Boycott Israel

[Phoenall]

Simply put, the occupation which denies the Palestinians the right to self-determination in their own land justifies resistance. You cannot expect true peace that is maintained by the barrel of an occupier's gun.

Sure. Let's go with that.

The occupation which denies the Palestinians the right to self-determination in their own land justifies resistance. You can not expect true peace that is maintained by the barrel of an occupier's gun.

The other side of that coin is this: The occupation which denies the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own land justifies resistance. You can not have true peace that is maintained by the barrel of an occupier's gun (in this case the occupier's suicide bombers, rockets, knives and cars)

Any "solution" which entails sovereignty for the one over the entire territory, by definition, is UNJUST for the other party. Therefore the only JUST solution is to divide the land into two parts -- one for the Arab Palestinians and one for the Jewish people.**

So again, I ask you: How is a self-determining, self-governing State for each of these peoples NOT just?





** In fact, this has already been done -- when Jordan was removed from Palestine and given to the Arab Palestinians, leaving the remaining portion as the Homeland for the Jewish people. Unfortunately, while the Arab countries ethnically cleansed themselves of all their Jewish people, Israel chose (justly) to retain its Arab population and include them in their State as equals.

I agree that a two-state solution seems best but, given the determination of the Israelis to continue their occupation of the Palestinian Territories, this will not happen.

And since when have they been palestinian territories, who handed them the title to the land after 1099 when they were forcibly evicted after ruling for just 22 years.

Under international law it is the arab muslims that are occupying Israeli territories, and they should leave

 

[Shusha]

What you say is not so; the Israelis did not withdraw from Gaza as they have massacred the civilian population there more than once, the latest being in 2014. Also, Gaza remains under effective occupation as there is a blockade of the border and military control of the Gaza air and sea.

The world sees it differently since the state of Israel which is a member of the United Nations has the border of 1967.

I think the Israelis should return their military and settlers to Israel, where they belong.

Okay. You are parroting common soundbites from Team Palestine, without actually producing fruitful discussion of the conflict let alone solutions to the conflict. However, you did answer my questions indirectly. You believe:

That the determination of borders between countries in conflict should be a result of what the "world" sees and should be imposed rather than negotiated and agreed upon.

You believe that Palestine should be ethnically cleansed and made Judenrein. (Do you think that Israel should be emptied of all Palestinians as well? A population transfer, equally imposed on both sides? Why or why not?)

You believe that once Palestine is ethnically cleansed of all Jews and given self-government that Palestine has a right to continue to attack Israel and that Israel has no right to respond to those attacks in any way (neither through non-violent means such as economic sanctions and blockades nor through military operations). (Do you think that Israel has the right to continue to attack Palestine?)

You believe that the international border between Israel and Palestine should be entirely open with neither side having border controls and all people and goods to be transported freely between the two nations.


Why do you think these beliefs will bring an end of conflict and peace?

 

[Phoenall]

I agree that a two-state solution seems best but, given the determination of the Israelis to continue their occupation of the Palestinian Territories, this will not happen.

Okay, so we agree, conceptually, that a two (probably three) State solution is the JUST solution.

The Israelis, of course, have demonstrated time and time again that they are willing to accept Palestinian self-government on part of the territory (examples: withdrawal from Gaza and the Oslo Accords).

What you say is not so; the Israelis did not withdraw from Gaza as they have massacred the civilian population there more than once, the latest being in 2014. Also, Gaza remains under effective occupation as there is a blockade of the border and military control of the Gaza air and sea.

The next step is to determine the permanent borders between Israel and the nascent Palestinian State. This step has to be completed BEFORE the "occupation" can end since without permanent borders we won't know what land is "occupied" and by whom. You can't end the occupation until it is determined which land will ultimately belong to Palestine.

The world sees it differently since the state of Israel which is a member of the United Nations has the border of 1967. Even Israel's only dependable ally, the USA, accepts that the Israelis are occupying Palestine.

So. Do you think that the permanent borders should be negotiated as part of a peace treaty? Do you think they should be based on the respective needs of both parties? Do you think the same rules should apply equally to both parties?

