Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

Options
1…102103105107108…126

Comments

  • Options
    #3122
    munchester29
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    concussion wrote: »
    Errr, while they can use them quite legally as smoke screens, they still contain phosphorus....

    True, nothing illegal about that though.


  • Options
    #3123
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    munchester29 wrote: »
    Jews were also a part of the pre-existing indigenous population in Israel.

    The vast majority of Zionists came from Europe.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    Israel has only been attacking the Palestinians as response to Palestinian attacks. When there are no Palestinian attacks – there are no Israeli attacks.
    I’ve already commented about the land issue.

    No, Israel attacks to take land, as per there ideology.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    No, they didn’t. Hamas attacked a patrol and killed an Israeli soldier. Then Israel attacked.

    Yes, they did it happened a day after the Israeli ceasefire, they fired on fisher men. I am talking about a seperate incident, that happened earlier than the most recent one.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    All these comments are wrong.
    The numbers used are wrong (12000 vs 8500, for example), and the data goes against actual statistics accumulated on the growth of existing Israeli settlements, and land confiscation details which are available for anyone to check. This data has been posted on this thread in the past.

    No, there correct. You just insist they are not correct. 12,000 new colonists is correct. You insisting it is not, mean nothing.

    The data has been posted to prove those comment are correct. You just insist there wrong and thats it.


  • Options
    #3124
    munchester29
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    wes wrote: »
    No, they covered the colonies as well. You just quote one bit about the wall. The said clearly they are illegal. You want it to mean something else, not me.

    A link might help your cause here…


    wes wrote: »
    Yes, and they know International law better than anyone, as thats there job.

    Not really. There are plenty of other experts on international law who work in the field.


  • Options
    #3125
    munchester29
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    wes wrote: »
    The vast majority of Zionists came from Europe.

    And the vast majority of Palestinians came from the Arab peninsula.


    wes wrote: »
    No, Israel attacks to take land, as per there ideology.

    So I’m sure you can find cases where Israel has attacked to take land in the last 5 years or so?


    wes wrote: »
    Yes, they did it happened a day after the Israeli ceasefire, they fired on fisher men. I am talking about a seperate incident, that happened earlier than the most recent one.

    They fired warning shots at fishermen. No fishermen were hurt. If you see it as justification for killing an Israeli soldier on patrol…


    wes wrote: »
    No, there correct. You just insist they are not correct. 12,000 new colonists is correct. You insisting it is not, mean nothing.

    The data has been posted to prove those comment are correct. You just insist there wrong and thats it.

    I’ve shown the links to support my claims from various sources. The only source that seems to support your claim is “B’zelem”.


  • Options
    #3126
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    munchester29 wrote: »
    A link might help your cause here…

    It was posted earlier, you replied to it.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    Not really. There are plenty of other experts on international law who work in the field.

    They know better than anyone else. Hence why they are working for the Hague.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3127
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    munchester29 wrote: »
    And the vast majority of Palestinians came from the Arab peninsula.

    No, they didn't. They are the indegenous population. This was shown earlier in the thread, several times.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    So I’m sure you can find cases where Israel has attacked to take land in the last 5 years or so?

    The existence of the colonies kinda proves my point. Also, I provided proof of Palestinians being kicked out of there homes earlier in the thread, you replied to my post and everything.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    They fired warning shots at fishermen. No fishermen were hurt. If you see it as justification for killing an Israeli soldier on patrol…

    They broke there own truce, on the first day.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    I’ve shown the links to support my claims from various sources. The only source that seems to support your claim is “B’zelem”.

    No, I posted an article from the Guardian earlier. You just insisted it was wrong.


  • Options
    #3128
    munchester29
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    wes wrote: »
    It was posted earlier, you replied to it.



    They know better than anyone else. Hence why they are working for the Hague.

    the best international law experts actually work for multi national companies, and for governments.


  • Options
    #3129
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    munchester29 wrote: »
    the best international law experts actually work for multi national companies, and for governments.

    I think you will find the judges working for the Hague, actually rule on international law. So I would say they know a lot more, as they actually rule on its application.


  • Options
    #3130
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    munchester29 wrote: »


    Israel has only been attacking the Palestinians as response to Palestinian attacks. When there are no Palestinian attacks – there are no Israeli attacks.
    I’ve already commented about the land issue.


    .

    Thats just patently not true for this round. Israel "assasinated" two Hamas commanders in November.

    You aren't even trying at this stage.


  • Options
    #3131
    munchester29
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    wes wrote: »
    No, they didn't. They are the indegenous population. This was shown earlier in the thread, several times.


    There has been a Jewish community in Israel for over 2000 years. No one can refute that. So since Jews are also part of the indigenous population they have the same right for a state as the Palestinians do.

    wes wrote: »
    The existence of the colonies kinda proves my point. Also, I provided proof of Palestinians being kicked out of there homes earlier in the thread, you replied to my post and everything.

    The existence of the colonies only proves that 40 years ago there was a war, in which Israel conquered the occupied territories, and that 40 years ago things were done differently.


