Is it time for Israel to re-take Gaza?
- Thread starter Shusha
- Start date
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
You constantly ***** about Pallywood productions and then you post a piece of propaganda bullshit like that. I stopped watching after I heard the Israeli accuse her of blaming everyone else and not taking responsibility for her own actions. That really floored me! Israel has never taken responsibility for anything it has done to the Palestinians. That's like Charles Manson arguing the sanctity of life to a pro-choicer.
In regards to human shields, there is no evidence those people on the roof were directed to stay there by Hamas. Furthermore, Amnesty International found no evidence of Hamas using human shields.
E.g., in Operation Cast Lead: “Contrary to repeated allegations by Israeli officials of the use of ‘human shields,’ Amnesty found no evidence that Hamas or other Palestinian fighters directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks.” – Amnesty International
AI did find many instances of the IDF using Palestinian human shields.
Amnesty did, however, "find ample evidence that Israel used them.”
Testimony 1 – Human Shield
People are called “Johnnie. They’re Palestinian civilians” in Gaza neighborhoods. In checking out houses, “we send the neighbor in, the ‘Johnnie,’ and if there are armed men inside, we (use) ‘pressure cooker’ procedures….to get them out alive….to catch the armed men.” When necessary, combat helicopters are called in to fire anti-tank missiles at civilian homes. Then send a “Johnnie” in to check for dead and wounded.
Human shields were also used to check for booby-traps and perform other services. “Sometimes the force would enter while placing rifle barrels on a civilian’s shoulder, advancing into the house and using him as a human shield. Commanders said these were the instructions and we had to do it.”
That's far worse than a bunch of people standing on a roof.People are called “Johnnie. They’re Palestinian civilians” in Gaza neighborhoods. In checking out houses, “we send the neighbor in, the ‘Johnnie,’ and if there are armed men inside, we (use) ‘pressure cooker’ procedures….to get them out alive….to catch the armed men.” When necessary, combat helicopters are called in to fire anti-tank missiles at civilian homes. Then send a “Johnnie” in to check for dead and wounded.
Human shields were also used to check for booby-traps and perform other services. “Sometimes the force would enter while placing rifle barrels on a civilian’s shoulder, advancing into the house and using him as a human shield. Commanders said these were the instructions and we had to do it.”
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
An occupier claiming self defense, is the equivalent of an assassin, after breaking in to his targets' home and finding the home owner putting up more resistance than anticipated, telling the cops I had no choice but to kill him, for I was in fear for my life.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
Yeah, actually it does. You live with criminals, you die with criminals.
I get it, you love terrorists, and will defend them until they kill you.
The rest of us are not immoral and evil scum like you. Sorry, but you really are a flat out lesser person, than all the good people in this world.
Flat out.... hear it again.... if you are member of a terrorist organization, and you are attempting to break through a boarder on purpose with the intent to kill the people on the other side..... yes. You deserve to die, and I don't care when you do.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
Translation:
I AM A TERRORIST SUPPORTER! COMMENTS BASED ON HISTORICAL FACT ARE IDIOTIC!
No you are fool. That's why we are mocking your stupidity.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
Because they are not innocent. They are attacking Israeli. They stated openly to the press, they intended to murder Israelis.
There is nothing innocent about that, and shooting people who intend to murder others, is not bad.
It's a good thing, and the Israelis need to keep doing that, until all would-be murderers are dead.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 16,335
- 3,679
- 290
- Thread starter
- #307
The problem I have with your argument is that you keep claiming to support a two state solution, with both Israeli and Palestinian sovereignty, along the Green Line. But you keep bringing up arguments which align with a rejection of ANY Jewish sovereignty. It makes your argument inconsistent or deliberately deceptive.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 16,335
- 3,679
- 290
- Thread starter
- #308
[QUOTE="Billo_Really, post: 19958684, member: 2873"If you really are attacked, no one expects you to just sit there and take it. If someone is shooting at you, you'd be an idiot not to shoot back. But no one is shooting at you. No one is attacking you. No one is a direct threat to your life. And unless your life is threatened, you cannot use deadly force. It is your governments policy to shoot any (and all) Palestinians. Women, children, the disabled, everyone. No one is innocent. [/quote]
Your post amounts to:
Principle #1 -- If you are attacked you are an idiot not to shoot back.
