Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    To sum you know Israel are right (they are allowed to defend themselves)
    Ha! Did you even read what I wrote? Allow me to refresh your memory:
    there is a right to self defence (Article 51 of the UN Charter) but this is not an unqualified right and can only be invoked under certain circumstances (ergo not in many of the cases where Israel argues it does).

    One example where Israel cannot invoke Article 51 to justify their actions is in their responses to Hamas/attacks in Gaza. Allow me to explain (free of charge, you are welcome).


    Article 51 is subject to two limits: proportionality and necessity. Israel fail spectacularly in the former (even in your own words: "don't complain next time Israel flattens a chunk of houses" ) .


    Regardless, even if Israel somehow manage to act within those limits, Israel cannot invoke Article 51 in its actions in Gaza because it is the occupying power:
    Article 51 does not apply to a situation that involves an Occupying Power (the State of Israel) acting within occupied territories under its own authority and responsibility. In legal terms, Israel cannot invoke the right to self-defence under Article 51 to justify the use of military force in territories on which Israel itself exercises effective control, at least since 1967. (Although Israel withdrew its troops from Gaza under the "disengagement plan" in 2005, Israel's relocation of its troops from the occupied land does not end its status as the "Occupying power". Israel continuously maintained control over Gaza's borders, air and sea space, water, electricity, sewage and telecommunication systems and because of that, Gaza remains an occupied territory as defined in international law. In fact, UN Security Council resolution 1860 (pdf) issued on January 8, 2009 clearly notes that: "the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967".)

    Indeed, it would be inconceivable for most of us to imagine any other country barricading a city or a district within a territory under its own watch, then use F-16 fire jets, high-tech Cobra helicopters, ground troops, cluster bombs, white phosphorus and depleted uranium ammunition, killing thousands of its inhabitants under the pretext of combating, for instance, street gang criminality. It would be even more absurd if that country justified all that by invoking an extraneous right under the UN Charter. Yet, this is exactly what Israel has done in Gaza.

    Palestine (Gaza strip and the West Bank) is not yet considered an independent sovereign State - especially not by Israel. The swath of land known as "Palestine" (which encompasses Gaza) is an inhabited territory under Israeli mandate and occupation since 1967. For Israel to become entitled to invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter (which is a multilateral inter-state treaty) and benefit from its relevant rules of self-defence, Israel needs at least to recognize that it is dealing with another "State" (be it a State that directly commits armed attacks against Israel or a State whose territory is being used by an autonomous hostile group to mount attacks against Israel).
    But Israel cannot persistently rebuff Palestine's Statehood on one hand, and, on the other hand, treat Palestine as a State whenever it needs to utilise the Charter to legitimise its use of force against.

    In other words, Israel's self-defence argument entails the precondition of recognising Palestinian Statehood; while not doing so entails setting the Charter's legal subterfuges aside and solely complying with the strictures of Humanitarian law (especially the Geneva Conventions) regarding occupation.
    Source.


    Class dismissed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callous Twits)
    Ha! Did you even read what I wrote?
    Yes I did

    But I'm still waiting for you to tell me which International law Hamas are breaking while they are currently digging tunnels to be used in attacking Israel (I've asked you about 3 times for this now).

    We can talk about how Israel respond when they do finally respond to this current and ongoing threat to their security.

    and your source is 'Opinion' and nothing more.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Nothing of the sort. Any nation can have diplomatic interactions with any organisation without having to recognise it as a legitimate government. Israel interacts with Hamas as an organisation that rules over Gaza. It is not a legitimate government, being a terrorist organisation, yet nevertheless has de facto control over the Gazan people. Claiming that expecting Hamas to abide by and enforce a ceasefire is tantamount to recognising the group as 'legitimate' is a ridiculous notion.
    What I do find interesting is how these anti-semites become quite rankled when you point out their anti-semitism.

    They tell you they support "armed resistance" against Israel. You ask them, "Would you support a suicide bombing of a bus carrying only Israeli Arabs?". They would say of course not. But they would support bombing a bus carrying Israeli Jews.

    This indicates the relevant factor here is whether the victim is Jewish. Thus, they support killing people for their Jewish identity. But then they complain when others point this out
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    What I do find interesting is how these anti-semites become quite rankled when you point out their anti-semitism.

    They tell you they support "armed resistance" against Israel. You ask them, "Would you support a suicide bombing of a bus carrying only Israeli Arabs?". They would say of course not. But they would support bombing a bus carrying Israeli Jews.

    This indicates the relevant factor here is whether the victim is Jewish. Thus, they support killing people for their Jewish identity. But then they complain when others point this out
    PRSOM
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    They tell you they support "armed resistance" against Israel. You ask them, "Would you support a suicide bombing of a bus carrying only Israeli Arabs?". They would say of course not. But they would support bombing a bus carrying Israeli Jews.
    You really ought to substantiate that (if you were at all concerned with your credibility, that is).

    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    and your source is 'Opinion' and nothing more.
    You failed the class. A shame, but not surprising.


    I'll let the readers of our exchange come to their own conclusions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Then can you tell me which International law Israel are breaking by defending themselves from such attacks.

    That is as you have studied international law.
    From their perspective, when they want to claim Palestine is an independent state, they will claim that. When they suddenly want to claim it's not, they will claim the opposite.

    You get the same thing when you ask, "Why do you fixate on Israel to the exclusion of other state?" and they will tell you it's because Israel must be held to a higher standard as a democracy. The words are barely out of their mouth before they start screeching that Israel is an apartheid state and no democracy.

    Israel has repeatedly tried to give back land for peace; South Lebanon and Gaza being but two recent examples. What do they get in return? Rockets, suicide bombings, death and destruction. I can understand why they would be circumspect about withdrawing from West Bank as welll
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callous Twits)
    You really ought to substantiate that
    You deny that there are people who support Hamas "right of armed resistance"?

