"There is no moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas"

[Ronstang]

Oh look, Chuck Schumer is correct by accident because normally he is a completely clueless douche......but he IS Jewish so no surprise here.

 

[Zaap]

Oh good lord.

I will say one thing about Israel - they have perfected PR. They've got people parroting their bullshit all over the place.

Thanks for quoting... I get $1000 for that.

Anyone at this point pretending not to know that Hamas places their weapons near civilians to maximize civilian casualties if hit in a retaliation strike... is just willfully being just the type of useful idiot toolbag that groups like Hamas count on to try and win media victories. Congrats on being one.

Tactic isn't even remotely new... yet as old and obvious as it is, it still works because people are such willing dupes.

 

[fskimospy]

Still evading, still haven't answered the question.

Why do the Palestinians have a legal claim to land they lost as a result of multiple failed wars of conquest which they initiated?

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS, SPECIFICALLY THE 4TH GENEVA CONVENTION. THIS POSITION IS RECOGNIZED BY THE UN, THE ICJ, AND BASICALLY THE ENTIRE WORLD OUTSIDE OF ISRAEL, THE UNITED STATES INCLUDED. ADDITIONALLY IT IS A VIOLATION OF UNSC RESOLUTION 242 AND NUMEROUS OTHERS. ISRAEL HAS NO LEGAL CLAIM TO THAT LAND WHATSOEVER UNDER ANY RECOGNIZED INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Hope that helps. Should I make the font larger?

 

[overst33r]

I found this video online while researching the conflict, how accurate does it depict the issue?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngFYOLOkmaI&feature=youtu.be

 

[Atreus21]

Quite simple, this ain't pre-WWII.

By law, territory occupied in warfare (regardless how you argue it being defensive or aggressive) may not be annexed into another's jurisdiction. Besides, the moment one expands their territory under military might, that is by any definition -- aggression.

Wait a second. When did Israel last expand its territory?

Israel and its shills are blowing hot air is a desperate losing PR war. Hamas is the state of Israel's friend -- a willing smokescreen and diversion to weaken a united Palestine and enable the continued policy of lebensraum into territory to Israel's east.

Oh please. If Israel wanted to conquer Palestine and subjugate its people, it would've conquered Palestine and subjugated its people. It's given land back on numerous occasions, only to have rockets fired at them from the newly ceded land.

QuantumPion, not others, rather the onus is upon you to cite law defending the unilateral annexation of land and expansion of borders. You cannot, as that is an impossibility. When I have time, I will re-enter this thread to fully damn your position with the direct citations of laws broken by Israeli colonisation -- laws reaffirmed and damning Israel by your own US government and even Israel's best of world buds, Canada.

By your definition of illegal, every nation on earth is an illegal squatter. The Brits are just illegally occupying Saxon lands, and the dispute dates all the way back to 1066. We are just illegally occupying Native American lands. China is occupying Taiwan's land. Nearly the whole of Asia is occupying Genghis Kahn's land, who in turn is occupying his predecessor's land.

 

[hal2kilo]

Wait a second. When did Israel last expand its territory?



Oh please. If Israel wanted to conquer Palestine and subjugate its people, it would've conquered Palestine and subjugated its people. It's given land back on numerous occasions, only to have rockets fired at them from the newly ceded land.



By your definition of illegal, every nation on earth is an illegal squatter. The Brits are just illegally occupying Saxon lands, and the dispute dates all the way back to 1066. We are just illegally occupying Native American lands. China is occupying Taiwan's land. Nearly the whole of Asia is occupying Genghis Kahn's land, who in turn is occupying his predecessor's land.

Did you read the first sentence you quoted?

 

[Atreus21]

Did you read the first sentence you quoted?

Yes.

 

[cabri]

Quite simple, this ain't pre-WWII.

By law, territory occupied in warfare (regardless how you argue it being defensive or aggressive) may not be annexed into another's jurisdiction. Besides, the moment one expands their territory under military might, that is by any definition -- aggression.

Israel and its shills are blowing hot air is a desperate losing PR war. Hamas is the state of Israel's friend -- a willing smokescreen and diversion to weaken a united Palestine and enable the continued policy of lebensraum into territory to Israel's east.

