Is it time for Israel to re-take Gaza?

[rylah]

No, it isn't. In fact, that's how most of the countries in the ME were formed. Historically, the Golan was not part of Syria until the British and French decided to make it so while they were occupying the former Ottoman Empire, and the Sinai was never part of Egypt until the British decided to make it so after they built the Suez Canal to that the canal could be better protected, and Lebanon was created by the French in order to give the Catholics in Syria more power. All these things were done while the land was held in belligerent occupation, and all are recognized as legitimate by the "international community". If Israel were not a Jewish state, there would be no complaints about Israel annexing the land it captured from Jordan.

You are thinking like a Zionist. Jordan occupied Palestinian land in 1948. Israel took over that occupation in 1967.

You're not thinking at all. The land was under occupation by Britain until 1948, and Britain had earlier created the state of Jordan, then known as Trans-Jordan, while Britain occupied that land. Before that, the land had been occupied by the Ottoman Empire for centuries. The people who have now chosen to name themselves Palestinians have never occupied the land. If it is illegitimate to annex occupied land than most of the ME is illegitimate, but people like you only complain about Israel because it is the only Jewish state.

This is sooooo confusing to you. Nobody annexed anything after WWI except Israel. And that was illegal.

If it wasn't illegal for Jordan to annex lands then it isn't for Israel.
Both are essentially the only 'Palestinian governments' with full sovereignty over the land.

I didn't say that.

What You said was a falsehood.
Jordan and Israel are the only real sovereigns, and biggest effective Palestinian governments to date.

You tried to exclude Jordan because it contradicts Your claim.

 

[Billo_Really]

Not the Palestinians either. It was part of Jordan, they initiated the 67 War and lost. How come those who drink the Pro Palestinian Kool-Aid never questioned why the U.N. who was supposed to enforce “ International Law” left? Does anyone in their right minds believe the Arabs would have cared about “ International Law” if they had won? Just more proof that “ Law” isn’t worth the piece of paper it’s written on

So you're saying "might makes right"?

That's very German of you!

 

[Billo_Really]

Your Korans make it a religious duty.

I wouldn't know, I'm a Catholic.

 

[Billo_Really]

Just like the Fogel Family threatened theirs

It's not the same, because the majority of Palestinians opposed the murders...

"63% of Palestinians opposed" ​

...whereas, no Israelis are outraged over the death of the 8 month old infant.

 

[Hollie]

Your Korans make it a religious duty.

I wouldn't know, I'm a Catholic.

Now that you better understand one of the most basic precepts underpinning Islamist ideology, you will be better prepared to understand the motivations that drive Islamism.

 

[Billo_Really]

Not that silly claim again?

It's not a claim, it's a question.

 

[Billo_Really]

You are transferring what Christians and Muslims have been doing to Jews for the past 1700 years unto Israel.

It does not work.

Red and reread your last sentence. It applies solely to the ones who insist that Israel is shooting at Arabs "just because".

When you make up bullshit reasons to kill people, it is because you WANT to.

 

[Billo_Really]

Israel did not kill the baby. It had health issues prior to the parents going to the border and was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Gaza doctors themselves say they do not know what the baby has died from, yet. So stop being judge, jury and executioner when it comes to why each and every one of those at the protests died.

As usual, you are just setting tires on fire, just as the Arabs did.

You shot tear gas at it! Who the **** does that? You shoot at fishermen. You shoot at farmers. Who the **** does that?

BTW, burning tires is not an attack on Israel.

 

[Shusha]

You shot tear gas at it! Who the **** does that?

People who are trying to control violent riots. Who the **** brings babies into a violent riot?

Are you trying to claim that Israel has no right to use non-lethal self-defense either?

 

[Billo_Really]

So NOW you are arguing that an eight month old baby was deliberately targeted and killed by the IDF snipers? Have you got a link to that? Or are you just appealing to emotion to avoid answering the question?

