Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Phoenall]

And as international law says once the palestinians use private property for any military purpose it loses its protected status and can be destroyed.

OK, what percentage of Palestinian destroyed property was used for military purposes.

Do you have the stats on that or are you just shoveling shit?

No but I would say 100% have fallen under that criteria, and you need to read ALL the relevant Geneva conventions regarding what constitutes a military purpose to understand that meetting in an under ground car park of a hospital by leaders of hamas is enough to trigger the hospitals demolition, or firing a qassam from the overgrown corner of a school field is enough to carpet bomb the whole area. With modern technology it is easy enough to watch the launching of illegal weapons from gaza in real time, and the subsequent destruction of the area shortly after.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

EVERYONE, and I mean everyone has a right to defend oneself from harm from the immediate danger of another.

You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian has worked hard are being a danger and menace to themselves and to the world community.

In the case related to the entanglement of the Arab Palestinian and the Israelis, the Arab Palestine hobbles themselves each time they strike-out at the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians aren't the only ones. Israel shoots itself in the foot time and time again. The attack on Lebanon. The attack on the flotilla. Time and time again in Gaza. And, of course there are all of those illegal settlements.

Every time Israel does something stupid, their support in the world moves over to the Palestinian side.

So how is responding to illegal weapons hobbling the Israeli's, or enforcing a legally constituted blockade and legal boarding of vessels on the high seas. The gazan muslims have it in their power to call a halt to the Israeli responces and the lifting of the blockade/occupation by not engaging in any violent activity towards Israel

The solution is that simple, and yet hamas and fatah refuse to take it on board. How is this Israel's fault when they respond to illegal weapons, war crimes and acts of war ?

 

[Phoenall]

Your friend is a murderous piece of shit, like you.

And you are not when you demand the genocide of the worlds Jews

 

[Phoenall]

• The 2010 Flotilla actually made a big deal out of the fact that they were going to try and run the blockade. That was the pro-Palestinian activist intent, to create and incident.
It was an intentional negative media event.

Indeed it was brilliant. It put Israel in a lose, lose situation. Should it allow them to break their precious blockade, or get blamed for attacking a civilian aid ship on international waters. Israel gave itself a big black eye on that one.

And came out the other side with a whole herd of prime beef steak when the dust settled. Every official investigation said the same thing the flotilla was trying to run the blockade and was found to be smuggling guns in the process. There have been no more attempts making the act futile and a waste of lives.

 

[Hollie]

• The 2010 Flotilla actually made a big deal out of the fact that they were going to try and run the blockade. That was the pro-Palestinian activist intent, to create and incident.
It was an intentional negative media event.

Indeed it was brilliant. It put Israel in a lose, lose situation. Should it allow them to break their precious blockade, or get blamed for attacking a civilian aid ship on international waters. Israel gave itself a big black eye on that one.

I think you're a little befuddled about those events and circumstances. The flotilla gee-had never accomplished running the blockade as the flotilla'ists had intended. The silly publicity stunt actually diminished the credibility of the stunt'ers as the fiasco was simply a monumental waste of time.

You have noticed that there was no repeat of that disaster, right?

October 5, 2016, 6:55 pm

No violence as Israel intercepts women’s boat to Gaza

A flotilla of one. So yes, we can agree that there has been no repeat of that silly flotilla publicity stunt.

 

[Hollie]

You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.

Palestinians absolutely have the right to defend themselves. As does every individual and every State.

The problem is that the Palestinians have nothing to defend themselves FROM. Palestinians are not being attacked.

The fact that they want political control over more land than they have does not, in any way, constitute an attack.

You need to read up on Israel's settler colonialism.

You need to read up on the pointlessness of silly slogans and clichés.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

EVERYONE, and I mean everyone has a right to defend oneself from harm from the immediate danger of another.

You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian has worked hard are being a danger and menace to themselves and to the world community.

In the case related to the entanglement of the Arab Palestinian and the Israelis, the Arab Palestine hobbles themselves each time they strike-out at the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians aren't the only ones. Israel shoots itself in the foot time and time again. The attack on Lebanon. The attack on the flotilla. Time and time again in Gaza. And, of course there are all of those illegal settlements.

