Netanyahu Calls On World To Halt Iran's March Of Conquest And Terror

Son Of A Vidic

Karl Stein wrote: »

Netenyahu is a bigger threat to Israel's security than Iran.

And you realise how much of an unstable nut he really is, when the former head of Mossad and fellow Zionist - Meir Daggan, thinks Nenthanyu is a bullshítter and a greater threat to Israel than Iran.

Icepick

beerpong wrote: »

before the Isreal Establishment finishes their genocide.

more hysterical nonsense

About 6,000 people - Palestinians and Israelis - were killed in the last decade of the conflict.
That's 1/10 of the number of people killed in the Mexican Drug War in the same period. The same number of people were killed in Ukraine last year due to the Russian invasion.
And there is no evidence that there was any attempt to commit genocide or even deliberately mass murder civilians.
Wait there is. Hamas wants to kill all Jews.

For Reals

Icepick wrote: »

Any actual evidence for these claims?

Just a little Samba

Icepick wrote: »

more hysterical nonsense

About 6,000 people - Palestinians and Israelis - were killed in the last decade of the conflict.
That's 1/10 of the number of people killed in the Mexican Drug War in the same period. The same number of people were killed in Ukraine last year due to the Russian invasion.
And there is no evidence that there was any attempt to commit genocide or even deliberately mass murder civilians.
Wait there is. Hamas wants to kill all Jews.

[G]enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


The parts in bold would apply to the Palestinians.

Part d would apply to the African Jewish community, who it was discovered were being given sterilisation injections upon their arrival in Israel.

Icepick

Just a little Samba wrote: »

[G]enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


The parts in bold would apply to the Palestinians.

Part d would apply to the African Jewish community, who it was discovered were being given sterilisation injections upon their arrival in Israel.

That shows that your claim is nonsense.

Icepick

For Reals wrote: »

And look at how it was possible and who started those wars.

Nodin

Icepick wrote: »

And look at how it was possible and who started those wars.

Egypt and a few of the other states, generally. Why?

You're aware that the acquisition of territory by force is expliciltly forbidden under international law? As is the transfer of populations to same etc?

Sand

It is interesting that Israel is blamed for winning wars where it was attacked by practically all its neighbours.

Germany also got smaller after starting and losing repeated wars. Annexations, forced transfer of populations, the whole nine yards. I don't think anyone is campaigning for them to recover Poland, East Prussia and Czech Rep or Slovakia though.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

It is interesting that Israel is blamed for winning wars where it was attacked by practically all its neighbours.

Germany also got smaller after starting and losing repeated wars. Annexations, forced transfer of populations, the whole nine yards. I don't think anyone is campaigning for them to recover Poland, East Prussia and Czech Rep or Slovakia though.

Given that the Palestinians didn't start a campaign and conquer an equivalent to Poland, the former Czecheslovak state, or indeed 'start' the vast majority of the wars, I'm somewhat confused as to why this is being brought up.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

Given that the Palestinians didn't start a campaign and conquer an equivalent to Poland, the former Czecheslovak state, or indeed 'start' the vast majority of the wars, I'm somewhat confused as to why this is being brought up.

Are you aware Germany didn't need to start such a campaign until after it lost the wars it started?

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Are you aware Germany didn't need to start such a campaign until after it lost the wars it started?

As far as I'm aware the German aggression was not driven by a real need....

What has this to do with the Palestinians?

Brian Shanahan

Nodin wrote: »

As far as I'm aware the German aggression was not driven by a real need....

Well there was a real need for Germany to be so acquisitive of other nations, essentially, every time the Nazis took over or invaded another country up to the invasion of Poland was dictated by the fact that their economy was about to collapse and die, due largely to their insane policy of "turn every part of the economy into producing MOAR GUNS!!!!!11111oneoeneoen!" And even at that they didn't produce terribly good weapons until well into the war, for example their invasions of Poland and France were largely dependant on Czech tanks and artillery (built by Skoda), and their invasion of the USSR had something between 25% and 40% of their tank brigades made up of French materiel.

cerastes

Icepick wrote: »

more hysterical nonsense

About 6,000 people - Palestinians and Israelis - were killed in the last decade of the conflict.
That's 1/10 of the number of people killed in the Mexican Drug War in the same period. The same number of people were killed in Ukraine last year due to the Russian invasion.
And there is no evidence that there was any attempt to commit genocide or even deliberately mass murder civilians.
Wait there is. Hamas wants to kill all Jews.

