What do normal people - think of Israel?

[cnm]

I guess 65%, 69% and 67% Oz view of Israel's negative influence doesn't register on Queenslanders no matter how many times it is posted. Nothing new, should have realised.

 

[gtopa1]

From Occupied Territories to Disputed Territories byDore Gold

Facts are not the friend of those whose aims are to deligitimise Israel. They have the same credibility as those who enter schoolyards or shops and kill and maim children, teachers or anyone who happens to be in the area at the time. Hamas has NO credibility and Abbas has so far been a disappointment. And yet: Abbas is the last slim hope in this round of Hamas induced destruction!! The "death to Israel" crowd should remember the words of those disgusted by the events that led up to the return of Jews to their lands: NEVER AGAIN!!

Greg

You need to stop watching re-runs of Walker, Texas Ranger, it's polluted your brain. Hamas didn't induce anything, it was Israel's decision to attack and they went out of their way to make up bullshit lies to do it.

And shove that "disputed territory" shit up your ass! They've been the "occupied territories" for the last half-century and you fuckers aren't changing that description now. You people got serious reality issues.

You are in error. They have been disputed since the Jordanian invasion and even prior to that they were part of the discussions regarding the formation of Jordan. You see it is only in the minds of terrorist empathisers that they are occupied territories. Who had Sovereignty over those territories prior to 1948?

Sovereignty of the West Bank
It is sometimes said that Israeli military occupation of the West Bank (as opposed to civilian settlements in the territory) is illegal. There is no basis for this claim.

There is at the moment (2013) no internationally recognized sovereignty over the West Bank (or Gaza). Before the State of Israel was established in 1948, all of what is now Israel and the West Bank (and Jerusalem, and Gaza) was the League of Nations Mandated Territory of Palestine, with Britain holding the mandate.1 When the British announced they would leave Palestine, the United Nations, successor to the League of Nations, proposed a partition of the territory between the Jews and the Arabs. The Jews were offered a portion smaller than the present State of Israel, and accepted the proposal. The Arabs rejected the proposal, preferring to fight for the land. The British left, the Arabs invaded the former Mandate and fought for the land, and they lost. The cease-fire line (the so-called Green Line) was never an international boundary – it was just where the armies happened to be when the armistice took effect in 1949. Israel was in military control of a part of the old Mandate, and Arabs had military control of other parts (the West Bank administered by Jordan, Gaza by Egypt). The territory held by the Jews within the cease-fire line was recognized by the United Nations as the State of Israel in 1949. No sovereignty was recognized in the West Bank or Gaza.

In 1950 Jordan annexed the West Bank, but this was not internationally recognized either. In the 1967 war Israel conquered but did not annex it – it continued to be a non-sovereign territory, the rump remainder of the old Mandate, but now under Israeli instead of Jordanian administration. In 1988 Jordan renounced its purported annexation of the West Bank and ceded its claim, such as it was, to the Palestine Liberation Organization. No sovereignty over the West Bank has ever been claimed by Israel, and since the termination of the Mandate in 1948 no sovereignty in that territory has ever been internationally recognized. The final disposition of the territory has not been settled – that is what the two-state solution is intended to do.

So when you speak of Occupied Territories you speak of Jordan's occupation from 1950 until 1967. Since then they are in dispute. Jordan's claim to Sovereignty was never recognised and hence their "giving" the West bank to anyone is...well...without substance.

Puerile insults are a sign that you have NOTHING but some leftist nonsense to go on.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

How it is that certain pakeha jaffas can't recall a post when they followed it is beyond the realms of comprehension. Post 1241 again referenced as containing valid polls from Australia over time that show either bias or an issue related variation in normal attitudes in the BBC poll. A bit like polling attitudes towards France after the rainbow Warrior incident. lmao. Seems to add weight to the old adage: what's long, hard and fvcks kiwis?? Ans: Primary School!

