Palestinerne har ingen rett til en egen stat

[AnonymBruker]

Så fordi vi har et eget flagg er det ikke greit, men dersom vi hadde vært en tidligere engelsk koloni hadde du ikke hatt noe problem med det?

Anonymous poster hash: 2b11b...20c

Dersom Norge var et statløst område hadde palestinerne hatt full rett til å opprette en stat her, så lenge det ikke var en terrorstat (for eksempel en Hamas-stat).

Anonymous poster hash: d98ac...52e

[AnonymBruker]

Dersom Norge var et statløst område hadde palestinerne hatt full rett til å opprette en stat her, så lenge det ikke var en terrorstat (for eksempel en Hamas-stat).

Anonymous poster hash: d98ac...52e

Hvorfor? Hva hadde gitt dem den retten? Og du svarte ikke på om det hadde vært greit for deg.

Anonymous poster hash: 2b11b...20c

[AnonymBruker]

På mitt universitete finnes det et kart av det hellige land fra 1709, som nevner Dødehavet, Palestina og mange andre topografiske detaljer, men ikke Israel. Israel eksisterte ikke før rundt 250 år etterpå, så å si at Israel var villig til å dele deres land er feil, da det ikke var deres til å begynne med. Dette er også spennende lesing, da det slår i stykker flere "argumenter" som IDF og andre anti-Palestina tilhengere klynger seg til

http://www.thenation.com/article/180783/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked

Anonymous poster hash: a2682...12f

[AnonymBruker]

Hvorfor? Hva hadde gitt dem den retten?

Anonymous poster hash: 2b11b...20c

Retten til selvforsvar. Folk har rett til å opprette en stat for å beskytte seg mot kriminelle.

Anonymous poster hash: d98ac...52e

[AnonymBruker]

På mitt universitete finnes det et kart av det hellige land fra 1709, som nevner Dødehavet, Palestina og mange andre topografiske detaljer, men ikke Israel. Israel eksisterte ikke før rundt 250 år etterpå, så å si at Israel var villig til å dele deres land er feil, da det ikke var deres til å begynne med. Dette er også spennende lesing, da det slår i stykker flere "argumenter" som IDF og andre anti-Palestina tilhengere klynger seg til

http://www.thenation.com/article/180783/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked

Anonymous poster hash: a2682...12f

Hvilke stater som eksisterte for 250 år siden er ikke viktig.

Anonymous poster hash: d98ac...52e

[AnonymBruker]

Hvilke stater som eksisterte for 250 år siden er ikke viktig.

Anonymous poster hash: d98ac...52e

Jo, når det er snakk om Israels eksistens og rett på landeområdene det nå kriges om så er det viktig,. Det er tross alt landedelingen og Israels okupasjon av områder som tilhører Palestina som er en stor del av grunnlaget til det som nå foregår.

Anonymous poster hash: a2682...12f

[AnonymBruker]

Fra http://www.thenation.com/article/180783/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked

1) Israel is exercising its right to self-defense.

As the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories more broadly, Israel has an obligation and a duty to protect the civilians under its occupation. It governs by military and law enforcement authority to maintain order, protect itself and protect the civilian population under its occupation. It cannot simultaneously occupy the territory, thus usurping the self-governing powers that would otherwise belong to Palestinians, and declare war upon them. These contradictory policies (occupying a land and then declaring war on it) make the Palestinian population doubly vulnerable.

The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.

Israel denies Palestinians the right to govern and protect themselves, while simultaneously invoking the right to self-defense. This is a conundrum and a violation of international law, one that Israel deliberately created to evade accountability.

2) Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005.

Israel argues that its occupation of the Gaza Strip ended with the unilateral withdrawal of its settler population in 2005. It then declared the Gaza Strip to be “hostile territory” and declared war against its population. Neither the argument nor the statement is tenable. Despite removing 8,000 settlers and the military infrastructure that protected their illegal presence, Israel maintained effective control of the Gaza Strip and thus remains the occupying power as defined by Article 47 of the Hague Regulations. To date, Israel maintains control of the territory’s air space, territorial waters, electromagnetic sphere, population registry and the movement of all goods and people.