Principle #2 -- Only direct threats to your life permit lethal force.
Principle #3 -- Israel has a policy of shooting all Palestinians based solely on their "Palestinianness".
I agree with your Principle #1. It is the foundation of the moral and legal idea of self-defense. If someone attacks you, you are an idiot not to shoot back. So the dispute we would have is whether or not Israel is "really" being attacked.
I agree somewhat less in your Principle #2. I believe it is permissible to use force to protect not only direct, immediate threats to one's own life, but also to protect and defend other's lives and against threats to other's lives. So the dispute we would have is whether there is a credible threat to Israeli lives.
There is also the argument that it is legally and morally permissible to defend one's sovereign territory from an invader. You seem to believe that Gaza has every right to not only defend itself from an invader ("occupier"). Israel should have the same rights, but you persist in saying that "occupiers" have no right to defend themselves. Which is bullshit.
Your Principle #3 is just an immoral demonization of Israel. And a blatant rejection of reality. Israel has done an exceptional job of being extremely precise (not perfect) of only killing those who pose an immediate threat to life or to sovereignty.
Your post amounts to:
Principle #1 -- If you are attacked you are an idiot not to shoot back.
Principle #2 -- Only direct threats to your life permit lethal force.
Principle #3 -- Israel has a policy of shooting all Palestinians based solely on their "Palestinianness".
I agree with your Principle #1. It is the foundation of the moral and legal idea of self-defense. If someone attacks you, you are an idiot not to shoot back. So the dispute we would have is whether or not Israel is "really" being attacked.
I agree somewhat less in your Principle #2. I believe it is permissible to use force to protect not only direct, immediate threats to one's own life, but also to protect and defend other's lives and against threats to other's lives. So the dispute we would have is whether there is a credible threat to Israeli lives.
There is also the argument that it is legally and morally permissible to defend one's sovereign territory from an invader. You seem to believe that Gaza has every right to not only defend itself from an invader ("occupier"). Israel should have the same rights, but you persist in saying that "occupiers" have no right to defend themselves. Which is bullshit.
Your Principle #3 is just an immoral demonization of Israel. And a blatant rejection of reality. Israel has done an exceptional job of being extremely precise (not perfect) of only killing those who pose an immediate threat to life or to sovereignty.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 16,335
- 3,679
- 290
- Thread starter
- #309
Innocent people should never be targeted.
When confronted with a group of attackers who are dispersed and hiding within a group of civilians, it is the responsibility of the attacked to do their best to target only those who are actively attacking and not the civilians. The standard is not perfection, but a reasonable effort to avoid civilian deaths. Israel has done this with a degree of success that is far and away better than any other army on the planet. ~90% success. Other armies manage to achieve a success rate of only ~30-50%, at best.
Attacking forces have the absolute responsibility to differentiate themselves from civilians.
Attacking forces have an absolute responsibility to remove civilians from areas of conflict, where possible. And it is certainly possible here.
USAF 2023
Gold Member
- Feb 22, 2012
- 10,562
- 3,166
- 255
The Arabs didn’t accept the “ Green Line” before 1967. Israel doesn’t have to accept them now.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 16,335
- 3,679
- 290
- Thread starter
- #311
Oh, be clear, I'm not suggesting the Green Line has any current validity. I'm just pointing out Billo_Really's inconsistent argument where he claims only Israeli "occupation" over the Green Line, but makes constant arguments to a 1948 "occupation".
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,464
- 4,886
- 1,815
The Green Line divides 1948 occupied Palestine from 1967 occupied Palestine.
