Arab-Israeli conflict Q&A

[TemplarKormac]

1) Is Israel oppressing Palestine? Yes or No? Why?

2) Is Israel killing Palestinian citizens out of malice? Yes or No? Why?

3) Does Israel have a right to defend itself? Yes or No? Why?

4) Is Israel evil? Yes or No? Why?

5) Does Israel deserve to be funded by the United States? Yes or No? Why?

6) Do you think Palestine might be oppressing its own citizens? Yes or No? Why?

7) Do you think Palestine cares about its own people? Yes or No? Why?

8) Should Israel be evicted from their homeland? Yes or No? Why?

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders? Yes or No? Why?

10) Do you think Israel cares about Palestine? Yes or No? Why?

 

[TemplarKormac]

1) No. Why? Because Israel has no interest in oppressing anyone, they wish to be left alone, nothing more.

2) No. Why? Because if they wanted to, they are fully capable of wiping Palestine off the face of the Earth.

3) Yes. Why? For the same reasons other people insist Palestine should be able to defend itself.

4) No. It is far from evil. In fact there have been cases where IDF forces have rescued or rendered aid to Palestinians in perilous situations.

5) That question is a mixed bag. Because we are $18 trillion in debt, no. Because they are our allies, yes.

6) Yes, I believe they are. I believe they only see their people as expendable soldiers in the fight against the great evil in Israel.

7) No. See #6

8) Of course not. They have ties to that land that go back millennia. Archaeological and historical evidence proves it.

9) No. Why? It would render the country defenseless; it would be just what the Palestinians and radical extremists would want.

10) Of course. Some people think Israel is heartless. The men and women of the IDF do not enjoy taking life. Israel will do what is necessary to ensure the safety of her citizens.

 

[P F Tinmore]

3) Does Israel have a right to defend itself?
------------------
The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.

Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza Debunked The Nation

 

[toastman]

Tinmore thinks it's ok for Israel to get attacked but it's not ok for Israel to attack.

 

[P F Tinmore]

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders?
----------------------
There are no 1967 borders. The so called 1967 borders are the 1949 armistice lines. They are specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
----------------------
The criteria for statehood are laid out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other States.

Last but not least, a ‘right to existence’ for a State is not an esoteric right, it must materialize within a clearly defined territory. Although this ‘right to existence’ is intrinsically connected with the issue of borders, the fact that the borders of Israel are not yet defined goes largely unnoticed.

Israel s right to exist Is it a real issue The Electronic Intifada

 

[Daniyel]

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders?
----------------------
There are no 1967 borders. The so called 1967 borders are the 1949 armistice lines. They are specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
----------------------
The criteria for statehood are laid out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other States.

Last but not least, a ‘right to existence’ for a State is not an esoteric right, it must materialize within a clearly defined territory. Although this ‘right to existence’ is intrinsically connected with the issue of borders, the fact that the borders of Israel are not yet defined goes largely unnoticed.

Israel s right to exist Is it a real issue The Electronic Intifada

Meaning that once Israel announce full governing of the WB its all clear?
Virtual State of Palestine need no borders...Hmmm...

 

[P F Tinmore]

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders?
----------------------
There are no 1967 borders. The so called 1967 borders are the 1949 armistice lines. They are specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
----------------------
The criteria for statehood are laid out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other States.

Last but not least, a ‘right to existence’ for a State is not an esoteric right, it must materialize within a clearly defined territory. Although this ‘right to existence’ is intrinsically connected with the issue of borders, the fact that the borders of Israel are not yet defined goes largely unnoticed.

Israel s right to exist Is it a real issue The Electronic Intifada

Meaning that once Israel announce full governing of the WB its all clear?
Virtual State of Palestine need no borders...Hmmm...

Not really.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

 

[Templicon]

None of the above. Overall all that is meaningless to the bigger development the Israel "prop" aids: eventual world government.

Israel is a global prop of instability with a Zionist globalist backing in 100s of trillions of dollars in actual wealth, as well as monetary assets. Thus "Israel" could have been "restored" many times over since 1917, it is about as big a Maryland, a drop in the bucket globally.

But as we see, over and over and over again, it is never "stabilized", in spite of its trillionaire controllers, because "Israel" is a handy prop of polemics, minutia, confusion, bloodshed and instability. Israel is more useful and profitable (for now) for regional and global instability.