Israel argues that the withdrawal from Gaza demonstrates that ending the occupation will not bring peace. Some have gone so far as to say that Palestinians squandered their opportunity to build heaven in order to build a terrorist haven instead. These arguments aim to obfuscate Israel’s responsibilities in the Gaza Strip, as well as the West Bank. As Prime Minister Netanyahu once explained, Israel must ensure that it does not “get another Gaza in Judea and Samaria…. I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”

Palestinians have yet to experience a day of self-governance. Israel immediately imposed a siege upon the Gaza Strip when Hamas won parliamentary elections in January 2006 and tightened it severely when Hamas routed Fatah in June 2007. The siege has created a “humanitarian catastrophe” in the Gaza Strip. Inhabitants will not be able to access clean water, electricity or tend to even the most urgent medical needs. The World Health Organization explains that the Gaza Strip will be unlivable by 2020. Not only did Israel not end its occupation, it has created a situation in which Palestinians cannot survive in the long-term.

3) This Israeli operation, among others, was caused by rocket fire from Gaza.

Israel claims that its current and past wars against the Palestinian population in Gaza have been in response to rocket fire. Empirical evidence from 2008, 2012 and 2014 refute that claim. First, according to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the greatest reduction of rocket fire came through diplomatic rather than military means. This chart demonstrates the correlation between Israel’s military attacks upon the Gaza Strip and Hamas militant activity. Hamas rocket fire increases in response to Israeli military attacks and decreases in direct correlation to them. Cease-fires have brought the greatest security to the region.

During the four months of the Egyptian-negotiated cease-fire in 2008, Palestinian militants reduced the number of rockets to zero or single digits from the Gaza Strip. Despite this relative security and calm, Israel broke the cease-fire to begin the notorious aerial and ground offensive that killed 1,400 Palestinians in twenty-two days. In November 2012, Israel’s extrajudicial assassination of Ahmad Jabari, the chief of Hamas’s military wing in Gaza, while he was reviewing terms for a diplomatic solution, again broke the cease-fire that precipitated the eight-day aerial offensive that killed 132 Palestinians.

Immediately preceding Israel’s most recent operation, Hamas rocket and mortar attacks did not threaten Israel. Israel deliberately provoked this war with Hamas. Without producing a shred of evidence, it accused the political faction of kidnapping and murdering three settlers near Hebron. Four weeks and almost 700 lives later, Israel has yet to produce any evidence demonstrating Hamas’s involvement. During ten days of Operation Brother’s Keeper in the West Bank, Israel arrested approximately 800 Palestinians without charge or trial, killed nine civilians and raided nearly 1,300 residential, commercial and public buildings. Its military operation targeted Hamas members released during the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange in 2011. It’s these Israeli provocations that precipitated the Hamas rocket fire to which Israel claims left it with no choice but a gruesome military operation.

4) Israel avoids civilian casualties, but Hamas aims to kill civilians.

Hamas has crude weapons technology that lacks any targeting capability. As such, Hamas rocket attacks ipso facto violate the principle of distinction because all of its attacks are indiscriminate. This is not contested. Israel, however, would not be any more tolerant of Hamas if it strictly targeted military objects, as we have witnessed of late. Israel considers Hamas and any form of its resistance, armed or otherwise, to be illegitimate.

In contrast, Israel has the eleventh most powerful military in the world, certainly the strongest by far in the Middle East, and is a nuclear power that has not ratified the non-proliferation agreement and has precise weapons technology. With the use of drones, F-16s and an arsenal of modern weapon technology, Israel has the ability to target single individuals and therefore to avoid civilian casualties. But rather than avoid them, Israel has repeatedly targeted civilians as part of its military operations.

The Dahiya Doctrine is central to these operations and refers to Israel’s indiscriminate attacks on Lebanon in 2006. Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot said that this would be applied elsewhere:

What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. […] We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are

military bases

.

