The Palestinians And The Mid East

[steve_bank]

There should be a forum rule that agents of a foreign govt must identify themselves.

Foreign to whom? The Internet is an international technology with transnational reach. From my POV, you are a foreigner.

Sarcasm, lesson number 2. I've never really understood British Stoicism. Stiff upper lip, a bit of condescension, and a lack of humor.

 

[steve_bank]

Israel is always the center of our news on the region, yet the violence and suffering in the region has little to do with Israel.

Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Iraq. Instability in Iran and Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

There are valid criticisms of Israel, but it is the only stable state in the region with a free press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and an independent judiciary. That being said Netanyahu has worn out playing Israel as a victim. They won their war of independence and then attacked Egypt. There is no military match against Israel. If Israel were threatened directly by Iran we would jump in. Israel knows that and so does Iran.

The victim narrative is played out, Israel is a regional power.

 

[bilby]

There should be a forum rule that agents of a foreign govt must identify themselves.

Foreign to whom? The Internet is an international technology with transnational reach. From my POV, you are a foreigner.

Sarcasm, lesson number 2. I've never really understood British Stoicism. Stiff upper lip, a bit of condescension, and a lack of humor.

Yeah, the Poms are weird. But they do have a sense of humour, unlike the Americans, who can't even detect a joke without a laugh-track.

 

[steve_bank]

Sarcasm, lesson number 2. I've never really understood British Stoicism. Stiff upper lip, a bit of condescension, and a lack of humor.

Yeah, the Poms are weird. But they do have a sense of humour, unlike the Americans, who can't even detect a joke without a laugh-track.

A weak comeback. I was referring to Loren who for years seems to be an Israeli apologist, and Barbos for Russia.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Blaming the victim again?

The airstrikes that started the war were planned and executed by Israel.

Israel does not deny it. In fact, the Israelis have always admitted it was a preemptive strike against Egypt.

I think the only reason Israel isn't vilified for it the way Japan was for the attack on Pearl Harbor is because Israel and Egypt didn't have a treaty at the time. A reasonable argument can be made that the strikes were a continuation of the fight over the Sinai that had started and stalled in 1956. But there's nothing reasonable about blaming Egypt for it, not when Israel was trying to take land from Egypt in 1956, just like the Zionists who founded Israel took land from Palestinians in 1948.

The airstrikes didn't start the war. The Egyptian blockade started the war.

Blockades are considered acts of war even if no shots are fired. Most of the time blockades are done as means of limited war by a big power against a small power and thus the small power doesn't respond by shooting. It didn't occur to Egypt that Israel would take the offensive.

First off, Egypt did not impose a blockade on Israel. Egypt would not allow Israeli vessels in Egyptian territorial waters. Huge difference.

Yeah, there's a vast difference between 7 days and 1 week.

Second, Egypt has the right to control shipping in its territorial waters.

In this case, nope. If the only access to the sea from a point on somebody's coast is through your territorial waters they get to come through your waters. To deny them is an act of war. Note that the prime example of this is the Bosporus. Russia (and Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, and the Ukraine get to send their ships through Turkish waters even though they are enemies.) You can impose reasonable navigation rules on shipping in your waters (for example, traffic lanes and speed limits) but you can't single out their ships.

If you think it doesn't then make your case but keep in mind its the same right Israel asserts regarding Palestinian fishing boats sailing off the shores of Israel and Gaza.

It's a blockade. There's basically a state of war between Israel and Gaza, showing an act of war in the conflict proves nothing.

Third, Israel has imposed a blockade on Gaza, so if that's considered an act of war stop whining about the Gazans firing rockets and sailing flaming kites into Israel. It's war.

1) Those weapons are aimed at civilians. That's a war crime.

2) If it's ok for the Palestinians to shoot at Israel it's also ok for Israel to shoot at the Palestinians.

Regardless, no matter how much the Israelis disliked Egypt's decision to keep an adversary's ships out of its waters, it doesn't transform the invasion in 1956 or the preemptive airstrikes in 1973 into something other than the result of careful and deliberate Israeli decision making. Read the link I provided. It contains transcripts of the actual discussions of the Israeli political and military leaders when they chose to attack.

