Question Toronto or the Middle East?

[Sybarite]

Do the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves? Of course they do! Where have I denied that?

The question is what is the best and most effective way to defend themselves? You claim “There is no need for violence, ever” and yet you seem to be quite obsessed with proving any and all violence the Palestinians engage is always totally justified.

Sure - but is it wise? Choosing to engage violently with an adversary that has overwhelming military superiority does not seem particularly well advised in my opinion. We know you’re totally sold on the idea, but it won’t play well with all kinds of other people, and more to the point it doesn’t play well with the superpowers that are best positioned make meaningful changes for the better.

By pretty much any metric you care to use the strategy has mostly been a complete failure for meaningfully advancing the interests of the Palestinians. Clearly it succeeds in making people like you feel righteous, but in terms of practical advances for the Palestinian people themselves what have they got to show for their chosen method of violent resistance?

Regardless, since you are so obsessed with the right to violent self-defence it’s ironic but unsurprising you don’t grant Israel the very same right.

Typical of your completely one sided take on everything you are ridiculously arguing no damage is done to Israel! Do you also think Covid hasn’t killed anyone either?

If you are so detached from reality as to claim there have been no Israeli casualties from all the rockets and Palestinians pose “zero threat to either the state of Israel or its citizens” it’s pretty pointless to debate any of this with you…

Not a single Israeli citizen or soldier has been harmed or killed by Palestinians since the protests began. In short, Israel is shooting and killing human beings who pose absolutely zero threat to either the state of Israel or its citizens.

 

[sy barite]

I hate when these regular flare ups in the Israel/Palestine thing happen because it never fails to flush out the ignoramuses. I do not intend that last word as an insult, but when you read posts like the preceding, it's just a statement of fact. Of the two sides, only one has accepted ALL peace proposals. Only one insists on the elimination of the other and refuses to acknowledge their right to exist.

This can be reduced to a few simple issues and any reasonable person will easily see who is in the right. Do Jews have any right to a state in their ancestral land? For most reasonable people the answer is yes. Even for the unreasonable, when you consider how much suffering the diaspora endured throughout history, anyone with a shred of humanity would recognize their right to have a state of their own.

So if you accept that, under what conditions should the Jews be "allowed" a state? Anyone who has the slightest understanding of recent history (47 and on) will see that the Jews have said yes to almost every condition placed on them as long as it allows them to live in peace and have their right to a state recognized. The answer of the Palestinians has been clear and consistent (google the "3 No's of Khartoum"), no recognition, no to negotiation, no to peace.

With the exception of the Six Day War, when Israel struck pre-emptively, they have not been the aggressors. They have defended themselves, outnumbered and against an unreasonable opponent.

As to charges of "occupation" What the fuck are you talking about? There was never a Palestinian state in history.

 

[snoopdoggie]

You said 75 million should be. I guess you forgot?

It’s ok, everyone else saw it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're as Drunk as Trump. I did say Trump should be assassinated in order to prevent him from becoming another Adolf Hitler. And I said Adolf Hitler killed 60 million people. Then I said, if Drunk Trump hung on to power, he would have done the same, if not worse. I never said anything about anyone else. Maybe I did in your dreams, though, I can't say for sure.

But it was Drunk Trump that assassinated Solemani, and he nearly indirectly assassinated his own Vice President Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi and many others. Of course, a Dumbass like you would be too blind to realize this because you're a Drunk Trump lover. Why don't you kiss his dirty ass?

PS. Does Washington have the death penalty? If not, then it should, to prevent more Capitol Hill insurections from your buddy.

Don't worry though, the inquiry will reveal everything. And your buddy will serve time in prison.

 

[Back in Toronto]

This is yet another reason humanity hates the APARTHEID israeli jew and often translate it to all jew because so many jew scum around the world SUPPORT APARTHEID israeli jew behavior instead of CONDEMN it:

 

[Back in Toronto]

No, it's not the same reason. The Nobel winners deserve those prizes. Cabinet members are appointed. They should not all be from a minority because it would create the inevitable suspicion that there is a cabal going on.