Israel has kept true to this promise. The 2009 UN Fact-Finding Mission to the Gaza Conflict, better known as the Goldstone Mission, concluded “from a review of the facts on the ground that it witnessed for itself that what was prescribed as the best strategy [Dahiya Doctrine] appears to have been precisely what was put into practice.”

According to the National Lawyers Guild, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, Israel directly targeted civilians or recklessly caused civilian deaths during Operation Cast Lead. Far from avoiding the deaths of civilians, Israel effectively considers them legitimate targets.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

5) Hamas hides its weapons in homes, mosques and schools and uses human shields.

This is arguably one of Israel’s most insidious claims, because it blames Palestinians for their own death and deprives them of even their victimhood. Israel made the same argument in its war against Lebanon in 2006 and in its war against Palestinians in 2008. Notwithstanding its military cartoon sketches, Israel has yet to prove that Hamas has used civilian infrastructure to store military weapons. The two cases where Hamas indeed stored weapons in UNRWA schools, the schools were empty. UNRWA discovered the rockets and publicly condemned the violation of its sanctity.

International human rights organizations that have investigated these claims have determined that they are not true. It attributed the high death toll in Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon to Israel’s indiscriminate attacks. Human Rights Watch notes:

The evidence Human Rights Watch uncovered in its on-the-ground investigations refutes [israel’s] argument…we found strong evidence that Hezbollah stored most of its rockets in bunkers and weapon storage facilities located in uninhabited fields and valleys, that in the vast majority of cases Hezbollah fighters left populated civilian areas as soon as the fighting started, and that Hezbollah fired the vast majority of its rockets from pre-prepared positions outside villages.

In fact, only Israeli soldiers have systematically used Palestinians as human shields. Since Israel’s incursion into the West Bank in 2002, it has used Palestinians as human shields by tying young Palestinians onto the hoods of their cars or forcing them to go into a home where a potential militant may be hiding.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Even assuming that Israel’s claims were plausible, humanitarian law obligates Israel to avoid civilian casualties that “would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” A belligerent force must verify whether civilian or civilian infrastructure qualifies as a military objective. In the case of doubt, “whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.”

In the over thee weeks of its military operation, Israel has demolished 3,175 homes, at least a dozen with families inside; destroyed five hospitals and six clinics; partially damaged sixty-four mosques and two churches; partially to completely destroyed eight government ministries; injured 4,620; and killed over 700 Palestinians. At plain sight, these numbers indicate Israel’s egregious violations of humanitarian law, ones that amount to war crimes.

Beyond the body count and reference to law, which is a product of power, the question to ask is, What is Israel’s end goal? What if Hamas and Islamic Jihad dug tunnels beneath the entirety of the Gaza Strip—they clearly did not, but let us assume they did for the sake of argument. According to Israel’s logic, all of Gaza’s 1.8 million Palestinians are therefore human shields for being born Palestinian in Gaza. The solution is to destroy the 360-kilometer square strip of land and to expect a watching world to accept this catastrophic loss as incidental. This is possible only by framing and accepting the dehumanization of Palestinian life. Despite the absurdity of this proposal, it is precisely what Israeli society is urging its military leadership to do. Israel cannot bomb Palestinians into submission, and it certainly cannot bomb them into peace.

Anonymous poster hash: a2682...12f

[AnonymBruker]

Retten til selvforsvar. Folk har rett til å opprette en stat for å beskytte seg mot kriminelle.

Anonymous poster hash: d98ac...52e

Så da er du enig i at palestinerne har lov til å beskytte seg mot Israel?

Anonymous poster hash: 8d4e0...07b

[Mann 42]

Palestinerne sa blankt nei til FNs forslag i 1948, og svarte med å erklære krig mot Israel. De frasa seg dermed enhver rett til en egen stat. Siden den gang har de konstant drevet terror mot Israel, og viser dermed at de fortsatt ikke er modne for noen egen stat. Israel har til og med vært i overkant generøse og sagt seg villig til å gå med på en tostatsløsning så lenge den palestinske staten er demilitarisert, men heller ikke dette ønsker palestinerne.

