Israeli-Palestinian conflict (1 Viewer)

Is Hamas a Terrorist Organization?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Should there be a Jewish nation SOMEWHERE in the world?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Should Israel be a country located in the region it is right now?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Fred

Senior Member
Oct 2, 2003
40,759
Yeah, don't think anyone can or is trying to deny that, it wouldn't stop until we make a deal unfortunately, especially with the current right wing government. I think both sides want a just peace, we just disagree on what is just.

Just out of curiosity you mean right to property regarding the west bank settlements, home demolitions and stuff or the 48 refugees property as well? because honestly I'm not sure I agree with the second part

- - - Updated - - -



Well no.

Unless you think it's fair to retroactively apply international law, talking about can of worms

Applying modern moral standards retroactively isn't cool as well btw
It isn't, and of course its not practical or realistic to suggest doing that anyway. But look at what Igor said, he said "nothing in Israel's formation was outside international law"
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
35,663
Well no.

Unless you think it's fair to retroactively apply international law, talking about can of worms

Applying modern moral standards retroactively isn't cool as well btw

Much of codified international law is based on customary international law. I'm sure most would agree that invading land and forcing the original inhabitants out would be a violation of customary international law too.
 

Tomice

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2009
2,126
It isn't, and of course its not practical or realistic to suggest doing that anyway. But look at what Igor said, he said "nothing in Israel's formation was outside international law"
Not sure I'm following, I agree with what Igor said, again strictly regarding the formation itself of the country. If international law is dictated by league of nation, UN whatever, and the same body recognize the formation as legal how can one claim it was not?

Sincerely I might just be missing your point

Much of codified international law is based on customary international law. I'm sure most would agree that invading land and forcing the original inhabitants out would be a violation of customary international law too.
There is customary law which is not clearly defined and then there's the written law, can anyone say what was the customary law regarding "invading land" was prior to 48 or today even? if it's unconditionally against it then almost every country in history is at fault

It's exactly the point I was making regarding applying moral standards retroactively. Costumery is moral based and therefore subject to constant change, especially since it's not written.

Also I believe customary law is region based but correct me if i'm wrong

- - - Updated - - -

And if we are discussing laws, why both of you are using the term "invading" when it's not technically accurate? in this context at least where technicality is important to determine violation of law.

Not that it's a particular dissuasion I'm looking forward to get into but just had to say it. :D
 

Maddy

Oracle of Copenhagen
Jul 10, 2009
16,497
Not sure I'm following, I agree with what Igor said, again strictly regarding the formation itself of the country. If international law is dictated by league of nation, UN whatever, and the same body recognize the formation as legal how can one claim it was not?
Yeah, shouldn't waste ones tiem discussing whether or not Israel in it's birth broke international law; rather discuss how they are breaking international law as we speak.
 

Maddy

Oracle of Copenhagen
Jul 10, 2009
16,497
This is the most boring and academic conflict in the world.

Yes, Israel is a bitch towards Gaza. But we have far more pressing issues. Migration and climate change, and the rest of the middle east.

Within a decade Saudi (sunni), Israel and Iran (Shia) will have engaged in War.

Europe and 'Murica are done. At least the populations are. Tiem for the middle east to handle its own business, and I mean this in both ways: we can't meddle anymore nor should we.

Our interference does no good in the long run.
 

Tomice

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2009
2,126
https://www.haaretz.com/amp/israel-...rotest-west-bank-arson-murder-trial-1.6196907

Anywhere else in the world this mob would have gotten leveled and removed. Seems the more invested in religion people are the more likely they are to unlearn the only worthy lesson religions teach their followers. And what remains is garbage.
Anywhere beside Countries with free speech, reprehensible as it may be what would you charge them with and arrest them for? And few Idiotic and brainwashed kids barely constitute a "mob".They need to be sued in a civil court surly but it's not the job of the police to arrest them imo

Totally agree with the second part though

This is the most boring and academic conflict in the world.