QuantumPion, not others, rather the onus is upon you to cite law defending the unilateral annexation of land and expansion of borders. You cannot, as that is an impossibility. When I have time, I will re-enter this thread to fully damn your position with the direct citations of laws broken by Israeli colonisation -- laws reaffirmed and damning Israel by your own US government and even Israel's best of world buds, Canada.

Interesting that such would not apply to Egypt and Trans-Jordan. They overran the territory that you are calling Palestine. Or is it because they were Arabs/on the same side?

And now one is creating major fits over what China has done to Tibet and Upper Mongolia.

Russian took over Ukrainian land; much grinding of teeth and words and that was it.

Why is it when Israel defends herself from the aggressors, the bleeding hearts of the world feel sympathy, yet no one slapped down those that attacked her.

Where are the slap downs against China and/or Russia.

 

[cabri]

Here the initiators of the wars they projected long before the partition and the next day the partition was done and to this day, notice the first date and the guy who became the first prime minister of this usurpatory state.

All others quotes are from prime ministers, but anyway the zionists aknwoledge themselves that they had all intentions to respect nothing but still you re saying otherwise in a pitifull try to exonerate them from the crimes they recognized themselves..

How can one be so much mentaly enslaved.???

Yet you refuse to answer the question!

The Palestinians with the Arab states attacked Israel, not the other way around. so you feel they should be rewarded for trying to occupy territory?

 

[fskimospy]

Wait a second. When did Israel last expand its territory?

Oh please. If Israel wanted to conquer Palestine and subjugate its people, it would've conquered Palestine and subjugated its people. It's given land back on numerous occasions, only to have rockets fired at them from the newly ceded land.

By your definition of illegal, every nation on earth is an illegal squatter. The Brits are just illegally occupying Saxon lands, and the dispute dates all the way back to 1066. We are just illegally occupying Native American lands. China is occupying Taiwan's land. Nearly the whole of Asia is occupying Genghis Kahn's land, who in turn is occupying his predecessor's land.

Those treaties were all ratified after your examples. Israel's actions are indisputably illegal under current international law. If you're okay with them violating the law that's fine, but don't say they aren't doing it.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet you refuse to answer the question!

The Palestinians with the Arab states attacked Israel, not the other way around. so you feel they should be rewarded for trying to occupy territory?

What Israel is doing is illegal, it doesn't matter if they were attacked first.

 

[werepossum]

Yet you refuse to answer the question!

The Palestinians with the Arab states attacked Israel, not the other way around. so you feel they should be rewarded for trying to occupy territory?

I don't think that's quite fair. The Palestinians were mostly unarmed civilians by the time of the Six Day War, their militias having been utterly routed years ago. Protests and scattered violence, sure, as the Palestinians had become quite radicalized and had fully embraced violence in any form that would kill Jews. But the extant Arab nations bear the responsibility for their own actions.

I do agree though that aggressor nations should not be protected against loss of territory. That's one of the main things discouraging aggression, the fear of ending up worse (smaller, weaker, poorer) than before.

 

[cytg111]

I just discovered some respect for Charles Schumer. I had no idea he fell on Israel's side in this mess.

EXCERPT:

Arh ah heck, didnt have to read that(albeit allready knew), faith in humanity just took another vote down.

 

[cabri]

What Israel is doing is illegal, it doesn't matter if they were attacked first.

Israel has a right to defend.
No nation is expected to roll over and accept attacks without retaliating.

If you want to flip the mirror around, do so.
However, Israel stopped the attacks twice this time around; Hamas did not.

Hamas has essentially declared war against Israel.
They have allowed rockets & mortars to be launched on a daily basis against Israel.
I expect that the tunnels that have been located were used to smuggle good back in from Israel, not export weapons and militants.

On the war has stopped and peace declared/observed, that the issue of territory can be settled. As long as there is a war; it will not be.

Israel put up the wall along the West Bank to protect the citizens from attacks from the West Bank.

