4 ms·

> We already established that they don't say that. We haven't, you didn't. > when you cannot hit the army They do but it's just easier to just cut a fence an

> We already established that they don't say that. We haven't, you didn't. > when you cannot hit the army They do but it's just easier to just cut a fence and stab children sleeping, that's not legitimate struggle that's barbarism and terrorisms. > willing to use any means That's exactly the point, when the end justify the means. What they do, how they operate that's evil. It has nothing to do with justice. > your country had been invaded The PLO was founded in 64 way before any occupation of the west bank and gaza so your point of fighting your oppressor is moot unless you consider the occupation the entire state of Israel then your legal argument is void. They didn't struggle against their Egyptian and Jordanian "occupation" but when it's Jews, oy vey.

sofixa 5y ago
> The PLO was founded in 64 way before any occupation of the west bank and gaza so your point of fighting your oppressor is moot unless you consider the occupation the entire state of Israel then your legal argument is void And ~50 years after Palestinians were promised self-rule, Jews were promised the right to move to Palestine, and Palestinians said they're against the mass migration of Jews there that displaced them. Why is it that you think Palestinians only have the right to Gaza and the West Bank when they were the majority across the whole of Palestine less than a hundred years ago ( what, two generations?) ? The PLO didn't see it that way in 64, only a few decades after Palestinians had their land stolen ans themselves evicted from it by new settlers.
- TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago
  > Palestinians said they're against the mass migration of Jews Ofc they would. So what? They weren't the rulers or had any form of government, most of the land didn't belong to them no matter how gerrymandering maps you want to draw. It was the British mandate before the ottoman before that..... > mass migration of Jews there that displaced them It didn't. The land Jews settled on was purchased since the 1880s. A lot of those Palestinians were immigrants themselves who came to Palestine for work, and the Jewish population were the ones that hired them. Most of Palestine before the Jews started to immigrate and built was deserts and swamps, no one wanted to live there until the Jewish population terraformed them to be livable. > Why is it that you think Palestinians only have the right to Gaza and the West Bank Because they lost the war they started, you can't start a war lose and then cry that you lost territory. They didn't want a Jewish state at all, or be under Jewish rule. That's how countries form, that's how borders are made. Every other country in the world was formed by conflict it's just that most of those countries annihilated the other side long ago so there is almost no one left to hear their voice or go on a twitter rampage.
  - Udik 5y ago
    > you can't start a war lose and then cry that you lost territory. ... That's how countries form, that's how borders are made. Actually, according to international law, you cannot lose territory by war, even if you started it. I'm sure you think this is absurd, but it really is necessary. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24716&LangID=E https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N... “Without this absolute prohibition, acquisitive states would have a strong incentive to obfuscate the origins of the territorial acquisition, leading us backwards to the days when borders were impediments to overcome, rather than frontiers to respect.” Also, once you occupied someone else's territory (necessarily for a temporary period) to transfer your own civilian population in it is a war crime: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule130 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul... "The prohibition on deporting or transferring parts of a State’s own civilian population into the territory it occupies is set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention.[1] It is a grave breach of Additional Protocol I.[2] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts." > They didn't want a Jewish state at all, or be under Jewish rule. Let's not be disingenuous here. Palestinians could never be part of a Jewish state, because Israel is a Jewish nation and a democracy. It simply cannot include millions of Palestinians as citizens- and I don't mean it as a critique (I also come from a national state formed out of a preexistent ethnic, linguistic and religious unity). It's a matter of fact. Israel wanted the land but not its original population ("the bride and the dowry" - https://www.amazon.com/Bride-Dowry-Israel-Palestinians-Aftermath/dp/0300171943 https://www.amazon.com/Bride-Dowry-Israel-Palestinians-After... ) > it's just that most of those countries annihilated the other side long ago so there is almost no one left to hear their voice... So you think that Jews now have a right to do the evil they didn't get to before, because they didn't have a nation when conquers and pillage were still accepted?
    - TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago
      I'm not going to debate International law on HN, it's a complicated issue with a lot of details and I'm not an International law lawyer and interpreting the law at face value without going back the intent of the law when it was formed is wrong but then I'm sure you agree with every law your country pass without judgment right? > Israel wanted the land but not its original population It's probably true that the founders didn't want to control the Arab population (not out of racisms) but as it turns out they have 2 million Arab citizens. I do agree that a one state solution couldn't work now demographically as that would be an apartheid state. > so you think that Jews now have a right to do the evil Who is dehumanizing who now... The point was the formation of Israel in 48, the parent talked about territories other than gaza and the west bank, It's just that it's disingenuous to pick on Israel at that time saying they are the baddies just because they won, they were fighting for survival and against the annihilation of the Jews in that region and that one of the reasons that this still an issue because unlike other countries Israel did not annihilate their enemies, if the Arabs won in 48 there wouldn't be a debate because all the Israeli Jews would be dead and the world would go on like it's another day and just mark it in the footnote of history as the 2nd Jewish holocaust and that's it. I do think the west bank occupation is wrong and should be "solved" but it's far from evil because intent matters, why there is an occupation matters, they reasons behind Israel actions matter, actions Israel don't make as the occupying force matter. But I'm closing this discussion because it leads to nowhere and the bots downvoting me within 1 minute of commenting needs a break, have a good day.