Every time Israel does something stupid, their support in the world moves over to the Palestinian side.

I'm not so sure about that.

The Arab World’s Waning Sympathy for the Palestinians

[T]he Arab and Islamic world, which for years was at the forefront of pushing the notion that the Palestinian issue is the world’s number-one problem, is starting to get fed up with the Palestinians’ utter self-absorption at a time when so many Arabs and Muslims are suffering far worse. . . .

The main reason is that I was aiming to explain change. No nation other than Israel has ever experienced such a dramatic reversal in the way it is perceived and treated by the rest of the world.

Why I Changed My Mind about Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism

Just more islamonazi talking points and propaganda that have no basis in reality of the truth. The Jewish nation has seen changes in the way it is perceived since the Romans claimed they killed their god. Since then the Jews have been victims of mass murder, blood libels and attacks by people just like yourself. Time for the nazi's out there to face the victimisation for once to see how they like it, let them have lies told about them to send world opinion against their very existence. A pity that it no longer works no matter what the hate sites tell you. It is the arab muslims and neo nazi's that are facing the back wash now and they are hating it, so much so that they are making up more fantasy stories like yours to cover their failures.


As you are being told repeatedly the answer is simple and it is in the hands of the arab muslims to resolve the issue without going to the negotiation table. Just halt all violence for 12 months and the Jews will leave the occupied territories and lift the blockade. Now is that so hard ?

 

[Phoenall]

• The 2010 Flotilla actually made a big deal out of the fact that they were going to try and run the blockade. That was the pro-Palestinian activist intent, to create and incident.
It was an intentional negative media event.

Indeed it was brilliant. It put Israel in a lose, lose situation. Should it allow them to break their precious blockade, or get blamed for attacking a civilian aid ship on international waters. Israel gave itself a big black eye on that one.

I think you're a little befuddled about those events and circumstances. The flotilla gee-had never accomplished running the blockade as the flotilla'ists had intended. The silly publicity stunt actually diminished the credibility of the stunt'ers as the fiasco was simply a monumental waste of time.

You have noticed that there was no repeat of that disaster, right?

October 5, 2016, 6:55 pm

No violence as Israel intercepts women’s boat to Gaza

From your link and it says it all


“In accordance with government directives and after exhausting all diplomatic channels, the Israeli Navy redirected the vessel in order to prevent breach of the lawful maritime blockade,” the IDF said in a statement.

“In accordance with international law, the Israeli Navy advised the vessel numerous times to change course prior to the action. Following their refusal the Navy visited and searched the vessel in international waters in order to prevent their intended breach of the lawful maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip. The visit and search of the vessel was uneventful,”



You must agree and accept that this is factual and a true statement of fact, as you brought it to the board. So what is your argument ? No violence means the IDF did not need to defend against illegal acts by the activists.

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, this is a very important point. --- It is a very important point.

Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.

(QUESTIONS)

•• When is a war over?

** In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.

•• What war are you talking about? AND! Who were the parties to the war?

(COMMENT)

This is my opportunity to learn something from you. My understanding was:

•• Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody). There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
•• Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians. The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
•• Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians. The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
​

All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved. Permanent international borders have been established.

•• Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.

•∆• Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
•∆• A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
•§• Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
​

So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?

Nothing was taking from the inhabitance. If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.

Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip. Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank (Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements). Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada. Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process. The two sides did not resume (in good faith) the Permanent Status negotiations. One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.

Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories". The language was deliberately ambiguous. In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.

You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.

Where does it say this in res 242 then, as the authors say that it does not say this anywhere in 242.

It also says that the other parties have to negotiate peace and mutual borders, stop all violence and belligerence. And at no time does it mention the nation of palestine. By talking peace with Egypt and Jordan these criteria were fulfilled, as was handing back the Sinai and Jordan valley met with the leave occupied territories part.


Want to prove me wrong ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

the flotilla was trying to run the blockade and was found to be smuggling guns in the process.

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

And as international law says once the palestinians use private property for any military purpose it loses its protected status and can be destroyed.

OK, what percentage of Palestinian destroyed property was used for military purposes.

Do you have the stats on that or are you just shoveling shit?