The Fatah has realized that the Palestinians will be better off if they try to co-exist. However, Fatah also wants to work with Hamas who refuses to co-exist with Israel. And that situation then heats the boiling point on both sides w/ respect to the West Bank/Jerusalem.

If Israel destroys Hamas w/ respect to a militant force and Fatah/Abbas fills the political void; then there is a good potential for peace. Tensions can simmer down and cooler heads will prevail.

So, either Hamas is destroyed or the vicious cycle will repeat; each time being harsher. Israel lucked out this time because of preparation via the Iron Dome.
If they allow Hamas off the hook; then newer technology will be developed and may overcome Israel defenses. In that case; stronger retaliation will happen.

The timing of Hamas rocket barrages and the size of them/location of targets hurts their PR campaign. Stones against military guns will gain sympathy. Rockets against civilian centers does not.

Years ago, Hezbollah miscalculated the public and Israel response to being poked.
This time, it looks like Hamas may have made the same mistake.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What Israel is doing is illegal, it doesn't matter if they were attacked first.

Yeah...the aggressors should always get at least one 'do over' if they fail to take over their enemy's country. /s

The flip side here is had they succeeded...they would be illegally occupying Israel today. I somehow doubt that anyone who's currently complaining about illegal occupation would give a shit had the tables been turned. Funny how that works.

 

[cabri]

I don't think that's quite fair. The Palestinians were mostly unarmed civilians by the time of the Six Day War, their militias having been utterly routed years ago. Protests and scattered violence, sure, as the Palestinians had become quite radicalized and had fully embraced violence in any form that would kill Jews. But the extant Arab nations bear the responsibility for their own actions.

I do agree though that aggressor nations should not be protected against loss of territory. That's one of the main things discouraging aggression, the fear of ending up worse (smaller, weaker, poorer) than before.

The Palestinians were a major reason for the 6 day war. The PLO were being a PITA and Russia helped them convinced the Arab states to back them (Pals) against Israel.

They were itching for a fight

D-Day is approaching. The Arabs have waited 19 years for this and will not flinch from the war of liberation." – Ahmed Shukairy, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, May 27, 1967


"This is a fight for the homeland – it is either us or the Israelis. There is no middle road. The Jews of Palestine will have to leave. We will facilitate their departure to their former homes. Any of the old Palestine Jewish population who survive may stay, but it is my impression that none of them will survive." – Shukairy, June 1, 1967


"We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants and as for the survivors – if there are any – the boats are ready to deport them." – Shukairy, June 1, 1967, speaking at a Friday sermon in Jerusalem

 

[cabri]

Yeah...the aggressors should always get at least one 'do over' if they fail to take over their enemy's country. /s

The flip side here is had they succeeded...they would be illegally occupying Israel today. I somehow doubt that anyone who's currently complaining about illegal occupation would give a shit had the tables been turned. Funny how that works.

There are consequences to starting a fight and getting whipped.
Some times you bleed, other times, you get beat to a pulp and/or crippled for life.

No one cared when the Arabs were going against Israel. The UN refused to intervene.
Russia was supporting the Arabs.
The US wanted to remain neutral
France and England refused to support Israel.

The only interventions by the world at anytime was when Israel ended up with the upper hand by using her people effectively, not by numerical advantages in man power or weaponry.

Now that the Arabs have essentially given up (but not quit), Israel has the ability to swat down the pin pricks. Instead, they allow the knats to continue biting at the ankles until blood is drawn.

While they should use DDT, they only use RAID.

 

[Abwx]

Yet you refuse to answer the question!

The Palestinians with the Arab states attacked Israel, not the other way around. so you feel they should be rewarded for trying to occupy territory?

Your future first prime minister, here are his sayings, 10 years before the partition :

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

So the zionist had all intentions to fight the palestinians once they got a part of the pie, now let s look what was their opinion ONE day after the UNO vote :

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.

It is aknwoledgment that they did accept the UNO vote just to reject it as soon as it happened, showing their true face, the one of a liar that live by the lies, that is, you are ready to attack one day after you got your terrorist and usurpatory state "legalized" , it did take you one day to become a rogue state , wich you are to this day, so stop playing the victims while your very leaders say expressely that they are a bunch of agressors.