Imo those trillionaires will come in and restore "Israel" when it will be most useful: when they want to lead the world to world government as a decoy "Kingdom of God" and the Israel prop will become the "crown jewel" of the UN world government system, no matter what it may be named and branded as at that time. (That, imo, occurs at the end of this global cycle just gearing up to start in earnest soon)

"Israel" will also become the lead "prophecy is fulfilling brothers!" carrot to lead global Christendom's followers to the world government. The church defined "wild beast" will be veneered as the "Kingdom of God" by the church talking heads using "Israel" national "restoration" to "prove" "prophecy is fulfilling brothers!", and "its the Kingdom of God brothers and sisters!", "don't worry about the 666", it is not that! And "holy Israel's restoration proves it brothers!" All is good! enter the dragon! The promised land lay within!!

Israel is the bait into that world government system for its global sector of influence.

That is the only reason why "Israel" is always "struggling" in a vortex of religious and political blood baths. "Israel" is "suckers bait", and it will work towards the objective it is well positioned to aid psychologically. Imo, Israel is "bad blood" and "bad moon" and will aid a global disaster for the world, like they have been for themselves, one disaster after another after another for centuries, and the final one is the biggie—but they do help establish world government, real disaster comes about after and under world government establishment, the actual world government elite goal is to remove Israel from planet Earth, imo, "Israel" is just a conned national power like the rest being used for a greater purpose they are unaware of; (The Jew on the street is not to blame, the ones controlling their national "Israel" prop are where this deception originates)

The goal is to also remove global Christendom, and both birds can go down with the same stone, and Israel is the lead bait bird, but last to go down fully, imo. But Christendom is useless to world government so they will go down with the Israel carrot imo. People accepting world government as "prophecy" by misapplication is the purpose in that sector of the Israel con and the Christendom con working hand-in-hand.

That is the bigger overall world government picture making all Israel centered controversy just another distraction from reality.

 

[TemplarKormac]

3) Does Israel have a right to defend itself?
------------------
The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.

Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza Debunked The Nation

But, you'll have to do better than a left leaning website. Seriously.

Israel ceded governmental control of the Gaza strip back to Palestine in 1993. It then withdrew all of its troops and told all Israeli settlers to evacuate the area in 2005. Any further attacks from that area are from Palestine now. Not much jurisdictional control there now is it? Whatever happens in Gaza happens to Palestine. Whatever happens to Israel is a result of Palestinian action. Palestine is responsible for the blood on its hands, not Israel. Hello? Revisionist history alert!

Moreover, if Russia or China started lobbing ICBMs at us, we wouldn't tolerate that much either, now would we? Indeed, if we launched a rocket at them first, then they would respond likewise. Now, take Israel for example. They are like the Hulk, you keep pelting him with puny rockets and he gets greener and madder.

No country will tolerate an act of aggression, no matter how small that act might seem to you.

She continues:

Israel denies Palestinians the right to govern and protect themselves, while simultaneously invoking the right to self-defense. This is a conundrum and a violation of international law, one that Israel deliberately created to evade accountability.

Palestine is a not a member of the UN, at least from my understanding, international laws or treaties enforced by the UN are not legally binding on a non member state. Basically it gives Palestine the ability to do pretty much whatever it wants. The UN Charter only applies to actions taken by one member state on another, which Palestine is not. Palestine likewise violates international law by launching rockets and initiating ground incursions into Israeli territory.

As for number two in your article:

Israel argues that its occupation of the Gaza Strip ended with the unilateral withdrawal of its settler population in 2005. It then declared the Gaza Strip to be “hostile territory” and declared war against its population. Neither the argument nor the statement is tenable. Despite removing 8,000 settlers and the military infrastructure that protected their illegal presence, Israel maintained effective control of the Gaza Strip and thus remains the occupying power as defined by Article 47 of the Hague Regulations. To date, Israel maintains control of the territory’s air space, territorial waters, electromagnetic sphere, population registry and the movement of all goods and people.

It's odd she mentions Article 47 of the Hague Regulations, to date, nothing has been "pillaged" from Gaza. Articles 48 and 49 speak of the 'occupying force' being able to lay and collect taxes from the occupied. That ended when Israel handed Gaza over to Palestine. Gaza is surrounded on all sides by a vastly superior military force, therefore it is natural to assume that this superior military force will assert its dominance through air and sea. Not because they want to, but because they can. Moreover, Israel has the right to control who enters and leaves, since there are only two ways to enter Israel, via land or sea.

Article 42 of the Hague Regulations state that an occupation occurs when "when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." Israel removed its troops in 2005. Therefore there is no real occupation of the Gaza Strip. And, the second clause of Article 42 reads in part, "The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." Once again, Israel removed all governmental influence over Gaza in 1993.

She goes on to state:

Palestinians have yet to experience a day of self-governance.

That is also false, since Palestine held parliamentary elections in 2006, whereby Hamas won control over the Gaza Strip. The fact that they are able to hold elections at all shows they have the ability to govern themselves.