No, the jew don't deserve those prizes anymore than obomba deserved a peace prize. The Nobel committee is stacked with jew that give it to their own filthy race. BTW Steven Hawking never won a prize, but I bet some jew did instead.

 

[Back in Toronto]

Who is Israel defending itself from?

Israel’s ‘right’ to defend itself — from itself

”Israel has the right to defend itself”, says Joe Biden. This is the worn-out mantra uttered by US Presidents every time Israel pummels Gaza.

Haim Bresheeth poignantly responded to this claim in his recent piece on this site:

Every time Israel forces the situation into an explosive juncture, the US and its allies are insisting on Israel’s ‘right to defend itself’, as if destroying Gaza or Beirut is a form of defense, or as if the denial of rights, and imposing an illegal total blockage is a way of resolving conflict”.

But is it even true? Does Israel have the right to defend itself in this situation?

In 2014, Noura Erakat wrote an excellent piece on this legal issue – and everything there is ever so relevant to what happens today:

“No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory”, is the title.

Erekat explains cogently:

A state cannot simultaneously exercise control over territory it occupies and militarily attack that territory on the claim that it is “foreign” and poses an exogenous national security threat. In doing precisely that, Israel is asserting rights that may be consistent with colonial domination but simply do not exist under international law.

In other words, the adamant insistence on “Israel’s right to defend itself”, is there precisely because that right is not absolute, and depends upon the paradigm in which this supposed “defense” is claimed. Israel, as the occupying power, can alter the situation by relinquishing its occupation. But since it doesn’t do that, it can’t have its cake and eat it: it can’t both occupy and claim victimhood.

This principle has been regarded as a very serious matter, by very serious people, such as Naim Moussa on this site the other day, that Netanyahu, “with his legislative agenda failing to materialize… turned to his oldest trick in the book: incite and provoke the Palestinians.” While I do not reduce Netanyahu’s motivation to only that, Netanyahu is clearly pressed and desperate, not least due to the political nexus between his remaining in power and his ability to escape the consequences of his various corruption cases.

So let’s look at Netanyahu.

He’s a master of political survival, he really is. “The oldest trick in the book” really worked. His former ‘liberal’ rival, Benny Gantz, who came into politics boasting of returning Gaza to the “stone age”, has now sought to euphemize his own words, saying that “for every day of attacks on Israeli citizens, we’ll take the terror organizations back years.” Now, as Defense Minister, Gantz can show he’s the man again, after having been humiliated by Netanyahu last year– tricked into joining a unity government in which his supposed turn to be Premier never came (Israel went to new elections).

Israelis join in times of wars like in no other times. Well, the Jewish Israeli ones mostly join under their Zionism, and Palestinians who protest in solidarity with their Palestinian brethren, are seen as traitors.

So the war situation also creates the necessary societal rift, by which the Zionist vein is strengthened. This is what a right-wing leader needs, and it’s what a Zionist leader in general will often end up doing – inciting Palestinians and playing the hero. Ehud Barak was no exception, but Ariel Sharon was better at it than him, back in 2000, when the 2nd Intifada was provoked.

It’s worth reflecting upon: Netanyahu is doing whatever he can to stay in power. And he is trying to defend himself from the consequences of his court cases. For that, dozens are killed, for that, Joe Biden has to say that “Israel has the right to defend itself”. How cynical is that?

And Netanyahu, does he have the right to defend himself – in court, I mean? Well, yes, of course why not. But anyone claiming righteously that “Netanyahu has the right to defend himself” nowadays will only be scoffed at. I mean, who says that? It’s only the diehard Likudniks. In the overall paradigm of corruption and political control, Netanyahu’s political machinations and manipulations make the claim “Netanyahu has the right to defend himself” rather vacuous, or even morally repugnant. To claim such an obvious thing is beyond pedantic – it is a political statement in the court of public opinion, in defense of a corrupt leader.

Yet the comparison is insufficient, to take it back to the question of Israel’s Gaza onslaught version 2021. Because in Netanyahu’s case, he has the legal right to defend himself. In Israel’s case, it doesn’t even have the legal right. The insistence on this right is political populism, meant to overdub the simple truth, that Israel is in the wrong. If you are an occupier, if you are a single Apartheid state of Jewish supremacy from the river to the sea, then you don’t get to claim victimhood, as much as it hurts.

