Israel’s Big Lie of “Self-Defence”

[sparky]

That's what you call returning fire.

That's what i call justifying one Red

~S~

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You cannot hold onto land seized in a war. If you disagree, then you are a fucking Nazi! Because there is no difference between what Israel is doing now and what Germany tried to do with Poland.

You cannot hold onto land seized in a war.

I agree, Russia should give back the land they seized from Poland.
Should Poland give back land seized from Germany?
Who should Israel give land back to?

 

[Rawley]

It's a simple question. Why would I hate Jews? For what possible reason would I have to hate Jews?

Because you are saying they are murdering Palestinian babies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It doesn't matter what you call it. The fact is, there were people living there before the Zionist migration. I don't give a shit what you call them, they have rights.

The fact is, there were people living there before the Zionist migration.

And there were people living there before the muslim conquest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And I thought you admired the Founders. You must be very confused.
View attachment 855911

What did the Founders think of muzzies?

 

[gipper]

What did the Founders think of muzzies?

Bigot and a Democrat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bigot and a Democrat.

Which ones?

 

[Weatherman2020]

An occupier does not have the right to use arms in “self-defence”.​

There are four reasons why Israel cannot cite a legal right to self-defence in response to Palestinian violence.

First and foremost is that the ability of a very strong military power to achieve anything defensive by the attrition of a much weaker military power is spurious and leads into the genocidal logic of attempting to deprive a people of all capacity for violence.

The second reason is that Israel is actively contravening UN Security Council resolutions and the UN Charter is very clear on the fact that the right to self-defence exists “until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” A state that works to thwart UNSC measures to maintain peace and security cannot logically be extended the unimpaired right to self defence.

On the third count Israel is an occupying power and the occupied have a legal right to armed resistance. It would be nonsensical to accord a legal right to use arms to defend against another’s legal resistance.

Fourthly, it would be equally paradoxical to allow each party to act in self-defence against each other’s acts of self defence. Thus one of the parties must be the aggressor. On several counts, not least its defiance of UNSC resolutions, Israel must be considered the aggressor.
Israel’s only legitimate way of defending itself begins with ending its occupation. Israelis have a right to life and they deserve peace and security as we all do, but they have no right to kill Palestinians and claim that they are pursuing those things.

Let's make no mistake, Israel is the aggressor! And it is committing genocide. According to Arnon Soffer...

“When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today … The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day..."

These words are shockingly Himmleresque in labelling a people animals; in stating that mass killing is neither choice nor desire, but necessity...

All the Israeli supporters at this website echo this theme that it is "necessary" to inflict all this damage on the Palestinian's. This is Germany in the 30's all over again!

Gaza has been autonomous since 2005, mass murder cheerleader.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes it matters to prove your point it matters. You can't do it because Palestinians are the occupiers

They are not occupiers, they are the occupied. Or, if you want to go back to the Zionist migration, Zionists are the settlers and Palestinians are the natives.

Care to comment on the following?

"...the settlers must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the natives … ‘Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite! Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in unrestricted freedom and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination …’
- Ahad Ha'am
‘[the Zionists] wax angry towards those who remind them that there is still another people in Eretz Yisrael that has been living there and does not intend at all to leave its place. - Ahad Ha'am in 1914

You cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there. And the people already living there were Palestinian-Jews and Palestinian-Arabs.

 

[Billo_Really]

Seized from whom? This is important. Who held sovereignty over the territory in question in 1967?

According to IHL, it doesn't matter who was sovereign. That land was not Israel's. There isn't a country on earth, including the Israeli High Court, that recognizes Israel's right to that land.

 

[Billo_Really]

Gaza has been autonomous since 2005, mass murder cheerleader.

No they haven't. There has been a 16 year illegal and immoral blockade of Gaza, making their lives a living hell.

 

[Billo_Really]

Oh, your buddy Adolph had rights!

Gazans are only the victims of Hamas. Now scoot child, you’re late for your Jew baby cooking class

Oct. 7th is your Reichstag Fire.

 

[gipper]

Gaza has been autonomous since 2005, mass murder cheerleader.

An open air prison is autonomous. Lol.