 

[Harabec]

We get it, you're Anti-Israeli no matter what.

For those who are not hate-bots: Begin was the head of the Etzel organization at the time, a time of war and fighting.
After the formation of the state of Israel he dissolved the Etzel went political. Was a hardcore right winger (and was often mocked and even called fascist by other Israelis ) that eventually, despite his warmongering attitude, signed the peace treaty with Egypt and returned the Sinai peninsula.
Contrary to hate-bot belief, the world isn't black and white, people have differing views and - shocking, I know - they may actually really want peace.

 

[MongGrel]

There are consequences to starting a fight and getting whipped.
Some times you bleed, other times, you get beat to a pulp and/or crippled for life.

No one cared when the Arabs were going against Israel. The UN refused to intervene.
Russia was supporting the Arabs.
The US wanted to remain neutral
France and England refused to support Israel.

The only interventions by the world at anytime was when Israel ended up with the upper hand by using her people effectively, not by numerical advantages in man power or weaponry.

Now that the Arabs have essentially given up (but not quit), Israel has the ability to swat down the pin pricks. Instead, they allow the knats to continue biting at the ankles until blood is drawn.

While they should use DDT, they only use RAID.

I'll agree.

 

[werepossum]

The Palestinians were a major reason for the 6 day war. The PLO were being a PITA and Russia helped them convinced the Arab states to back them (Pals) against Israel.

They were itching for a fight

That's a fair point, although I suspect that at that time most Palestinians simply wanted to live their lives and were not directly involved with the PLO. Personally I think the Palestinians were more a justification than a major player, but I'll concede there are valid points either way.

We get it, you're Anti-Israeli no matter what.

For those who are not hate-bots: Begin was the head of the Etzel organization at the time, a time of war and fighting.
After the formation of the state of Israel he dissolved the Etzel went political. Was a hardcore right winger (and was often mocked and even called fascist by other Israelis ) that eventually, despite his warmongering attitude, signed the peace treaty with Egypt and returned the Sinai peninsula.
Contrary to hate-bot belief, the world isn't black and white, people have differing views and - shocking, I know - they may actually really want peace.

That is one major difference - the Jews sign peace treaties and actually live up to them if allowed to do so. The Palestinians, not so much.

 

[Whiskey16]

Still evading, still haven't answered the question.

Why do the Palestinians have a legal claim to land they lost as a result of multiple failed wars of conquest which they initiated?

Nothing was evaded. It was answered. You chose to repeat, rinse, and repeat in willful ideological bliss again. Now here is some precisely accurate text (a wall if you're so literally challenged and inclined) that is hopefully well absorbed and respected :whiste::

Rather than any plausible settlement, the state of Israel has a strategic desire to maintain the status quo with a divided and weakened Palestinian presence all to acquiesce its continued criminal expansion and ethnic cleansing.

The Palestinian Authority (now a recognised state government, though just of the West Bank), rather than the militant wing or even political wings of Hamas, is conducting a unilaterally peaceful, diplomatic, and a just way forward with the avocation of civil disobedience in their occupied land against the aggressors, in combination with a route to achieve a semblance of state sovereignty and a gained UN seat to lobby for criminal charges and further condemnation against Israel expansionist actions. These Israeli action along with the brutal ghettoization of Gaza, provide a Machiavellian mechanism of both dividing any possibility of a Palestinian unity government, plus a ready bogeyman to distract and demonise for Israel’s propaganda PR blitzes of its good against evil.

Yes, Israel did de-colonise from the Gaza strip, in favour of supplemented colonisation with expanded annexation in through the West Bank. A regular PR line directed out of Israel is to keep repeating that withdrawal of Gaza without heed to its growing high crimes to the east. Gaza has long been densely populated, unlike the diverted focus to far more sparse West Bank regions for expropriation, annexation, and colonisation. With Israeli ghettoization and now fairly regularly destructive military invasions, to Israel’s long term strategic advantage for state territorial expansion to the east, Gaza has been willfully fostered into a powderkeg and demagogue.