No but I would say 100% have fallen under that criteria, and you need to read ALL the relevant Geneva conventions regarding what constitutes a military purpose to understand that meetting in an under ground car park of a hospital by leaders of hamas is enough to trigger the hospitals demolition, or firing a qassam from the overgrown corner of a school field is enough to carpet bomb the whole area. With modern technology it is easy enough to watch the launching of illegal weapons from gaza in real time, and the subsequent destruction of the area shortly after.

That is what I thought. You are just shoveling shit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Just halt all violence for 12 months and the Jews will leave the occupied territories and lift the blockade. Now is that so hard ?

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

• The 2010 Flotilla actually made a big deal out of the fact that they were going to try and run the blockade. That was the pro-Palestinian activist intent, to create and incident.
It was an intentional negative media event.

Indeed it was brilliant. It put Israel in a lose, lose situation. Should it allow them to break their precious blockade, or get blamed for attacking a civilian aid ship on international waters. Israel gave itself a big black eye on that one.

I think you're a little befuddled about those events and circumstances. The flotilla gee-had never accomplished running the blockade as the flotilla'ists had intended. The silly publicity stunt actually diminished the credibility of the stunt'ers as the fiasco was simply a monumental waste of time.

You have noticed that there was no repeat of that disaster, right?

October 5, 2016, 6:55 pm

No violence as Israel intercepts women’s boat to Gaza

From your link and it says it all


“In accordance with government directives and after exhausting all diplomatic channels, the Israeli Navy redirected the vessel in order to prevent breach of the lawful maritime blockade,” the IDF said in a statement.

“In accordance with international law, the Israeli Navy advised the vessel numerous times to change course prior to the action. Following their refusal the Navy visited and searched the vessel in international waters in order to prevent their intended breach of the lawful maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip. The visit and search of the vessel was uneventful,”



You must agree and accept that this is factual and a true statement of fact, as you brought it to the board. So what is your argument ? No violence means the IDF did not need to defend against illegal acts by the activists.

Of course they would say that. It is an Israeli source. It doesn't mean anything.

 

[Phoenall]

...
242 has been largely satisfied.

No; it hasn't.

Remember, 242 has nothing at all to do with the Arab Palestinians.

Of course Resolution 242 is about the Palestinians; they are the people living in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza for Pete's sake.

(This can not be stressed enough).

You would like that; making the Palestinians disappear. What a nerve you have.

It only concerns itself with the States in the area. Most of the States in the area (Israel, Jordan and Egypt) have peace treaties and have thus formally terminated all claims or states of belligerency.

No land can be acquired through war and this is what the Israelis continue to do for the past half century.

The other States (Lebanon and Syria) still have on-going border disputes with Israel.

There is no war being carried on between Israel and Syria although the Israelis continue to illegally occupy the Golan Heights and likewise Israel is not at war with Lebanon although from time to time the Israelis have been involved in belligerence with its neighbor to the north.

Israel has satisfied the requirement to withdraw armed forces from territories occupied in the conflict, in terms of the West Bank, as evidenced by Jordan's acceptance of a peace treaty with her. The Golan Heights is the only territory still under question.

No it hasn't. Israel continues to occupy the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza. A peace treaty between Jordan and Israel is not evidence that Israel ceased to occupy the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem was ceded by Jordan to the Palestinians, not the Israelis, in 1988, as you well know. It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.

Israel's dispute with "Palestine" has nothing at all to do with 242 and is addressed separately in the Oslo Accords, which demand a negotiated treaty between those two parties.

It has everything to do with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination who have gained nothing by chatting to the Israelis for half a century.

Yes it was in every part, find one part that Israel has not fulfilled

Where does it mention the palestinians then ? as I cant see it anywhere. And remember that in 1967 the only palestinians happened to be the Jews

Just like you then wanting the true palestinians to disappear from existence all around the world to fulfill your hero's final solution

And this did not apply until 1968 after the war was ended. And I note you say nothing of the arab muslims theft of the land after this date, so very hypocritical of you isnt it ?