You seem to think that because the numbers of deaths are less than say the drug war in mexico,one of the worst places for loss of life than even Iraq or Afghanistan means that Israel isn't involved in a horrific crime!? I can tell you I'd rather live in mexico than put up with what the Palestinians have to.

Icepick wrote: »

And look at how it was possible and who started those wars.

What wars? Was it the palestinians? Other than the complete transfer of their land to the Israelis in the years after ww2
Do you think if that happened anywhere else that the population wouldn't fight back, in particular because of the brutality of elements such as the hagenah who acted in no other way than like terrorists.

Sand wrote: »

It is interesting that Israel is blamed for winning wars where it was attacked by practically all its neighbours.

Germany also got smaller after starting and losing repeated wars. Annexations, forced transfer of populations, the whole nine yards. I don't think anyone is campaigning for them to recover Poland, East Prussia and Czech Rep or Slovakia though.

As you say, Its neighbours, what excuse is that to annex the land of the Palestinians?

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

As far as I'm aware the German aggression was not driven by a real need....

What has this to do with the Palestinians?

Palestine and Germany both started and lost wars, and have grown dramatically smaller over the 20th century with forced population transfers, annexations and seizures of property.

Surely if support for the Palestinian cause is based on principles and international law and maps of countries getting smaller, there must be equal support for the return of East Prussia to Germany.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Palestine and Germany both started and lost wars, and have grown dramatically smaller over the 20th century with forced population transfers, annexations and seizures of property..

Many Palestinians joined in the war started by the other states, but as there was no Palestinian state to declare war, I'm not seeing how you can have a basis to justify what would be collective punishment.

Sand wrote: »

Surely if support for the Palestinian cause is based on principles and international law and maps of countries getting smaller, there must be equal support for the return of East Prussia to Germany.

"maps of countries getting smaller" in the case of Palestinians refers to ongoing colonisation under a harsh military regime.

It's generally recognised that East Prussia was dissolved in order to 'punish Prussian militarism', which was a flawed analysis of the causes of the second world war, and a reactionary measure.

Personally, I think the only relevance of Germany etc to this thread is that its a tool to derail it, drag it down rabbitholes arguing about unrelated matters.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

Many Palestinians joined in the war started by the other states, but as there was no Palestinian state to declare war, I'm not seeing how you can have a basis to justify what would be collective punishment.

If there was no Palestinian state to declare war, would you agree there was no Palestinian state to annex territory from?

"maps of countries getting smaller" in the case of Palestinians refers to ongoing colonisation under a harsh military regime.

It's generally recognised that East Prussia was dissolved in order to 'punish Prussian militarism', which was a flawed analysis of the causes of the second world war, and a reactionary measure.

Given Germany did exist as a state, do you follow your objection to collective punishment by calling for the restoration East Prussia to Germany?

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

If there was no Palestinian state to declare war, would you agree there was no Palestinian state to annex territory from??

There was and is a Palestinian people occupying that land.

Sand wrote: »

Given Germany did exist as a state, do you follow your objection to collective punishment by calling for the restoration East Prussia to Germany?

Given that there are probably few Germans left in the area, it would be a punishment on those now living there. However a vote could be held. Certainly in the late 40's I'd have advocated its restoration.

I feel I've indulged your sidetrack enough now.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

There was and is a Palestinian people occupying that land.

And would you agree those Palestinian people did declare war on Israel in 1948?

Given that there are probably few Germans left in the area, it would be a punishment on those now living there. However a vote could be held. Certainly in the late 40's I'd have advocated its restoration.

I feel I've indulged your sidetrack enough now.

Do you feel then that successful colonisation should be rewarded? Is there a point at which your support for the Palestinian cause will end due to the Israelis successfully placing enough settlements in the West Bank?

Apparently unless people are citizens of a narrowly defined country then you can steal land from them all ya like.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

And would you agree those Palestinian people did declare war on Israel in 1948?

...........

There was no mechanism for them to do so.

I'm not replying to your other remark as it relates to the 'East German sidetrack' which I've ventured down enough already.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

There was no mechanism for them to do so.