    The proof you provided of Palestinians being kicked out of there homes (at least I think that was yours since it’s the only one I remember) was in regards to a specific case of one specific house in East Jerusalem, which was legally complicated, and took years to resolve in the Israeli court. Hardly proof for colonization running wild.

    wes wrote: »
    They broke there own truce, on the first day. .

    No, they fired warning shots. Hamas drew first blood here.

    wes wrote: »
    No, I posted an article from the Guardian earlier. You just insisted it was wrong.

    Your article quoted a “B’Zelem” report.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3132
    concussion
    Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    munchester29 wrote: »
    True, nothing illegal about that though.

    Then how can they say they didn't use it? If they said they didn't use it illegally that would be on thing but they flat out denied using WP.


  • Options
    #3133
    munchester29
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    wes wrote: »
    I think you will find the judges working for the Hague, actually rule on international law. So I would say they know a lot more, as they actually rule on its application.

    And again, the UN is not the only organization in the world that deals with international law, the UN judges are not the only judges in the world who deal with international law.

    By the way, even in the ICJ ruling, there was one judge who opossed it, saying that the ICJ should have declined to render its advisory opinion.
    So even the ICJ judges were not agreeing completely.


  • Options
    #3134
    munchester29
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Thats just patently not true for this round. Israel "assasinated" two Hamas commanders in November.

    You aren't even trying at this stage.

    Try to keep up - I was referring to the incident from a few days ago.
    Also, in November the first casualties were Palestinians digging a tunnel under the Israeli border to commit attacks against Israel, maybe to kidnap another soldier. Such an act is considered an act of war.


  • Options
    #3135
    munchester29
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    concussion wrote: »
    Then how can they say they didn't use it? If they said they didn't use it illegally that would be on thing but they flat out denied using WP.

    Simple - they didn't say "we didn't use it". They said "we didn't use it ilegally".

    Amazing how much of a difference one word can have...


  • Options
    #3136
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    munchester29 wrote: »
    Try to keep up - I was referring to the incident from a few days ago.

    But the polemic was Israel only responds to attacks from the evil Palestinians, despite the fact they deliberatly broke the ceasefire and provoked a response.


  • Options
    #3137
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    munchester29 wrote: »
    There has been a Jewish community in Israel for over 2000 years. No one can refute that. So since Jews are also part of the indigenous population they have the same right for a state as the Palestinians do.

    Not, if there from Europe. Hence there invaders.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    The existence of the colonies only proves that 40 years ago there was a war, in which Israel conquered the occupied territories, and that 40 years ago things were done differently.

    International law existed back then too.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    The proof you provided of Palestinians being kicked out of there homes (at least I think that was yours since it’s the only one I remember) was in regards to a specific case of one specific house in East Jerusalem, which was legally complicated, and took years to resolve in the Israeli court. Hardly proof for colonization running wild.

    Still colonization and you wanted one example and there it is.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    No, they fired warning shots. Hamas drew first blood here.

    The broke there own truce, its very simple. They fired on them, which breaks there own truce.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    Your article quoted a “B’Zelem” report.

    So you can refute there claims then?


  • Options
    #3138
    munchester29
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    But the polemic was Israel only responds to attacks from the evil Palestinians, despite the fact they deliberatly broke the ceasefire and provoked a response.

    In November the first casualties were Palestinians digging a tunnel under the Israeli border to commit attacks against Israel, maybe to kidnap another soldier. Such an act is considered an act of war.


  • Options
    #3139
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    munchester29 wrote: »
    And again, the UN is not the only organization in the world that deals with international law, the UN judges are not the only judges in the world who deal with international law.

    They are the main ones and they rule on it.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    By the way, even in the ICJ ruling, there was one judge who opossed it, saying that the ICJ should have declined to render its advisory opinion.
    So even the ICJ judges were not agreeing completely.

    Read what he said and get back to me.

    Also, it should be pointed out the majority were in full agreement, with only 1 dissenting opinion, which if you read, actually agree's with most of what the rest said. He only said they should offer an opinion, while agreeing with everything else, but nice try.


  • Options
    #3140
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    munchester29 wrote: »
    In November the first casualties were Palestinians digging a tunnel under the Israeli border to commit attacks against Israel, maybe to kidnap another soldier. Such an act is considered an act of war.

    Do you have any independent verification of this?

    As it stands we know Israel broke the truce and can't verify any of there claims.


  • Options
    #3141
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    munchester29 wrote: »
    In November the first casualties were Palestinians digging a tunnel under the Israeli border to commit attacks against Israel, maybe to kidnap another soldier. Such an act is considered an act of war.

    are you sure it wasnt to smuggle food and medicine in?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3142
    Jack Bauer999
    Closed Accounts Posts: 234 ✭✭Jack Bauer999


    munchester29 wrote: »
    Simple - they didn't say "we didn't use it". They said "we didn't use it ilegally".

    Amazing how much of a difference one word can have...


    ffs you even quoted it yourself in the last page, 0/10 for effort

    the things around the senstences below means quotes,
    because your a little slow i explain that quotes mean these are exact words from the persons mouth, note there is not mention of the word illegal in either
    sentence.