Lastly, to sum up your argument Mr. Tinmore, the Al-Qassam Brigades (of Hamas) were heard telling IDF soldiers:

"From the Al-Qassam Brigades to the Zionist soldiers: The Al-Qassam Brigades love death more than you love life."



It is clear to me that the Palestinian Government places no value on the lives of its citizens. To think that in any way Israel wantonly slaughters innocent civilians is foolish, whilst you ignore the attitudes Palestine takes towards the sanctity of life.

I love how both you and this lady spin this out to make Israel look like it is a ruthless oppressive force out to slaughter and pillage like a bunch of barbarians. You must be joking.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Israel is a global prop of instability with a Zionist globalist backing in 100s of trillions of dollars in actual wealth, as well as monetary assets. Thus "Israel" could have been "restored" many times over since 1917, it is about as big a Maryland, a drop in the bucket globally.

Quiet you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders?
----------------------
There are no 1967 borders. The so called 1967 borders are the 1949 armistice lines. They are specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
----------------------
The criteria for statehood are laid out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other States.

Last but not least, a ‘right to existence’ for a State is not an esoteric right, it must materialize within a clearly defined territory. Although this ‘right to existence’ is intrinsically connected with the issue of borders, the fact that the borders of Israel are not yet defined goes largely unnoticed.

Israel s right to exist Is it a real issue The Electronic Intifada

Meaning that once Israel announce full governing of the WB its all clear?
Virtual State of Palestine need no borders...Hmmm...

Uh and he quoted a staunchly pro-Palestinian website to boot. Nay objectivity.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There are no 1967 borders.

Sure could have fooled me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

By the way, the settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights are not illegal:

Articles Israeli Settlements Are Not Illegal

 

[TemplarKormac]

The criteria for statehood are laid out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other States.

As of the 1947 UN Partition Plan, Israel is a defined territory with a government which has a capacity to enter into relations with other states. It is known that 160 of the 192 nations on Earth recognize Israel's sovereignty.

Knock, knock! Is anybody in there?

 

[P F Tinmore]

3) Does Israel have a right to defend itself?
------------------
The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.

Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza Debunked The Nation

But, you'll have to do better than a left leaning website. Seriously.

Israel ceded governmental control of the Gaza strip back to Palestine in 1993. It then withdrew all of its troops and told all Israeli settlers to evacuate the area in 2005. Any further attacks from that area are from Palestine now. Not much jurisdictional control there now is it? Whatever happens in Gaza happens to Palestine. Whatever happens to Israel is a result of Palestinian action. Palestine is responsible for the blood on its hands, not Israel. Hello? Revisionist history alert!

Moreover, if Russia or China started lobbing ICBMs at us, we wouldn't tolerate that much either, now would we? Indeed, if we launched a rocket at them first, then they would respond likewise. Now, take Israel for example. They are like the Hulk, you keep pelting him with puny rockets and he gets greener and madder.

No country will tolerate an act of aggression, no matter how small that act might seem to you.

She continues:

Israel denies Palestinians the right to govern and protect themselves, while simultaneously invoking the right to self-defense. This is a conundrum and a violation of international law, one that Israel deliberately created to evade accountability.

Palestine is a not a member of the UN, at least from my understanding, international laws or treaties enforced by the UN are not legally binding on a non member state. Basically it gives Palestine the ability to do pretty much whatever it wants. The UN Charter only applies to actions taken by one member state on another, which Palestine is not. Palestine likewise violates international law by launching rockets and initiating ground incursions into Israeli territory.

As for number two in your article:

Israel argues that its occupation of the Gaza Strip ended with the unilateral withdrawal of its settler population in 2005. It then declared the Gaza Strip to be “hostile territory” and declared war against its population. Neither the argument nor the statement is tenable. Despite removing 8,000 settlers and the military infrastructure that protected their illegal presence, Israel maintained effective control of the Gaza Strip and thus remains the occupying power as defined by Article 47 of the Hague Regulations. To date, Israel maintains control of the territory’s air space, territorial waters, electromagnetic sphere, population registry and the movement of all goods and people.

It's odd she mentions Article 47 of the Hague Regulations, to date, nothing has been "pillaged" from Gaza. Articles 48 and 49 speak of the 'occupying force' being able to lay and collect taxes from the occupied. That ended when Israel handed Gaza over to Palestine. Gaza is surrounded on all sides by a vastly superior military force, therefore it is natural to assume that this superior military force will assert its dominance through air and sea. Not because they want to, but because they can. Moreover, Israel has the right to control who enters and leaves, since there are only two ways to enter Israel, via land or sea.

Article 42 of the Hague Regulations state that an occupation occurs when "when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." Israel removed its troops in 2005. Therefore there is no real occupation of the Gaza Strip. And, the second clause of Article 42 reads in part, "The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." Once again, Israel removed all governmental influence over Gaza in 1993.