 

[surada]

Well that’s a huge pile of antisemitic dog droppings

at 1979, Israel owed about a billion dollars to Iran for business conducted before the Iranian revolution. Some of the debt arose from oil purchased by Israel, and a larger amount from the operation of the Trans-Israel oil pipeline and associated port facilities, which were a joint venture between Israeli companies and the National Iranian Oil Company. Israel decided against paying the debt at a meeting in 1979 and granted legal indemnity to Israeli companies which owed it. At least one Israeli bank account is known to hold $250 million owed to Iran.

Since the 1980s, Iran has been suing in the European courts for payment of the debts and has won several cases. However, payment of the debts is legally complicated by the international sanctions against Iran and by the fact that Israel classifies Iran as an enemy state. In May 2015, a Swiss court ordered the Eilat Ashkelon Pipeline Company to pay $1.1 billion to Iran, which Israel refuses to do.

And what countries were those again?

 

[surada]

So, the 1948 Israeli War of Independence?

Why not when the Jewish people were evicted from their land?

By the Romans? The Palestinians had nothing to do with that or the Holocaust in Europe.

 

[Billo_Really]

The series of events in 2005 was: Disengagement. Rocket attacks. Blockade. The CAUSE of the blockade is the belligerence. End the belligerence and the blockade will come down. Then we return to the condition of disengagement and we see (again) what the people of Gaza do with the end of the occupation (again).

Being Jewish (or Israeli) and residing in a territory does not make one a criminal. The act of having residency is not a criminal act. If Palestine refuses to have a single Jew as part of their new State, they are engaged in apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

UNSCR 242 is completed and done. File it.

You are deliberately creating conditions that are IMPOSSIBLE to fulfill, because they are undefined goalposts. And when I address a goalpost, you move it. "End the blockade". But you won't define the criteria. "End the occupation". But you won't define the criteria. "Get your settlers out". But you won't define or defend the criteria. "Golan Heights". Which has nothing to do with Palestine, but is a separate problem. Does this mean there can't be a peace treaty between Israel/Palestine without Syrian agreement? Make it make sense.

The blockade started because Israel didn't like the results of a free and fair election in Gaza. It is punitive punishment for electing Hamas.

As far as the settlers, according to IHL, an occupational force cannot change the demographics of an occupied territory by transferring a part of their population (Israeli nationals) into the area that is occupied. So yes, the settlers are illegal.

UN resolution 242 tells Israel to get the fuck out of the OPT! Have they done that? Fuck no! So no, 242 is not complete! What did I tell you about being obtuse?

You do not see both sides of the argument and I do. The only legal way to deal with an occupation, is to end it. There is no other solution. It has been this way since 1948. Why don't you do your homework first on the "laws of occupation", before showing your ignorance on this subject?

 

[Billo_Really]

It is not a just a war crime, it is a crime against humanity what Hamas did. Do the people of Gaza have a right to defend themselves? Of course, they do. But defend themselves from what? Responses to their own belligerence? Ridiculous. The solution to the end of the response to their belligerence is for them to, you know, stop being belligerent.

2.2 million people in Gaza are not belligerents. They are an occupied population, who is not even allowed to have weapons to defend itself. An occupied population has no options it has control over. All the control, is in the occupier, which is Israel.

I agree with you Hamas committed crimes against humanity, however, Israel is far worse when it comes to this. You cannot collectively punish 2.2 million people who have committed no crime.

 

[Billo_Really]

Only you and your twisted mind can answer that. Why do you?

That's your claim, not mine. Can't you back up what you say? You said I was a Jew hater. Why? What is the reason for saying that? Why would I be a Jew hater, you fucking piece of shit? We both know why! Because you cannot defend Israeli atrocities, so you try to re-frame the argument into Jew hate. Well, this issue has nothing to do with Jews, but everything to do with your hatred of Muslims. If the shoe fits...

 

[Billo_Really]

You cannot hold onto land seized in a war.

I agree, Russia should give back the land they seized from Poland.
Should Poland give back land seized from Germany?
Who should Israel give land back to?

You can't give, what you don't have! That is not Israel's land to give, it's the land Israel must leave. Not Israel proper, just the OPT.

 

[Billo_Really]

Because you are saying they are murdering Palestinian babies.

I said the Israeli right is murdering innocent civilians in Gaza. The IDF has already stated they were told by their commanders that no one is innocent in Gaza. No different than Germany's position on the Warsaw Ghetto.