What in the world are you talking about in 1973? Are you perhaps thinking of 1967 when Israel responded to the blockade by a big air raid kicking off the fighting?

As for 1956, the trigger event there was the nationalization of the Suez canal. That was back when nations tended to respond to such major theft with military action.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's a blockade. There's basically a state of war between Israel and Gaza, showing an act of war in the conflict proves nothing.

So if there's a state of war, what's the problem with Palestinians fighting back?

 

[Arctish]

First off, Egypt did not impose a blockade on Israel. Egypt would not allow Israeli vessels in Egyptian territorial waters. Huge difference.

Yeah, there's a vast difference between 7 days and 1 week.

Second, Egypt has the right to control shipping in its territorial waters.

In this case, nope. If the only access to the sea from a point on somebody's coast is through your territorial waters they get to come through your waters. To deny them is an act of war. Note that the prime example of this is the Bosporus. Russia (and Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, and the Ukraine get to send their ships through Turkish waters even though they are enemies.) You can impose reasonable navigation rules on shipping in your waters (for example, traffic lanes and speed limits) but you can't single out their ships.

Egypt didn't recognize Israel as a legitimate state until the late 1970s. Egypt had no obligation to allow passage to ships registered with an authority it didn't recognize as valid.

Consider Sealand. Egypt doesn't have to accord Sealander ships the same privileges as ships registered to countries like the U.S. or Great Britain because it doesn't recognize Sealand as a legitimate state. No one does. The same goes for Israel in the 1950s. Egypt didn't recognize it as a legitimate state so it didn't have to grant it any consideration whatsoever.

If you think it doesn't then make your case but keep in mind its the same right Israel asserts regarding Palestinian fishing boats sailing off the shores of Israel and Gaza.

It's a blockade. There's basically a state of war between Israel and Gaza, showing an act of war in the conflict proves nothing.

There was basically a state of war between Egypt and the Zionists who were in the process of consolidating their hold on parts of Palestine, and who made it clear they intended to seize control of every place where Jews had lived in ancient times, including the Sinai Peninsula.

Egypt regarded the Zionists as bandits and the State of Israel as an illegal, unwelcome presence in the region. It had no treaties with the Zionists and had no obligation to treat Israeli ships any better than unregistered pirate vessels.

Third, Israel has imposed a blockade on Gaza, so if that's considered an act of war stop whining about the Gazans firing rockets and sailing flaming kites into Israel. It's war.

1) Those weapons are aimed at civilians.

Prove it.

Prove that they weren't aimed at the nearby IFD troops. Heck, prove that those kites could be aimed at all.

2) If it's ok for the Palestinians to shoot at Israel it's also ok for Israel to shoot at the Palestinians.

Regardless, no matter how much the Israelis disliked Egypt's decision to keep an adversary's ships out of its waters, it doesn't transform the invasion in 1956 or the preemptive airstrikes in 1973 into something other than the result of careful and deliberate Israeli decision making. Read the link I provided. It contains transcripts of the actual discussions of the Israeli political and military leaders when they chose to attack.

What in the world are you talking about in 1973? Are you perhaps thinking of 1967 when Israel responded to the blockade by a big air raid kicking off the fighting?

As for 1956, the trigger event there was the nationalization of the Suez canal. That was back when nations tended to respond to such major theft with military action.

LOL

Seriously.

LOL.

Zionists stole an entire country. They carried out a major theft with military action. They drove hapless civilians into Gaza, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and the Sinai. But you don't have a problem with that. No, you're chapped the Egyptians seized control of an Egyptian company administering an Egyptian waterway with Egyptian territory on both sides of it, and *gasp* nationalized it so that it would be fully under the control of the Egyptian government.

So when the Israelis, British, and French tried to seize the Sinai and the Suez Canal, a major theft indeed, you agree the Egyptians had the right to respond with military action?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's a blockade. There's basically a state of war between Israel and Gaza, showing an act of war in the conflict proves nothing.