Or do you think the borders can ONLY be set in one particular place. If you go with this option -- why do you believe that?

I think the Israelis should return their military and settlers to Israel, where they belong.

They left gaza in August 2005 and the arab muslims immediately started to bombard Israel with illegal weapons. Under international law gaza is no longer occupied. It is hamas that has massacred the population by forcing them to be human shields and protect their illegal weapons. Again international law says this is so.

What 1967 border is that, who negotiated for the arab muslims a set in stone border. You dont even know that in 1967 there were 2 ceasefire lines and you call them borders when the treaties say they are not. All you have is propaganda and neo Nazi hate to go on and that has been debunked millions of times on many boards.

They have and here are the borders of Israel as accepted under international law. This is an exert from the Mandate of Palestine

Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:



PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.
Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.

 

[Phoenall]

I agree that a two-state solution seems best but, given the determination of the Israelis to continue their occupation of the Palestinian Territories, this will not happen.

Okay, so we agree, conceptually, that a two (probably three) State solution is the JUST solution.

The Israelis, of course, have demonstrated time and time again that they are willing to accept Palestinian self-government on part of the territory (examples: withdrawal from Gaza and the Oslo Accords).

What you say is not so; the Israelis did not withdraw from Gaza as they have massacred the civilian population there more than once, the latest being in 2014. Also, Gaza remains under effective occupation as there is a blockade of the border and military control of the Gaza air and sea.

The next step is to determine the permanent borders between Israel and the nascent Palestinian State. This step has to be completed BEFORE the "occupation" can end since without permanent borders we won't know what land is "occupied" and by whom. You can't end the occupation until it is determined which land will ultimately belong to Palestine.

The world sees it differently since the state of Israel which is a member of the United Nations has the border of 1967. Even Israel's only dependable ally accepts that the Israelis are occupying Palestine.

So. Do you think that the permanent borders should be negotiated as part of a peace treaty? Do you think they should be based on the respective needs of both parties? Do you think the same rules should apply equally to both parties?

Or do you think the borders can ONLY be set in one particular place. If you go with this option -- why do you believe that?

I think the Israelis should return their military and settlers to Israel, where they belong.

Israel should not withdraw from Gaza, or the West Bank.

The population of those areas earned what they got, and Israel was right to do it. If any group of people did to the USA, what those people have done to Israel, we would wipe them out. Russia would wipe them out. Most of the Middle east would torture the crap out of them, and kill them off one by one.

Israel has been far far too lenient.

I don't care how the world sees it. I don't care about the UN. I don't care if even the US government thinks they should leave Gaza. They should not. They will not. And honestly, they should kick out the Arabs, and Annex Gaza.

I think Israel has their Settlers and military exactly where they should be. Me, and most of Israel, don't really give a crap what you think, and we never will.

Zionists agree with you.

International law agrees with us and you refuse to accept it because it diminishes the arab muslims

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Justice is a matter of perception! There is no Book of Justice. Just as it is acceptable behavior for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct operations contrary to the International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing --- (Binding) --- many in the west world find it to be unacceptable. Just as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Hijacking or Destruction) acceptable behaviors; the western world again finds it unacceptable. Just as the HoAP cannot understand The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (relative to the Blockade).

Where do you get this crap, Rocco?

BTW, no justice no peace.

(COMMENT)

Justice and Peace are NOT mutually exclusive. It is the case: peace is conditional for the possibility IF and only IF justice is present. (Of course we know that not to be true.)

Most Respectfully,
R

International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing​

Carrying a bomb is terrorism. Dropping one out of an airplane is not.

You messed up in the head.

Must be that old government employment.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The answer to this question is probably the same reason that "justice" is not mentioned in court.

That side steps my post. Why is it that rights, justice, and international law are never mentioned in any of the fake peace talks. You would think that those principles would be the pillars of any peace agreement.

Could it be that applying those principle would lead the talks in the "wrong" direction?