Greg

 

[cnm]

Oh, so you were just repeating an earlier post that has already been responded to, where you showed that Oz attitudes were either ambivalent or heavily pro Palestine, anti Israel.

So what is the point of your latest dribbling? That the BBC poll is a one off and not essentially repeating results over three years, which most normal people except Queenslanders would take as showing a consistent response?

 

[gtopa1]

This is quite interesting.

The Tables won't copy but the numbers show that in the 0-4 rating where 10 is the best, Israel is at about the 60% Level in the UK. Hamas is at near the 80% level.

British Attitudes Towards Israel Survey - Populus

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

It is interesting that a certain pakeha jaffa didn't bother to read the post that he commented upon. Why is that a surprise? There's no way he'll crunch the numbers of the Populus survey because when it comes to numbers there is only one he accepts...100% of Israelis should be shoved into the Mediterranean Sea.

What has a pakeha jaffa got against Israeli Arabs??

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Pew has also done surveys and this question is most interesting.

Question: Now thinking about the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, which side do you sympathize with more, Israel or the Palestinians? [754]

Question Search Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project

A look at the numbers is interesting; there is an obvious heavy bias pro-Palestinian in moslem countries but most of the world are of the Pro-Israel or Have no opinion variety. Oz isn't on Pew's list in that one.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Pew finds attitudes towards Hamas somewhat the reverse. lol

Question Search Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project

Even Islamic countries are mostly unfavourable or offer low favourability.

Greg

 

[cnm]

Pew has also done surveys and this question is most interesting.

Question: Now thinking about the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, which side do you sympathize with more, Israel or the Palestinians? [754]

Note that the question is not 'What do you think of Israel.' Which is what this thread is about.

 

[Billo_Really]

You are in error. They have been disputed since the Jordanian invasion and even prior to that they were part of the discussions regarding the formation of Jordan. You see it is only in the minds of terrorist empathisers that they are occupied territories. Who had Sovereignty over those territories prior to 1948?

"...terrorist empathizers..."?

So you're saying quoting international law is terrorism? That's OUT THERE!

There isn't a single country on the planet that agrees with you. This area has been legally defined as an "occupation" for the last 50 years and you're not changing it now!

Under international law, Israel’s rule in the West Bank and Gaza is considered “belligerent occupation” and, therefore, its actions must be justified by military necessity only. If there is no occupation, Israel has no military grounds to hold on to the territories. In that case, it must either return the land to the Palestinians, and move out the settlers, or defy international law by annexing the territories, as it did earlier with East Jerusalem, and establish a state of Greater Israel.

This is not a debatable issue!

Sovereignty of the West Bank
It is sometimes said that Israeli military occupation of the West Bank (as opposed to civilian settlements in the territory) is illegal. There is no basis for this claim.

There is at the moment (2013) no internationally recognized sovereignty over the West Bank (or Gaza). Before the State of Israel was established in 1948, all of what is now Israel and the West Bank (and Jerusalem, and Gaza) was the League of Nations Mandated Territory of Palestine, with Britain holding the mandate.1 When the British announced they would leave Palestine, the United Nations, successor to the League of Nations, proposed a partition of the territory between the Jews and the Arabs. The Jews were offered a portion smaller than the present State of Israel, and accepted the proposal. The Arabs rejected the proposal, preferring to fight for the land. The British left, the Arabs invaded the former Mandate and fought for the land, and they lost. The cease-fire line (the so-called Green Line) was never an international boundary – it was just where the armies happened to be when the armistice took effect in 1949. Israel was in military control of a part of the old Mandate, and Arabs had military control of other parts (the West Bank administered by Jordan, Gaza by Egypt). The territory held by the Jews within the cease-fire line was recognized by the United Nations as the State of Israel in 1949. No sovereignty was recognized in the West Bank or Gaza.

