Hence why no one wants you Brits or Americans in their backyards.
Advertisement
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:16 pm
Ors Might wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
I expanded in an edit.
Did they randomly attack their neighbours? No? Well, then it's a different discussion isn't it. The way to get Israel to obey the law is to stop attacking them. The best proposal we've seen from anti-Israel types is that we should simply ignore their neighbors constantly breaking the law, or let them outright destroy Israel.
Is it your position that Israel has done nothing to provoke their neighbors, to escalate conflicts, or to engage in indefensible actions, such as callous disregard for loss of civilian life?
SusScorfa wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
I expanded in an edit.
Did they randomly attack their neighbours? No? Well, then it's a different discussion isn't it. The way to get Israel to obey the law is to stop attacking them. The best proposal we've seen from anti-Israel types is that we should simply ignore their neighbors constantly breaking the law, or let them outright destroy Israel.
Nope. Got an argument as to why its wrong?
The illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory since 1967.
by Ors Might » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:16 pm
by Ifreann » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:16 pm
by Digital Planets » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:16 pm
by Ors Might » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:18 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:Ors Might wrote:Is it your position that Israel has done nothing to provoke their neighbors, to escalate conflicts, or to engage in indefensible actions, such as callous disregard for loss of civilian life?
Such as?SusScorfa wrote:
The illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory since 1967.
Occupied as a result of an unprovoked war on Israel, and which constitute disputed territory which diplomatic efforts to resolve have been constantly rejected by the Palestinians.
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:20 pm
Ors Might wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
Such as?
Occupied as a result of an unprovoked war on Israel, and which constitute disputed territory which diplomatic efforts to resolve have been constantly rejected by the Palestinians.
I'm sure you can read the thread, Ostro. You've proven yourself literate in the past.
All iterations of the thread covering this topic have listed in great, horrid detail the occasions on which Israel has killed civilians, often disgustingly disproportionate to any military objective they may have had.
by Kaumudeen » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:21 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:
War does tend to kill civilians yes. Which ones did Israel start?
by Ors Might » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:22 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:Ors Might wrote:I'm sure you can read the thread, Ostro. You've proven yourself literate in the past.
All iterations of the thread covering this topic have listed in great, horrid detail the occasions on which Israel has killed civilians, often disgustingly disproportionate to any military objective they may have had.
War does tend to kill civilians yes. Which ones did Israel start?
by Fahran » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:22 pm
Spirit of Hope wrote:Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that you denied that US law was being violated. Which it very much is when the US sends weapons to units credibly accused of violating human rights. Israel already receives deference not extended to any other nation in the Leahy process, but even when the committee there agrees that units are violating human rights the US still continues to send them weapons and training.
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:22 pm
by Kaumudeen » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:24 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:
So to be clear, it is your position that the Arabs can start a genocidal war, lose that war, refuse to negotiate for peace and refuse to recognize Israel, but by virtue of Israel not surrendering the land back, Israel is the aggressor.
Is that the case?
by Areebistan » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:24 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:Kaumudeen wrote:
Occupying the land is the aggression.
So to be clear, it is your position that the Arabs can start a genocidal war, lose that war, refuse to negotiate for peace and refuse to recognize Israel, but by virtue of Israel not surrendering the land back, Israel is the aggressor.
Is that the case?
I wonder why Israel hasn't "Started a war" with Egypt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_o ... (1967-1982)
It's a mystery.
by Fahran » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:25 pm
Senkaku wrote:Aren’t they famously Hamas? Thank god our brave boys and girls in the IDF blew their office to smithereens back in March, I can’t believe you’d let yourself be associated with that viper’s nest of Arab nationalists!
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:25 pm
SusScorfa wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
Occupied as a result of an unprovoked war on Israel, and which constitute disputed territory which diplomatic efforts to resolve have been constantly rejected by the Palestinians.