Palestinians have the right to protect themselves from Israel’s Apartheid and occupation brutality. When Israel stops victimizing Palestinians by Apartheid, we can talk of its right to defend itself. An Apartheid regime should not be protected.

Don't try to confuse the jew with facts and truth as they only understand hasbara lies. #BDS

The parasitic jew are illegally occupying Palestine, so ANY means the Native Palestinians use to expel or execute those criminal jew is justified.

If some filthy obese amerikkkan jew tried to steal my house, the coroner would be coming by to take him off my property. And if somehow the Canadian regime made it legal for me to steal, even a jew's house, I wouldn't because I know one day I'll answer to God's law. The APARTHEID israeli jew and their satanic/zionist supporters worship the devil, who tells them stealing is their right - it's in their filthy satanic talmud. #BDS

 

[snoopdoggie]

We've already established that you are a moron and think its ok to steal someone else's land and home. I can't have a conversation with you if you are going to remain willfully ignorant.

JimmyDummy is more ignorant than Ursula, if that's possible.

 

[Back in Toronto]

No I'm not in Gaza right now... are you? I never claimed to be in the Middle East. I was pointing out that what the Palestinians themselves want should matter much for than your facile solutions in Massage Planet. Yes they do indeed prefer a two state solution. Lol learn to read and then read this - why there can never be a one-state solution: In defense of the two-state solution

Just because you are so fervidly certain you're right about everything doesn't actually make it the case…

You're taking what is arguably the world's most intractable geo-political conflict and trying to make it seem like both the problem and solution are incredibly obvious and simple. They are not. There is this thing called politics because people don’t agree, even when you are so totally sure your view is without a doubt the absolutely correct one.

Are you actually really saying only Israel has wrongs to right? That the problem solely lies with the oppressor and the oppressed have no responsibilities of their own?

If so I can see why it's all so straightforward from your Manichean perspective, but needless to say that's an easy perspective to have when you're commenting from the sidelines. The diplomats and politicians who have been wrestling with this dilemma for decades feel the situation is way more complex than that, because it is.

Just because the Palestinians are oppressed does not mean 100% of all responsibility falls on Israel. Just because the Palestinians are oppressed that does not automatically justify any and all forms of retaliatory violence. An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind...

INTERNATIONAL LAW does allow the oppressed, occupied people to use violence to free themselves, so please educate yourself. I guess if a jew in a polish concentration camp tried to kill a guard to escape, the guard would be justified in executing the jew?

Unlike you, I have empathy and common sense. If some scum stole my home, murdered my children, raped my wife...I would ask your satanic opinion as to if I had the right to execute every one of the scum who did it AND those permitting/supporting that evil.

Funny how your ilk always talks about leaving the world blind AFTER the victims are blind but BEFORE the criminal is blinded. I hope you get jewed one day in this world and then are joined with the APARTHEID israeli jew in the next - for eternity. #BDS

 

[snoopdoggie]

I hold everyone coming into this country to the same standards I hold myself, my family, and my friends. We come to this country, we leave our bullshit behind, and we obey Canada’s laws.

Palestinians shouldn’t go anywhere. We welcome them to Canada, just like we welcome all races and cultures. And like all other cultures, they get no special allowances for breaking laws and committing violence.

Unfortunately we’re stuck with anti Semitic douchebags like you, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wouldn't talk if I were you.

 

[jimmyd]

I wouldn't talk if I were you.

If you were me, you’d have at least 50 more IQ points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimmyd]

INTERNATIONAL LAW does allow the oppressed, occupied people to use violence to free themselves, so please educate yourself. I guess if a jew in a polish concentration camp tried to kill a guard to escape, the guard would be justified in executing the jew?

Unlike you, I have empathy and common sense. If some scum stole my home, murdered my children, raped my wife...I would ask your satanic opinion as to if I had the right to execute every one of the scum who did it AND those permitting/supporting that evil.