    If you agree that you denounce Hamas terrorism and deny they have a "right of armed resistance", I will agree that characterisation does not apply to you
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callous Twits)


    You failed the class. A shame, but not surprising.

    Your source was one persons opinion

    and I'm still waiting for the answer to my question (4th time of asking) but as it seems your replies are now simply personal attacks I'll not waste my time asking a 5th
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    You get the same thing when you ask, "Why do you fixate on Israel to the exclusion of other state?" and they will tell you it's because Israel must be held to a higher standard as a democracy. The words are barely out of their mouth before they start screeching that Israel is an apartheid state and no democracy.
    It is perfectly tenable to argue that Israel should be held to a higher standard because of its own claims, whilst simultaneously not believing those claims personally.

    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    You deny that there are people who support Hamas "right of armed resistance"?

    If you agree that you denounce Hamas terrorism and deny they have a "right of armed resistance", I will agree that characterisation does not apply to you
    You have changed your premise entirely. Can you substantiate your original claim, or not? You do not need my personal opinion on the matter to do so, I care not for your 'characterisation' of me; I just want you to verify/substantiate the validity of your claim:

    You ask them, "Would you support a suicide bombing of a bus carrying only Israeli Arabs?". They would say of course not. But they would support bombing a bus carrying Israeli Jews.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callous Twits)
    You have changed your premise entirely. Can you substantiate your original claim, or not?
    What particular claim are you asserting is unsubstantiated? Put in your own words the truth claim that has gone unsupported
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    I certainly won't.

    Perhaps if Hamas didn't keep building tunnels Israel wouldn't have this reason to defend themselves.
    If you call targeting children defending yourselves lol

    Isreal will drive tanks over people's homes regardless of what Palestinian terrorists do. They see smuggling medicine and food as an act of aggression.

    I'm sure you would maim one of them yourself if you could.

    Your solution to Northern Ireland and the IRA would have been to drive British Army tanks over houses...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Article 51Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
    (Original post by Callous Twits)
    Article 51 of the Charter, the Court notes, recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defence in the case of armed attack by one State against another State.
    Where the court found in the Article 51two states?
    (Original post by Callous Twits)
    Israel cannot invoke Article 51 in its actions in Gaza because it is the occupying power
    Where it is written in the Charter of the United Nations?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callous Twits)
    It is perfectly tenable to argue that Israel should be held to a higher standard because of its own claims
    Actually, I'm holding anti-semitic anti-Zionists to their own claims. They say Israel should be held to a higher standard "because it is a democracy". Then in the next breath they say it's no democracy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    From their perspective, when they want to claim Palestine is an independent state, they will claim that. When they suddenly want to claim it's not, they will claim the opposite.

    You get the same thing when you ask, "Why do you fixate on Israel to the exclusion of other state?" and they will tell you it's because Israel must be held to a higher standard as a democracy. The words are barely out of their mouth before they start screeching that Israel is an apartheid state and no democracy.

    Israel has repeatedly tried to give back land for peace; South Lebanon and Gaza being but two recent examples. What do they get in return? Rockets, suicide bombings, death and destruction. I can understand why they would be circumspect about withdrawing from West Bank as welll
    It does seem to be something they can put on and take off. Like a coat.

    But as Palestine declared itself a state then I have no issues holding it to the same standards as Israel

    and as I have posted members of this state openly acknowledge they are currently preparing to attack Israel

    But as usual the outcry will start when Israel defends itself.

    But to be fair I've had this conversation many times over the years and I now recognise when a poster starts their post calling you an imbecile you know just how the conversation will end with them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    What I do find interesting is how these anti-semites become quite rankled when you point out their anti-semitism.
    What I find most interesting, GoldenFang/ExcitedPup/MostUncivilised (or whatever you choose to refer to yourself) is that on another thread, you called out a person for "smearing" you but then you here you are, smearing people with the anti-Semitic brush.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callous Twits)
    Israel cannot invoke Article 51 in its actions in Gaza because it is the occupying power
    You are mistaken. There is no such limitation in Article 51. Furthermore, it is inane to claim Israel is occupying Gaza, there is not a single Israeli soldier inside of Gaza
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    you called out a person for "smearing" you but then you here you are, smearing people with the anti-Semitic brush.
    It's no smear. If someone supports killing a person simply because they are Jewish, then they are an anti-semite. If someone supports Hamas armed campaign which is against Israeli Jews and not Israeli Arabs, then they are an anti-semite for supporting killings of people based on their Jewish identity
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    If you call targeting children defending yourselves lol

    Isreal will drive tanks over people's homes regardless of what Palestinian terrorists do. They see smuggling medicine and food as an act of aggression.

    I'm sure you would maim one of them yourself if you could.

    Your solution to Northern Ireland and the IRA would have been to drive British Army tanks over houses...
    LOL they do not target children Hamas use children as shields we all know this so your ire should be with them.

    Oh so it's a scatter gun argument you're going for rather than address the issue of the tunnels that Hamas have openly admitted they are currently building to get ready for the next attack on Israel.

    Not really comparable but Yes it would have been if those houses had time after time been used to hide terrorist activities.

    But lets try this.

    Do you agree with he fact Hamas are currently building tunnels into Israel to launch an attack on Israel?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    What I find most interesting, MostUncivilised
    I have no idea who that is, but from what I can see he stopped using this website in 2014. To know who he is, that means you would have to be a dupe account.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    If you call targeting children defending yourselves lol
    Can you point out a single example where an Israeli unit has deliberately targeted a Palestinian child following from a lawful order, not where they have unfortunately died as collateral damage, but where they have actually been targeted directly as a civilian?

    You will not be able to cite any
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.