Don't give me this "deer in the headlights look", of coarse it was targeted.

an IDF spokesperson bragged in a now-deleted tweet, "We arrived prepared and with precise reinforcements. Nothing was carried out uncontrolled; everything was accurate and measured, and we know where every bullet landed” ​

 

[Hollie]

Israel did not kill the baby. It had health issues prior to the parents going to the border and was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Gaza doctors themselves say they do not know what the baby has died from, yet. So stop being judge, jury and executioner when it comes to why each and every one of those at the protests died.

As usual, you are just setting tires on fire, just as the Arabs did.

You shot tear gas at it! Who the **** does that? You shoot at fishermen. You shoot at farmers. Who the **** does that?

BTW, burning tires is not an attack on Israel.

“You shot tear gas at it!”

Classic pointlessness. By “it” you mean an 8 month old child. And no, there’s nothing to suggest that “it” was targeted.

There seems to be something truly repulsive about bringing an infant to a war zone. However, there seems to be something that connects Islamic “Mother of the Year for Sheer Negligence and Incompetence - Islamist ideology” award nominees.



Maryam Abu Qandil, a three-month-old baby brought to the Gaza "Return March," is the focus of an April 6 report by the Palestinian Authority TV channel. Her mother, Nasrin Abu Yusuf, said that she is the youngest baby to come to the "Return March," and added that "we shall remain...


"Mother Brings Three-Month-Old Baby to Gaza "Return March," Declares: We Will March to Our Villages - Martyrs in the Millions - - Scenes from Gaza "Return March""

 

[Billo_Really]

Okay, since the fence in on the Green Line, as far as I understand it, if anyone attempts to breach the fence, thereby crossing into Israeli sovereign territory, it is permissible for Israel to use force, including lethal force, to protect her property, according to your standards. So any deaths which occurred at the fence are legitimate.

A significant army crossing into Israel, is a threat; a person crossing into Israel, is not necessarily one. What if the person is seeking asylum? You going to kill them anyway? The fact that you are jumping through hoops to legitimize murder, says a lot about you.

The next question is lethal threats from weapons which by their nature can breach the fence, such as rifles, IEDs, pipebombs, molotovs, rocks, kites, etc. Is it permissible for Israel to use force, including lethal force to protect the lives of her people and her property against those types of attacks which can cross the border, while the attacker does not?

You cannot use deadly force to protect property. And a fence erected on land Israel has no sovereign title to, is fair game.

 

[Shusha]

So NOW you are arguing that an eight month old baby was deliberately targeted and killed by the IDF snipers? Have you got a link to that? Or are you just appealing to emotion to avoid answering the question?

Don't give me this "deer in the headlights look", of coarse it was targeted.

an IDF spokesperson bragged in a now-deleted tweet, "We arrived prepared and with precise reinforcements. Nothing was carried out uncontrolled; everything was accurate and measured, and we know where every bullet landed” ​

The baby in question died of an existing heart condition. Not a bullet. Do better.

 

[Billo_Really]

What have I done?

Look, anytime you bring up issues involving territory within the Green Line (which you claim to accept as Israel), you are making an argument against your own argument. So when you whine about Arab land ownership pre-1948 (which, btw, has nothing to do with sovereignty) you are arguing against Israel's rights to that pre-1948, inside the Green Line territory. Which is an argument against your own argument that Israel has full sovereign rights to all the territory inside the Green Line.

I point out again, that I not only disagree with you, but you are factually incorrect about the meaning of the Green Line, but at the very least, I expect you to be consistent with your own argument.

If you want to convince me that you believe in Israel's rights within the Green Line, then you have to not argue about any territory except that which is over the Green Line.

I don't give a shit about Israels rights and I don't give a shit about Israelis. In order to give a shit, you have to care. And I don't. I also don't give a shit about Palestinians, either. This conflict doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect my daily life in any way. So why would I care? Why would I lie? There is nothing in this conflict for me. There is nothing to gain. Nothing to lose.

So when I tell you, you are on the wrong side of history, believe it baby, because that is the truth.

BTW, states don't have rights, people do.

 

[Shusha]

A significant army crossing into Israel, is a threat; a person crossing into Israel, is not necessarily one.