Israeli action outside of its state borders fail a moral stiff test. It is not hyperbole to correctly and accurately align historical pogroms and contemporary legal language against Israeli extra-jurisdictional crimes. A charged language is apt as the accurate parallels with history are damning indictments of Israeli state action:

· As Germany of the past, Israel has a state policy of lebensraum. Ironically, rather than Germanise lands beyond its border, Israel is applying its military to Zionise extra-territorial lands and displace its undesirable residents. "We are short of land, we are short of air, let us breathe in this country." Distasteful echoes of the past ring true today.

Suddenly we are short of space here in Israel, which has become full to capacity and needs lebensraum. Every cultured person knows that this is a despicable German concept, banned from use because of the associations it brings up. Still, people are starting to use it, if not outright then with a clear implication: We are short of land, we are short of air, let us breathe in this country.

When we embarked on the Six-Day War did we want to remove a threat or did we want to gain control in order to spread out? That's what happens after 44 years of mire and moral corruption,

which distort things and make us forget the original objective and replace it with an entirely different one. We were fortunate when we occupied the West Bank because had we not done so, where would we have come to live? And who knows how high housing prices would have risen? The divine promise is now being revealed in all its ability to prophesy about real estate.

The founding fathers, as opposed to the Diadochi who fought for control after Alexander the Great's death, represented a different approach, for the most part. Between "A little goes a long way," and "Don't bite off more than you can chew," they chose to bite; they even agreed to the 1947 UN partition plan for lack of choice. They believed that all the objectives of rational Ben Gurion-style Zionism could be fulfilled even in "Lesser Israel," which is more complete and more at peace with itself. And it has no need for lebensraum, may God preserve us.

· Israel has long implemented policies akin to apartheid with militarily enforced separate areas and separate laws in the West Bank. Palestinians are subverted in favour of Israeli while only those Israeli colonists, rather than their subjugated Palestinian neighbours, are granted a political say upon state policy by Israel.

Balanced, condemnation upon Israel is not warranted out of its simple existence nor the presence of Jews, but of that state's extra-territorial policies and actions. So, also please avoid a the expected trivial misrepresentation for no peace being achievable simply due to hate for Jews or that myself, a Jew, gets-off "Jew-baiting" by presenting comparisons to a convicted Germany...

Those in rabid and absolute defence of Israel will again likely cry with hyperbole over such applicable language, then I call for a new tact. Try avoiding the familiar arguments into ad nauseum and ‘Jew-hating’ or ‘anti-Semitic’ tarring against internet messengers, and to constructively put an end to the likes of my vile language upon Israel. You can accomplish this via turning to a rationale course of action by pressuring Israel to cease its condemnable actions.

That promoting and applauding in favour of Zionist expansionist (not that a title of Zionism should equate to evil, rather unilateral territorial expansion is crime) is antagonistic ought to be fully reasonable to every honest witness. Do such high crimes warrant crimes of humanity attacks upon Israeli civilians, as per more personal terrorism and indiscriminate rocket attacks? No. Yet those actions represent a minority of belligerents and most certainly do not give a pass to the continued and disproportionately greater instigating crimes by Israel.

In the context of Israeli occupation, subjugation, and colonising of the West Bank of Palestine, categorising what is to be unjust is fairly easy:

Charter of the United Nations: Article I:
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
· without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
· Article 9
o No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
· Article 13
o (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
o (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
· Article 15
o (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
o (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
· Article 17
o (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Though the above are mostly ideals, some points have been ratified into international law, particularly those ratified and signed by the state of Israel.

An above point there of all having a right to nationality, was directly born out of the aftermath of WWII with mass-refugees and the struggle of sovereign state borders through to that of the founding of the state of Israel as a home for some stateless Jews. A lesson of that conflict was an enabler to high crimes against humanity was to deny a people their identity or nationality. When considering Palestinians, an occurrence that is now commonly practiced in simple forums as this, to even high international forum such as the UN General Assembly. People have a sovereign right to identity, and to deny such an identity is an enabler to deny and confiscate property, through to the demeaning treatment and expulsion of such an identified group, all for the strategic territorial goals of supremacist ethnic cleansing.