(COMMENT)

You maybe going into peace talks thing that the end result is come from seeking a just settlement international claim for restitution. I believe that the Hostile Arab Palestinian has inflicted harm through criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, unable to achieve their political goals and objective, act to coerce the citizenry; to apply criminal pressure intended to influence the policy and conduct of government.

But I believe the participation in peace negotiations (dispute resolution, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement) or other peaceful methodologies to achieve equity and fairness that prevents the "Unjust Enrichment" of one party or the other; including compensation for the war, restitution for deliberate attacks on civilians in public places, or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or extensive destruction likely to result or actually resulting in major economic loss.

The HoAP has violate every one of the 16 separate anti-terrorist conventions since the establishment of the Palestinian State in 1988 (not the 100's of non-binding resolutions the Radicalized Islamic World has push through targeted specifically against the Israelis).

I think your notion of peace process is something that doesn't exist. In most negotiations for peace, it is not about rights, justice, and international law. It is an agreement between the parties to a set of conditions. Don't get caught-up the the political rhetoric. The objective of the agreement is "peace;" --- "not rights, justice, and international law."

Most Respectfully,
R

Where do you get this crap, Rocco?

BTW, no justice no peace.

From the UN archives, University archives and government archives. Not islamonazi propaganda like you use.

No justice while the arab muslims engage in acts of war and terrorism

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, don't be foolish. This list is just ridiculously long.

Who was Israel's boogyman before Hamas?

(COMMENT)

Hostile Arab Palestinians have been around since the time of the Treaty of Sevres (and even before).

• Haj Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem
• Izz ad-Din al-Qassam and the Palestinian Black Hand
• Husseini-controlled Arab Higher Committee
• Arab Liberation Army
• Holy War Army
• etc etc etc
​

Most Respectfully,
R

And all of those were a response to the Zionist colonial project.

None of them would have existed otherwise.

BULLSHIT they were attacks on Jews as dictated by the koran. If they were serious about peace they would have agreed to be represented during talks on the allocation of land to the various parties

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Justice is a matter of perception! There is no Book of Justice. Just as it is acceptable behavior for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct operations contrary to the International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing --- (Binding) --- many in the west world find it to be unacceptable. Just as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Hijacking or Destruction) acceptable behaviors; the western world again finds it unacceptable. Just as the HoAP cannot understand The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (relative to the Blockade).

Where do you get this crap, Rocco?

BTW, no justice no peace.

(COMMENT)

Justice and Peace are NOT mutually exclusive. It is the case: peace is conditional for the possibility IF and only IF justice is present. (Of course we know that not to be true.)

Most Respectfully,
R

International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing​

Carrying a bomb is terrorism. Dropping one out of an airplane is not.

You messed up in the head.

Must be that old government employment.

Using a bomb against a military target is not terrorism, using a bomb against a civilian target is. If hamas plans its military weapons in civilian areas then they cant complain when the civilians they force to stay there are killed .

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Justice is a matter of perception! There is no Book of Justice. Just as it is acceptable behavior for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct operations contrary to the International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing --- (Binding) --- many in the west world find it to be unacceptable. Just as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Hijacking or Destruction) acceptable behaviors; the western world again finds it unacceptable. Just as the HoAP cannot understand The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (relative to the Blockade).

Where do you get this crap, Rocco?

BTW, no justice no peace.

(COMMENT)

Justice and Peace are NOT mutually exclusive. It is the case: peace is conditional for the possibility IF and only IF justice is present. (Of course we know that not to be true.)

Most Respectfully,
R

International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing​

Carrying a bomb is terrorism. Dropping one out of an airplane is not.

You messed up in the head.

Must be that old government employment.

It's difficult to believe you are so befuddled by some very simple concepts.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Caution, reality.



BTW, do you see any rocket launchers?

 

[Shusha]

Wait, what? So your argument is that Hamas isn't really firing rockets at Israel?

Or is your argument that Hamas IS firing rockets at Israel, but Israel should not respond to them? IF the latter, why not?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't think for a moment that your cartoon analogy is actually convincing.

Caution, reality.