You would agree then, that equally there was no mechanism for them to lay claim to the territory, whereas Israel had a mechanism and applied it? The claim of an actual state over a territory trumps the claims of an imagined or imaginary state, correct?

I'm not replying to your other remark as it relates to the 'East German sidetrack' which I've ventured down enough already.

Is it because you find it difficult to rationalise eternal opposition to one case of 1940s annexation and colonisation with a practical detachment to another case of 1940s annexation and colonisation?

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Is it because you find it difficult to rationalise eternal opposition to one case of 1940s annexation and colonisation with a practical detachment to another case of 1940s annexation and colonisation?

That would be the wrong time frame for Palestine and no, not at all.

Just a little Samba

Wait, is someone trying to say it's ok for Israel to annex land in the 19600's in defiance of an international law that was passed in the 1940's because Germany had lands annexed before said law was passed?

I'm sorry, but that's not how the law works, thankfully.

johnnyskeleton

Mod: buttonftw, if you want to discuss the topic please add something more useful than one line cryptiC comments/jibes. Please read the charter before posting again

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Egypt and a few of the other states, generally. Why?

You're aware that the acquisition of territory by force is expliciltly forbidden under international law? As is the transfer of populations to same etc?

Maybe you should tell this to Germany, Japan and Finland who all lost territory (to France and the Soviet Union now Russia, respectively) after World War II.

They should be advised of their claims, if we are being morally consistent.

The latter two cases also involved transfers of population (as the Japanese and Finns took the opportunity to flee before the Iron Curtin fell over them.

Just a little Samba

SeanW wrote: »

Maybe you should tell this to Germany, Japan and Finland who all lost territory (to France and the Soviet Union now Russia, respectively) after World War II.

They should be advised of their claims, if we are being morally consistent.

The latter two cases also involved transfers of population (as the Japanese and Finns took the opportunity to flee before the Iron Curtin fell over them.

You know the law banning annexation of lands won during armed conflict was passed after this happened and before 1967, so why are you asking facetious questions?

It's almost like some people are trying to keep this post away from it's actual topic, the grandstanding of a politician during election season when he's behind in the polls.

SeanW

I'm just wondering why Israel is held to a different standard than France, Russia etc.

One group starts a genocidal war of annihilation (WWII Axis powers), their victims prevail and take some of their land. Law says that's fine.

Another group starts a genocidal war of annihilation (Arabs), their victims (who were themselves nearly annihilated only a few years previously in Europe) prevail and take some of their land. Law considers victim to be the aggressor?

How did that come about?

Unlike France and the Soviet Union, that Israel needs the land because it had to take in so many Jewish refugees from the Middle East and now Multicultural Europe (from which Jews are fleeing Islamic antisemitism), that's two reasons for Israel to wonder why its defensive wars were treated differently.

Just a little Samba

SeanW wrote: »

I'm just wondering why Israel is held to a different standard than France, Russia etc.

That's like asking why people convicted of drink driving for a half pint of beer in 2015 aren't treated the same as the auld lad who used to drive home half tanked in the 80's and be waved on by the Gardai instead of being arrested.


Israel doesn't "need" any of the land in the West Bank, it has enough land to house every Jewish person on the planet already. They are actively importing people from Europe, Russia and the US to populate the west bank precisely because they don't have enough people to populate it as is!

You're argument is ridiculous.

SeanW

Just a little Samba wrote: »

That's like asking why people convicted of drink driving for a half pint of beer in 2015 aren't treated the same as the auld lad who used to drive home half tanked in the 80's and be waved on by the Gardai instead of being arrested.

Should Russia give back the Karelia region to Finland and the Sahkalin islands to Japan?

Morally, if not legally, Israel has a stronger claim to its occupied lands than the WWII allies.

SeanW

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Israel doesn't "need" any of the land in the West Bank, it has enough land to house every Jewish person on the planet already. They are actively importing people from Europe, Russia and the US to populate the west bank precisely because they don't have enough people to populate it as is!

Israel had to take in 500,000 Jewish refuges after the war in '67. All of them from Arab/aggressor states. Israel (unlike Russia and France) is also a tiny country, it has been proven that the old borders were militarily indefensible.

The Soviet Union certainly didn't need more land, neither did France.

Much of Israel is worthless desert, such as the Southern 1/3 of that country.