Yes, Israel is a bitch towards Gaza. But we have far more pressing issues. Migration and climate change, and the rest of the middle east.

Within a decade Saudi (sunni), Israel and Iran (Shia) will have engaged in War.

Europe and 'Murica are done. At least the populations are. Tiem for the middle east to handle its own business, and I mean this in both ways: we can't meddle anymore nor should we.

Our interference does no good in the long run.
Worth a try. I definitely agree that outside influence so far has only complicated matters and was actually detrimental to stabilizing the region.

Agree with everything you said but not sure there will be a direct war between us and Iran ever, it would be a lose-lose situation. It serves both countries to play this game, Israel gets closer ties with surrounding countries opposing Iran and vice versa for them. Both governments benefit from home support while deflecting from the real issue, oppression and ruined economy in Iran case and the dead peace process and corruption in ours.
 

king Ale

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2004
21,230
The Palestinian cause was never an important one to the middle class Iranians. "Death to Palestine" is a new low, but there have been similar chants in the past with more or less the same message for the regime: don't give "our" money to "them". It has become much worse in the past couple of years because of the dire economic situation in the country. It's awful right now over there, the currency is losing value everyday (literally), jobs are gone, sanctions are back, corruption is at its highest, and people blame everything on the money spent in Syria and Palestine.
 

Ronn

#TeamPestoFlies
May 3, 2012
9,495
Iranian Rial has lost 60% of its value since the beginning of the year. That is while the full effect of US leaving Iran deal is not there yet. I would not take those chants at their face value. People are understandably very frustrated.
 

Tomice

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2009
2,126
:sergio:

The guy always manage to trigger my gag reflex

- - - Updated - - -

Iranian Rial has lost 60% of its value since the beginning of the year. That is while the full effect of US leaving Iran deal is not there yet. I would not take those chants at their face value. People are understandably very frustrated.
Yeah I agree. I would go as far as to say I don't think the chants "Death to Israel/USA" should be taken at face value either. @king Ale can correct me if I'm wrong but I think in Farsi it has a somewhat different meaning then we think when taken literally, it's more of a phrase of some kind. Depending on context of course but it's more like a show of discontent or protest than a warcry with an actual genocidal intent.
 

Ronn

#TeamPestoFlies
May 3, 2012
9,495
:sergio:

The guy always manage to trigger my gag reflex

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah I agree. I would go as far as to say I don't think the chants "Death to Israel/USA" should be taken at face value either. @king Ale can correct me if I'm wrong but I think in Farsi it has a somewhat different meaning then we think when taken literally, it's more of a phrase of some kind. Depending on context of course but it's more like a show of discontent or protest than a warcry with an actual genocidal intent.
It does not have a different meaning literally, but it's so overused in past 40 years that it's somewhat lost that sharp edge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Tomice

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2009
2,126
It does not have a different meaning literally, but it's so overused in past 40 years that it's somewhat lost that sharp edge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Im talking about Iran specificly, I know there is a saying there "death to trafic" and you can use the phrase quite broadly. Again it's only based on what knowladge I have of the country and I could be wrong.

Iranians aren't arab, In the wider arab world I would most definitly apply the literal meaning to the chant.
 

king Ale

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2004
21,230
Im talking about Iran specificly, I know there is a saying there "death to trafic" and you can use the phrase quite broadly. Again it's only based on what knowladge I have of the country and I could be wrong.

Iranians aren't arab, In the wider arab world I would most definitly apply the literal meaning to the chant.
Ronn is Iranian. The "death to" chants started during the Islamic revolution (death to Shah), and is now really symbolic and used mostly by the regime's supporters as they think they are still revolting against the enemy. They even use it every now and then for the leaders of the green movement who've been under house arrest since 2009. This type of showing discontent (death to chants or burning flags) is too childish even for school children but I'd call it treasonous given how it has been used and is still used in the US to convince the public that Iran deserves what it gets. They even mentioned it in the senate lol.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)