.

That's my take on it anyway...
Click to expand...

I'm not really a fan of this appeal to authority either. I'd much rather hear from people living in Israel and Palestine than anyone else in this thread.
 
VorZakone said:
I'm not a fan of this trend lately to request banning posters. Debate them. Try to change their views.

But you don't have to be so precious about it, it's just an internet forum. Let the mods decide for themselves.

That's my take on it anyway...
Click to expand...
Justifying murdering innocent children is where I think they should draw the line.
 
calodo2003 said:
But the protection of the sovereignty of a state is often used as a pretext or a reason for armed intervention into another country all the time & these justifications have been deemed acceptable through no legal recourse occurring or the punishment being slight.
Click to expand...

Those interventions are illegal, it's just that there is no one to enforce it. To make it perfectly clear the likes of France, the US, Russia or the UK are international criminals.
 
Carolina Red said:
Bold words from the guy that has repeatedly tried to morph history to fit his narrative, then conveniently stops responding when what actually happens gets thrown in his face.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity: Why is it allowed? We're reminded, at the bottom of the page, to keep it civil and constructive, but there's nothing constructive about bad faith, willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. If anything, it's actively detrimental to civil and constructive debate.
 
JPRouve said:
Those interventions are illegal, it's just that there is no one to enforce it. To make it perfectly clear the likes of France, the US, Russia or the UK are international criminals.
Click to expand...
We are most certainly that. No doubt.
 
Ignore him, don't respond to him but remove him and you miss the chance to see what he is like. The things he says and his behaviour is worth knowing about. If you can't bear to put up with it, place him on ignore. However arguing with him allows him to expose his thoughts and behaviours.
 
VorZakone said:
I'm not a fan of this trend lately to request banning posters. Debate them. Try to change their views.

But you don't have to be so precious about it, it's just an internet forum. Let the mods decide for themselves.

That's my take on it anyway...
Click to expand...
You can't debate someone who's only here to troll and argue in bad faith. Yesterday he was comparing Palestinians to aroused men trying to get into a women's shelter, but conveniently disappeared after I called him out on it.
 
Halftrack said:
Out of curiosity: Why is it allowed? We're reminded, at the bottom of the page, to keep it civil and constructive, but there's nothing constructive about bad faith, willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. If anything, it's actively detrimental to civil and constructive debate.
Click to expand...
What oates says below is very on point.
oates said:
Ignore him, don't respond to him but remove him and you miss the chance to see what he is like. The things he says and his behaviour is worth knowing about. If you can't bear to put up with it, place him on ignore. However arguing with him allows him to expose his thoughts and behaviours.
Click to expand...
In addition to what’s said above, warning / banning folks for disagreements about history wouldn’t be a good look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.