So when was the state of war between Israel and Syria rescinded then, as I can find no mention of it on any site. The Golan heights are actually part of the 22% of land granted under the international law you deny and was stolen by Syria in 1949, so does the " no acquisition of land through war not apply here "

Where does it say in res 242 that Israel has to vacate ALL THE TERRITORY as you claim. IT DOESNT AND THIS ISTHE INTERPRETATION USED BY THE HATE SITES SO THEY CAN JUSTIFY GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER.
And when did Jordan get the authority to cede another nations land to a third party ? isnt that illegal under international law. Keep digging that hole as soon you wont be able to escape and then you will have to admit that you were wrong all along

It does not mention the palestinians and is thrown in as a red herring by the Jew haters all the time. They did not exist until 20 years after 242 was written, and so they cant be held up to 242 at any time. Their treaty was Oslo 1 and 2 that they accepted until they saw it relieved them of land they thought was theirs

 

[Phoenall]

It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.

Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."

No it is a common ploy by the members of team palestine to silence the truth

 

[Phoenall]

You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.

Palestinians absolutely have the right to defend themselves. As does every individual and every State.

The problem is that the Palestinians have nothing to defend themselves FROM. Palestinians are not being attacked.

The fact that they want political control over more land than they have does not, in any way, constitute an attack.

You need to read up on Israel's settler colonialism.

NO YOU DO as you are the only one that sees it in your fantasy world. The only colonialism is that of the pan arab nationalists that is failing due to lack of public support

 

[Phoenall]

It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.

Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."

Regrettably, you and about three others do nothing but distort the truth in the hope that you will mislead others.

In other words the facts are destroying my argument and credibility will you stop posting them and let me win the debate.


Produce your truth so we can show you are wrong all over again, and try using sites that are unbiased for your ammunition in future

 

[Phoenall]

Just halt all violence for 12 months and the Jews will leave the occupied territories and lift the blockade. Now is that so hard ?

Link?

It is in the laws governing occupation that you seem to know so well, why dont you look ?

 

[Phoenall]

• The 2010 Flotilla actually made a big deal out of the fact that they were going to try and run the blockade. That was the pro-Palestinian activist intent, to create and incident.
It was an intentional negative media event.

Indeed it was brilliant. It put Israel in a lose, lose situation. Should it allow them to break their precious blockade, or get blamed for attacking a civilian aid ship on international waters. Israel gave itself a big black eye on that one.

I think you're a little befuddled about those events and circumstances. The flotilla gee-had never accomplished running the blockade as the flotilla'ists had intended. The silly publicity stunt actually diminished the credibility of the stunt'ers as the fiasco was simply a monumental waste of time.

You have noticed that there was no repeat of that disaster, right?

October 5, 2016, 6:55 pm

No violence as Israel intercepts women’s boat to Gaza

From your link and it says it all


“In accordance with government directives and after exhausting all diplomatic channels, the Israeli Navy redirected the vessel in order to prevent breach of the lawful maritime blockade,” the IDF said in a statement.

“In accordance with international law, the Israeli Navy advised the vessel numerous times to change course prior to the action. Following their refusal the Navy visited and searched the vessel in international waters in order to prevent their intended breach of the lawful maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip. The visit and search of the vessel was uneventful,”



You must agree and accept that this is factual and a true statement of fact, as you brought it to the board. So what is your argument ? No violence means the IDF did not need to defend against illegal acts by the activists.

Of course they would say that. It is an Israeli source. It doesn't mean anything.

It was your link so you must accept that every word is the truth.


Now you are saying that the blockade is illegal " COS YOU SAY SO " and that the truth should not be used as evidence. It means everything because you are the only person that is disputing it because it shows you as a LIAR

 

[Phoenall]

It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.

Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."

Regrettably, you and about three others do nothing but distort the truth in the hope that you will mislead others.

Feel free to point out to me where 242 mentions the Palestinians or the State of Palestine.

As the entire world is aware, the Palestinians were born and live in the occupied territories which Resolution 242 says should be vacated by the Israelis.

WRONG they are recent illegal immigrants

WRONG they mostly live elsewhere in the world as they are cowards

Wrong as it does not say that at all


Read the definitive article by the authors that tell you

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia

Per Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution:

It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.[24]

Lord Caradon also maintained,

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.[76]




Per Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution:

It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.[24]

Lord Caradon also maintained,

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.[76]