The self-determination of Palestinians is directly offensive to Israeli state policy, as it further complicates and deters the expansionist colonisation of the state of Israeli into jurisdiction beyond its borders, tough occupied by the IDF.

Now, to reach QuantumPion's concern for law and territorial expansion:

Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX).
Article 5:
3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.
Article 7
Nothing in this Definition, and in particular article 3, could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination: nor the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration.

QuantumPion, you question the charges of illegality for Israeli annexation and colonisation into the West Bank. Directly above, quoted, is the law that the state of Israel is upon direct infringement. Reaffirming such post-WWII international law, here are some of the historically sanctioned and recorded legal international views, that also include that of your USA:

United Nations Resolution 242 (November 1967) - The situation in the Middle East:
..
Emphasizingthe inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

United Nations Resolution 3236 (November 1974) - Question of Palestine:
Recognizing that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,
Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

Internationally, on a state-per-state basis, Israel is absolutely isolated upon a view of legal annexation and colonisation of extra-jurisdictional territory. Driving partisanship, Prime Minister Harper of Canada has been both praised and critiqued for his unwavering support for Israel, yet even the government that he leads is unequivocal upon the illegality of Israeli aggression:

Foreign Affairs

Status of Jerusalem

Canada considers the status of Jerusalem can be resolved only as part of a general settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute.

Canada does not recognize Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem.

Occupied Territories and Settlements
Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the occupied territories and establishes Israel's obligations as an occupying power, in particular with respect to the humane treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

Canada believes that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority must fully respect international human rights and humanitarian law which is key to ensuring the protection of civilians, and can contribute to the creation of a climate conducive to achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement.

The Barrier
Canada recognizes Israel's right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, including through the restriction of access to its territory, and by building a barrier on its own territory for security purposes. However, Canada opposes Israel's construction of the barrier inside the West Bank and East Jerusalem which are occupied territories. This construction is contrary to international law under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Canada not only opposes Israel's construction of a barrier extending into the occupied territories, but also expropriations and the demolition of houses and economic infrastructure carried out for this purpose.

Israeli occupation, subjugation, and colonisation of Palestinian land is immoral, criminal, and as specified -- unjust. As far as states go, Israel is alone upon challenging this. If you choose to side with Israel in such opposition, then your perception of justice is quite incorrect.

With full support of legal citations through the legal and public diplomatic positions of the state of Israel’s closest allies, I have firmly displayed the illegality of Israeli actions. Further, with firm conviction and rational, I view the isolation and regular military invasion of Gaza (even Lebanon) serve the Israeli policy position of fostering/provoking extremism and surreptitiously prolonging any chance of achievable peace settlements, all to divide a nation of Palestine, deny the unity of such an already recognised state, and thereby permit the backhanded continuance of high crimes of aggression in the form of annexation and expropriation of territory beyond the state borders of Israel, all for the greater supremacist expansion and growth of a greater Israel.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah...the aggressors should always get at least one 'do over' if they fail to take over their enemy's country. /s

The flip side here is had they succeeded...they would be illegally occupying Israel today. I somehow doubt that anyone who's currently complaining about illegal occupation would give a shit had the tables been turned. Funny how that works.

When you don't have an actual argument, resort to declarations that people are biased against Israel.

I find it funny that the people who are constantly complaining of the jackboot of tyranny in the US are all too happy to see it actually applied elsewhere. Funny how that works.

 

[Abwx]

When you don't have an actual argument, resort to declarations that people are biased against Israel.

I find it funny that the people who are constantly complaining of the jackboot of tyranny in the US are all too happy to see it actually applied elsewhere. Funny how that works.

I guess that he ignore as well that the palestinians living in Gaza detain something like 15-20% of the palestinian land as private property, and they have the titles to this day, in villages that were destroyed and rebuilt to harbour a whole population of usurpators and other squatters.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I find it funny that the people who are constantly complaining of the jackboot of tyranny in the US are all too happy to see it actually applied elsewhere. Funny how that works.

I've noticed the same thing.