    12 Jan 09 - IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said: "We do not use phosphorus''

    13 Jan Brig-Gen Avi Benayahu, chief spokesman for the Israel Defense Force (IDF), said ''I repeat Commander in Chief Ashkenazi’s words: The allegations of the IDF using WP [white phosphorus] are false.''


  • Options
    #3143
    munchester29
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    wes wrote: »
    Not, if there from Europe. Hence there invaders.

    Many Jews came from Europe, but even before the Zionist movement was created, there was always a Jewish community in Israel.

    wes wrote: »
    International law existed back then too.

    Yet nobody complained back then… Not the Palestinians, not the Arabs, not the UN…
    Maybe things do change over time?

    wes wrote: »
    Still colonization and you wanted one example and there it is.

    Colonization is a term used with masses of people, not a single person, so your example is not really a valid example. I could show you similar cases against Jews in Israel.

    wes wrote: »
    The broke there own truce, its very simple. They fired on them, which breaks there own truce.

    The fishermen were in a restricted area, which is why Israel fired warning shots. So the Palestinians broke the ceasefire first anyway you look at it.

    It’s nice to know though that Hamas doesn’t really need too much of an excuse to kill.

    wes wrote: »
    So you can refute there claims then?

    I already have – they claim 12,000 settlers went from Gaza to the west bank, when in fact there were no more than 8500 settlers all together in the area – according to a “B’Zelem” report!


  • Options
    #3144
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    munchester29 wrote: »
    Many Jews came from Europe, but even before the Zionist movement was created, there was always a Jewish community in Israel.

    Yes, there was a community. Doesn't change the fact that the majority of Zionists were from Europe.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    Yet nobody complained back then… Not the Palestinians, not the Arabs, not the UN…
    Maybe things do change over time?

    People did complain lol.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    Colonization is a term used with masses of people, not a single person, so your example is not really a valid example. I could show you similar cases against Jews in Israel.

    You asked for one example. I gave it. Its a part of a wider tapestry and also the 12000 colonists in the West Bank, was also shown earlier.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    The fishermen were in a restricted area, which is why Israel fired warning shots. So the Palestinians broke the ceasefire first anyway you look at it.

    They were in there own nations waters.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    It’s nice to know though that Hamas doesn’t really need too much of an excuse to kill.

    Its nice to know Israel can murder, colonise and people will pretend they aren't doing it.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    I already have – they claim 12,000 settlers went from Gaza to the west bank, when in fact there were no more than 8500 settlers all together in the area – according to a “B’Zelem” report!

    Again, they don't make that claims, just that some of them came from Gaza, not all of them. You are making this claim and no one else. You are misrepresenting the report.


  • Options
    #3145
    munchester29
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    wes wrote: »
    Read what he said and get back to me.

    Also, it should be pointed out the majority were in full agreement, with only 1 dissenting opinion, which if you read, actually agree's with most of what the rest said. He only said they should offer an opinion, while agreeing with everything else, but nice try.

    Well, lots of opinions going around….


  • Options
    #3146
    munchester29
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    wes wrote: »
    Do you have any independent verification of this?

    As it stands we know Israel broke the truce and can't verify any of there claims.

    That's what Israel claims, and the Palestinians don't deny it.


  • Options
    #3147
    munchester29
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    are you sure it wasnt to smuggle food and medicine in?

    If they wanted food and medicine, they would have dug the tunnel under the Egyptian border, not the Israeli one.


  • Options
    #3148
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    munchester29 wrote: »
    Well, lots of opinions going around….

    They know the law better than anyone, as they have to rule on it.


  • Options
    #3149
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    munchester29 wrote: »
    That's what Israel claims, and the Palestinians don't deny it.

    They don't have to deny it. The accuser Israel has to prove it.

    Seeing as they can't, we can safely assume they broke the cease fire.

    No need for the Palestinians to deny anything.

    So basically you have no proof. Which hasn't changed since you made the same claim earlier.


  • Options
    #3150
    munchester29
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    wes wrote: »
    They don't have to deny it. The accuser Israel has to prove it.

    Seeing as they can't, we can safely assume they broke the cease fire.

    No need for the Palestinians to deny anything.

    So basically you have no proof. Which hasn't changed since you made the same claim earlier.

    OK, let's use your logic then...

    Do you have proof that these Palestinians were trying to get fuel and supplies?
    Because if you don't then they must have been trying to attack Israel.
    Now, since you are blaming Israel for killing innocent Palestinians, can you please prove they were innocent?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3151
    concussion
    Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    munchester29 wrote: »
    Simple - they didn't say "we didn't use it". They said "we didn't use it ilegally".

    Amazing how much of a difference one word can have...


    It is amazing what one little word does - its a shame he didn't use it.
    This is what he said
    "IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said: "The IDF operates weapons in accordance with international law. We do not use phosphorus, only "smoke curtains" (smoke screens).''

    If he had said this (my bold) then he would have been right. As it stands they flat out denied using anything with phosphorous, legally or otherewise.
    "IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said: "The IDF operates weapons in accordance with international law. We do not use phosphorus illegally, only "smoke curtains" (smoke screens).''


Advertisement