But we agree even a single person can be a threat, yes? If they were armed with an IED, yes? So we agree that there has to be a threat, and if there is a threat, one can use force, even lethal force, yes?

You cannot use deadly force to protect property. And a fence erected on land Israel has no sovereign title to, is fair game.

Israel has every right to defend her sovereign title on her side of the fence (which is the Green Line).

And if you are not permitted to use lethal force to defend property then no Arab Palestinian has a right to use lethal force. By your own standard.

 

[Billo_Really]

Now that you better understand one of the most basic precepts underpinning Islamist ideology, you will be better prepared to understand the motivations that drive Islamism.

I understand you are an Islamophobe.

 

[theliq]

A significant army crossing into Israel, is a threat; a person crossing into Israel, is not necessarily one.

But we agree even a single person can be a threat, yes? If they were armed with an IED, yes? So we agree that there has to be a threat, and if there is a threat, one can use force, even lethal force, yes?

You cannot use deadly force to protect property. And a fence erected on land Israel has no sovereign title to, is fair game.

Israel has every right to defend her sovereign title on her side of the fence (which is the Green Line).

And if you are not permitted to use lethal force to defend property then no Arab Palestinian has a right to use lethal force. By your own standard.

LATEST NEWS IN...RATIFIED BY THE UN......THE CANAANITES ARE GIVEN BACK THEIR ANCESTERAL HOME...ALL ZIONISTS HAVE BEEN DEPORTED OR MURDERED IN THE SAME WAY THEY TREATED THE PALESTINIANS from 70 odd years ago until today,moreover ILLEGALY TOOK OVER THIS AREA OF LAND....THAT THEY CLAIMED THEY OWNED ...BUT NEVER DID....Canaanite King Liq 1st....said the Zionists were basically "A WASTE OF SPACE" and had terrorized this area for over 70 years...King Liq did mention how Real Jews are part of our family and are welcome but the Zionists who almost suceeded in wiping out the very race THEY WERE IMPERSONATING were not....YOU SEE YOU ZIONISTS YOU ARE READING A MIRROR IMAGE OF WHAT YOU ARE AND WHO YOU ARE....Your treatment of the Palestinians and Real Jews..THE TWO SEMITIC PEOPLES IS A WAR CRIME. AGAINST HUMANITY......I am the liq I can sort ya,and execute the terms of the Zionist Exit...AND THE NATURAL BALANCE RESTORED

 

[Billo_Really]

People who are trying to control violent riots. Who the **** brings babies into a violent riot?

Are you trying to claim that Israel has no right to use non-lethal self-defense either?

You shot tear gas at a baby!

You shot tear gas at a baby!

You shot tear gas at a baby!

Is there any atrocity you won't try to defend, Heir Goebbels's?

 

[Billo_Really]

“You shot tear gas at it!”

Classic pointlessness. By “it” you mean an 8 month old child. And no, there’s nothing to suggest that “it” was targeted.

There seems to be something truly repulsive about bringing an infant to a war zone. However, there seems to be something that connects Islamic “Mother of the Year for Sheer Negligence and Incompetence - Islamist ideology” award nominees.



Maryam Abu Qandil, a three-month-old baby brought to the Gaza "Return March," is the focus of an April 6 report by the Palestinian Authority TV channel. Her mother, Nasrin Abu Yusuf, said that she is the youngest baby to come to the "Return March," and added that "we shall remain...


"Mother Brings Three-Month-Old Baby to Gaza "Return March," Declares: We Will March to Our Villages - Martyrs in the Millions - - Scenes from Gaza "Return March""

So now you are disrespecting the accuracy of Israeli snipers?

 

[Shusha]

People who are trying to control violent riots. Who the **** brings babies into a violent riot?

Are you trying to claim that Israel has no right to use non-lethal self-defense either?

You shot tear gas at a baby!

You shot tear gas at a baby!

You shot tear gas at a baby!

Is there any atrocity you won't try to defend, Heir Goebbels's?

Israel shot tear gas at a violent riot. What was a baby doing at a violent riot?

The lengths you guys go to avoid any Palestinian responsibility for their own well-being is appalling.