BTW, do you see any rocket launchers?

(COMMENT)

Most Americans don't try to start fight, but it happens. However, most of us are taught that once the fur starts flying, you end it. That's what we do.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Andylusion]

I agree that a two-state solution seems best but, given the determination of the Israelis to continue their occupation of the Palestinian Territories, this will not happen.

Okay, so we agree, conceptually, that a two (probably three) State solution is the JUST solution.

The Israelis, of course, have demonstrated time and time again that they are willing to accept Palestinian self-government on part of the territory (examples: withdrawal from Gaza and the Oslo Accords).

What you say is not so; the Israelis did not withdraw from Gaza as they have massacred the civilian population there more than once, the latest being in 2014. Also, Gaza remains under effective occupation as there is a blockade of the border and military control of the Gaza air and sea.

The next step is to determine the permanent borders between Israel and the nascent Palestinian State. This step has to be completed BEFORE the "occupation" can end since without permanent borders we won't know what land is "occupied" and by whom. You can't end the occupation until it is determined which land will ultimately belong to Palestine.

The world sees it differently since the state of Israel which is a member of the United Nations has the border of 1967. Even Israel's only dependable ally accepts that the Israelis are occupying Palestine.

So. Do you think that the permanent borders should be negotiated as part of a peace treaty? Do you think they should be based on the respective needs of both parties? Do you think the same rules should apply equally to both parties?

Or do you think the borders can ONLY be set in one particular place. If you go with this option -- why do you believe that?

I think the Israelis should return their military and settlers to Israel, where they belong.

Israel should not withdraw from Gaza, or the West Bank.

The population of those areas earned what they got, and Israel was right to do it. If any group of people did to the USA, what those people have done to Israel, we would wipe them out. Russia would wipe them out. Most of the Middle east would torture the crap out of them, and kill them off one by one.

Israel has been far far too lenient.

I don't care how the world sees it. I don't care about the UN. I don't care if even the US government thinks they should leave Gaza. They should not. They will not. And honestly, they should kick out the Arabs, and Annex Gaza.

I think Israel has their Settlers and military exactly where they should be. Me, and most of Israel, don't really give a crap what you think, and we never will.

Zionists agree with you.

Good. Anything else?

 

[Andylusion]

Caution, reality.



BTW, do you see any rocket launchers?

Are you arguing that Hamas isn't firing rockets into Israel? Even the UN isn't that mindless.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't think for a moment that your cartoon analogy is actually convincing.

Caution, reality.

BTW, do you see any rocket launchers?

(COMMENT)

Most Americans don't try to start fight, but it happens. However, most of us are taught that once the fur starts flying, you end it. That's what we do.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fight started with Zionist colonization.

 

[Andylusion]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't think for a moment that your cartoon analogy is actually convincing.

Caution, reality.

BTW, do you see any rocket launchers?

(COMMENT)

Most Americans don't try to start fight, but it happens. However, most of us are taught that once the fur starts flying, you end it. That's what we do.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fight started with Zionist colonization.

And it will end, when the Zionists push all the Arabs out, and not a moment before. The number who have to die to reach that point, is up to those who resist the will of G-d.

Ezekiel 37:21
and say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land.

You can either get with G-d's plan, or fight him, and die.

Those are your options.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't think for a moment that your cartoon analogy is actually convincing.

Caution, reality.

BTW, do you see any rocket launchers?

(COMMENT)

Most Americans don't try to start fight, but it happens. However, most of us are taught that once the fur starts flying, you end it. That's what we do.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fight started with Zionist colonization.

Well, obviously not. If you knew anything of Islamist history, you would know that Islamic history is one of perpetual wars. Islam has always been both internally and externally destructive. The various Islamist dictators who have, at various times in the past (and in the present), chosen to further the islamist caliphates, have typically been targets of opportunity for the next-in-line. History tells us that half of the “rightly guided” Caliphs were assassinated by other Moslems. All of them fought civil wars with Moslems and Moslem rebels when not at war with the kuffar.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't think for a moment that your cartoon analogy is actually convincing.