So if there's a state of war, what's the problem with Palestinians fighting back?

Because their "fighting back" is almost 100% war crimes.

 

[Ford]

It's a blockade. There's basically a state of war between Israel and Gaza, showing an act of war in the conflict proves nothing.

So if there's a state of war, what's the problem with Palestinians fighting back?

You have to understand you're arguing with a person who believes that Israel can do nothing wrong, and the Palestinians are always wrong. Loren toes the hardest right Israel line all the time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, there's a vast difference between 7 days and 1 week.



In this case, nope. If the only access to the sea from a point on somebody's coast is through your territorial waters they get to come through your waters. To deny them is an act of war. Note that the prime example of this is the Bosporus. Russia (and Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, and the Ukraine get to send their ships through Turkish waters even though they are enemies.) You can impose reasonable navigation rules on shipping in your waters (for example, traffic lanes and speed limits) but you can't single out their ships.

Egypt didn't recognize Israel as a legitimate state until the late 1970s. Egypt had no obligation to allow passage to ships registered with an authority it didn't recognize as valid.

Doesn't change anything. Blockade is still an act of war even if you don't recognize the country you are blockading.

Egypt regarded the Zionists as bandits and the State of Israel as an illegal, unwelcome presence in the region. It had no treaties with the Zionists and had no obligation to treat Israeli ships any better than unregistered pirate vessels.

That's not the way it works.

1) Those weapons are aimed at civilians.

Prove it.

Prove that they weren't aimed at the nearby IFD troops. Heck, prove that those kites could be aimed at all.

Look at the results--civilian property burned, no military casualties. Pretty clear what the aim was, to the extent they can be aimed.

LOL

Seriously.

LOL.

In other words, you have no rebuttal.

Zionists stole an entire country. They carried out a major theft with military action. They drove hapless civilians into Gaza, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and the Sinai. But you don't have a problem with that. No, you're chapped the Egyptians seized control of an Egyptian company administering an Egyptian waterway with Egyptian territory on both sides of it, and *gasp* nationalized it so that it would be fully under the control of the Egyptian government.

So when the Israelis, British, and French tried to seize the Sinai and the Suez Canal, a major theft indeed, you agree the Egyptians had the right to respond with military action?

You continue to assume that the Palestinians owned Israel. Where's that ownership? What nation did they ever have?

After the partition got held up by those empowered to make it Israel declared it's existence in accordance with the partition plan. The Arabs couldn't stand losing conquered land and attacked.

As for the Suez canal--nationalization is simply another word for grand theft. At that time the world tended to respond to such actions with invasion.

 

[Ford]

The Arabs couldn't stand losing conquered land and attacked.

Well at least you admit the land was conquered rather than legitimately owned.

So when Israel conquers land, that's perfectly acceptable, but when Arabs try to take it back, they're in the wrong.

Thanks for once again making your position abundantly clear.

 

[bilby]

 

[Arctish]

Doesn't change anything. Blockade is still an act of war even if you don't recognize the country you are blockading.

Egypt regarded the Zionists as bandits and the State of Israel as an illegal, unwelcome presence in the region. It had no treaties with the Zionists and had no obligation to treat Israeli ships any better than unregistered pirate vessels.

That's not the way it works.

Then explain how it works.

Let's suppose the Aryan Nation declares Northern Idaho an independent state. Show us the international laws, agreements, accords, etc. that would require Canada to allow them to ship their goods on the Kootenai River in British Columbia even if Canada doesn't recognize it as a legitimate State.

Don't forget to show your work and provide citations.

Also, please explain why these same laws, agreements, accords, etc. don't apply to Israel when it comes to the State of Palestine.

1) Those weapons are aimed at civilians.

Prove it.

Prove that they weren't aimed at the nearby IFD troops. Heck, prove that those kites could be aimed at all.

Look at the results--civilian property burned, no military casualties. Pretty clear what the aim was, to the extent they can be aimed.

That's not proof they weren't aimed at military resources. It doesn't even count as evidence.

LOL

Seriously.

LOL.

In other words, you have no rebuttal.