Funny how your ilk always talks about leaving the world blind AFTER the victims are blind but BEFORE the criminal is blinded. I hope you get jewed one day in this world and then are joined with the APARTHEID israeli jew in the next - for eternity. #BDS

#antisemitism


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimmyd]

JimmyDummy is more ignorant than Ursula, if that's possible.

Funny that you’re backing the guy who claims he quit the thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimmyd]

You're as Drunk as Trump. I did say Trump should be assassinated in order to prevent him from becoming another Adolf Hitler. And I said Adolf Hitler killed 60 million people. Then I said, if Drunk Trump hung on to power, he would have done the same, if not worse. I never said anything about anyone else. Maybe I did in your dreams, though, I can't say for sure.

But it was Drunk Trump that assassinated Solemani, and he nearly indirectly assassinated his own Vice President Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi and many others. Of course, a Dumbass like you would be too blind to realize this because you're a Drunk Trump lover. Why don't you kiss his dirty ass?

PS. Does Washington have the death penalty? If not, then it should, to prevent more Capitol Hill insurections from your buddy.

Don't worry though, the inquiry will reveal everything. And your buddy will serve time in prison.

You said Trump and his followers should be killed. Don’t lie about it. We all saw it.

Yeah, he’ll be sentenced for the “insurrection” right after they do the DNA match on the cum stain on Carroll’s dress.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sybarite]

You're as Drunk as Trump. I did say Trump should be assassinated in order to prevent him from becoming another Adolf Hitler. And I said Adolf Hitler killed 60 million people. Then I said, if Drunk Trump hung on to power, he would have done the same, if not worse. I never said anything about anyone else. Maybe I did in your dreams, though, I can't say for sure.

You most certainly did say about anyone else! Quite a large number of people actually...

You know you're taking being wrong to a whole new level by denying things everyone saw you say right in the forum.

Not surprised you want to forget about advocating the death all Trump fans, but you said it, likely because even equating Trump with Hitler and saying Trump should be killed wasn't already ridiculously extreme enough for you...

Right, but there are too many followers of the asshole. They should all be killed.

 

[Back in Toronto]

 

[Sybarite]

Who is Israel defending itself from?

Israel’s ‘right’ to defend itself — from itself

”Israel has the right to defend itself”, says Joe Biden. This is the worn-out mantra uttered by US Presidents every time Israel pummels Gaza.

Haim Bresheeth poignantly responded to this claim in his recent piece on this site:

Every time Israel forces the situation into an explosive juncture, the US and its allies are insisting on Israel’s ‘right to defend itself’, as if destroying Gaza or Beirut is a form of defense, or as if the denial of rights, and imposing an illegal total blockage is a way of resolving conflict”.

But is it even true? Does Israel have the right to defend itself in this situation?

In 2014, Noura Erakat wrote an excellent piece on this legal issue – and everything there is ever so relevant to what happens today:

“No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory”, is the title.

Erekat explains cogently:

A state cannot simultaneously exercise control over territory it occupies and militarily attack that territory on the claim that it is “foreign” and poses an exogenous national security threat. In doing precisely that, Israel is asserting rights that may be consistent with colonial domination but simply do not exist under international law.

In other words, the adamant insistence on “Israel’s right to defend itself”, is there precisely because that right is not absolute, and depends upon the paradigm in which this supposed “defense” is claimed. Israel, as the occupying power, can alter the situation by relinquishing its occupation. But since it doesn’t do that, it can’t have its cake and eat it: it can’t both occupy and claim victimhood.

This principle has been regarded as a very serious matter, by very serious people, such as Naim Moussa on this site the other day, that Netanyahu, “with his legislative agenda failing to materialize… turned to his oldest trick in the book: incite and provoke the Palestinians.” While I do not reduce Netanyahu’s motivation to only that, Netanyahu is clearly pressed and desperate, not least due to the political nexus between his remaining in power and his ability to escape the consequences of his various corruption cases.

So let’s look at Netanyahu.

He’s a master of political survival, he really is. “The oldest trick in the book” really worked. His former ‘liberal’ rival, Benny Gantz, who came into politics boasting of returning Gaza to the “stone age”, has now sought to euphemize his own words, saying that “for every day of attacks on Israeli citizens, we’ll take the terror organizations back years.” Now, as Defense Minister, Gantz can show he’s the man again, after having been humiliated by Netanyahu last year– tricked into joining a unity government in which his supposed turn to be Premier never came (Israel went to new elections).