In 1950 Jordan annexed the West Bank, but this was not internationally recognized either. In the 1967 war Israel conquered but did not annex it – it continued to be a non-sovereign territory, the rump remainder of the old Mandate, but now under Israeli instead of Jordanian administration. In 1988 Jordan renounced its purported annexation of the West Bank and ceded its claim, such as it was, to the Palestine Liberation Organization. No sovereignty over the West Bank has ever been claimed by Israel, and since the termination of the Mandate in 1948 no sovereignty in that territory has ever been internationally recognized. The final disposition of the territory has not been settled – that is what the two-state solution is intended to do.

This issue has nothing to do with sovereignty. You cannot hold onto land seized in a war. The very definition of an "occupation", makes no mention of sovereignty as a determining factor.

Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title. Article 42 of The Hague Regulations of 1907 defines occupation as follows: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

So it doesn't matter who owns the land, all that matters is, Israel has no clear title to it.

So when you speak of Occupied Territories you speak of Jordan's occupation from 1950 until 1967. Since then they are in dispute. Jordan's claim to Sovereignty was never recognised and hence their "giving" the West bank to anyone is...well...without substance.

No, when I speak of the OPT, I'm speaking of the territory Israel seized in the 6-day war. From that point on, it became a "belligerent occupation", thus making it illegal for Israel to change the demographics of that area by transferring a portion of their population into it. Israel's own legal advisor in '67 warned them of this...

"...settling civilians in the newly seized territory was a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention."
- Theodor Meron, (foreign ministry’s legal adviser in 1967, expressly warned the government in the wake of the Six-Day War)

And subsequent UN resolutions have confirmed this to be true.

Puerile insults are a sign that you have NOTHING but some leftist nonsense to go on.

Greg

You think so? Then name me one country that has recognized Israel's right to that land. Just one!

 

[cnm]

If you want Pew Polls here is a more relevant one...

Question: Please tell me if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of...Israel [1610]

Pew Research Center

 

[cnm]

This one is quite funny, even though it is only tangentially on topic...

Question: What's your opinion of U.S. policies in the Middle East - would you say they are fair or do they favor Israel too much or do they favor the Palestinians too much? [1028]

Pew Research Center

It seems normal people think Israel is favoured too much by US Policies in the ME. So normal people think Israel

maintains apartheid regimes,
steals,
commits war crimes,
wags the US,
doesn't keep its promises,
casts itself as a victim,
won't join courts because it will be found guilty,
imposes collective punishments on occupied territiories,
provokes wars of convenience,
is living a self centred fantasy where other people's views don't count,
restricts the economic growth of Palestine,
believes it can do no wrong,
suborns citzens of other nations to subvert those nations' interests,
does not separate religion and government,
is favoured too much by US Policies in the ME.

 

[gtopa1]

It has been stated earlier that the attitudes of Moslem countries and entities skew results when it comes to negative attitudes to Israel. It is well noticed that former Soviet acolytes are just as skewed against the USA. It is amusing to see results that show the USA favours the good guys in the region. Wonderful result!!! The problem many of these have of course is that Palestinians are just lumped in together; Hamas is the representative of the Gazan people through terror. It is well to have noticed the attitudes to Hamas that I posted upthread.

Greg

 

[cnm]

Unbelievable! Negative attitudes 'skew' results!
As though positive attitudes don't 'skew' results. For gods' sakes, just how stupid does one have to be?

 

[gtopa1]

If one looks at the central attitude to "should Israel exist" and the historic answers to that then one gets the idea about historic bias. Not ONE Islamic country voted for Israel in 1947/48. Why? Because they didn't want them to have their homeland back. That is why ANY set of data will be skewed IF a large number of islamic countries are included in the data set.