And? You made a whole point of talking about law and international order and how that gave Israel a mandate to civilize the savages. Besides, Israel was the attacker in 67.
Kaumudeen wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
So to be clear, it is your position that the Arabs can start a genocidal war, lose that war, refuse to negotiate for peace and refuse to recognize Israel, but by virtue of Israel not surrendering the land back, Israel is the aggressor.
Is that the case?
The Arabs were retaking what was theirs after British scum handed it to Israel. Why doesn't your country give up a piece of its land for Israel? Maybe you can give them Wales:)
by Fahran » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:28 pm
El Lazaro wrote:If the Israeli government refuses to divert funding from killing civilians to protect its own, then it is fully responsible for the consequences of that decision.
Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:The only difference is that only one side is currently avoiding consequences for their actions. Hamas is, I believe I have already pointed out, currently under blockade.
by SusScorfa » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:29 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:SusScorfa wrote:
And? You made a whole point of talking about law and international order and how that gave Israel a mandate to civilize the savages. Besides, Israel was the attacker in 67.
Nope. Because freedom of the seas was violated by Egypt, an act of war, as the inciting incident.
by Kaumudeen » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:29 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:The British didn't hand it to Israel. The United Nations did. I'll also point out this revanchist take just means we may as well hand the whole region over to the Greeks.
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:30 pm
SusScorfa wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
Nope. Because freedom of the seas was violated by Egypt, an act of war, as the inciting incident.
Okay, lets not get bogged down on that. The occupation is still illegal. This apparently gives a mandate for everyone else in the region to civilize Israel as per your own logic.
by Kaumudeen » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:30 pm
Fahran wrote:El Lazaro wrote:If the Israeli government refuses to divert funding from killing civilians to protect its own, then it is fully responsible for the consequences of that decision.
The munitions that sustain the Iron Dome are manufactured in the US. A blanket ban on military exports would make purchasing munitions designed to safeguard civilians illegal under US law. So we would basically be supporting civilian casualties against an allied state with the intention of compelling them to negotiate a less favorable ceasefire.
by Ors Might » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:30 pm
Fahran wrote:El Lazaro wrote:If the Israeli government refuses to divert funding from killing civilians to protect its own, then it is fully responsible for the consequences of that decision.
The munitions that sustain the Iron Dome are manufactured in the US. A blanket ban on military exports would make purchasing munitions designed to safeguard civilians illegal under US law. So we would basically be supporting civilian casualties against an allied state with the intention of compelling them to negotiate a less favorable ceasefire.
Ostroeuropa wrote:SusScorfa wrote:
Okay, lets not get bogged down on that. The occupation is still illegal. This apparently gives a mandate for everyone else in the region to civilize Israel as per your own logic.
Occupying the land of a nation that has invaded you until they negotiate a peace isn't illegal.
by SusScorfa » Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:32 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:SusScorfa wrote:
Okay, lets not get bogged down on that. The occupation is still illegal. This apparently gives a mandate for everyone else in the region to civilize Israel as per your own logic.
Occupying the land of a nation that has invaded you until they negotiate a peace isn't illegal.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, Aadhiris, Almighty Biden, Almighty Jackson, American Legionaries, Cessarea, Ci Arovannea, Cyptopir, Daemonkin of Corn, Deblar, Domais, Doslonsu, Down Scoblic, Elejamie, Floofybit, Free Land of The Free Land of Freedo, Google [Bot], Gran Patria de las Antillas, Hidrandia, HISPIDA, Ifreann, Izazelia, Jerzylvania, Kubra, Liberza, Lysset, Marku, Mettaton-EX, Pacifitec, Pale Dawn, Qaddafist Libya, Rykov, Sardinia-Sicily, Shrillland, Sliabh Grianas, Terra da Cinza, Terruana, The Jamesian Republic, The Lazarene Republic, The Two Jerseys, Tinhampton, Torpidity, Unogonduria, Vanahimayu, Vhudenshii, Zhongguo Minguo
Advertisement