sofixa 5y ago

> The PLO was founded in 64 way before any occupation of the west bank and gaza so your point of fighting your oppressor is moot unless you consider the occupation the entire state of Israel then your legal argument is void And ~50 years after Palestinians were promised self-rule, Jews were promised the right to move to Palestine, and Palestinians said they're against the mass migration of Jews there that displaced them. Why is it that you think Palestinians only have the right to Gaza and the West Bank when they were the majority across the whole of Palestine less than a hundred years ago ( what, two generations?) ? The PLO didn't see it that way in 64, only a few decades after Palestinians had their land stolen ans themselves evicted from it by new settlers.

TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago
> Palestinians said they're against the mass migration of Jews Ofc they would. So what? They weren't the rulers or had any form of government, most of the land didn't belong to them no matter how gerrymandering maps you want to draw. It was the British mandate before the ottoman before that..... > mass migration of Jews there that displaced them It didn't. The land Jews settled on was purchased since the 1880s. A lot of those Palestinians were immigrants themselves who came to Palestine for work, and the Jewish population were the ones that hired them. Most of Palestine before the Jews started to immigrate and built was deserts and swamps, no one wanted to live there until the Jewish population terraformed them to be livable. > Why is it that you think Palestinians only have the right to Gaza and the West Bank Because they lost the war they started, you can't start a war lose and then cry that you lost territory. They didn't want a Jewish state at all, or be under Jewish rule. That's how countries form, that's how borders are made. Every other country in the world was formed by conflict it's just that most of those countries annihilated the other side long ago so there is almost no one left to hear their voice or go on a twitter rampage.
- Udik 5y ago
  > you can't start a war lose and then cry that you lost territory. ... That's how countries form, that's how borders are made. Actually, according to international law, you cannot lose territory by war, even if you started it. I'm sure you think this is absurd, but it really is necessary. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24716&LangID=E https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N... “Without this absolute prohibition, acquisitive states would have a strong incentive to obfuscate the origins of the territorial acquisition, leading us backwards to the days when borders were impediments to overcome, rather than frontiers to respect.” Also, once you occupied someone else's territory (necessarily for a temporary period) to transfer your own civilian population in it is a war crime: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule130 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul... "The prohibition on deporting or transferring parts of a State’s own civilian population into the territory it occupies is set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention.[1] It is a grave breach of Additional Protocol I.[2] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts." > They didn't want a Jewish state at all, or be under Jewish rule. Let's not be disingenuous here. Palestinians could never be part of a Jewish state, because Israel is a Jewish nation and a democracy. It simply cannot include millions of Palestinians as citizens- and I don't mean it as a critique (I also come from a national state formed out of a preexistent ethnic, linguistic and religious unity). It's a matter of fact. Israel wanted the land but not its original population ("the bride and the dowry" - https://www.amazon.com/Bride-Dowry-Israel-Palestinians-Aftermath/dp/0300171943 https://www.amazon.com/Bride-Dowry-Israel-Palestinians-After... ) > it's just that most of those countries annihilated the other side long ago so there is almost no one left to hear their voice... So you think that Jews now have a right to do the evil they didn't get to before, because they didn't have a nation when conquers and pillage were still accepted?
  - TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago
    I'm not going to debate International law on HN, it's a complicated issue with a lot of details and I'm not an International law lawyer and interpreting the law at face value without going back the intent of the law when it was formed is wrong but then I'm sure you agree with every law your country pass without judgment right? > Israel wanted the land but not its original population It's probably true that the founders didn't want to control the Arab population (not out of racisms) but as it turns out they have 2 million Arab citizens. I do agree that a one state solution couldn't work now demographically as that would be an apartheid state. > so you think that Jews now have a right to do the evil Who is dehumanizing who now... The point was the formation of Israel in 48, the parent talked about territories other than gaza and the west bank, It's just that it's disingenuous to pick on Israel at that time saying they are the baddies just because they won, they were fighting for survival and against the annihilation of the Jews in that region and that one of the reasons that this still an issue because unlike other countries Israel did not annihilate their enemies, if the Arabs won in 48 there wouldn't be a debate because all the Israeli Jews would be dead and the world would go on like it's another day and just mark it in the footnote of history as the 2nd Jewish holocaust and that's it. I do think the west bank occupation is wrong and should be "solved" but it's far from evil because intent matters, why there is an occupation matters, they reasons behind Israel actions matter, actions Israel don't make as the occupying force matter. But I'm closing this discussion because it leads to nowhere and the bots downvoting me within 1 minute of commenting needs a break, have a good day.