Those who claim as has been claimed here that Israel is a Pariah state then for them a reality check is in order. Israel targets terrorists and murderers. Hamas aims at any Jew, Israeli Arab or visitor they can get. Hamas apologists are just as guilty of the killing as Hamas themselves.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Israel is NOT guilty of:

maintains apartheid regimes,
steals,
commits war crimes,
wags the US,
doesn't keep its promises,
casts itself as a victim,
won't join courts because it will be found guilty,
imposes collective punishments on occupied territiories,
provokes wars of convenience,
is living a self centred fantasy where other people's views don't count,
restricts the economic growth of Palestine,
believes it can do no wrong,
suborns citzens of other nations to subvert those nations' interests,
does not separate religion and government,
is favoured too much by US Policies in the ME.

Israel is a peace loving Nation of Laws; it will never be a victim again and will ensure it has the capacity to defend itself from those who wish to destroy and delegitimise it. It has made mistakes in the past the chief of which was to think that those who adhere to a credo of annihilation of the Jews would somehow come to their senses and become partners in peace. They may still labour under that view and their sheer persistence may in the end win out over hatred but until then they must be centered on destroying those who would do them harm. As the late Great Golda once said:

“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”

We all hope for the time when that happens...except of course those who really do want to see all Israelis dead and who fill countless sites with lies and hatred of Israel.

Greg

 

[cnm]

Israel is NOT guilty of:

Normal people think Israel is and they have evidence to back their opinion. Shall we do stealing first? I like that one.

 

[gtopa1]

Sovereignty of the West Bank
It is sometimes said that Israeli military occupation of the West Bank (as opposed to civilian settlements in the territory) is illegal. There is no basis for this claim.

There is at the moment (2013) no internationally recognized sovereignty over the West Bank (or Gaza). Before the State of Israel was established in 1948, all of what is now Israel and the West Bank (and Jerusalem, and Gaza) was the League of Nations Mandated Territory of Palestine, with Britain holding the mandate.1 When the British announced they would leave Palestine, the United Nations, successor to the League of Nations, proposed a partition of the territory between the Jews and the Arabs. The Jews were offered a portion smaller than the present State of Israel, and accepted the proposal. The Arabs rejected the proposal, preferring to fight for the land. The British left, the Arabs invaded the former Mandate and fought for the land, and they lost. The cease-fire line (the so-called Green Line) was never an international boundary – it was just where the armies happened to be when the armistice took effect in 1949. Israel was in military control of a part of the old Mandate, and Arabs had military control of other parts (the West Bank administered by Jordan, Gaza by Egypt). The territory held by the Jews within the cease-fire line was recognized by the United Nations as the State of Israel in 1949. No sovereignty was recognized in the West Bank or Gaza.

In 1950 Jordan annexed the West Bank, but this was not internationally recognized either. In the 1967 war Israel conquered but did not annex it – it continued to be a non-sovereign territory, the rump remainder of the old Mandate, but now under Israeli instead of Jordanian administration. In 1988 Jordan renounced its purported annexation of the West Bank and ceded its claim, such as it was, to the Palestine Liberation Organization. No sovereignty over the West Bank has ever been claimed by Israel, and since the termination of the Mandate in 1948 no sovereignty in that territory has ever been internationally recognized. The final disposition of the territory has not been settled – that is what the two-state solution is intended to do.

Those who call Israel thieves are malignant liars of the lowest type. Their attempts to delegitimatise Israel are contemptible and rest on the same desire as their forebears in Anti-Semitic ideology; the murder of Jews. Such bottom feeding scum are hate mongers of the lowest order!

And if the cap fits, as it does to a very small minority of Jaffas, then they can f'n well wear it.

Greg

 

[cnm]

Perhaps stealing passports doesn't count as theft to Israel apologists if Israel does it, the same for breaking promises. And settling occupied territory is very definitely land theft. Well, except to apologists, okay.

 

[Kondor3]

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people... don't really give a rat's ass about the Palestinians, nor do they burden themselves overly-much thinking about Israel...

Normal people... in the US, overwhelmingly supported Israel in the 2014 Gaza War II...

Normal people... in the US aren't stupid enough to fall for the propaganda of Muslim Tokyo Roses and Lord Haw-Haws...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...

Normal people...