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Is it time for Israel to re-take Gaza?
※→ et al,
For the purposes of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the "Armistice Line" (AKA: Green Line) is "no longer in force." Acceptance is moot.
The Lines are for historical purposes only.
Both Armistice Agreements make it clear that the Armistice Lines were not representative of final borders/boundaries.
Article II of the Israeli-Egyptian Treaty The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel. Whereas Article 3 of the Israeli-Jordanian Treaty recognizes the international boundary between Jordan and Israel as delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate.
The argument concerning the definition of the Occupation is representative of the confusion between two competing leadership groups within the general Arab Israeli Palestinians.
• One group claims that the 1948 war was triggered by the Israeli occupation of territory within the territory formerly under the British Mandate. That would be (as they have said so many times), from the river to the sea.
• One group makes the claim that the 1967 border, defined as the Armistice Lines up to 4 June 1967, are the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine.
The Arab Palestinians do not have a single political position with any authority. And you have to be very careful that you understand what faction is speaking. They all do not have a common agenda when it comes to internationally recognized borders.
Similarly, you will have seen over time, that the discussion over who has control within the Gaza Strip; and the two factions with different agendas. HAMAS flip-flops back and forth (as does the International Community).
But that is different than what the actual Customary and IHL stipulate.
(REFERENCE DOCUMENTS)
In both referenced Armistice Agreement, Article XII (2) stipulates that the Armistice "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved. Peace has been achieved between the concerned parties.
• The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •
• Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace (1979) •
Most Respectfully,
R
※→ et al,
For the purposes of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the "Armistice Line" (AKA: Green Line) is "no longer in force." Acceptance is moot.
The Lines are for historical purposes only.
(COMMENT)
Both Armistice Agreements make it clear that the Armistice Lines were not representative of final borders/boundaries.
Article II of the Israeli-Egyptian Treaty The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel. Whereas Article 3 of the Israeli-Jordanian Treaty recognizes the international boundary between Jordan and Israel as delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate.
The argument concerning the definition of the Occupation is representative of the confusion between two competing leadership groups within the general Arab Israeli Palestinians.
• One group claims that the 1948 war was triggered by the Israeli occupation of territory within the territory formerly under the British Mandate. That would be (as they have said so many times), from the river to the sea.
• One group makes the claim that the 1967 border, defined as the Armistice Lines up to 4 June 1967, are the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine.
The Arab Palestinians do not have a single political position with any authority. And you have to be very careful that you understand what faction is speaking. They all do not have a common agenda when it comes to internationally recognized borders.
Similarly, you will have seen over time, that the discussion over who has control within the Gaza Strip; and the two factions with different agendas. HAMAS flip-flops back and forth (as does the International Community).
• Some say that if the Israelis enter the Gaza Strip to secure law and order, than that is an invasion.
But that is different than what the actual Customary and IHL stipulate.
• It cannot be an invasion if the Israelis are already considered to be occupying the Gaza Strip; because for the Gaza Strip Territory is considered occupied it must actually be placed under the authority of the Israeli Defense Force.
(REFERENCE DOCUMENTS)
In both referenced Armistice Agreement, Article XII (2) stipulates that the Armistice "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved. Peace has been achieved between the concerned parties.
• The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •
• Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace (1979) •
Most Respectfully,
R
theliq
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #315
Then don't pretend over the years that you would and therefore you don't mind the Palestinians,other Arabic nations plus Iran to get back the Palestinians LAND BACK,even by your own admission you have said that the Green Line existed and a WAR maybe the right thing to revert this land back to its rightful owner.....plus all Jewish businesses that have helped the Zionists worldwide are obviously fair GAME....much like Trumps threats to European Companies who trade with Iran.....Is that really what you want ILOVE !!!!!!!!!steve
Andylusion
Platinum Member
You have the right to be wrong, Trash boy.