That was my honest reaction. I laughed out loud. You blithely state that mid-20th century was "back when nations tended to respond to such major theft with military action" and are completely oblivious how that undermines every objection you have ever raised to the Arab nations response to the Zionist theft of land in Palestine.

Zionists stole an entire country. They carried out a major theft with military action. They drove hapless civilians into Gaza, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and the Sinai. But you don't have a problem with that. No, you're chapped the Egyptians seized control of an Egyptian company administering an Egyptian waterway with Egyptian territory on both sides of it, and *gasp* nationalized it so that it would be fully under the control of the Egyptian government.

So when the Israelis, British, and French tried to seize the Sinai and the Suez Canal, a major theft indeed, you agree the Egyptians had the right to respond with military action?

You continue to assume that the Palestinians owned Israel. Where's that ownership? What nation did they ever have?

After the partition got held up by those empowered to make it.

Great Britain was charged with administering the region on behalf of its citizens while they organized their own governments after the defeat of the Ottomans. I'd ask you to cite what part of the Mandate you think gave Britain the right to 'give' over half of Palestine to non-Palestinians but

1) I already know you haven't researched it, and

2) I'd rather focus on the issue of the Suez Canal and how much control a nation has over its territorial waters. I think you're bullshitting but you might know something about it that I don't, so I'm interested in seeing what you've got.

Israel declared it's existence in accordance with the partition plan.

Not true, and you know it.

The Jewish Agency formulated and implemented plans to seize much more than the Partition Plan allotted to the proposed Jewish State. Plan Dalet was only one of them, and it was implemented before the Israel's Declaration of Independence in order to maximize the territory being claimed. You know this, Loren.

The Arabs couldn't stand losing conquered land and attacked.

Well, that was back when nations tended to respond to such major theft with military action, so there's that.

As for the Suez canal--nationalization is simply another word for grand theft. At that time the world tended to respond to such actions with invasion.

Apparently you didn't read the articles linked in this thread. And you still don't see how your argument for military action is an endorsement of the Arab nations response to the grand theft that was the founding of Israel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Arabs couldn't stand losing conquered land and attacked.

Well at least you admit the land was conquered rather than legitimately owned.

So when Israel conquers land, that's perfectly acceptable, but when Arabs try to take it back, they're in the wrong.

Thanks for once again making your position abundantly clear.

Nice case of misunderstanding.

The Muslims considered the land conquered for Islam and can't stomach it becoming non-Islamic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then explain how it works.

Let's suppose the Aryan Nation declares Northern Idaho an independent state. Show us the international laws, agreements, accords, etc. that would require Canada to allow them to ship their goods on the Kootenai River in British Columbia even if Canada doesn't recognize it as a legitimate State.

River != Ocean.

Don't forget to show your work and provide citations.

Also, please explain why these same laws, agreements, accords, etc. don't apply to Israel when it comes to the State of Palestine.

You fail to understand that Israel/Palestine is a state war.

That's not proof they weren't aimed at military resources. It doesn't even count as evidence.

I think the results speak for themselves. Now they're using helium balloons instead of kites. Those fly over the conflict area and fall in purely civilian areas.


How about inverting the situation: Israel fires artillery rockets at Palestinian cities. More likely to hit a Hamas member than the Palestinian attacks are to hit the IDF. Acceptable or war crime?

That was my honest reaction. I laughed out loud. You blithely state that mid-20th century was "back when nations tended to respond to such major theft with military action" and are completely oblivious how that undermines every objection you have ever raised to the Arab nations response to the Zionist theft of land in Palestine.

Laughter isn't a rebuttal.

Great Britain was charged with administering the region on behalf of its citizens while they organized their own governments after the defeat of the Ottomans. I'd ask you to cite what part of the Mandate you think gave Britain the right to 'give' over half of Palestine to non-Palestinians but

You are missing the point. There were both Muslims and Jews living there. "Palestine" referred to the area, not any group of people. The partition plan divided the land up by who was living there.

2) I'd rather focus on the issue of the Suez Canal and how much control a nation has over its territorial waters. I think you're bullshitting but you might know something about it that I don't, so I'm interested in seeing what you've got.