She goes on to state:

Palestinians have yet to experience a day of self-governance.

That is also false, since Palestine held parliamentary elections in 2006, whereby Hamas won control over the Gaza Strip. The fact that they are able to hold elections at all shows they have the ability to govern themselves.

Lastly, to sum up your argument Mr. Tinmore, the Al-Qassam Brigades (of Hamas) were heard telling IDF soldiers:

"From the Al-Qassam Brigades to the Zionist soldiers: The Al-Qassam Brigades love death more than you love life."



It is clear to me that the Palestinian Government places no value on the lives of its citizens. To think that in any way Israel wantonly slaughters innocent civilians is foolish, whilst you ignore the attitudes Palestine takes towards the sanctity of life.

I love how both you and this lady spin this out to make Israel look like it is a ruthless oppressive force out to slaughter and pillage like a bunch of barbarians. You must be joking.

Palestine likewise violates international law by launching rockets and initiating ground incursions into Israeli territory.​

Nobody has ever proven that to be true.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The criteria for statehood are laid out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other States.

As of the 1947 UN Partition Plan, Israel is a defined territory with a government which has a capacity to enter into relations with other states. It is known that 160 of the 192 nations on Earth recognize Israel's sovereignty.

Knock, knock! Is anybody in there?

The proposed borders of resolution 181 have never been recognized by Israel or anybody else. That is a false statement.

 

[Phoenall]

1) Is Israel oppressing Palestine? Yes or No? Why?

2) Is Israel killing Palestinian citizens out of malice? Yes or No? Why?

3) Does Israel have a right to defend itself? Yes or No? Why?

4) Is Israel evil? Yes or No? Why?

5) Does Israel deserve to be funded by the United States? Yes or No? Why?

6) Do you think Palestine might be oppressing its own citizens? Yes or No? Why?

7) Do you think Palestine cares about its own people? Yes or No? Why?

8) Should Israel be evicted from their homeland? Yes or No? Why?

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders? Yes or No? Why?

10) Do you think Israel cares about Palestine? Yes or No? Why?

1) no as the Palestinians have brought it all on themselves by resorting to terrorism and violence

2) no as they would not be killed if they did not resort to terrorism and violence

3) yes and by what ever means brings a halt to the terrorism and violence

4) no not that it does not have evil individuals living there, but they are in the minority.

5) maybe It depends on what is meant by funded, should it be given aid that was promised to other nations for signing peace treaties YES, should it be singled out for punitive loans when no other nation is NO

6) yes the evidence points to a totalitarian regime ruling through fear and violence. Any sharia based Islamic fundamentalist regime is oppressive.

7) no while they are prepared to place them as human shields to protect the illegal weapons then they show no concern for their people

8) no it was given to them by the lands legal owners and so in INTERNATIONAL LAW it is theirs. Just as Jordan, Iraq and Syria should not be evicted from their land either.

9) no as there has never been any 1967 borders, and still to this day there are no borders with Palestine.

10) yes in as much as it provides them with welfare and medical support that it has no legal obligation to provide

 

[Phoenall]

3) Does Israel have a right to defend itself?
------------------
The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.

Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza Debunked The Nation

All changed once Israel gave up the occupation of gaza in August 2005. Now that it is no longer under occupation Israel can respond with violence against violence. So if hamas wants to attack a sovereign nation they must be prepared to accept return of fire.

 

[Phoenall]

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders?
----------------------
There are no 1967 borders. The so called 1967 borders are the 1949 armistice lines. They are specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
----------------------
The criteria for statehood are laid out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other States.

Last but not least, a ‘right to existence’ for a State is not an esoteric right, it must materialize within a clearly defined territory. Although this ‘right to existence’ is intrinsically connected with the issue of borders, the fact that the borders of Israel are not yet defined goes largely unnoticed.

Israel s right to exist Is it a real issue The Electronic Intifada

And Palestine falls down on defined territory as it has never agreed mutual borders with any of its neighbours. Isreal has more defined borders than the state of Palestine that has only existed since 1988

 

[Phoenall]

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders?
----------------------
There are no 1967 borders. The so called 1967 borders are the 1949 armistice lines. They are specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
----------------------
The criteria for statehood are laid out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other States.

Last but not least, a ‘right to existence’ for a State is not an esoteric right, it must materialize within a clearly defined territory. Although this ‘right to existence’ is intrinsically connected with the issue of borders, the fact that the borders of Israel are not yet defined goes largely unnoticed.

Israel s right to exist Is it a real issue The Electronic Intifada

Meaning that once Israel announce full governing of the WB its all clear?
Virtual State of Palestine need no borders...Hmmm...

Not really.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Unless you are an ISLAMONAZI regime and then it is allowed