Gaza-Israel Conflict | 2023-2024

Falcon29 said:
More word salad because you have nothing to counter and we certainly don't see a paid-hasbara shill as more credible than a the former Chief ICC Prosecutor. He's right and you're wrong. Period.
Click to expand...

I have countered you a lot with solid evidence.
If you are denial and become ad hominem accusing me this and that then the topic is over.

Falcon29 said:
Stop the hasbara. The UN resolution explicitly calls on Israel to withdraw from occupied territories, there is no debate on it.
Click to expand...

While it's true that UN Resolution 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from territories occupied in the 1967 war, the extent and interpretation of that withdrawal have been debated for decades, making the statement "there is no debate on it" not entirely accurate.

Here's why:
  1. Resolution 242 is ambiguous on the specifics of withdrawal: The resolution uses the phrase "territories occupied in the recent conflict" without specifying which territories or the full extent of withdrawal. This ambiguity has allowed different interpretations by various parties.
  2. Disagreements over pre-1967 borders: While some interpret the resolution as calling for a return to the pre-1967 borders, Israel argues for adjustments due to security concerns and historical considerations. This disagreement fuels the debate on the extent of withdrawal.
  3. Conditions for withdrawal: Israel often mentions additional conditions not explicitly stated in the resolution, such as security guarantees and formal recognition by neighboring countries, before complete withdrawal. This further complicates the interpretation and implementation.

Therefore, while Resolution 242 undeniably calls for withdrawal, how that translates into practice is subject to ongoing debate and disagreement between Israel, Palestinians, and the international community.

Stating that "there is no debate on it" simplifies a complex issue with diverse perspectives and historical context. It's crucial to acknowledge the different interpretations and ongoing discussions surrounding Resolution 242 for a more nuanced understanding of the situation.

I hope this clarifies the ambiguity surrounding the statement and provides a more comprehensive perspective on the issue.

Falcon29 said:
There is no such thing in the first place. Regime change and transfer of security control is not genocide.
Click to expand...

Then how you would handle the opposition from jews who are 73% of Israel population against new Regime that Arab/Islamic world established on them?


Falcon29 said:
Day 4 of the website's coverage of the conflict. Which you know. But Hasbara-paid shill guidelines tell you to deflect and evade. So once again, here is the objective/reason Hamas gave for the operation(on day 1), which does not include genocide or genocidal intent, as you falsely claimed:
..
..
The operation was launched by Mohammad al-Deif the General Commander of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, in response to the Israeli crimes against Palestinians and its repeated incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque.

palmstrategic.org

Day 4 of Operation " Tofan Al-Aqsa" | Palm Strategic Initiatives Centre

The operation was launched by Mohammad al-Deif the General Commander of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, in response to the Israeli crimes against Palestinians and
palmstrategic.org palmstrategic.org
Click to expand...

Still, these words are not about Hamas ultimate mission. It more portray tactical purpose.

Falcon29 said:
You told us it's impossible to complete regime change without committing genocide. Israel has pledged to complete regime change in Gaza. So, according your logic, Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. End of discussion. You can't make up your mind because you lie so much your lies contradict your previous lies. Keep up the hasbara and you will be permabanned from the forum soon.
Click to expand...


They do it for self defence and security, while you intend to do it for ideology purpose; that is the difference.

They just want sustainable freedom from terror attack. And it is felt as necessary reaction.

Changing government because that government keep attacking you (+ being oppressive to their own people) is different story.
 
oldenwisdom...قول بزرگ said:
Is Zionism an ideology, Anton?
Do people living in or defending their homes need an ideology?
Click to expand...

The ideology is legal, as long as comply with international law.

The ideology to replace ISrael government with new regime created by Arab/Islamic countries is illegal.

That is the difference.
 
You guys need to exert some self discipline and recognise when someone is filibustering a thread.

It's as if thread bickering is consequential to the actual conflict, it is not, this is not a battle field.
 
Antonius123 said:
The ideology is legal, as long as comply with international law.

The ideology to replace ISrael government with new regime created by Arab/Islamic countries is illegal.

That is the difference.
Click to expand...

And I'd not have you call it illegal, Anton... or is it A.P Richlieu, the Swede?
You have me confused there Anton.

Anyhow it doesn't matter Indonesian or Swedish Anton. You made your ideology and of course you'll call yours legal.

Question is, what are you doing here? Converting the uninitiated into zionism?

This is more amusingly than anything I had whole day...
 
Antonius123 said:
Which laws that aliya had been breaking? as you said it is illegal.

Please dont tell me your view/ideality/ideology/hearth/feeling/sort of as the law.