The Suez canal is a completely separate issue than Egyptian territorial waters.

As for the blockade:

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm

The Jewish Agency formulated and implemented plans to seize much more than the Partition Plan allotted to the proposed Jewish State. Plan Dalet was only one of them, and it was implemented before the Israel's Declaration of Independence in order to maximize the territory being claimed. You know this, Loren.

The existence of other plans doesn't change what happened. They declared a state on the partition line. The Arabs attacked.

The Arabs couldn't stand losing conquered land and attacked.

Well, that was back when nations tended to respond to such major theft with military action, so there's that.

Except there was no theft. Israel was following the partition established by the owner of the land. Note that none of the attacking parties were owners in the first place.

 

[Ford]

The Arabs couldn't stand losing conquered land and attacked.

Well at least you admit the land was conquered rather than legitimately owned.

So when Israel conquers land, that's perfectly acceptable, but when Arabs try to take it back, they're in the wrong.

Thanks for once again making your position abundantly clear.

Nice case of misunderstanding.

The Muslims considered the land conquered for Islam and can't stomach it becoming non-Islamic.

LP debate tactic #2, blame Muslims.

 

[Arctish]

River != Ocean.

You fail to understand that Israel/Palestine is a state war.

Canal != Ocean, either.

Please explain how you think shipping laws work, and why you think Israel in the 1950s had more rights and privileges than Sealand today. Or, you could use the Aryan Nation of Northern Idaho analogy.

If the Aryan Nation declares Northern Idaho an independent state, is Canada required to permit them access to the ocean via the Kootenai River or Canadian canals? Suppose Canada doesn't recognize it as a legitimate State. How is that different from the situation in the Middle East in the 1950s with an illegitimate entity called Israel wanting to ship goods through Egyptian waterways?

Don't forget to show your work and provide citations.

 

[Arctish]

That's not proof they weren't aimed at military resources. It doesn't even count as evidence.

I think the results speak for themselves. Now they're using helium balloons instead of kites. Those fly over the conflict area and fall in purely civilian areas.


How about inverting the situation: Israel fires artillery rockets at Palestinian cities. More likely to hit a Hamas member than the Palestinian attacks are to hit the IDF. Acceptable or war crime?

What makes you think the Israeli rocket is more likely to hit a Hamas member than the Palestinian attacks are to hit the an IDF member? Service in the IDF is mandatory for all citizens with very few exceptions, and service members who have completed their mandatory duty go immediately into the active reserve. They can be called into active duty at any time until they're 40. The chances of an Israeli citizen being a member of the military is very high, far higher than the chance a random Gazan is a member of Hamas.

Anyway, your claim was that the kites and rockets were aimed at civilian areas and therefore a war crime. Setting aside your blatant hypocrisy (you didn't mind when Israel dropped white phosphorus on Gaza neighborhoods and cluster bombs on civilian areas of Lebanon), how about making a genuine effort to support your claim that the rockets and kites were 'aimed' or that arson is a war crime. Or you could just abandon it.

 

[untermensche]

The Muslims considered the land conquered for Islam and can't stomach it becoming non-Islamic.

Israel kicked 700,000 Muslims out of their homes because they couldn't stomach them in Muslim hands.

Israel has then continually stolen Muslim land because it couldn't stomach it being in Muslim hands.

The Palestinians have taken nothing in 70 years.

Their homes have been destroyed their lands taken.

Their children have been kidnapped tortured and killed by an insane bunch of anti-Muslim bigots.

 

[steve_bank]

Not all Jews are Zionist. Netanyahu is a Zionist. Jews own the land by divine right.The UN documented land sizures. In Isreali controlled areas land is condemned, bulldozed, and opened to Jewish setlement. Arabs are evicted at will.

Last year Isreal siezed farm land occupied by Arab farmers for who knows how long. Rationale, they did not really own it in the first place. Netanyahu said it was a small puce of land, what's the big deal?

I can't find the summary report.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/0...tly-limits-palestinian-access-water-un-report