Caution, reality.

BTW, do you see any rocket launchers?

(COMMENT)

Most Americans don't try to start fight, but it happens. However, most of us are taught that once the fur starts flying, you end it. That's what we do.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fight started with Zionist colonization.

Well, obviously not. If you knew anything of Islamist history, you would know that Islamic history is one of perpetual wars. Islam has always been both internally and externally destructive. The various Islamist dictators who have, at various times in the past (and in the present), chosen to further the islamist caliphates, have typically been targets of opportunity for the next-in-line. History tells us that half of the “rightly guided” Caliphs were assassinated by other Moslems. All of them fought civil wars with Moslems and Moslem rebels when not at war with the kuffar.

This isn't a religious conflict.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't think for a moment that your cartoon analogy is actually convincing.

Caution, reality.

BTW, do you see any rocket launchers?

(COMMENT)

Most Americans don't try to start fight, but it happens. However, most of us are taught that once the fur starts flying, you end it. That's what we do.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fight started with Zionist colonization.

Well, obviously not. If you knew anything of Islamist history, you would know that Islamic history is one of perpetual wars. Islam has always been both internally and externally destructive. The various Islamist dictators who have, at various times in the past (and in the present), chosen to further the islamist caliphates, have typically been targets of opportunity for the next-in-line. History tells us that half of the “rightly guided” Caliphs were assassinated by other Moslems. All of them fought civil wars with Moslems and Moslem rebels when not at war with the kuffar.

This isn't a religious conflict.

You're a particularly inept apologist for Islamic terrorism.

Have you ever asked yourself why so many islamist terrorist groups have religious surnames for their fascist boys clubs.

Hamas - aka the Islamic "resistance movement". You noted the term "Islamic", right?

How about Pal'istanian Islamic Jihad. Did you somehow miss "Islamic" and "gee-had"?

The various Islamic terrorist franchises and their islamo-fascist contemporaries are actually just pious moslems following the koran and sunnah to the letter. Such principles as hatred of Jews and waqf all contribute to an inability for pious moslems to accept Jews and competing religions (and to include revulsion for the competing sects of Islamics) or a Jewish state in "moslem lands". All of the islamo-fascist hate groups are subordinate to islamist ideology. Could that be why so many islamist terrorist groups have religious surnames for their Hitler Youth clubs?

 

[Eloy]

Okay. You are parroting common soundbites from Team Palestine, without actually producing fruitful discussion of the conflict let alone solutions to the conflict.

I offered a solution, namely the Israelis, both military and settlers, should return to Israel. This will render acts of resistance to the occupation obsolete.

However, you did answer my questions indirectly. You believe:

That the determination of borders between countries in conflict should be a result of what the "world" sees and should be imposed rather than negotiated and agreed upon.

Yes; the acquisition of land through war is forbidden in international law.

You believe that Palestine should be ethnically cleansed and made Judenrein. (Do you think that Israel should be emptied of all Palestinians as well? A population transfer, equally imposed on both sides? Why or why not?)

No; you should not take the return of settlers to mean that all Jews should leave Palestine.
Also, it is against international law for an occupying country to transfer its citizens to conquered land.

You believe that once Palestine is ethnically cleansed of all Jews and given self-government that Palestine has a right to continue to attack Israel and that Israel has no right to respond to those attacks in any way (neither through non-violent means such as economic sanctions and blockades nor through military operations). (Do you think that Israel has the right to continue to attack Palestine?)

As I stated, I do not believe that either Palestine or Israel should be ethnically cleansed.
Palestine has a right to self government and it is in no other country's authority to either give or withhold this right.
If Israel makes a determined effort to live in peace with its closest neighbor, there could be peace.
All sovereign nations have the right to self defense.

You believe that the international border between Israel and Palestine should be entirely open with neither side having border controls and all people and goods to be transported freely between the two nations.

You have described the European Union. It works.

Why do you think these beliefs will bring an end of conflict and peace?

When neighbors respect the rights of each other there is the condition for peace. Otherwise, the future looks bleak.