Israelis join in times of wars like in no other times. Well, the Jewish Israeli ones mostly join under their Zionism, and Palestinians who protest in solidarity with their Palestinian brethren, are seen as traitors.

So the war situation also creates the necessary societal rift, by which the Zionist vein is strengthened. This is what a right-wing leader needs, and it’s what a Zionist leader in general will often end up doing – inciting Palestinians and playing the hero. Ehud Barak was no exception, but Ariel Sharon was better at it than him, back in 2000, when the 2nd Intifada was provoked.

It’s worth reflecting upon: Netanyahu is doing whatever he can to stay in power. And he is trying to defend himself from the consequences of his court cases. For that, dozens are killed, for that, Joe Biden has to say that “Israel has the right to defend itself”. How cynical is that?

And Netanyahu, does he have the right to defend himself – in court, I mean? Well, yes, of course why not. But anyone claiming righteously that “Netanyahu has the right to defend himself” nowadays will only be scoffed at. I mean, who says that? It’s only the diehard Likudniks. In the overall paradigm of corruption and political control, Netanyahu’s political machinations and manipulations make the claim “Netanyahu has the right to defend himself” rather vacuous, or even morally repugnant. To claim such an obvious thing is beyond pedantic – it is a political statement in the court of public opinion, in defense of a corrupt leader.

Yet the comparison is insufficient, to take it back to the question of Israel’s Gaza onslaught version 2021. Because in Netanyahu’s case, he has the legal right to defend himself. In Israel’s case, it doesn’t even have the legal right. The insistence on this right is political populism, meant to overdub the simple truth, that Israel is in the wrong. If you are an occupier, if you are a single Apartheid state of Jewish supremacy from the river to the sea, then you don’t get to claim victimhood, as much as it hurts.

Palestinians have the right to protect themselves from Israel’s Apartheid and occupation brutality. When Israel stops victimizing Palestinians by Apartheid, we can talk of its right to defend itself. An Apartheid regime should not be protected.

Who is Israel defending itself from? Palestinians firing rockets at them!

You seem to be under the impression war must always adhere to a legal system. It usually doesn’t, actually, which is rather unfortunate but that’s the way it is. You should acquaint yourself with realpolitik.

It would be pretty easy to just keep quoting articles back and forth supporting your perspective and my perspective. Again the reason why it has been such an intractible political dilemma is because both parties have legitimate claims and grievances… except for you and Back in Toronto… for you guys it’s just pure innocence vs. pure evil. Easy peasy!

But there’s something more fundamental than the competing narratives, which is empirical reality.

You can argue the Palestinians are absolutely justified in attacking Israel with rockets.

And you can say the casualties of the the Israeli response are completely asymmetrical, because they are.

But when you say there are zero Israeli casualties and Palestinians pose no threat to Israel whatsoever, most sane people will recognize you’ve completely left reality behind and are now living in crazytown / hateland that your raging psychotic anti-Semite comrade in arms Back in Toronto so perfectly embodies...

 

[snoopdoggie]

If you were me, you’d have at least 50 more IQ points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You forgot the minus sign. That's how Dumb you are.

 

[snoopdoggie]

Funny that you’re backing the guy who claims he quit the thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're so Dumb, you haven't figured out his pattern. Every couple of months he says he quits this forum, but he never does. And who said I'm backing him?

 

[snoopdoggie]

You said Trump and his followers should be killed. Don’t lie about it. We all saw it.

Yeah, he’ll be sentenced for the “insurrection” right after they do the DNA match on the cum stain on Carroll’s dress.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's right. I said Drunk Trump and his followers should be killed. That's maybe about 3 or 4 people in total. Would you rather see 3 or 4 people die, instead of 60 or 70 million?

 

[snoopdoggie]

You said Trump and his followers should be killed. Don’t lie about it. We all saw it.

Yeah, he’ll be sentenced for the “insurrection” right after they do the DNA match on the cum stain on Carroll’s dress.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you trying to change the subject?