Dette viser at palestinerne ikke ønsker fredelig sameksistens. Deres mål er å ødelegge Israel. Slike folk har ingen rett til en egen stat.

Anonymous poster hash: d98ac...52e

De sa blankt nei til FN`s forslag om å ta fra dem landet, og de sa blankt nei til jødenes ensidige oppretting av staten Israel, og derfor mener du at de skal være statsløse for all fremtid?

[Mann 42]

En alternativ løsning kan være at palestinerne på Vestbredden og i Gaza blir israelske statsborgere slik palestinerne i Israel er, men jeg tror ikke Israel ønsker dette. Jødene er opptatt av å ha sin egen jødiske stat, og det blir vanskelig hvis flertallet i denne staten er palestinere.

Jeg syns jeg ser akkurat det. Likud vil ikke engang akseptere de etiopiske jødene. Jeg syns jeg ser dem integrere 6 millioner palestinere. Det blir ikke mye igjen av jødestaten dersom halvparten av befolkningen er palestinere. Jahve forby, de ville bli nødt til å behandle dem som likemenn.

[Mann 42]

Historien viser at jødene må ha en stat hvor de er trygge. Men at Israel er en såkalt jødisk stat betyr ikke at andre ikke kan bo der eller at andre er annenrangs borgere.

Anonymous poster hash: d98ac...52e

Jo, det er akkurat det "en jødisk stat" betyr.

[Mann 42]

Palestinerne har aldri hatt en egen stat. Den siste selvstendige staten som var i Palestina, var faktisk Israel for inntil 2 000 år siden. Så fulgte 2 000 år med okkupasjon av forskjellige fremmede makter.

Det området FN bestemte skulle deles mellom jødene og palestinerne var dagens Jordan og dagens Israel inklusiv de okkuperte områdene og Gaza. Jødene skulle få landet vest for elva Jordan, og palestinerne skulle få området øst for Jordan.

Flisespikkeri.

Palestinerne bodde der.

Det var nå så sin sak at det flyttet mange jøder til området i protektorattiden. Det blir noe ganske annet når de erklærer at de oppretter sin egen stat.

Og FN hadde ikke rett til å skalte og valte med lokalbefolkningens land på denne måten. Krigen er skapt av FN og sionistene i fellesskap. Det skulle aldri vært gjort på denne måten.

[Mann 42]

Du kan umulig ha vært i Israel når du kaller Hamas sine raketter for "stjerneskudd". Disse rakettene er livsfarlige, og Israel er i sin fulle rett til å bruke all den militærmakt som er nødvendig for å ødelegge Hamas sine våpenlagre og oppskytningsbaser, i tillegg til å drepe enhver Hamas-soldat de kommer over. Siden Hamas bruker sivile bygninger som skoler og sykehus i sin krigføring sier det seg selv at sivile vil bli drept, men dette er ikke Israels ansvar.

Det er ikke det minste rart at Israel må ha kontroll på hva som slipper ut og inn av de palestinske områdene når Hamas bruker enorme ressurser på å smugle selvmordsbombere og andre terrorister inn i Israel.

Anonymous poster hash: d98ac...52e

Det finnes ingen "oppskytningsbaser". Du ser trolig for deg noe avansert som en SCUD, eller kanskje Silkeorm-raketter. Qassam, som fortsatt er de mest tallrike, bygges inne på Gaza, med enkle midler, og de skytes opp fra et rørstativ som en mann kan bære under armen.

Og så lenge det er mulig å få tak i stålplater sukker og kunstgjødsel, så kommer de til å fortsette å bygge dem.

Endret 30. juli 2014 av Mann 42

[AnonymBruker]

Å kalle Israel en terrorstat og sammenligne Israel med Hitler er useriøst og patetisk, og vitner om et forvrengt verdensbilde.

Anonymous poster hash: d98ac...52e

Å påstå at Israel driver med "selvforsvar" er usriøst og patetisk, og vitner om et forvrengt verdensbilde.

Jeg er mye nærmere sannheten enn deg, det er helt sikkert.

Anonymous poster hash: 8d4e0...07b