Because of Aliya that increasing jews population dramatically and war that made many arab Palestine flee.

80 years ago majority of Singapore population was Malay, then in recent decades the majority has been Chinese due to immigration, does it have to mean that Singapore government has already done illegal and evil things because of that?



Yes, and as I've told you The United Nations has not formally declared Israel to be an apartheid state, and there are still many experts / schollars who doesn't agree to call Israel apartheid, which means it is still controversial.

Additional views​

Scholarly views​

In their 2005 book-length study Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians, Heribert Adam of Simon Fraser University and Kogila Moodley of the University of British Columbia wrote that controversy over use of the term arises because Israel as a state is unique in the region. They write that Israel is perceived as a Western democracy and is thus likely to be judged by the standards of such a state. Israel also claims to be a home for the worldwide Jewish diaspora.[121] Adam and Moodley note that Jewish historical suffering has imbued Zionism with a "subjective sense of moral validity" that the ruling white South Africans never had.[122] They also suggest that academic comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa that see both dominant groups as settler societies leave unanswered the question of "when and how settlers become indigenous", as well as failing to take into account that Israeli's Jewish immigrants view themselves as returning home.[123] Adam and Moodley write, "because people give meaning to their lives and interpret their worlds through these diverse ideological prisms, the perceptions are real and have to be taken seriously."[124]​
​
Manfred Gerstenfeld quoted Gideon Shimoni, professor emeritus of Hebrew University, as saying in a 2007 interview that the analogy is defamatory and reflects a double standard when applied to Israel and not to neighboring Arab countries, whose policies towards their Palestinian minorities have been described as discriminatory.[125] Shimoni said that while apartheid was characterized by racially based legal inequality and exploitation of Black Africans by the dominant Whites within a common society, the Israel–Palestinian conflict reflects "separate nationalisms", as Israel refuses to exploit Palestinians, on the contrary seeking separation and "divorce" from Palestinians for legitimate self-defense reasons.[125][self-published source?]​
​
An August 2021 survey found that 65% of academic experts on the Middle East described Israel as a "one-state reality akin to apartheid". Seven months earlier, that percentage was 59%.[126] The increase in only seven months was potentially because of two notable events that occurred between the two surveys: the crisis in Israel following planned evictions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem pointing up the unequal treatment of Jews and Palestinians under Israeli control and the subsequent 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis, and the issue of two widely read reports by the Israeli-based B'Tselem and the US-based Human Rights Watch arguing respectively that there is an apartheid reality in Israel and the Palestinian territories and that Israel's behavior fits the legal definition of apartheid.[127]​
​
On 14 April 2023, Foreign Policy released a feature-length piece, Israel's One-State Reality, co-authored by Michael Barnett, Nathan Brown, Marc Lynch, and Shibley Telhami. The authors wrote that the "illusion of a two-state solution" had been shattered by the return of Benjamin Netanyahu at the head of a far-right Israeli coalition and called on the US government to "stop shielding Israel in international organizations" when confronted by accusations of violations of international law. It concluded that "the one-state reality demands more. Looked at through that prism, Israel resembles an apartheid state."[128]​

So hypothetically, if the United Nations were to issue a resolution characterizing Israel's policies as apartheid, what do you expect Israel must do now?
Click to expand...
Your a racist sympathiser you just proved it with your nonsense post. Israel is apartheid now go stick your head in the sand, your a complete waste of time.
 
KingQamaR said:
Gotta love how belligerent and vicious you becomes whenever confronted with uncomfortable truths.
Click to expand...
Iv refuted this guy with facts so many times he comes back with more BS. One example il give you he said jews legally immigrated to palestine, the british put quotas in the 1930s because too many jews were going to Palestine and it started to cause tensions are violence.

So you know what resulted, over 100,000 jews ILLEGALLY entered Palestine between 1930s to the creation of the apartheid state.

Here's one source - holocaust encyclopedia

The phrase Aliyah Bet describes the movement of Jewish refugees, many of them survivors of the Holocaust, not permitted to enter Palestine by the British authorities. Initiated by Zionist activists as the urgency for Jews to leave Europe intensified, this phenomenon was referred to by the British as "illegal" immigration. By 1948, well over 100,000 people had taken this route,

Disengenous apartheid supporters I have no time for, however those who visit the forum can make up their own minds.

so to summarise, Israel is an apartheid state which is commiting genocide in current times. The so called victim is using the holocaust as a cover for its crimes against humanity, shame on all these genocide sympathisers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 5 more.
    • Total: 42 (members: 15, guests: 27)

    Pakistan Defence Latest

    Country Watch Latest

    Latest Posts

    Share this page

    Back
    Top