Humanity
Gold Member
- Jul 17, 2014
- 5,089
- 361
- 130
There seems to be a use of the "Green Line" by Israel that is somewhat like having your cake and eating it...
Team Israel members appear to agree that the "Green Line" is NOT the border, yet 'defends' the "Green Line" vehemently as their border.
Which is it?
Team Israel members appear to agree that the "Green Line" is NOT the border, yet 'defends' the "Green Line" vehemently as their border.
Which is it?
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Is it time for Israel to re-take Gaza?
※→ Humanity, et al,
The Israelis DO NOT claim that the "Green Line" is a border (Israels or that of the Arab Palestinians). That is obvious. To suggest that it is "the" border or "a' border of any kind for anyone, would create a conflict over the Capital and some of the security barrier runs.
The use of the Green Line is of no value in setting the demarcations for the Arab Palestinian entity --- separating the sovereignty of Israel.
I say again, Israel does not defend the 1949 Green Line as their border. That is an Arab Palestinian piece of disinformation. It is the case that some segments of the current sovereign lines of demarcation happen to overlay portions of the old dissolved Green Line, but the actual sovereignty begins with the border controls.
This is one of Israels primary issues.
The Arab Palestinians would like the old Green Line to be a hard and fast border. That would actually give them back some territorial options. But the Arab Palestinians cannot claim title because they have very very little absolute government control over which they could claim territorial sovereignty.
Most Respectfully,
R
※→ Humanity, et al,
The Israelis DO NOT claim that the "Green Line" is a border (Israels or that of the Arab Palestinians). That is obvious. To suggest that it is "the" border or "a' border of any kind for anyone, would create a conflict over the Capital and some of the security barrier runs.
The use of the Green Line is of no value in setting the demarcations for the Arab Palestinian entity --- separating the sovereignty of Israel.
(COMMENT)
I say again, Israel does not defend the 1949 Green Line as their border. That is an Arab Palestinian piece of disinformation. It is the case that some segments of the current sovereign lines of demarcation happen to overlay portions of the old dissolved Green Line, but the actual sovereignty begins with the border controls.
This is one of Israels primary issues.
The Arab Palestinians would like the old Green Line to be a hard and fast border. That would actually give them back some territorial options. But the Arab Palestinians cannot claim title because they have very very little absolute government control over which they could claim territorial sovereignty.
Most Respectfully,
R
IMHO:
1. In answer to the thread title's question: NO, of course not.
2. Friend and foe alike agree that the Israelis are extremely intelligent and innovative people.
a. They can certainly find a non-lethal way to stop future border incursions, which Hamas promises to have more of.
3. Hamas scored a public relations bonanza with the death of those 50+ (technically) unarmed protesters.
4. Israel is a democracy, so more such deadly encounters are out of the question.
*****
In 1960 in South Africa in a town called Sharpeville, (Caucasian) authorities killed more than 60 unarmed (black) protesters. Some historians tell us that it was a turning point in the fight against apartheid.
I think that the killing of those 50+ Palestinians (including that baby) may be some kind of turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
1. In answer to the thread title's question: NO, of course not.
2. Friend and foe alike agree that the Israelis are extremely intelligent and innovative people.
a. They can certainly find a non-lethal way to stop future border incursions, which Hamas promises to have more of.
3. Hamas scored a public relations bonanza with the death of those 50+ (technically) unarmed protesters.
4. Israel is a democracy, so more such deadly encounters are out of the question.
*****
In 1960 in South Africa in a town called Sharpeville, (Caucasian) authorities killed more than 60 unarmed (black) protesters. Some historians tell us that it was a turning point in the fight against apartheid.
I think that the killing of those 50+ Palestinians (including that baby) may be some kind of turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
ICE Arrests Illegal Aliens Convicted of Murder, Child Pornography, Assault
- Started by Hollie
- Replies: 3
-
Obama-appointed judge reverses course, rules voter ID law isn't discriminatory in GOP win- Started by DigitalDrifter
- Replies: 0
